My original angle for tonight was going to be about how much these playoffs have sucked. Too many blowouts, not enough close games, not enough close series, etc. But Andrew discussed that angle already in this piece profiling the amazing Jose3030 and DocFunk, so I won’t pile on.
NBA Playoffs Monday Night Viewing Guide: Context Matters In Max Player Discussions
We talk about certain NBA players, like Amare Stoudemire, as if they are or are not worth the maximum contract no matter what, but we don’t consider context at all. That should change.
So instead, I'll rant about one of my least favorite conversations that always takes place around this time of year (especially now that we're about to have the most historic free agent period since 1977): the "is Player X a max player" discussion. Before the playoffs, we saw it with Chris Bosh. Earlier in the playoffs, we saw it with Joe Johnson and Carlos Boozer (both players who are definitely not max contract players, supposedly, after playing four bad games). Now, we're seeing it with Amare Stoudemire (who wasn't a max player and now might be again after last night's monster performance. I don't even know). In the midst of every performance, every play, every action in a big game, we suddenly need to decide whether said player deserves to be paid the maximum contract allowable. It's kind of annoying, to be honest.
To be clear, the discussion doesn’t bother me because it proves sports fans are fickle. We already knew that, and I don’t see much of a problem with that. That’s how we consume sports. No, it bothers me because too many factors aren’t considered. We think a max player must have certain characteristics, and if they don’t, they aren’t worth a max contract. Those characteristics are universal, but they shouldn’t be.
The truth is, a player is defined as a max player only when one team with enough cap room decides to give them a max contract. That’s it. While that seems like a really narrow definition, it’s also the only universal one we can apply. Beyond that, context needs to be considered when discussing whether a player deserves a max deal. The market matters, team needs matter, and, frankly, team desperation matters. When we start a universal conversation about whether a player deserves a max contract, we strip these factors out of the discussion.
And trust me, these factors matter. One of the biggest things people lose sight of is that there isn't a carousel of max players out there every year. It's not like you can turn down one max player, only to go sign any other one you want. Even this year, it's highly possible that the best players don't switch teams. Sometimes, if you're a team with cap room and a fanbase desperate to see the front office make a move conducive to winning, you have to choose to either give Joe Johnson a max contract or do nothing. Your fanbase won't like it if you do nothing, so suddenly, Johnson starts to look more and more like a deserving max player. It doesn't really matter if Johnson isn't worth a max contract to the Hawks, because Johnson won't be playing for the Hawks anymore.
In addition, even if teams could literally pick and choose any player in the league to sign a max contract for their team, they have to compete against each other for said player. Everyone wants LeBron James, but only one team is going to get him, and they can all offer the same amount of money annually. For those teams that strike out, now what? Are you really going to ignore every other marquee free agent because you aren't quite sure they're as good as LeBron, or will you instead offer Player Y slightly more than Player Y's home team is offering because you believe Player Y fits into your team well? Choosing option two is completely defensible.
The obvious counterargument to this is that more teams should instead take their lumps and build around high draft picks in some sort of long-term strategy where you only give a max contract out to the hypothetical great franchise player you draft. In a perfect world, this would be the way to go, and there are certainly some teams (like the Wizards) who should be doing this. But this isn't a perfect world. If you do that, it means you have to stink for a while, get lucky to get a high draft pick and scout well enough where you're drafting the right guy. Some teams end up with Kevin Durant or LeBron James. Others end up with Greg Oden or Michael Beasley. Oh, and then, the whole process potentially restarts itself, where you're nitpicking whether a guy like Brandon Roy or even Derrick Rose is worth a max contract.
The bottom line is that there is no universal way to assess whether a player is a max player. It depends on the amount of money out there. It depends on the team that signs them. It depends on the pieces around them. it depends on whether the team signing them has either a) talented youngsters on rookie deals so they can afford spending the max on the 10th-best player in the NBA, or b) an owner who will pay the luxury tax. And it’s not like talented, but flawed players making the max can’t win a title. Just look at Boston, who won a title when they brought three such players together through a series of shrewd (and lucky) trades.
I realize this may seem like I'm defending NBA teams for their dumb free agent signings. That's not what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to say is that a universal "is he a max player?" conversation isn't appropriate. For example, if Phoenix loses Amare Stoudemire, they'll lose the ultimate pick and roll partner for Steve Nash, and they won't have enough cap room to sign a marquee replacement. Stoudemire, in that scenario, could be worth the max to Phoenix. But Stoudemire probably won't be worth the max if he isn't playing with another marquee player that can get him the ball in the right spots. If New Jersey signs Amare and does nothing else, then Amare's probably not worth the contract he signed. It's the same player, but his worth in contract dollars gets measured differently because of his situation, and that's totally fair.
Why? Basketball is such an interesting sport because context matters so much. I hope we realize this when talking about whether certain players are worth max contracts.
Orlando Magic at Boston Celtics: Game 4, 8:30 p.m., ESPN
Game 3 in one sentence: Faced with a must-win game, the Magic rolled over, getting blown out by 23 points in a game that basically ended their season.
Problem the Magic must solve to win: There are many, but here’s a start:
Paging Rashard Lewis. Rashard Lewis, please report to the Eastern Conference Finals. Rashard Lewis, please report to the Eastern Conference Finals.
(I’m sure someone used that joke before. If so, my apologies).
SB Nation’s Adam Jacobi put it better with this series of numbers than I could. If Lewis has a big game in Game 4, the Magic could still lose. If he doesn’t? They will lose by a lot, and Lewis will be ridiculed even more than he has been.
Problem the Celtics must solve to win again: Don’t be the Bruins. They won’t, so it’s all good.
Totally inconsequential thing I want to see happen: Another Jason Williams locker tirade. It'll be tough to top this one, but ... ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!
I’ll show myself out.
Prediction: The curse of the second-round sweep extends for another year. Celtics 95, Magic 83.
See More:
