Were Jayson Tatum, Donovan Mitchell Really Snubbed out of $33 Million?

The NBA announced its three All-NBA teams on Tuesday, and the results proved costly for a couple young players who were in the mix.

Within minutes of the breaking news, Jayson Tatum and Donovan Mitchell started trending on Twitter. Both were omitted from the ceremonial top 15.

In most years, such snubs may not warrant the level of attention Tatum and Mitchell are receiving. But both, who've already signed max extensions worth 25 percent of the salary cap, missed out on 10s of millions of dollars. According to ESPN's Bobby Marks, $33 million, to be exact.

Larry Coon explains in greater detail on his CBA FAQ:

"Certain players can receive contracts or extensions that are more favorable (in years and/or salary) than they ordinarily could receive. This applies to players who are finishing their rookie scale contracts (and other players with four years of experience), who can receive a starting salary up to 30% of the cap (which is normally reserved for players with 7-9 years of service)....

"In order to qualify for the higher maximum salary, players must meet certain performance criteria. At least one of the following must be true:

• The player was named to the All-NBA First, Second or Third team in the most recent season, or both of the two seasons that preceded the most recent season.
• The player was named the Defensive Player of the Year in the most recent season, or both of the two seasons that preceded the most recent season.
• The player was named the NBA Most Valuable Player in any of the three most recent seasons."

There's plenty of time between now and the end of their upcoming extensions to qualify for a so-called supermax that would take up 35 percent of whatever the cap will be then, but this year was their last chance to secure the jump from 25 to 30.

Beyond the prestige of being an All-NBA player, that much money being on the line raises all kinds of issues.

Should awards voted on by the media be so closely tied to a player's earning capacity? Does it make sense to have positional designations that split vote totals for someone like Tatum (more on that in a bit)? Should the increasingly positionless NBA just name a top 15, regardless of positions?

Year after year, this discussion bubbles to the surface when the season-ending awards are announced. Discontent with the process is more than justified for those who miss out on millions because of it.

"Hey. That's not our decision to make," longtime NBA writer Berry Tramel wrote for The Oklahoman. "We should report on what NBA teams spend and why they spend it and who they spend it on. But having an official role in what an NBA team can offer a player? That is not our place. That's a role from which we should flee."

Tramel is not alone in holding that sentiment. Plenty of voters have expressed uneasiness with the idea over the years, but this is the system the NBA put in place in an effort to incentivize young players to stay with the team that drafted them. After seeing several stars, regardless of contract situation, successfully push for trades in recent years, it may be time to revisit the supermax.

Tramel is right. Subjective honors bestowed by various writers and other media personalities shouldn't determine whether Tatum, Mitchell or others get to that 30 percent max. Eliminating the distinction between max and supermax might help. Maybe teams should just be able to offer that 30, regardless of honors. Then, of course, the decision is squarely back in the hands of the front office. And making those decisions is why team executives are hired.

Objective measures to qualify for a higher max might make sense too. There would surely be gripes over that too, but catch-all metrics have gained a lot of favor in recent years. Perhaps hitting a certain mark there could take a player from 25 percent to 26. Maybe a 30-plus scoring average could give another one or two percent.

Regardless of what the adjustment is, it certainly feels like one is needed.

Another problem is the positional question. Tatum isn't really a forward or a guard. He's a basketball player. And his versatility hurt him.

That's absurd.

There's a real discussion on whether Tatum deserved an All-NBA nod this season. If you sort every player with at least 500 minutes by the average of their ranks in 10 catch-all metrics from around the internet, Tatum finished right at No. 15 (Mitchell was 28th). He was ahead of both second-teamer Julius Randle (23rd) and third-teamer Bradley Beal (16th).

That's not to say that exercise should be determinative of the awards, but being eligible at two positions certainly shouldn't be what costs a borderline top 15 player All-NBA recognition and $33 million.

For Mitchell, a late-season sprained ankle may have hurt his chances, but he was still the leading scorer for the team with the best record in the league. And his advanced numbers are around the same range as those of Randle and Beal. He was far from a shoo-in for All-NBA, but why should that determine whether he makes 30 percent of the cap? If Mitchell was an unrestricted free agent this offseason, you don't think multiple teams would offer him that?

The NBA's heart was in the right place with this attempt to reward teams for drafting well. There's still a sort of purity with titles like Dirk Nowitzki's that just isn't there when a superteam runs the table. There's a connection between Reggie Miller and the Indiana Pacers, or Damian Lillard and the Portland Trail Blazers (for now), that journeymen probably can't establish.

But this attempt was likely a miss. At best, it's rolling around the rim.