Jeff Van Gundy: I would rather have Butler/ Draymond Green than most max players

[Kuberski1]

I think the general point is don't pay max money to guys who won't provide the value of the money you're putting out.  Obvious case in point is Lebron - we've probably all seen the analyses that his "true worth" is multiples of a max salary in economic terms.  There are others worth the max, but some who make the max are not.  In that case, you're better off paying 8-10-12M to a guy who is worth that amount than paying max to a guy whose only slightly better.

The ideal is to get the superstars....they're more than worth the money.  If not, then the next best route is a larger number of next notch down guys, paid less....e.g. some of the examples cited above.  I'm sure Danny will continue to take his swings at Top 10 guys, as he has in the past (CP3, Love)...but this route has a lower probability of success...everyone wants those guys.  So we may well wind up trying to create a Pistons or Spurs type team, with no Top 10 guys, but some Top 20 or 30 guys, with a very solid 9-10 man rotation.  Will be interesting to see how the next couple of years play out.

(Meanwhile, nurses and teachers struggle to make about 0.5% of those less than max guys....)

[obnoxiousmime]

I think the general point is don't pay max money to guys who won't provide the value of the money you're putting out.  Obvious case in point is Lebron - we've probably all seen the analyses that his "true worth" is multiples of a max salary in economic terms.  There are others worth the max, but some who make the max are not.  In that case, you're better off paying 8-10-12M to a guy who is worth that amount than paying max to a guy whose only slightly better.

The ideal is to get the superstars....they're more than worth the money.  If not, then the next best route is a larger number of next notch down guys, paid less....e.g. some of the examples cited above.  I'm sure Danny will continue to take his swings at Top 10 guys, as he has in the past (CP3, Love)...but this route has a lower probability of success...everyone wants those guys.  So we may well wind up trying to create a Pistons or Spurs type team, with no Top 10 guys, but some Top 20 or 30 guys, with a very solid 9-10 man rotation.  Will be interesting to see how the next couple of years play out.

(Meanwhile, nurses and teachers struggle to make about 0.5% of those less than max guys....)

Right, regardless of max or not max, it's really about getting value for what you are paying. The Hawks are a great example of having every player on their roster outplaying their deal. Horford is only making 12 million/year. Korver is making 6 mil/year. Millsap signed a bargain basement 2 yr/20 million deal. That is outrageous! Forsberg actually wrote about this recently:

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4717114/copy-machine-cs-want-to-soar-like-hawks

The true top superstars are worth more than their deal, but there is a second group of fake stars who get the max due to their not being real top guys available. These guys are dangerous signings, especially if they regress. Look at Joe Johnson or any one of the Nets "superstars." That second max deal which gets into the 17-20 mil/year range can murder your team if that player has was overrated to begin with, had an injury, got old, or just stopped caring.

Not to bring up a controversial subject but Rondo is a good example. Let's just assume he is a tad overrated and also might not age well. On a 12 mil/year deal he is a bargain. On a new max deal taking him into his 30s he could hurt your team's future cap space significantly and limit how good your team can be.

The Green and Bradley signings to me could be seen as "fair" based on comparisons around the league but a team with too many "fair" signings is at a disadvantage to a team getting amazing value for the dollar. Look at the Spurs being able to field an incredibly deep team by getting more production out of their money than the Heat with three stars.

I think that what we saw with the Spurs last year and the league this year is that deep teams that don't have an obvious super-duper star might be able to win a title. I'm fine with Ainge signing guys who aren't necessarily stars to max deals if it's the first max where you get the most value for a guy in his mid to late 20s. It's the second max deal that I would be very careful with. It seems that guys like LeBron, Carmelo, and Wade are slowing down earlier than expected, perhaps we're reaching a point where you need to be especially careful paying a guy in his late 20s to early 30s 20 million/year.

[Fan from VT]

Really good point about "max deal" being a variable term. That first max is like 4-5 years age 24-29 at 15 per year on average or so. That second max is age 29-34 at 20 mill per year or more i think. So the term is not always equal. I mean, joe johnson is not a "max player" now in that he shouldnt be the highest paid guard in the league, but honestly if he were 29 and a free agent and you snagged him for 15 million per year (ie a "max contract" for 1st time free agents) he could be a piece on a contender.

The individual max also sets up an artificial ceiling but also an artificial target. So obviously
Some guys are going to make the same money as lebron and durant who shouldnt, but it is a fair market deal for their talents, its just that the stars are underpaid, relatively speaking. But then there arw guys who get the max who shouldnt, i think because the max gives an artificial target for agents to negotiate toward, and once you get within 1-2 million, why not?

[clover]

Was watching a knicks game the other night and this is what he said . He said he would rather have guys that play 100% the whole games on both ends than most max guys (Love types).  He also mentioned Leonard

These are guys I could see Danny going after and possibly land if he offers big money . I have to say I agree , unless its Marc Gasol, Aldridge types, I would rather have them.

thoughts?

Role players are pretty much worthless without star players.  But when faced with overpaying for a max player and right-paying a good player, then I would pay a role player fairly.  In fact, this comes down to being able to play players what they are worth as much as anything.

SA Spurs are loaded with "role players." One lottery pick on the roster and he's 40.

The end of the rebuild need not be so far.

Parker is not a role player, regardless of where he was picked.

[Jarrin John]

Was watching a knicks game the other night and this is what he said . He said he would rather have guys that play 100% the whole games on both ends than most max guys (Love types).  He also mentioned Leonard

These are guys I could see Danny going after and possibly land if he offers big money . I have to say I agree , unless its Marc Gasol, Aldridge types, I would rather have them.

thoughts?

Role players are pretty much worthless without star players.  But when faced with overpaying for a max player and right-paying a good player, then I would pay a role player fairly.  In fact, this comes down to being able to play players what they are worth as much as anything.

SA Spurs are loaded with "role players." One lottery pick on the roster and he's 40.

The end of the rebuild need not be so far.

Parker is not a role player, regardless of where he was picked.

Sure he is. His role is to score 15 - 20 points somewhat efficiently in 30+ minutes of PT. While they mask his poor D best they can.