(07-11-2025, 02:43 PM)F Gump Wrote: I'm sure all those issues come into play for both players and teams (although not on every deal).
Leverage is helpful at times. But if used in the wrong way or the wrong time (we would call it "playing hardball") the other party may simply decide they are disrespected and wish to look elsewhere for a deal. See Turner, Myles for a recent example imo.
However, I do think a realistic stance that "this is all we have" or "this is what we have as our limit, because of overall cap limits" is being seen already in this hard cap world to some degree, and something that will be seen more and more. As a result, players will have to pick between getting more money on a crappy roster (who has more available money because they have less talent to spread it among) or taking a suitably-sized amount on a good team who is budgeting to have more talent and thereby a better shot at winning titles.
If things continue to move in this direction, with just a few players on max/supermax deals making huge amounts and everybody else making MLE or less, then you'd think there should be some pushback from the players in the next CBA to reign in the % for the SMax/Max deals. I know the stars have unequally weighted amount of power, but there's not much left to go around for simply above average to good vets these days. I suppose that would just put us back where we were when there were a bunch of non-stars getting close to max deals, but that has to be better for the players overall.
As an example, as we sit today, 85% of OKC's 2027-2028 is committed to 3 guys. Now that % will lower as the cap moves up, but it's still going to be hard to sign other veterans to anything except lowball deals.