Trade Thread (EPISODE VI: Can't we just put EVERYTHING in the TE?)

[SAKURABA216]

If your argument is that the Warriors have more money to spend than other teams, you lose. The Clipper owner could buy and sell the Warriors 10 times over. Dan Gilbert of the Cavs (known as a small market team) is worth over $50 billion. Your owner, Glen Taylor, has twice the net worth that Joe Lacob has. Everyone is entitled to spend the same amount of money. Not everyone wants to do it. Maybe you should talk to your owners before you come whining around here that the Warriors are willing to spend money.

Funny how the people who get the unnatural advantage never seem to mind it. Just like Yankee fans never seem to mind it. SMH.

The comparison of the Warriors to the Yankees misses the mark. The Warriors are actually a lot more like the Legion of Boom era Seattle Seahawks in that they drafted extremely well (Curry, Klay, Draymond, and to a lesser extent Barnes). When this core was young, they were on rookie scale contracts which allowed the team to spend more money on veteran players. However, when the team got older it became very expensive to keep the band together and team is absolutely maxed out of just 3 members of that core.

In that sense, the Warriors previous success has way more to do with drafting well than it does with having a rich owner and the T'Wolves have actually had more opportunities to build an insanely stacked team than the Warriors ever did. If you look at just the past 5 years, the T'Wolves could have drafted Tyler Herro (2019), Devonte Graham/Gary Trent Jr/Mitchell Robinson (2018), Donavon Mitchell/Bam Adebayo (2017), Jamal Murray/Sabonis/Caris LaVert/Pascal Siakam (2016), and Montrezl Harrell (2015). You guys had every opportunity to build an awesome core, but have bad lucks with your picks actually panning out for you. Moreover, none of your best players left because you guys are in a small market. They left because they were sick of losing.

[Mylie10]

If your argument is that the Warriors have more money to spend than other teams, you lose. The Clipper owner could buy and sell the Warriors 10 times over. Dan Gilbert of the Cavs (known as a small market team) is worth over $50 billion. Your owner, Glen Taylor, has twice the net worth that Joe Lacob has. Everyone is entitled to spend the same amount of money. Not everyone wants to do it. Maybe you should talk to your owners before you come whining around here that the Warriors are willing to spend money.

Funny how the people who get the unnatural advantage never seem to mind it. Just like Yankee fans never seem to mind it. SMH.

Why did you really come over to our board?

[winforlose]

If your argument is that the Warriors have more money to spend than other teams, you lose. The Clipper owner could buy and sell the Warriors 10 times over. Dan Gilbert of the Cavs (known as a small market team) is worth over $50 billion. Your owner, Glen Taylor, has twice the net worth that Joe Lacob has. Everyone is entitled to spend the same amount of money. Not everyone wants to do it. Maybe you should talk to your owners before you come whining around here that the Warriors are willing to spend money.

Funny how the people who get the unnatural advantage never seem to mind it. Just like Yankee fans never seem to mind it. SMH.

The comparison of the Warriors to the Yankees misses the mark. The Warriors are actually a lot more like the Legion of Boom era Seattle Seahawks in that they drafted extremely well (Curry, Klay, Draymond, and to a lesser extent Barnes). When this core was young, they were on rookie scale contracts which allowed the team to spend more money on veteran players. However, when the team got older it became very expensive to keep the band together and team is absolutely maxed out of just 3 members of that core.

In that sense, the Warriors previous success has way more to do with drafting well than it does with having a rich owner and the T'Wolves have actually had more opportunities to build an insanely stacked team than the Warriors ever did. If you look at just the past 5 years, the T'Wolves could have drafted Tyler Herro (2019), Devonte Graham/Gary Trent Jr/Mitchell Robinson (2018), Donavon Mitchell/Bam Adebayo (2017), Jamal Murray/Sabonis/Caris LaVert/Pascal Siakam (2016), and Montrezl Harrell (2015). You guys had every opportunity to build an awesome core, but have bad lucks with your picks actually panning out for you. Moreover, none of your best players left because you guys are in a small market. They left because they were sick of losing.

There are several flaw in your argument. First, most teams cannot offer each of their core huge contracts while also acquiring more expensive talent. Yes you have bird rights but like everything else on your pay role they were abused. Second, your still talking about trying to add more expensive contracts using your existing contracts like Wiseman. Also rather than letting go of Oubre you seek to trade for an equal player on a longer deal to further extend this high tax bill. Finally, you keep comparing to the Wolves. I won’t even try to pretend the Wolves drafted or built well. But if you can honestly say that GSW having double the payroll of the majority of teams in the league then you obviously don’t care about fair competition. Buy your wins and watch basketball become a joke like baseball.

[winforlose]

If your argument is that the Warriors have more money to spend than other teams, you lose. The Clipper owner could buy and sell the Warriors 10 times over. Dan Gilbert of the Cavs (known as a small market team) is worth over $50 billion. Your owner, Glen Taylor, has twice the net worth that Joe Lacob has. Everyone is entitled to spend the same amount of money. Not everyone wants to do it. Maybe you should talk to your owners before you come whining around here that the Warriors are willing to spend money.

Funny how the people who get the unnatural advantage never seem to mind it. Just like Yankee fans never seem to mind it. SMH.

Why did you really come over to our board?

I came to suggest a deal which gives you two pieces to combine to get a legit star. Beasley plus Oubre is worth a max and is revenue neutral. Instead everyone is telling me they want to trade Wiseman and a pick to increase your cap even more. Also on your board is the idea to artificially extend your cap even more by trading Oubre for any multi year player. I find it insane that some of you are okay with this discrepancy actually growing. I just don’t get it.

[FNQ]

Funny how the people who get the unnatural advantage never seem to mind it. Just like Yankee fans never seem to mind it. SMH.

Why did you really come over to our board?

I came to suggest a deal which gives you two pieces to combine to get a legit star. Beasley plus Oubre is worth a max and is revenue neutral. Instead everyone is telling me they want to trade Wiseman and a pick to increase your cap even more. Also on your board is the idea to artificially extend your cap even more by trading Oubre for any multi year player. I find it insane that some of you are okay with this discrepancy actually growing. I just don’t get it.

You dont get that fans want to see their team get better - playing well within the rules that any NBA team could? It seems more insane that you don't understand *that*

The tax is meant as a deterrent to overspend. Not prevention. If our ownership group decides to make that investment to increase the valuation of the franchise - most likely a shrewd long-term move - that is a positive to us. The fact that your team is either unwilling to spend that much, or incapable of finding players worthy of spending that much, isn't an unfair advantage. Its an indication of a franchise that's simply not doing as well. It has nothing to do with being fair. It has everything to do with being resentful of a franchise that is doing well.

[winforlose]

Why did you really come over to our board?

I came to suggest a deal which gives you two pieces to combine to get a legit star. Beasley plus Oubre is worth a max and is revenue neutral. Instead everyone is telling me they want to trade Wiseman and a pick to increase your cap even more. Also on your board is the idea to artificially extend your cap even more by trading Oubre for any multi year player. I find it insane that some of you are okay with this discrepancy actually growing. I just don’t get it.

You dont get that fans want to see their team get better - playing well within the rules that any NBA team could? It seems more insane that you don't understand *that*

The tax is meant as a deterrent to overspend. Not prevention. If our ownership group decides to make that investment to increase the valuation of the franchise - most likely a shrewd long-term move - that is a positive to us. The fact that your team is either unwilling to spend that much, or incapable of finding players worthy of spending that much, isn't an unfair advantage. Its an indication of a franchise that's simply not doing as well. It has nothing to do with being fair. It has everything to do with being resentful of a franchise that is doing well.

I understand your position. I also think you are underestimating the free agent advantage big markets get but that isn’t overly relevant to this conversation. What it really comes down to is the fans who get the benefit of the extreme advantage are happy to get it. At the end of the day it does damage the league and push us further to big money ball, but as long as you can buy a playoff berth it’s all good.

BTW, I guess a lot of teams aren’t doing well.
https://hoopshype.com/salaries/

[FNQ]

I came to suggest a deal which gives you two pieces to combine to get a legit star. Beasley plus Oubre is worth a max and is revenue neutral. Instead everyone is telling me they want to trade Wiseman and a pick to increase your cap even more. Also on your board is the idea to artificially extend your cap even more by trading Oubre for any multi year player. I find it insane that some of you are okay with this discrepancy actually growing. I just don’t get it.

You dont get that fans want to see their team get better - playing well within the rules that any NBA team could? It seems more insane that you don't understand *that*

The tax is meant as a deterrent to overspend. Not prevention. If our ownership group decides to make that investment to increase the valuation of the franchise - most likely a shrewd long-term move - that is a positive to us. The fact that your team is either unwilling to spend that much, or incapable of finding players worthy of spending that much, isn't an unfair advantage. Its an indication of a franchise that's simply not doing as well. It has nothing to do with being fair. It has everything to do with being resentful of a franchise that is doing well.

I understand your position. I also think you are underestimating the free agent advantage big markets get but that isn’t overly relevant to this conversation. What it really comes down to is the fans who get the benefit of the extreme advantage are happy to get it. At the end of the day it does damage the league and push us further to big money ball, but as long as you can buy a playoff berth it’s all good.

Mikhail Prokohov would like to speak with you about spending and playoff appearances.

What free agent advantage do the big markets have in soft/hard cap situations? The appeal is that if you blow up in a larger market, you might get more endorsements right?

That is some 1980s nonsense and that mentality should have died the instant the internet was created. Now, it doesnt matter where you play. If you're good, if you're marketable, you will get yours. The lone advantage is the surrounding area, where you live, and if thats appealing to players. And to some, it is. And to some, its not. But fact is, we havent gotten any stars at a discount because of our team. Ring chasers? Sure. But stars? We had to clear cap to match Iguodala's offer from SAC, and it cost us draft capital. We had to clear cap again to sign Kevin Durant, costing us draft capital. We had to clear cap AGAIN to bring in DLo, which cost us draft capital. None took a penny less than they were worth.

I'll be very clear one more time: there is no advantage. What the Warriors did, any team can do. All you have to do is have 3-4 star players who are willing to continue playing together (re: not much ego) for a very long time. Thats it. Because Curry, Klay, and Draymond wanted to play together, and because we were 110% ready when the cap blew up, we were able to maintain 4 max slots. And because our owners decided the investment was worth it, we've retained all 4. The Wolves can sign 4 max players tomorrow and be in the exact same position. It is not an unlevel playing field. It is that our front office operated extremely well and most others didn't.

[FNQ]

[
BTW, I guess a lot of teams aren’t doing well.
https://hoopshype.com/salaries/

Just sign Vanderbilt to a max contract in the offseason, and then boom, all of a sudden you're right on par with us salary wise.

The way the Wolves chose to spend their money is why they arent good. The way the Magic, the Wizards, the Pelicans decided to spend their money is why they aren't good.

Your take is nonsense man. Its crying foul about something thats literally an even level

[killmongrel]

Any trade where getting off of Wiggins salary is part of the pitch is dead in the water. GS isn't using their top assets like the Minny pick or Wiseman unless they get a significant player regardless of whether Wiggins is or is not part of the deal.

[winforlose]

[
BTW, I guess a lot of teams aren’t doing well.
https://hoopshype.com/salaries/

Just sign Vanderbilt to a max contract in the offseason, and then boom, all of a sudden you're right on par with us salary wise.

The way the Wolves chose to spend their money is why they arent good. The way the Magic, the Wizards, the Pelicans decided to spend their money is why they aren't good.

Your take is nonsense man. Its crying foul about something thats literally an even level

If it wasn’t for bird rights preventing other teams from competing from your core you might have a point. By your logic no team should ever lose their good players because they can max them with bird rights. Your argument boils down to it’s not illegal so everyone should do it. The same is true of the Yankees. But given how few teams do it and how many of those teams are big market maybe ask yourself why that is. Being the outlier you defend the outlier position. But, if you were on the outside looking in you might ask the question, if one team is competing at 130 and the other at 170+ does the 170 have an advantage? You are living the Yankee logic.

[Mylie10]

I came to suggest a deal which gives you two pieces to combine to get a legit star. Beasley plus Oubre is worth a max and is revenue neutral. Instead everyone is telling me they want to trade Wiseman and a pick to increase your cap even more. Also on your board is the idea to artificially extend your cap even more by trading Oubre for any multi year player. I find it insane that some of you are okay with this discrepancy actually growing. I just don’t get it.

You dont get that fans want to see their team get better - playing well within the rules that any NBA team could? It seems more insane that you don't understand *that*

The tax is meant as a deterrent to overspend. Not prevention. If our ownership group decides to make that investment to increase the valuation of the franchise - most likely a shrewd long-term move - that is a positive to us. The fact that your team is either unwilling to spend that much, or incapable of finding players worthy of spending that much, isn't an unfair advantage. Its an indication of a franchise that's simply not doing as well. It has nothing to do with being fair. It has everything to do with being resentful of a franchise that is doing well.

I understand your position. I also think you are underestimating the free agent advantage big markets get but that isn’t overly relevant to this conversation. What it really comes down to is the fans who get the benefit of the extreme advantage are happy to get it. At the end of the day it does damage the league and push us further to big money ball, but as long as you can buy a playoff berth it’s all good.

BTW, I guess a lot of teams aren’t doing well.
https://hoopshype.com/salaries/

So you’re here to admonish us fans for what the league rules are and how our front office has dealt with those parameters?

[FNQ]

[
BTW, I guess a lot of teams aren’t doing well.
https://hoopshype.com/salaries/

Just sign Vanderbilt to a max contract in the offseason, and then boom, all of a sudden you're right on par with us salary wise.

The way the Wolves chose to spend their money is why they arent good. The way the Magic, the Wizards, the Pelicans decided to spend their money is why they aren't good.

Your take is nonsense man. Its crying foul about something thats literally an even level

If it wasn’t for bird rights preventing other teams from competing from your core you might have a point. By your logic no team should ever lose their good players because they can max them with bird rights. Your argument boils down to it’s not illegal so everyone should do it. The same is true of the Yankees. But given how few teams do it and how many of those teams are big market maybe ask yourself why that is. Being the outlier you defend the outlier position. But, if you were on the outside looking in you might ask the question, if one team is competing at 130 and the other at 170+ does the 170 have an advantage? You are living the Yankee logic.

No, the Yankee logic is that they are able to spend more because there is absolutely nothing that limits them from spending on ANYONE. As soon as anyone becomes a free agent, the Yankees can spend any amount of money they desire. Your fixation with being this wrong is... to borrow a phrase.. insane.

Bird rights do not, in any way, prevent other teams from anything. Teams - especially small market teams - are given an advantage in retaining their own players, if they are good enough to warrant such a deal. Which again, is the entire point.

Do you know why few teams do it? Because I already explained it but I'm happy to try one more time before just giving up on this lost cause of a conversation. Our core 3 have a ton of talent and do not have the ego necessary to need to be the #1 player on some other team. That's literally it. Mystery solved. Now if you want to whinge about it not being fair because your team cant ever seem to find more than one player worthy of that, be my guest. But comparing it to the Yankees is just completely off the reservation and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the salary cap in the NBA works.

[FNQ]

You dont get that fans want to see their team get better - playing well within the rules that any NBA team could? It seems more insane that you don't understand *that*

The tax is meant as a deterrent to overspend. Not prevention. If our ownership group decides to make that investment to increase the valuation of the franchise - most likely a shrewd long-term move - that is a positive to us. The fact that your team is either unwilling to spend that much, or incapable of finding players worthy of spending that much, isn't an unfair advantage. Its an indication of a franchise that's simply not doing as well. It has nothing to do with being fair. It has everything to do with being resentful of a franchise that is doing well.

I understand your position. I also think you are underestimating the free agent advantage big markets get but that isn’t overly relevant to this conversation. What it really comes down to is the fans who get the benefit of the extreme advantage are happy to get it. At the end of the day it does damage the league and push us further to big money ball, but as long as you can buy a playoff berth it’s all good.

BTW, I guess a lot of teams aren’t doing well.
https://hoopshype.com/salaries/

So you’re here to admonish us fans for what the league rules are and how our front office has dealt with those parameters?

And make horrible comparisons across sports.

And chew bubble gum.

And he's all out of bubble gum.

[FNQ]

Any trade where getting off of Wiggins salary is part of the pitch is dead in the water. GS isn't using their top assets like the Minny pick or Wiseman unless they get a significant player regardless of whether Wiggins is or is not part of the deal.

There was a trade just offered on the T&T board, went something like this:

Warriors in: Lowry, Chris Boucher
Warriors out: Wiggins, Oubre, Wanamaker, a possible 2nd, and TOR getting the rights to swap picks with us in 2021 and 2022.

Raptors currently in the 10th slot in 2021.

So.. with erasing Wiggins being a part of the deal, would you move down from the 4/5 slots, down to #10, in order to add Chris Boucher? Because.. I think I would.

I'd also instantly try and flip Lowry and that pick situation for a better player on a multiyear contract... but yeah, I'm at least listening to a deal where Chris Boucher and his fantastic contract are on the roster

[killmongrel]

Any trade where getting off of Wiggins salary is part of the pitch is dead in the water. GS isn't using their top assets like the Minny pick or Wiseman unless they get a significant player regardless of whether Wiggins is or is not part of the deal.

There was a trade just offered on the T&T board, went something like this:

Warriors in: Lowry, Chris Boucher
Warriors out: Wiggins, Oubre, Wanamaker, a possible 2nd, and TOR getting the rights to swap picks with us in 2021 and 2022.

Raptors currently in the 10th slot in 2021.

So.. with erasing Wiggins being a part of the deal, would you move down from the 4/5 slots, down to #10, in order to add Chris Boucher? Because.. I think I would.

I'd also instantly try and flip Lowry and that pick situation for a better player on a multiyear contract... but yeah, I'm at least listening to a deal where Chris Boucher and his fantastic contract are on the roster

I would not do this deal. I'm looking at Wiggins and Oubre's salaries and those are some of our only pathways to getting somebody significant with the incentives being varied.

[FNQ]

Any trade where getting off of Wiggins salary is part of the pitch is dead in the water. GS isn't using their top assets like the Minny pick or Wiseman unless they get a significant player regardless of whether Wiggins is or is not part of the deal.

There was a trade just offered on the T&T board, went something like this:

Warriors in: Lowry, Chris Boucher
Warriors out: Wiggins, Oubre, Wanamaker, a possible 2nd, and TOR getting the rights to swap picks with us in 2021 and 2022.

Raptors currently in the 10th slot in 2021.

So.. with erasing Wiggins being a part of the deal, would you move down from the 4/5 slots, down to #10, in order to add Chris Boucher? Because.. I think I would.

I'd also instantly try and flip Lowry and that pick situation for a better player on a multiyear contract... but yeah, I'm at least listening to a deal where Chris Boucher and his fantastic contract are on the roster

I would not do this deal. I'm looking at Wiggins and Oubre's salaries and those are some of our only pathways to getting a somebody significant with the incentives being varied.

Thus the last sentence.
I wouldnt do it if we planned to just let Lowry expire. More would have to happen. But I'd make that deal without the safety net there, because Boucher is that good of a fit with us.

Like for example, what if we turned around and flipped Lowry for Horford, who'd be a (mostly) expiring contract the next season?

Curry / Nico / Poole
Klay / Poole / Lee
MLE or #10 / Lee
Draymond / Paschall / Boucher
Boucher / Horford / Looney

And that's not including the GS 21 1st either.. and I'd imagine that roster brings in ring chasers to boot. Count me in.

[killmongrel]

There was a trade just offered on the T&T board, went something like this:

Warriors in: Lowry, Chris Boucher
Warriors out: Wiggins, Oubre, Wanamaker, a possible 2nd, and TOR getting the rights to swap picks with us in 2021 and 2022.

Raptors currently in the 10th slot in 2021.

So.. with erasing Wiggins being a part of the deal, would you move down from the 4/5 slots, down to #10, in order to add Chris Boucher? Because.. I think I would.

I'd also instantly try and flip Lowry and that pick situation for a better player on a multiyear contract... but yeah, I'm at least listening to a deal where Chris Boucher and his fantastic contract are on the roster

I would not do this deal. I'm looking at Wiggins and Oubre's salaries and those are some of our only pathways to getting a somebody significant with the incentives being varied.

Thus the last sentence.
I wouldnt do it if we planned to just let Lowry expire. More would have to happen. But I'd make that deal without the safety net there, because Boucher is that good of a fit with us.

Like for example, what if we turned around and flipped Lowry for Horford, who'd be a (mostly) expiring contract the next season?

Curry / Nico / Poole
Klay / Poole / Lee
MLE or #10 / Lee
Draymond / Paschall / Boucher
Boucher / Horford / Looney

And that's not including the GS 21 1st either.. and I'd imagine that roster brings in ring chasers to boot. Count me in.

What happened to Wiseman on your roster? Heh. But yeah, I wouldn't do the deal because Lowry is expiring. Also, Klay is going to be out for a good portion of next season so we have to either have Wiggins or Oubre/his salary on this roster to start. If we're depending on a draft pick and an MLE player to keep us afloat for a couple months, we maybe in trouble.

[winforlose]

You dont get that fans want to see their team get better - playing well within the rules that any NBA team could? It seems more insane that you don't understand *that*

The tax is meant as a deterrent to overspend. Not prevention. If our ownership group decides to make that investment to increase the valuation of the franchise - most likely a shrewd long-term move - that is a positive to us. The fact that your team is either unwilling to spend that much, or incapable of finding players worthy of spending that much, isn't an unfair advantage. Its an indication of a franchise that's simply not doing as well. It has nothing to do with being fair. It has everything to do with being resentful of a franchise that is doing well.

I understand your position. I also think you are underestimating the free agent advantage big markets get but that isn’t overly relevant to this conversation. What it really comes down to is the fans who get the benefit of the extreme advantage are happy to get it. At the end of the day it does damage the league and push us further to big money ball, but as long as you can buy a playoff berth it’s all good.

BTW, I guess a lot of teams aren’t doing well.
https://hoopshype.com/salaries/

So you’re here to admonish us fans for what the league rules are and how our front office has dealt with those parameters?

I think you misunderstood the context of the original post. I assumed you guys were in favor of trying to lower your tax bill. It’s one thing an owner is willing to spend crazy money to try and buy success he couldn’t get by following the norms (even its within the rules.) It clear the fan base would rather go near 3 times the league average in salary and win rather than risk losing by competing on an even playing field. You guys do you. It’s fair to point out 3 things before I go. 1, you are legitimately trying to play 4 max contracts with Green. 2, all the super teams are in big market cities. 3. While it’s true any team can do it, the fact that you guys are going to historic lengths and the Nets are chasing you up there says a lot.

With that I will consider my idea disapproved of by the majority of this board and move on.

[FNQ]

What happened to Wiseman on your roster? Heh. But yeah, I wouldn't do the deal because Lowry is expiring. Also, Klay is going to be out for a good portion of next season so we have to either have Wiggins or Oubre/his salary on this roster to start. If we're depending on a draft pick and an MLE player to keep us adrift for a couple months, we maybe in trouble.

lol holy **** i was so excited about the roster I forgot him

I'm actually fine with Poole taking the role, because I really feel it could fit him. And for everyone opining about his defense, maybe they oughta take a stroll down memory lane of Klay's 2nd year and how his defense was. Hell, how his offense was!

Either way, I think there's enough talent there to keep us afloat, and once Klay returns, that team not only is damned good, we still have ammo to make a trade for middling players. For example - if we did this kind of deal we could try and flip Looney for a temporary wing. Maybe sign a Wayne Ellington type..

But considering the amount of talent surrounding that wing, I'm not worried. We're starting Wiggins/Oubre/Looney right now and over .500

[xdrta+]

I understand your position. I also think you are underestimating the free agent advantage big markets get but that isn’t overly relevant to this conversation. What it really comes down to is the fans who get the benefit of the extreme advantage are happy to get it. At the end of the day it does damage the league and push us further to big money ball, but as long as you can buy a playoff berth it’s all good.

BTW, I guess a lot of teams aren’t doing well.
https://hoopshype.com/salaries/

So you’re here to admonish us fans for what the league rules are and how our front office has dealt with those parameters?

I think you misunderstood the context of the original post. I assumed you guys were in favor of trying to lower your tax bill. It’s one thing an owner is willing to spend crazy money to try and buy success he couldn’t get by following the norms (even its within the rules.) It clear the fan base would rather go near 3 times the league average in salary and win rather than risk losing by competing on an even playing field. You guys do you. It’s fair to point out 3 things before I go. 1, you are legitimately trying to play 4 max contracts with Green. 2, all the super teams are in big market cities. 3. While it’s true any team can do it, the fact that you guys are going to historic lengths and the Nets are chasing you up there says a lot.

With that I will consider my idea disapproved of by the majority of this board and move on.

Why would you assume that fans are concerned about the tax bill. That has nothing to do with fans. The cap matters, how contracts work with the cap matters, the tax doesn't matter to fans at all. Why should it?

EDIT: "3 times the league average in salary" Do you just make up numbers for the fun of it? Warrior salary is about $175M. Do you really believe the average team salary in the NBA is under $60 million? That's enough for me.