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

[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 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 le 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 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 le 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 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 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 compe ive 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 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 bull 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.

[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.

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.