Is the supermax really reserved for the best players? Or the ones who qualify?

Even if the supermax was intended to be a tool to retain a “franchise-level player,” it has morphed into the cost of doing business — as the Celtics seem to have acknowledged.

The Designated Veteran Player Extension — sometimes called the “supermax” extension for short — is a double-edged sword for NBA franchises. It will give them a powerful tool to retain top talent, but at times at the cost of signing a player to a contract their production might not quite live up to.

With the Boston Celtics having recently extended All-NBA forward Jaylen Brown to such a deal, the debate has entered the Celtics media sphere since the start of the 2023 NBA offseason. With that in mind, a recent article by Heavy’s Steve Bulpett shared the perspective of league execs on the supermax, with trepidation being shared by at least one anonymous GM.

“Supermax isn’t a guarantee of the result you’re looking for,” offered the unnamed general manager. “Inflated contracts are even harder to move.”

“The additional penalties in the new CBA should slow the roll of everybody giving out a supermax deal the first time a guy qualifies,” they said. “Just because a guy qualifies for it doesn’t necessarily make him entitled to it.”

“If you’re going to call yourself a franchise-level player, which is what I think the supermax number says, you’ve got to have more than just putting up numbers,” they posit.

Within that framework, they have a point. But how NBA rules are intended vs. how they play out are two different things.

In this case, even if the supermax was intended to be a tool to retain a “franchise-level player,” it has morphed into the cost of doing business — as the Celtics seem to have acknowledged by their acts.

Listen to the “Celtics Lab” podcast on:

Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/3zBKQY6

Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3GfUPFi

YouTube: https://bit.ly/3F9DvjQ

[lawrence-auto-related count=1 category=590969556]