Chris Bosh has said in no uncertain terms that he expects that the next contract he signs will be the maximum allowed under the current Collective Bargaining Agreement.

In other words, it’s a max contract or no deal as far as Bosh is concerned.

Asked yesterday if he felt he was worth such a contract, Bosh didn’t hesitate. “Without a doubt. I really don’t see any negotiation about that part.”

But for anyone wanting to know the direction he might be leaning when it comes to his future, Bosh said again that he has not made up his mind.

As for taking less than a max deal to allow Colangelo to beef up the rest of the lineup, Bosh doesn’t sound like a guy who would consider that.

“An old school guy told me: ‘Take advantage. You can’t play this game forever. Make sure you maximize your potential,’ ” Bosh said.

I think that there are probably 10 to 15 players worth a max deal. The no-brainers are LeBron, Kobe, Dwyane Wade, Dwight Howard and Chris Paul. Deron Williams, Kevin Durant, Brandon Roy and Derrick Rose are the up-and-comers. Then there are Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett and Dirk Nowitzki who are all over 30. The next tier of guys — Paul Pierce, Joe Johnson, Chris Bosh, Amare Stoudemire, Tony Parker, Carmelo Anthony, Carlos Boozer and Chauncey Billups — are all great, but are they really worth max money?

The problem I have with Bosh is that Toronto had a pretty good roster this season and they completely missed the playoffs. He is playing with one of the best point guards in the league (Jose Calderon) and he had another former All-Star on the roster as well (Jermaine O’Neal and Shawn Marion). If he’s really a max contract guy, shouldn’t he be able to carry his team to the playoffs? Obviously, a superstar needs a good supporting cast, but the Raptors had fewer wins than New Jersey, Milwaukee (who played without Michael Redd and Andrew Bogut for much of the season), Charlotte, Indiana, Detroit and Philadelphia. One could argue that Toronto has more talent top to bottom than any of those teams, so why couldn’t Bosh lead the Raptors to the playoffs?

I definitely think he deserves a big contract (something around $13 million per season sounds about right), but there’s a tendency for teams to give their best player a max deal no matter how they stack up against the other superstars in the league. Michael Redd, Andrei Kirilenko, Shawn Marion, Allen Iverson, Jermaine O’Neal, Tracy McGrady, Stephon Marbury, Steve Francis, Ray Allen, Rashard Lewis, Mike Bibby and Vince Carter all made more than $15 million last season and while some are better than others, I don’t think any of those players are worth that kind of money.

When I saw the headline — “’09 free agents may be better than ’10 class” — I was ready to jump all over David Aldridge for saying that any free agent class could be better than the one that will likely feature LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh and Amare Stoudemire. But as I read the full article, he made some sense. I still don’t agree with him, but I see his point.

Here’s a look at the possible free agents in ’09:

Those with asterisks either have options for ’09 or can terminate existing contracts for ’09, and many are expected to do one or the other, for one reason or another:

Kobe Bryant*, Carlos Boozer, Shawn Marion, Ron Artest, Lamar Odom, Hedo Turkoglu*, Mehmet Okur*, Andre Miller, Mike Bibby, Jason Kidd, Allen Iverson, Rasheed Wallace, Kyle Korver*, Anderson Varejao*, Drew Gooden, Stephon Marbury, Grant Hill, Brandon Bass, Joe Smith, Wally Szczerbiak, Zaza Pachulia and Anthony Parker. Jermaine O’Neal could join the group if he walks away from $23 million next season. (Don’t hold your breath. There’s no asterisk by Boozer because he’s already said he’s opting out next summer.)

Aldridge has four major arguments:

1. 2010 is fool’s gold.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that unless seismic changes take place, James is either going to stay in Cleveland in 2010 or go to New York. Maybe Los Angeles. Wade will almost certainly choose between Miami, New York, L.A. and Chicago. Bosh will choose between the preceding cities and, perhaps, Detroit. And that’s it.

Without the Big Three on the market for most NBA cities, the ’10 class loses a good bit of its luster. That’s going to leave a lot of teams with max money to spend on mostly not-max players.

2. Given the recession, owners will not want to spend.

Only seven or eight teams are going to be over the luxury tax threshold this season. That number isn’t going up any time soon. Fewer teams contributing luxury taxes to their fellow competitors will further erode many teams’ bottom lines.

“People have spent (in recent years) not to be a tax payer,” says a CEO of a major market team. “Indiana really can’t afford to spend up to the tax based on their local economy. But they do, because everyone else is doing it … now, I think you’re going to see teams having to make a lot of tough decisions on spending.”

3. Since fewer teams have cap space this summer, ’09 will have more opportunity.

The point is, there will be far fewer ’09 suitors than ’10 teams. And while Bryant is equally not likely to leave L.A. for smaller-revenue teams this summer, those teams are nonetheless in a buyer’s market similar to that of Major League Baseball. There will be solid, veteran players available who may well have to settle for cents on the dollar instead of bigger paydays. A wise team will likely get a whole lot more bang for its reduced buck in ’09.

Says one extremely high-ranking team executive: “This is going to be a nuclear winter for free agents. I would not want to be one this summer. So, if the point is that this summer will be great because there will be bargains galore, you are on the money.”

4. ’10 is loaded with wings, while ’09 has better point guards and bigs.

The ’10 group is lousy with wings — big wings, small wings, fast wings, shooting wings. But so is the whole NBA. The worst teams in the league — Oklahoma City, Washington, Minnesota, Memphis — all have perfectly fine wing players. It’s the point guards and centers that most of them lack, and so does the 2010 class.

Point guards available in two years: Nash. He’s it. And he’ll be 35 on opening night, 2010.

Point guards available next year: Kidd (who, granted, will be 36 on opening night, 2009), Miller and Bibby.

Quality bigs under 35 in two years: Bosh, Nowitzki and Chandler.

Quality bigs under 35 next summer: Boozer, Okur, Varejao, Wallace. Not-great-but good ones include Dallas’ Bass, Chicago’s Gooden and Atlanta’s Pachulia.

I don’t disagree with any of his individual points, but I don’t believe that they combine to make the ’09 class better than the ’10 class. To say that one class is better than another is to say that the collection of talent in one is greater than the other. That’s simply not the case here. It doesn’t matter if only a few cities have a shot at LeBron, D-Wade, Bosh and Amare — those four players hold more value than the entire ’09 class. (All right, maybe they don’t, but you get my point.) Just because the Grizzlies won’t have a shot at LeBron, it doesn’t make the ’09 class better. It might make it better for the Grizzlies, or for any other team with cap space in ’09 and no shot at LeBron, but it doesn’t make ’09 a better class on the whole.

And just because there may more bargains in ’09 than ’10 doesn’t make the former better, it just means that there may be better value available.

Aldridge’s points are all valid, it’s just his conclusion that I don’t agree with. When comparing two free agent classes, the one with more talent is the one that’s better. The other class may have a few traits that will make it appealing to certain teams, but that only makes it better to those individual teams.