What exactly does a max contract mean?

[FriedRise]

Wait, we're actually talking about maxing Brogdon? Like paying his actual max, and not what we as a team would offer him at most??

Y'all are itching to hand out a career 12/3/3 27-year old with a bad foot 27M+ per year for 4 years?? Man, that's crazy.

Before somebody says 50/40/90, yeah I would hope that you can shoot that well when you're mostly open because the league MVP is getting you consistently good looks. Archi can probably get you that and he'll dive on the floor a few times too, but guess what? We don't have an MVP here. Heck we don't even have an All-Star. He'll be asked to do a lot more than what he's had to do in Milwaukee, and those shiny efficiency numbers will likely fall because he's not all that quick or athletic to create for himself yet alone others.

You see, I like Brogdon. He's fundamentally sound and plays the right way. The Otto Porter of point guards and every team can use somebody like that. I want him here too. But no, definitely not at these numbers. He'd need to prove that he can still be this effective when he's not playing next to Giannis on a loaded team with multiple stars (which probably is his next contract if he doesn't re-sign with MKE.. so let those teams overpay and make the mistake!). Maybe even raise his averages closer to what Zach did last year for us (23/4/4). Then I'd consider giving him the max.

[HoopsterJones]

To me:

Max Contract = Perennial All Star
Super Max = Perennial MVP candidate (Superstar)

[Clint Eastwood]

People here aren’t getting it, imho. We are not locked into this team forever if we sign Brogdon for 4/100. Once we are a better team, which we will be, there will always be the option of trades to open spots for a star if he is interested. If not, at least we have become watchable. There is always flexibility to retool the more good players we have. We can also always trade our young guys prior to next contracts for draft picks if another plan surfaces. Brogdon is an asset, and in todays nba at 22-25 mil per, he wont be an albatross. And I believe he increases the value of all of our other assets, which in itself has great value.

[cjbulls]

People here aren’t getting it, imho. We are not locked into this team forever if we sign Brogdon for 4/100. Once we are a better team, which we will be, there will always be the option of trades to open spots for a star if he is interested. If not, at least we have become watchable. There is always flexibility to retool the more good players we have. We can also always trade our young guys prior to next contracts for draft picks if another plan surfaces. Brogdon is an asset, and in todays nba at 22-25 mil per, he wont be an albatross. And I believe he increases the value of all of our other assets, which in itself has great value.

Or maybe you aren’t getting it. There are other options that don’t lock the Bulls in long term. Brogdon isn’t the difference between 30 and 50 wins, and he doesn’t make them any measurable degree more watchable. Wins and watchability can be achieved through other veterans or FA options.

He is heading towards 25% of the cap when we want him to be our 5th starter. The 5th starter on a team just hoping to make the playoffs. Let that sink in before you throw out 4 years, $117 million

He might be tradeable but it will only be for another teams bad contract. Or as a negative asset where we have to send out more picks and young players just to move him. There’s not a lot to be gained from him but the potential for much to be lost, like a max FA in 2021 and Otto Porter.

[panthermark]

If we are going to offer the max, I would rather max D-Lo than Brogdon...and I like Brogdon more than D-Lo.

[transplant]

I think you have to assume that someone is going to offer Brogdon a max contract so the $22mil figure isn’t relevant to me.

Forgetting for the moment that the Bulls may not be able to clear enough space for a max offer, my bigger problem is the 4 years and the fact that Brogdon, a combo guard, isn’t a clear starter


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Michael Jackson]

If we are going to offer the max, I would rather max D-Lo than Brogdon...and I like Brogdon more than D-Lo.

As illogical as that statement is I concur with it 100%. There is a gamble with D-Lo that could maybe make the max worth it. Not likely but the potential is there.

[transplant]

My last post shot out before I was done.

Since I'm not hung up on making the playoffs this season, I'm OK with starting the season with a starting lineup of Dunn-LaVine-Porter-Markkanen-Carter and ending the season with White having replaced Dunn. However, I don't want to see the Bulls second unit exclusively feature guys who belong in the G-League. I want to see NBA players.

Strategically, if the Bulls spend their FA money on 2-year contracts for genuine NBA players, 2 years from now, they should be very well positioned to make an impact in free agency with the contracts of players like Felicio, Dunn, Valentine and Porter potentially off the books. I'd go with this plan.

[Clint Eastwood]

People here aren’t getting it, imho. We are not locked into this team forever if we sign Brogdon for 4/100. Once we are a better team, which we will be, there will always be the option of trades to open spots for a star if he is interested. If not, at least we have become watchable. There is always flexibility to retool the more good players we have. We can also always trade our young guys prior to next contracts for draft picks if another plan surfaces. Brogdon is an asset, and in todays nba at 22-25 mil per, he wont be an albatross. And I believe he increases the value of all of our other assets, which in itself has great value.

Or maybe you aren’t getting it. There are other options that don’t lock the Bulls in long term. Brogdon isn’t the difference between 30 and 50 wins, and he doesn’t make them any measurable degree more watchable. Wins and watchability can be achieved through other veterans or FA options.

He is heading towards 25% of the cap when we want him to be our 5th starter. The 5th starter on a team just hoping to make the playoffs. Let that sink in before you throw out 4 years, $117 million

He might be tradeable but it will only be for another teams bad contract. Or as a negative asset where we have to send out more picks and young players just to move him. There’s not a lot to be gained from him but the potential for much to be lost, like a max FA in 2021 and Otto Porter.

I am getting it, actually, thanks. 4/100 is not 25 % of the cap on a standard raising contract. With rising cap, that isnt an albatross. It’s cheaper than porter, and he was moveable. But i was suggesting other players could be moved if by some miracle there was a chance we could get a disgruntled star in trade, or a free agent. I stand by the case that he is a much better player than you call him as a 5th starter. And he is a great fit. And i stand by the fact that i think he will help increase our players value. Not sure a Patrick Beverly or taj Gibson will do that.

[Clint Eastwood]

If we are going to offer the max, I would rather max D-Lo than Brogdon...and I like Brogdon more than D-Lo.

As illogical as that statement is I concur with it 100%. There is a gamble with D-Lo that could maybe make the max worth it. Not likely but the potential is there.

Totally get this line of thinking. And for the record, I wouldn’t offer Brogdon the max, and quite frankly I think it is highly unlikely that anyone gives him a higher contract than 25 mil average per year for 4 years. 4/100 is about my max offer to get the guy that we should get, but not have an albatross in the future if we have an opportunity to make a change

[transplant]

If we are going to offer the max, I would rather max D-Lo than Brogdon...and I like Brogdon more than D-Lo.

As illogical as that statement is I concur with it 100%. There is a gamble with D-Lo that could maybe make the max worth it. Not likely but the potential is there.

Totally get this line of thinking. And for the record, I wouldn’t offer Brogdon the max, and quite frankly I think it is highly unlikely that anyone gives him a higher contract than 25 mil average per year for 4 years. 4/100 is about my max offer to get the guy that we should get, but not have an albatross in the future if we have an opportunity to make a change

If you would pay 25mil/year, why would you not pay the $29.25 max?

[cjbulls]

People here aren’t getting it, imho. We are not locked into this team forever if we sign Brogdon for 4/100. Once we are a better team, which we will be, there will always be the option of trades to open spots for a star if he is interested. If not, at least we have become watchable. There is always flexibility to retool the more good players we have. We can also always trade our young guys prior to next contracts for draft picks if another plan surfaces. Brogdon is an asset, and in todays nba at 22-25 mil per, he wont be an albatross. And I believe he increases the value of all of our other assets, which in itself has great value.

Or maybe you aren’t getting it. There are other options that don’t lock the Bulls in long term. Brogdon isn’t the difference between 30 and 50 wins, and he doesn’t make them any measurable degree more watchable. Wins and watchability can be achieved through other veterans or FA options.

He is heading towards 25% of the cap when we want him to be our 5th starter. The 5th starter on a team just hoping to make the playoffs. Let that sink in before you throw out 4 years, $117 million

He might be tradeable but it will only be for another teams bad contract. Or as a negative asset where we have to send out more picks and young players just to move him. There’s not a lot to be gained from him but the potential for much to be lost, like a max FA in 2021 and Otto Porter.

I am getting it, actually, thanks. 4/100 is not 25 % of the cap on a standard raising contract. With rising cap, that isnt an albatross. It’s cheaper than porter, and he was moveable. But i was suggesting other players could be moved if by some miracle there was a chance we could get a disgruntled star in trade, or a free agent. I stand by the case that he is a much better player than you call him as a 5th starter. And he is a great fit. And i stand by the fact that i think he will help increase our players value. Not sure a Patrick Beverly or taj Gibson will do that.

You’re assuming (1) he can play PG, (2) he can maintain this efficiency in a very different offense and environment, and (3) the foot issues won’t continue to flare up. If he maintains this level, then he’s similar to how Otto was when he was traded.

[Clint Eastwood]

As illogical as that statement is I concur with it 100%. There is a gamble with D-Lo that could maybe make the max worth it. Not likely but the potential is there.

Totally get this line of thinking. And for the record, I wouldn’t offer Brogdon the max, and quite frankly I think it is highly unlikely that anyone gives him a higher contract than 25 mil average per year for 4 years. 4/100 is about my max offer to get the guy that we should get, but not have an albatross in the future if we have an opportunity to make a change

If you would pay 25mil/year, why would you not pay the $29.25 max?

At some point there are limits. If the bulls were stupid enough to pay felicio 8 mil a year, why not 12? You have to determine a value for a player and set your budget, because eventually it will matter. They do eventually add up. If you overpay multiple players by 3-5 million, eventually you are overpaying by 15-20 mil total. We are talking about a player i like and would like to sign, but if we lose out on him, I won’t think its the end of our franchise. I could live with Randal, or taj plus Beverly. But I prefer Brogdon. But i would prefer Randal at 10 mil/year versus Brogdon at 29 mil. I would prefer Brogdon at 25 mil versus Randal at 10 mil. Obviously randal will cost somewhat more similar to the cost of Brogdon, likely. I maintain that no one is giving Brogdon a max with his game, and injury history

[Clint Eastwood]

Or maybe you aren’t getting it. There are other options that don’t lock the Bulls in long term. Brogdon isn’t the difference between 30 and 50 wins, and he doesn’t make them any measurable degree more watchable. Wins and watchability can be achieved through other veterans or FA options.

He is heading towards 25% of the cap when we want him to be our 5th starter. The 5th starter on a team just hoping to make the playoffs. Let that sink in before you throw out 4 years, $117 million

He might be tradeable but it will only be for another teams bad contract. Or as a negative asset where we have to send out more picks and young players just to move him. There’s not a lot to be gained from him but the potential for much to be lost, like a max FA in 2021 and Otto Porter.

I am getting it, actually, thanks. 4/100 is not 25 % of the cap on a standard raising contract. With rising cap, that isnt an albatross. It’s cheaper than porter, and he was moveable. But i was suggesting other players could be moved if by some miracle there was a chance we could get a disgruntled star in trade, or a free agent. I stand by the case that he is a much better player than you call him as a 5th starter. And he is a great fit. And i stand by the fact that i think he will help increase our players value. Not sure a Patrick Beverly or taj Gibson will do that.

You’re assuming (1) he can play PG, (2) he can maintain this efficiency in a very different offense and environment, and (3) the foot issues won’t continue to flare up. If he maintains this level, then he’s similar to how Otto was when he was traded.

He can handle the ball, and has played point guard. We are in an era of positionless ball. I think him not being a traditional pg is exactly why he is a good fit with our current team. I think he is a player who plays within himself and hence will continue to be efficient and wont necessarily increase his usage by a huge amount, yes. I agree that the injury history gives me pause, so that i would have to rely on the medical people to decide if he is a future risk of re-injury. Unfortunately, we have to trust our medical staff on this, which isnt necessarily a good thing.

[Clint Eastwood]

I should say also, i wont care if we dont make an offer for Brogdon, I’m good watching Coby play a ton too

[cjbulls]

I am getting it, actually, thanks. 4/100 is not 25 % of the cap on a standard raising contract. With rising cap, that isnt an albatross. It’s cheaper than porter, and he was moveable. But i was suggesting other players could be moved if by some miracle there was a chance we could get a disgruntled star in trade, or a free agent. I stand by the case that he is a much better player than you call him as a 5th starter. And he is a great fit. And i stand by the fact that i think he will help increase our players value. Not sure a Patrick Beverly or taj Gibson will do that.

You’re assuming (1) he can play PG, (2) he can maintain this efficiency in a very different offense and environment, and (3) the foot issues won’t continue to flare up. If he maintains this level, then he’s similar to how Otto was when he was traded.

He can handle the ball, and has played point guard. We are in an era of positionless ball. I think him not being a traditional pg is exactly why he is a good fit with our current team. I think he is a player who plays within himself and hence will continue to be efficient and wont necessarily increase his usage by a huge amount, yes. I agree that the injury history gives me pause, so that i would have to rely on the medical people to decide if he is a future risk of re-injury. Unfortunately, we have to trust our medical staff on this, which isnt necessarily a good thing.

I can get on board with positionless basketball, but I have concerns that we would be short on playmaking. Otto and WCJ can be tertiary playmakers, Zach can be a secondary playmaker, and Lauri probably is just not a playmaker. So We have to hope Brogdon at least get to that secondary playmaker level and Boylen becomes an excellent coach to make it work. Or I suppose White steps up too. It’s just not a guarantee.

[BrooklynBulls]

It is bizarre that people think it is a good idea to overpay a role player when we don't even have stars with which to make them look good. OPJ as a trade was similarly foolish, but at least he was really young, with a value in the toilet, and we had a huge gaping hole at the position without a prospect to plug into it. But how many more overpaid role players can you add to a team that is just HOPING its young "stars" become actual stars? We have 4 prospects for stardom, none of whom have delivered. It is absolutely vital that we have the option to press the NUKE button if and when these guys don't deliver. There's summer optimism but 0/4 have proven ANYTHING, at least to me.

Edit: The main upside of making Brogdon a sizable offer is to make Milwaukee match it, so we can steal George Hill at a reasonable short term price, perhaps 2/15 or something, for him to bring 90% of what Brogdon can, while being imminently nukeable. I'd be much more amenable to throwing money at Dlo, or even Cousins. Though I don't really like either, at least the internal logic of how to build a team holds.

[Ctownbulls]

Love brogdon but he is not more valuable than Lavine. His contract isn't going to be worth it.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Ctownbulls]

I'm not ok having $70-80M tied up bw OPJ, Lavine, Malcolm Brogdon. You can't have that much tied up in your top 3 salaries and simply competing for 8 seed.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Clint Eastwood]

It is bizarre that people think it is a good idea to overpay a role player when we don't even have stars with which to make them look good. OPJ as a trade was similarly foolish, but at least he was really young, with a value in the toilet, and we had a huge gaping hole at the position without a prospect to plug into it. But how many more overpaid role players can you add to a team that is just HOPING its young "stars" become actual stars? We have 4 prospects for stardom, none of whom have delivered. It is absolutely vital that we have the option to press the NUKE button if and when these guys don't deliver. There's summer optimism but 0/4 have proven ANYTHING, at least to me.

Edit: The main upside of making Brogdon a sizable offer is to make Milwaukee match it, so we can steal George Hill at a reasonable short term price, perhaps 2/15 or something, for him to bring 90% of what Brogdon can, while being imminently nukeable. I'd be much more amenable to throwing money at Dlo, or even Cousins. Though I don't really like either, at least the internal logic of how to build a team holds.

Hill sucks and is done