http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1627940 Uhhh, well...so much for my prediction of a big paycut. "I'm excited for the fans. I'm excited for the city. I'm excited!" Garnett said at a news conference at Target Center, where the Wolves begin the regular season Oct. 29. Yeah, Kevin...you're agent's excited too.
$179 mil for 5 yrs? The Wolves' owner is either nuts or drugged!! and he did this twice?!!! KG was excited for the team and the fans?? What a joke!!!
Being from Minnesota, I will say this. Garnett IS the Minnesota T'wolves. He's a good guy. One of the greatest players in the NBA at this time and you will not find a more competitive player who gets fired up for every game. I'm glad they showed him the money. KG should have been mvp last year. Go Wolves
I agree with you kriptic, but if that figure is correct, well, how the hell does ownership come up with that kind of money?
Almost 36 million a year? wtf? Just makes me think of the infamous KG quote, "it's not about the money." Other than the Mavs, Blazers, and maybe Kings, the Wolves don't have to worry about anyone wanting KG's contract in trade. Not that that's a good thing.
That will make Garnett's 11 year total when he is done with both his big contracts to over 300 Million dollars!
I bet if Wilt Chamberlain were still alive he would make a comeback in the NBA for the kind of money these guys are making. And he would still be one of the best players in the NBA. I am not joking either. Are sports contracts out of control or what?
That was before he was offered the most lucurative contracts in all of sports. $36 mil a year. Unbelievable. (looking for an emoticon for *shaking my head in disbelief).
Why would it not count? The Rockets extended Francis and every figure you see around here about total Rox payroll versus the cap or versus the LTax includes that number. Minnesota's payroll for the coming season - $70.1m. Assuming Sprewell ($14.6m) and Hudson ($2.6m) take their POps, Minnesota will have $44.9m commited for 2004-05 before Garnett is added in! They are over the cap even without KG! If I've done the math correctly he got a 5% bump in year 1 (from $28m to $29.4m) and then 10% on the remaining 4 years.
Uh, according to the ESPN article linked by the thread starter, his contract is 100 (not 179) mil. for 5 years, averaging 20 mil. a year.
Actually, if he gets the max allowed, it would be $186.73 million Garnett signed a five-year contract extension with the Timberwolves here Wednesday, giving up his chance to leave next July to the highest bidder as a free agent. “I didn’t want to have to deal with that,” Garnett said. “I wanted to get this out of the way. I didn’t want to but you have to have Plan B, Plan C.” Garnett, 27, will receive $28 million in the upcoming season in the final year of a six-year deal worth $126 million which was the richest contract in NBA history. In the first year of the extension, Garnett is eligible for 105 percent of the last year of his contract, or $29.4 million. After that, Garnett could receive a 12.5 percent raise each season. If he were to receive the maximum allowable under the collective bargaining agreement, he would get $183.73 million, more than 36 million a season. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_3-10-2003_pg2_11
I don't know. There is not disclosed info about the actually amount of this contract. They only tell us IF he gets the max, he'll make 183 mil.
I guess I shoulda clicked the link ... thx for the misleading title tho scissors. Unless of course ESPN did one of their editing jobs just to make scissors et al look foolish. 20 mill a year ain't that bad.
At what point does the money not matter for these guys? Disguisting how much they make, and the owners complain about losing money?
I hope he took a pay cut. Regardless of the fact that if anybody in the league deserves a maximum contract KG is a perfect example of that player. I just think that it would set a good example around the league, and the current system just isn't working so well. I mean look at the trouble a team like the T-Wolves has had because they signed one guy to a max contract? All the small market teams that don't have nutty billionaire owners are just screwed under the luxury tax rules if they've got one guy with a max contract. It seems like so many teams are just trying to get by with two max contract guys and a team full of scrubs.
