I'm actually appreciative of the non-effort that Stern has been giving on these game cancelations. It's obvious that he does not want to do it, but he has to make a point, somehow. I still believe if a deal is struck anytime before wednesday, they will still try to squeeze in 82 games.
WTF are you talking about? Does that really matter? He still commands one of the largest contracts in the league. Putting aside the absurdity of your argument, in reality, KG was past his prime when he signed with Boston. You have to consider the length of the contract. If someone's contract ends past the age of 36, it would be safe to assume that the contract accounted for a person past their prime. Either way the contract is still massive. Having said that, it would make sense for a player who is in his prime to go after as much money as possible. Why else would prime Garnett re-sign with the Timberwolves for the ridiculous sum of money he was given? Any team in the league would have wanted him. You would be hard pressed to argue that he signed with the team he thought gave him the best shot at a ring. It was only after exiting his prime that he, as we have seen many veterans do, began to chase a ring. In fairness, both Allen and Pierce saw their most profitable years as members of the big 3. Do you really think a younger Pierce would have agreed to a reduced salary? He did it to help preserve his team in hopes of chasing another ring.
This is wrong. KG has had provisions built in his contract to defer money to him up until even after his contract is expired. Most likely to avoid scenarios like this one.
It seems he's delaying as much as he possibly can, the TV networks obviously require a few weeks notice so they can figure out what sort of advertising they're selling etc, and other businesses are pretty similar.
And if you are an aging player with a chance to sign one last big contract you also want it to be as large as it can. Probably as bas as if I took one for my last major contract and suffered a major career ending injury. The risk of recovering from an injury is clearly higher for an aging dude than a younger one. Either way, that was not Bosh's 1st max deal. Or Wade's or LeBron's. Yes, do you? It typically doesn't apply to 31 yr old players that are considered the best in the game at their position (arguably) and are in MVP contention.
Yes, I would say a dude turning down $30M dollars to win matters. The length of his contract was the same. The extension could have been for 3 yrs and $90M or $60M. $60M is massive but $30M is still a lot of money to give up. And the only thing absurb about this side debate is that it only matters if you give up large $$ in your prime, since it's only the post prime player that probably won't have a chance to sign another huge deal. Heck if I know. But a younger Wade, LeBron and Bosh did. All in their primes.
Yeah, but we're not arguing about aging players. We're arguing about players in their primes taking substantial paycuts on the most lucrative contracts of their careers for the sake of winning. I say it doesn't happen. You say it does, but you haven't been able to give a single example. Sorry, but in regards to this specific tangent, you're wrong. 100% wrong. And you're just making yourself look like an idiot by sticking to your position. A 2007 Kevin Garnett was not a prime Kevin Garnett.
New Labor Deal 95 Percent Complete Even though labor talks broke apart on Friday, a new deal is 95 percent complete. The NBA owners and the players union have agreed on contract lengths and luxury-tax rates, trade rules and cap exceptions, as well as several provisions lesser-known to casual fans such as "amnesty" and "base-year compensation." In real terms, the NBA and NBPA are separated by 2.5 percent of BRI and $100 million per year. At one point, the sides were separated by 20 percent and hundreds of millions per year. The final deal will, by any objective measure, heavily favor the owners when compared with deals reached in 1999 and 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/s...but-last-hurdle-is-a-big-one.html?_r=2&src=tp
Because they have never done it.....the whole take less money to win is mythology. When you consider taxes, sign and trades etc..etc..etc...they all got paid MORE in the end. Wekko, you are on point in this debate....I salute you !! DD
Yeah, it's usually ageing vets taking less money than their previous contract because that's the best they're being offerred.
Sometimes the aging vets take less to get a ring, Barkley did it here for example. But never have any prime players done it, they all make sure they get the money and the move they want. The system is broken, in order for the NBA to remain viable every franchise needs to feel it is on equal footing. Right now, we are trending the wrong way, it needs to be fixed. The funny thing is that if Hunter took what the owners were offering to the players right now at 50/50, I would bet they would sign it. DD
No, we are arguing about the new CBA preventing superteams, ie dudes taking paycuts to win. Being in your prime has nothing to do with that. Being in your prime actually allows you to get another max deal so you are actually in a better position to turn down $$, as opposed to an aging player. The $21M a yr that Pierce declined would have been the most lucrative contract of his career (per season) and definately his last chance to make that type of money. The same goes for KG and the $30M per season he could have had for his 3 yr, $90M extension. The key aspect is what I bolded above, not what you are trying to make it out to be to save face. Sorry, but in regards to this specific tangent, you're wrong. 100% wrong. And you're just making yourself look like an idiot by sticking to your position.
Do you think Duncan was past his prime after he led the Spurs to their 4th ring in 2007 (he was 31)? That's when he turned down $11-12M in order for the Spurs to keep building a contending team. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=136676
Wrong again. A player's prime years are his peak earning years. Why would he want to take a substantial paycut in his peak earning years for the sake of winning? Chris Bosh's current contract ends when he's 31 years old. I guarantee he's not going to get another 6 year max contract when he's 31 years old. But we're not arguing about only per-season values. We're also taking into account the life of the contract. I've only found articles stating that he was eligible for a 3 yr, $90mm extension. I haven't read anything that says he was offered that much. Can you provide a link? How about you go back and read what I originally wrote? I haven't changed my stance at all.
