Thought this was a pretty good article by Henry Abbott.
The case has been made, in fact, that anyone signing a maximum contract this year or next may be wise to make it for three or four years instead of (in Roy's case) the maximum five. Maximum contracts are derived from the salary cap, which is seen as abnormally low just now owing to the bad economy.
In a sense, Roy got the best of both worlds. He can offer his growing family the certainty of a roughly $82 million deal. If injuries or weirdness strike, they have all that money, no matter what. On the other hand, if the economy recovers to make this deal look below-market, he will still be in line for another huge deal before retirement...
A fair percentage of NBA trades involve one GM saying "all right, I'll give you this really really good player, but only if you also agree to pay these other guys who aren't worth their contracts." In other words, a decent chunk of NBA employees are burdens to their employers.
Holy inefficient market, Batman! My inner libertarian yearns for a world in which at least the worst of those cases could be set free (with cushy, insurance-funded retirements, or new smaller market-value contracts with other teams) much like the league's one-time amnesty clause a few years ago. Wouldn't the NBA be a better place if Daryl Morey could spend that $23 million on seven additional Luis Scolas, or whatever other players he wanted? Wouldn't all those hungry players, in place of injured has-beens, increase the value and enjoyment of every ticket to every NBA game?
But for the first time in my life, I now see at least some merit in big, bloated guaranteed contracts being dutifully paid out, year after year, wasting roster spots and cap space, on players who are blatantly not worth the money...
