Wemby: here's only 1 way we do this, we don't take Maxes

[Splits]

- no Fox Max
- no Me Max
- no Sochan more than 4/17
- No Brant max

No maxxes

[Ni-G]

It's their job not hobby. I know money are crazy in NBA but everyone wants and deserves to be decently paid for his work.

[tonight...you]

Max Westbrook.

[OldMan88]

Wemby’s going to make a fortune on outside deals because of his international appeal. No Texas Income Tax is also an advantage and mansions are cheaper to build here than in high income states. Centralized location makes for shorter flights to east or west coasts. Sure, we bake in the summer, but we only have about 2 weeks of freezing winter each year and that’s during the playing season anyway. Most of these top picks earn enough on their rookie contracts to never have to work again if they wish and still have a very comfortable life…. Not mega rich, so can’t employ the homeboy posse, but that only sucks for them…. Not the players family.

[RC_Drunkford]

Wemby’s going to make a fortune on outside deals because of his international appeal. No Texas Income Tax is also an advantage and mansions are cheaper to build here than in high income states. Centralized location makes for shorter flights to east or west coasts. Sure, we bake in the summer, but we only have about 2 weeks of freezing winter each year and that’s during the playing season anyway. Most of these top picks earn enough on their rookie contracts to never have to work again if they wish and still have a very comfortable life…. Not mega rich, so can’t employ the homeboy posse, but that only sucks for them…. Not the players family.

about half of all NBA players are broke 5 years after retiring. Sit down old man.

[Dex]

- no Fox Max
- no Me Max
- no Sochan more than 4/17
- No Brant max

No maxxes

No players.

[Seventyniner]

about half of all NBA players are broke 5 years after retiring. Sit down old man.

Wemby is far more mature and disciplined than most NBA players. There are many players I can see being in financial trouble later in life, but not Wemby. And not just because he's going to make far more money than them.

[RC_Drunkford]

Wemby is far more mature and disciplined than most NBA players. There are many players I can see being in financial trouble later in life, but not Wemby. And not just because he's going to make far more money than them.

does that mean he will take a discount?

First thing he should do is tell the Spurs to spend all that cash considerations money.

[tonight...you]

None of the previous main star Spurs took discounts on their first few contracts.
Only when they were entering the Autumns and Winters of their careers.

You guys live in La La Land.

[OldMan88]

about half of all NBA players are broke 5 years after retiring. Sit down old man.

That’s because they’re stupid with their money…. Probably like you are young man.

[Seventyniner]

does that mean he will take a discount?

First thing he should do is tell the Spurs to spend all that cash considerations money.

Not necessarily, but for most players I would put that chance at negative a million percent, with Wemby it's like 0.5%.

He deserves every penny of every max/supermax he can possibly sign.

[scott]

The salary cap has done wonders of causing fans to call the people who do all the work (players) greedy, so that rich owners can save money.

[paperboy77]

It's their job not hobby. I know money are crazy in NBA but everyone wants and deserves to be decently paid for his work.

Decently? (I know what you mean tho!)

[RC_Drunkford]

That’s because they’re stupid with their money…. Probably like you are young man.

I make pretty smart investments. Thanks for your concern.

[Frenchfred]

It's their job not hobby. I know money are crazy in NBA but everyone wants and deserves to be decently paid for his work.

decently paid :lol Imagine the fans and their low salaries who are the ones supporting the whole thing. I think that some people don't realize how much money they are making

[Frenchfred]

about half of all NBA players are broke 5 years after retiring. Sit down old man.

should we pay every employee more in the nation because they don't know how to manage their money?

[3&D_TBH]

Doesn’t even matter if we make smart decisions and have ok luck with health.

[exstatic]

None of the previous main star Spurs took discounts on their first few contracts.
Only when they were entering the Autumns and Winters of their careers.

You guys live in La La Land.
Yeah, I think Tim’s first discount was inyear 12 or 13. As an athlete, you have to make hay while the sun shines. Get your first two or three bags, THEN be magnanimous.

[Frenchfred]

Yeah, I think Tim’s first discount was inyear 12 or 13. As an athlete, you have to make hay while the sun shines. Get your first two or three bags, THEN be magnanimous.

I guess that I'm built differently, I would care way more about winning championships. If I made already 50 millions as a rookie and was to sign a new contract, I would have no problem taking 100 million dollar less to ensure that I can win multiple championships especially if I had many deals on the side.

[Obstructed_View]

about half of all NBA players are broke 5 years after retiring. Sit down old man.
Paying them more or less money doesn't change that in any way.

[kxs783kms]

I wouldn't give a billionaire a discount. I don't care what fans think. If the Spurs really want to win, they'll go into the luxury tax to do so and stop being so cheap like they've always been because y'all want the player to take less so that the billionaire can have more profits. As soon as a player is hurt or their career is cut short, then we see how cutthroat this business is. Wemby will make the Spurs organization more money than they'll ever pay out to him. Stop thinking everybody should be Duncan. Play him every penny that he's worth.

[kxs783kms]

I guess that I'm built differently, I would care way more about winning championships. If I made already 50 millions as a rookie and was to sign a new contract, I would have no problem taking 100 million dollar less to ensure that I can win multiple championships especially if I had many deals on the side.

That's so easy to say when you're not in that position. These players retire in their 30's (*If they actually make it that far*), so they have 30-50 years of living to do. They have lawyers, marketing teams, agents and more people to pay out on a yearly bases to maintain their business. That money will go quick. They should take every penny they can because those paychecks won't be there forever.

[scottspurs]

Meh or the Holts can sell the team to someone who can afford the luxury tax and doesn’t care about losing money

[OldMan88]

It’s crazy, but most of these players would be better off not even considering hiring an agent until after they’ve been drafted & signed. Rookie contracts are pretty cut & dried and they could have a contract specialist attorney review it first on a simple fee basis. They may need an agent in the future, but may not. Better to hire an investment advisor and tax attorney who will invest all but a minimum monthly amount for the player to live on. You can spot the players who might have financial problems by the large amounts of bling they wear and the size of the entourage they are seen with. This type of player doesn’t typically play for the Spurs, but there have been exceptions.

[scott]

I guess that I'm built differently, I would care way more about winning championships. If I made already 50 millions as a rookie and was to sign a new contract, I would have no problem taking 100 million dollar less to ensure that I can win multiple championships especially if I had many deals on the side.

I guess that I'm built differently, I would care way more about winning championships. If I made already hundreds of millions as a team owner and was to extend my star player, I would have no problem paying whatever they are worth even if it meant going into the luxury tax to ensure that I can win multiple championships especially if my business was worth billions and I had other businesses generating profits for me as well.

[Ice009]

Didn't Tony Parker make less by staying with the Spurs? I thought I remember one year where he could have signed with Atlanta for more money, but he said he chose to take a bit less and stay with the Spurs as he preferred the chance to win more Championships over the extra money. Not sure if I am remembering that right.

[Gandalf]

It actually makes sense to take less in multiple respects. First, you can’t take it with you; what difference does it make if you die with $300 million or $200 million in the bank?

Second, you could be a rich all-time legend or slightly richer and mostly forgotten.

Third, there’s decent a chance you could make a lot of it back and then some; successful championship teams (and players) should get far more notoriety and endorsements, sometimes even after they retire.

[Chinook]

I'm not pro-owner, but the CBA was built specifically to push against the idea that teams should spend however much is necessary to win. If players don't want to take less, they don't have to. But they can't have their cake and eat it too. They can take less and build a long-term contender or take as much as possible and have more volatile contenders. But they are going to find it really hard to force teams to spend literally hundreds of millions in extra salary to make them happy, and even if they find such a situation, that team's flexibility will be compromised more than it has been in many years. It's why the Giannis situation is far more horrifying than encouraging.

[Seventyniner]

The idea behind a star, whether it's Wemby or anyone else, taking less than the max is for the owners to spend that money on better players, not just put it in their pockets. That takes some level of trust on the players part and not all FOs deserve it.

[scott]

I'm not pro-owner, but the CBA was built specifically to push against the idea that teams should spend however much is necessary to win. If players don't want to take less, they don't have to. But they can't have their cake and eat it too. They can take less and build a long-term contender or take as much as possible and have more volatile contenders. But they are going to find it really hard to force teams to spend literally hundreds of millions in extra salary to make them happy, and even if they find such a situation, that team's flexibility will be compromised more than it has been in many years. It's why the Giannis situation is far more horrifying than encouraging.

I'm not pro-player, but the CBA was built specifically to push against the idea that teams should spend however much is necessary to win. If owners don't want to pay more, they don't have to. But they can't have their cake and eat it too. They can pay more and keep the stars that give their businesses a compelling product or pay as little as possible and have a less compelling product. But they are going to find it really hard to force stars to sacrifice literally hundreds of millions in extra salary to make their owners richer, and even if they find such a situation, that team's loyalty will prove be fleeting more than it already has been in many years. It's why the Luka situation is far more horrifying than encouraging.

[RC_Drunkford]

should we pay every employee more in the nation because they don't know how to manage their money?

should you demand a lower salary to keep your co-workers?


I guess that I'm built differently, I would care way more about winning championships. If I made already 50 millions as a rookie and was to sign a new contract, I would have no problem taking 100 million dollar less to ensure that I can win multiple championships especially if I had many deals on the side.

the only reason you are saying this is because you won't ever see that type of money in your life. Guaranteed if somebody offered you 10k right now to do that, you'd take the 10k and run with it.

[Ni-G]

Just imagine that in your corpo boss asks you to take a cut so they can employ better workers so they can be the best corpo.

[LeBowen]

Best players should never take paycuts while in their prime. But then again, Wemby will be such a brand that his endorsment deals will be more lucrative than his NBA contract.
As for the supporting cast, it's always been like this. Either get the bag on a trash team or take less to ride the championship bus.

[Ni-G]

I can see Wemby following Jordan and taking slight cut if he is as much obsessed with being competitive and getting multiple rings. But don't expect big cuts from him and supporting cast unless some kind of revolution happens in NBA and some teams are starting to beat CBA restrictions on superteams that way. It would take ridiculous amounts of good will from players though.
I wonder if there is a way to pay them with endorsements from businesses related to franchises? Probably it's banned.

[Splits]

Signing a 5/$270m vs. a 5/$325m allows improving the roster such as Korndog vs. Mamu. Perhaps he doesn't care. Perhaps he likes Korndogs.

[exstatic]

I can see Wemby following Jordan and taking slight cut if he is as much obsessed with being competitive and getting multiple rings. But don't expect big cuts from him and supporting cast unless some kind of revolution happens in NBA and some teams are starting to beat CBA restrictions on superteams that way. It would take ridiculous amounts of good will from players though.
I wonder if there is a way to pay them with endorsements from businesses related to franchises? Probably it's banned.

I think that’s the purpose of the HEB commercials, but I doubt they are very lucrative.

[ulosturedge]

I'm pretty sure that's why the FO tries to recruit high character players. Individuals that don't necessarily value money over everything. Maybe if necessary/possible they can do the Manu/Parker thing and promise these guys healthy contracts in the latter end of their careers. Don't get me wrong, I think players should get what they are worth for sure, but hopefully it's not all about the money and they value winning as well. Either way the FO will try and do what they need to. You can't pay everyone and keep everyone happy. Decisions will be made and the FO would be smart to keep loading up on draft capital and try to maintain a competitive team through the draft or via free agency(if we get to that point).

[RC_Drunkford]

I'm pretty sure that's why the FO tries to recruit high character players. Individuals that don't necessarily value money over everything. Maybe if necessary/possible they can do the Manu/Parker thing and promise these guys healthy contracts in the latter end of their careers. Don't get me wrong, I think players should get what they are worth for sure, but hopefully it's not all about the money and they value winning as well. Either way the FO will try and do what they need to. You can't pay everyone and keep everyone happy. Decisions will be made and the FO would be smart to keep loading up on draft capital and try to maintain a competitive team through the draft or via free agency(if we get to that point).

you can do that with players in their 30s, not when they are 22

[vy65]

The truth is probably somewhere in between being pro-player and pro-owner. On the one hand, these contracts are absolutely robust and are trending in the direction of max contracts being worth $100MM/year. And players like Wemby or Shai or Jokic are absolutely worth that given the value they provide their franchises (value meaning appraised franchise value; soon all franchises will be nearing if not worth 11 figures). That said, the value players provide is not limited to highlights or whatever - it's in winning. No matter how great Wemby or Shai or Jokic is, fans aren't really going to tune in for long to watch a 22-60 team. Success is absolutely a component of the value players provide.

Enter the new CBA. I absolutely hate how it penalizes franchises that draft well and manage well. Boston built that 2024 team the right way and has to dismantle it because of how punitive the aprons are. The same will likely be true for the 2025 OKC team. The CBA is intended to force teams and players into a choice between getting maximum money and being uber-competitive. That's a balance I'm fine with striking to deter situations like Phoenix or Milwaukee, where teams just throw money at stars in the hopes of building a contender. To me, that approach feels lazy and so should be penalized. But, on the other hand, the Bostons and OKCs do things the right way and are similarly treated. That's not right.

I'd like the new CBA (I think its up in 2029?) to strike more of a balance to allow homegrown teams or smart front offices to retain more of their talent while still using aprons to deter reckless spending. I've thought of a framework where the aprons/luxury taxes are triggered at higher levels for players that a franchise drafted or acquired on a lower salary so as to build in some more buffer for them to retain those players if they hit.

It's human nature to say its Team Owners vs. Team Players. But there should be a more nuanced in-between where the league, ownership, and the players figure out what sort of teams (in terms of team-construction) they want to promote and deter. That in-between would ideally reward both ownership and the players for doing things the right way while also deterring stupid reckless decision making. It'd basically promote parity not just in terms of on the court success but also front office stewardship.

[LeBowen]

Boston built that 2024 team the right way and has to dismantle it because of how punitive the aprons are.

But did they?
If we look at their 24-25 salaries, they had Jrue earning 21% and Porzingis earning 20% of the cap as 4th and 5th option.
If they kept their core which would've happened if Tatum didn't get injured, Derrick's extension would've kicked in, he'll be at 18%.

That would've been fine if they had one supermax player, but they have no right to complain with not one, but two 35% supermax contracts and three role players on near max deals.


The same will likely be true for the 2025 OKC team.

I don't think so because they won't offer max ~20% contracts to role players when three max extensions kick in.

[couchman]

I have to think that owners will change this at some point soon.
Any CBA that forces teams to consider trading away their marquee superstar (who doesn’t want to leave) is a bad system.
We already saw it with Luka and we heard the Jokic comments this summer.

There are actually two problems:
1. The super max makes it nearly impossible to keep a team around a superstar for very long because the escalating apron taxes can’t be endured very long.
2. Teams have almost zero negotiating power with good players. In most cases you either give them the max they’re eligible for or you lose them. There is no separation between borderline/occassional all stars and perennial all stars. For example, a guy like Fox, who has only made one All-Star team and never won a playoff series has the leverage to demand a similar salary to guys like Embiid, Jokic, Tatum, and Butler. He’ll earn more % of the teams cap that Tony Parker ever did, with a fraction of the accomplishments.

[vy65]

But did they?
If we look at their 24-25 salaries, they had Jrue earning 21% and Porzingis earning 20% of the cap as 4th and 5th option.
If they kept their core which would've happened if Tatum didn't get injured, Derrick's extension would've kicked in, he'll be at 18%.

That would've been fine if they had one supermax player, but they have no right to complain with not one, but two 35% supermax contracts and three role players on near max deals.

I don't think so because they won't offer max ~20% contracts to role players when three max extensions kick in.

Re: Boston, my only point is that they drafted Tatum and Brown, and White/Jrue/Tingus are more super-roleplayers than disgruntled superstars a la KD. I think the whole point of the conversation is, should the CBA be structured to allow a team that was built off smart drafts and shrewd trades for roleplayers who play there way into 20/22/25% type contracts?

Separately, I don't see the problem in having a CBA that allows for a team of two super-max stars + a bunch of high quality roleplayers/borderline allstars. What's the problem with that?

[K...]

Traditionally people like wemby should get ownership of the spurs. Would motivate them to keep the team running well. Then when you retire you can sell out. Just a form of delayed wealth . Lots of the corporate world does it.

[Mal]

They are all taking max, because if max wouldnt exist they would take more

[Chinook]

I'm not pro-player, but the CBA was built specifically to push against the idea that teams should spend however much is necessary to win. If owners don't want to pay more, they don't have to. But they can't have their cake and eat it too. They can pay more and keep the stars that give their businesses a compelling product or pay as little as possible and have a less compelling product. But they are going to find it really hard to force stars to sacrifice literally hundreds of millions in extra salary to make their owners richer, and even if they find such a situation, that team's loyalty will prove be fleeting more than it already has been in many years. It's why the Luka situation is far more horrifying than encouraging.

Except no. The owners have alteady made their stance clear when they negotiated a CBA that makes it extremely difficult to choose to spend more. Can teams choose to triple their payroll to win? Maybe but for some that is financially impossible and for most it's not tenable. Players now have to make their choice given the reality that was negotiated by their representation. Whether they want to get the most they can on a team where they might be the only star or agree to take less and have other co-stars. This isn't a rubber-glue thing where the owners can get the same choice reversed on them. They're clearly okay with a new team winning every year. The question now is if star players are.

I'm pro-player, but owners going deep into the tax doesn't actually give the players anymore money. If anything, it's just a justification for smaller teams to spend less and avoid going into the tax due to how big the payouts are.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

I'm not pro-player, but the CBA was built specifically to push against the idea that teams should spend however much is necessary to win. If owners don't want to pay more, they don't have to. But they can't have their cake and eat it too. They can pay more and keep the stars that give their businesses a compelling product or pay as little as possible and have a less compelling product. But they are going to find it really hard to force stars to sacrifice literally hundreds of millions in extra salary to make their owners richer, and even if they find such a situation, that team's loyalty will prove be fleeting more than it already has been in many years. It's why the Luka situation is far more horrifying than encouraging.

Disagree.

Most NBA teams have between 300 and 400 million total revenue (last available figures for 2024). You can’t say teams having to pay in excess of the total revenue for player salaries only, so that they keep their team, should be a viable option or a choice. These companies aren’t just players, they have a lot of other personnel and workers who are inevitably affected by the bottomline.

[baseline bum]

I can see Wemby following Jordan and taking slight cut if he is as much obsessed with being competitive and getting multiple rings.

??? Jordan was making 123% of the salary cap his last year in Chicago. It's the equivalent of a player today playing for $190 million a year.

[LeBowen]

Re: Boston, my only point is that they drafted Tatum and Brown, and White/Jrue/Tingus are more super-roleplayers than disgruntled superstars a la KD.

The problem is that those role players were overpaid for their production.


I think the whole point of the conversation is, should the CBA be structured to allow a team that was built off smart drafts and shrewd trades for roleplayers who play there way into 20/22/25% type contracts?

Having one of those contracts wasn't an issue, Celtics would've had three in the upcoming season if they kept their roster. 130% of the cap spent on their starting lineup.
Their deals were shrewd from basketball perspective, but there's a reason Jrue and KP were so cheap asset wise, their contracts were too expensive for their production.


Separately, I don't see the problem in having a CBA that allows for a team of two super-max stars + a bunch of high quality roleplayers/borderline allstars. What's the problem with that?

Two supermaxes and more max deals shouldn't be a thing.
I personally think supermax was the worst thing that happened to the NBA contracts, at least in it's current iteration.
It was supposed to keep franchise players with their original teams, but all it did was cripple the salary cap situation of those teams because very few players in the league deserve 35% contracts.

I think that only legit MVP candidates are worth supermaxing. What are you supposed to do when you're forced to give a supermax to players like Trae or Mitchell? Jaylen Brown with a 35% contract? No, thank you.

But if you're already going with the two supermax contracts route, then you can't expect to have elite role players because two supermax players should be able to carry on their own.
Excluding KD Warriors, the only championship team with two players worthy of a supermax were the bubble Lakers.

It has to be restructured in a way that those extra 5% don't count against the cap as long as the player is on the team that drafted him.
Otherwise it's more of a burden if you don't have a legit MVP level player.

[LeBowen]

Disagree.

Most NBA teams have between 300 and 400 million total revenue (last available figures for 2024). You can’t say teams having to pay in excess of the total revenue for player salaries only, so that they keep their team, should be a viable option or a choice. These companies aren’t just players, they have a lot of other personnel and workers who are inevitably affected by the bottomline.

Great point.
If we take into account all the coaching staff and franchise employees in general, team payrolls are way higher.
Is Pop still on his $10 million a year?
The general rule of a healthy franchise should be that the total amount spent on salaries shouldn't exceed 60 to 70% of franchise's revenue.

Travel expenses must be huge, we're talking about ~100 private flights per season and probably the same number of nights in 5 star hotels for 30 or so people.

[Frenchfred]

That's so easy to say when you're not in that position. These players retire in their 30's (*If they actually make it that far*), so they have 30-50 years of living to do. They have lawyers, marketing teams, agents and more people to pay out on a yearly bases to maintain their business. That money will go quick. They should take every penny they can because those paychecks won't be there forever.

I guess that some people don't realize what 50 millions is. You put 10 millions on a CD and you make $400,000/year so more than 99.5% of the US population and you would not be able to live for the rest of your life?

[baseline bum]

I don't think so because they won't offer max ~20% contracts to role players when three max extensions kick in.

I'm gonna laugh when the Lakers sign Dort to a 15-20% of the cap offer after they miss out on Giannis and Jokic, as apparently they're trying to clear capspace for 2027.

[LeBowen]

I'm gonna laugh when the Lakers sign Dort to a 15-20% of the cap offer after they miss out on Giannis and Jokic, as apparently they're trying to clear capspace for 2027.

I don't think Presti will let anyone walk, he's too obsessed with generating assets and getting the most value out of everything.

The thing I forgot to mention about this CBA is that it's difficult because teams are still operating with contracts signed before the changes happened.
As we've seen over ther past week, there are no more overpays for role players.
We need to wait for 2 or 3 more years untill new CBA contracts take over before we start claiming it's a good or bad thing for the league.

[Frenchfred]

should you demand a lower salary to keep your co-workers?



the only reason you are saying this is because you won't ever see that type of money in your life. Guaranteed if somebody offered you 10k right now to do that, you'd take the 10k and run with it.

A $100,000 and a $50 millions salaries are the same, yeah right :rolleyes I can tell you that I have given a lot of money to help people and I don't make 50 million a year.

[TekXX]

about half of all NBA players are broke 5 years after retiring. Sit down old man.

Wemby is a mature guy, he's not going to lose his money like a dumb American from the South.

[baseline bum]

I don't think Presti will let anyone walk, he's too obsessed with generating assets and getting the most value out of everything.

The thing I forgot to mention about this CBA is that it's difficult because teams are still operating with contracts signed before the changes happened.
As we've seen over ther past week, there are no more overpays for role players.
We need to wait for 2 or 3 more years untill new CBA contracts take over before we start claiming it's a good or bad thing for the league.

I think it'll be a situation where the Lakers have capspace and have to spend it somewhere.

[scott]

Except no. The owners have alteady made their stance clear when they negotiated a CBA that makes it extremely difficult to choose to spend more. Can teams choose to triple their payroll to win? Maybe but for some that is financially impossible and for most it's not tenable. Players now have to make their choice given the reality that was negotiated by their representation. Whether they want to get the most they can on a team where they might be the only star or agree to take less and have other co-stars. This isn't a rubber-glue thing where the owners can get the same choice reversed on them. They're clearly okay with a new team winning every year. The question now is if star players are.

I'm pro-player, but owners going deep into the tax doesn't actually give the players anymore money. If anything, it's just a justification for smaller teams to spend less and avoid going into the tax due to how big the payouts are.


Disagree.

Most NBA teams have between 300 and 400 million total revenue (last available figures for 2024). You can’t say teams having to pay in excess of the total revenue for player salaries only, so that they keep their team, should be a viable option or a choice. These companies aren’t just players, they have a lot of other personnel and workers who are inevitably affected by the bottomline.

Just keep on sucking down that “star players should take less” juice guys. Maybe the owners will eventually do something nice for you.

[KDKSpurs24]

It actually makes sense to take less in multiple respects. First, you can’t take it with you; what difference does it make if you die with $300 million or $200 million in the bank?

Second, you could be a rich all-time legend or slightly richer and mostly forgotten.

Third, there’s decent a chance you could make a lot of it back and then some; successful championship teams (and players) should get far more notoriety and endorsements, sometimes even after they retire.
GET REAL. You can’t take a championship with you either. I’m not trying to make this personal but do you not have a family? The way some of you are talking makes it sound more selfish than anything. A championship doesn’t mean more to me than generational wealth for my family. And I LOVE winning. But you know what? NOBODY cares about role player rings. That’s just a fact. The only rings that matter are the star player and MAYBE the 2nd option. I’m not leaving money on the table for a championship that’s NOT guaranteed. Especially when that means the rich owners get to keep it. A player can blow their Achilles out (or any other career ender) at any time and not be lucky enough to ever recover. Just like someone said, y’all are saying this kind of stuff because you will never see this type of money in your life. Easy to say. But I’m a realist and I know that anything can happen and I prefer my future family to have the money because life goes on after im dead and hardly anybody 50 years from now will stop and think “hey you remember that guy won NBA championships? He was a good player”. That doesn’t move me enough to take a damn pay cut.

[scott]

The CBA is designed to result in parity, but here some dumb fans are “well derrrr the players should just take less so the league can avoid the parity the CBA is designed to create”

The CBA is punitive so that keeping together a superteam becomes cost prohibitive… not so that owners can force the talent into taking cheaper deals in order to keep the superteam together. But once again, people (who clearly are not high earners themselves) fall for it every time. “Derrr, mah, I cud buy a years worth of Big Macs if I made just a fraction of these greedy players”

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Just keep on sucking down that “star players should take less” juice guys. Maybe the owners will eventually do something nice for you.

Way to put words in people's mouths.

Star players should not take pay cuts. GMs should be smart when building a team, because this CBA is unforgiving when you make even a single mistake. Contending windows will be shorter, players will have to be moved, etc. No more having a big 3 for 10+ years.

[scott]

When any of you folks take a pay cut in a profitable workplace so that your company can hire better co-workers around you, let me know

[scott]

Way to put words in people's mouths.

Star players should not take pay cuts. GMs should be smart when building a team, because this CBA is unforgiving when you make even a single mistake. Contending windows will be shorter, players will have to be moved, etc. No more having a big 3 for 10+ years.

Star players taking pay cuts is the topic of this thread, bud. “No maxes” isn’t a discussion of how the going rate for role players has been impacted by the CBA

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Star players taking pay cuts is the topic of this thread, bud.

And I don't believe I have supported this idea, have I? What I've said is that you can't expect teams to spend on players more than their total revenue. The notion doesn't sound weird to me, I dunno.

I'm sure you'll be very supportive of Fox's and Sochan's extensions.

[Chinook]

Just keep on sucking down that “star players should take less” juice guys. Maybe the owners will eventually do something nice for you.

You aren't being pro-player or anti-owner in your sentiments. As I said before, the players get the same amount of money no matter how big the payrolls get. The more a superstar gets for himself and his supporting cast, the less the rest of the players get back from escrow. Imagine if you were a sales person for a company, and your check started dropping because another company kept giving bigger bonuses to their top earners. That's what happens with superteams, not what you seem to think that owners as a whole have to pay a bunch of money and stars "get what they are worth". The financial beneficiaries of superteams are not "players". It's a handful of players on elite teams and the owners of poor teams who get a massive financial incentive to not pay the tax themselves.

The new CBA made it more likely that the Spurs can compete with their "humble" ownership, not less. The new rules mean fewer massive tax bills and thus less money coming back to teams ducking the tax, and the barrier for contending is lower because teams can't/won't stay deep into the tax to maintain it.

[scott]

And I don't believe I have supported this idea, have I? What I've said is that you can't expect teams to spend on players more than their total revenue. The notion doesn't sound weird to me, I dunno.

I'm sure you'll be very supportive of Fox's and Sochan's extensions.

Apologies if I interpreted your post (in response to mine) the wrong way in that case.

And sure I’ll be supportive of Fox and Sochan’s extensions, even if I think they are overpays. I’m supportive of Devin getting his bag, even as someone who sported an Anti-Dev avatar for most of the year. These are uniquely talented young men with a short window to maximize their personal earnings potential. They are also the part of the product that cannot be replaced without a drop off in the quality of the product. They’re the most important part of the product’s appeal, the most important driver of the value proposition. Those are the people I want to see well rewarded and compensated, across all walks of life.

If players want to take a pay cut to help the team, that’s cool and as a fan of a specific team I appreciate if a player does that for my team… but I’d never expect it and certainly would deride any player for not doing it. If the Spurs foolishly give Sochan a max extension tomorrow… I’ll say that was stupid by the Spurs but I’m not going to blame Jeremy for it and I’m certainly not going to call him greedy. He worked his ass off for his payday… these owners, for the most part, didn’t do shit to earn their seat at the head of the table other than win the genetic lottery.

[Gandalf]

GET REAL. You can’t take a championship with you either. I’m not trying to make this personal but do you not have a family? The way some of you are talking makes it sound more selfish than anything. A championship doesn’t mean more to me than generational wealth for my family.

You need to work on you reading comprehension, re-read the actual post you were responding to, and not make up straw-man arguments. Did I say minor role players should sacrifice everything for the team? No, I was clearly talking about major star players—e.g., ‘what’s the difference between dying with $200 MILLION in the bank vs. $300 MILLION.

Second, if you can’t ‘feed your family’ with $200 MILLION in the bank Mr. Sprewell, you should have raised a more responsible family—that’s actually way more important than just giving them $200 million, and you could (and should) have done both.

Third, no, you can’t literally take the championship or a ring with you, but it does generate a sort of historical immortality, a legend, for whatever time the world has left. I’ll also personally congratulate and thank Robinson for his championships in Heaven, even if they weren’t the most important thing in the grand scheme of things. In that sense, championships are more valuable than the relatively minor incremental difference between $200 million and $300 million—remember, we’re still talking about $200 MILLION in the bank, PLUS championships.

And again, my final point was that star players might even net around the same (or possibly even more) when you factor in the greater notoriety and associated sponsorships, etc. from being on a truly great championship team. Players like Jordan (whom Wemby wants to meet or exceed) continue to bank off of their names and reputations long after they retire.

[scott]

You aren't being pro-player or anti-owner in your sentiments. As I said before, the players get the same amount of money no matter how big the payrolls get. The more a superstar gets for himself and his supporting cast, the less the rest of the players get back from escrow. Imagine if you were a sales person for a company, and your check started dropping because another company kept giving bigger bonuses to their top earners. That's what happens with superteams, not what you seem to think that owners as a whole have to pay a bunch of money and stars "get what they are worth". The financial beneficiaries of superteams are not "players". It's a handful of players on elite teams and the owners of poor teams who get a massive financial incentive to not pay the tax themselves.

The new CBA made it more likely that the Spurs can compete with their "humble" ownership, not less. The new rules mean fewer massive tax bills and thus less money coming back to teams ducking the tax, and the barrier for contending is lower because teams can't/won't stay deep into the tax to maintain it.

Holy conflating the whole for the individual, Batman.

A star player does in fact, not get the same amount of money, by taking less money. But you are free to go offer your boss to cut your pay in half and spread it out amongst your immediate co-workers, since you’ll “get the same amount of money”

Players are individuals with agency, not some collective borg whose goal is to maximize their aggregate earnings.

[Chinook]

Way to put words in people's mouths.

Star players should not take pay cuts. GMs should be smart when building a team, because this CBA is unforgiving when you make even a single mistake. Contending windows will be shorter, players will have to be moved, etc. No more having a big 3 for 10+ years.

There's a difference here is that some folks are acknowledging the reality that the "owners should pay more" argument hasn't already been functionally removed from the discussion. Owners and players both agreed to make that basically impossible with the new apron rules. The choice of maxes or co-stars isn't a pro-player or anti-player argument. It's just the reality, and pretending like it's a matter of being cheap or being "willing to win" is just burying one's head in the sand.

There is still quite a bit of room for spending beyond the cap, though, and now there's more incentive for more teams to spend. There's no 2000s Lakers or 2010's Warriors anymore that makes it very unlikely that a good team can find their way to the Finals. So a team like the Grizzlies or Rockets can in any given year decide to go for it, spend into the tax and compete. It's much less likely that the next eight years are dominated by the Thunder because they have to let so many guys go. They'll still be really good, but they'll be beatable. That's great for everyone except the dreams of dynasty that the Thunder and their fans might have.

The Spurs could have traded for KD and tried to make a run this year and next before letting him fall off the books and getting ready for their next window. Or they could get lucky with their draft picks and have a very short window with those guys before letting on or two of their best players go if they aren't willing to take less to stay together. What they're not likely to do at all is carry a billon-dollar ledger in terms of salary and tax and have their draft picks frozen year after year to try to force a dynasty.

[Frenchfred]

GET REAL. You can’t take a championship with you either. I’m not trying to make this personal but do you not have a family? The way some of you are talking makes it sound more selfish than anything. A championship doesn’t mean more to me than generational wealth for my family. And I LOVE winning. But you know what? NOBODY cares about role player rings. That’s just a fact. The only rings that matter are the star player and MAYBE the 2nd option. I’m not leaving money on the table for a championship that’s NOT guaranteed. Especially when that means the rich owners get to keep it. A player can blow their Achilles out (or any other career ender) at any time and not be lucky enough to ever recover. Just like someone said, y’all are saying this kind of stuff because you will never see this type of money in your life. Easy to say. But I’m a realist and I know that anything can happen and I prefer my future family to have the money because life goes on after im dead and hardly anybody 50 years from now will stop and think “hey you remember that guy won NBA championships? He was a good player”. That doesn’t move me enough to take a damn pay cut.

we all have different priorities but let's not go Latrell Sprewell here, we are talking about dozens of millions of dollars in earnings, it's not like your family is going to starve to death.

[scott]

You need to work on you reading comprehension, re-read the actual post you were responding to, and not make up straw-man arguments. Did I say minor role players should sacrifice everything for the team? No, I was clearly talking about major star players—e.g., ‘what’s the difference between dying with $200 MILLION in the bank vs. $300 MILLION.

Second, if you can’t ‘feed your family’ with $200 MILLION in the bank Mr. Sprewell, you should have raised a more responsible family—that’s actually way more important than just giving them $200 million, and you could (and should) have done both.

Third, no, you can’t literally take the championship or a ring with you, but it does generate a sort of historical immortality, a legend, for whatever time the world has left. I’ll also personally congratulate and thank Robinson for his championships in Heaven, even if they weren’t the most important thing in the grand scheme of things. In that sense, championships are more valuable than the relatively minor incremental difference between $200 million and $300 million—remember, we’re still talking about $200 MILLION in the bank, PLUS championships.

And again, my final point was that star players might even net around the same (or possibly even more) when you factor in the greater notoriety and associated sponsorships, etc. from being on a truly great championship team. Players like Jordan (whom Wemby wants to meet or exceed) continue to bank off of their names and reputations long after they retire.

These are really easy words to type out when you’re talking about someone else’s money.

I’m sure some players grandchildren will take solace in giving up millions of dollars because you get to thank David Robinson in heaven.

[LeBowen]

I don't think it needs to be pointed out that most owners are greedy scumbags with just a few of them being in the category of people that have too much time and money on their hands and use their NBA team as a dick measuring tool.

The point of all the discount talk should be about roster functionality and not how much the ownership is paying, that's why mentioning percentages of the total cap is imporant.
Jaylen Brown isn't worth 35% of the cap regardless of if those 35% amount to 10 or 60 million a year.

[scott]

There's a difference here is that some folks are acknowledging the reality that the "owners should pay more" argument hasn't already been functionally removed from the discussion. Owners and players both agreed to make that basically impossible with the new apron rules. The choice of maxes or co-stars isn't a pro-player or anti-player argument. It's just the reality, and pretending like it's a matter of being cheap or being "willing to win" is just burying one's head in the sand.

There is still quite a bit of room for spending beyond the cap, though, and now there's more incentive for more teams to spend. There's no 2000s Lakers or 2010's Warriors anymore that makes it very unlikely that a good team can find their way to the Finals. So a team like the Grizzlies or Rockets can in any given year decide to go for it, spend into the tax and compete. It's much less likely that the next eight years are dominated by the Thunder because they have to let so many guys go. They'll still be really good, but they'll be beatable. That's great for everyone except the dreams of dynasty that the Thunder and their fans might have.

The Spurs could have traded for KD and tried to make a run this year and next before letting him fall off the books and getting ready for their next window. Or they could get lucky with their draft picks and have a very short window with those guys before letting on or two of their best players go if they aren't willing to take less to stay together. What they're not likely to do at all is carry a billon-dollar ledger in terms of salary and tax and have their draft picks frozen year after year to try to force a dynasty.

Yes… the CBA (that both sides agreed to) is built to discourage superteams and dynasties… that should be acknowledged. The argument that some people are making is that the solution to this is the best players should give up their earnings in order to create the thing that is being discouraged: superteams and dynasties.

That’s the context. There is already a mechanism in place if teams want to do the thing that is being actively discouraged: teams paying the tax and suffering the apron penalties. Teams can just do that. There is nothing stopping them, the pathway and the exact calculable consequences are laid out for them.

That’s the solution, as opposed to asking the most talented individuals to sacrifice the slice of the pie they’ve earned. That’s just forcing a socialist pay structure upon a specific class of the contributing workers (players) in order to protect the free capitalist wealth transfer to the top (the owners).

Like I said, The salary cap has done wonders of causing fans to call the people who do all the work (players) greedy, so that rich owners can save money. I’m surprised the GOP congress hasn’t introduced the National Salary Cap Bill of 2025 yet, to be honest.

[scott]

There's a difference here is that some folks are acknowledging the reality that the "owners should pay more" argument hasn't already been functionally removed from the discussion. Owners and players both agreed to make that basically impossible with the new apron rules. The choice of maxes or co-stars isn't a pro-player or anti-player argument. It's just the reality, and pretending like it's a matter of being cheap or being "willing to win" is just burying one's head in the sand.

There is still quite a bit of room for spending beyond the cap, though, and now there's more incentive for more teams to spend. There's no 2000s Lakers or 2010's Warriors anymore that makes it very unlikely that a good team can find their way to the Finals. So a team like the Grizzlies or Rockets can in any given year decide to go for it, spend into the tax and compete. It's much less likely that the next eight years are dominated by the Thunder because they have to let so many guys go. They'll still be really good, but they'll be beatable. That's great for everyone except the dreams of dynasty that the Thunder and their fans might have.

The Spurs could have traded for KD and tried to make a run this year and next before letting him fall off the books and getting ready for their next window. Or they could get lucky with their draft picks and have a very short window with those guys before letting on or two of their best players go if they aren't willing to take less to stay together. What they're not likely to do at all is carry a billon-dollar ledger in terms of salary and tax and have their draft picks frozen year after year to try to force a dynasty.

Yes… the CBA (that both sides agreed to) is built to discourage superteams and dynasties… that should be acknowledged. The argument that some people are making is that the solution to this is the best players should give up their earnings in order to create the thing that is being discouraged: superteams and dynasties.

That’s the context. There is already a mechanism in place if teams want to do the thing that is being actively discouraged: teams paying the tax and suffering the apron penalties. Teams can just do that. There is nothing stopping them, the pathway and the exact calculable consequences are laid out for them.

That’s the solution, as opposed to asking the most talented individuals to sacrifice the slice of the pie they’ve earned. That’s just forcing a socialist pay structure upon a specific class of the contributing workers (players) in order to protect the free capitalist wealth transfer to the top (the owners).

Like I said, The salary cap has done wonders of causing fans to call the people who do all the work (players) greedy, so that rich owners can save money. I’m surprised the GOP congress hasn’t introduced the National Salary Cap Bill of 2025 yet, to be honest.

[ambchang]

Fans expecting players to take a lesser contract because it will help their favourite team win are simply naive, stupid, selfish, or some combination of all three.

Whether a player take less money to give a team a chance at signing better players is the choice of that player, not anybody else's. Whether that player will get more satisfaction earning more money than to give that money to the team, who may or may not be able to effectively use that money to field a more competitive team, is up to that player, not any one else.

To say that you will trade $10M for more titles is fine, it's good for you. To say that any other person should do it because you would, when you weren't, aren't and never will be in that situation, is just pure idiocy.

Also, owners do not have a great track record effectively using that money to field championship winning teams. In fact, in most cases, the owners just pocket that change. Owners have historically, time and again, fielded inferior products to line their own pockets. From OKC unwilling to pay luxury taxes and lost Harden, to Miami waiving Miller to save $17M in luxury taxes after Lebron signed for less, owners just make more money.

Besides, this entire cap thing was an owner's invention to make themselves more profitable, more as a wink wink way between the owners to collude legally to suppress player pay, and save themselves from their own stupidity. And yes, when I say owners, I include the FO as FO decisions, especially big ones, would normally go through the owners.

The cap supposedly had two purposes:
1) From the league's perspective, it levels the playing fields for large and small market teams. At least more so. Big markets enjoy additional merchandise sales, local TV deals and as such have more money to spend. However, even with a cap big markets will give players more endorsement opportunities and better quality of living. Some times places also have lower state taxes (see Florida). But even after the caps that led to lockouts (1999 and 2011), big names still prefer LA, GS and Miami. NY and BRK sucked with questionable FOs and has high state taxes (didn't affect LA and GS that much) so players don't go there much.

2) From the owner's perspective, it keeps them from the race to the bottom. Prior to 1999, while the cap exists, there were many loopholes that allows FO to circumvent the cap so that they would sign players like Jim McIlvaine and Jon Koncak to big deals because they are idiots and worry other teams will snatch them up (as if there aren't any replaceable players that are readily available to replace those) or sign huge deals for unproven talent (Juwan Howard, Chris Webber and Glenn Robinson's rookie deals which led to the rookie scale contracts in 1995) that are highly risky and heavily relying on potential. So they wanted a cap that led to the 1999 lockout by setting a collusion circle to keep themselves from out-stupiding each other. That helped somewhat, but not totally as we still see contracts like Ben Wallace and Gilbert Arenas, so they had another lockout in 2011, which still didn't help, and now they have the second apron. Each step of the way, the player lost ground because they can't out last the owners, the owners have multiple sources of income, and the players don't.

The salary cap, from what I recalled, has pretty much stayed around 50/50 split of revenue between players and owners. In 2001, the league had revenue of $2.5B, so $1.25B goes to the players, and $1.25B goes to the owners for other operation expenses and profits. Fast forward to 2025, the league had revenue of $11.5B, which means that $5.65B goes to players and $5.65B goes to the owners for other operating expenses and profits. I can guarantee you other staff and expenses did not increase ANYWHERE approaching a 4x+ increase during that time. In fact, inflation during that period in the US was about 82%, put in additional operating costs to make things more entertaining or additional analytics and marketing, and you are still not looking at anywhere close to that jump of $3.4B in additional revenue share the owners got. This is reflected in team valuation, where a team would be worth less than $300M in 2001 to over $10B in 2025.

So instead of cutting prices to the fans, who are stupidly willing to pay for all of this while complaining about player salaries, or better yet, give a bigger share of the revenues to the players as the players are actually the end product, the owners put in more stringent cap rules to keep themselves from burning a hole in their pockets, because they KNOW they have that money to spend and if they don't, someone else will and will once again eat into their profits. So they increase the collusion and take the money.

All this time, fans are actually out there complaining about the players, who are the product, are what the fans pay to see, are the ones putting in the work around the clock to improve everything, are the ones risking injuries. I just do not understand how this logic works, at all.

So if you are so great that you are willing to give up $10M to line up the pockets of owners, naively thinking that they will give it back to you through the forms of signing more players, all the power to you. Work on your game and to to the NBA and be that player.

Ultimately, in a fight between millionaires and billionaires, the millionaires always lose.

[Chinook]

Holy conflating the whole for the individual, Batman.

I'm not conflating them. You're ignoring them.


A star player does in fact, not get the same amount of money, by taking less money.

Being pro-player isn't just being pro-star player. I'm actually pro-labor, and creating massive income disparity isn't actually something I see as being good for the working class. Of course, the real world isn't zero-sum in the way NBA salary distribution is.


Players are individuals with agency, not some collective borg whose goal is to maximize their aggregate earnings.

"Players" are actually a collective, just as "owners" are. You have it in your head that this is about an individual player getting more from an individual owner, and that's just poor perspective. The player is taking more money from his co-workers, and the owner is reducing amount of money his co-owners have to pay.

The point is that the question of taking maxes or taking less has NOTHING to do with buying owner propaganda. As a collective group, it literally doesn't cost them more money to do this. They and the players have already negotiated a reality where teams aren't allowed to maintain massive payrolls. This is a matter of an individual choice a player makes on what factors are worth most to them. A player or a group of players can decide to take less and stay together or get as much as they can, even if it means one or more of them have to leave their team. Both choices are valid. Both choices reflect real-world choices people make every day, even if you personally haven't. Plenty of us have had to choice to leave a job for more money elsewhere, even if it's someone in retail deciding to leave their store for another store.

We as fans might want the players to stay together and make as much as they want, but that's not really a serious argument anymore.

[KDKSpurs24]

You need to work on you reading comprehension, re-read the actual post you were responding to, and not make up straw-man arguments. Did I say minor role players should sacrifice everything for the team? No, I was clearly talking about major star players—e.g., ‘what’s the difference between dying with $200 MILLION in the bank vs. $300 MILLION.

Second, if you can’t ‘feed your family’ with $200 MILLION in the bank Mr. Sprewell, you should have raised a more responsible family—that’s actually way more important than just giving them $200 million, and you could (and should) have done both.

Third, no, you can’t literally take the championship or a ring with you, but it does generate a sort of historical immortality, a legend, for whatever time the world has left. I’ll also personally congratulate and thank Robinson for his championships in Heaven, even if they weren’t the most important thing in the grand scheme of things. In that sense, championships are more valuable than the relatively minor incremental difference between $200 million and $300 million—remember, we’re still talking about $200 MILLION in the bank, PLUS championships.

And again, my final point was that star players might even net around the same (or possibly even more) when you factor in the greater notoriety and associated sponsorships, etc. from being on a truly great championship team. Players like Jordan (whom Wemby wants to meet or exceed) continue to bank off of their names and reputations long after they retire.
200 vs 300? The difference is a whopping $100 million! At the end of the day, star player or not, that money in fact may never be made up with endorsements because the reality is that the star player can still have both the full contract AND get a high amount in endorsements. Because like I said, taking a pay cut to sign other players doesn’t guarantee you a championship. And I wouldn’t use Jordan as a comparison because it seems like the media and most fans will never allow someone to reach the same amount of notoriety as he got. Shai just won that championship but I can guarantee you he will never get the level of notoriety and endorsements that Jordan received just because he won a championship. Same for Tatum and whoever else.

[scott]

Perfectly said ambchang, I had a similar response written up, but when I hit post this lovely website decided instead to just double up my response to Chinook.

At the end of the day, the cap is here to save owners from themselves. They know they’ll get baited into an expensive dick measuring contest if there aren’t guardrails to stop them from doing it.

It’s easy for Joe Forum Poster to call players greedy, because he cannot fathom the amounts of money we are talking… but the lifetime earnings of even the greatest player of all time pale in comparison to the collective wealth of the owners. It’s like Jeff Bezos setting up a system where all the Amazon workers start calling each other greedy to distract them from noticing the wealth he is amassing.

[scott]

I'm not conflating them. You're ignoring them.



Being pro-player isn't just being pro-star player. I'm actually pro-labor, and creating massive income disparity isn't actually something I see as being good for the working class. Of course, the real world isn't zero-sum in the way NBA salary distribution is.



"Players" are actually a collective, just as "owners" are. You have it in your head that this is about an individual player getting more from an individual owner, and that's just poor perspective. The player is taking more money from his co-workers, and the owner is reducing amount of money his co-owners have to pay.

This thread is literally about paying Wemby and Fox less than the max. Those are individual players. And they play for a team with an individual ownership group.

You changing the conversation to something else isn’t a matter of me ignoring anything or having the wrong perspective, it’s a matter of you having a different conversation, per usual.




The point is that the question of taking maxes or taking less has NOTHING to do with buying owner propaganda. As a collective group, it literally doesn't cost them more money to do this. They and the players have already negotiated a reality where teams aren't allowed to maintain massive payrolls. This is a matter of an individual choice a player makes on what factors are worth most to them. A player or a group of players can decide to take less and stay together or get as much as they can, even if it means one or more of them have to leave their team. Both choices are valid. Both choices reflect real-world choices people make every day, even if you personally haven't. Plenty of us have had to choice to leave a job for more money elsewhere, even if it's someone in retail deciding to leave their store for another store.

We as fans might want the players to stay together and make as much as they want, but that's not really a serious argument anymore.

Individual players aren’t responsible for the collective group, so this point is irrelevant to discussion what individual players should do in terms of taking a pay cut for the team. It’s not Wemby’s, or LeBrons, or Blake Wesley’s responsibility to look out for the collective good of the players. They have a union, who they pay dues to, to do that on their behalf. They, and their agents, are only responsible for maximizing their own earnings in this short window they have to monetize their greatest asset.

And where you are wrong is your statement “teams aren’t allowed to maintain massive payrolls”. They are absolutely allowed, quite specifically, by the CBA. The costs of doing so are easily calculated. The costs discourage teams from doing so, but they are absolutely allowed. Just as valid is the choice for players to take less money, or to leave the team, is the choice for a team to bear the costs of maintaining a massive payroll. It may not be the best long-term decision for the product, but it’s a perfectly valid and allowed choice.


Plenty of us have had to choice to leave a job for more money elsewhere, even if it's someone in retail deciding to leave their store for another store.

And here you perfectly reinforce what I’ve already said in this thread, twice.

No one calls their co-worker who leaves The Home Depot to go work at HEB for an extra $1/hr greedy… No one suggests to that co-worker than they forgo the extra earnings to keep the team together at The Home Depot… because of course they don’t. The salary cap that owners put in place to save them from themselves created the environment for that to happen.

[Chinook]

Yes… the CBA (that both sides agreed to) is built to discourage superteams and dynasties… that should be acknowledged. The argument that some people are making is that the solution to this is the best players should give up their earnings in order to create the thing that is being discouraged: superteams and dynasties.

I think you'll see a mixture of strategies, with stars taking less in some situations and teams having to build around stars that don't take less in others. I was confused by this thread's title initially because it was written as if it was paraphrasing something that Wemby said. That would have been Earth-shattering news. The plan as it saw it was not basically avoid overpaying for guys like Harper or Castle -- don't max them out just because, and don't max them out if they still have major flaws like being unable to shoot or play defense. The team is going to need to stay ahead and be willing to trade core players for pieces and better fits. That should should be a cyclical process, with Wemby likely as the only true constant. IF players are willing to take less, that's great, and it slows the cycle down substantially if they do. But if they don't, that's valid. The team just can't keep them.


That’s the context. There is already a mechanism in place if teams want to do the thing that is being actively discouraged: teams paying the tax and suffering the apron penalties. Teams can just do that. There is nothing stopping them, the pathway and the exact calculable consequences are laid out for them.

The difference now is that teams are losing more and more flexibility if they spend too much. They'll eventually become unable to compete and will lose no matter how much they're willing to spend. Imagine a Warriors who had one of the worse records in the league but had the 30th pick instead of the second because their salary was too high. There's being willing to spend and maintaining a functional roster, and the Bucks are basically in hell right now spending hundreds of millions of dollars while Giannis is undecided if he should stay. They should have read the writing on the wall and moved him.


That’s just forcing a socialist pay structure upon a specific class of the contributing workers (players) in order to protect the free capitalist wealth transfer to the top (the owners).

Socialism has nothing to do with players all unearning the same money. That's "owner propaganda" if I've ever seen it. That would be if the players owned the league and were responsible for paying all the workers, crew, negotiating media deals, handing out suspensions, etc. I'm more than cool with that in theory. Stars would still be paid the most in that scenarios. Some might make even more money. The difference is that the most successful teams would be the ones where the best players made less money, because players would want to join clubs that were offering more money to the non-stars. And again, because the amount of money has already been negotiated, there's no "free capitalist wealth transfer to the top". Owners like the Holts were massive beneficiaries of the old CBA and stand to comparatively lose a fair bit under the current one.

[scott]

I think you'll see a mixture of strategies, with stars taking less in some situations and teams having to build around stars that don't take less in others. I was confused by this thread's title initially because it was written as if it was paraphrasing something that Wemby said. That would have been Earth-shattering news. The plan as it saw it was not basically avoid overpaying for guys like Harper or Castle -- don't max them out just because, and don't max them out if they still have major flaws like being unable to shoot or play defense. The team is going to need to stay ahead and be willing to trade core players for pieces and better fits. That should should be a cyclical process, with Wemby likely as the only true constant. IF players are willing to take less, that's great, and it slows the cycle down substantially if they do. But if they don't, that's valid. The team just can't keep them.



At the end of it, this should be the fairly commonplace position everyone lands on.

Individual players should do what is in their best interest (which may be making the most money, or may be winning championships, or may be living in the place they want to, etc), and teams should do what is in theirs (whether that be putting the winningest product out there, or the the most entertaining product, or the most profitable product).

That will lead to 30 different results that are dynamic over time, which makes the overall product offering most interesting.

But what is just stupid, as ambchang so eloquently put, is Joe Forum Poster calling Player X greedy or calling for Player Y to sacrifice his money so that Joe can enhance his own personal satisfaction with the product. Joe has recourse in this whole thing: he can just stop watching if he doesn’t like the product. But, in my humble opinion, people should shut the fuck up with their opinions about other working people’s money.

[scott]

Socialism has nothing to do with players all unearning the same money. That's "owner propaganda" if I've ever seen it. That would be if the players owned the league and were responsible for paying all the workers, crew, negotiating media deals, handing out suspensions, etc. I'm more than cool with that in theory. Stars would still be paid the most in that scenarios. Some might make even more money. The difference is that the most successful teams would be the ones where the best players made less money, because players would want to join clubs that were offering more money to the non-stars. And again, because the amount of money has already been negotiated, there's no "free capitalist wealth transfer to the top". Owners like the Holts were massive beneficiaries of the old CBA and stand to comparatively lose a fair bit under the current one.


The “socialism” is from fans who are prioritizing their own interests. This is an extreme example, because I’ve never seen anyone ever call for this, but it would be Joe Forum Poster to say “the team would be best off if the best 15 players in the league just agreed to each take 1/15th of the salary cap”. You could effectively have the Dream Team and meet the cap! But that is asking those 15 players to engage in some localized socialist economic structure to the benefit of everyone but themselves, and only the players are subject to this socialist economic structure. The owner of this team would benefit from a controllable payroll, but the most compelling product in the league, ticket sales would go through the roof, profits would be higher than ever, and the value of his team would skyrocket. That’s the free capitalize wealth transfer to the top for this one specific hypothetical (and not realistic) team. If these 15 guys would simply just sacrifice their own well being, Joe Forum Poster would get to watch his favorite season ever!

[Chinook]

And where you are wrong is your statement “teams aren’t allowed to maintain massive payrolls”. They are absolutely allowed, quite specifically, by the CBA. The costs of doing so are easily calculated. The costs discourage teams from doing so, but they are absolutely allowed. Just as valid is the choice for players to take less money, or to leave the team, is the choice for a team to bear the costs of maintaining a massive payroll. It may not be the best long-term decision for the product, but it’s a perfectly valid and allowed choice.

You're using "maintain" to mean something like "continuously have". I'm using it to mean to tweak it, improve weaknesses, add new pieces as old pieces fall out. You know, like perform maintenance on it. The CBA makes it hard to move big pieces around, to draft new good players to come up behind old ones, to sign key role-players from outside the organization. Because they can't maintain the roster, it falls apart on its own.


And here you perfectly reinforce what I’ve already stated what I’ve said in this thread, twice.

No one calls their co-worker who leaves The Home Depot to go work at HEB for an extra $1/hr greedy… No one suggests to that co-worker than they forgo the extra earnings to keep the team together at The Home Depot… because of course they don’t. The salary cap that owners put in place to save them from themselves created the environment for that to happen.

The difference is not the CBA -- it's sports. If you were a customer at that Home Depot and often dealt with that specific team for some reason, and the best person there left to become a manager somewhere else, you might well be annoyed with them. That would be even more true if it wasn't a dollar per hour but a penny an hour, where you could make the argument that it won't affect their lives. No, it's not justified, they have a right to earn more money, whether it makes a meaningful difference to their lives or not. But we commodify people from whom we get a service. Like a lot of people get upset with businesses raise prices in response to higher wages.

Sports because of its remove make it extremely easy to devalue players. That's how boxing and MMA are still allowed to exist. NFL fans bitch constantly about players not being allowed to ram their heads into other guys' heads running a top speed. A lot of fans hate NIL in college sports because their favorite schools lose a competitive advantage. Most fans don't care about players or owners. They care about their team and the product on the floor. So they come up with arguments like, "Players are greedy if they take less," or "Owners should just pay whatever it takes." Whereas an actual nuanced argument talks about the tradeoffs of team-building. Players taking less makes dynasties possible. Otherwise, the teams have to be far more judicious about when they spend money to hit their windows. The popular third option of teams paying massive bills to keep guys together while those guys make as much money as possible isn't there anymore. A owner with deep pockets could try it, but the resulting roster will rot due to the inability to maintain it.

[scott]

Ironically, with all of that said… the salary capped structure does, in my opinion, create the most compelling product. The alternative is like what we see in Global Soccer, where the biggest pocket book usually wins. If we had that, it would just be Lakers v Knicks every year in the finals and us Spurs fans would be constantly enduring the stress of yet another relegation battle and maybe the occasional playoff appearance.

There are multiple philosophical battles waged in this discussion, but it is important not to conflate them.

1. The battle between a capped system vs an uncapped system. The players, owners and fans collectively come out ahead in the capped system, IMO. Players have a more predictable (and still quite lucrative) stream of revenue into the salary pool, with structure behind it. Owners save themselves from costly dick measuring contests. Fans get a better product.

2. The battle between owners and players union. This is more to what I believe you were trying to get into, Chinook, which IMO is a different topic than the one this thread is about. The structure of the CBA and how incentives align from players acting in their best interest and teams acting in theirs.

3. The battle between individual good and collective good. Should player X take less to help the team? Only Player X can decide that, and it’s really bullshit for Joe Forum Poster to posit himself as someone who can even relate to this let alone have a real opinion on it. Like you said Chinook, both choices are valid. It just depends on what a player values more, and it is their choice and they are not “greedy” for maximizing their earning window, no more than any worker is greedy for asking their boss for a raise. I think this is another benefit the owners get from a capped system: they create a scenario whereby the product’s consumers (fans) are pitted against the product’s creators (players) while the person really controlling the strings (owners) gets off without criticism. It’s like getting mad at the factory worker for getting the most pay he can because you think the price of potato chips is too high, when the chip company is making record profit margins.

[scott]

No. You're using "maintain" to mean something like "continuously have". I'm using it to mean to tweak it, improve weaknesses, add new pieces as old pieces fall out. You know, like perform maintenance on it. The CBA makes it hard to move big pieces around, to draft new good players to come up behind old ones, to sign key role-players from outside the organization. Because they can't maintain the roster, it falls apart on its own.

Because that’s what the word “maintain” means. “Maintain” does not mean, and has never meant, to tweak, improve weakness, add new pieces, etc. That word is “improve.”

Instead of using words in novel ways, like you often do, why don’t you just use the right words?

I’ll let you have the last word on all the rest. My posts are straight forward and easy to understand, using all the correct words, and folks can judge for themselves.

[LeBowen]

It just depends on what a player values more, and it is their choice and they are not “greedy” for maximizing their earning window, no more than any worker is greedy for asking their boss for a raise.

I actually think this is the biggest advantage for big market teams.
When was the last time a franchise player in his prime took a paycut on a small market team?
Brunson left a lot of money on the table, but I'm sure he'll make up a lot of it via endorsments that he wouldn't have gotten if he was playing in let's say NOLA instead of NYC.


I think this is another benefit the owners get from a capped system: they create a scenario whereby the product’s consumers (fans) are pitted against the product’s creators (players) while the person really controlling the strings (owners) gets off without criticism. It’s like getting mad at the factory worker for getting the most pay he can because you think the price of potato chips is too high, when the chip company is making record profit margins.

Honest question, since I can't really remember.
When was the last time fans of a legit contender antagonized at their star player for not taking a paycut?

[scott]

I actually think this is the biggest advantage for big market teams.
When was the last time a franchise player in his prime took a paycut on a small market team?
Brunson left a lot of money on the table, but I'm sure he'll make up a lot of it via endorsments that he wouldn't have gotten if he was playing in let's say NOLA instead of NYC.

100% - and it’s also why I think (for megastars especially) we as fans shouldn’t merely count on Bird rights that are going to save us from this.

I’m not saying Wemby will do this… but if he decided LAL or NYK better provided him whatever that thing is that he prioritizes (let’s just pretend its having daily access to NY Bagels every morning), then having his Bird rights and being able to pay him more isn’t going to stop that from happening. Whatever he loses he can make up in that big market, if he wants.




Honest question, since I can't really remember.
When was the last time fans of a legit contender antagonized at their star player for not taking a paycut?

I don’t know if it is happening specifically with OKC fans, but it seems like it’s kind of happening now with SGA’s extension, but that might just be among non-OKC fans. I see it more in football whenever a QB signs a new deal that becomes the new highest contract in history, because that’s just the nature of QB contracts but there is a clear #1 QB in the league (Mahomes) so anyone who is not Mahomes getting the highest contract is seen as greed from their fans, but in 2 years that “highest paid contract” will be like the 10th highest paid contract.

I don’t think it really happens that often, usually only amongst old white boomers lamenting their own mediocre lives.

[Chinook]

Because that’s what the word “maintain” means. “Maintain” does not mean, and has never meant, to tweak, improve weakness, add new pieces, etc. That word is “improve.”

Literally the first definition on MW:


to keep in an existing state (as of repair, efficiency, or validity) : preserve from failure or decline
maintain machinery

This is again you trying to score a semantic point in lieu of having a real discussion. There's a difference between being able to pay the same 15 guys an infinite amount of money forever and keeping a team a contender for years. The former is technically possible under the current CBA, though financially not tenable. The latter has been rendered all but impossible by the new CBA. My point was to clarify which of the valid, normal definitions of the word "maintenance" I was using, and instead of going, "Oh, you mean like a machine. I get what you were saying now.", the way a normal person would, you tried to leap onto another semantic issue. Whether taking something that's become weak and making it strong again is "fixing" or "improving" is only a matter of perspective.


I’ll let you have the last word on all the rest. My posts are straight forward and easy to understand, using all the correct words, and folks can judge for themselves.

In general, I did edit my post to tone down the rhetoric because there's no point in continuing that when we're reaching a consensus anyway.

[scott]

Literally the first definition on MW:


Yes, thank you. “To keep in an existing state”. As in, NOT “improve, tweak, add to”.

Thanks for that and… congrats on the self-own, I guess?

[Chinook]

Yes, thank you. “To keep in an existing state”. As in, NOT “improve, tweak, add to”.

Thanks for that and… congrats on the self-own, I guess?

Have you ever maintained a machine, Scott? You're really coming off like you haven't. You 100 percent replace old parts with new parts as part of maintenance. Or do you thinking changing your tires and oil is "improving" your car?

[scott]

Have you ever maintained a machine, Scott? You're really coming off like you haven't. You 100 percent replace old parts with new parts as part of maintenance. Or do you thinking changing your tires and oil is "improving" your car?

When I talk about improving things, I use the word improve. When I talk about “keeping in the existing state”, the definition you provided, I use the word maintain.

I don’t know what to tell you man. Words have meanings, and the meanings matters. Do better.

I don’t know you, and you don’t know me. You might be some kind of master machine operator so I’m not going to claim I have more experience than you with machine maintenance and plant operations… but I’ll just say… I’m well experienced, thanks.

[Chinook]

When I talk about improving things, I use the word improve. When I talk about “keeping in the existing state”, the definition you provided, I use the word maintain.

I don’t know what to tell you man. Words have meanings, and the meanings matters. Do better.

I don’t know you, and you don’t know me. You might be some kind of master machine operator so I’m not going to claim I have more experience than you with machine maintenance and plant operations… but I’ll just say… I’m well experienced, thanks.

A lot of words to just say "you're right, maintenance does involve replacing old parts with new and doesn't mean to keep the same parts as they wear out." You're supposed to be the clear speaker of the two of us, but you'll twist yourself in knots about this and bring it up passive-aggressively for months if not years.

I have to imagine the ship of Theseus keeps you up at night.

[kxs783kms]

I guess that some people don't realize what 50 millions is. You put 10 millions on a CD and you make $400,000/year so more than 99.5% of the US population and you would not be able to live for the rest of your life?

I don't know, so I can't say. We've seen plenty of millionaires go broke for one reason or another. What I do know though, is the more I have, the better chance I have. Therefore I want every penny I can get and I wouldn't be worried one bit about fans wanting me to take less so that I can satisfy their want for their favorite team to win. Even still, I can be paid top dollar and still win rings. It's been done plenty of times before

[scott]

A lot of words to just say "you're right, maintenance does involve replacing old parts with new and doesn't mean to keep the same parts as they wear out." You're supposed to be the clear speaker of the two of us, but you'll twist yourself in knots about this and bring it up passive-aggressively for months if not years.

I have to imagine the ship of Theseus keeps you up at night.

Hey man, if that's what you got out of that, more power to ya.

https://a.pinatafarm.com/1148x1295/41128de291/3rd-place-celebration.jpg

[Chinook]

you'll twist yourself in knots about this and bring it up passive-aggressively for months if not years.


Hey man, if that's what you got out of that, more power to ya.

https://a.pinatafarm.com/1148x1295/41128de291/3rd-place-celebration.jpg

Ah, nice to see you're starting early.

[scott]

Ah, nice to see you're starting early.

Hey man, you declared victory. You won. Maintain and improve mean the same thing now. Congrats!

[tonight...you]

Sometimes maintaining my gaming PC means I have to improve parts as we move into the future of gaming.

[Gandalf]

These are really easy words to type out when you’re talking about someone else’s money.

I’m sure some players grandchildren will take solace in giving up millions of dollars because you get to thank David Robinson in heaven.

You still don’t get it. $200 million in the bank and raising your kids right will stretch that money to take care of your children, your grandchildren, your great-grandchildren, and beyond—unless you raise lazy slugs who just sit around and party, in which case they’re better off being forced to do something more with their lives.

And for whatever poster said it was ‘stupid and selfish’ to ask star athletes to take less than the max—no, it would be stupid and selfish if, e.g., Wemby tells everyone including his fans that he’s going to be the best ever (which he essentially has, even choosing to wear #1, etc.), and then he was to demand the max, which will eventually prevent the Spurs from putting the team around him—particularly in this new era—to make him the best ever. He can’t do it on his own. IF he did all of the foregoing, failing to live up to what he said so he could eventually die with—e.g.—$800 million in his bank account instead of $600 million, that would be stupid and selfish. I think he meant what he said though—we’ll see.

At some point the money does actually start to matter for the lower earners, but if you’re leaving your family with $200 million or even significantly less than that, you’re not ‘hurting’ your family—unless they’re lazy party slugs, in which case you’ve already hurt them in far worse ways.

[Chinook]

Sometimes maintaining my gaming PC means I have to improve parts as we move into the future of gaming.

Maintaining can mean improving, repairing or preserving. It just depends on perspective. You're right. If you're trying to maintain a top gaming PC that can play the latest games at full specs, that requires periodic upgrades. If you're maintaining a regular PC, it can mean replacing components as they wear and age. If you you're maintaining an ancient one-of-a-kind computer, you can't do anything but persevere the parts that are there or MAYBE fix something if you have the skills.

The term is actually pretty robust. It's perfectly fine to have different meanings for it depending on the situation.

[scott]

You still don’t get it. $200 million in the bank and raising your kids right will stretch that money to take care of your children, your grandchildren, your great-grandchildren, and beyond—unless you raise lazy slugs who just sit around and party, in which case they’re better off being forced to do something more with their lives.

And for whatever poster said it was ‘stupid and selfish’ to ask star athletes to take less than the max—no, it would be stupid and selfish if, e.g., Wemby tells everyone including his fans that he’s going to be the best ever (which he essentially has, even choosing to wear #1, etc.), and then he was to demand the max, which will eventually prevent the Spurs from putting the team around him—particularly in this new era—to make him the best ever. He can’t do it on his own. IF he did all of the foregoing, failing to live up to what he said so he could eventually die with—e.g.—$800 million in his bank account instead of $600 million, that would be stupid and selfish. I think he meant what he said though—we’ll see.

At some point the money does actually start to matter for the lower earners, but if you’re leaving your family with $200 million or even significantly less than that, you’re not ‘hurting’ your family—unless they’re lazy party slugs, in which case you’ve already hurt them in far worse ways.

You still don't get it. It's not your money, so your opinion on how they earn it or spend it is worthless.

[Gandalf]

You still don't get it. It's not your money, so your opinion on how they earn it or spend it is worthless.

You’re right. None of us should ever give our opinion on players, their explicit statements and boasts to us, or our team—on this sports message board. Bravo.

[K...]

You still don’t get it. $200 million in the bank and raising your kids right will stretch that money to take care of your children, your grandchildren, your great-grandchildren, and beyond—unless you raise lazy slugs who just sit around and party, in which case they’re better off being forced to do something more with their lives.

And for whatever poster said it was ‘stupid and selfish’ to ask star athletes to take less than the max—no, it would be stupid and selfish if, e.g., Wemby tells everyone including his fans that he’s going to be the best ever (which he essentially has, even choosing to wear #1, etc.), and then he was to demand the max, which will eventually prevent the Spurs from putting the team around him—particularly in this new era—to make him the best ever. He can’t do it on his own. IF he did all of the foregoing, failing to live up to what he said so he could eventually die with—e.g.—$800 million in his bank account instead of $600 million, that would be stupid and selfish. I think he meant what he said though—we’ll see.

At some point the money does actually start to matter for the lower earners, but if you’re leaving your family with $200 million or even significantly less than that, you’re not ‘hurting’ your family—unless they’re lazy party slugs, in which case you’ve already hurt them in far worse ways.

so yr in favor of a national, no make that international salary cap? everyone in the world at $45k and we celebrate the common decency of man? If so radical, but i don't think that's yr point. you want to minimize labor cost right?

The problem with 200k is that you have to live in expensive areas, drive nicer cars , take the right vacation, or people will call you fake. Yeah there are lone rich people who live frugally , but 90% of being rich, is knowing other RICH!!!! That's it, you spend to stay in the club.

[scott]

Sometimes maintaining my gaming PC means I have to improve parts as we move into the future of gaming.

If you are swapping out RAM to maintain your current level of performance, or upgrading the OS, etc... you are maintaining your PC.

If you are swapping out the GPU from a 3090 to a 5090, you are no longer "maintaining" your PC... you are upgrading it. There is a difference.

I don't go into get my car maintained and come out with new cat-back exhaust.

A team is most certainly "allowed" (next thing we'll hear that allowed means something else) to maintain their roster under the CBA. The Celtics absolutely could have retained their entire roster. They chose not to. Whether or not the Celtics could have upgraded their roster is another question. That's the distinction, and it matters because this entire conversation was me pointing out the premise "the CBA does not allow you to maintain your roster" is objectively false. Now, if the premise was "the CBA does not allow you to improve/upgrade your roster, that is another matter... and it's not the one I was addressing (because it's not the one that was presented).

Anyway, I'm going to move on to other conversations in hope the quality of discourse maintains.

[scott]

You’re right. None of us should ever give our opinion on players, their explicit statements and boasts to us, or our team—on this sports message board. Bravo.

Your opinion is fine. "I think it would be nice if Wemby takes a paycut so the Spurs can afford better supporting players" is a perfectly fine opinion for you to have. "If Wemby isn't satisfied with lower pay, its because he is stupid and selfish because unless he raises lazy slugs who just sit around and party, that should be enough for him" is also an opinion you can have... it just makes you look like an idiot.

[scott]

Maybe Wemby will take a paycut, hey that would be sweet. But "Wemby must take a paycut in order to be great" is... a take.

[tonight...you]

If you are swapping out RAM to maintain your current level of performance, or upgrading the OS, etc... you are maintaining your PC.

If you are swapping out the GPU from a 3090 to a 5090, you are no longer "maintaining" your PC... you are upgrading it. There is a difference.

I don't go into get my car maintained and come out with new cat-back exhaust.

A team is most certainly "allowed" (next thing we'll hear that allowed means something else) to maintain their roster under the CBA. The Celtics absolutely could have retained their entire roster. They chose not to. Whether or not the Celtics could have upgraded their roster is another question. That's the distinction, and it matters because this entire conversation was me pointing out the premise "the CBA does not allow you to maintain your roster" is objectively false. Now, if the premise was "the CBA does not allow you to improve/upgrade your roster, that is another matter... and it's not the one I was addressing (because it's not the one that was presented).

Anyway, I'm going to move on to other conversations in hope the quality of discourse maintains.
Which would be an improvement.

[tonight...you]

Sometimes maintaining what you want means improving what you have.

[Chinook]

Sometimes maintaining what you want means improving what you have.

Like improving your income to maintain your standard of living

[scott]

Sometimes maintaining what you want means improving what you have.

Yes, but the premise was not "maintaining the win loss record" or "maintaining the overall performance level"... it was maintaining the roster. Improving the roster is not maintaining the roster. Maintain and improve aren't even synonyms. It's amazing this even has to be explained to people.

Edit: actually, the exact comment was "teams aren't allowed to maintain massive payrolls"

This statement actually had nothing to do with the on court performance at all. It's just about payroll dollars. Teams are objectively allowed to maintain massive payrolls. The CBA explicitly outlines the mechanism by which teams can do this. So, feel free to move the goal posts all you want, but this statement is flat out incorrect and that is what I called out.

Instead of "I actually meant to say this"... we went down this stupid rabbit hole of "well I actually meant this other thing entirely and you should have known that I meant a completely different word in a completely different context".

"teams aren't allowed to maintain massive payrolls" (objectively false statement) is not the same statement as "the CBA makes it prohibitive for teams with massive payrolls to improve their roster" (a statement most people, including myself, would agree with)

Just pick the right words, and if you pick the wrong ones then correct yourself and move on

[Chinook]

If you want to maintain a contending roster, you have to replace declining pieces with newer, better pieces. Otherwise, the roster becomes unable to dominate and then eventually compete. Because the second apron removes the ability to replace players as they move on, a team becomes unable to maintain their roster. It would be like if there was a law that you couldn't change the tires, oil, brake pads or any parts on certain cars. Those cars become unusable even though nothing is stopping you from keeping the car. Because "keeping" and "maintaining" aren't the same thing.

[tonight...you]

Yes, but the premise was not "maintaining the win loss record" or "maintaining the overall performance level"... it was maintaining the roster. Improving the roster is not maintaining the roster. Maintain and improve aren't even synonyms. It's amazing this even has to be explained to people.
I'm just being antagonistic for no good reason. Never mind me.

On with the thread.

[scott]

If you want to maintain a contending roster, you have to replace declining pieces with newer, better pieces. Otherwise, the roster becomes unable to dominate and then eventually compete. Because the second apron removes the ability to replace players as they move on, a team becomes unable to maintain their roster.

We agree on this point.

But that's not what you said.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Chinook]

We agree on this point.

But that's not what you said.

Thanks for clarifying.

It is what I said. It's not what you interpreted. My entire point was that the new CBA limits teams in more ways than just the tax. It's not simply a matter of an owner being willing to spend. Eventually the team will rot, no matter how much money an owner has. So saying "the owner just needs to spend more" is a non-solution. Even if an owner is willing, a team needs to drop under the tax periodically to continue to function. They can't maintain a contender if they keep a hyper-expensive roster. They certainly can't improve or upgrade such a roster.

[scott]

It is what I said. It's not what you interpreted. My entire point was that the new CBA limits teams in more ways than just the tax. It's not simply a matter of an owner being willing to spend. Eventually the team will rot, no matter how much money an owner has. So saying "the owner just needs to spend more" is a non-solution. Even if an owner is willing, a team needs to drop under the tax periodically to continue to function. They can't maintain a contender if they keep a hyper-expensive roster. They certainly can't improve or upgrade such a roster.

What you said is written for anyone to see, and quoted in case you go and edit it. If you want to dig yourself further into this hole, knock yourself out. I'm sure no one actually cares, either way.

[Gandalf]

Your opinion is fine. "I think it would be nice if Wemby takes a paycut so the Spurs can afford better supporting players" is a perfectly fine opinion for you to have. "If Wemby isn't satisfied with lower pay, its because he is stupid and selfish because unless he raises lazy slugs who just sit around and party, that should be enough for him" is also an opinion you can have... it just makes you look like an idiot.

You know I was responding to another poster who suggested we were ‘stupid and selfish’ for suggesting star players should take less than the maximum.

And while I may not have anywhere near the ‘same’ interests as Wemby, if he explicitly tells Spurs fans he’s going to go down as the best ever—with all that entails—gets hundreds of thousands of fans’ hopes up, gets them emotionally invested in him and the Spurs, and then affirmatively prevents what he told us he would accomplish by demanding the absolute max, rather than being slightly less obscenely rich AND the best ever—that is stupid and selfish.

[exstatic]

You know I was responding to another poster who suggested we were ‘stupid and selfish’ for suggesting star players should take less than the maximum.

And while I may not have anywhere near the ‘same’ interests as Wemby, if he explicitly tells Spurs fans he’s going to go down as the best ever—with all that entails—gets hundreds of thousands of fans’ hopes up, gets them emotionally invested in him and the Spurs, and then affirmatively prevents what he told us he would accomplish by demanding the absolute max, rather than being slightly less obscenely rich AND the best ever—that is stupid and selfish.
Timmy managed to get the max for his first 12 years or so, and bring home trophies as well. They’re not mutually exclusive.

One thing that I’ve been kind of turning over in my head and haven’t posted yet. I see Wemby as absolutely transcendent. His ceiling is a Jokic class offensive player, and a defender who shits all over Gobert’s legacy. He might be good enough to dominate with only one other high level star. If that’s the case, in the era of the second apron, the Spurs could load upon 4-5 high level role players, and keep them,using that salary not paid to a 3rd star you don’t need.

[Chinook]

What you said is written for anyone to see, and quoted in case you go and edit it. If you want to dig yourself further into this hole, knock yourself out. I'm sure no one actually cares, either way.

You clearly care. You can't just admit you miscalculated the situation. You thought you'd caught me in another semantic trap and now that it's clear you haven't you are salty. You said you were done worrying about this, but you've kept responding for hours at this point. People can use different definitions of the word and it still be valid. It's not a big deal to anyone except you. I never told you you couldn't use maintain as you did. You decided to play semantic police and now won't let it go.

[Gandalf]

True, but Duncan didn’t play under the current CBA, etc. I hope Wemby is good enough regardless, but we’ll only know in retrospect, when it’s too late to ‘fix’ anything. We’ll see.

[spurraider21]

Yes… the CBA (that both sides agreed to) is built to discourage superteams and dynasties… that should be acknowledged. The argument that some people are making is that the solution to this is the best players should give up their earnings in order to create the thing that is being discouraged: superteams and dynasties.

That’s the context. There is already a mechanism in place if teams want to do the thing that is being actively discouraged: teams paying the tax and suffering the apron penalties. Teams can just do that. There is nothing stopping them, the pathway and the exact calculable consequences are laid out for them.

That’s the solution, as opposed to asking the most talented individuals to sacrifice the slice of the pie they’ve earned. That’s just forcing a socialist pay structure upon a specific class of the contributing workers (players) in order to protect the free capitalist wealth transfer to the top (the owners).

Like I said, The salary cap has done wonders of causing fans to call the people who do all the work (players) greedy, so that rich owners can save money. I’m surprised the GOP congress hasn’t introduced the National Salary Cap Bill of 2025 yet, to be honest.
Imo it’s not the concept of a salary cap that does that. It’s whatever revenue sharing percentages are negotiated for. What figure the cap is set at is basically a reflection of that.

the cap structure, such as the more strict penalties, doesn’t really have much to do with the owners saving money, its about parity. It makes it harder for specific teams to hoard 3-4 max level players but doesn’t stop those 3-4 players from getting max money. They just can’t do so on the same team for successive years. if they want to be on loaded teams, they may have to take less. But they don’t have to do that.

i think anger at the specific cap structures and penalties is very misguided. If you have issue with the revenue sharing percentages, then that’s what you’d want addressed.

if castle and Harper both become stars, maybe then can join wemby and all 3 can be max players. It’s just that one of them might have to do it in Charlotte or Portland because the spurs won’t realistically be able to sustain all 3 for more than a year or two. They can all get their money. But if they want to be on a perennial contender altogether and leave other teams starving for talent, then yes they will have to take less

[ambchang]

You know I was responding to another poster who suggested we were ‘stupid and selfish’ for suggesting star players should take less than the maximum.

And while I may not have anywhere near the ‘same’ interests as Wemby, if he explicitly tells Spurs fans he’s going to go down as the best ever—with all that entails—gets hundreds of thousands of fans’ hopes up, gets them emotionally invested in him and the Spurs, and then affirmatively prevents what he told us he would accomplish by demanding the absolute max, rather than being slightly less obscenely rich AND the best ever—that is stupid and selfish.

I said expecting. Not suggesting. If you were suggesting, I wasn’t talking about you.

If you thought expecting and suggesting are the same thing, then that is is not selfish, but stupid, in another way.

[Gandalf]

I said expecting. Not suggesting. If you were suggesting, I wasn’t talking about you.


In the context of the entire thread, you were ONLY calling those ‘expecting’ stars to take less stupid and selfish, but you were making absolutely NO comment about those ‘suggesting’ they should? Even though those ‘suggesting’ they should would essentially have to be at least likewise ‘selfish?’ Cute attempt to parse words—but now you’re just dishonest.

[CorrectCrusader]

No bag watching players. You would take the max contract if offered, and you're not nearly as good as any of the players on the roster.

[RC_Drunkford]

A $100,000 and a $50 millions salaries are the same, yeah right :rolleyes I can tell you that I have given a lot of money to help people and I don't make 50 million a year.

just keep moving the goalpost. That has nothing to do with what I said.

[RC_Drunkford]

On another note:

Am I the only one who thinks that the apron rules don't affect the Spurs at all? I mean does anybody think the Spurs would get so deep into the tax that they'd spend apron money (even if the aprons didn't exist)? This franchise has always been cheap anyway.

[RC_Drunkford]

Timmy managed to get the max for his first 12 years or so, and bring home trophies as well. They’re not mutually exclusive.

One thing that I’ve been kind of turning over in my head and haven’t posted yet. I see Wemby as absolutely transcendent. His ceiling is a Jokic class offensive player, and a defender who shits all over Gobert’s legacy. He might be good enough to dominate with only one other high level star. If that’s the case, in the era of the second apron, the Spurs could load upon 4-5 high level role players, and keep them,using that salary not paid to a 3rd star you don’t need.

if Harper becomes All-NBA caliber then having Wemby and Harper makes you an automatic contender every year

[LeBowen]

On another note:

Am I the only one who thinks that the apron rules don't affect the Spurs at all? I mean does anybody think the Spurs would get so deep into the tax that they'd spend apron money (even if the aprons didn't exist)? This franchise has always been cheap anyway.

They probably won't, but even if the ownership continues being cheap, we'll have the Wemby effect and a lot of endorsment deals because he's on the team. Those can pay for the luxury tax.
No way this Ledger thing would've happened without Wemby.

But yeah, first apron is at 127% and second is at 134% of the salary cap, that's not Spurs-like.


if Harper becomes All-NBA caliber then having Wemby and Harper makes you an automatic contender every year

Just peak Wemby will make us an automatic contender every year as long as the supporting cast isn't garbage.

[ambchang]

In the context of the entire thread, you were ONLY calling those ‘expecting’ stars to take less stupid and selfish, but you were making absolutely NO comment about those ‘suggesting’ they should? Even though those ‘suggesting’ they should would essentially have to be at least likewise ‘selfish?’ Cute attempt to parse words—but now you’re just dishonest.

So not only do you suggest what players should do with their lives, you are now demanding me change the context of my words to suit your illiteracy? That’s certainly interesting id say.

And in the context of this thread, there are a few posts expecting players to take pay cuts, opining that not doing so is not in the best interest to their careers.

Point is, a player giving up a few million per year in their contract expecting the front office to just magically being able to field a team capable of winning a title, or even multiple times over, is naive. Dirk did it later in his career and the Mavs pissed that away. Brunson is doing that now (looking for a bigger pay day down the road) and we will see how the Knicks fare but I’m not counting on it. If a player thinks them giving up money and the team WILL win a title, that is certainly naive because history hasn’t been kind to them, and as such a fan thinks that then s/he is certainly naive through the same logic.

If a fan expect a player to take less money so that they get more satisfaction following a team then that is certainly selfish. There really is no other way around it. The entire concept of other people sacrificing for your own good is selfish by definition.

A fan expecting a team to just magically field a championship team that can win multiple titles just because players will take pay cuts so that the fans can get some satisfaction without doing anything, that is an unrealistic expectation which means stupidity.

Who should the spurs sign and construct the roster if fox and wemby and whoever else takes less money? How much less? What is the game plan? How will that roster fare with other contending teams? Just spewing out “so and so should take less money so the spurs will build a stronger team” without any details is lazy.

Finally, putting the blame on players without knowing the history and giving the owners a free pass even though it was the owners who created this limitation is stupid, as in illogical. You may at those are two different things and to that I won’t argue, I should’ve added illogical as part of my rant.

Makes sense?

Finally, suggesting is totally fine. Even though I’d like to see a more flushed out plan. I can suggest that wemby can take a lesser contract and it can help the team manage their finances better. But then I thought that’s a pretty well known thing so I’d say that is rather superfluous.

[Frenchfred]

You still don’t get it. $200 million in the bank and raising your kids right will stretch that money to take care of your children, your grandchildren, your great-grandchildren, and beyond—unless you raise lazy slugs who just sit around and party, in which case they’re better off being forced to do something more with their lives.

And for whatever poster said it was ‘stupid and selfish’ to ask star athletes to take less than the max—no, it would be stupid and selfish if, e.g., Wemby tells everyone including his fans that he’s going to be the best ever (which he essentially has, even choosing to wear #1, etc.), and then he was to demand the max, which will eventually prevent the Spurs from putting the team around him—particularly in this new era—to make him the best ever. He can’t do it on his own. IF he did all of the foregoing, failing to live up to what he said so he could eventually die with—e.g.—$800 million in his bank account instead of $600 million, that would be stupid and selfish. I think he meant what he said though—we’ll see.

At some point the money does actually start to matter for the lower earners, but if you’re leaving your family with $200 million or even significantly less than that, you’re not ‘hurting’ your family—unless they’re lazy party slugs, in which case you’ve already hurt them in far worse ways.


perfect explanation.

I like seeing Lebron complain year after year of not winning while taking a mak contract that prevents the team from surrounding him with better players

[Dverde]

I will say I think the max salary number should be much lower and the average salary should be higher only the middle rung. If you can’t live out your best life making 200 million dollars then money is not the problem.

[ambchang]

Sorry guys, I think people aren’t suggesting or even expecting, people are demanding. Like how dare the players maximize their earning potential? They should sacrifice so that they can rely on people who set up a system to suppress their pay to maximize their own profits to now willing to spend more money to win more rings!

It has nothing to do with me, being a passive observer who doesn’t have to put in any effort in this entire ordeal, it just so that the players sacrifice will somehow indirectly benefit me, on something that really doesn’t impact my life in any meaningful way.

[lefty]

LeGM :lol

[OldMan88]

Don’t forget that the whole salary cap system is to prevent the 3 or 4 wealthiest franchises for dominating the league, like in the old days of the Lakers, Celtics, Nicks & Bulls.

[TD 21]

NBA player salaries and take home pay - ESPN (https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20715128/nba-player-salaries-take-home-pay)

[taps]

I will say I think the max salary number should be much lower and the average salary should be higher only the middle rung. If you can’t live out your best life making 200 million dollars then money is not the problem.

Hear, hear!

[ZeusWillJudge]

about half of all NBA players are broke 5 years after retiring. Sit down old man.

So it really doesn't matter how much they get paid, does it? Or is it the bottom 50% that gets broke? Or is it the ones who don't get endorsement deals? Or did you make that up?

[RC_Drunkford]

So it really doesn't matter how much they get paid, does it? Or is it the bottom 50% that gets broke? Or is it the ones who don't get endorsement deals? Or did you make that up?

Charles Barkley said it

[ambchang]

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/wco3kv/til_according_to_a_2009_sports_illustrated/

According to this it’s 60%. That said we are talking about those who made the league min for 2 years or some guy who had a couple of 10-day contacts as well. There are a few big names who actually went broke and it’s not all that common. You have Antoine walker (gambling), Kenny Anderson (poor financial management), vin baker (addiction), Shawn kemp (dumbass), Jayson Williams (manslaughter), sprewell (bad investments and spending) and Dennis rodman (being rodman). Most of them actually managed to have a decent retirement. Even Allen Iverson who ran low on cash has a trust fund of millions set up for him (he does have good friends). So it really depends on what strata of nba players you’re talking about.

[scott]

The irony of the idea of "$200MM should be enough, anything more than that is just greed" is that the owners of all these teams got to the position they are in precisely because their ancestors did not make a habit of leaving money on the table because "they had enough".

We are in the world where the uber wealthy live in a completely different reality. The true upper echelon of wealth will never be achieved by an athlete simply by virtue of his playing career, but I don't blame folks who seek to maximize their earnings to best position their future generations. Especially when we're talking about a population of folks who came from underprivileged upbringings at a pretty significant clip.

[Seventyniner]

The irony of the idea of "$200MM should be enough, anything more than that is just greed" is that the owners of all these teams got to the position they are in precisely because their ancestors did not make a habit of leaving money on the table because "they had enough".

Not necessarily. Sure there's a correlation between being rich and being tight with money, but they didn't have to pinch every possible penny. Leaving some money on the table at strategically correct times and places can be a huge advantage down the road.

If a star player collaborates with ownership to have the star make less than the max while ownership commits to always spending up to the first apron line, that would result in both the player and owner having less money than the player getting the max and the owner trying to stay below the tax at all costs. The overall game is zero-sum, but not the sub-game between the star and owner.

[scott]

Not necessarily. Sure there's a correlation between being rich and being tight with money, but they didn't have to pinch every possible penny. Leaving some money on the table at strategically correct times and places can be a huge advantage down the road.

If a star player collaborates with ownership to have the star make less than the max while ownership commits to always spending up to the first apron line, that would result in both the player and owner having less money than the player getting the max and the owner trying to stay below the tax at all costs. The overall game is zero-sum, but not the sub-game between the star and owner.

We're talking about leaving hundreds of millions on the table, like people are suggesting here, not just "leaving some money on the table"

[exstatic]

Not necessarily. Sure there's a correlation between being rich and being tight with money, but they didn't have to pinch every possible penny. Leaving some money on the table at strategically correct times and places can be a huge advantage down the road.

If a star player collaborates with ownership to have the star make less than the max while ownership commits to always spending up to the first apron line, that would result in both the player and owner having less money than the player getting the max and the owner trying to stay below the tax at all costs. The overall game is zero-sum, but not the sub-game between the star and owner.

When the Heatles were assembled, Riley askew each one to leave about $1M per year on the table so that the Heat could sign Mike Miller without going to the tax, because Arison doesn’t like to pay it. They agreed. Three years into their four year run, Riley, probably at Arison’s behest, stretched and waived Miller to avoid the tax. The guys were livid, and I think this as much as anything caused the dissolution of the team.

You can’t trust ownership to live up to their end of the deal. It’s not a contract, and they aren’t bound to it.

[Seventyniner]

When the Heatles were assembled, Riley asked each one to leave about $1M per year on the table so that the Heatles could sign Mike Miller without going to the tax, because Arison doesn’t like to pay it. They agreed. Three years into their four year run, Riley, probably at Arison’s behest, stretched and waived Miller to avoid the tax. The guys were livid, and I think this as much as anything caused the dissolution of the team.

You can’t trust ownership to live up to their end of the deal. It’s not a contract, and they aren’t bound to it.

That's completely Arison's fault. A good example of the type of deal I outlined going wrong.

An owner making tacit deals with stars and then screwing them over only screws himself in the end. If he had held up his end of the bargain, maybe LeBron stays?

[exstatic]

That's completely Arison's fault. A good example of the type of deal I outlined going wrong.

An owner making tacit deals with stars and then screwing them over only screws himself in the end. If he had held up his end of the bargain, maybe LeBron stays?

I guess my point is that your scenario is a bit Pollyanna- ish, and that no owners can be trusted with such a player giveback.

[Seventyniner]

I guess my point is that your scenario is a bit Pollyanna- ish, and that no owners can be trusted with such a player giveback.

I will concede the point. It could work in theory, but as your Arison example shows real-world is far from theoretical.

It's a large and concrete sacrifice on the part of the player for an uncertain reward that can't be enforced.

[quentin_compson]

Slightly off-topic, but I recently rewatched the 2014 Finals, and the Heat looked much more done than I remembered. Wade especially just was washed at this point, and so were most of the ageing/old role players.

As for the current CBA and its ramifications: I could imagine that some of the medium-term consequences might be that players like Franz Wagner (not a top 5 pick, not seen as the franchise player of his team) won't "automatically" get rookie max extensions any longer like they do now. Also, max extensions/contracts over four or even five years for ageing stars like Lillard and Paul George might also be no longer happening as often as they did until recently. It will be an adjustment period for both players and FOs/owners, that's for sure.

[100%duncan]

Cant believe this is a topic. No one here would actually walk away from significantly more money in their lives. Ya’ll be lying :lol

[TimDunkem]

That’s because they’re stupid with their money…. Probably like you are young man.

^ Why do boomers always make shit up in their head to argue about? Smh

[skin27]

Wemby will and should not take a pay cut!

[OldMan88]

^ Why do boomers always make shit up in their head to argue about? Smh

Probably because we’ve witnessed or experienced events & situations you’ve never witnessed or experienced.

[TimDunkem]

Probably because we’ve witnessed or experienced events & situations you’ve never witnessed or experienced.
Cry more, snowflake.

[TimDunkem]

Boomers are the only generation so pathetic and soft that they're the one generation that bitterly took more than they left the generation after it. :lol

[exstatic]

Boomers are the only generation so pathetic and soft that they're the one generation that bitterly took more than they left the generation after it. :lol

Anyone even ten years older than you knows more about the world than you do. Doesn’t have to be a boomer. You’ll see in a few decades when some monkey dick like you is mouthing off to older you, knowing as little as you do now.

[TimDunkem]

Anyone even ten years older than you knows more about the world than you do. Doesn’t have to be a boomer. You’ll see in a few decades when some monkey dick like you is mouthing off to older you, knowing as little as you do now.
Perpetually aggrieved boomer detected. Sorry I struck a nerve. I hope you recover from this one.