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

[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

[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

[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/todayilearn...s_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

[TimDunkem]

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

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

[skin27]

Wemby will and should not take a pay cut!

[OldMan88]

^ Why do boomers always make 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.

[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.

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 like you is mouthing off to older you, knowing as little as you do now.