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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I can see Wemby following Jordan and taking slight cut if he is as much obsessed with being compe ive 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.
Last edited by Ni-G; 07-04-2025 at 06:50 AM.
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.
I think that’s the purpose of the HEB commercials, but I doubt they are very lucrative.
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 compe ive 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
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-compe ive. 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.
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.The same will likely be true for the 2025 OKC team.
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.
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?
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.
They are all taking max, because if max wouldnt exist they would take more
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.
??? 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.
The problem is that those role players were overpaid for their production.
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.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?
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.
Two supermaxes and more max deals shouldn't be a thing.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?
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 Mitc ? 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.
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.
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
