<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Sources say that Warriors, Cavs & Wizards all offered West more money. <a href="https://t.co/f6ZOyzuxxf">https://t.co/f6ZOyzuxxf</a></p>— NBA on ESPN (@ESPNNBA) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNNBA/status/618160787803242496">July 6, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Which is why more than just a few of us believe there's some under the table dealings going on here. This is worse than when Kirilenko took way below his market value to play for the Nets because it was believe their Russian owner would compensate him in other ways.
West must really believe in the Spurs. The Warriors are the defending champs, have a far younger core, and won 11 more games than San Antonio last year. And the Cavs play in the East, are bringing back nearly everyone from last year's squad, and have the best player on the planet. Personally, I think both of those teams have better shots than San Antonio this season.
They're so old they'll be getting good nights of sleep instead of snorting lines outta stripper cracks. We're in trouble.
Sure, we are all wired differently, but to give up that much money sure sounds suspicious. I will stay with my conspiracy theory that West will make up this loss down the road with a future contract extension with the Spurs after the 2016 megacap. The West just got tougher. Unbelievable.
So what if some random fan cares if he won a championship or not, in 20 years he'll definitely regret this deal big time.
Especially when it sounds like he could've bought one for much cheaper had he signed with Cleveland or Golden State...
How does that work exactly? I mean, how close to the line can the Spurs go without it being some sort of tampering or violation of the CBA? They can't obviously tell West or Manu to sign with the team for a 1-year cheap deal with an explicit promise to give them X number of dollars next year. But are they allowed to give them a "wink wink" pledge to resign them for an undisclosed sum under the new salary cap next summer?
I don't think like that. I personally view any player that take a significant paycut just for a chance to win a championship at a freaking game is a complete utter moron.
To be honest, I don't know the legalities of a wink-wink deal, but knowing the cap will rise dramatically next year makes a lot of stuff possible. In fact, this was suggested a while ago by some posters (me included) in respect to Smith and Brew.
My thoughts exactly. Would Peter Holt be willing to take an $11,000,000 pay cut in one of his ventures just so he could bring on somebody like David West? Of course not. So why are these players willing to do the same thing? While West might come off as a team-first player, in the long run, he's actually the opposite. He's giving his colleagues (other NBA players) less wiggle room in negotiations, and allowing the owners more power.
They're only a moron if it doesn't work. Malone looked like a moron when the Lakers flamed out against the Pistons. Payton looked like an even bigger moron when he got traded by those Lakers to the rebuilding Celtics.....until he latched onto the Heat a couple years later and finally got a ring. If this Spurs team doesn't pan out due to age or injuries, people will be laughing at West's expense. If he gets a ring and then gets paid the following year, he'll look like a genius.
david west is a 34 year old 12 year veteran. he's made more than enough money in his career. maybe he just wants a chance at a title before he retires? he knows it aint happening with the pacers lol.
Terry will never be a Spur, San Antonio hates his guts for being a little b**** all those years in Dallas... Scola otoh maybe, as a fifth big would be alright for 8 minutes a game.
