What exactly does a max contract mean?

[dougthonus]

When discussing whether the Bulls should or should not sign Malcolm Brogdon to a max contract, I think people sometimes throw around the term max contract as if it is this scary thing and that Brogdon, whom is an uber-role player, couldn't possibly be worth the max.

I'd like to add a few data points into this discussion to show why this is kind of a shifty view that isn't so accurate.

First, let's take Kevin Durant. Teams are lining up to pay him 165 million to play 3 years of basketball while he will come off an injury and hopefully, maybe, possibly be a top 5 player still. He's probably a guy whom has a very good shot of not being a top 10 player for those 3 years he will play, but let's ignore the obvious massive risk that could happen. Teams are willing to pay what amounts to 55m per playing year for Kevin Durant.

The Warriors are willing to sign up to likely pay 100s of millions in luxury tax if they can keep Durant. It could literally be something in the neighborhood of 250million per playing year he gives them for KD for the Warriors, and in reality will probably be at least 100 million per year they actually have to shell out to keep him. Now maybe the Warriors are overly exuberant because of winning three titles and having no other viable options outside of giving up, but it shows at least one franchise in real money would pay 100 million per playing year for this guy and possibly upwards of 150-250m per playing year.

Given other teams are capped at the still high price of 55m per playing year and would spend more if legally allowed, we know the value of an actual max FA is considerably above the maximum salary Durant can command.

Why is this important? Because people look at Brogdon's value based on the idea that you can get a superstar for "the max" and only a superstar should get "the max", but Brogdon's max is already much lower than the other max. His max starts around 27m vs Durant's 38m or Klay's 32m and people would pay more for those guys (and possibly more for Brogdon too).

So yes, Brogdon is an uber role player, probably a sub all-star caliber guard though close enough that if he played this well for a few seasons might Luol Deng his way into an appearance. Yes, in the sense of would you pay this guy teh most you could pay anyone, probably not, but his 25% max is far below that number and far below the value of the really really top guys in the league as fairly easily demonstratable in terms of what they would make.

[Clint Eastwood]

Pay that man. I’m firmly in that camp.

[RedBulls23]

When discussing whether the Bulls should or should not sign Malcolm Brogdon to a max contract, I think people sometimes throw around the term max contract as if it is this scary thing and that Brogdon, whom is an uber-role player, couldn't possibly be worth the max.

I'd like to add a few data points into this discussion to show why this is kind of a shifty view that isn't so accurate.

First, let's take Kevin Durant. Teams are lining up to pay him 165 million to play 3 years of basketball while he will come off an injury and hopefully, maybe, possibly be a top 5 player still. He's probably a guy whom has a very good shot of not being a top 10 player for those 3 years he will play, but let's ignore the obvious massive risk that could happen. Teams are willing to pay what amounts to 55m per playing year for Kevin Durant.

The Warriors are willing to sign up to likely pay 100s of millions in luxury tax if they can keep Durant. It could literally be something in the neighborhood of 250million per playing year he gives them for KD for the Warriors, and in reality will probably be at least 100 million per year they actually have to shell out to keep him. Now maybe the Warriors are overly exuberant because of winning three titles and having no other viable options outside of giving up, but it shows at least one franchise in real money would pay 100 million per playing year for this guy and possibly upwards of 150-250m per playing year.

Given other teams are capped at the still high price of 55m per playing year and would spend more if legally allowed, we know the value of an actual max FA is considerably above the maximum salary Durant can command.

Why is this important? Because people look at Brogdon's value based on the idea that you can get a superstar for "the max" and only a superstar should get "the max", but Brogdon's max is already much lower than the other max. His max starts around 27m vs Durant's 38m or Klay's 32m and people would pay more for those guys (and possibly more for Brogdon too).

So yes, Brogdon is an uber role player, probably a sub all-star caliber guard though close enough that if he played this well for a few seasons might Luol Deng his way into an appearance. Yes, in the sense of would you pay this guy teh most you could pay anyone, probably not, but his 25% max is far below that number and far below the value of the really really top guys in the league as fairly easily demonstratable in terms of what they would make.

You're comparing a player that's been in the league 6 years of less to guys that have been in the league for more than 10 years. Obviously their max are going to be different.

Point is, do you think Malcolm is worth adding to a 22 win team at 4 years $117 million, which will have him making more than guys like Emiid and Giannis for example or about as much as what's remaining on Lillards contract on an average?

And if you're someone that's worried that this team doesn't have enough talent to be more than a 2nd round exit (something you've expressed), adding an uber role player to the max 4 year deal very likely gets you stuck to that much quicker.

Being that he's 27, and the current state of the team I'd easily pass.

Edit: typed 6 years earlier by accident but meant 4 years.

[Red Larrivee]

Brogdon's Max:
27,250,000 '
28,612,500
29,975,000
31,337,500
Total: 4 years, $117 million.

Brogdon's max is significantly lower than the 7-9 and 10+ max. However, the above contract is far above being an uber role player. Brogdon would be paid like (or close to) an elite-level PG. While Brogdon is a good player and his two-way ability adds value, he's not that good. I'm skeptical of paying that much money to a player whose game is built on having better players ahead of him set the table for him. It's not a value at that salary. He's also going to be 27, which suggests he's either at or near his ceiling. He's a George Hill/Harrison Barnes type of glue guy and maxing out those types of players is a very risky idea.

[cjbulls]

Let’s put it in real terms then. Is Brogdon worth 4 years, $117 million. That’s his max number. $29.25 million AAV

[panthermark]

I'm a huge "Pro-Brogdon" fan...but his max it too high for me. 4/90 is "my" max.
With that said, if we don't get him, I hope another team does offer him the max.....I bet the Bucks let him walk.

[Indomitable]

Let’s put it in real terms then. Is Brogdon worth 4 years, $117 million. That’s his max number. $29.25 million AAV

No

[MrFortune3]

Brogdon's Max:
27,250,000 '
28,612,500
29,975,000
31,337,500
Total: 4 years, $117 million.

Brogdon's max is significantly lower than the 7-9 and 10+ max. However, the above contract is far above being an uber role player. Brogdon would be paid like (or close to) an elite-level PG. While Brogdon is a good player and his two-way ability adds value, he's not that good. I'm skeptical of paying that much money to a player whose game is built on having better players ahead of him set the table for him. It's not a value at that salary. He's also going to be 27, which suggests he's either at or near his ceiling. He's a George Hill/Harrison Barnes type of glue guy and maxing out those types of players is a very risky idea.

It depends upon how you believe the core of the team will evolve over the life of his contract. He wouldn't preclude us from making another move to improve the team short of injury.

[jnrjr79]

When discussing whether the Bulls should or should not sign Malcolm Brogdon to a max contract, I think people sometimes throw around the term max contract as if it is this scary thing and that Brogdon, whom is an uber-role player, couldn't possibly be worth the max.

I'd like to add a few data points into this discussion to show why this is kind of a shifty view that isn't so accurate.

First, let's take Kevin Durant. Teams are lining up to pay him 165 million to play 3 years of basketball while he will come off an injury and hopefully, maybe, possibly be a top 5 player still. He's probably a guy whom has a very good shot of not being a top 10 player for those 3 years he will play, but let's ignore the obvious massive risk that could happen. Teams are willing to pay what amounts to 55m per playing year for Kevin Durant.

The Warriors are willing to sign up to likely pay 100s of millions in luxury tax if they can keep Durant. It could literally be something in the neighborhood of 250million per playing year he gives them for KD for the Warriors, and in reality will probably be at least 100 million per year they actually have to shell out to keep him. Now maybe the Warriors are overly exuberant because of winning three titles and having no other viable options outside of giving up, but it shows at least one franchise in real money would pay 100 million per playing year for this guy and possibly upwards of 150-250m per playing year.

Given other teams are capped at the still high price of 55m per playing year and would spend more if legally allowed, we know the value of an actual max FA is considerably above the maximum salary Durant can command.

Why is this important? Because people look at Brogdon's value based on the idea that you can get a superstar for "the max" and only a superstar should get "the max", but Brogdon's max is already much lower than the other max. His max starts around 27m vs Durant's 38m or Klay's 32m and people would pay more for those guys (and possibly more for Brogdon too).

So yes, Brogdon is an uber role player, probably a sub all-star caliber guard though close enough that if he played this well for a few seasons might Luol Deng his way into an appearance. Yes, in the sense of would you pay this guy teh most you could pay anyone, probably not, but his 25% max is far below that number and far below the value of the really really top guys in the league as fairly easily demonstratable in terms of what they would make.

You're comparing a player that's been in the league 6 years of less to guys that have been in the league for more than 10 years. Obviously their max are going to be different.

Point is, do you think Malcolm is worth adding to a 22 win team at 6 years $117 million, which will have him making more than guys like Emiid and Giannis for example or about as much as what's remaining on Lillards contract on an average?

And if you're someone that's worried that this team doesn't have enough talent to be more than a 2nd round exit (something you've expressed), adding an uber role player to the max 4 year deal very likely gets you stuck to that much quicker.

Being that he's 27, and the current state of the team I'd easily pass.

I think the point here is that when you refer to a player as a "max" player, it's an inaccurate shorthand. Brogdon at $27M would be making the max. So would CP3 at $40-odd million. Just using the "max" as the term to refer to both players creates a mis-impression. So sure, you wouldn't pay Brogdon what you'd pay a healthy 'Durant, but you don't have to! So it's probably better to think about years and dollars than whatever psychic effect attaches when you think of a "max" guy.

[Clint Eastwood]

4/100 is my top for him

[RedBulls23]

When discussing whether the Bulls should or should not sign Malcolm Brogdon to a max contract, I think people sometimes throw around the term max contract as if it is this scary thing and that Brogdon, whom is an uber-role player, couldn't possibly be worth the max.

I'd like to add a few data points into this discussion to show why this is kind of a shifty view that isn't so accurate.

First, let's take Kevin Durant. Teams are lining up to pay him 165 million to play 3 years of basketball while he will come off an injury and hopefully, maybe, possibly be a top 5 player still. He's probably a guy whom has a very good shot of not being a top 10 player for those 3 years he will play, but let's ignore the obvious massive risk that could happen. Teams are willing to pay what amounts to 55m per playing year for Kevin Durant.

The Warriors are willing to sign up to likely pay 100s of millions in luxury tax if they can keep Durant. It could literally be something in the neighborhood of 250million per playing year he gives them for KD for the Warriors, and in reality will probably be at least 100 million per year they actually have to shell out to keep him. Now maybe the Warriors are overly exuberant because of winning three titles and having no other viable options outside of giving up, but it shows at least one franchise in real money would pay 100 million per playing year for this guy and possibly upwards of 150-250m per playing year.

Given other teams are capped at the still high price of 55m per playing year and would spend more if legally allowed, we know the value of an actual max FA is considerably above the maximum salary Durant can command.

Why is this important? Because people look at Brogdon's value based on the idea that you can get a superstar for "the max" and only a superstar should get "the max", but Brogdon's max is already much lower than the other max. His max starts around 27m vs Durant's 38m or Klay's 32m and people would pay more for those guys (and possibly more for Brogdon too).

So yes, Brogdon is an uber role player, probably a sub all-star caliber guard though close enough that if he played this well for a few seasons might Luol Deng his way into an appearance. Yes, in the sense of would you pay this guy teh most you could pay anyone, probably not, but his 25% max is far below that number and far below the value of the really really top guys in the league as fairly easily demonstratable in terms of what they would make.

You're comparing a player that's been in the league 6 years of less to guys that have been in the league for more than 10 years. Obviously their max are going to be different.

Point is, do you think Malcolm is worth adding to a 22 win team at 6 years $117 million, which will have him making more than guys like Emiid and Giannis for example or about as much as what's remaining on Lillards contract on an average?

And if you're someone that's worried that this team doesn't have enough talent to be more than a 2nd round exit (something you've expressed), adding an uber role player to the max 4 year deal very likely gets you stuck to that much quicker.

Being that he's 27, and the current state of the team I'd easily pass.

I think the point here is that when you refer to a player as a "max" player, it's an inaccurate shorthand. Brogdon at $27M would be making the max. So would CP3 at $40-odd million. Just using the "max" as the term to refer to both players creates a mis-impression. So sure, you wouldn't pay Brogdon what you'd pay a healthy 'Durant, but you don't have to! So it's probably better to think about years and dollars than whatever psychic effect attaches when you think of a "max" guy.

Which is why I broke down the years and dollars...

[coldfish]

At the end of the day, everyone is doing the same calculation. Regardless of what you think Brogdon is worth, some other team agrees and he will likely go there . . . or Milwaukee will match him.

[dougthonus]

You're comparing a player that's been in the league 6 years of less to guys that have been in the league for more than 10 years. Obviously their max are going to be different.

Part of my point IS that these maxes are different, and I don't think people conceptualize it because they just say "not worth a max" without really differentiating what a max is for different players.

Point is, do you think Malcolm is worth adding to a 22 win team at 6 years $117 million, which will have him making more than guys like Emiid and Giannis for example or about as much as what's remaining on Lillards contract on an average?

I assume you mean 4 years. Comparisons to other guys aren't really relevant, if people could pay Giannis whatever they wanted, he'd be getting 50m+ per year and would be on a 4/250 deal at least. Embiid, who knows, because no sane person (IMO) would count on him actually being healthy for a whole season let alone four years, but yeah, probably he'd also get 50m+ per year because some one would gamble.

And if you're someone that's worried that this team doesn't have enough talent to be more than a 2nd round exit (something you've expressed), adding an uber role player to the max 4 year deal very likely gets you stuck to that much quicker.

Being that he's 27, and the current state of the team I'd easily pass.

Yeah, I do think it accelerates us to being a 2nd round team, but I think 4 years is okay, you aren't "stuck" with the age of your players, you have enough flexibility to move around (hopefully), we are stuck there regardless of Brogdon if LaVine / Lauri / Carter aren't great, and if they are great than Brogdon will help. I just don't see a better player coming later into that same space.

[DanTown8587]

I think people tend to be far too rigid in their evaluations of contracts and what they deem to be "good" or bad value. I like Brogdon and want to sign him and believe he not only would be a good player here but that his skills and abilities blend well with the rest of the roster. I wouldn't love the idea of 4/117 but I don't see how anyone believes that to be his actual contract.

The problem with contracts for guys like Brogdon is that no one has yet given me a better idea on spending the money than overspending on the best fit + player possible for this roster. The literal value in going from Brogdon to say a Beverly type PG is that the money you're saving there goes to a superior player or gives more resources where necessary. Ok, what are those resources? A seventh man? To have a PG rotation with an old player who can't shoot and create offense and a rookie?

The funny thing about Brogdon is that the biggest issue (health) is rarely talked about yet we spend words and words arguing about his "value". Value only matters in that it allows for more talent. I could build you a 25 win roster on nothing but value contracts.

And I'll say it until I'm blue in the face: when thinking about adding a guy to this team (considering the "core" that's here), the fit of said player is just as important, if not more so, than his talent. Brogdon solves a lot of issues for this team and his skills blend well enough with the rest of the roster to match with the "core". I don't get how anyone looks at a guy like Beverly and says "yeah, that guy fits well here".

[RedBulls23]

You're comparing a player that's been in the league 6 years of less to guys that have been in the league for more than 10 years. Obviously their max are going to be different.

Part of my point IS that these maxes are different, and I don't think people conceptualize it because they just say "not worth a max" without really differentiating what a max is for different players.

Point is, do you think Malcolm is worth adding to a 22 win team at 6 years $117 million, which will have him making more than guys like Emiid and Giannis for example or about as much as what's remaining on Lillards contract on an average?

A 6 year contract isn't even legal for a team that has their own FA, the max we can offer is 4, so I'm not sure what you are saying here seems off.

And if you're someone that's worried that this team doesn't have enough talent to be more than a 2nd round exit (something you've expressed), adding an uber role player to the max 4 year deal very likely gets you stuck to that much quicker.

Being that he's 27, and the current state of the team I'd easily pass.

Yeah, I do think it accelerates us to being a 2nd round team, but I think 4 years is okay, you aren't "stuck" with the age of your players, you have enough flexibility to move around (hopefully), we are stuck there regardless of Brogdon if LaVine / Lauri / Carter aren't great, and if they are great than Brogdon will help. I just don't see a better player coming later into that same space.

Sorry I meant 4 years. Typed 6 by accident. The major point I was making is that at his rate he would be making the max which is the same as guys like Embiid, Giannis, and Lillard. He's not worth that.

And I don't think we're stuck if the current core doesn't work out the next couple of years, because you can easily move on from them and rebuild again (ideally with a different FO but that's a different subject and arguement). It won't be easy to move Brogdons contract down the road.

[DJhitek]

Brogdon is a damn good player and is worth max money for his position and experience level, but after drafting White, I don’t see how they would be interested.

[Red Larrivee]

It depends upon how you believe the core of the team will evolve over the life of his contract. He wouldn't preclude us from making another move to improve the team short of injury.

With ideal improvement across the board, the Bulls become a playoff team with Brogdon. Of the non all-stars in free agency, he fits this team the best. However, I don't think that role and fit is worth $29.5M AAV over the next 4. Again, he's a good player, but he isn't that good. This line of thinking is the same reason Dallas gave Harrison Barnes 4/94 and he wasn't worth it.

[bearadonisdna]

The max to me means paying 1 guy about 1/3 of the cap.
For a team to do that, they really have to believe he is a franchise cornerstone.
That's really subjective to be honest.

[DanTown8587]

It depends upon how you believe the core of the team will evolve over the life of his contract. He wouldn't preclude us from making another move to improve the team short of injury.

With ideal improvement across the board, the Bulls become a playoff team with Brogdon. Of the non all-stars in free agency, he fits this team the best. However, I don't think that role and fit is worth $29.5M AAV over the next 4. Again, he's a good player, but he isn't that good. This line of thinking is the same reason Dallas gave Harrison Barnes 4/94 and he wasn't worth it.

One, I have no idea why we are debating Brogdon's value at the max considering the Bulls don't have the cap space to offer that contract anyway.

Two, I really don't think the Bulls have enough talent to be scoffing their noses at a legitimate starter because he's overpaid by a scale of say 3-7M AAV.

Three, signing two worse players spends the same amount of money to make your team not much better than it was before!

[Red Larrivee]

I really don't think the Bulls have enough talent to be scoffing their noses at a legitimate starter because he's overpaid by a scale of say 3-7M AAV.

I don't think the Bulls have enough talent to significantly overpay a roleplayer with walk-away money.

Three, signing two worse players spends the same amount of money to make your team not much better than it was before!

Yes...with less years and more potential to be a value. If money wasn't a factor, I take Brogdon over any non all-star free agent point guard. But it's not as simple as getting that guy and ignoring the rest.