The suns have offered a less than max deal to Joe

[Admin]

Johnson, at least according to the hoopshype rumors page this morning. That could become very interesting. I wouldnt be shocked at all to see us offer him a max deal since he has the ability to play the point. If we did, would Phoenix match? I would have thought yes before, but if they offered less than the max, maybe not.

[mrhonline]

We have to offer the max, if not for anything other than to force their hand.

It might be good enough to just threaten to...

[Lascar78]

Well really, when you think about it, why should they offer him the max? Worst case scenario, somebody else does, and they match. They're just trying to get him for cheaper.

So basically, I think they will match but I think we should try to make a play for him anyhow. With the new 1 week offers, I expect us to make plays at plenty of players and get turned down by most

[Nicholasp27]

of COURSE they offered less than the max

why would they outbid themselves?

they put out a bid that saves them money but is hopefully (for them) high enough that no team will try to go over it...if they do, they match and don't get the bargain price...if not, they get a good deal

[Admin]

why waste the time putting together a lowball offer, which has probably pissed Johnson off? How many times do teams offer lowball offers to players that they want to keep, knowing that there is a really great chance that some other team is going to offer him more. The only way I could buy your theory is if they really dont think anyone will offer more. Just seems like a waste of time and resources and something that will put Johnson off towards the team.

[capstone21]

WHo says it is really a low ball offer, they offered what they probably thought he was worth. I wouldn't offer a max if I was them unless my hand is forced, and even then I might let him walk. JJ is not a max player. That is the problem with the NBA, too many good and average players are getting max contracts. THe max should be reserved for the special players like Garnett, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe etc. Not a player like JJ although a really good player he is not even a star, let alone a superstar.

[Nicholasp27]

he is a RESTRICTED FA

mil HAD to offer redd the max cause he is unrestricted

but phoenix gets to match anything, so again, WHY outbid yourself?

we don't know the terms, but i'm willing to bet it wasn't a 'lowball offer' that would piss him off...as long as it was at least, say, 10mil or so, then he can't really hold resentment towards the team...if someone outbids them, they match...if they don't, they got a sale...johnson doesn't get mad unless it's an outrageously low-ball offer

[mrhonline]

It really depends on how many years Phoenix offered him. If they offered less money, but offered six years, they probably offered more than anyone else could anyway.

Still, I think the Hawks and others should threaten to offer the max.

[Lascar78]

yeah I agree. It's a business. When a team makes an offer to a player and he asks for more, the team doesn't get upset, it's a business negotiation. I'm sure JJ understands what they're doing. Such is the life of a RFA. At the end of the day, he's getting paid whether it's max or not, and they made it clear when they traded QRich that they wanted him back.

[Final_quest]

Quote:

---

JJ is not a max player. That is the problem with the NBA, too many good and average players are getting max contracts. THe max should be reserved for the special players like Garnett, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe etc. Not a player like JJ although a really good player he is not even a star, let alone a superstar.

---

I don't agree with this perspective at all. I feel like the willingness for teams to sign players to the max just means that the ceiling for salaries is too low.

I think the NBA has fooled the fans into thinking the players are just greedy and all the good ones think they are the best of the best and want the max salary. The problem is salaries were much higher before the CBA.

When a team can have 3 or 4 players signed to max or near max numbers what does that tell you? If the max is only for "special" players than teams should only be able to afford one max contract. That is not what we've seen. If teams can afford to pay the salaries, how could these players be over paid?

[AHF]

Quote:

---

JJ is not a max player. That is the problem with the NBA, too many good and average players are getting max contracts. THe max should be reserved for the special players like Garnett, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe etc. Not a player like JJ although a really good player he is not even a star, let alone a superstar.

---

I agree that JJ is not worth over 10 million per year. He is the fourth best player on his own team and not a difference-maker. He is a nice 2G with a good shot, good size and good defense. He is not a franchise player, though, IMO. I also don't think he can effectively run the point (although he would be fine in a system like the Bulls had were Ron Harper was the supposed PG).

Quote:

---

If teams can afford to pay the salaries, how could these players be over paid?

---

Look at Dikembe Mutombo last season. Teams could afford to pay him 18 million dollars and they in fact did. Yet he was grossly overpaid. If you are making the argument that teams are willing to pay these contracts therefore no one in the league is overpaid then that is a bit of circular logic under which no player would ever be overpaid (or underpaid if the player accepted anything less than the maximum he could receive under the CBA).

[Final_quest]

Quote:

---

Look at Dikembe Mutombo last season. Teams could afford to pay him 18 million dollars and they in fact did. Yet he was grossly overpaid. If you are making the argument that teams are willing to pay these contracts therefore no one in the league is overpaid then that is a bit of circular logic under which no player would ever be overpaid (or underpaid if the player accepted anything less than the maximum he could receive under the CBA).

---

I'm not saying that a player is never overpaid. I'm just saying that teams sign players that they know will not be a superstar to max contracts and are fine with it.

Consider Kmart last year. I don't think Denver was under the illusion that he was going to make it to the level of Tim Duncan, but they signed him anyways. Just because he is signed to the largest amount possible does not mean that the team believes he is a top 5 or top 10 player in the league.

What the max contract does is prevents a team from signing a Brian Grant or Allan Houston to a ridiculous contract, but it also prevents a Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett from getting paid what they are worth. In a sense it gives a team an unfair advantage if they have a top 5 player getting paid what a mid range star should get paid.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

What the max contract does is prevents a team from signing a Brian Grant or Allan Houston to a ridiculous contract, but it also prevents a Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett from getting paid what they are worth. In a sense it gives a team an unfair advantage if they have a top 5 player getting paid what a mid range star should get paid.

---

It isn't stopping Garnett since he predates the max contract CBA but I agree with your basic sentiment on the fact that top 5 players paid under the current restrictions will be underpaid. In the 1980s this structure would have left MJ and Clyde with the same salary and could have had clearly lesser players like Kevin Johnson with the same salary as Magic.

[Admin]

its an arguement that we on this board could have all day long. I dont believe that someone who is as limited as Michael Redd should make anywhere near as much as he does, while I also dont believe that a Garnett, Shaq, Kobe, etc. should be making quite what they do either. The problem isnt that the best players arent paid nearly enough, the problem is that the mid level stars are paid way, way too much.

[Final_quest]

Yes we could argue about this all day, and since that's what a basketball message board is for I have no problem doing it.

It's amazing that after seeing Jordan getting paid 25-30 million back in the day, people believe that paying Tim Duncan $14 million is too much. If a player can generate revenues greater than their salary they are worth their salary. I'm sure the owners are making huge profits off of Tim Duncan. Just because he makes a lot of money does not mean he is overpaid.

How much money do you think the city of San Antonio makes during a championship playoff run? Tim Duncan makes that possible.

In the case of Michael Redd there are maybe 2 other players available this offseason comparable to him, that's why he is getting a max contract. No one else is available to do what he does this offseason.

[Admin]

Well I damn sure dont believe that any athlete is worth that much money and Jordan was no exception. I think that its a crime that athletes get paid so much money when compared to people who actually make a difference in this country, like soldiers, teachers, fireman, policemen, etc. Not saying that athletes shouldnt get paid well, but come on, can you honestly say that they earn $300k for 48 minutes of work (just throwing out a number there), plus practice time?

I do agree that Duncan is worth every penny that Jordan was worth because they are the biggest type of basketball superstar that there can be, but they still arent worth $25, or even $10 million per season.

Think about it this way. I can only speak for myself, but at the advertising agency I work for, I get paid about 15-20% per hour that I am actually billed out at and that is because I am not the owner of the company and I dont have a huge investment in the companies success, yet I am still the head of my department and the most cost efficient employee in the company, much like Tim Duncan is.

Now, if you take into consideration their endorsement deals, their salary, etc. that they make, I bet its probably more than 15-20% of the money they generate for their company, in this case, the Spurs. I could be wrong since I dont know the exact numbers, but if Duncan is making $20 million per season (salary, endorsements, etc. and again just guessing at that number) I bet that is easily more than 15-20% of the money that the Spurs bring in annually. Anyone care to look up that number for sure? That would be anywhere from $300-400 million per year.

Anyways, my point is that athletes in general are extremely overpaid, ticket costs are way too much, and there isnt nearly enough difference between the elite players (Duncan) and the plain and simple stars (Redd).

[Final_quest]

So would you be OK with the owners pocketing the extra cash, since the players don't deserve it.

Do you know the economic impact Michael Jordan had on the world? We're talking possibly billions of dollars. How is he not worth a $25 million dollar salary.

I was in the Philippines in 1999. The kids all had Bulls hats and Jordan jerseys in a 3rd world country. I don't think you understand the kind of money and interest that athletes create.

[Admin]

when it comes to his SALARY. I am fine with athletes going out and getting endorsement deals, acting gigs, etc. because of their celebrity status, but we as fans shouldnt have to put up with increased prices that are so high the average family cant attend games very often just so that player can get more money.

And yes, if anyone should pocket the extra money it should be the owners. I know some of you will disagree with that, but hell they are the ones paying the players, they are the ones taking the financial risk of being owners, they are the ones that deserve to be rewarded for making a good investment. Now, I think that they should turn that money around and put it into the stadium, the locker rooms, etc, but I dont think the players should get some drastic increase in salary because of it.

[Sage11]

I agree, why outbid yourself? Other teams will push his price up, the suns will sit back and wait, if other teams do not push his price up, they have him for less than the max. Good business move.

[Final_quest]

If all the fans were like me perhaps ticket prices would come down. I rarely go to the games because of that fact.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think the players deserve whatever the owners are willing to pay for them, regardless of how much time they put into their job.

Actors are getting paid more for a movie than most athletes make in a season. There is only one Tom Cruise, and only one Tim Duncan. They make the owners profits possible, and if owners want to pay them $25 million for a film or season I think they are worth it. We'll just have to disagree.