If players want championships

I got this from another forum and from another poster here.

If players want championships why dont they just lower their pay rates and all play on the same team ?

Like KG says he'll go to the Lakers and Lakers only hav to pay him like $2,000,000, and the only pay Kobe $2,000,000 ... and then some other all stars come for only a small price. That way it wouldn't be expensive, and their would be a championship certain.

Its basically.. wat du u want more .. more money , or a ring?

They want a ring, but not for that sort of money, that's practically poor for them, they couldn't survive off that, they don't know how. And you still need chemistry to win a Championship. You couldn't have a team of scorers, you need Defense and Energy players etc.

Plus that would make the NBA veeery boring so i'm glad they don't do that

LakersRule24, why not go ask Spree that question? I'm sure you will get an educated answer.

As much of a money thing it is, I see it also as a pride issue. Players want to be earning the most on their team because it puts a tag on them that shows and proves to others 'how much they are worth.' It also makes them feel like they are the most important on the team, and no matter how modest one can be, they will feel that if they can lead their team to a championship - they are worth how ever much they are paid.

I guess it would be a much better feeling that getting a lower pay check and then getting to the Finals with a lot more help. Thats how the league stays compeitive with all the egos and stuff. And that's how the best players get their place in the league while the lower earners get their place as role players.

And that's why guys don't admit that they can't do it by themselves until they've given it a go and decided that they've gotten too old or they can't do it by themselves. And for some reason, for those who haver figured it out early, can never get on a better team and exect the manager to fix it all without taking money from their already deep pockets.

Other quick reasons:

- Why take a pay check half of what you can earn? Using economic speak... the players weigh up whether the benifit of winning a ring outweighs what they can potentially earn in money. We all know what they choose

- With more money, usually means more playing time/slight guarantee you will make yourself a hosuehold name... further boosts the egos of many players

Objectives

1. Money
.
.
.
.
.
.
2. Championship

I'd play for money. Self satisfying glory isn't going to feed you, your family, your family's family for the next 3 generations and so on.

This is just such an ignorant question in so many ways.

Well, it's similar to the workplace. If I was CEO of EA, I'd be pissed if a newly-hired programmer makes more money than me. I'm sure Kobe would be pissed off if Brian Cardinal made more money. Unless players were aging and already have lots of money, like Gary Payton, I wouldn't mind taking a pay cut just to play on a championship team. Which he did.

That's how it's always gonna work in the NBA.

Well yeah in theory this would be possible. But most players, especially in their prime or approaching it, aren't interested in long term deal with way lower pay. And teams are not interested in short term deal with low pay - since the player might simply be a free agent and bail out after contract runs out.

It's more common for veterans to sign lower deals. And there are examples where already very accomplished players literally play without any salary in their later years. But I doubt it will ever be something a young player does, and hells it might even hurt public view of the situation and hit the player with criticism in trying to 'find a loophole in system' to have a better success for a team. But yeah..

Even Michael Jordan donated his pay for charity in Wizards while still posting up decent numbers of 21/4.5/6 as 40 year old. But of course that's a very rare exception, considering the guy was crazy rich and still earned more, despite giving the pay to charity.

Well, it's similar to the workplace. If I was CEO of EA, I'd be pissed if a newly-hired programmer makes more money than me. I'm sure Kobe would be pissed off if Brian Cardinal made more money. Unless players were aging and already have lots of money, like Gary Payton, I wouldn't mind taking a pay cut just to play on a championship team. Which he did.

That's how it's always gonna work in the NBA.

Yes but as players age, they start to think about championships more than about themselves. I don't think players like Kobe and KG would mind if Cardinal makes more money than them, because they already know they are the best players in the world. Why don't players like them take paycuts more often?

Well...surprising for as well as it fits here would be the case of Steve Francis this year..Who took a two year deal worth just about 6 Mil. To play for houston, earning only 2.4 the first year with an opt out after the first year. He could have made almost 6-8 mil a year with other interested teams such as Dallas, Miami, and the Clippers... He wanted to go home, and be in a more familier enviroment...and have more of a chance to win, although he would have had he gone to Heat or Mavs...He's taking a backseat, he's going to be at best a third option behind T-mac and Yao...Maybe even Scola might get more points...Who Knows...but Franchise took a paycut to play where he was comfortable and where he would fit in with the ownership, and where he would be able to win. After all, the blazers gave him more than 30 Mil. to buyout his contract for the last two years...who needs extra cash??

Those who say they want to win a ring don't want to do it at the expense of their income. Obviously if someone said they wanted to make more money over winning then they'd get blasted by the media. As a result, the majority of the NBA puts on that "I want to win a championship" facade when they're being interviewed.

He could have made almost 6-8 mil a year with other interested teams such as Dallas, Miami, and the Clippers...

Heh. What? No way could he have. Especially after everyone realized he's not even that good of player. (And those teams couldn't give him such a contract.)

Last edited by benji on Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

well...neither is darko...that's kinda the point of this thread...yeah??

In all fairness though, how many people with "normal" jobs would choose to leave an employer for a job elsewhere with less pay unless the current working conditions were completely unbearable? We can't really fault an NBA player for trying to earn as much as they can any more than we'd fault anyone for seeking a raise from their employer. Of course, when someone says that $10 million per year is an insulting offer it's going to draw more scorn because most of us would consider that quite an acceptable annual income.

I would say that the average NBA player is interested in winning achampionships but is also concerned with his playing time, scoring opportunities, the possibility of a starting role and yes, his income. It's always admirable when players make sacrifices for the benefit of the team but a player is going to look out for their interests as well, just like any other employee.

As I said before, the more they are payed, the 'more wanted' they feel. It's a lot about pride as much as all the other factors mentioned thus far.

As for players getting older and wanting to win a ring, yes, they notice they only have limited time left and it's probably this 'pride thing' that has them thinking, 'if I don't win it all, what will I be remembered for?' And thats probably a bit of a factor that leads them to decide to take the pay cut. You can't tell because of how players a reportrayed in the media. However, there are some who come off as genuinely wanting to make a sacrafice for the team to win.

To sort of branch from Andrew's reasoning... Think of it this way. You're the CEO of you're own smaller company, making a formidable amount of money. Would you take a pay cut to move to a bigger company where you'll play a smaller role? You'd gain the ability to say you worked for "so and so" or helped keep a Fortune 500 running, but I don't think many people would take that.

KG was the leader of his organization making a lot of money, to take a pay cut and move somewhere where he will lose leadership doesn't seem to make sense. And remember, the pay cuts they'd take would reduce their salary drastically, not just a 10% or 20% reduction.

Players in the NBA's goals are to win championships, right? That's the reason the "I love this Game" was there in the first place, because players want to win.

We hear in media reports of how players like Kobe, KG, Iverson, and all those players want to win most. If so, why don't they take a paycut for the benefit of their team and for a better image in the media business? We have Iverson saying that he'd trade all his titles and accomplishment for one ring. They already set themselves up as the best players in the league, now why don't they take a smaller role knowing that they are already the best?

They all have a family to feed. So how are they supposed to do that with only 2 million $ per year? Sorry, I had to...

If I were Nike, Adidas, or another NBA sponsor, I would consider offering my athletes a better deal if they signed for less than the maximum with their NBA club.

Nike already promised Lebron James a major pay increase if he signed in NY or LA, why not do the same if he signe for maybe half of what he's worth, thus giving him a chance to get more publicity through a decent championship run with other than a crippled Larry Hughes, a bald and jump shooting center and a rookie pg besides him?

but what do the sponsors get out of it if they have to pay more when a player takes a pay cut?

In response to the advertisers paying the athletes more... It's good how it is. If all the best players wanted to all gang up on one team or a certain team, there may be some pretty lobsided results and some teams would be a lot better than a lot of the rest of the league.

For the sake of competitive balance... I wouldn't change a thing or ask for a change. If a player wants a pay cut to join a better team, so be it. They would be unqiue and it would be itneresting to follow.

(Interesting point, Gilbert Arenas says he wants to opt out of his contract so that he can join a better team if Washington aren't up to his standard. If he really thinks he's a great team player and someone who loves the game more than the money he makes, perhaps he can prove me wrong and take a pay cut. I still think he wants a bigger contract.)

LakersRule24, as everyone has already stated, why dont u answer this question: If your aim was to help some random company make more sales and Company A would offer you half the salary of that of Company B but Company A was slightly more successful. And it isn't certain that joining A would mean you would achieve your goals. Would you still take less money to join A? Or would you join B instead?

If you have an opportunity to make the big bucks, it would be pretty stupid to go and take less...

One other way of arguing this is that this is a job, first and foremost, to most players. They are more interested about the financial side of things and the longterm effects of their contracts. This is how they make a living. So winning a championship comes after the contract is signed. How the media portrays them is that basketball is their life... they don't show how basketball is more of a job/business to these guys. Because apart from basketball, I'm not sure what a lot of the players have after it.

Players in the NBA's goals are to win championships, right? That's the reason the "I love this Game" was there in the first place, because players want to win.

We hear in media reports of how players like Kobe, KG, Iverson, and all those players want to win most. If so, why don't they take a paycut for the benefit of their team and for a better image in the media business? We have Iverson saying that he'd trade all his titles and accomplishment for one ring. They already set themselves up as the best players in the league, now why don't they take a smaller role knowing that they are already the best?

That's what they want you to hear, because it is the politically correct thing to say. At the end of the day, everyone (including non-athletes) want to get paid the most.

I always thought that NBA players, and profressional athletes get paid too much anyway. I understand the economics behind it, but in a day and age where the people that teach our children only make 30 grand a year, (when you need about 45k a year to live decently, in NJ at least) I really wish the money scale could be downsized a bit. It angers me when I hear players complaining about how important they are and holding out for an extra couple million when the truly important roles of society are so taken advantage of.

But you know whats crazy when you think about it?


Think about how much money Steinbrenner has to be making for him to completely unconcerned about offering someone a 250 million dollar contract.

LakersRule24, as everyone has already stated, why dont u answer this question: If your aim was to help some random company make more sales and Company A would offer you half the salary of that of Company B but Company A was slightly more successful. And it isn't certain that joining A would mean you would achieve your goals. Would you still take less money to join A? Or would you join B instead?

I would join B, the the NBA ring is worth a lot more than making a company more successful.