NBA's New CBA Reducing Number Of 'True Max Salary Players'

[RealGM Wiretap]

The NBA and NBPA avoided a hard cap with its latest collective bargaining agreement, but the environment has severely restricted how teams allocate resources due to the onerous first and second apron and the penalties they entail. Not only are many middle class players impacted, but it is already creating a situation where the number of players who are thought of as worthy of a max contract has been reduced.

"With the new rules, we have to understand there are probably only about 10 true max salary players in the league," said one longtime executive to ESPN.

Without even needing to be free agents, the NBA has demonstrated how it now values the likes of Brandon Ingram, Karl-Anthony Towns, Julius Randle and Zach LaVine. The New Orleans Pelicans and Ingram were unable to agree to a contract extension and they have also found his trade market limited due to concerns from other teams on his next contract.

Even the Dallas Mavericks were as afraid of offering a five-year, $345 million supermax contract extension to the Dallas Mavericks as they were that he'd turn it down and request a trade. The Philadelphia 76ers signed Joel Embiid and Paul George to max contracts this past offseason and both appear to be potentially perilous due to their injury concerns.

NBA players with either 10 years of service or who make an All-NBA team while on their second contract with the team that signed them to that deal can sign for up to 35 percent of the salary cap. 

Via RealGM Staff Report

[donemilio21]

That has been my opinion since the early 2010s. Get rid of the MAX limit on contracts all together. Every above average player gets a max contract. You end up with Fred VanVleet making same money as Luka Doncic. Paul George making same money as Giannis.

[Billl]

I don't think there is much doubt about this. There were lots of owners who were OK paying a bunch of salary to field a winning team. With the aprons, it has become much, much harder to field a competitive roster if you've given a max contract to a guy who isn't providing max production.

[mihaic]

Wow. From the article:

the Dallas Mavericks were as afraid of offering a five-year, $345 million supermax contract extension to the Dallas Mavericks.

No proofread of the wiretap?

[Pickled Prunes]

It is not "reducing" the number of true max players, it is "exposing" it. We have always known that half the players on max deals aren't worth it, and a couple are worth more. We have seen it with the poor roster construction around max players for years. Now teams are feeling it just a bit more.

[dubbmotta]

That has been my opinion since the early 2010s. Get rid of the MAX limit on contracts all together. Every above average player gets a max contract. You end up with Fred VanVleet making same money as Luka Doncic. Paul George making same money as Giannis.

Blame the GM's not the players. No one is making these people pay the players, that's what Jimmy and BI haven't received a new contract, those team GM's are smart!

[artsncrafts]

That has been my opinion since the early 2010s. Get rid of the MAX limit on contracts all together. Every above average player gets a max contract. You end up with Fred VanVleet making same money as Luka Doncic. Paul George making same money as Giannis.

The issue with getting rid of the max is that most players would make much less money as more money would go to the better players and less to 90% of the players. Unless you increased the cap and max, but these players are already making hundreds of millions, but the league is making billions.

I just dont care.

[Twinkie defense]

As long as there's a salary cap there's maybe five NBA players who are worthy of a contract in the neighborhood of $45 mil+ per year.

[Luv those Knicks]

Mediocre teams overpay to keep their players. I think smarter ownership, today would rebuild more, or sign expiring deals to get past the vet minimum and get stuff via trade. Look at what the Raptors paid Quickley, who's a nice player but not worth 32 million.

The max contract provision makes it possible for small market teams to compete and that's a good thing. Sure, some GMs have given it out when they probably shouldn't have, but that's happening less lately. I think it's a pretty good system overall. Big revenue teams don't dominate like in baseball and there's a reasonable balance between players and owners in terms of negotiations and power. The only players who get a bad deal are the ones who are worth more than a max deal and that's like 4 players.

[Indeed]

Mediocre teams overpay to keep their players. I think smarter ownership, today would rebuild more, or sign expiring deals to get past the vet minimum and get stuff via trade. Look at what the Raptors paid Quickley, who's a nice player but not worth 32 million.

The max contract provision makes it possible for small market teams to compete and that's a good thing. Sure, some GMs have given it out when they probably shouldn't have, but that's happening less lately. I think it's a pretty good system overall. Big revenue teams don't dominate like in baseball and there's a reasonable balance between players and owners in terms of negotiations and power. The only players who get a bad deal are the ones who are worth more than a max deal and that's like 4 players.

More like the other way around. Knicks and Lakers are teams to be in the tax. Small market teams will have a harder time to compete.

[Luv those Knicks]

Mediocre teams overpay to keep their players. I think smarter ownership, today would rebuild more, or sign expiring deals to get past the vet minimum and get stuff via trade. Look at what the Raptors paid Quickley, who's a nice player but not worth 32 million.

The max contract provision makes it possible for small market teams to compete and that's a good thing. Sure, some GMs have given it out when they probably shouldn't have, but that's happening less lately. I think it's a pretty good system overall. Big revenue teams don't dominate like in baseball and there's a reasonable balance between players and owners in terms of negotiations and power. The only players who get a bad deal are the ones who are worth more than a max deal and that's like 4 players.

More like the other way around. Knicks and Lakers are teams to be in the tax. Small market teams will have a harder time to compete.

We're talking about two different things.

One is, what a team pays its players to keep them, and the other is total salary and tax/penalties. I agree with you that higher revenue teams are more willing to go over the aprons though the evidence doesn't strictly back that up. The highest salary teams currently are Phoenix, Mini, Boston & Milwaukee - not exactly big markets, with NY 5th and the Lakers 6th.

But my point is, and I should have more examples, but I have only one from memory. Toronto extended Immanuel Quickly to a 5 year, 175 million deal. That's a lot. NY traded Quickly, partly to get OG Anunoby, but party because they didn't want to pay him. It's not that NY is cheap, because they've overpaid players before. It's that NY respects the aprons, so NY has been one of the tougher teams making negotiations. The got Josh Hart to sign cheap. They got McBride to sign dirt cheap and Brunson signed a year early for much less than he's worth. In Brunson's case, he got guaranteed money, and he seems to want to win, so he had 2 reasons for doing this, but some people were pretty upset about it. OGA played chicken with NY and got a rich contract, but NY negotiates hard. They signed RJ Barrett, who, granted, wasn't very good in NY to a team friendly contract. Usually, #3 overall picks with upside sign for more they got him for well under the max and even Randle signed a somewhat team friendly deal, which he signed after his best season, he's been hot and cold since then, so you can say he was paid fairly, but at the time, he took less than he probably could have if he'd played hardball.

So, NY often plays cheap with players now because they respect the apron. If they ever landed a super-team, they might just pay them and go way over, but the last several years, NY has watched the aprons and signed players cheap.

Now, teams like Toronto, or Dallas - in the case of Toronto, they didn't want Quick to explore free agency, so they overpaid him. Dallas is choosing not to overpay their players (Luka / Grimes), so they're going cheaper. And Dallas isn't exactly a small market, more midsized. But teams like Minesota, Utah, Memphis, etc., have a harder time convincing their good young players to sign and avoid free agency, and if they want to extend them, they might often have to overpay a bit.

So that's what I meant by smaller markets overpaying. This was the case before max contracts as well. I think the max contracts probably help them.

does that make sense?

[Indeed]

Mediocre teams overpay to keep their players. I think smarter ownership, today would rebuild more, or sign expiring deals to get past the vet minimum and get stuff via trade. Look at what the Raptors paid Quickley, who's a nice player but not worth 32 million.

The max contract provision makes it possible for small market teams to compete and that's a good thing. Sure, some GMs have given it out when they probably shouldn't have, but that's happening less lately. I think it's a pretty good system overall. Big revenue teams don't dominate like in baseball and there's a reasonable balance between players and owners in terms of negotiations and power. The only players who get a bad deal are the ones who are worth more than a max deal and that's like 4 players.

More like the other way around. Knicks and Lakers are teams to be in the tax. Small market teams will have a harder time to compete.

We're talking about two different things.

One is, what a team pays its players to keep them, and the other is total salary and tax/penalties. I agree with you that higher revenue teams are more willing to go over the aprons though the evidence doesn't strictly back that up. The highest salary teams currently are Phoenix, Mini, Boston & Milwaukee - not exactly big markets, with NY 5th and the Lakers 6th.

But my point is, and I should have more examples, but I have only one from memory. Toronto extended Immanuel Quickly to a 5 year, 175 million deal. That's a lot. NY traded Quickly, partly to get OG Anunoby, but party because they didn't want to pay him. It's not that NY is cheap, because they've overpaid players before. It's that NY respects the aprons, so NY has been one of the tougher teams making negotiations. The got Josh Hart to sign cheap. They got McBride to sign dirt cheap and Brunson signed a year early for much less than he's worth. In Brunson's case, he got guaranteed money, and he seems to want to win, so he had 2 reasons for doing this, but some people were pretty upset about it. OGA played chicken with NY and got a rich contract, but NY negotiates hard. They signed RJ Barrett, who, granted, wasn't very good in NY to a team friendly contract. Usually, #3 overall picks with upside sign for more they got him for well under the max and even Randle signed a somewhat team friendly deal, which he signed after his best season, he's been hot and cold since then, so you can say he was paid fairly, but at the time, he took less than he probably could have if he'd played hardball.

So, NY often plays cheap with players now because they respect the apron. If they ever landed a super-team, they might just pay them and go way over, but the last several years, NY has watched the aprons and signed players cheap.

Now, teams like Toronto, or Dallas - in the case of Toronto, they didn't want Quick to explore free agency, so they overpaid him. Dallas is choosing not to overpay their players (Luka / Grimes), so they're going cheaper. And Dallas isn't exactly a small market, more midsized. But teams like Minesota, Utah, Memphis, etc., have a harder time convincing their good young players to sign and avoid free agency, and if they want to extend them, they might often have to overpay a bit.

So that's what I meant by smaller markets overpaying. This was the case before max contracts as well. I think the max contracts probably help them.

does that make sense?

I am from Toronto, and I don't think it helps. It might makes the league more competitive, however, players still want to be in big markets. Anunoby was traded for asking big money, and the Raptors cannot afford him. We also thought Quickley would be cheaper, but other teams are paying their starter at that price range.

[Luv those Knicks]

I am from Toronto, and I don't think it helps. It might makes the league more competitive, however, players still want to be in big markets. Anunoby was traded for asking big money, and the Raptors cannot afford him. We also thought Quickley would be cheaper, but other teams are paying their starter at that price range.

You're not wrong, and you've obviously watched Toronto closer than I have. I think the rules in place, the salary restrictions and max contracts still help, but also, a ton of players want to play in big markets. That's a hard thing to fix. It doesn't seem to be a problem in football, but it is in baseball & basketball.

If Kawhi hadn't been from LA, maybe he stays. I think that had more with him going home than wanting a bigger market, but a lot of players do want the big market.