I'm happy with this level of bullshit and paying these guys whatever. what i want is NON-GUARANTEED contracts. If we sign you to the super max and u turn into Meyers 2.0 (or is that -1.0?) then fuck having to pay you for the remaining 4yrs when you performat at a 10th of what you were doing and promised to be. I'm sick to fuckin death of albatross contracts of players who just fell the fuck off. I'm also more than happy for teams to pay mega cash to the people that keep killin it.
That's because he signed his deal before the Designated Player Exception (or "super max") came into existence. Lillard's next contract will be enormous. Curry is basically the first guy to sign one of these. The next superstars to sign will take over as "the highest paid player in NBA history."
oh yeah, I know. I'm just saying its great that we got him on a big contract right before it went up. Got some years now before he gets his new contract. Worked out pretty good.
Some of you are being silly. The salary cap is a 50/50 split in revenue between owners and players. 50/50 is fair. If the owners are going to enjoy a big jump in money coming in then why shouldn't the players? If the next wave of TV contracts go down then both the players and owners will suffer (lolz) equally. A decreasing cap actually hurts teams like Golden State and the Cavs so that is good for the rest of the league including us. The only thing I think should be done different is that while a contract is 1-5yrs long and there is an amount being paid per year I think the money should be stretched out into equal payments over 20yrs. Far too many players go broke within a few years out of the league. That's an embarrassment. 20 yrs of money coming in hopefully is long enough to save the players from themselves.
No it wouldn't. There's only 30 teams. There's a lot of rich people in this country (and outside this country).
Total disagree, respectfully. The players thought about this during the last lockout. Just because you hoop well doesn't mean you have the bankroll to subsidize a league that will be seen as JV for a decade uuntil you get an AFL deal. plus the arena non-competes mean LeBron would be playing in Columbus. Curry would be hoping to lock in the Stockton Arena. boise may get some action...
And the victories, to a large extent. Basketball is unique among team sports (at least the ones I'm familiar with--don't lecture me on rollerderby) that one to three players can carry a team.
that is a great idea. It sucks seeing players you used to look up to file bankruptcy. Dont get me wrong, It would be extremely hard to come into money like that and not be tempted to screw it off. Like you said tho, just something to save them from themselves. Financial advice is one thing, but to actually have ur money held for you is another. I'm sure there would be issue with wanting to have it all now, so that would have to be addressed in the contract. Maybe stating that no option exists for early collection of $$$. Might be a tough one. Extremely doable tho and something that I personally would prefer, if I was in that position.
Interesting, maybe they should just make a mandatory 401k for the players where like a tenth of their income gets put into an account that they cannot access until a certain age?
I think the salary cap is essentially working as it should. The most money is funneling toward the marquis players who are selling the game--LeBron, Curry, etc. The role players who fill out the team are still millionaires, but they really shouldn't get anywhere close to the money the stars do. (Should Justin Timberlake's backup singers get paid anywhere near the level he does?) The problem teams like Portland have is when you overspend on role players because you know you can't attract stellar free agents and you aren't drafting low enough to consistently get lottery talent. If anyone is getting overpaid in this industry, it's the owners. When was the last time you attended a game to watch Paul Allen? The NBA is a cartel that regulates itself to maximize profits for ownership. A true free market would allow hundreds of NBA teams, all paying whatever they want for stars. Instead of a 50:50 spread, the players would get the vast lion's share of profits as teams out-bid each other for talent. (Such a system really isn't feasible for pretty obvious logistical reasons. Scheduling, arenas, etc.) In a true free market system the money should funnel to the actual scarcity, and that scarcity is talent at the LeBron/Curry level. People who can own a private jet, gymnasium, merchandising, and marketing operations like NBA owners can just aren't scarce--there are thousands of such organizations in America. They only have value because only 30 are allowed to own teams. Instead, the 30 team limit creates artificial scarcity, which is why a shitty franchise like the Clippers is probably worth $3bil or some such ridiculous number, and why the Knicks can continue to churn ridiculous profits despite years of producing a consistently shitty product (despite all its amazing advantages).
Bush caved in and set the league in panic when his Ranger team agreed to sign ARoD for that outrageous money. All prime sports pays players TOO much and I believe the normal common Joes like us are outraged about the money these guys make. However, your point based on number of team players equating to the $ value is absolutely the way it is. It seems to me the guys in the NHL are on the short end of the pay scale.
/ ? I didn't mention anyone's contract. You need at least 13 guys on your roster. Almost every decent team will have 2 max guys taking up half the cap, that leaves 50 million for the other 11. For an average salary of 4.5 mil. That's why you can't afford to pay your role players that much.
lol... It's up there. turner 70 million. cap 100million. You made it sound like turner was making 70million per. Not my fault you typed that.
