- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Steph Curry: NBA stars are underpaid, would like to have equity in NBA franchises
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:17 pm to AkronTiger
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:17 pm to AkronTiger
quote:
Did this generation of players grow the league? Or did they grow WITH the league? That's the question. Michael Jordan's Bulls in the late 90s were worth ~200 million. Now they're worth ~6 Billion.
And Jordan/Bulls used a loophole to pay him 122% of the salary cap while still paying the rest of the team over the salary cap. Was a wild time before the new CBA in 1999.
Salary Cap was $27 million.
Jordan was making $33 million.
Bulls were paying $61 million.
1
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:20 pm to Madking
quote:
lol
Given the % of revenue that players receive, how are super duper stars not under paid?
Max salaries screw players like Steph. He'd made more if that didn't exist.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:23 pm to sgallo3
quote:
And Jordan/Bulls used a loophole to pay him 122% of the salary cap while still paying the rest of the team over the salary cap. Was a wild time before the new CBA in 1999.
Salary Cap was $27 million.
Jordan was making $33 million.
Bulls were paying $61 million.
35% of $27M is $9.45M, which is what the "super max" would have been with a $27M salary cap.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
It’s well beyond your understanding
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:28 pm to Madking
quote:
It’s well beyond your understanding
Not with my IQ or understanding of the NBA salary cap.
Just try to answer the question. It's not complicated.
Just look at the Jordan example above to see how silly the opposing side would be.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
Ok, because the sport, not these players, generates the money.
This post was edited on 5/6/26 at 3:33 pm
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:35 pm to Madking
quote:
Ok, because the sport, not these players, generates the money.
Read the question again, specifically the bold part:
quote:
Given the % of revenue that players receive, how are super duper stars not under paid?
Now, try to answer the question. Your last attempt was really bad.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But this generation "Grew" the league a lot more than those in the past.
Growing TV contracts due to the way we consume content has more to do with it than the players themselves growing it organically due to fan interest.
Solely crediting curry for the entire rise of golden state’s valuation is misleading.
The Pelicans are worth about 10x now vs. what benson paid for them. Is this due to all of their success and championships ?
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
Like I said it’s well beyond what your close mind is allowed to understand. They’re overpaid by a lot
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:40 pm to Madking
quote:
Like I said it’s well beyond what your close mind is allowed to understand.
You're the one who is having trouble understanding a simple concept.
The total the players receive as a group is already set. Understanding this simple concept (Which was specifically stated as framing my question) makes this point non-responsive
quote:
the sport, not these players, generates the money.
So, want to finally try to answer the question? Or are you going to show you don't understand how NBA salaries work, or how that impacts the actual discussion being had?
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
None of that means anything.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:42 pm to BilJ
The larger point was that this growth in NBA valuations has not been linear. His comment tried to make it seem like this was grown on the shoulders of prior growth, ignoring all of the bad times the NBA had in the late 90s early 00s. And I said generation intentionally, but Curry, individually, has done a whole lot in the development of the NBA. Shitty franchises like the Pellies free ride off that.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:43 pm to BilJ
He’ll deflect
Edit: see
Edit: see
This post was edited on 5/6/26 at 3:44 pm
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:46 pm to BilJ
quote:
Growing TV contracts due to the way we consume content has more to do with it than the players themselves growing it organically due to fan interest.
Solely crediting curry for the entire rise of golden state’s valuation is misleading.
The Pelicans are worth about 10x now vs. what benson paid for them. Is this due to all of their success and championships ?
Pistons sold for 311 mllion in 2011, now worth ~4 billion. In comparison, Warriors sold for 450 million in 2010 and are now worth 11 billion. Then, have to consider the value of owning the Chase Center and being in San Francisco; that said, it's clear that quality of play on the court does impact value some, and it being by superstar players, some more. Even so, IF the NBA by chance allowed an exceedingly small amount of players to get equity, I don't think it'd be as much as Steph maybe thinks, and at that point he may prefer just to get rid of the salary cap
This post was edited on 5/6/26 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:46 pm to Madking
quote:
None of that means anything.
The amount of money the players receive is set.
You seem to be confused about that.
So, now that you understand this simple point, explain how max salaries don't inhibit players like Steph from making more.
Look at the pre-max era and apply the max rules. The Jordan example was perfect
Salary Cap was $27 million.
Jordan was making $33 million.
The max salary would have been $9.45M
Assuming Jordan got his market value, had he played in a max salary system, he would have been underpaid by $23.55M
And you can then try to argue Steph isn't Jordan, but he's at least half of what Jordan was. That would have made his salary $16.5M, which means the $9.45M max would have under paid him by almost $7M (about a 40% discount).
Since the cap is based on revenue and the max salary is based on the cap, these same %s apply no matter what era you want to use, so don't try that argument, either. It's DOA.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And I said generation intentionally, but Curry, individually, has done a whole lot in the development of the NBA.
I just don't know how much Steph Curry alone has changed the value of the NBA as a whole.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
Again, not confusing but irrelevant. You’re appealing to logical fallacies because you don’t know anything about business. What are you a law clerk or something? You couldn’t run a snow cone stand.
This post was edited on 5/6/26 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:51 pm to AkronTiger
He hasn’t changed its value, that has decreased. It’s a an appeal to volume argument. Steph has changed the game or been the poster child for the change but change doesn’t equal improvement. That’s why SFP is always wrong when it comes to basketball and sports in general.
This post was edited on 5/6/26 at 3:52 pm
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:52 pm to Madking
quote:
but irrelevant.
In what way?
quote:
You’re appealing to logical fallacies
I literally showed work
quote:
because you don’t know anything about business
Even assuming this is true (and it's not), what does this have to do with anything, exactly? The numbers are set.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:53 pm to Madking
quote:
Steph has changed the game or been the poster child for the change but change doesn’t equal improvement.
When you say improvement, what, specifically are you talking about? Revenue/valuation or style of play?
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News