If you have to make 4 factoid points why a team would not want to sign a max player, he is not worth the max. Your argument "B" of how many good PGs exist destroys your whole argument. Good point guards are not a scarce commodity, and it wouldn't be a prudent business decision to pay through the nose for a commodity. Econ 101. As for point "A", actually there are many teams with cap space this year. With the new amnesty clause, probably half the league could make cuts to get under the cap and try and sign Deron if he was really a superstar caliber player worth going after.....they won't.
Uh....
Yeah, I really think you must have misunderstood your Econ 101 class - or in this case, certainly misappropriated the logic of it. It does not fit in this situation. Good point guards are not scarce, that is true - but in sports, if anything, that can make them MORE valuable. If a league is being dominated by point guards, you're WAY behind the 8-ball if you don't have a good one. Unless, of course, you have a huge advantage at other positions (like the Heat, who have arguably the two best wings in the league, both of whom need the ball in their hands), or run a system that doesn't rely as much on the point guard (i.e. the triangle).
For teams that have good (but not necessarily elite) point guards and more pressing needs elsewhere (i.e. the Rockets)? Yes, you're right - they'd be better off spending their money elsewhere. But that has to do with a specific team's needs - not a player's overall value.
And even the scarcity you spoke of is relative. Do you know how many elite point guards are available
this summer?
Two (2). That's it. And one of them (Nash) is 38.
Let's transplant your logic to the NFL. By your logic, if Drew Brees were to become a free agent (in what is currently a league with a huge number of strong quarterbacks), it would not be "prudent" for the Saints (or anyone) to give him a max contract. So, in your mind, they'd be better off...what, going with an inferior quarterback instead of paying a few extra mil per year? Is that what you'd advise if you were running the show?
Let's play a game. You tell me one team (I only need one!) that needs a point guard, and that has everything a marquee PG on the free agent market would be looking for - 1) a roster built to win or and/or a foundation/budget to build that roster; 2) significant salary cap space; 3) and this is debatable, but I'll say a decent-sized market counts as well - that will consciously decide to NOT go after Deron this summer. Just give me ONE TEAM.
Give me one team that fits that description (aside from the Jazz, of course) who - if they were told that Deron Williams wanted to sign with them - would actually say no, and wouldn't give him a max deal.
I'll make it easier for you. There isn't one.
The Bulls are a unique case because they had another top 50 player of all time, Pippen, and he was more than capable of handling a bigger work load. He had the best year of his career averaging 4 more points a game with no loss in effeciency. Kukoc and Kerr both arrived in 94 as well, who if you watched the Bulls, know were amazing in their system. They fell short in the playoffs. When Jordan returned in his first full year, playing with Pippen and Kukoc, they won 72 games and another championship.
Correct! Which proves exactly what I was saying - that someone's "value" to one team is completely circumstantial. Your made-up, bulls**t standard of "to be a max player, you have to make 15-20 game difference" is still made-up bulls**t. The difference a player makes on one team always depends on the circumstances of the team he leaves or joins. ALWAYS.
If you
honestly believe that if right now, Deron joined this version of the Utah Jazz, the Jazz wouldn't be
dramatically superior than they are right now...well, then I don't know what to tell you. Because if you don't believe he'd make a huge difference, you're a genuinely delusional individual.
