Taking the max contract vs winning

r377
r377's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/28/2010
Posts: 3314
Points: 9478
Offline
Taking the max contract vs winning

You hear it all the time from the players - its almost like a robot on autorepeat.

" I want to win a championship "

My question is how can you build a championship team with a max player or two taking $40mill ?

If you really want to commit to winning you might have to sacrafice $$. Lets look at John Wall for example - 4 years left $170 million. With endorsements and other contracts past and present your looking $250+mill. Lets think about it for a second - If your rich, whats the difference between $150mill and $250 mill ? Thats all the money you will ever need for the rest of your life. Houses $3 to $10 mill, few cars, boats, holidays etc still plenty of $$ spare.

I am not saying don't get paid but if next free agents are signing for around $45mill its going to be tough to sign other players.

Instead of taking $45mill, why not settle for 25-30. That will still get you $100-150mill, add on past and present contracts and endorsements that could still be around $200mill or more. Still more money than most of us could ever hope to spend...

Basically i get sick of top players claiming they want to win a championship, thats their goal to win a championship, when basically they want the very most $$ they can get. $$ is more important than winning...


SeattleSuperChronics
SeattleSuperChronics's picture
Registered User
Joined: 02/10/2012
Posts: 1843
Points: 880
Offline
you gotta draft in the late

you gotta draft in the late rounds elite

dmo21
dmo21's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/24/2009
Posts: 1699
Points: 2388
Offline
Devils advocate

I don't have an issue with this as it's one of the ways to get parity in the league. If max guys take a discount, that means they can have more good players on that team. Then you get superstars joining up to make super teams that just run over everyone. Nobody likes that. Remember the out roar from the Heatles and Durant and Cousins to the Warriors? Gotta have balance and this is how you somewhat get it in the salary cap world.

Scrooge McDuck
Scrooge McDuck's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2011
Posts: 437
Points: -929
Offline
I think players get pressured

I think players get pressured into taking the money. After that contract, They’ve already won in life. I don’t think we as fans realize how easy it is. There’s also the team dynamic. players on the same team subconsciously compete for salary.

220
220's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/30/2012
Posts: 2127
Points: 6191
Offline
If players truly want to win

If players truly want to win more than anything than sacrificing large amounts of money is undoubtedly a good way to make it happen. As you noted that's not the most important thing for many players in truth. Teams also need to be smarter about who they give these supermax deals. John Wall for instance should have never been offered such a deal because of his injury history and less than superstar play. Only a few guys are good enough to take up so much salary cap space and help keep their team in championship contention.

Hitster
Hitster's picture
Registered User
Joined: 08/17/2010
Posts: 7102
Points: 8472
Offline
When players take a huge max

When players take a huge max deal and then start putting out feelers for players to come in on vets minimum always amuses me. If a team wants legit depth and to round it out with a good veteran or two chasing a ring then I think the top guys have to leave a bit on the table to allow the better support players to be paid something above veteran's minimum.

Dazzling Dunks ...
Registered User
Joined: 11/18/2014
Posts: 2454
Points: 7524
Offline
The salary cap structure is

The salary cap structure is designed to promote competitive balance and prevent superteams from forming. Not saying it always works but that is the intention. When guys do take less money to allow teams to pursue other superstars (I.e lebron, Durant, draymond, Wade etc.) it’s not like we applaud them for being unselfish or anything. We just complain about how unfair it is that all the talent is on one team. So while taking the max deal might seem like a selfish decision to the average person, it’s really just the system working the way it was designed to. It’s easy to say “these guys are rich anyway, so what’s the difference in an extra 20-40-60 million dollars” but the truth is that’s a hell of a lot of money to walk away from, especially considering most have extravagant lifestyles and their window to earn that type of money is short. The truth is also that for the truly elite players, they can not actually be appropriately compensated under the CBA for the actual value they bring the franchise.

Teams just need to be smarter who they throw out max and super max deals to. For example, Kemba Walker is an outstanding player, but there is no way the hornets should throw 220 million at him this summer even though he is eligible for it and you could argue has earned it. But if they do and Walker takes it, and the team remains mediocre for the foreseeable future, there’s no way I’m blaming Walker for taking the money. That’s just bad decision making on the part of ownership.

timinator1
timinator1's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/05/2008
Posts: 206
Points: 358
Offline
There's a lot to unpack here

a) Just because you defer taking the max does not mean that your team will automatically spend your deferred money on talent. They can keep it in their pocket. These are still businesses, afterall, and keeping expenses low is a metric.

b) Your $150MM contract isn't $150MM in your pocket. It's most likely $45MM (50% in taxes takes it to 75MM, then you lose $30MM in agent and manager commissions, potentially) Not saying that isnt life changing money, but it might not be generational money.

c) The precedent...your Union does not want you to take less money. Your agent does not want you to take less money. And every player that takes less money becomes the poster child who is held up as an example at the next negotiation: "Why should we give Superstar A the max, Superstar B took less money, he's a team player. Why can't you be a guy like that? Do you think you're better than Superstar B"? etc etc

The bottom line is, this is business. I wholeheartedly agree with looking at it from a team perspective and not as an individual at a certain point, BUT you need a very special, trusting relationship with management before you start giving money back.

BothTeamsPlayedHard
BothTeamsPlayedHard's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 3913
Points: 5943
Online
Just to clarify, NBA agents

Just to clarify, NBA agents are capped at 4% so you might be off by about $24 million or so. The highest marginal tax rate in the US is 37%.

timinator1
timinator1's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/05/2008
Posts: 206
Points: 358
Offline
thanks for clarifying. My agent is 10%, thought it was standard

makes my 45 projection into 85ish, which is significantly better.

Scrooge McDuck
Scrooge McDuck's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2011
Posts: 437
Points: -929
Offline
40 mil yes that is

40 mil yes that is significant

timinator1
timinator1's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/05/2008
Posts: 206
Points: 358
Offline
and a significant loss too

when you are talking about giving up money.

RSS: Syndicate content