Who is worth the maximum then?

[Duke of Oysters]

You must be registered for see images

Let's look at this another way.

Is Amare worth the max? Who is then?

Definitely:
LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Duncan, Garnett

I don't see too many people arguing against them (except maybe Duncan because of age and Garnett because of injuries?)

Then we got Dirk, Dwight Howard, Paul Pierce, Yao, Brandon Roy, Chris Paul, Gasol, Carmelo, Bosh, and Deron Williams.
(feel free to add anyone else)

Are any of them worth the max to you? the NBA salaries reminds me of REI ... whatever I think the price is, it's two to three times more.

if we compare Amare against the first five, he's not worth it. But compared to the second group of - which many are earning the max, he has a point.

You must be registered for see images

 

[jandaman]

Age, Injury history, Potential, Team Impact, Marketing....

LeBron James...


Other examples, Kobe Bryant (2001-2007), Tim Duncan (2000-2007), Kevin Garnett (1999-2006).

The rest are OVERPAID!!!!

Dwight Howard is 50/50, but he's close to LeBron James, because of his age and potential still.

Chris Paul/Deron Williams etc, small players, are tier 2 on same level as current Bryant... IMO.. But I wouldnt complain if they both get similar money as Howard... but not James.


Stoudemire is 12-15M in today's market... a few years back with his current impact he'd be 20M, but overpaying was a trend then.

I think NOW.... a new bargaining era begins, impact players are taking lower than expected contracts and in combination of the reduced CAP room.... I expect a standard (overpaid) 20M contract a few years ago is about 15M today.

 

[pokerface]

Amare is worth the max...just not to us. Amare is a second option player...he is not to be built around. He is pretty much a one dimensional player that needs a supporting cast to cover up for his weaknesses.

PLUS

One can NEVER overlook his knee(s). If Amare was to be our franchise player he'd not only have to improve his overall game but would have to be healthy and dependable enough to be considered reliable.

 

[PDXChris]

Age, Injury history, Potential, Team Impact, Marketing....

LeBron James...


Other examples, Kobe Bryant (2001-2007), Tim Duncan (2000-2007), Kevin Garnett (1999-2006).

The rest are OVERPAID!!!!

Dwight Howard is 50/50, but he's close to LeBron James, because of his age and potential still.

Chris Paul/Deron Williams etc, small players, are tier 2 on same level as current Bryant... IMO.. But I wouldnt complain if they both get similar money as Howard... but not James.


Stoudemire is 12-15M in today's market... a few years back with his current impact he'd be 20M, but overpaying was a trend then.

I think NOW.... a new bargaining era begins, impact players are taking lower than expected contracts and in combination of the reduced CAP room.... I expect a standard (overpaid) 20M contract a few years ago is about 15M today.

I agree with all of that. I would not blame a team if they game Wade the max though.

 

[Treesquid PhD]

Yes it's pretty subjective, overpayment is essentially anything over the normal expectations of the common and often stupid fan.

Basically, max could be $500,000 and a lot of fans would have issues with the contract just because it's a max deal. So it's all relative, really though why do fans care what a player makes? Outside of being a wannabe capologist who gives a damn what Sarver has to shell out? The Phoenix Suns will still charge you $8.00 for a beer regardless of their payroll.

Really what it comes down to is do fans like the player, that's why Eric Byres got a huge deal, that's why players like Amundsen will syphon more money than they will actually ever produce, feelings.

The "sellout" is another one fans get all worked up about, similar concept, same psychological response.

 

[cly2tw]

market will give Amare a max deal if he proves his health is no big concern. market gave Redd, Carter, Lewis, Pierce, Allen, etc all max deals.

 

[carey]

The market has shrunk since then. But... he'll still probably get it as lots of teams will have money next year and NEED to make a splash. Including the Suns.

 

[Ollie]

Who's deserving a max contract ? A superstar leading a contender: Bryant, James, Duncan, Pierce and Garnett. Maybe Wade and Howard. That's it. These guys are not overpaid because they delivered championships or will do.

And I care because I don't want to see the Suns stuck with an injury prone second tier star eating a third of their salary cap for 5 or 6 years, thus destroying any ability to improve. I'm a Suns fan, not a Stoudemire fan.

 

[elindholm]

Asking what a player is "worth" is the wrong question. If you don't want to pay him, don't. A new BMW might be worth $40,000, because that's what someone will pay for it. But if you don't want that BMW, it makes no difference to you what it's worth to someone else. Spend your money elsewhere.

 

[Duke of Oysters]

Asking what a player is "worth" is the wrong question. If you don't want to pay him, don't. A new BMW might be worth $40,000, because that's what someone will pay for it. But if you don't want that BMW, it makes no difference to you what it's worth to someone else. Spend your money elsewhere.

I see where you're coming from. But that would mean we can't complain about Sarver's spending anymore because he's just spending his money the way he wants to.

NBA salaries are absurdly high. When Sarver bought the Suns, he also bought into these NBA prices.

 

[elindholm]

But that would mean we can't complain about Sarver's spending anymore because he's just spending his money the way he wants to.

I don't follow you.

NBA salaries are absurdly high. When Sarver bought the Suns, he also bought into these NBA prices.

The money should still be spent. It just doesn't have to be spent on Stoudemire, nor within a particular summer. The options aren't "Stoudemire or nothing." They are "Stoudemire, or someone else, or other someone elses."

 

[Duke of Oysters]

I don't follow you.



The money should still be spent. It just doesn't have to be spent on Stoudemire, nor within a particular summer. The options aren't "Stoudemire or nothing." They are "Stoudemire, or someone else, or other someone elses."

IF Sarver doesn't want to pay 40,000 on a Mercedes, I have no right to complain.

If Sarver doesn't want to pay for a first round draft pick, I have no right to complain.

 

[elindholm]

IF Sarver doesn't want to pay 40,000 on a Mercedes, I have no right to complain.

If Sarver doesn't want to pay for a first round draft pick, I have no right to complain.

I guess you're trying to be sarcastic by drawing a parallel between these two statements, but that argument makes no sense. A first-round draft pick can't be replaced. A big-salaried player can be replaced, unless it's one of the very few best in the league, which everyone agrees Stoudemire is not.

 

[Covert Rain]

IF Sarver doesn't want to pay 40,000 on a Mercedes, I have no right to complain.

If Sarver doesn't want to pay for a first round draft pick, I have no right to complain.

That makes zero sense. The Mercedes doesn't have fans supporting it (not including the buyer). The Mercedes doesn't rely on the loyalty of fans (outside the buyer). The buyer doesn't ask fans to support his purchase. The buyer doesn't ask fans to buy accessories or merchandise related to his purchase.

The Suns are a product being sold to the fans. The Suns are a product that needs support of the fans. The Suns are a product that ultimately fans are being asked to support by purchasing merchandise related to that product. We have every right to complain about a product that we are vested in. Fan money goes directly to the bottom line of the franchise.

One of the worst analogies....ever. I hope you were being sarcastic.

 

[TigToad]

A many time all-star is worth the max deal. However, a team better be extremely sure of the player they are offering that max deal to. If that player is injury prone, or doesn't always play 100%, or simply is on the decline of his career, that max deal becomes a cancer which can destroy a franchise for several years.

Amare is too high a risk to be a max player. There are not very many players i would be comfortable giving a max deal to.

 

[Treesquid PhD]

A many time all-star is worth the max deal. However, a team better be extremely sure of the player they are offering that max deal to. If that player is injury prone, or doesn't always play 100%, or simply is on the decline of his career, that max deal becomes a cancer which can destroy a franchise for several years.

Amare is too high a risk to be a max player. There are not very many players i would be comfortable giving a max deal to.

That's fair, but let's not kid ourselves, teams that are so picky on what stars they are willing to pay are not good teams in the long run.

So while your team is waiting for Mr. Perfect no risk and super high reward, your team is sucking or will suck after a very brief period of success.

Btw, Sarver used this risk adverse formula on Joe Johnson too.

Even worse, IMO is the I am going to pay a lot of really average players the equivalent of one big star and be painfully average and inflexible. But hey everyone loved Tony Delk and Rodney Rodgers.

 

[Ryanwb]

Frank Stallone

 

[elindholm]

That's fair, but let's not kid ourselves, teams that are so picky on what stars they are willing to pay are not good teams in the long run.

Huh? The best teams are the ones who are picky. Just throwing a bunch of big contracts together rarely produces an elite team.

In fact, it's very difficult to find a case of a bad contract signing that didn't hurt its team long-term, except for the unlimited payroll teams like New York and Dallas. Orlando, for example, overpaid horribly for Rashard Lewis, and now it has cost them Turkoglu and panicked them into the high-risk, low-reward acquisition of Vince Carter. The Suns, meanwhile, are still digging themselves out from the hole of overpaying Marion several years ago.

 

[Duke of Oysters]

That makes zero sense. The Mercedes doesn't have fans supporting it (not including the buyer). The Mercedes doesn't rely on the loyalty of fans (outside the buyer). The buyer doesn't ask fans to support his purchase. The buyer doesn't ask fans to buy accessories or merchandise related to his purchase.

The Suns are a product being sold to the fans. The Suns are a product that needs support of the fans. The Suns are a product that ultimately fans are being asked to support by purchasing merchandise related to that product. We have every right to complain about a product that we are vested in. Fan money goes directly to the bottom line of the franchise.

One of the worst analogies....ever. I hope you were being sarcastic.

Hey, I'm just thinking aloud. Perhaps, it's not my best analogy but follow me here and see if I got something.

We have the right to complain about the way the Suns operate. We have a right to complain about a lot of things. I'm not arguing that. I just wondering aloud why we complain so much about how the Suns operate.

The difference between the Mercedes and Suns fan is that they just buy different stuff but both entities need to sell something to their customers. A Mercedes customer/fan buys Mercedes merchandise. A Suns customer/fan buys Suns merchandise. We may or may not be Mercedes fans, but we're both Suns fans so that's why we complain about them.

 

[Mainstreet]

We have the right to complain about the way the Suns operate. We have a right to complain about a lot of things. I'm not arguing that. I just wondering aloud why we complain so much about how the Suns operate.

One of the primary principles of marketing is pleasing the customer. If the customer is not pleased with the product they have a right to complain and/or have the problem corrected. The way the Suns operate impacts the customer, thus their right to complain. If the Suns ignore the wants of the customer it is to their peril. Sooner or later if the customer is not pleased with the product the company fails or suffers significant loss (attendance, etc.) and the customer moves on.

 

[dodie53]

LBJ,
wade