Thats the same for all franchises. If an owner (GS) is willing to go over the cap it helps in that regard. If their annual franchise income can cover it, like GS, and still produce decent corp numbers? Its no different than a retailer or wholesaler that is willing to take lessor margin to move inventory or compete.
You do realize that that a large portion of this board have join dates that predate Dame's freshman season at Weber, right?
I was referring to fans in general, not only on this board. what's important is that i don't care if your name is Lillard, or McCollum, or Aldridge and so on, if there's a deal that makes the Blazers better i'd do it, regardless of how a player is invested in the community and all that BS. DeRozan was the most long tenured Raptor, they traded him and they won a championship.
But in economics, that doesn't really work in the long run. It sounds good in theory, but its deceptive. "Lower the costs and sell more, you make more money". Wrong. Selling more product, means the manufacturing of more product, which means more labor costs and possible expansion costs. The lowering of the price often does not compensate for the added costs required to keep up with the higher demand. The quality of service and product almost always drop. Most economics will tell you, its better to provide a higher level of quality at a premium price to select customers, than to spread yourself thin for more sales.
That’s easy math. The difference would be $30mil. Surprised nobody else was able to answer that one. What do I win?
Walmart is one of the worst companies around. Just check their reviews of employee treatment and lack of customer service and quality. Edit: Also, by and large they are not a producer of a product. They are a distributor. Big difference.
Well I don't think any players worth that much especially a game there supposed to love so much. I know there trying to make living but most these star players are already secured for the rest of there lifes with money just by endorsements only.
So I think sometimes we (this is a general thing and includes me, but definitely not everyone) make the mistake of going on Basketball reference and judging a players worth. Or judging what a players worth based on what the team accomplished with them. When there's more to it. I think part of what makes some guys get contracts worth more than what it looks like they deserve (on the court), is because of theres a lot more to it. Their's fit, there's personality, there is marketability, we tend to think of a team as Win's and Losses, and that's all that is important, but for professional leagues/franchises, it's more than that and sometimes a lot more to it. Teams are in it to make money, and yes winning definitely helps, but there are 29 teams every year who don't win a championship and those teams still have to find ways to fill seats, to sell merch, to get people to turn on their TV, they have to get people in the locker room who are likable. In Dame's situation he will likely have the best Blazer career, represent the franchise better than all the others in consideration, have had some playoff success even if no rings, and will keep people interested much more than trading him for assets and hope. There is a very good chance that paying 34-35-year-old Dame is a "negative contract" in terms of basketball considerations, but paying him has positives, shows other stars that hey if I go to Portland and I'm successful I will get paid. I completely understand the hesitation of paying really anyone a super-max, it's a lot of money, and basketball-wise it can create struggles to fill out the roster, but there are ways to do it. Look at Houston, they "could" have multiple max guys, does that mean they win a championship? No. It does mean that people in Houston will be paying attention though.
Giving Dame the supermax is the correct move in a broken system. The faulty CBA is screwing the Blazers, and the entire NBA, on many levels. This is what happens when young superstars that can not balance a checkbook have too much power negotiating the $3+ billion CBA.
oh, i get all that and I'm not saying the team shouldn't offer it. Im saying Dame should return the offer with this... “If i take less than max, what would you do with the money to help us win?”
If you are in a niche market where you can demand a higher price, usually the cost is more too, sure. But most markets in order to thrive and survive you can negotiate business based on a level of commitment. If you need to lower your margin a bit to compete for some decent volume it could make since. If the Blazers want to be relevant and compete in their Country Club niche market, the NBA, they must invest, but a decent team on the table (doesnt have to be a championship team) with players and the organization marketing the brand, they can thrive & survive. Dame and the Organization have done well at this. And Nurkic, & CJ.
If you just look at the numbers of the salary they do indeed look bad. I believe it was @wizenheimer who posted in the last Dame Super Max thread that when you break it down by percentage of the salary cap it's really not that much more than the percentage he's making now. For those opposed to giving Dame this contract, since the salary cap became a thing what opportunities have there been with cap space that not paying Dame would provide? The answer is there is literally no scenario in which this franchise would be better off with cap space instead of Dame. If we're gonna add more talent to Dame it will always be through the draft, trades, and value free agent signings. Those options will be there whether Dame makes $10 million or $100 million. Besides, next summer the Blazers could have Dame locked up long term and cap space. So basically some of you are arguing that we should wait another 3 off seasons from now to add pieces? If we don't add the talent to win in the next two summers then why would anyone think we are missing out on an opportunity in 2021? Draft Trades Value Free Agents
