LogFAQs > #975279068

Shattered posted...

That's how I've always thought it should be too.

Problem with the supermax is if a player is eligible you basically have to pay it. And the only way you're winning with a supermax contract on the books is if that player is a top 5 player during that deal (or a large bulk of it). And by the last years of a supermax contract, any player who would be eligible for it has a ton of mileage on their legs. They may be late 20s / early 30s but if it's a supermax player they probably played a lot of minutes and saw a lot of the ball and you would expect the team saw playoff minutes too.

So there's a far greater chance of a supermax ruining a team than causing it to win since they are likely already an over the cap team by the time they sign the deal.

If you've gone 8 years with a supermax level player and haven't won the title, you are boned whether they're on a supermax or a regular max. The ideal window is for a team to assemble their core while guys are still on rookie deals, like boston has, and like GS did. Having a supermax on the roster but only counting as the max isn't going to suddenly make teams magically be able to bring in tons of quality players; if you're over the cap you're mostly limited to MLEs, period.

Like look at portland; is dame's supermax the reason they couldn't build a contender? No, it's the fact that the guys they banked on around him didn't work and that they couldn't draft for crap outside of mccollum.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/8/9/AAb9RHAAEunB.jpg
Like look at this, not a single good pick for 5 years after mccollum, and then another drought for 4 years. That is the problem, not the supermax. Meanwhile, Boston will be fine because they already got all their dudes before having to give anyone their supermax, so by and large they don't really need to make any big acquisitions to try and keep their window open. They can remain a contender as long as the owner wants to pay the lux (which is an owner problem, not a supermax problem.)