Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/TommyBeer/status/1148988218471256064

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/TheSteinLine/status/1148984148192890882

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/TheSteinLine/status/1148988897713688577

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/TommyBeer/status/1148984102252662784

my favorite player

I know KD left some money on the table too but have never heard of anything of this magnitude

in FB you have Brady, but his wife is the major bread winner anyway

I have decided to entertain a polygamous basketball relationship. I am now a Knick fan and also any team Kawhi plays for

franco12 wrote:not to be crass or stupid - but what is the practical difference between $103M and $221m? For all intents and purposes, you're looking at stupid, generational wealth. Neither he, nor his kids or his kids' kids will have to work.

But, glad to see players start to be more concerned about where and who they will play with, than guaranteed money.

SuperMax over 44mm per year.

Question for our resident cap guys: Does supermax all count against the hard cap?
That becomes a problem in my mind if it does. Is Kawhi worth 44mmn now, but in 3-4-5 years? If injured? That ballast really can keep a team down.
He played 9 games last year and turned his back on the best franchise in the league. Not to say SAS was not in part at fault.
But you want to give that much to any player not named Lebron, Jordan or Kobe at that age? I dont' have the answer.

franco12 wrote:not to be crass or stupid - but what is the practical difference between $103M and $221m? For all intents and purposes, you're looking at stupid, generational wealth. Neither he, nor his kids or his kids' kids will have to work.

But, glad to see players start to be more concerned about where and who they will play with, than guaranteed money.

even so, if he wanted to milk the team for every penny (and he could) he could have used the extra 100million to endow some foundation he like

being less greedy means the Clips can be that much more competitive (obviously he couldn't get the 221 from Clips but still)

there's a lot to respect

Nalod wrote:

franco12 wrote:not to be crass or stupid - but what is the practical difference between $103M and $221m? For all intents and purposes, you're looking at stupid, generational wealth. Neither he, nor his kids or his kids' kids will have to work.

But, glad to see players start to be more concerned about where and who they will play with, than guaranteed money.

$34,333,000 x 3= $103mm
$38,000,000 x 5= $190mm

SuperMax over 44mm per year.

Supermax could be 50mm or more in 2 years.
So Kawhi and Paul could both opt out and then re-up for four-five more years at the bigger numbers and recoup some of that money.
In the meantime they have options and can hold the Clippers feet to the fire to exceed the luxury tax to fund a winner.

Nalod wrote:I respect him because he is empowering his own destiny and banking on himself.
He can also keep the leverage on the clippers to do anything he wants. Since he took less money, he paid for that privilege.
He is the anti-melo. That that he is wonderful human or anything but obviously wants what he wants and is willing to do what it takes.
I respect that than telling everyone what they wants to hear then flipping them off.
Kawhi can screw the clippers but I would imagine they have a hand shake "understanding". Kind of like when H20 opted out and we gave him the new contract.
If Kawhi is a bit injured he gets a big raise in two years. If he is superman he can get that, and hold Clippers to do what he wants to make sure the team stays to his conditions. Its a smart move. Has some risks, but if Kawhi not money prioritized its a balance for him. Im just guessing.
He Phucked over SAS, he won a chip in Toronto and since his contract was what it was he really does not owe them.

And he gutted Clips future worse than melo ever did to any team, and left 50mil on the table so he can further possibly phuque them over in 2 years.

So given all the bold "guessing", how is he the anti-melo? Because he managed to play on top-level teams with the correct superstar/supporting parts that allowed him to win Finals MVP's?

Let me do some guessing, Kawhi's an a-hole, but won. Melo's an a-hole, but didn't win. Check.

franco12 wrote:not to be crass or stupid - but what is the practical difference between $103M and $221m? For all intents and purposes, you're looking at stupid, generational wealth. Neither he, nor his kids or his kids' kids will have to work.

But, glad to see players start to be more concerned about where and who they will play with, than guaranteed money.

118 M?

Let me run a hypothetical by you real quick.

Imagine you are a billionaire and you happen to own a pro sports franchise. Any sport, any league. Like most people in this position, you aren't getting all this money legally. Just doesn't work that way.

You want a player but the rules says you can't pay him the most. So you pay him in crypto. Or you pay him in duffle bags full of cash. Cash is great because since it's not taxed onto the player, you can offer him less than the face value of the difference he's losing in taxes anyway. The player just needs to see the net gain ABOVE what he would make after he was taxed on a normal max possible deal.

Since the player can't hide that kind of money ( they are dumb, young and surrounded by even dumber people. If Rich Paul wasn't LBJ's best friend, he'd be running a liquor store somewhere in Nebraska, watching Netflix and eating frozen pizza for dinner) , the owner offers to help him hide it. And gets a nice fat kickback from the people who do it.

Cheaper for the owner, more money for the player plus the perception the player is some kind of saint.

Guys, NO ONE is leaving money on the table in the NBA. Ever.