I’m sure his agent, (and Brunson’s) did the math. I didn’t, but I bet a championship or maybe even just a championship run, boosts over all income by more than whatever salary they’re giving up.

Championship means nationwide, not just NBA or local NBA fans name recognition. More commercials, more sneaker deals, also more say in what you do and don’t take.

And you know he has to have an additional $bajillion coming to him from doing business in France.

For every 100 trees planted, Texas will also build a new gas powered data center!

Yeah, he sacrifices 5m-10m a year for some role players and in return he’ll make millions more down the line, IF he wins

Also think the realization is there the deeper you play into the playoffs / Finals the more your name is out there … Brunson is not Lebron level household but now clearly a marketing presence making that marketing $$

Yeah and it also shows how much of a giant failure it was for labor that Star players now have to take pay cuts just to build good teams now. Bad negotiating

I think guys like LeBron and Wemby kind of have to take the full max (in their primes, of course).

Competitive balance is a thing, and those guys are so good that they’re providing surplus value even on supermax contracts. Taking discounts is effectively a cheat code for their team.

I’m also salty about it because San Antonio already got gifted insane lottery luck to even get to this point.

The CBA pretty much demands it.

As good as Wemby is, if the team can’t afford to fill out the roster with role players then they won’t have a long championship window.

The next CBA really needs to have a carve out from the luxury tax for players a team drafts.

Wemby should be able to sign a standard supermax contract at 35% of the cap but it should only count against 25% of the cap. That would allow teams to keep the players they develop while still leaving room for other quality players.

Why would they be upset though? It’s basically wemby losing money and the money going back to the remaining players. It’s not like all the owners save money collectively. It goes or other players.

[removed]

I dont think it should be their job and its probably worse for the league in general if players did this.

Itll make it more about who can collude behind closed doors than which teams can maneuver financially in a savvy way to acquire talent.

The players and owners collectively bargained for it… the players voted for it. CJ didn’t have the ultimate decision for the players or the league

Fuck that guy

[removed]

I feel like CJ takes a lot of heat when it was the executive director who is the actual leader during negotiations.

The idea that the players will get mad at another guy for taking less money has been perpetually parroted online for years by online dorks. I promise you there is not a single player in the league that gives one single ounce of a fuck if another guy takes less money. So happy this false claim by online dorks is coming to an end recently.  

maybe the whole world is french then, because i’m neither european nor american, and it boggles my mind how rare is for players to sacrifice a bit of their salary to have a better team.

‘uh it sends the wrong message’, ‘the owner is a billionaire i won’t take a pay cut’… whatever man, we are talking about making your team better, maximize your chances of winning. And i’m not even talking about getting a 10m salary instead of 60m. I’m talking about sometimes taking 35 or 42 instead of 50. You are already making twice that in ads, and will make more if your team gets successful.

And it’s not to give a discount to the owners, because they will use that money to pay other players regardless.

but yeah, maybe i’m in the wrong here and everyone else is right i guess.

So many people don’t understand how the CBA works. It’s getting so annoying in these off-season threads

He can hypothetically raise the next sponsorship deal by himself if they manage a dynasty with him at the helm

Teams don’t have to offer aging players max contracts. Teams have to be responsible as well.

Not really if that money just goes to his teammates instead

Not when it’s going to be spent on paying Harper and Castle what they’re going to deserve.

The players get the same cut of revenue regardless. Wemby making less = other players making more

It’s a cartel, they’re all part of the ownership class.

People really think socialist means don’t make money

When the modern view of it is I don’t mind my money helps other people

No country on this earth is pure socialist or capitalist because both methods failed when you tip the balance too much.

Its all a hybrid system and lots of propaganda to make you think you getting anything small share is bad

You say that, and nobody was clamoring to join the Spurs this offseason. The players in talks were Rui and Tobias Harris. Apparently we are on Rich Paul’s whiteboard for whatever that matters.

Nobody of consequence hits free agency nowadays

getting it against the spurs is huge for legacy too if they go on a dynasty run

We’ll have this championship forever. We’re blessed.

Must be nice bro. Literally 40 years of being great.

Right? They brought this shit on themselves. And no I’m not biased whatsoever.

Teams are basically penalized if homegrown max level stars take what they’re worth. Next CBA has to have some kind of provision to avoid the second apron for drafted superstars.

Exactly. Just like the player should never agree to a salary cap in the MLB.

this should be the top commont in the thread.

Such a twisted perspective, i feel like an alien… people here truly believe what makes you happier and life better is squeezing every single dollar into your bank account, even if that means giving up personal and team success. i’m not a communist but this really scream late stage capitalism. giving up 40m (out of 250) to help you reach your goals is extremely valid, life is so much more than getting a 3rd mansion or a 6th car or a yacht.

I think they’d be concerned about a precedent moving forward when star players are coming up on extensions and teams can look to Wemby and say “Well he took less than the max and you’re worse than him so why should we give the max to you”

I don’t agree that him potentially doing this would ruin anything but I can understand their argument

Absolutely this. The money gets distributed among all players if the total salary outlay is less than 51% of revenue.

I have no idea who started the “If star player x takes less money it’ll cause reverberations” nonsense, cause it is nonsense.

If next year Jokic opts out and the Nuggets say Wemby only took x amount, so that’s what we’re offering you, Jokic would have no shortage of suitors who’d pay him the supermax.

Tom Brady did this for years in the NFL / with New England

What precedent is this supposed to be setting? Players have always had the ability, if they so choose to take less money.

If we get multiple players signing under the max to increase team flexibility, then the max probably should be reduced. It’s a tough line to toe though because that can easily pave the way for super teams.

How else can mid tier players get paid with the current rules

Didn’t Jalen Brunson already do this?

People tend to struggle to believe when hella rich people say money doesn’t buy happiness

Taking less than you can get is not advice I’d give to any NBA player except someone like a Wemby. He’s a generational talent will make up for any “lost” income with endorsements. Winning championships will only gain him more endorsements

Signing a year earlier to lose out on $113 million is a pay cut “fr”

went from “brunson took a paycut just to never win a ring” to “well actually he never took a paycut” lol

Makes them feel better

The reasons why he got paid less money doesn’t really matter if the result is star players taking less money to improve team depth. Brunson also could have waited a year to geta way bigger contract