THE 10 WORST 2012-13 CONTRACTS

The dust has (almost) settled on the 2012 offseason. I think it's time for us to look at the best and worst contracts of this season. It seems like every year, several teams are looking to unload "bad" contracts. We often forget that teams weren't just magically saddled with those bad contracts; somebody volunteered to pay them.

Since they hate money so much I wish they'd just send it to me instead :(

So today I'd like to take a look that the ten worst contracts of the 2012 season. Now, there are a few things to keep in mind. First, as Arturo pointed out, teams have to spend money. This isn't like baseball was under its previous CBA, where an owner could field a team like the Pittsburgh Pirates with almost zero payroll, lose all the time, and then collect a fat revenue share check. The NBA has a minimum salary threshold (which will be 85% of the salary cap this year, 90% of it next year). Additionally, to meet the owners' obligation to pay the players 47% of BRI, on average, the teams' payrolls must actually go over the cap by 12%. If the NBA doesn't reach this threshold, then the owners cut a check to the players' union to make up the difference.

Second, contracts can be "bad" in different ways. The simplest principle is that paying too much for a player's production is bad. But as I have pointed out before, it's often better to overpay for somebody who produces wins than to pay a smaller salary for someone who's terrible. And, all things being equal, it is the most egregious sin to overpay for old guys that aren't good. They carry an additional opportunity cost; they occupy a spot where you could be paying near-minium for a chance to discover the next Jeremy Lin/Tony Parker/Manu Ginobli/Scottie Pippen. That is, part of discovering hidden gems in the draft is actually signing those 2nd round picks and having them on your roster. They usually bust, but the random over-the-hill shmucks will either cost you wins (if you give them minutes) or just not move your win/loss needle at all (if they sit on your bench). If a player isn't going to get enough playing time to win or lose you any games, then his spot is best served by some young player who might one day turn into a horrifically underpaid star. Anything else is just burning money.

For this list, I didn't count rookies. Austin Rivers is probably going to have a very bad contract next year, but we've already spent plenty of time analyzing the draft.

10. Marco Belinelli, 1 year $2 million

I know what you're thinking. How can one year for $2 million be a bad contract? Well, in the Bull's case, it's a matter of choices. The Bulls are trying to save luxury tax money, so they shipped out Kyle Korver, rescinded the qualifying offer on Ronnie Brewer, and won't be matching Omer Asik. All well and good -- if a team chooses money over wins, meh, it's a business. I don't think that's a great business decision for a team in a market like Chicago, but that's quibling. But if the Bulls are trying to save money, why are they spending more than the minimum on anybody at all if they aren't going to pay those players? They didn't want to sign Brewer (who is very, very good, and whom they could really use now that Korver is gone) for one year at $4 million but they are spending $3 million on Bellinelli (who has never come close to average) and Radmonovic (who is old and will never be good again)? So instead of spending $4 million on a guy who wins them 4 extra games, they'll spend $3 million on guys that will probably cost them a couple. The Hell? Maybe the Bulls are trying to pull a 'San Antonio' and go for the #1 pick while their superstar is out for the year, but the problem is that as long as Noah, Boozer/Gibson, and Deng are healthy, they aren't going to suck quite enough to max out the lottery balls.

9. Raymond Felton, 3 years (+ player option 4th), about $3.5 million per year

Paying the midlevel for the a point guard who's only been productive half a season in 5 years, when you're a luxury tax team, is just pure insanity. It becomes even more crazy when you consider that signing Felton made it prohibitively expensive to match Lin, because matching Lin now means you're a luxury tax team paying 3 point guards that are all making the midlevel or more. And who were the Knicks bidding against here? Felton was coming off the worst year of his not-very-illustrious career. This contract is just plain stupid.

8. Kirk Hinrich, 2 years, $4 million per year

This is directly related to #10, and the contract is even worse. They let Brewer go because they don't want to pay the luxury tax on his salary, then they shell out $4 million per year for a 9 year veteran who has not approached average in 6 years!? This is just inexcusably bad management. I understand that you need a point guard and Watson, Lucas, and James were all pretty bad...but so is Hinrich. There's simply no point in passing on good players like Brewer and Korver to "save money" if you're just going to turn around and spend the ****ing money anyway, especially if the players you spend it on are all terrible. There are worse contracts per se, but what makes this one terrible is that, like Felton in New York, it cost them the ability to keep a different player who was really good. Right now Chicago is putting on a clinic on how to run a franchise into the ground. What's doubly hilarious is that management will probably fire Tibbs sometime this season when the club is playing worse than .500 ball. Chicago fans, I feel for you, I really do, you know I've been there.

7. Jamal Crawford, 4 years (2 guaranteed), ~ $5 million per year

Jamal Crawford is one of those guys who has just perpetually mystified me. I mean, even way back when Isiah Thomas gave him a boatload of money to play for the Knicks, everybody recognized that he was just a chucker. In a 12 year career, he's only put up above-average true shooting a few times (but that hasn't stopped him from taking more than the average number of shots), and not once in those 12 seasons has he been average or better at rebounds or turnovers. And he's not racking up steals or blocks either. In other words, he is a shooting guard that isn't that great at shooting and doesn't do anything else. Seriously, why the hell does this guy keep getting paid!? Do NBA GMs know that executing a killer crossover does not actually give your team any points? A team that needs to go from good to great has wasted $9 million on Crawford and Billups when it could have had players like Ronnie Brewer or Matt Barnes for 1/3 the price. Epic Fail. They'd better hope that Odom reverts back to his old self. And of course, if he does, the team will be great, and management will look like geniuses. Blind squirrel -> nut.

6. Chris Kaman, 1 year, $8 million

Every time the mainstream media brings up Chris Kaman, the phrase "former all-star" is involved. That was a long time ago, and even then, let's face it, he wasn't really all that good. For the last 4 years, he's been downright terrible. Since he's old, there is no reason to think that this trend will reversse. I have a very strong suspicion that the Mavs are only paying this contract because:

  • they have to pay somebody to get above the league minimum
  • the contract might be valueable right before the trading deadline as an expiring deal

That's about the only positive spin on it -- if they had paid Kaman his market value, which is likely a lot lower, the expiring contract would not be big enough to be a very useful bargaining chip at the deadline. I think the worst part about this contract is that it will take playing time away from Elton Brand, who's still a pretty good player. In order to get time for Brand, the Mavs would have to either take away minutes from Dirk, or play Brand out of position at Center. The Mavs might try to reduce Dirk's minutes a little bit to save his energy for the playoffs (which is crazy because I am not sure this team can even make the playoffs) but he'll still get a huge share of the power forward minutes. If Kaman takes most of the minutes at center, that means more Elton Brand on the bench.  

5. OJ Mayo, 2 years, $4 million per year

There are so many better options at the midlevel than OJ Mayo that I don't even know where to start. Yet another shooting guard who shoots a lot but who's not really that good at shooting (you'll hear a lot of talk about how "pure" or "smooth" his stroke is, but the ball doesn't really go in more because of it) and who doesn't get to the line well (probably because he loves that "smooth" outside stroke so much). Or pass well. Or rebound well. Or take good care of the ball. Or get steals. Wait, your paying him $4 million to look good on instant replay when he's shooting?

I expect Dallas to be a pretty bad team next year. I imagine however, that Mr. Cuban won't care if he ends up with Dwight Howard at the end of it.

4. Nick Young, 1 year, $5.6 million

I addressed this one earlier in a GeekGM article on Philidelphia. Nick Young is terrible at basketball, which makes this a pretty bad contract. It's made worse because he'll replace (or at least take minutes from) Jodie Meeks or Evan Turner, who are cheaper and better (I'll assume the 76ers aren't dumb enough to replace any of Iggy's minutes with Young). This will subtract from Philly's win total. But what makes this contract so high on this list is that the Sixers apparently wanted to sign it so much that they amnestied Elton Brand, who is still pretty good at basketball, and whose contract is expiring and may have been extremely valuable at the trade deadline. So instead of overpaying Brand to be good, they are paying Brand a crapload to play for the Mavericks, while paying Young $6 million to cost them multiple wins, and losing a valuable trade chip in the bargain.

Amnesty. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

3. Michael Beasley, 3 years, $6 million per year

Look, we get it. Beasley had a freshman year for the ages, in many ways comparable to Durant's. He was amazing. But it just has not translated to the NBA at all. He's extremely turnover-prone, does not defend well, is terrible at getting to the line, and doesn't pass well. Well, let's be fair, he just doesn't pass. And he loves to shoot the ball. He doesn't pay a lot of attention to where he's standing when he does, though. Have fun watching him shoot with just one foot behind the 3-point line.

Here's my first Beasley moment: in early 2010/11, I was watching the Wolves play the Heat on League Pass with the Heat's broadcasting team calling the game. Beas has the ball at the end of the first quarter. The announcing goes something like this as the clock ticks down: "So let's see what he does here...starts his attack...dribbles to the key...aaaaand......settles for a long jumper. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA."  That last laughter is in caps because the color commentator joined in; the whole "Beasley settles for a long jumper" thing is something that those two guys had seen a million times, and they were soooo happy that it was now the other team's problem and they could laugh about it. It was then I realized why the Heat gave him away for just a couple of 2nd round picks.

Suns fans: make sure to use League Pass when you play the Wolves, and listen to the Wolves' broadcast team. I guarantee you that a scene like this will play out. And you'll be a little bitter about how much the Wolves' team is chuckling about it. I know I was, watching that Heat game. Right now you're full of optimism that maybe, just maybe, if Beas could get his head on straight, he could have a transformative year. Yeah, I've been there. I gave up. Thank goodness the Wolves did too. If Adelman could not fix it...Well, now, he's the other team's problem.

Beasley is a little better at power forward than at small forward; mostly because he'll often get the ball closer to the hoop, where his inclinations -- JUST SHOOT BECAUSE OH MY GOD THIS BALL IS A HOT ****ING POTATO AND IF I DON'T SHOOT NOW I MIGHT NEVER GET THE CHANCE EVER AGAIN -- aren't as detrimental. But the Suns have got Luis Scola taking minutes there, so I suspect he'll get a lot of burn at small forward. At $6 million, he's overpaid by about $7 million (yes, I think he's worth negative money), and the Suns are stuck with him for three years. In 6 or 7 years, I'll probably be thinking about Beasley the same way I do about Crawford now: "Why do people keep paying this guy!?" because he'll probably get another contract after this one.

2. Jeff Green, 4 years, $9 million per year

This contract is almost tragic. Watching this unfold must have been enormously painful for our resident Celtic fan Arturo. Before the 11/12 season, Boston signed Green to a one-year, $9 million dollar deal, which kind of had everyone asking "Huh?", and which essentially negated the upgrade that Boston made by trading away the terrible Glen Davis for the passable Brandon Bass. Then, fate dealt Jeff Green a terrible blow in the form of a heart condition, and although this was very bad for Jeff Green, it saved the Celtics from making a big mistake, as his contract was nullified.

Flash forward to a year later, when Boston is surely not competing with anybody for Green's services. It was doubtful he was worth that price before; now he's coming off a heart condition and a year of not playing, but Boston decides that not only is he still worth $9 million, but also says "hey, sign me up for 3 more!" It's got to be soul-crushing for Boston fans to see huge amounts of salary come off the books this offseason, only to be spent on guys like Jason Terry (waaay past his prime), Courtney Lee (not bad but you can get 'not bad' for half his price), and Jeff Green.

Now, it woud be one thing if Green were overpaid because he's merely "not bad", like Terry and Lee. Unfortunately, Green is, in fact, quite bad. He's a horrible rebounder, a below-average shooter, he's bad at getting to the line, he doesn't get many blocks, steals or assists, and isn't even a good 3-point shooter. In four years, he's never come close to average production, and now he's coming off of a year of not playing. Which part of this makes a GM reach for the checkbook? And did I mention that no one else is really bidding for him? What the hell is going on here?

But wait, it gets worse! In addition to being grossly overpaid, he'll probably take away playing time from Jared Sullinger, who was one of the best big man in the draft, and is the perfect guy to slot in at PF next to Garnett, whom Doc has relocated to center. And don't tell me he's really supposed to be an SF. They have a guy named Paul Pierce who's pretty good at that. Did they pay $9 million for a backup SF?

My prediction is that in a year or so when Rondo demands a trade, Boston will be making it known that whoever wants him has to take back Green. I'm running out of synonyms for "horrible" and "awful" and "terrible" but this contract is all of them.

1. Brook Lopez, 4 years, THE MAXIMUM ($15 million per or so)

When the offseason started, I was pretty sure that Green's contract was going to be 'unbeatable' as the worst of them. Oh, how wrong I was. I knew Lopez was going to be overpaid, but never in my wildest dreams did I think anyone was going to pay him the max.

In his 2 first years, Lopez was pretty decent, about average for an NBA center, which is pretty good for one's rookie and sophomore years. He was never a great defensive rebounder, but was decent at offensive rebounding*, was a passable shot-blocker, and was a reasonbaly efficient scorer. He wasn't great, but he certainly was not bad. Since then, he had an absolutely horrendous thrid season, and about 5 games of a horrible fourth one. His rebounding got positively anemic, and his shooting efficiency went down. My guess is that his shooting efficieny went down because his shots went up by 4-5 per 48 minutes -- those 5 extra shots are probably not good ones.

It all leads to a player that would be overpaid with the standard $8-$10 million that everyone seems to pay for "MEH" big men (JEFF GREEN GOT $9 MILLION!), but at $15 million...FIFTEEN!?!...holy cow that's a lot of wasted cheeseburgers. And for 4 years? New Jersey has 2/3 of the salary cap tied up in Brook Lopez and Joe Johnson. This contract is so bad that it's...well, it's the worst contract signed in the 2012/13 off-season.

What say you folks? Who belongs on this list, and why?

Rmav_normal

ronnie mund

I love your site, but a few of these are not bad contracts. This seems like it's 100% based on on-court value, which is ridiculous. Because it's the easiest example, I'm going to use the Mavs (who have consistently had one of the best, most advanced-stats-loving front offices in the NBA):

Kaman is not a bad contract, regardless of how good/bad he plays. The Mavs "created" currency with his contract (which, granted, you touched on): he is a dealable deadline chip who can be paired with 1-2 small-salary players to acquire a near-max contract. More importantly, what was the alternative for Dallas? If they keep Haywood instead, they don't have this big expiring contract to trade. If they pass on Kaman because he's too expensive, what other center are they signing? It's not as if the market is flush with rotation-worthy bigs, and you even admit that Brand can't be a full-time center. What are you suggesting Dallas should have done instead?

Mayo is a GOOD contract...even if he plays terribly. You fully admit that Dallas might not make the playoffs, so why not take a risk on a 24-year-old? It's not like he's blocking anyone good from playing, and he's the type of guy who will always have trade value. He's essentially on a one-year deal with a cheap option, and his empty PPG totals and "potential" will make him valuable, even if he's terribly inefficient and bad at basketball. You're telling me a team like Orlando or Phoenix won't look at him as a positive asset in a trade? You're telling me he's not significantly more attractive than the average $4.5 million expiring contract?

I get what you were going for with this article, but it shows a lack of understanding of asset management. Even if Brook Lopez is worth $1/year (which I agree might still be too much money), signing him to a max deal is only "bad" if he's not considered a trade asset. The fact that he has a long-term deal makes him more attractive to some teams since they know he can't bolt as a free agent, and it gives them the option to trade him in January while still receiving his full market value (which might possibly be some percentage of Dwight Howard). The way the CBA is set up with needing to match salary in every trade, overpaying players and/or signing contracts as a means of creating currency can often be quite smart.

293 days ago

Picture?type=square

Brett Gunter

Patrick,

Excellent work. Maybe I'll come up with someone you missed, but not so far.
There are people who will tell you--if they have not done so already--that some of these contracts have actual value because many other teams perceive the players who got them as valuable. I AM NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. New Jersey HAD to give Lopez the max--because Charlotte was going to??? The boss of a 7-59 team gets to dictate your personnel moves? And you needed him as a trade chip for Orlando--who wanted him IN A DEAL FOR THE BEST CENTER IN THE GAME? Holy shit! In the words of Vince Lombardi, "What the hell's goin' on around here?"

Maybe, MAYBE, if these guys get traded before the season ends, I give the GM credit for having a finger on the thready, oxygen-deprived pulse of the league. I tell you now, if Lopez ends up in a Howard deal, I will drive to Orlando for no other reason than to laugh in Hennigan's face--and I don't give a fuck about him, the team, Lopez, OR Howard; it's just a level of stupidity that the universe itself should rebel against, and I'll do my part.

293 days ago

Picture?type=square

Brett Gunter

I see ronnie mund IS one of those people.
Ronnie, I make you this promise: I'll be back here after the trade deadline, and I'll eat shit on every one of these guys who actually gets traded for someone who can play basketball. Will you pledge to do the same for each guy who turns out to be dead weight that cannot be shed?

293 days ago

Rmav_normal

ronnie mund

You're missing the point, Brett. Kaman can be traded for pretty much anyone; whether or not that ends up actually happening is pretty irrelevant. If the Mavs had kept Haywood, they wouldn't have that flexibility. And how could someone like Mayo be a "dead weight" contract when he's a $4.5 million expiring? You're arguing as if every team in the NBA looks at Mayo as a bad player, and that's obviously not true. Hell, ~25 teams in the NBA are dumb and don't have much of a grasp on advanced statistics.

(And for the record, I'm not defending the Brook Lopez contract. I'm merely saying that, in order for a contract to be bad, it has to have negative on-court value AND negative trade value, right? If several teams are willing to take on Lopez and give back positive-value assets in return, it can't be that much of a mistake to give him the contract in the first place vs. letting him walk and receiving no compensation.)

293 days ago

Picture?type=square

Brett Gunter

I guess I AM missing the point, Ronnie. Ronnie Brewer was cheaper than Mayo--and he would actually make Dallas better. (He wasn't the only option in the 'SG who can actually help' category, either.) If they keep Haywood, instead of setting $8M on fire and lobbing it toward Kaman, they don't NEED an expiring contract; they have a C who can help them WIN games, and a Nowitski-Brand-Haywood rotation that might not suck. Cuban must LOVE next year's draft class--because that's the only area where he's improved his team.
As for the viability of signing crappy players as trade chips...well, maybe you could explain it to me again. If the Nets maxed out Lopez because they needed him for the Howard deal--WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING THE DEAL IN PLACE--then they're incredibly, unfathomably stupid. And if they did it because they think he has that kind of value by ANY definition--even a Bizarro-world, 'someone may think he's worth this, somewhere, some day' mindset--then they're dumber still.
If it's true that Cuban is lining up his ducks to make a run at Howard--this is it? Really? I'll grant you Kaman is every bit as horrible as Lopez--plus, he's older, and won't scuttle your chances for as many years. That said, NJ's offer was tons better than what Cuban has available--even if Orlando was so crazy they didn't want Humphries.
It all seems like an excessively complicated way to operate--so if you can make it make sense to me, I'm all ears.

293 days ago

Rmav_normal

ronnie mund

"If the Nets maxed out Lopez because they needed him for the Howard deal--WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING THE DEAL IN PLACE--then they're incredibly, unfathomably stupid. And if they did it because they think he has that kind of value by ANY definition--even a Bizarro-world, 'someone may think he's worth this, somewhere, some day' mindset--then they're dumber still."

Were you asleep all offseason? The Nets locked up Lopez because multiple teams were about to max him out as a RFA, and rather than lose a trade asset without any compensation, Brooklyn kept him. The idea that other teams don't want him is pretty laughable considering the Blazers and Bobcats both offered him a max deal. Just because we both agree he's terrible at basketball doesn't mean everyone else does, too.

You don't seem to have the ability to separate real value from perceived value, and I don't think you grasp short-term on-court value vs. long-term asset management either. The idea that keeping Haywood and signing Brewer is smart for the Mavs because it wins them a few extra games next year while still getting bounced in the first round is pretty silly. Merely having the flexibility to package Kaman, Mayo, and other chips together at the deadline (or let them walk next summer to open up cap space) shows their understanding of sacrificing a moderate short-term increase in on-court success to achieve higher long-term "franchiseEV."

293 days ago

Nba-geek-avatar

Patrick Minton

Ok, I deleted my comments because they were full of typos and horrible english, and I'll re-phrase (I'm the site admin, so I get to do that :P)

Ronnie,

Mayo's contract isn't an expiring deal; 13/14 has a player option. If Mayo opts out, it will only because he had a great 2012/13, which then makes his contract LESS appealing at the 12/13 deadline (to a team that actually wants to keep him).

Further, the Haywood amnesty was already done before they signed Kaman. Your arguing is if there was a binary choice between signing Kaman and Amnestying Haywood, when the real choice was "now that we have amnestied Haywood, how should we spend our money?" I've already touched on the fact that the contract has some value as an expiring deal.

Lastly, Lopez' trade value with that contract is bad. Even 'conventional' GMs (the ones that like Lopez) are doing double-takes that he got the max. And most importantly, your argument that "The Nets locked up Lopez because multiple teams were about to max him out as a RFA" doesn't make sense. They could have waited for one of those teams to actually do it. Brooklyn was never in danger of losing him as a trade asset.

Keeping him as a trade asset is also incredibly dangerous for a team with Brooklyn's salary situation. The idea that he know he's not that good, but that someone else will still take him, is what gets lots of investors in trouble when bubbles burst -- it's the Greater Fool Theory, and I don't think there are many greater fools around.

292 days ago

Picture?type=square

Naren Garg

I think you overlooked a lot of much worse contracts! In my view, these short term small money deals are not worth mentioning. The real cardinal sins of the off-season are giving long term big money deals to below average players. These are the decisions that destroy the long term competitiveness of a team. So I would replace Belinelli, Kamen, Mayo & Kirk Heinrick with:

1. Jason Thompson (5 years/$30 million) - Why is this horrendous? Well, the length of this contract (like all Sacramento contracts) is crippling and I am not sure why Sacramento needs him if they already of Cousins, Robinson & Hayes. Their biggest area of need is a long athletic backup centre who can be a good weak-side defender and block shots. Thompson does none of this well.

2. Jameer Nelson (3 years/24 million)- So you have a PG on the tail end of his prime, who has his worst year as a pro on a team that is looking to rebuild. And what do you do? Give him a horrendous contract while simultaneously trying to pawn off all the other horrendous contracts you have given out in the last two off seasons (C Duhan, Q Richardson, J Richardson, G Davis). Even if the 3rd year is partially guaranteed, this contract is terrible! His market was about that of Ramon Sessions (i.e. 2 years 10 million) and to add insult to injury you had no one else pursuing him.

3. Chris Humphries (2 years/24 million)- They might have done this deal to have a player to trade back to Orlando in case of a trade, but regardless- It is atrocious because its 2 years long. They could have easily gotten Humphries to sign a 4 year deal for 24 million and that might actually have been a wroth while contract for a good rebounder and decent defender at the 4.

4. Landry Fields (3 years/20 million) - Again, Fields is at best a mini-midlevel player deserving of 3-4 million for 3-4 years. As as in the previous example, this is long term money that will hamstring Toronto's ability to get better.

292 days ago

Nba-geek-avatar

Patrick Minton

Naren,

Jameer Nelson really should have made my list, he slipped my mind entirely.

Thompson's contract is very iffy, but if it works out -- if he stays at last year's level -- he'll be a steal, so it's too early to call it one of "the worst".

I disagree about Humphries and Fields, I think those are both fair contracts.

292 days ago

Picture?type=square

Andrew Johnson

Green is the worst, I don't know what DA was thinking. Lopez is at least tradable, it's shorter, and he at least could return to average.

292 days ago

Picture?type=square

Jason Snyder

"They carry an additional opportunity cost; they occupy a spot where you could be paying near-minium for a chance to discover the next Jeremy Lin/Tony Parker/Manu Ginobli/Scottie Pippen. That is, part of discovering hidden gems"

Scottie Pippen was an #5 overall draft choice. He was hardly a hidden gem in the NBA>

292 days ago

Fn1tkq7dm17aetg2t0wk_normal

Aakash Gupta

This is a good list, but Belinelli needs to get axed and you need to put Asik or Jameer Nelson. Asik probably top 6 or 7 actually.

292 days ago

Nba-geek-avatar

Patrick Minton

Jason,

Thanks for the correction. I have no idea why I had it stuck in my memory that he was a 2nd round pick. I think he went to a small school.

Anyway, bad example that hopefully does not invalidate my point :)

291 days ago

Default_profile_1_normal

Charles Connaughton

I find the logic of signing bad players to big contracts solely on the chance that you can put together a deal to trade them to be pretty spurious. Yes, you are creating a tradable asset in signing the contract, but it is a negative value asset. These matter only for salary matching purposes if you're trying to trade a bunch of low price, high value assets for a high price, high value asset - otherwise you're just setting your money on fire for no good reason.

Granted, if you have such a trade scenario with a good chance of it firing ready, by all means go for it, but I think history has shown pretty clearly that an awful lot of bad expiring deals just expire and making trades is really hard in practice.

Still, I see some value in something like the Kaman contract in that it's only for one year, that they're going to spend the money anyway, and this at least gives them a shot at packaging it with some short term positive assets for a long term positive asset. That's a totally different beast than the Brook Lopez deal, which is relying 100% on the Greater Fool Theory to have any value whatsoever. Now *that* is a bad contract.

291 days ago

Default_profile_1_normal

Charles Connaughton

Of course, by the same logic that says it's a good idea to throw 8 million at Kaman to create a tradable asset, it's an even better idea to throw 4 million each at a couple D-leaguers to fill out your roster spots. Not only do you get a couple 4 million dollar tradable assets from their expiring deals, but those players have fewer rights (more control for the acquiring team!), you have more granularity in your contracts (easier to match salaries of different sizes!) and you might accidentally end up with a good player on your roster instead of Kaman.

291 days ago

Picture?type=square

Vijay Cruz

Stumbled across this site. Frankly I only agree 4 contracts on the list are even "bad". Lopez, Green, Beasley and Hinrich. The rest aren't when you consider context. In an offseason where numerous questionable LONG TERM deals were handed out, I find it highly questionable to be zoning in on 2 year deals and certainly 1 year deals. I don't necessarily assume the adage that there is no such thing as a bad one year deal but it does have credit. Jamal Crawford is a bad contract but Fields isn't? Chris Kaman is a bad contract but Omer Asik isn't? C'mon now.

Honestly this list loses all credibility by not having Asik on it. He should be Top 2 on the list behind Lopez.

My Top 10 Worst:

10 tie - George Hill 5 years 40 million / Ian Mahinmi 4 years 16 million. Really? 66 million for these two? I think Hibbert was overpaid but nowhere ear the travesty of these two.
9 - Ryan Anderson 4 years 36 million. Good player but 9 million is way too much. This will be an albatross contract much like another former 6th Man of the Year who cashed in (Bobby Simmons).
8 - Landry Fields 3 years 20 million. Good role player but he sucked this past season. No way should he have ever gotten this much. This guy should be getting Marco Belinelli money. This was a ploy on the Raptors part to screw the Knicks and it didn't quite work out.
7 - Javale McGee 4 years 44 million. I guess the Nuggets learned nothing from the Clippers signing DeAndre Jordan. Or the Wizards signing former teammate and a similar knucklehead in Blatche.
6 - Nicolas Batum 4 years 46.5 million. The Blazers love his potential. Of course they've loved it for years. They are over-paying for potential he hasn't achieved and may never achieve.
5 - Jason Kidd 3 years 9 million. You complain about Felton and ignore this signing?
4 - Jason Thompson - 5 years 30 million for a player the team doesn't really need after drafting Thompson and can't seem to commit to. He has been consistently on the trading block, so the reaction is to give him 5 years? Makes no sense.
3 - Jeff Green - 4 years 36 million for a role player coming off a missed season is nuts.
2 - Omer Asik - 3 years 25.1 million for Jim Mcllvaine 2.0.
1 - Brook Lopez - 4 years MAX. He could be a tradeable asset but for the meantime he is a horrible contract. Having a trade kicker doesn't help in trading him.

That's my opinion.

291 days ago

J_lin_normal

robert miller

Am I the only one that hates Kwame Brown's contract? 3m a year for Kwame Brown while still paying Elton Brand his money after amnesty. Kwame Brown isn't even adequate as a back-up.

290 days ago

Nba-geek-avatar

Patrick Minton

Vijay,

read the FAQ. I strongly suspect your definition of productive players differs immensely from ours if you think or Fields is a bad contract.

290 days ago

Picture?type=square

Vijay Cruz

Apparently we do have different definitions on this subject. Frankly if you think 3 years 20 million for Fields is a "good contract" and OJ Mayo at 2 years 8 million is a "bad contract", then I have no business reading this blog.

290 days ago

Picture?type=square

Vijay Cruz

Also which of the contracts - aside from Fields apparently - that I listed do you not find to be "bad"?

Specifically Asik, whose absence on the list is egregious.

290 days ago

Nba-geek-avatar

Patrick Minton

vijay,

You just said you have no business reading the blog, then left a follow-up comment, asking a question that's been answered in other articles on this blog.

You can disagree and decide not to read. if you want to have discussions with me, you're going to have to do some investigating.

289 days ago

Img_3451_normal

Jon C

I'm sure Vijay will never come back to this thread. But how funny is it that he made repeated mentions that the Asik signing was a terrible one? The young center is one of the best rebounders in the league, one of the best defenders, and scoring at a decent clip as well. He's vastly underpaid at $5 million for the first two years and frankly probably underpaid at $15 million in his final year as well.

Patrick, that Lopez contract isn't looking epically bad either. Remember, Lopez is still young and, if he doesn't get injured (big if), he is probably still years from his prime.

137 days ago

Default_profile_3_normal

Jason king

It's funny that he seems to have gotten the correct team but wrong player at number 1. Lopez is a top 3 center currently in the league, Humpfries on the other hand at 12 million per year....

125 days ago


You must be signed in to leave a comment.