The subject of Russell Westbrook potentially being traded by the Oklahoma City Thunder comes with discussions about his humongous contract — will he really be worth over $46 million at age 34?
It’s as good a time as any to focus on contracts like the one Westbrook signed in 2017 — a “supermax” deal — and wonder if it’s a problem for the NBA.
Back in 2017, the league’s collective bargaining agreement had a new wrinkle when it came to re-signing franchise stars: The “Designated Veteran Player Extension,” which has become known as the supermax deal.
If a player reached one of the three All-NBA teams or was an MVP or defensive player of the year, and is on the same team that drafted him or he was traded during his rookie year, he’s eligible to sign a contract up to 35 percent of the salary cap. Depending on that player’s service time, he can sign for either four or five years. Either way, the player isn’t allowed to be traded the first year after signing a supermax.
The idea at the time was to help teams — mid- or small market teams who aren’t as attractive in free agency — keep their superstars by enticing them to make more money by staying put.
But it seems like the whole exercise has backfired and become a mess for players who sign them, or for teams whose superstars turn them down.
It’s worked out well for Steph Curry and James Harden. Damian Lillard just signed one to stay with the Blazers, and maybe Portland did it to make sure they showed how much the franchise appreciated its superstar guard.
But John Wall signed one and tore his Achilles. Now, the Wizards are stuck hoping that he’ll be worth $37.8 million in 2019-20 and $40.8 million in 2020-21, because Wall and his contract are untradeable and it’s made the Wizards’ cap sheet a complete mess.
The Thunder were set to be in complete luxury tax hell in part because of Westbrook’s supermax, and although Paul George reportedly requested a trade, there was talk they were looking to move other pricey contracts to cut down their tax bill.
And then there’s the case of Anthony Davis, who basically said no thanks to a supermax with the hapless Pelicans, and Kemba Walker, who reportedly was offered less (perhaps the Hornets realized supermax contracts are prohibitive, but then why didn’t they trade him at the deadline? That’s for another day). If you don’t offer an eligible player like Walker the supermax, he’s probably going to be insulted and leave.
So why give up heaps of cash? George had this to say to ESPN on the subject earlier this year before he was traded to the Clippers:
“For me, I just wanted to play and have a chance to win a championship. I didn’t care about the money. For me, it was about where can I get a good opportunity to win, and I just felt that window was closing in Indiana, and I moved on.”
He didn’t care about the money! And that seems to be the consensus — if you’re with a badly run franchise and can take some $75 million less to bolt to a better situation AND can still make regular max money, you take it. As this summer proved, even a player like George who just signed a big contract last year can force his way into a situation he prefers with a player like Kawhi Leonard. It’s partially because, as Joy Taylor pointed out, they’re making so much money off the court, too:
This is bad news for teams that aren’t located in Los Angeles and New York. The supermax was meant to help them, but it’s clearly not enough to keep the big names, or it’s hampering them down the road.
What’s the solution? There isn’t a good one.
It feels like Pandora’s box is open in the NBA. The players have found a way to carve out their own winning situations by working with each other to land in their preferred spots. Even winning a title didn’t keep Leonard from going back to Southern California, earning $140 million over four years to go along with his endorsement deal with New Balance and teaming up with George, one of the other premiere two-way talents in the league.
The supermax was a good try, but it’s a problem that may be unfixable now.
[jwplayer Ymswg5HG-q2aasYxh]
