Not really. $50 mill after taxes. $40 mill after commission. Then divide that over the 40 more years he hopes to live, that's $1 million a year. That won't set up his family for generations. Double is a different story though
I could see Griffin fitting well with Porzingis in New York, and Paul/Melo/Jordan could work well together (in the 20 games per year when they're all healthy). S&Ts aren't as common/easy now, and I'm no capologist, but there might be a way it gets done. Not sure what NY could give to sweeten the pot though.
To be fair, Even getting 3% annual interest (very conservative investments) on $40M would net a person $1.2M a year to live on (pre-tax), leaving the whole $40M for future generations (pre-estate tax tho)
Chris Paul already has $137M in career earnings, so it's conceivable that the whole "setting his family up for generations" thing is no longer top of mind because it's already been accomplished. If that's the case, he may be more interested in legacy than compensation. That said, I don't know if I can name an NBA player who significantly improved his legacy via late-career ring-chasing. Might I be able to find an answer to that question on NBASpeed.com, my most trusted repository of hoops esoterica?
I guess depends on the significant-scale. Not a perfect example perhaps but I would say Clyde Drexler came the closest to this.
I think it's also worth noting that Chris Paul is one of the player representatives of the players' union. While he could rationally choose personally to prioritize "legacy" over money, I still feel that significantly reduces the likelihood that he'll play for peanuts to enrich a billionaire owner. The whole "players should sacrifice their financial interests for the benefit of a much richer organization" idea is the kind of logic the players' union has fought for generations.
I'm loathe to include players who were traded in that category, otherwise Garnett would be the clear choice. For Clyde, I don't know if his legacy was really improved simply because Houston had already won one title without him before he arrived.
Aren't the owners the communists? They're the ones who want to restrict the free market, the shining pillar of Capitalism.
My family lives on 1/5 of a million dollars a year. We are pretty comfortable. Even if I bumped up and doubled that, I'd still have 600k to invest. Easily get 5% on that money, which gets me 630k every year in the bank. Saying 40 million wouldn't last generations os more to do with the person, not the amount. 5% on 40 mm is 2mm per year in just interest.
You are right, if you can't make 40 million last you a significant amount of time, you are an idiot. It's not difficult to make enough money off of interest alone to survive as long as you aren't buying new cars every 5 minutes and living well outside of your means.
Apropos nuthin' really but.....I'm currently in San Antonio and it's kind of tortured fun to watch the town ramp up for tonight's Spurs/Rockets opener. I've made it a point to thank every Spurs fan I talk to for taking LaMarcus off our hands. There seem to be an ambivalence towards him in general and that gives me a pleasurable little chubby.......
If I'm CP3, I'd take $100-120 mil and return a hero in NO and play with some actual bigs. $210 mil to play for LAC is bad for both him and the Clips. They shouldn't offer it, and he shouldn't take it.
