Same old story, everyone wants the max they can be paid, not necessarily what they're worth. Chandler was a valuable piece on a championship team, but damn! He wasn't Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain. And he's not Dirk Nowitzki. He was already the 2nd highest paid Maverick. I'd think a nice raise would be in line, but 20.7M? Last year he made 12.6M. A very fair price tag for Dallas would be a raise to 16M with annual increases (even that feels high, but he's a big).
This sort of thing has frustrated me about the NBA's economic model for years. By creating a max contract that an individual can earn they've created an artificial number that can be demanded that isn't necessarily associated with the level of skill or value of contributions. That number is roughly the same whether you add substantially to franchise value by selling tickets(Kobe, Lebron, etc) or if you are just help a team win but don't move the box office otherwise (Joe Johnson, Tyson Chandler). They say no one forces the owners to pay these salaries, but all it takes is one
owner to lose reason. The system lowers everyone to the weakest owner and if owners actually use restraint they are always threatened with collusion complaints.
A stat comparison of those 3 and Al:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y4=2011My final statement on this would be if you as an owner could only give 1 player a max contract would you give it to one of those 3 guys? I doubt it. You would want to save the max slot for someone you can market more or provides an even bigger on court impact. I'd suggest that each of those guys would be the 2nd or 3rd highest paid player on the team and likewise the 2nd or 3rd most important. You'd be setting yourself up to have financial issues if your 3rd best player gets 30-35% of the team payroll.
at Tyson Chandler getting that. 
Evans is appealing because all we can afford is cheap depth! 