Jaylen Brown Supermax

[johnnygreen]

if Brown is as bad as some fans say, how did he average 27ppg on 49% shooting and make the all-nba team?

DeRozan did that 2 seasons, but you didn't see anyone claiming he should be paid like the best player in the sport. LaVine, like DeRozan, also had 50% shooting and over 27 ppg 3 seasons ago and he didn't even make an All NBA Team.  There is context to everything and you seem to be missing that.  Brown is a good player, but he isn't 35% of the cap good.  We are already seeing the 2nd apron crunch when he let a rotation player walk because we didn't want to pay him the MLE.  What do you think will happen in 2 seasons when Brown is at 35%, Tatum and Prozingis are around 45% of the cap? Who is being salary dumped at that point.  Might as well just trade White, Brogdon, and Rob now as they all won't be on the team in 2 years with their 35% cap hit collectively.  Brogdon, in particular, should be moved now.  No reason to let his value erode.

So you agree, its not about what makes the team more likely to win a championship in the next 3 years, you are worried about what happens after all their contracts are up.

if the team doesn't win a chip in the next 2-3 years Brown will probably be traded anyway or KP or both. Maybe Tatum requests a trade because the team hasn't won anything and went backwards after getting rid of Brown.

So why ruin our chances of winning next year? If anything this is an argument of why we should go ALL IN the next couple years. because its our best chance of winning and keeping Tatum and/or brown

Not at all. In fact, I've been saying for years Brown should be traded because he doesn't impact winning the way he should for his talent.  In fact, Boston has been better with Brown on the bench per possession almost every year he has been here and every post season since he became a starter.  When Brown doesnt play at all, Boston maintains its winning percentage and that is without replacing him.  Tatum is quite simply better when Brown doesnt take his space on the floor,  and the team goes as Tatum goes.  Given his lack of impact to winning, you shouldn't sign him to a supermax.

Bill Simmons said it best that Boston basically has no choice in giving him that contract and when was the last time a team had no choice and it worked out. Essentially Boston has to sign him to that contract, not that Boston wants to sign him to that contract. Simmons is right.

Except for the year Brown was injured for the playoffs and we lost in the 1st round, right?

You mean the year that as soon as he hit his game incentive requirement, he shut it down for the year and got surgery? With a competitive spirit like that, it's amazing this team hasn't won a title.

[Moranis]

if Brown is as bad as some fans say, how did he average 27ppg on 49% shooting and make the all-nba team?

DeRozan did that 2 seasons, but you didn't see anyone claiming he should be paid like the best player in the sport. LaVine, like DeRozan, also had 50% shooting and over 27 ppg 3 seasons ago and he didn't even make an All NBA Team.  There is context to everything and you seem to be missing that.  Brown is a good player, but he isn't 35% of the cap good.  We are already seeing the 2nd apron crunch when he let a rotation player walk because we didn't want to pay him the MLE.  What do you think will happen in 2 seasons when Brown is at 35%, Tatum and Prozingis are around 45% of the cap? Who is being salary dumped at that point.  Might as well just trade White, Brogdon, and Rob now as they all won't be on the team in 2 years with their 35% cap hit collectively.  Brogdon, in particular, should be moved now.  No reason to let his value erode.

So you agree, its not about what makes the team more likely to win a championship in the next 3 years, you are worried about what happens after all their contracts are up.

if the team doesn't win a chip in the next 2-3 years Brown will probably be traded anyway or KP or both. Maybe Tatum requests a trade because the team hasn't won anything and went backwards after getting rid of Brown.

So why ruin our chances of winning next year? If anything this is an argument of why we should go ALL IN the next couple years. because its our best chance of winning and keeping Tatum and/or brown

Not at all. In fact, I've been saying for years Brown should be traded because he doesn't impact winning the way he should for his talent.  In fact, Boston has been better with Brown on the bench per possession almost every year he has been here and every post season since he became a starter.  When Brown doesnt play at all, Boston maintains its winning percentage and that is without replacing him.  Tatum is quite simply better when Brown doesnt take his space on the floor,  and the team goes as Tatum goes.  Given his lack of impact to winning, you shouldn't sign him to a supermax.

Bill Simmons said it best that Boston basically has no choice in giving him that contract and when was the last time a team had no choice and it worked out. Essentially Boston has to sign him to that contract, not that Boston wants to sign him to that contract. Simmons is right.

Yep, I also think trading Jaylen might be the best thing for the team and for Brown.
How about Jaylen Brown, Hauser, Kornet, Champagnie to Toronto for Pascal Siakam.
The salaries work under the CBA. I would have liked to have kept Hauser, but I chose Peyton Pritchard instead.
Brown gets a new start as the top dog in Toronto and the Celts gain an inside force and have a more content locker room with a solid pecking order.
Then, Brad pulls his head out of his ass and hires a competent head coach and the Celtics hang a few banners.

I think Brown has more value than Siakam so I'd need more coming to Boston than just Siakam in that trade and given the other pieces a fair amount more.  And Hauser isn't necessary so I'd take him put of it entirely.

A trade like that made a lot more sense when he had Smart and not Porzingis.  And Toronto doesn't have any smallish contracts on players that would make sense.  If Boston were to acquire Siakam I think it would be a Brogdon based trade with a lot of draft picks.

[boscel33]

if Brown is as bad as some fans say, how did he average 27ppg on 49% shooting and make the all-nba team?

DeRozan did that 2 seasons, but you didn't see anyone claiming he should be paid like the best player in the sport. LaVine, like DeRozan, also had 50% shooting and over 27 ppg 3 seasons ago and he didn't even make an All NBA Team.  There is context to everything and you seem to be missing that.  Brown is a good player, but he isn't 35% of the cap good.  We are already seeing the 2nd apron crunch when he let a rotation player walk because we didn't want to pay him the MLE.  What do you think will happen in 2 seasons when Brown is at 35%, Tatum and Prozingis are around 45% of the cap? Who is being salary dumped at that point.  Might as well just trade White, Brogdon, and Rob now as they all won't be on the team in 2 years with their 35% cap hit collectively.  Brogdon, in particular, should be moved now.  No reason to let his value erode.

So you agree, its not about what makes the team more likely to win a championship in the next 3 years, you are worried about what happens after all their contracts are up.

if the team doesn't win a chip in the next 2-3 years Brown will probably be traded anyway or KP or both. Maybe Tatum requests a trade because the team hasn't won anything and went backwards after getting rid of Brown.

So why ruin our chances of winning next year? If anything this is an argument of why we should go ALL IN the next couple years. because its our best chance of winning and keeping Tatum and/or brown

Not at all. In fact, I've been saying for years Brown should be traded because he doesn't impact winning the way he should for his talent.  In fact, Boston has been better with Brown on the bench per possession almost every year he has been here and every post season since he became a starter.  When Brown doesnt play at all, Boston maintains its winning percentage and that is without replacing him.  Tatum is quite simply better when Brown doesnt take his space on the floor,  and the team goes as Tatum goes.  Given his lack of impact to winning, you shouldn't sign him to a supermax.

Bill Simmons said it best that Boston basically has no choice in giving him that contract and when was the last time a team had no choice and it worked out. Essentially Boston has to sign him to that contract, not that Boston wants to sign him to that contract. Simmons is right.

Yep, I also think trading Jaylen might be the best thing for the team and for Brown.
How about Jaylen Brown, Hauser, Kornet, Champagnie to Toronto for Pascal Siakam.
The salaries work under the CBA. I would have liked to have kept Hauser, but I chose Peyton Pritchard instead.
Brown gets a new start as the top dog in Toronto and the Celts gain an inside force and have a more content locker room with a solid pecking order.
Then, Brad pulls his head out of his ass and hires a competent head coach and the Celtics hang a few banners.

I think Brown has more value than Siakam so I'd need more coming to Boston than just Siakam in that trade and given the other pieces a fair amount more.  And Hauser isn't necessary so I'd take him put of it entirely.

A trade like that made a lot more sense when he had Smart and not Porzingis.  And Toronto doesn't have any smallish contracts on players that would make sense.  If Boston were to acquire Siakam I think it would be a Brogdon based trade with a lot of draft picks.

I agree, more should come to Boston not to Toronto.

[BitterJim]

if Brown is as bad as some fans say, how did he average 27ppg on 49% shooting and make the all-nba team?

DeRozan did that 2 seasons, but you didn't see anyone claiming he should be paid like the best player in the sport. LaVine, like DeRozan, also had 50% shooting and over 27 ppg 3 seasons ago and he didn't even make an All NBA Team.  There is context to everything and you seem to be missing that.  Brown is a good player, but he isn't 35% of the cap good.  We are already seeing the 2nd apron crunch when he let a rotation player walk because we didn't want to pay him the MLE.  What do you think will happen in 2 seasons when Brown is at 35%, Tatum and Prozingis are around 45% of the cap? Who is being salary dumped at that point.  Might as well just trade White, Brogdon, and Rob now as they all won't be on the team in 2 years with their 35% cap hit collectively.  Brogdon, in particular, should be moved now.  No reason to let his value erode.

So you agree, its not about what makes the team more likely to win a championship in the next 3 years, you are worried about what happens after all their contracts are up.

if the team doesn't win a chip in the next 2-3 years Brown will probably be traded anyway or KP or both. Maybe Tatum requests a trade because the team hasn't won anything and went backwards after getting rid of Brown.

So why ruin our chances of winning next year? If anything this is an argument of why we should go ALL IN the next couple years. because its our best chance of winning and keeping Tatum and/or brown

Not at all. In fact, I've been saying for years Brown should be traded because he doesn't impact winning the way he should for his talent.  In fact, Boston has been better with Brown on the bench per possession almost every year he has been here and every post season since he became a starter.  When Brown doesnt play at all, Boston maintains its winning percentage and that is without replacing him.  Tatum is quite simply better when Brown doesnt take his space on the floor,  and the team goes as Tatum goes.  Given his lack of impact to winning, you shouldn't sign him to a supermax.

Bill Simmons said it best that Boston basically has no choice in giving him that contract and when was the last time a team had no choice and it worked out. Essentially Boston has to sign him to that contract, not that Boston wants to sign him to that contract. Simmons is right.

Except for the year Brown was injured for the playoffs and we lost in the 1st round, right?

You mean the year that as soon as he hit his game incentive requirement, he shut it down for the year and got surgery? With a competitive spirit like that, it's amazing this team hasn't won a title.

And he really did the bare minimum those last 3 games (after the OKC game where he likely either injured or aggravated the wrist), only averaging... 38:20 MPG.

He shot great against the Hornets, but then 11/46 with 7 TOs in the final two games. The wrist was clearly starting to impact him, having him play more would have been bad for him and the team as a whole. But yeah, tearing a ligament in your wrist is totally a sign of not being competitive 

[Vermont Green]

I think Brown has more value than Siakam so I'd need more coming to Boston than just Siakam in that trade and given the other pieces a fair amount more.  And Hauser isn't necessary so I'd take him put of it entirely.

A trade like that made a lot more sense when he had Smart and not Porzingis.  And Toronto doesn't have any smallish contracts on players that would make sense.  If Boston were to acquire Siakam I think it would be a Brogdon based trade with a lot of draft picks.

I agree, more should come to Boston not to Toronto.

Wow, everyone agreeing with Moranis this morning.  I agree also.  There is no longer a fit for Siakam and Brown has more value than him.  If TOR is interested in Brown, I think something like this makes more sense:

Brown + Champagnie
for
Anunoby + Achiuwa + Flynn + Pick

Brown is the best player in the deal but we would bolster our depth at Guard, Wing, and Big.  We could start Anunoby at SG and be a really big line up, or start Brogdon and use Anunoby off the bench.  Not suggesting it is likely and I am not sure I even like it (that is why I included a pick coming back to us), but just an example of how I feel a deal could look.

[BitterJim]

I'm struggling to understand why Siakam on what would be the 2nd largest contract in NBA history would be so much more attractive than Brown on the largest. It would be one thing if Siakam were signed to a smaller contract long-term, but he's gonna be looking for his 5/$260 million max next year. I'd rather pay Brown an extra $8.6 million a year than downgrade our talent (and still have a #2 who thinks he should be a #1).

Adding him to our big 3 and making it an insane big 4? Sign me up (if Wyc will pay for it). But Brown/Tatum/Porzingis looks much better to me than Tatum/Siakam/Porzingis and $8.6 million/year in Wyc's pocket.

[Moranis]

I'm struggling to understand why Siakam on what would be the 2nd largest contract in NBA history would be so much more attractive than Brown on the largest. It would be one thing if Siakam were signed to a smaller contract long-term, but he's gonna be looking for his 5/$260 million max next year. I'd rather pay Brown an extra $8.6 million a year than downgrade our talent (and still have a #2 who thinks he should be a #1).

Adding him to our big 3 and making it an insane big 4? Sign me up (if Wyc will pay for it). But Brown/Tatum/Porzingis looks much better to me than Tatum/Siakam/Porzingis and $8.6 million/year in Wyc's pocket.

I don't know how much a downgrade Siakam actually is and I do think he'd fit better with Tatum.  And 8.6 million is a lot of money that could be used elsewhere, including retaining White (as an example).

Siakam and Brown is actually a good example of how stupid the supermax rules are. Siakam has 2 All NBA Team appearances, a 2nd team in 20 and a 3rd team in 22, yet he can't sign a supermax and Brown can because his 1 2nd team was in 23.  What a dumb rule.  Siakam also has another shot at getting the supermax this year.

To be clear neither is worth 35% and may not be worth 30% either, I'm just saying the rule is dumb.

[A Future of Stevens]

I'm struggling to understand why Siakam on what would be the 2nd largest contract in NBA history would be so much more attractive than Brown on the largest. It would be one thing if Siakam were signed to a smaller contract long-term, but he's gonna be looking for his 5/$260 million max next year. I'd rather pay Brown an extra $8.6 million a year than downgrade our talent (and still have a #2 who thinks he should be a #1).

Adding him to our big 3 and making it an insane big 4? Sign me up (if Wyc will pay for it). But Brown/Tatum/Porzingis looks much better to me than Tatum/Siakam/Porzingis and $8.6 million/year in Wyc's pocket.

I don't know how much a downgrade Siakam actually is and I do think he'd fit better with Tatum.  And 8.6 million is a lot of money that could be used elsewhere, including retaining White (as an example).

Siakam and Brown is actually a good example of how stupid the supermax rules are. Siakam has 2 All NBA Team appearances, a 2nd team in 20 and a 3rd team in 22, yet he can't sign a supermax and Brown can because his 1 2nd team was in 23.  What a dumb rule.  Siakam also has another shot at getting the supermax this year.

To be clear neither is worth 35% and may not be worth 30% either, I'm just saying the rule is dumb.

I have never understood that either. You think it would be something like "within the last 3 years" or something along those lines.
It could really hurt a franchise. Say a once in a generation guy like Lebron gets hurt in his contract year, but all signs point to him being the same player. A team shouldn't be penalized for wanting to throw the bag at their guy.

[Who]

I'm struggling to understand why Siakam on what would be the 2nd largest contract in NBA history would be so much more attractive than Brown on the largest. It would be one thing if Siakam were signed to a smaller contract long-term, but he's gonna be looking for his 5/$260 million max next year. I'd rather pay Brown an extra $8.6 million a year than downgrade our talent (and still have a #2 who thinks he should be a #1).

Adding him to our big 3 and making it an insane big 4? Sign me up (if Wyc will pay for it). But Brown/Tatum/Porzingis looks much better to me than Tatum/Siakam/Porzingis and $8.6 million/year in Wyc's pocket.

I don't know how much a downgrade Siakam actually is and I do think he'd fit better with Tatum.  And 8.6 million is a lot of money that could be used elsewhere, including retaining White (as an example).

Siakam and Brown is actually a good example of how stupid the supermax rules are. Siakam has 2 All NBA Team appearances, a 2nd team in 20 and a 3rd team in 22, yet he can't sign a supermax and Brown can because his 1 2nd team was in 23.  What a dumb rule.  Siakam also has another shot at getting the supermax this year.

To be clear neither is worth 35% and may not be worth 30% either, I'm just saying the rule is dumb.

Already concerns among Raps fans about Siakam's selfishness in gunning for that All-NBA selection to get that super-max payday last season. I imagine they will be even greater this coming season.

[BitterJim]

I'm struggling to understand why Siakam on what would be the 2nd largest contract in NBA history would be so much more attractive than Brown on the largest. It would be one thing if Siakam were signed to a smaller contract long-term, but he's gonna be looking for his 5/$260 million max next year. I'd rather pay Brown an extra $8.6 million a year than downgrade our talent (and still have a #2 who thinks he should be a #1).

Adding him to our big 3 and making it an insane big 4? Sign me up (if Wyc will pay for it). But Brown/Tatum/Porzingis looks much better to me than Tatum/Siakam/Porzingis and $8.6 million/year in Wyc's pocket.

I don't know how much a downgrade Siakam actually is and I do think he'd fit better with Tatum.  And 8.6 million is a lot of money that could be used elsewhere, including retaining White (as an example).

Siakam and Brown is actually a good example of how stupid the supermax rules are. Siakam has 2 All NBA Team appearances, a 2nd team in 20 and a 3rd team in 22, yet he can't sign a supermax and Brown can because his 1 2nd team was in 23.  What a dumb rule.  Siakam also has another shot at getting the supermax this year.

To be clear neither is worth 35% and may not be worth 30% either, I'm just saying the rule is dumb.

I have never understood that either. You think it would be something like "within the last 3 years" or something along those lines.
It could really hurt a franchise. Say a once in a generation guy like Lebron gets hurt in his contract year, but all signs point to him being the same player. A team shouldn't be penalized for wanting to throw the bag at their guy.

The rules consider that situation. Making All-NBA two year in a row means that you still qualify if you miss it the next year (but not after that). Same with DPOY, and then for MVP if you won any of the past 3 years you're eligible.

[Moranis]

I'm struggling to understand why Siakam on what would be the 2nd largest contract in NBA history would be so much more attractive than Brown on the largest. It would be one thing if Siakam were signed to a smaller contract long-term, but he's gonna be looking for his 5/$260 million max next year. I'd rather pay Brown an extra $8.6 million a year than downgrade our talent (and still have a #2 who thinks he should be a #1).

Adding him to our big 3 and making it an insane big 4? Sign me up (if Wyc will pay for it). But Brown/Tatum/Porzingis looks much better to me than Tatum/Siakam/Porzingis and $8.6 million/year in Wyc's pocket.

I don't know how much a downgrade Siakam actually is and I do think he'd fit better with Tatum.  And 8.6 million is a lot of money that could be used elsewhere, including retaining White (as an example).

Siakam and Brown is actually a good example of how stupid the supermax rules are. Siakam has 2 All NBA Team appearances, a 2nd team in 20 and a 3rd team in 22, yet he can't sign a supermax and Brown can because his 1 2nd team was in 23.  What a dumb rule.  Siakam also has another shot at getting the supermax this year.

To be clear neither is worth 35% and may not be worth 30% either, I'm just saying the rule is dumb.

I have never understood that either. You think it would be something like "within the last 3 years" or something along those lines.
It could really hurt a franchise. Say a once in a generation guy like Lebron gets hurt in his contract year, but all signs point to him being the same player. A team shouldn't be penalized for wanting to throw the bag at their guy.

The rules consider that situation. Making All-NBA two year in a row means that you still qualify if you miss it the next year (but not after that). Same with DPOY, and then for MVP if you won any of the past 3 years you're eligible.

if he couldnsign today, Morant wouldn't be eligible for the bump up in tier.  That seems problematic to me. 

[Roy H.]

I'm struggling to understand why Siakam on what would be the 2nd largest contract in NBA history would be so much more attractive than Brown on the largest. It would be one thing if Siakam were signed to a smaller contract long-term, but he's gonna be looking for his 5/$260 million max next year. I'd rather pay Brown an extra $8.6 million a year than downgrade our talent (and still have a #2 who thinks he should be a #1).

Adding him to our big 3 and making it an insane big 4? Sign me up (if Wyc will pay for it). But Brown/Tatum/Porzingis looks much better to me than Tatum/Siakam/Porzingis and $8.6 million/year in Wyc's pocket.

I don't know how much a downgrade Siakam actually is and I do think he'd fit better with Tatum.  And 8.6 million is a lot of money that could be used elsewhere, including retaining White (as an example).

Siakam and Brown is actually a good example of how stupid the supermax rules are. Siakam has 2 All NBA Team appearances, a 2nd team in 20 and a 3rd team in 22, yet he can't sign a supermax and Brown can because his 1 2nd team was in 23.  What a dumb rule.  Siakam also has another shot at getting the supermax this year.

To be clear neither is worth 35% and may not be worth 30% either, I'm just saying the rule is dumb.

I have never understood that either. You think it would be something like "within the last 3 years" or something along those lines.
It could really hurt a franchise. Say a once in a generation guy like Lebron gets hurt in his contract year, but all signs point to him being the same player. A team shouldn't be penalized for wanting to throw the bag at their guy.

The rules consider that situation. Making All-NBA two year in a row means that you still qualify if you miss it the next year (but not after that). Same with DPOY, and then for MVP if you won any of the past 3 years you're eligible.

if he couldnsign today, Morant wouldn't be eligible for the bump up in tier.  That seems problematic to me.

Problematic why?

He's lucky he's made All-NBA once, since that came in a season where he missed 25 games.

Missing it last year and this coming season are due to his own stupidity.

[Celtics2021]

I'm struggling to understand why Siakam on what would be the 2nd largest contract in NBA history would be so much more attractive than Brown on the largest. It would be one thing if Siakam were signed to a smaller contract long-term, but he's gonna be looking for his 5/$260 million max next year. I'd rather pay Brown an extra $8.6 million a year than downgrade our talent (and still have a #2 who thinks he should be a #1).

Adding him to our big 3 and making it an insane big 4? Sign me up (if Wyc will pay for it). But Brown/Tatum/Porzingis looks much better to me than Tatum/Siakam/Porzingis and $8.6 million/year in Wyc's pocket.

I don't know how much a downgrade Siakam actually is and I do think he'd fit better with Tatum.  And 8.6 million is a lot of money that could be used elsewhere, including retaining White (as an example).

Siakam and Brown is actually a good example of how stupid the supermax rules are. Siakam has 2 All NBA Team appearances, a 2nd team in 20 and a 3rd team in 22, yet he can't sign a supermax and Brown can because his 1 2nd team was in 23.  What a dumb rule.  Siakam also has another shot at getting the supermax this year.

To be clear neither is worth 35% and may not be worth 30% either, I'm just saying the rule is dumb.

I have never understood that either. You think it would be something like "within the last 3 years" or something along those lines.
It could really hurt a franchise. Say a once in a generation guy like Lebron gets hurt in his contract year, but all signs point to him being the same player. A team shouldn't be penalized for wanting to throw the bag at their guy.

The rules consider that situation. Making All-NBA two year in a row means that you still qualify if you miss it the next year (but not after that). Same with DPOY, and then for MVP if you won any of the past 3 years you're eligible.

if he couldnsign today, Morant wouldn't be eligible for the bump up in tier.  That seems problematic to me.

Why is that problematic?  He’s earned long-term suspensions in consecutive seasons, which cost him league honors due to reputation, lack of availability, and causing team distractions.  That’s not a 35% max player to me.

[BitterJim]

I'm struggling to understand why Siakam on what would be the 2nd largest contract in NBA history would be so much more attractive than Brown on the largest. It would be one thing if Siakam were signed to a smaller contract long-term, but he's gonna be looking for his 5/$260 million max next year. I'd rather pay Brown an extra $8.6 million a year than downgrade our talent (and still have a #2 who thinks he should be a #1).

Adding him to our big 3 and making it an insane big 4? Sign me up (if Wyc will pay for it). But Brown/Tatum/Porzingis looks much better to me than Tatum/Siakam/Porzingis and $8.6 million/year in Wyc's pocket.

I don't know how much a downgrade Siakam actually is and I do think he'd fit better with Tatum.  And 8.6 million is a lot of money that could be used elsewhere, including retaining White (as an example).

Siakam and Brown is actually a good example of how stupid the supermax rules are. Siakam has 2 All NBA Team appearances, a 2nd team in 20 and a 3rd team in 22, yet he can't sign a supermax and Brown can because his 1 2nd team was in 23.  What a dumb rule.  Siakam also has another shot at getting the supermax this year.

To be clear neither is worth 35% and may not be worth 30% either, I'm just saying the rule is dumb.

I have never understood that either. You think it would be something like "within the last 3 years" or something along those lines.
It could really hurt a franchise. Say a once in a generation guy like Lebron gets hurt in his contract year, but all signs point to him being the same player. A team shouldn't be penalized for wanting to throw the bag at their guy.

The rules consider that situation. Making All-NBA two year in a row means that you still qualify if you miss it the next year (but not after that). Same with DPOY, and then for MVP if you won any of the past 3 years you're eligible.

if he couldnsign today, Morant wouldn't be eligible for the bump up in tier.  That seems problematic to me.

Why is that problematic?  He’s earned long-term suspensions in consecutive seasons, which cost him league honors due to reputation, lack of availability, and causing team distractions.  That’s not a 35% max player to me.

He's only played 4 seasons, so his supermax would only be 30%

[Moranis]

I'm struggling to understand why Siakam on what would be the 2nd largest contract in NBA history would be so much more attractive than Brown on the largest. It would be one thing if Siakam were signed to a smaller contract long-term, but he's gonna be looking for his 5/$260 million max next year. I'd rather pay Brown an extra $8.6 million a year than downgrade our talent (and still have a #2 who thinks he should be a #1).

Adding him to our big 3 and making it an insane big 4? Sign me up (if Wyc will pay for it). But Brown/Tatum/Porzingis looks much better to me than Tatum/Siakam/Porzingis and $8.6 million/year in Wyc's pocket.

I don't know how much a downgrade Siakam actually is and I do think he'd fit better with Tatum.  And 8.6 million is a lot of money that could be used elsewhere, including retaining White (as an example).

Siakam and Brown is actually a good example of how stupid the supermax rules are. Siakam has 2 All NBA Team appearances, a 2nd team in 20 and a 3rd team in 22, yet he can't sign a supermax and Brown can because his 1 2nd team was in 23.  What a dumb rule.  Siakam also has another shot at getting the supermax this year.

To be clear neither is worth 35% and may not be worth 30% either, I'm just saying the rule is dumb.

I have never understood that either. You think it would be something like "within the last 3 years" or something along those lines.
It could really hurt a franchise. Say a once in a generation guy like Lebron gets hurt in his contract year, but all signs point to him being the same player. A team shouldn't be penalized for wanting to throw the bag at their guy.

The rules consider that situation. Making All-NBA two year in a row means that you still qualify if you miss it the next year (but not after that). Same with DPOY, and then for MVP if you won any of the past 3 years you're eligible.

if he couldnsign today, Morant wouldn't be eligible for the bump up in tier.  That seems problematic to me.

Problematic why?

He's lucky he's made All-NBA once, since that came in a season where he missed 25 games.

Missing it last year and this coming season are due to his own stupidity.

ok, then Towns, Young, and Booker. Wouldn't be eligible.  There are plenty of other examples of the ridiculous nature of this rule.