The Stupidity of Max Contracts in the NBA
We supposedly live in a capitalistic society. You get paid what you're worth. However, that's not the case in the NBA. In the NBA, the amount of time you have spent in the league dictates the amount of money that you are eligible to sign for. For example, players with 0-6 years of experience are eligible to sign for 25% of the salary cap, players with 7-9 years can ink for 30%, and players with 10 years or more of experience are eligible to sign for up to 35% of the salary cap. For some context, the salary cap this past season was $94 million. Regardless of a player's talent-level or relative worth, the absolute maximum that a player could've earn this past season was just under $31 million. Don't get me wrong, that is nothing to sneeze at, but in no world should Mike Conley be making anywhere near the money that LeBron James makes.
I am here to say that the NBA should abolish max contracts. Allow teams to pay players what they feel that they are worth. There are several reasons why this would enhance the NBA's product, but before I delve into those let's look at the other major sports. In the NFL, there is no maximum salary, ditto for the MLB and the NHL. You are paid what you're worth, or at least what teams feel you're worth. The irony in all of this is that out of the four major leagues, an NBA player has the most significant impact on the outcome of games. In football, where a team has 22 starters, one player is less than 5% of his team's starting unit. In hockey, the best player glides around in 20 second increments, and plays in maybe 1/3 of the entire game. In baseball, you get four at-bats or you pitch every fifth day. Yet in all of these sports there is no ceiling to the amount of money one can earn. But in basketball where you are one of five players on the court, and can in theory affect every single possession, there is a limit to the amount of money that you can earn. It's actually mind-boggling if you really think about it.
Here's are some reasons the NBA should scrap max contracts.
1. It would disperse the talent across the league. By eliminating max contracts, each team would be able to entice desirable players because they could offer them more money than another team that already has a superstar talent on their books. For example, right now no one REALLY wants to play in Brooklyn. I mean let's be honest, they are putrid, and will be for the foreseeable future. But doesn't that suddenly change when they can all of a sudden offer "insert superstar" $50 million a year (or more) for their services? I think it does. This would make all NBA games watchable because each team would have a player that fans want to see. Right now, there are only a handful of games that the casual fan will sit down and watch. Let's try something. Name a single player on each of the following teams: Charlotte Hornets, Detroit Pistons, Orlando Magic, Brooklyn Nets, Sacramento Kings, Phoenix Suns. Now, I have listed seven teams (nearly 25% of the league), and I would mortgage my house (if I had one) that less than a handful of casual fans could accurately name a player from each of those seven teams. In my opinion that's a problem for the league. There should be no irrelevant franchises, and by doing away with max contracts, we would be making major strides in that direction.
2. It would eliminate super teams. Do you really think Steph Curry and Kevin Durant would settle for $30 million when they would have offers of $50, $60, $70 million on the table? Maybe if they value winning that much, but I would go 0-82 before I turned down $40 million per year. I think many players feel the same way. Let me say this: It was great to see the construction of a few super teams; Miami was nice with Wade, Bosh and LeBron, Golden State is neat with their array of weapons, but are these powerhouses really good for the NBA? I would argue no, especially if the games are so noncompetitive. By eliminating max contracts, super teams would be unlikely to form and competitive balance would return to the NBA.
3. The strategic element would be absolutely fascinating. With a salary cap of $100 million, how much should you give LeBron? Do you pay him $90 million and fill out the remaining roster spots with only $10 million, or do you try and get him to take $50 million so you can surround him with competent teammates? I am not sure the answer to that question, but general managers and front offices would have to make tough decisions such as this. The discrepancy in player values would differ drastically from team to team creating fascinating talking points. Look at Russell Westbrook. Other than LeBron, he might be the most polarizing player in the NBA. But unlike LeBron his value is often debated. Is Russ a winner? Or is he just a stat-chaser? I bet some teams would value him at $20 million, while others might go as high as $60 or $70 million. Just thinking about these scenarios in which max contracts don't exist makes my mind race with all of the endless possibilities.
When you lay it all out on the table, max contracts make zero sense. Pay people what they are worth. The NBA should unquestionably ax max contracts. It would add greater intrigue to the sport as it would scatter talent, eliminate super teams, and it would certainly make the decisions of front offices all the more interesting. There is a ton that the NBA is doing right, the max contract situation is not one of them. Fix it!
