Danny Green, who took massive discount with Spurs: ‘I took what I was worth’

Danny Green, who took massive discount with Spurs: ‘I took what I was worth’
Dan Feldman
Jul 21, 2015, 12:02 PM EDT

Danny Green took way less than he was worth on his four-year, $40 million contract with the Spurs.

Here’s another way of looking at it.
Dan McCarney of the San Antonio Express-News:

There are a few possibilities:
1. Green is just talking humbly. This is most likely.
2. Gregg Popovich has brainwashed him. At this point, that seems possible.
3. Green has no concept of his market value. That would be disappointing for him and his agent.
I think Green could have gotten a max contract if he desired. If not, he could have come close. He certainly could have gotten more than $10 million per season.
But he chose to stay with the Spurs, who have been great for his career. And that’s fine. It’s his decision.
I just hope he realizes he passed up about $30 million to make that decision.
Unlike Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili, Green didn’t need to take less to make room for LaMarcus Aldridge. The Spurs used Green’s low cap hold to create space, signed Aldridge and then exceeded the cap to re-sign Green with Bird Rights. They could have given him up to a max contract and still assembled the same roster.

It would have just cost them money.
Some will surely assign virtue in Green’s decision. Green even might.
Again, that’s fine. It’s his decision.
But the money is there. If it doesn’t go to Green, it stays with the Spurs owners, whose wealth totals in the billions. I don’t consider Green allowing that group to have more money virtuous.

Remember, the discount he took this season didn’t give the Spurs additional flexibility. Green being paid less than market value in future seasons will help in roster-building, but if that were his concern, he could have taken more this season and less in future years.
Green is assuredly not being paid what he’s worth. It seems he’s OK with that, and more power to him. Money isn’t everything.
But I bet the Spurs’ owners will happily count the millions Green allowed them to keep.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...t-i-was-worth/

Pity post ElNono. Trying to steal my threads thunder. :lmao

The NBA PA must really hate the Spurs, tbh:lol..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dabom

Pity post ElNono. Trying to steal my threads thunder. :lmao

---

Damn, didn't see your thread yet, bro:lol..

Quote:

---

I think Green could have gotten a max contract if he desired.

---

that would be a terrible deal for his future team

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

Damn, didn't see your thread yet, bro:lol..

---

Entirely different and better article. 10/10. :lol

Good to see players like DG really appreciate the situation they are in - get paid millions to put a ball through a hoop.

majority of posters probably roll their eyes when dabom posts a thread... he's had 8 straight threads that haven't reached page 2

Hopefully the Spurs receive some crucial and key officiating calls this year with the work they have provided for the NBA's owners, tbh..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

majority of posters probably roll their eyes when dabom posts a thread... he's had 8 straight threads that haven't reached page 2

---

I'm providing information. Not debates.

Danny Green isn't worth max money.

All Spurs players seem to have a little cuck in them minus Porker.

I don't think he would have got a Max deal. If Matthews got 17.5 and Carroll got 14.5 per, Green would have been closer to Carroll. Which means he would have around 3.25/year on the table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

If it doesn’t go to Green, it stays with the Spurs owners, whose wealth totals in the billions. I don’t consider Green allowing that group to have more money virtuous.

Remember, the discount he took this season didn’t give the Spurs additional flexibility. Green being paid less than market value in future seasons will help in roster-building, but if that were his concern, he could have taken more this season and less in future years.
Green is assuredly not being paid what he’s worth. It seems he’s OK with that, and more power to him. Money isn’t everything.
But I bet the Spurs’ owners will happily count the millions Green allowed them to keep.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...t-i-was-worth/

---

SOmeone is salty as hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aztecfan03

SOmeone is salty as hell.

---

Yeah, butthurt. Who is this Feldman and what team does he route for.

Effing Woj wannabe.


Figures...Pistons fanboy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peacemaker885

Effing Woj wannabe.


Figures...Pistons fanboy.

---

Ah, so he is mad Danny rejected him.

I'm not sure how much he earned previously, but 40 million is not a bad payday. Yes he could have gotten more, but I'm guessing it would mean changing teams. He took 40 million to play with the Spurs. He might have checked out the other offers and found that that they weren't 70 million. I think there was humility involved in his statement, but I'm guessing he is feeling pretty damn great.

Also Holt is not worth billions. Some of his investors are and I know them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dabom

Pity post ElNono. Trying to steal my threads thunder. :lmao

---

Nah, my nig... this was just a different tone than yours, I thought we'll keep em separate

DG probably thinks he is worth more but probably gave the most Spurs-type answer he could think of at the time. Coincidentally, the shirt he was wearing during the interview that quote came from had "Humility" printed on the back.

For every Danny Green, there's a Reggie Jackson, tbh...

40 million dollars and stays with the family. sounds like a great deal tbh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurs10

Also Holt is not worth billions. Some of his investors are and I know them.

---

It's not just about Holt, it's the players-owners in general, you could see how they could dislike the Spurs, tbh:lol..

Players are trying harder than ever to get more money, guys like Lebron and Chris Paul are trying to empower players into roles that they had never previously had in the NBA hierarchy(particularly the former), etc..

In contrast, you have the Spurs, where David West just gave up a ton of money, Duncan is playing at like 30% of his value, and Green gave up at least a few mil per year, reportedly:lol..

Every owner/management-type in the league will approach every former superstar with, "you see what Duncan is taking to win?"..they'll approach every ring-chaser with "you see what David West did?", and role players in their primes like DG with "do you really care about winning or just money and shots? Look at what Green took to win with the Spurs", etc..

They'll still ultimately get paid, especially when you see how much teams were paying some of these average players this Summer, but it's still bad for the NBA PA when the best organization in pro sports has key players taking substantial and even massive paycuts:lol..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

For every Danny Green, there's a Reggie Jackson, tbh...

---

Well said and I wonder if the money grab is always the best move. Maybe he'll just remain that more grounded. Humility is an under-rated virtue!

Quote:

---

But the money is there. If it doesn’t go to Green, it stays with the Spurs owners, whose wealth totals in the billions. I don’t consider Green allowing that group to have more money virtuous.

---

This statement is not true.
Green knows if he demands too much, FO may not offer and let him go.
He took less so that he need not go to another team and start all over again..

Said it all the time that he does not worth more...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrEmuN

This statement is not true.
Green knows if he demands too much, FO may not offer and let him go.
He took less so that he need not go to another team and start all over again.

---

Also the owners would lose more than what green would gain because of the luxury tax.

Maybe the pay cut wont affect salary this coming season but the signing of other players the following seasons will be determined by Green's contract.

This guys sounds mad that WE STACKED.

Meh, stupid article. There's been no indication whatsoever that any team would have given him a max or near max. Danny himself was quoted saying that if the money was close he'd be back. He's back. Pistons were likely after him, that's what we know. Pistons' first option looked to be Carroll and they didn't think he was worth 4/60, meaning Danny, being their 2nd option, supposedly, was going to be offered less than that.

He surely could have gotten more, but probably about 4/50-55 or so. Still, a whole lot of money, but he knows he's got another big contract in him, he's played very little in total minutes in his NBA career for his age, and you could easily see why he'd bet on himself being worth a better contract in 3 years staying with the Spurs where he's proven to be a great fit, rather than risking going to a disfunctional team, where he might not get the quality touches he needs and thus risk becoming 2018's version of JR Smith.

Yeah stupid article. DG has been asked repeatedly about this and this is the first time he answered it in that way. Of course he and his agent know he could have gotten more by going to a lesser organization but as he has answered in previous times "It's not like I settled for a little bit of money". Dude's happy and wealthy and playing for the best organization in the league, that's all there is to the story.

He could have made a little more in Detroit but whats really the difference between 40 and 50 mil. I think it all came down to happiness and comfort for Danny which SA provides him with.

The author's assertion that the Spurs could have assembled exactly the same roster while giving Green a max contract is simply not true. Historically, the Spurs have tended to avoid the luxury tax like the plague, and if they had paid Green more, they almost certainly wouldn't have been able to sign the end-of-the bench role players that they did while staying under the tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uriel

The author's assertion that the Spurs could have assembled exactly the same roster while giving Green a max contract is simply not true. Historically, the Spurs have tended to avoid the luxury tax like the plague, and if they had paid Green more, they almost certainly wouldn't have been able to sign the end-of-the bench role players that they did while staying under the tax.

---

That's the point of the article. They don't want to pay tax for Green. But they are paying tax now that they've signed Bonner.

I can totally see Green taking less APY, but still no reason not to take those annual raises. That's $4.5 Million that wouldn't have affected the Spurs' future at all.

Author of original article is not taking into account the fact that the Spurs may not have wanted to pay Danny that extra money that he is "worth" regardless of cap flexibility or not? Just because a larger contract didn't make a difference in the pursuit of Aldridge, doesn't mean those extra millions don't matter to the owners. Not saying this is the case, but to ignore that possibility is silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MI21

Author of original article is not taking into account the fact that the Spurs may not have wanted to pay Danny that extra money that he is "worth" regardless of cap flexibility or not? Just because a larger contract didn't make a difference in the pursuit of Aldridge, doesn't mean those extra millions don't matter to the owners. Not saying this is the case, but to ignore that possibility is silly.

---

That's exactly what the author is pointing out. Danny didn't have to sign with the Spurs or take their 'less than he's worth' offer. But he did. By doing so, he saved the owners a bundle. If the owners didn't want to part ways with that money, then he would've gone somewhere else and the Spurs would've lost valuable talent (which is normally the way these things go).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

It's not just about Holt, it's the players-owners in general, you could see how they could dislike the Spurs, tbh:lol..

Players are trying harder than ever to get more money, guys like Lebron and Chris Paul are trying to empower players into roles that they had never previously had in the NBA hierarchy(particularly the former), etc..

In contrast, you have the Spurs, where David West just gave up a ton of money, Duncan is playing at like 30% of his value, and Green gave up at least a few mil per year, reportedly:lol..

Every owner/management-type in the league will approach every former superstar with, "you see what Duncan is taking to win?"..they'll approach every ring-chaser with "you see what David West did?", and role players in their primes like DG with "do you really care about winning or just money and shots? Look at what Green took to win with the Spurs", etc..

They'll still ultimately get paid, especially when you see how much teams were paying some of these average players this Summer, but it's still bad for the NBA PA when the best organization in pro sports has key players taking substantial and even massive paycuts:lol..

---

Great take.

What Spurs are telling every player is this, "if you want to win, you have to make a sacrifice to be in a team with a chance to win". That's is not any different from the Miami big three that took pay cuts to play together. Not any different for the veterans who sign minimum deals to play with a contender.

The difference though with the Spurs is the long term nature of the deal. I am absolutely certain that the big three could have taken more money elsewhere. The Spurs though value winning and family higher than money. So you got guys like Carmelo Anthony that have made a ton of money in their career but isn't any closer to ever winning anything of significance.

4/40? everything I have read up till this article was 4/45.

which is it? pretty big diff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bender

4/40? everything I have read up till this article was 4/45.

which is it? pretty big diff.

---

40

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoops Czar

Danny Green isn't worth max money.

---

I thought Green was only worth 8-10 mil (actually 8 mil) TBH as a player. I thought some team would throw crazy money at him like Carroll, which apparently the Pistons did.

Duncan look less money so Green could get a little more because he did taken a discount on his last contract. This is why I like Green, cares about BB and winning more than money. Perfect player for the Spurs Culture. Green knows if it weren't for Pop and RC, he wouldn't even be in the NBA right now.

Does this mean Danny Green is going to throw an important play off game ? :P


but seriously, check out his videos on youtube of him in our development league. Spurs gave him the opportunity and the training and he put in the effort. Hes loyal

Saying that Green gave up $30M seems to be quite an exaggeration. DeMarre Carroll signed for $58M/4 years, that is about what Green market value is. Anyway, it's still $20M...

Even with "only" $40M, Green has now enough money for him and his family for their whole life. Unless he has some kind of high luxury tax, the extra money would have not change a single thing in his life. Green decided to stay with a team that he enjoys being a part of instead of going for more money he doesn't really need. The same apply for Duncan and West, money isn't everything in life...

And what the article writer really miss, is that it isn't about this summer. It's about having flexibility for the 2016 or 2017 summer. With that kind of contract, Spurs would have more cap space to go after free agents in 1 or 2 years. That's the precise reason why his contract has a flat structure. Spurs will welcome to have that cap space in the future when they will need to "replace" some of their older players.

Would like to know what other offers he got besides the Spurs. I thought some GM was going to throw $60 to $70 million at Verde.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cowboys_Wear_Spurs

I thought Green was only worth 8-10 mil (actually 8 mil) TBH as a player. I thought some team would throw crazy money at him like Carroll, which apparently the Pistons did.

Duncan look less money so Green could get a little more because he did taken a discount on his last contract. This is why I like Green, cares about BB and winning more than money. Perfect player for the Spurs Culture. Green knows if it weren't for Pop and RC, he wouldn't even be in the NBA right now.

---

Not at all. Duncan took less so that they could afford Aldridge. Green's pay had nothing to do with cap space, as his cap hold was lower than whatever he'd realistically get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BG_Spurs_Fan

Not at all. Duncan took less so that they could afford Aldridge. Green's pay had nothing to do with cap space, as his cap hold was lower than whatever he'd realistically get.

---

He took less so the Spurs could sign Green to more money as well. The Spurs are right at or just above the tax. With Duncan taking less, it ensured that Patty wasn't going to get traded or Green wasn't going to be renounced to sign LMA.

Duncan's decision to take half the salary as last year really had a Domino effect in the Spurs FA plan this year.

Maybe he has been smart enough to take note of a lot of former Spurs who have left for a little more money only to fade away into nba obscurity and sign a much lesser contract 4 years later. We really need to make a list of players who left and what subsequent contracts, stats and careers they went on to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

For every Danny Green, there's a Reggie Jackson, tbh...

---

True. But is not to hard to think that in his position he was thinking: "I'm no Tim freaking Duncan who can put an entire franchise up on my shoulders and win, why would I'd be choosing Toronto, Detroit, New York... stagnant franchises, instead of playing for the best and stable sport franchise?"

Value, as long as you can control it, is an attribute that we impart to something, an egocentric characteristic. It was obvious that Danny chose to earn less money (compared to the market but enough for him) to stay with the Spurs. And for him, staying with the Spurs with a substantial salary raise, had much more value than switching teams. I think I would have done the same tbh. 40 million guaranteed are no joke. Granted, they have a different lifestyle but still that's a lot of dough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cowboys_Wear_Spurs

I thought Green was only worth 8-10 mil (actually 8 mil) TBH as a player. I thought some team would throw crazy money at him like Carroll, which apparently the Pistons did.

Duncan look less money so Green could get a little more because he did taken a discount on his last contract. This is why I like Green, cares about BB and winning more than money. Perfect player for the Spurs Culture. Green knows if it weren't for Pop and RC, he wouldn't even be in the NBA right now.

---

Yeah, I figured he'd get between $10-12M. The quote actually reads Danny took what he thought he was worth, not what some team was foolishly willing to pay. It's good to know there are still players out there that play for the love of the game rather than being the subject of scrutiny, trying to fleece an organization for every last dime they possibly can get. He's basically a 3 and D guy with improved but still below average handles. If he would have taken Detroit's money, he probably would have gone on to have a pretty forgettable career without so much as sniffing another NBA championship.

Green disppointed the NY Knicks, Mavericks, Blazers, and esp Sacramento Kings, who reportedly made Green their top target when he announced he'd re-sign, that what the Spurs had offered was too enticing to turn down. And there was rumor that according to Green, La Marcus Aldridge contacted him during the free agent process to" pick his brain" ...there might be some conversation between these two to agree to play together..