Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: OMG: Derrick Rose 90% paycut to join Lebron's superteam

  1. #31
    The idea is unworkable, it doesn't help the league, and I'm really confused about why you bring it up in a thread about Rose.

    Quote Originally Posted by concordtom View Post
    When guys can make as much money thru projected lifetime endorsements as they can thru salary...
    What if you could elevate your current and future endorsement earning by taking a paycut to go to a winner?
    You could either toil away in loser-franchise, collect your full due, or take something less but with a chance to elevate your name brand.
    Hmmm

    The league has policies in place to create parity.

  2. #32
    What he posted was completely factual.

    Quote Originally Posted by BearNecessities View Post
    Because you weren't even close to being right.



    Because I wasn't disagreeing with that part, just the ludicrous notion that the NBA playoffs ever felt like a crapshoot.

    BTW, I admire how you contorted everything so you could find a way to include the Kings in your list of teams.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesaxe View Post
    I think it's more like the Cavs really want Jackson included and the Suns would be stupid to do that. It would be a good return for the Cavs, since it helps in the future which they will need since Lebron is going to leave. They totally blew this offseason and alienated their best player. Not that it isn't partially his own fault, but he'll have better options after this year.
    Yeah, the initial tweet was wrong. Suns aren't offering Jackson at this time.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesaxe View Post
    The idea is unworkable, it doesn't help the league, and I'm really confused about why you bring it up in a thread about Rose.
    Action: player A decides he faces two options:
    1. Play for noncontender for $5M
    2. Play for contender for $2M and collect avg of $100k in endorsementssannually for next 50 years, get invited to Chanpions events forevermore.
    Which would you take?

    Reaction: multiply this by many players making same decision, creating a handful of super teams.

    Reaction: certain franchises become effectively permanently shut out of chance to be a contender. By league vote, owners choose to base salaries on some 'market demand' formula, rather than allow individual parties to negotiate their own deals.

    That's what I was getting at. And Rise went from $20+M to $2M. Pretty severe.
    Why did he do that?

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by concordtom View Post
    Action: player A decides he faces two options:
    1. Play for noncontender for $5M
    2. Play for contender for $2M and collect avg of $100k in endorsementssannually for next 50 years, get invited to Chanpions events forevermore.
    Which would you take?

    Reaction: multiply this by many players making same decision, creating a handful of super teams.

    Reaction: certain franchises become effectively permanently shut out of chance to be a contender. By league vote, owners choose to base salaries on some 'market demand' formula, rather than allow individual parties to negotiate their own deals.

    That's what I was getting at. And Rise went from $20+M to $2M. Pretty severe.
    Why did he do that?
    I do not buy the 50 years/100k annuity for being on part of a championship team. (role players) With that said, David West opted out of his Pacers contract to go sign with Spurs to try to make serious run for his ring. (1.5 m vs 12 m) At time of move, he had already has over 85 m of career salaries. You really think David West is getting 100k in sponsorship 40 years from now? Yes, he will get more personal satisfaction as he reflects back on his career with his ring (or rings). West, felt he had set enough aside not to worry about earning an incremental 10 m when he did decide to opt out of his contract.

    Some states do not have income tax, do those team have salary cap adder to take that into consideration? Some cities have higher living costs, does that go into the cap calculation. One can keep adding rules/regulations to the salary cap to take all variables into consideration so it looks like the IRS tax code.

    Not going to worry about fact KD took less than market to re-sign with GSW. Just going to enjoy the upcoming season and the team GSW puts on the court in their quest to repeat and run for 3 out of 4.

    Last edited by gobears; 08-01-2017 at 08:00 AM.

  6. #36
    Why did he do that? Because no one was going to offer him much more than the minimum. His $20M contract was signed six years back when he was an MVP level player and turned out to be a horrible deal for the team that signed him. He's a horrible defender, shot under 22% from three point range last year, has a lousy assist ration and is ball-dominant. He's the opposite of what teams are looking for in guards these days, and he no longer has the athleticism to get to the rim at will. He's just not a very good player any more. The Knicks, for whom he played last year, did not even offer him a contract. He had very little interest around the league and that interest was at minimum salary/exception level contracts. So he's trying to get a ring or re-build his image.

    As for the rest, $100,000 is chicken scratch in the NBA and nobody makes a decision based on that kind of money. And no one gets a 50 year endorsement deal either. So the question makes very little sense but the real answer is that if you're a young player you take the $5M up front and if you're an older player who already scored a couple of big contracts you can play for a ring. Endorsements provide a huge cushion for a few players who can do things like give up money to keep a team together, but most players know they have a short shelf life in which to make their money and they'll take it.

    Quote Originally Posted by concordtom View Post
    Action: player A decides he faces two options:
    1. Play for noncontender for $5M
    2. Play for contender for $2M and collect avg of $100k in endorsementssannually for next 50 years, get invited to Chanpions events forevermore.
    Which would you take?

    Reaction: multiply this by many players making same decision, creating a handful of super teams.

    Reaction: certain franchises become effectively permanently shut out of chance to be a contender. By league vote, owners choose to base salaries on some 'market demand' formula, rather than allow individual parties to negotiate their own deals.

    That's what I was getting at. And Rise went from $20+M to $2M. Pretty severe.
    Why did he do that?

  7. #37
    Also, Rose already makes $10M a year in endorsements on a 13-year deal that has 8 more years to run iirc. That's as good as he's ever going to do in endorsements. By the time that deal is over his career will be as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by bluesaxe View Post
    Why did he do that? Because no one was going to offer him much more than the minimum. His $20M contract was signed six years back when he was an MVP level player and turned out to be a horrible deal for the team that signed him. He's a horrible defender, shot under 22% from three point range last year, has a lousy assist ration and is ball-dominant. He's the opposite of what teams are looking for in guards these days, and he no longer has the athleticism to get to the rim at will. He's just not a very good player any more. The Knicks, for whom he played last year, did not even offer him a contract. He had very little interest around the league and that interest was at minimum salary/exception level contracts. So he's trying to get a ring or re-build his image.

    As for the rest, $100,000 is chicken scratch in the NBA and nobody makes a decision based on that kind of money. And no one gets a 50 year endorsement deal either. So the question makes very little sense but the real answer is that if you're a young player you take the $5M up front and if you're an older player who already scored a couple of big contracts you can play for a ring. Endorsements provide a huge cushion for a few players who can do things like give up money to keep a team together, but most players know they have a short shelf life in which to make their money and they'll take it.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesaxe View Post
    It's not exactly a 90% pay cut to join the Cavs. He was never going to get anything close to what his last contract paid, since that was an overpay to begin with and money for free agents dried up around the league this year. He's closer to a league minimum player than a $20M player at this point. He might have done better than this contract, money-wise, but I doubt he would have drawn any interest for more than a mid-level exception and maybe not even that. He's not a star. He's going to be a backup unless they don't get a starter PG back in an Irving trade. This deal means almost nothing in terms of league parity.
    Definitely true. Rose was a mid level exception at the most. One year @ $2.1 million versus maybe $5.5 million? Not exactly something to get up in arms about.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •