The Era Of Easy Max Contracts Is Over

[RealGM Articles]

Plenty of people are frustrated with the new CBA – fans who don’t understand it, front offices who have to navigate it, coaches who don’t want to deal with it – but if someone has the strongest reason to want to tear up the agreement, it might be Brandon Ingram.

Ingram, the New Orleans Pelicans wing, is the unfortunate victim of timing. Going into the final year of his contract, Ingram reportedly wants a four-year $200 million, maximum extension. The Pelicans reportedly don’t wanna give it to him. They are also having a hard time trading him.

As ESPN’s Brian Windhorst and others have pointed out, no team wants to inherit Ingram’s next contract. Not because he’s not a good player, but because he’s not worth max money in today’s salary-cap landscape.

Ingram stans (are there Ingram stans?) could ask why; he’s a 6-foot-8 former All-Star who can shoot from anywhere on the floor and has averaged 23 points, 5 rebounds and 5 assists over the last five seasons. That sounds like a max player to me!

And they would be right, or, they used to be right.

When I think about Ingram’s situation, I’m reminded of Zach LaVine’s. The Bulls desperately want to trade LaVine, a three-level scorer with All-Star bona fides who can drop 25 points with one hand while mindlessly scrolling Instagram with the other. They can’t.

That’s because in 2022, LaVine signed a five-year, $215 million maximum contract extension. It was roughly the same dollar total as Devin Booker got from the Phoenix Suns that same summer. Booker and LaVine were different players, even then. Booker was a year removed from an NBA Finals run. He had proven he can win at the league’s highest levels. LaVine had played four career playoff games. They both got max deals.

Why? Because that just what you did back then, under the previous CBA.

Here’s what Darnell Mayberry, the Athletic’s Bulls beat writer, wrote after the deal was signed: “LaVine hasn’t yet crossed into superstar territory, but the Bulls are better with him than without him.”

Mayberry could have saved time and just typed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

That’s not to say he was wrong. He was spot on. Within the previous salary cap ecosystem, teams gave away max contracts like donuts on free donut day. Scan the books of teams across the league, they are littered with “What? Him?”contracts: Bradley Beal, Deandre Ayton, Karl-Anthony Towns, Michael Porter Jr., Desmond Bane… I could go on…

But free donut day is over in the NBA. Now front offices must account for every sprinkle as the first and second apron looms. Teams are coming to the realization that they will only have room for two maximum contracts within this new salary-cap structure, lest they go over the second apron. That means being more discerning than ever when committing max money.

Teams don’t want LaVine, not because he isn’t a good player, but because he isn’t worth one of their two max slots. It’s a numbers game.

Same goes for Ingram. The Pelicans know that a top two of Zion Williamson and Ingram isn’t winning a championship, so they won’t commit the money to it. Other teams, evidently, agree.

This is very different than the we’re “better with him than without him” line of thinking. It’s quite literaly flipped to, “we’re better without him than with him.” 

Which brings us back to Ingram. There’s a real possibility that the Pelicans lose Ingram for nothing when he becomes a free agent next summer. He’ll be an interesting test case in what happens to players like him in the new CBA. A player who used to just get the max will likely be forced to negotiate.

The Athletic’s Seth Partnow describes them as AAAA players.

“In baseball, there are players who are too good to be in the minor leagues, but not good enough to be major league regulars. These are referred to as AAAA players. While it’s not quite the same, Brandon Ingram and Dejounte Murray are subject to a similar dynamic in which they have star skillsets, just not quite at the level needed to be the actual stars on a contender.”

If AAAA players like Ingram and Murray used to get the max, then what do they get now? 

According to BBall Index’s LEBRON rating system, Ingram played at a level commensurate with a $9.2 million salary last season and with a $12.3 million salary the previous season. Kostya Medvedovsky’s DARKO rating is a bit kinder, ranking Ingram between Ja Morant and Bogdan Bogdanovic.

Either way, that’s a lot less than the $40 million-plus annual salary that Ingram is seeking. My guess is that the league’s evaluation of Ingram falls somewhere in the middle.

Ingram’s case next summer, if he doesn’t sign an extension before that, will be fascinating because it could be an actual negotiation that could set the market for AAAA NBA players in their prime within this new salary cap structure. It could resemble something closer to a contract negotiation in the NFL, a league that has been operating with a hard cap for a long while.

Or maybe there’s a front office out there who thinks they are better with him than without him, and nothing has really changed.

[irfunk_]

Well written article, thank you!

[Luv those Knicks]

I'm reminded of RJ Barrett, though it's a little different. Ingram is obviously better than Barrett.

The Knicks had a decision to make, and this was delayed with the Donovan Mitchell trade talks, but after those talks had dragged on for what felt like months, but in reality was probably weeks . . . the Knicks made RJ an offer and RJ accepted it. Well under max.

RJ was a former #3 pick who'd shown flashes and who was still young enough to become an allstar, but he wasn't there yet, not even close. At the time, a max deal was 5-185. NY offered RJ 4-107 (ish), with incentives that could have brought it up to 4-120. 27 per instead of 37 per. That makes some difference, but it's not enormous. 73% of max. 1 less year.

Would NOP offer Ingram 75-85% of max? Would he say no to that? He might. Will a team have cap space next year and offer him a little more?

So so so many people hate the new CBA, but if they're going to have a salary cap of sorts, and they seem to want to have that, then some non max deals, even for all-star players makes sense and I think we'll probably start to see this more often, though maybe, the NBA/players union will consider easing up the apron penalties for the next CBA. I don't hate the idea of structured penalties, but I think the penalties are a bit too harsh.

To be honest, easy, almost guaranteed max contracts for good but not great players never made sense to me. It was done a lot, but it never struck me as wise. Ultimately, this might be a good thing if teams start offering less than max, unless the player clearly deserves max.

[hb-robo]

The Instagram scrolling dig is weird. I get that it's an intended compliment that he does things easily and is very gifted, but it makes him sound like he's Jared McCain when he seems to be a pretty jealously private person, like wife-kids-dogs-in-a-big-house kind of guy.

[puja21]

For me, the Lavine vs Ingram comparison has more to do w/ the franchise owners and goals than the CBA.

Reinsdorf wants to sell hope or the illusion of hope.
He's shooting to make money and try to be the 6-8 seed.
He believes the Bulls are minted in a major market, so they don't have to "do" anything to be a true contender but will stay viable.

Griff/Pels believe they have a lot more at stake.
They are in a smaller market that has had both highs and lows for fan/corporate interest in all sports. They've run the team differently.
They show more fiscal responsibility, try to find market inefficiencies they can leverage, look to get more value per salary dollar spent and always value cap flexibility.

[puja21]

I don't hate the idea of structured penalties, but I think the penalties are a bit too harsh.

I'm sure they will adjust, esp when enough teams are impacted

To be honest, easy, almost guaranteed max contracts for good but not great players never made sense to me. It was done a lot, but it never struck me as wise. Ultimately, this might be a good thing if teams start offering less than max, unless the player clearly deserves max.

what happens if a team gets themselves locked into 2nd apron penalties and they can't find a trade partner at almost any cost?

when stuff gets punitive as a result of GMs who can't help themselves, then we get things like the Allan Houston amnesty clause.

[Twinkie defense]

The new CBA was created to knock the Warriors down a peg.

[Cassius]

To me, the logical trade is to build a deal around Ingram and picks for KAT, with Ingram agreeing to the less-than-max extension as part of the trade negotiation. Maybe something like the 4/140 that Jordan Poole got, or the 5/175 that Quickley just got.

NOP
KAT
Zion
Herb
Murphy/CJ
Murray/Jose

All the spacing Zion could ever want and all the defense he could need. Towns isn't the best rim protector, but he'll get the job done.

MINNY
Rudy/Naz
Jaden
BI
Ant
Conley/Rob Dillingham

Getting Ingram on the cheap alongside some picks is the only way to keep the window open. Yes, the interior defense and rebounding will suffer, but he has a lot more dog in him than Karl does and that alone should be enough to get BI to buy in to being a better defender.