[Woj] Steph Curry agrees to one year extension

[Colbinii]

He can finish his career there, get the statue, etc. without giving him $60M at the age of 38. His career earnings through 2026 will be 473M. When is enough, enough?

I mean come on Laimbeer.

Lacob bought the Warriors for LESS THAN CURRY's careen earnings at 450 Million. They are currently valued at 7.7 Billion.

The whole idea that athletes are paid too much just screams "I don't understand the sheer magnitude and societal trash Billionaire's are to a society".

I'm not here to defend billionaires. If public funding of a new Browns' stadium comes up on a refetendum, I'm a definite no. That said, he has to (a) sell the team to realize the gain

Nope, he doesn't. It is the same for CEO's or anyone else who gets paid predominately through Stocks.

Lacob can do multiple things to get Tax-Free Money.

1) He can go to a bank and use part of the Warriors as Collateral. He can then get money, using the Warriors as collateral and not pay taxes on the money.

2) He can sell minuscule parts of the team ownership.

[zzaj]

I don't think any fan really cares about the amount of money being paid to Curry--most of us can't even conceive of it.

I think the issue is a perception that Curry taking that money means the team can't be competitive with the new CBA.

For a fan, winning a championship is more important than a player making money.

[jbk1234]

I mean come on Laimbeer.

Lacob bought the Warriors for LESS THAN CURRY's careen earnings at 450 Million. They are currently valued at 7.7 Billion.

The whole idea that athletes are paid too much just screams "I don't understand the sheer magnitude and societal trash Billionaire's are to a society".

I'm not here to defend billionaires. If public funding of a new Browns' stadium comes up on a refetendum, I'm a definite no. That said, he has to (a) sell the team to realize the gain

Nope, he doesn't. It is the same for CEO's or anyone else who gets paid predominately through Stocks.

Lacob can do multiple things to get Tax-Free Money.

1) He can go to a bank and use part of the Warriors as Collateral. He can then get money, using the Warriors as collateral and not pay taxes on the money.

2) He can sell minuscule parts of the team ownership.

1) After he comes up with the capital to buy the franchise, he can then borrow against it, but until there's a gain in value, he's paying interest on a sum he could've put to other use.

Also, lenders don't let anyone borrow against 100% of the appraised value of these types of assets. I'd be very suprised to learn if there isn't a pretty hard cap on set by the league in terms of leveraging franchises with debt.

Now this isn't to say there isn't an issue with unrealized capital gains of over $100M going untaxed indefinitely. There is, and depending on how things go in November, that may change.

2) The problem with selling small percentages off is that it tends to be those owners who yell the loudest when teams go deep into the tax. They didn't invest in a status symbol. They want a ROI. The majority owner usually ends up having to buy them out just when things are getting really expensive.

[Texas Chuck]

I don't think any fan really cares about the amount of money being paid to Curry--most of us can't even conceive of it.

I think the issue is a perception that Curry taking that money means the team can't be competitive with the new CBA.

For a fan, winning a championship is more important than a player making money.

IT's not Curry's money that's keeping them from being competitive.... I mean they paid a ton of taxes and other than the one bounce back year, they haven't looked anything like a contender. So no reason to keep spending hundreds of millions extra to field a team no longer good enough.

They missed on some picks, their stars got old, declined, got suspended, other mid-sized veterans they were counting on fell off, etc...

None of the issue is Steph making a max. He is still very much worth a max contract on the court.

[jayjaysee]

I don’t see why Curry should take a pay cut. If he’s not demanding out, you pay him.

Discounts might have been considered if there was some need/benefit.

[jbk1234]

I don’t see why Curry should take a pay cut. If he’s not demanding out, you pay him.

Discounts might have been considered if there was some need/benefit.

I don't think anyone is questioning whether he'd get that money on the market this last summer. It's more of a question as to whether he'll be worth it two seasons from now at 38, and whether it was really necessary to make that determination now.

[zzaj]

I don't think any fan really cares about the amount of money being paid to Curry--most of us can't even conceive of it.

I think the issue is a perception that Curry taking that money means the team can't be competitive with the new CBA.

For a fan, winning a championship is more important than a player making money.

IT's not Curry's money that's keeping them from being competitive.... I mean they paid a ton of taxes and other than the one bounce back year, they haven't looked anything like a contender. So no reason to keep spending hundreds of millions extra to field a team no longer good enough.

They missed on some picks, their stars got old, declined, got suspended, other mid-sized veterans they were counting on fell off, etc...

None of the issue is Steph making a max. He is still very much worth a max contract on the court.

Certainly no argument from me…

I’m speaking more to the casual fan perspective. I feel like the negativity surrounding Curry getting this kind of money is borne out of a “he’s taking all the money so we can’t get other players” idea…

[Texas Chuck]

I don’t see why Curry should take a pay cut. If he’s not demanding out, you pay him.

Discounts might have been considered if there was some need/benefit.

I don't think anyone is questioning whether he'd get that money on the market this last summer. It's more of a question as to whether he'll be worth it two seasons from now at 38, and whether it was really necessary to make that determination now.

I'm struggling to imagine any scenario where the Warriors would rather not have Steph than have him 3 years from now.

[jbk1234]

I don’t see why Curry should take a pay cut. If he’s not demanding out, you pay him.

Discounts might have been considered if there was some need/benefit.

I don't think anyone is questioning whether he'd get that money on the market this last summer. It's more of a question as to whether he'll be worth it two seasons from now at 38, and whether it was really necessary to make that determination now.

I'm struggling to imagine any scenario where the Warriors would rather not have Steph than have him 3 years from now.

I can imagine a scenario where he looks more like CP3, or Seth Curry, did last year than himself and they'd rather not pay $60M for that.

[DonaldSanders]

One thing missing from the discussion is the cap increasing. I'm seeing estimates of 10% per season, which would mean a roughly 170.1 Million cap in 26-27. If you do the same multiplication to his salary now, it comes out to about 67.5, which means he'll be paid a smaller % of the cap than he is currently taking up with his 62.6 million extension in 26-27. Obviously he's unlikely to be as good in a few years, but I think the number looks eye popping at our current cap figure.

[jayjaysee]

I don’t see why Curry should take a pay cut. If he’s not demanding out, you pay him.

Discounts might have been considered if there was some need/benefit.

I don't think anyone is questioning whether he'd get that money on the market this last summer. It's more of a question as to whether he'll be worth it two seasons from now at 38, and whether it was really necessary to make that determination now.

Yeah, obviously if he didn’t ask for 60 million - that would have beeen better.

I can’t see a world 3 or 5 years where you are happy to tell Curry to go get paid from another team after all he did for the franchise. So you pay him.

It’s not his fault the team drafted Wiseman (or Kuminga) and if they had drafted better - maybe the front office has a real talk about how their future stars are on max deals and it’s not affordable to give him 60 mil. Give him a 2yr70 when he expires or something instead of the extra 1 year… but even then - it would just be better to pay Curry.

But as is? The insane tax issues are behind them unless Kuminga earns a max. So just pay Curry and keep the memories alive as long as possible. There’s no soft retool coming since there’s no real young core to build around on the roster…