NBA Finals 2018: Do Or Die For The Cleveland LeBrons

[sperry]

4 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Which owners could take advantage of by not giving these max players security over multiple years.

What could possibly go wrong.

Why would the owners not give them that? They could still sign with another team. The only limitation this would put on players is for signing under the max when they are offered the max. 

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, sperry said:

Why would the owners not give them that? They could still sign with another team. The only limitation this would put on players is for signing under the max when they are offered the max. 

Because of a lack of trust in a player's aging. In this case you have Blake Griffin's knees and an owner thinking "hmm, this guy might be an all-star for 1 or 2 years, but clearly he doesn't have more than that". Whereas under the current rules, that aging player might instead be able to sign a 3 or 4-year deal with slightly less money per year.

You say he could sign with another team, but because under your rule they would have to give him max money for at least a year, the teams might not be open to it. Because of cap reasons, lack of trust or maybe just not being the right fit for those teams that have the space for a max player. They lose quite a bit of the bargaining flexibility on both sides.

[sperry]

8 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Because of a lack of trust in a player's aging. In this case you have Blake Griffin's knees and an owner thinking "hmm, this guy might be an all-star for 1 or 2 years, but clearly he doesn't have more than that". Whereas under the current rules, that aging player might instead be able to sign a 3 or 4-year deal with slightly less money per year.

You say he could sign with another team, but because under your rule they would have to give him max money for at least a year, the teams might not be open to it. Because of cap reasons, lack of trust or maybe just not being the right fit for those teams that have the space for a max player. They lose quite a bit of the bargaining flexibility on both sides.

He's not a max player if nobody offers him the max. If someone is willing to pay him that, then that's what he needs to take up under the cap.  And the salary cap is the whole point. If you don't have cap room, you shouldn't be able to sign a max player because he takes less money. That's the whole point of the cap, to create parity by maxing out the $$$ you can allot to players. The only flexibility the player loses is the ability to take less than their market value if they are a max player.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, sperry said:

He's not a max player if nobody offers him the max. If someone is willing to pay him that, then that's what he needs to take up under the cap.  And the salary cap is the whole point. If you don't have cap room, you shouldn't be able to sign a max player because he takes less money. That's the whole point of the cap, to create parity by maxing out the $$$ you can allot to players. The only flexibility the player loses is the ability to take less than their market value if they are a max player.

Okay, lets say that Kawhi Leonard is on the market (im not talking this year, pure hypothetical) and he is willing to go to LA for less than max money, as he cares more about winning and this will allow LA to build a strong team (not sign LeBron and PG-level strong, but still a strong team). He takes a large amount of money, but allows them some wiggle room to sign some role players or something. Cleveland, which in this scenario has sufficient capspace, offers him the max deal. Both Cleveland and Kawhi know that Kawhi will never sign with them. However, Cleveland offers that deal, purely because they know that if the offer is on the table, now LA HAS to give him the max and this will sabotage LA's plans (or indeed, the plans of many other teams to sign him). You are okay with schemes like this?

[Fez]

9 minutes ago, sperry said:

He's not a max player if nobody offers him the max. If someone is willing to pay him that, then that's what he needs to take up under the cap.  And the salary cap is the whole point. If you don't have cap room, you shouldn't be able to sign a max player because he takes less money. That's the whole point of the cap, to create parity by maxing out the $$$ you can allot to players. The only flexibility the player loses is the ability to take less than their market value if they are a max player.

If hypothetically, the max per year was $30 million per year and one team offered Black a 1 year/$30 million deal and another offered 3 years/$75 million, would he be required to take the first deal? Because there's a good argument that the second deal is better, even if there's a discount involved, at least in an injury prone players case.

[sperry]

10 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Okay, lets say that Kawhi Leonard is on the market (im not talking this year, pure hypothetical) and he is willing to go to LA for less than max money, as he cares more about winning and this will allow LA to build a strong team (not sign LeBron and PG-level strong, but still a strong team). He takes a large amount of money, but allows them some wiggle room to sign some role players or something. Cleveland, which in this scenario has sufficient capspace, offers him the max deal. Both Cleveland and Kawhi know that Kawhi will never sign with them. However, Cleveland offers that deal, purely because they know that if the offer is on the table, now LA HAS to give him the max and this will sabotage LA's plans (or indeed, the plans of many other teams to sign him). You are okay with schemes like this?

 

Yes, the max should apply here. Kawhi is worth the max (more than the max, in fact). He should count against the cap for the max.

 

8 minutes ago, Fez said:

If hypothetically, the max per year was $30 million per year and one team offered Black a 1 year/$30 million deal and another offered 3 years/$75 million, would he be required to take the first deal? Because there's a good argument that the second deal is better, even if there's a discount involved, at least in an injury prone players case.

 

No, I think offers would have to be for equal or greater length to matter. So 2 years $50 mill would be fine vs. 1 year $30 mill, but not 2 years $60 mill.

[Red Tiger]

58 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

Yes, the max should apply here. Kawhi is worth the max (more than the max, in fact). He should count against the cap for the max.

Okay, but what if the owners decide to play this trick with a player that is worthy slightly less than the max? You know Cleveland coming with that max offer for a player that is a star, but not a max-level star.

[sperry]

3 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Okay, but what if the owners decide to play this trick with a player that is worthy slightly less than the max? You know Cleveland coming with that max offer for a player that is a star, but not a max-level star.

Again, that team would have to take the contract. So if they want to play games and overpay someone, they can do that, but that's not a good strategy. Plus, that guy was likely to take the max offer anyway if he got it from another team. Who this affects is 10-15 guys at the top of the heap who make so much off the court that the money from their contract doesn't really matter.

[Red Tiger]

2 hours ago, sperry said:

Again, that team would have to take the contract. So if they want to play games and overpay someone, they can do that, but that's not a good strategy. Plus, that guy was likely to take the max offer anyway if he got it from another team. Who this affects is 10-15 guys at the top of the heap who make so much off the court that the money from their contract doesn't really matter.

I know what you are saying, I am just pointing out a flaw in it.

[briantw]

6 hours ago, Relic said:

It's easy to give away money when it's not yours. Anyone saying that LeBron, or any NBA player for that matter, should take less money than they might be able to get is not looking at this realistically. 

I don't think that any of these guys should be obligated to take less.  However, when you see a team like the Warriors that's loaded with stars have multiple guys do it to keep the team together, at some point if you're LeBron you either have to take less money too or accept that you're just not beating them.