Jaylen Brown Supermax

[green_bballers13]

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.

I think you like Trae Young more than consensus because of the #1 thing and an emphasis on offense over defense.

I think KAT is a clown, but an impressively talented offensive player. Jimmy Butler spent 3 minutes with that guy and decided it wasn't going to work.

Devin Booker is an amazing basketball player and will be top 10 in the league (if he isn't already).

I prefer JB and Siakam to either Young or KAT. Booker is the best of the bunch.

[Vermont Green]

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.

I don't agree with Moranis in the general position that Brown isn't that good, that the team is worse with him on the court, and that this contract is going to become an albatross, but I do agree that the rules around supermax contracts are arbitrary and uneven.  Now that there is a "harder" cap, it seems less necessary to have the limits on individual contracts, and the complicated loopholes to get around them.  What the league is headed for is about 50 players getting max or supermax contracts, 50 getting MLE contracts, and everyone else vet min contracts or rookie deals.  I don't see how that is good for the league or the players.

[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.

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

It wasn’t clear to me what max Moranis was talking about since he was saying if Morant could sign a contract today.

[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.

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.

Didn't Towns and Booker sign 4-year 35% max extensions last summer? The only difference comes from the fact that they were eligible with 2 years left instead of 1, so they could only add 4 years

As for Young, he's too... young... to qualify for the 35%, but when he was up for his rookie extension he made All-NBA and got the extra 5%.

I get the point you're trying to make about the rules being stupid and arbitrary (they are), but none of your examples are actually illustrative of it

[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.

Didn't Towns and Booker sign 4-year 35% max extensions last summer? The only difference comes from the fact that they were eligible with 2 years left instead of 1, so they could only add 4 years

As for Young, he's too... young... to qualify for the 35%, but when he was up for his rookie extension he made All-NBA and got the extra 5%.

I get the point you're trying to make about the rules being stupid and arbitrary (they are), but none of your examples are actually illustrative of it

Sure it is.  Why should Booker have been eligible last summer, but not this summer?  It is arbitrary and stupid.  If Brown had made the All NBA 2 seasons ago and not last season, he wouldn't be eligible.  That is just dumb.  And frankly, I think having it be 1 All NBA Team of any level is dumb.  If you want to jump a tier make the 1st team or do it twice. That seems far more reasonable and makes it far more likely it isn't just a fluke.

[johnnygreen]

Making at least two All NBA teams should be the bare minimum to qualify for the supermax. In any given year, a really good player could make an All NBA Team simply because some elite players missed games due to injuries or player management and don't meet the minimum games requirement.

[johnnygreen]

Double post

[footey]

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.

Didn't Towns and Booker sign 4-year 35% max extensions last summer? The only difference comes from the fact that they were eligible with 2 years left instead of 1, so they could only add 4 years

As for Young, he's too... young... to qualify for the 35%, but when he was up for his rookie extension he made All-NBA and got the extra 5%.

I get the point you're trying to make about the rules being stupid and arbitrary (they are), but none of your examples are actually illustrative of it

Sure it is.  Why should Booker have been eligible last summer, but not this summer?  It is arbitrary and stupid.  If Brown had made the All NBA 2 seasons ago and not last season, he wouldn't be eligible.  That is just dumb.  And frankly, I think having it be 1 All NBA Team of any level is dumb.  If you want to jump a tier make the 1st team or do it twice. That seems far more reasonable and makes it far more likely it isn't just a fluke.

Celtics could have used you at the CBA negotiations!

I'm stunned by how a union most of whose members don't at all benefit from the higher caps for the max guys vote to approve this.  Seems there should be lower caps so more $$ is spent on the other players.   I know it's a star driven league, but if every player has the same vote, I don't understand why they don't push back against this.  Maybe the owners could agree to give a couple of percentage points of profit sharing as trade off.  It just stinks that the stars eat up most of the payroll.

[BitterJim]

Making at least two All NBA teams should be the bare minimum to qualify for the supermax. In any given year, a really good player could make an All NBA Team simply because some elite players missed games due to injuries or player management and don't meet the minimum games requirement.

It should probably change depending on whether you're trying to get the 30%, 35%, or 40% supermax. But really, it shouldn't be based on media votes.

If KAT or Booker had tens of millions of dollars on the line, I would bet that 1. They would have tried to play/score more and 2. Some voters would have been less likely to leave them off their ballots since they don't want to "cost" the player all of that money.

I don't know if a better system that doesn't just end up with all players asking for the supermax, though

[JSD]

Making at least two All NBA teams should be the bare minimum to qualify for the supermax. In any given year, a really good player could make an All NBA Team simply because some elite players missed games due to injuries or player management and don't meet the minimum games requirement.

The challenge with the supermax contract lies in its tendency to place an immense burden on the team that offers it, rather than providing a genuine advantage. It would be more beneficial if only 50% of the supermax contract were considered in relation to the salary cap or a similar adjustment. Such an approach would ensure a win-win situation for all parties involved.

[Kernewek]

Making at least two All NBA teams should be the bare minimum to qualify for the supermax. In any given year, a really good player could make an All NBA Team simply because some elite players missed games due to injuries or player management and don't meet the minimum games requirement.

The challenge with the supermax contract lies in its tendency to place an immense burden on the team that offers it, rather than providing a genuine advantage. It would be more beneficial if only 50% of the supermax contract were considered in relation to the salary cap or a similar adjustment. Such an approach would ensure a win-win situation for all parties involved.

We’ve already gone around all the benefits of the super max, but I still find it funny that there are prominent voices in sports-adjacent media who believe that anything that forces teams to be in any way competent when it comes to roster management is somehow an “immense burden”.

[obnoxiousmime]

Making at least two All NBA teams should be the bare minimum to qualify for the supermax. In any given year, a really good player could make an All NBA Team simply because some elite players missed games due to injuries or player management and don't meet the minimum games requirement.

The challenge with the supermax contract lies in its tendency to place an immense burden on the team that offers it, rather than providing a genuine advantage. It would be more beneficial if only 50% of the supermax contract were considered in relation to the salary cap or a similar adjustment. Such an approach would ensure a win-win situation for all parties involved.

I doubt the owners would ever allow any kind of salary that isn't reflected 1:1 in the cap. That would be a slippery slope where owners would end up spending more because some of the salary isn't being counted. Also, the big-market teams that draft well would just have more of an advantage in keeping their guys but not having to spend that much in taxes like they do now.

If you go back to just the regular max and further limit what the top stars are making, they will just go back to teaming up and leaving their original teams with not much in return, because the money's all the same to them. At least now the teams locking up the stars on supermaxes have some leverage in a trade and can get something back.

[jmen788]

Making at least two All NBA teams should be the bare minimum to qualify for the supermax. In any given year, a really good player could make an All NBA Team simply because some elite players missed games due to injuries or player management and don't meet the minimum games requirement.

The challenge with the supermax contract lies in its tendency to place an immense burden on the team that offers it, rather than providing a genuine advantage. It would be more beneficial if only 50% of the supermax contract were considered in relation to the salary cap or a similar adjustment. Such an approach would ensure a win-win situation for all parties involved.

I doubt the owners would ever allow any kind of salary that isn't reflected 1:1 in the cap. That would be a slippery slope where owners would end up spending more because some of the salary isn't being counted. Also, the big-market teams that draft well would just have more of an advantage in keeping their guys but not having to spend that much in taxes like they do now.

If you go back to just the regular max and further limit what the top stars are making, they will just go back to teaming up and leaving their original teams with not much in return, because the money's all the same to them. At least now the teams locking up the stars on supermaxes have some leverage in a trade and can get something back.

I am sure I will get "corrected" but I just find it crazy how fast NBA salaries have skyrocketed... the fact JB on a 5-yr contract will get almost what Raffy Devers gets over 10 years is just wild. Seems overboard.

[Moranis]

Making at least two All NBA teams should be the bare minimum to qualify for the supermax. In any given year, a really good player could make an All NBA Team simply because some elite players missed games due to injuries or player management and don't meet the minimum games requirement.

The challenge with the supermax contract lies in its tendency to place an immense burden on the team that offers it, rather than providing a genuine advantage. It would be more beneficial if only 50% of the supermax contract were considered in relation to the salary cap or a similar adjustment. Such an approach would ensure a win-win situation for all parties involved.

I doubt the owners would ever allow any kind of salary that isn't reflected 1:1 in the cap. That would be a slippery slope where owners would end up spending more because some of the salary isn't being counted. Also, the big-market teams that draft well would just have more of an advantage in keeping their guys but not having to spend that much in taxes like they do now.

If you go back to just the regular max and further limit what the top stars are making, they will just go back to teaming up and leaving their original teams with not much in return, because the money's all the same to them. At least now the teams locking up the stars on supermaxes have some leverage in a trade and can get something back.

I am sure I will get "corrected" but I just find it crazy how fast NBA salaries have skyrocketed... the fact JB on a 5-yr contract will get almost what Raffy Devers gets over 10 years is just wild. Seems overboard.

I mean Bird in his entire career made less than 26 million. 

[gouki88]

Making at least two All NBA teams should be the bare minimum to qualify for the supermax. In any given year, a really good player could make an All NBA Team simply because some elite players missed games due to injuries or player management and don't meet the minimum games requirement.

The challenge with the supermax contract lies in its tendency to place an immense burden on the team that offers it, rather than providing a genuine advantage. It would be more beneficial if only 50% of the supermax contract were considered in relation to the salary cap or a similar adjustment. Such an approach would ensure a win-win situation for all parties involved.

I doubt the owners would ever allow any kind of salary that isn't reflected 1:1 in the cap. That would be a slippery slope where owners would end up spending more because some of the salary isn't being counted. Also, the big-market teams that draft well would just have more of an advantage in keeping their guys but not having to spend that much in taxes like they do now.

If you go back to just the regular max and further limit what the top stars are making, they will just go back to teaming up and leaving their original teams with not much in return, because the money's all the same to them. At least now the teams locking up the stars on supermaxes have some leverage in a trade and can get something back.

I am sure I will get "corrected" but I just find it crazy how fast NBA salaries have skyrocketed... the fact JB on a 5-yr contract will get almost what Raffy Devers gets over 10 years is just wild. Seems overboard.

I mean Bird in his entire career made less than 26 million.

Kobe’s career earnings were approx. $320m - Anthony Edwards may earn $260m in his next contract alone.