LeBron James thinks Stephen Curry's deal should really be worth $400 million

steven curry isn't worth a penny. getting tired of lebron sucking up to the larriors.

 

There should not be a max salary for players.

The salary cap for teams (that is a negotiated percentage of total league revenues) should stay.

/discussion

 

NBPA would never go for this. Because it means max level players take all the money and the role players and mid-level guys will play for scraps.

CP3/LeBron may be union president but the majority of the members are mid-level and bottom-level guys.

 

I can not love this enough! Pay the players what the market says they are worth. The single biggest reason there are superteams is because we artificially deflated their salary.

 

Thanks so much for starting this thread....

 

I don't know. I have one opinion right now.

But if somehow bizzaro world happens next year and Wade, Lebron, Melo, Paul, and Harden on the team my opinion may change.

I would be curious to hear Morey's true and honest opinion.

 

You are correct, but the superstars have driven NBA revenues to these stratospheric levels and they deserve the lion's share of the money. For the sake of union peace, they sacrifice for the greater good.

This reminds me of a thread 10+ years ago where I said the top 15 players in the NBA are worth more than the next 85. It's still true.

Why can't everyone see this so clearly?

 

LeBron was probably worth 400 million these past 10 years.

But not Curry

 

If the market should determine what the players are worth, the salary cap should also be removed. Don't we expect owners to properly value their labor so they can turn a profit, like any other business? They sell the salary cap as a way to drive "competitiveness" (and we have a super competitive league, right?) but the reality is that it's to artificially deflate what they have to pay players.

Which, ultimately, is fine, to be honest. Different fields work differently and no one is forced to play in the NBA (or own a team in the NBA). Playing in the NBA has its own benefits and drawbacks and the deal overall is pretty good. We should just recognize the real motivations behind these things.

 

Interesting discussion of that.

 

To be clear, I wasn't advocating for or against removing the salary cap, but there are really two dynamics deflating what superstars are worth, both the max contract and the salary cap. If we wanted to see what a player was really worth (how much the market would bear in order to make a profit off their skills), we'd need to remove both.

 

I enjoy this type of argument. I think their should not be a max. I also think the salary cap is a good thing, though it should be hard capped unless the player you go over the cap with was drafted by your team. It incentives players staying with the team that invested in them. Do we really think Ryan Anderson should make more money than James Harden? Do we really think Golden State should have a 5-6 all star squad? I think Golden State would still be the best team in the NBA with just Curry Klay and Draymond eating the entire cap, but it is debatable.

 

If NBA contracts weren't guaranteed, a hard cap like the NFL might work. Since that will never happen, a soft cap with a luxury tax is probably the best way. The NBA has this right.

 

They all get paid way too much. Does it even matter if it's $40MM or $70MM..

 

take that for data

 

No. Because they're not worth anything at all if the NBA becomes an unwatchable product. And the NBA would become an unwatchable product if you removed the salary cap.