John Collins: I Definitely Feel Like I'm In Max Contract Contention

[Revenged25]

Sorry bruh, the market is set and the system is rigged. KD, AD, Lebron, Kawhi etc. Those are MAX guys. Everyone else, pick up the leftovers.

The complete opposite is true. The current system massively benefits players who aren't KD, AD, LeBron, Kawhi etc. If there was no limit on maximum salaries, guys like LeBron and Giannis would have their salaries doubled at the very least.

I dunno about doubled. there would still be a salary cap. paying ANY player 70% of cap is a recipe for mediocrity. but I agree with your overall point

Not really. Not having a max salary means teams have to be smarter about paying "max" contracts to players. Giving LeBron, Giannis, etc 65-70% of the cap space is smart because they will perform at that level even with lesser players around them. It'll be teams that decide to pay 45-50% of their cap space to players that haven't elevated their teammates to playoffs/championship contention regardless of their caliber but simply because they are afraid of losing them that will start to suffer. I mean imagine giving KAT a 60% cap deal because you are afraid of losing him... that's the definition of mediocrity.

[Revenged25]

Sorry bruh, the market is set and the system is rigged. KD, AD, Lebron, Kawhi etc. Those are MAX guys. Everyone else, pick up the leftovers.

The complete opposite is true. The current system massively benefits players who aren't KD, AD, LeBron, Kawhi etc. If there was no limit on maximum salaries, guys like LeBron and Giannis would have their salaries doubled at the very least.

I dunno about doubled. there would still be a salary cap. paying ANY player 70% of cap is a recipe for mediocrity. but I agree with your overall point

Not really. Not having a max salary means teams have to be smarter about paying "max" contracts to players. Giving LeBron, Giannis, etc 65-70% of the cap space is smart because they will perform at that level even with lesser players around them. It'll be teams that decide to pay 45-50% of their cap space to players that haven't elevated their teammates to playoffs/championship contention regardless of their caliber but simply because they are afraid of losing them that will start to suffer. I mean imagine giving KAT a 60% cap deal because you are afraid of losing him... that's the definition of mediocrity.

[LAKESHOW]

The complete opposite is true. The current system massively benefits players who aren't KD, AD, LeBron, Kawhi etc. If there was no limit on maximum salaries, guys like LeBron and Giannis would have their salaries doubled at the very least.

I dunno about doubled. there would still be a salary cap. paying ANY player 70% of cap is a recipe for mediocrity. but I agree with your overall point

Not really. Not having a max salary means teams have to be smarter about paying "max" contracts to players. Giving LeBron, Giannis, etc 65-70% of the cap space is smart because they will perform at that level even with lesser players around them. It'll be teams that decide to pay 45-50% of their cap space to players that haven't elevated their teammates to playoffs/championship contention regardless of their caliber but simply because they are afraid of losing them that will start to suffer. I mean imagine giving KAT a 60% cap deal because you are afraid of losing him... that's the definition of mediocrity.

Exactly

[TheCage4]

John Collins, despite his ban and previous injury, is a young stretch forward who could be a 20 & 10 guy. Plus, he seems to like playing for Atlanta.

Why not give him the max? Who else will be available that will actually come to Atlanta as a FA? Keep him and the other youngsters and actually grow. The foundation is there.

[Dennis 37]

How many times has he been Eastern player of the week?

[arasu]

The complete opposite is true. The current system massively benefits players who aren't KD, AD, LeBron, Kawhi etc. If there was no limit on maximum salaries, guys like LeBron and Giannis would have their salaries doubled at the very least.

I dunno about doubled. there would still be a salary cap. paying ANY player 70% of cap is a recipe for mediocrity. but I agree with your overall point

Not really. Not having a max salary means teams have to be smarter about paying "max" contracts to players. Giving LeBron, Giannis, etc 65-70% of the cap space is smart because they will perform at that level even with lesser players around them. It'll be teams that decide to pay 45-50% of their cap space to players that haven't elevated their teammates to playoffs/championship contention regardless of their caliber but simply because they are afraid of losing them that will start to suffer. I mean imagine giving KAT a 60% cap deal because you are afraid of losing him... that's the definition of mediocrity.

Technically, if there is no limit on maximum salaries, that means no limit at all, including no "salary cap". In that scenario, some teams would offer salaries for far more than they could afford to star players, in the hopes of those players generating future profits. The old ABA and some European teams are an example of this. Under a no-limits salary situation, a player like Giannis or LeBron could easily earn triple their current salaries.

[Revenged25]

John Collins, despite his ban and previous injury, is a young stretch forward who could be a 20 & 10 guy. Plus, he seems to like playing for Atlanta.

Why not give him the max? Who else will be available that will actually come to Atlanta as a FA? Keep him and the other youngsters and actually grow. The foundation is there.

And this thinking is how Andrew Wiggins got a max...

[Revenged25]

I dunno about doubled. there would still be a salary cap. paying ANY player 70% of cap is a recipe for mediocrity. but I agree with your overall point

Not really. Not having a max salary means teams have to be smarter about paying "max" contracts to players. Giving LeBron, Giannis, etc 65-70% of the cap space is smart because they will perform at that level even with lesser players around them. It'll be teams that decide to pay 45-50% of their cap space to players that haven't elevated their teammates to playoffs/championship contention regardless of their caliber but simply because they are afraid of losing them that will start to suffer. I mean imagine giving KAT a 60% cap deal because you are afraid of losing him... that's the definition of mediocrity.

Technically, if there is no limit on maximum salaries, that means no limit at all, including no "salary cap". In that scenario, some teams would offer salaries for far more than they could afford to star players, in the hopes of those players generating future profits. The old ABA and some European teams are an example of this. Under a no-limits salary situation, a player like Giannis or LeBron could easily earn triple their current salaries.

I doubt there will ever be a completely capless league, but not having a max individual player salary is something that I could see being pushed at some point.

[Ballerhogger]

Dont do it ATL.

[Temuhjan]

I'd supposed $70m/4 years is fair for a 20/10 two -way stretch forward. But then again, he has not played enough games at this level to earn it. So, let's see how things go and we will talk about it in June

[dice]

I dunno about doubled. there would still be a salary cap. paying ANY player 70% of cap is a recipe for mediocrity. but I agree with your overall point

Not really. Not having a max salary means teams have to be smarter about paying "max" contracts to players. Giving LeBron, Giannis, etc 65-70% of the cap space is smart because they will perform at that level even with lesser players around them. It'll be teams that decide to pay 45-50% of their cap space to players that haven't elevated their teammates to playoffs/championship contention regardless of their caliber but simply because they are afraid of losing them that will start to suffer. I mean imagine giving KAT a 60% cap deal because you are afraid of losing him... that's the definition of mediocrity.

Exactly

uh, no. anthony davis would not be in LA if lebron was getting 70% of cap. lakers - mediocre. kawhi and paul george would not be on the same team. khris middleton would not have been able to re-sign w/ the bucks and bledsoe would never have joined the team. the heatles would never have been formed. etc. ad nauseum

no max salary = no superteams. it would mean no major free agent acquisitions unless you gut your team. we would be back to the way things were BEFORE a max salary existed, i.e. you have to draft well and make good dollar-for-dollar trades to produce a contender. and even then, the great teams were great largely because their stars settled for far less than they were worth:

-magic johnson and larry bird never got more than 30% of cap even though there was no max salary in the 20th century
-before his balloon payments in his last 2 years with the bulls, MJ never made more than 30% of cap
-karl malone never made more than 30% of cap

but when KG signed for 47% of cap as a 22 yr old in 1998 (increased to 64% at age 27) the **** hit the fan and they put in the max salary

[Pickled Prunes]

Not really. Not having a max salary means teams have to be smarter about paying "max" contracts to players. Giving LeBron, Giannis, etc 65-70% of the cap space is smart because they will perform at that level even with lesser players around them. It'll be teams that decide to pay 45-50% of their cap space to players that haven't elevated their teammates to playoffs/championship contention regardless of their caliber but simply because they are afraid of losing them that will start to suffer. I mean imagine giving KAT a 60% cap deal because you are afraid of losing him... that's the definition of mediocrity.

Exactly

uh, no. anthony davis would not be in LA if lebron was getting 70% of cap. lakers - mediocre. kawhi and paul george would not be on the same team. khris middleton would not have been able to re-sign w/ the bucks and bledsoe would never have joined the team. the heatles would never have been formed. etc. ad nauseum

no max salary = no superteams. it would mean no major free agent acquisitions unless you gut your team. we would be back to the way things were BEFORE a max salary existed, i.e. you have to draft well and make good dollar-for-dollar trades to produce a contender. and even then, the great teams were great largely because their stars settled for far less than they were worth:

-magic johnson and larry bird never got more than 30% of cap even though there was no max salary in the 20th century
-before his balloon payments in his last 2 years with the bulls, MJ never made more than 30% of cap
-karl malone never made more than 30% of cap

but when KG signed for 47% of cap as a 22 yr old in 1998 (increased to 64% at age 27) the **** hit the fan and they put in the max salary

It would further erode the middle class of the league. Every team would have one star, most of them overpaid. (Can you imagine MIN's roster with KAT making 50+% of the cap?) And And every team would have at least 4 players that were underpaid. If the rookie scale stayed the same then most rookies would lose money on their first extension. It would not work.

And if you remove the cap, small markets would become irrelevant. That certainly wouldn't work.

[dice]

Exactly

uh, no. anthony davis would not be in LA if lebron was getting 70% of cap. lakers - mediocre. kawhi and paul george would not be on the same team. khris middleton would not have been able to re-sign w/ the bucks and bledsoe would never have joined the team. the heatles would never have been formed. etc. ad nauseum

no max salary = no superteams. it would mean no major free agent acquisitions unless you gut your team. we would be back to the way things were BEFORE a max salary existed, i.e. you have to draft well and make good dollar-for-dollar trades to produce a contender. and even then, the great teams were great largely because their stars settled for far less than they were worth:

-magic johnson and larry bird never got more than 30% of cap even though there was no max salary in the 20th century
-before his balloon payments in his last 2 years with the bulls, MJ never made more than 30% of cap
-karl malone never made more than 30% of cap

but when KG signed for 47% of cap as a 22 yr old in 1998 (increased to 64% at age 27) the **** hit the fan and they put in the max salary

It would further erode the middle class of the league. Every team would have one star, most of them overpaid. (Can you imagine MIN's roster with KAT making 50+% of the cap?) And And every team would have at least 4 players that were underpaid. If the rookie scale stayed the same then most rookies would lose money on their first extension. It would not work.

KG made 50%+ of cap, but i don't think that KAT would. i don't think they were thrilled about giving him what they did, which was far less

And if you remove the cap, small markets would become irrelevant. That certainly wouldn't work.

it would be MLB on steroids because one player can have so much more impact in the nba

[Temuhjan]

Ideally, you would get the young player to RFA, then sign him to a contract that is same amount as what other teams are willing to offer him and not one penny more.

Then again, only people like Daryl Morey has this bad habit of poaching other team's RFA and put a poison pill provision into it.

[LBJKB24MJ23]

Not really. Not having a max salary means teams have to be smarter about paying "max" contracts to players. Giving LeBron, Giannis, etc 65-70% of the cap space is smart because they will perform at that level even with lesser players around them. It'll be teams that decide to pay 45-50% of their cap space to players that haven't elevated their teammates to playoffs/championship contention regardless of their caliber but simply because they are afraid of losing them that will start to suffer. I mean imagine giving KAT a 60% cap deal because you are afraid of losing him... that's the definition of mediocrity.

Exactly

uh, no. anthony davis would not be in LA if lebron was getting 70% of cap. lakers - mediocre. kawhi and paul george would not be on the same team. khris middleton would not have been able to re-sign w/ the bucks and bledsoe would never have joined the team. the heatles would never have been formed. etc. ad nauseum

no max salary = no superteams. it would mean no major free agent acquisitions unless you gut your team. we would be back to the way things were BEFORE a max salary existed, i.e. you have to draft well and make good dollar-for-dollar trades to produce a contender. and even then, the great teams were great largely because their stars settled for far less than they were worth:

-magic johnson and larry bird never got more than 30% of cap even though there was no max salary in the 20th century
-before his balloon payments in his last 2 years with the bulls, MJ never made more than 30% of cap
-karl malone never made more than 30% of cap

but when KG signed for 47% of cap as a 22 yr old in 1998 (increased to 64% at age 27) the **** hit the fan and they put in the max salary

he's exaggerating but essentially the point - that those players can do what 2 or even 3 players can contribute to the game on some nights. those are the max type of players you want. but every team started paying 70% to their best players it would mean the same to everyone, right? some people will overpay for mediocre to above talent i.e Wiggins, Tobias Harris, etc non superstar, not even all-star players, making max money. thats how you get your team into trouble - by overpaying that level of player the max money.

John Collins is in that level - however, when Trae maxes out. it will be him and Collins making up, about 60%, of the cap?

[Ayt]

Ideally, you would get the young player to RFA, then sign him to a contract that is same amount as what other teams are willing to offer him and not one penny more.

Then again, only people like Daryl Morey has this bad habit of poaching other team's RFA and put a poison pill provision into it.

There are rules to how contracts can be structured. It isn't possible for a team to "poison pill" someone like Collins if they hit RFA.

[LiSTWithLani]

uh, no. anthony davis would not be in LA if lebron was getting 70% of cap. lakers - mediocre. kawhi and paul george would not be on the same team. khris middleton would not have been able to re-sign w/ the bucks and bledsoe would never have joined the team. the heatles would never have been formed. etc. ad nauseum

no max salary = no superteams. it would mean no major free agent acquisitions unless you gut your team. we would be back to the way things were BEFORE a max salary existed, i.e. you have to draft well and make good dollar-for-dollar trades to produce a contender. and even then, the great teams were great largely because their stars settled for far less than they were worth:

-magic johnson and larry bird never got more than 30% of cap even though there was no max salary in the 20th century
-before his balloon payments in his last 2 years with the bulls, MJ never made more than 30% of cap
-karl malone never made more than 30% of cap

but when KG signed for 47% of cap as a 22 yr old in 1998 (increased to 64% at age 27) the **** hit the fan and they put in the max salary

It would further erode the middle class of the league. Every team would have one star, most of them overpaid. (Can you imagine MIN's roster with KAT making 50+% of the cap?) And And every team would have at least 4 players that were underpaid. If the rookie scale stayed the same then most rookies would lose money on their first extension. It would not work.

KG made 50%+ of cap, but i don't think that KAT would. i don't think they were thrilled about giving him what they did, which was far less

And if you remove the cap, small markets would become irrelevant. That certainly wouldn't work.

it would be MLB on steroids because one player can have so much more impact in the nba

KG was my favourite player growing up, I totally remember the stuff that you're referencing.

I think that the needs to remove the individual player maximum salary rules. No way should LBJ & AD or Kawhi & PG be on the same teams. Harden and Westbrook I have no issue with, since they were both drafted together and it's almost like revisionist history playing itself out, minus KD.

[ontnut]

He puts up numbers, but also misses games.
Very wary of players putting up numbers on bad teams, even if they do look good overall.

[birdlives_ma]

He puts up numbers, but also misses games.
Very wary of players putting up numbers on bad teams, even if they do look good overall.

Definitely agree in principle, but one caveat in this case: we’re actually pretty darn good with him on the floor. Him, Trae, and bodies have been a recipe for a decent offense all year.

When either miss time though, we might as well log the L fly to the next city.

[Pickled Prunes]

It would further erode the middle class of the league. Every team would have one star, most of them overpaid. (Can you imagine MIN's roster with KAT making 50+% of the cap?) And And every team would have at least 4 players that were underpaid. If the rookie scale stayed the same then most rookies would lose money on their first extension. It would not work.

KG made 50%+ of cap, but i don't think that KAT would. i don't think they were thrilled about giving him what they did, which was far less

And if you remove the cap, small markets would become irrelevant. That certainly wouldn't work.

it would be MLB on steroids because one player can have so much more impact in the nba

KG was my favourite player growing up, I totally remember the stuff that you're referencing.

I think that the needs to remove the individual player maximum salary rules. No way should LBJ & AD or Kawhi & PG be on the same teams. Harden and Westbrook I have no issue with, since they were both drafted together and it's almost like revisionist history playing itself out, minus KD.

MIN didn't want to give KAT what they did but they had no choice. I mean, look at what they gave Wiggins just to be a number 2. John Collins wants "Max$" and probably deserves it but without a max salary he might get 15% because Trae's extension is coming up. ATL would have to chose and Collins would likely be the odd man out.

And as much as I was pulling for Cassell and Spree, MIN never did anything with all their eggs in KG's basket. Can you spell L-O-T-T-E-R-Y!

It would be easy enough to squash superteams by only allowing one max player and one super-max player per team. Better yet, if you want to limit the restrictions on individual contracts, make it so a team's top three salaries can not exceed 75% of the cap. That could be split as the team likes:

25/25/25
35/25/15
55/10/10

etc.

All that said, why are we worried about max players being underpaid? They make more than enough money on the court, and sometimes even more off the court. We should be fighting for our schools not for Lillard to get paid more.