Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
My standard is usually - if this player was on the open market, how much would other teams pay to acquire him?
Flip side to that is - if this free agent was already on my team, how much would I pay to keep him?
Lauri re-signs for 5 years 238 million
- Thread starter zyzz
- Start date
Flip side to that is - if this free agent was already on my team, how much would I pay to keep him?
Good thing the salary cap goes up every year.
I would say he's borderline, and so would the general consensus. His archetype is favorable in the sense that he fits every team, but I don't necessarily think non creating offensive players are the archetype for max players.
I want to make it clear that I think this is a good deal for us, better than just letting him walk. But there is a conversation to be had about the new CBA and how max contracts fit into that.
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
I like that you have a reasoning for this, but I’m curious - which NBA players would you say are actually worth a max contract?
I’d love to know who you think fits this new paradigm and why. Let’s start the conversation.
For me personally, you can max a special talent at PG or center (Curry, Wemby, or Jokic are good examples) but my preference for team-building almost always revolves around dynamic wings and forwards to build around.
Yes, a classic Kqwin post where you say nothing
You just choose to ignore the things I say and instead try to do a personal insult. That for sure says a lot
That is not how this works.
And technically, he took less than the full max anyway.
Wonder why the Athletic/Tony Jones/Shams haven't put out a story on the signing yet. They where the ones who reported it would happen yesterday, but I still thought they would have an official story for when it actually happened. Nothing from Tony on the signing on socials either.
Crickets from Andy Larsen and the Trib as well
Crickets from Andy Larsen and the Trib as well
Shams might have had a rough idea about what was going down but not the full detail.
He got the 200m amount wrong yesterday.
Woj clearly won this round.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5686067/2024/08/07/lauri-markkanen-jazz-contract-extension-meaning/
After I said that the Athletic article drops
I still think the most important thing is the caliber of player of the type of player. An interesting spot to look at is Ingram. It seems like most of the league is skeptical about giving him a full max, otherwise he'd have a much bigger trade market. While no one seems to want to give it to him right now, it seems as though he's holding out thinking he will eventually get one next summer. He's a great example of a guy who would be a no questions asked max guy in the last CBA, but not this CBA. I think David Griffin has actually come out and said that Ingram would have been full maxed in the old CBA.
Ingram is a popular trade idea around here....but it makes you think, what is the Jazz situation like with Ingram and Lauri on (close to) max contracts? I think that in the previous CBA, you could feasibly see small market teams like the Jazz having 3 big contracts on the books. Nowadays, I don't think that's possible unless you're really barebones around those three guys.
Anyways, back to your question...I think it's easier to start the conversation with who is obvious. The elite of the elite are obviously no brainers. I also think guys who consistently make all star teams are no brainers. Guys like Mitchell/Booker who aren't necessarily elite but are most likely going to make the all star team are no brainers. I think guys the are borderline all star is an interesting conversation. I think for the most part they will always find teams to give them a max, and therefore it will take a max to keep them. Guys like Lauri/Fox are in this category. They will yield a max (or close to it).....but I think those contracts come at some non-zero risk of turning into questionable. As long as they maintain their status/level I think their contract will be considered highly desirable. But any slippage there and you might fall into the Ingram zone. It's not likely that a player in his prime years slips off, but like I said, there's some non-zero chance of that happening.
Another situation that I know people are getting curious about is Jamal Murray. He hasn't signed an extension to the surprise of many. Is that a situation where DEN is going to try to play hardball and get him at less than max? Is he a max player? That's a situation which would be no brainer last CBA but not this CBA.
Tremendous Upside
Well-Known Member
It's not about his archetype. There's been tons of players of this general archetype in the League over the years who haven't become anything special or commanded this type of money.
It's about his insane efficiency. As I've said a million times, efficient volume scoring is the most coveted skill in the NBA. There's lots of efficient guys and lots of volume scorers, but few who can combine those two (on relatively small usage to boot). They're considered elite.
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the follow up. Overall, I agree with you on value and who you should be targeting. I think rookie max deals will still be pretty common, but super max deals are going to be much more rare.
I also see a market where teams trade middle cost rotational players to consolidate for a max player. All things considered, I’d rather have Ingram at $50 million per year than both of Collins & Clarkson. Same cost on the cap sheet, but I think Ingram impacts winning a lot more.
I don't disagree about your point about Ingram > Collins+Clarkson....but that's a pretty low bar to clear.
Teams will always pay for top talent as long as competition to sign a player exist. The mid priced contracts will get squeezed. We will still see a lot of guys getting maxed out
Every "#2 option on a contending team" is a max player in today's day and age.
100% of teams in the NBA teams that are actually trying to win would max Lauri for 5 years given the opportunity (and even a chunk of those that aren't). And the fact we have him for the full 5 with no option in year 5 is awesome. Keeps his contract more valuable in the later stages of the deal given the guaranteed year of team control.
This is a great move. And I love the no-BS negotiation. Signed a long-term deal on the first day he was eligible to that would guarantee him to not be traded this year. Great sign of commitment from both sides.
100% of teams in the NBA teams that are actually trying to win would max Lauri for 5 years given the opportunity (and even a chunk of those that aren't). And the fact we have him for the full 5 with no option in year 5 is awesome. Keeps his contract more valuable in the later stages of the deal given the guaranteed year of team control.
This is a great move. And I love the no-BS negotiation. Signed a long-term deal on the first day he was eligible to that would guarantee him to not be traded this year. Great sign of commitment from both sides.
HermanG
Well-Known Member
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
“And build with this franchise. You guys deserve to win. . . “
A.) Love the guy. Glad he got his life-changing payday. Multi-generational money is something everyone should aspire for and celebrate.
B.) Whatever Ainge has planned, I think it’s been articulated clearly to Lauri and he’s on board with it. Tank or not, he’s going into it with eyes wide open.
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
Low bar or not, the reality is that their cost for the next two years is $40+ million. Jazz can easily consolidate those two contract slots for one single player and pay a bunch of assets to make it worthwhile. At some point, I fully expect them to do that.
