“I too, am not making the supermax”

Fox wanted the bag and now he’ll soon be earning that on an expansion team instead of a championship team.

“ you’re next “

Home grown meaning the team they were drafted by?

I don’t agree personally. The draft is literally a lottery. You are not rewarding homegrown talent necessarily. You are suggesting that we further reward teams who get lucky in a random drawing.

Actual team building is more nuanced in how you can fit in different players and salaries and make the whole puzzle fit together.

The Wolves lost KAT due to the second apron and I’m still on board with it. In this current environment team building is rewarded more than ever before.

What I want is for a player making 30% of the max salary to count as only 25% against the salary cap. The reason is that the current system creates a bizarre situation where fans of borderline All-NBA players end up thinking, “He’s playing great, but please don’t make All-NBA!” I’d much rather leave that extra 5% up to the owner’s discretion. If the owner refuses to pay it and loses the player because of it, then the criticism should be directed at the owner’s stinginess instead.

Yes, because it would incentivize tanking and drafting the superstars. Why would anyone sign off it

Why should the draft be the best way to build a team by far? It’s already got the most advantages now anyway

The problem is every team that has been “forced” to break up or have homegrown stars take haircuts have huge “outsider” contracts.

Why should teams get to dabble in the veteran free agent/trade market AND extend their young homegrown players? Because teams are clearly trying to double dip during young stars rookie contracts knowing full well that big money contracts are coming down the pike.

Of course in a salary cap league teams should be forced to choose between expensive veterans supplementing their lineup or keeping their “homegrown” core.

It’s so frustratingly obvious. It dampens the free agency market but it rewards teams that draft well and promotes fan loyalty and relationships between teams and players.

I struggle to find a single reason why this isn’t implemented already besides the owners not wanting to pay more money.

People saying “it promotes teams getting lucky in the draft” fail to realize that superstars are often found in later picks, Tatum was drafted 2nd, Luka 4th, Jokic 41st, etc. Tanking and getting the first overall pick does not guarantee you will find and develop a superstar.

I dont think everyone agrees with that…I actually like that an NBA player who realizes a 25% max is still a shitload of money can improve their chances of winning

The easier solution is for front offices to stop defaulting to giving out maxes when only a handful of players in the league deserve them but it’s just what you do now for the best players on your team so I doubt it ever ends.

I love what the pistons are doing by not giving into Duren though so maybe it’s shifting now that teams have become hamstrung by the aprons.

I certainly don’t believe this and I’m a bit surprised that this idea keeps getting upvoted.

The lottery is a random crap shoot, why should a team get a massive salary cap advantage for their luck in the lottery draft? ³⁄₅ of the past drafts have had very close to consensus #1 picks. So I don’t think we’re really rewarding “drafting and development” by giving homegrown discounts to San Antonino and Dallas when everyone knew they’d pick Wemby and Flagg.

Teams should stop giving supermax contracts to non-supermax guys. I’m not in the business of letting front offices off the hook.

Love the idea, but I think it could go even further. The amount of years that a player is with an organization should be a buffer added to the cap sheet. Like, X player is with an organization for 7 years, 7% of their salary does not count against the cap.

Obviously that’s a pretty rudimentary idea and it would need to have some numbers figured out, but I don’t think it should be exclusive to homegrown players. If it were, once a player gets traded from an organization the first time, their value drops dramatically no matter how good they are. This way, players and organizations would be rewarded for loyalty to one another, but it doesn’t deter organizations from making moves in the first place.

Also, a player like SGA would not qualify under the homegrown idea, but he is certainly synonymous with OKC.

That would just negate what the cba achieved with parity. If the spurs can keep together harper wemby castle ect they’ll be a dynasty and it would only make picks even more valuable

I agree with this, but what happens if the player is traded to another team. I thought they kind of had this before but players would sign their new contract and then demanded/would play to get traded.

I don’t think either the league or the players want that. I think the league loves the drama of player movement and the players want to be able to maximize their earnings while picking where they go. I don’t think it’s the owners at all.

This just leads to teams having to overpay home grown stars who aren’t easily moved, even if they want out

I don’t agree at all.

The second apron basically functions as a hard cap. You get plenty of advantages by drafting a superstar already.

Not only that, but winning makes you more money as well. If taking a paycut results in a championship, he easily makes up for the loss in sponsorships.

“We’re a family”

Feels like a different conversation when you’re going to be making 100’s of millions regardless

He’s like a baby tree!

To a person, it isn’t a problem if they accept it.
To a collectively bargained labor group, the potential for salaries can be big.

That sacrifice is exactly why he’s the greatest leader in North American sports history

When Darrell Revis was a free agent and wanted to come to New England he told Bill B he wanted \(15 million for 1 year. Bill responded by pointing out Tom only makes \)13m and they’re not paying anyone more than Tom. Revis ended up signing for $11m and the team won the Super Bowl that year.

Stars taking cuts gives the organization more flexibility than just the dollars and cents

It’s just envy. Wemby is an inherently unfair advantage for us

I mean it’s his first major contract. Not like he’s a 10 year vet or something

50 million dollars. not exactly pocket change

51 million if he waited. Yeah maybe not huge to him but its still 51 million.

$50m is a significant amount of money, it’d be 20% increase on what he took. The equivalent would be someone taking an 80K a year salary instead of a 96K one.

Wemby isn’t going to go broke, but it is still a lot.

$51mm

To the best of my knowledge, he hasn’t foregone a single dollar so far, because to qualify for the 30% supermax, he must be named MVP, DPOY or earn All-NBA honors, in the upcoming season. Which honestly is a pretty safe bet provided he meets the minimum number of games required; however, in his three seasons in the league to date, he has played more than 65 regular season games technically only once (last season it was 64 plus the NBA Cup final).

So if he meets those requirements he will have turned down roughly $50M.

Will Wemby be the first ethical billionaire??????????

Its probably more like he is thinking about Castle and Harper’s first extensions and neither of them would be classified as role players

Players like Wemby can do whatever they want. The salary cap restraints is what the players and owners agreed to. Players like Wemby want to win and role players have salary demands and the ability to sign elsewhere as well

Then some other team that has the money to spend or thinks a player is worth more than your original team thinks he’s worth will still pay more.

Why would a player like Wemby want to make slightly more money if it ruins his chance at a championship?

Almost every supermax player should earn more. How much would they make without a salary cap at all? There are always cap restraints, and that’s part of why this is a great balanced league where you can’t just consistently “buy” a title.

You make me think that maybe it’s just the maxes and salaries that are too high for the cap. Why allowing salaries that are too high to make teams inside the cap. It just is backwards. You should do salaries that makes a logical addition of each profile possible.

I don’t think he should. Somewhere along the way owners convinced fans that it’s on players to do their jobs for them to construct a competitive team.

The thing is those players have zero recourse if that money gets misappropriated. People never think about what if he doesn’t win.

He really wants MVP. He’s going to get 65 baring an injury

The paycut is for Castle and Harper, not Fox lol

Imagine not understanding how cap management works.

Isn’t this a good thing for most players’ pockets under the current CBA? My understanding is the overall player earnings are limited by the total revenue.

He’ll be signing his next extension right when that new CBA starts

Next CBA will be as his extension comes to an end I believe

Wemby is gonna make so much money in his career and after bro I dont think hes gonna be kicking himself lmao

I don’t know that the PA will make that a priority. Only a small minority of players get max contracts, and any change to help those players comes at the expense of everyone else. The fact that we have max contracts at all shows that elite players aren’t always the main priority for the PA

The NBAPA won’t demand that because it would mean less of the revenue split going to role players and bench guys - and they’re the big power center in the NBAPA

The players as a whole get 51% of BRI no matter what

It’s not helping billionaire owners save money, the money is being used to acquire / retain better teammates to gain a competitive advantage.

Once again, the owners aren’t saving money. The players still get 50% whether he signs a gigamax or a vet minimum.