Joe Lacob Considered Offering Stephen Curry Below Max Contract

[RealGM Wiretap]

Joe Lacob considered offering Stephen Curry a contract in the 2017 offseason below his full max of $201 million over five seasons.

Curry was coming off a four-year, $44 million extension in 2012 that became one of the best bargains in NBA history as he went on to win two MVPs.

Bob Myers kept Lacob from actually bringing a below max offer to Curry in free agency.

According to Myers, Curry laughed when he saw the contract numbers presented to him due to how absurd they are with $45 million in the final season of the deal.

Via Marcus Thompson II/The Athletic

[Saints14]

What the hell? Lowballing Curry wouldn't even affect their cap. Offering him less than the max he deserves would have been incredibly stupid, disrespectful and not worth saving a few million over potential backlash of the move.

[fatalogic]

Yeah, I don't see the warriors lasting as long as people think. Lacob already getting happy feet thinking about that luxury tax bill. I'm usually a believer in paying people for present performance but they have had him on a below market deal for long enough and they got KD below market value so trying to cut extra is messed up. Gilbert is a lot of things but at least he opens his wallet to field a winner.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Curry has been there the longest and he's the most valuable person to the franchise. He deserves 2x-3x the max.

[macNcheese3]

I bet Lacob considered many things.

[ChokeFasncists]

Giving Curry the max should have been a no-brainer, to save money, they should have tried giving KD DWest money and see what happens tho.

[Jeff Van Gully]

What the hell? Lowballing Curry wouldn't even affect their cap. Offering him less than the max he deserves would have been incredibly stupid, disrespectful and not worth saving a few million over potential backlash of the move.

preach.

[dice]

Curry has been there the longest and he's the most valuable person to the franchise. He deserves 2x-3x the max.

[dice]

What the hell? Lowballing Curry wouldn't even affect their cap. Offering him less than the max he deserves would have been incredibly stupid, disrespectful and not worth saving a few million over potential backlash of the move.

if "offering" meant faxing a below max contract to curry's agent w/o discussing it, then yeah, that would've been stupid. on the other hand, there would have been no harm in saying "hey steph, you're worth every penny of the max, but do you have any interest at all in taking less to potentially help the team down the road? I wouldn't if I were you, but I have to at least ask the question, y' know?"

[binjumper]

What the hell? Lowballing Curry wouldn't even affect their cap. Offering him less than the max he deserves would have been incredibly stupid, disrespectful and not worth saving a few million over potential backlash of the move.

if "offering" meant faxing a below max contract to curry's agent w/o discussing it, then yeah, that would've been stupid. on the other hand, there would have been no harm in saying "hey steph, you're worth every penny of the max, but do you have any interest at all in taking less to potentially help the team down the road? I wouldn't if I were you, but I have to at least ask the question, y' know?"

Well there is a story where Curry asked if taking a paycut would help and Bob assured him it wouldn't make a difference and he should take the full max.

[FrigginFalcon]

In 2018 (KD), 2019 (KT), and for sure by 2020 (DG), there needs to be some kind of discussion about how much everyone wants the 4 stars to stay together. Paying all 4 the max (or "market value," if that is lower) will result in a punishing tax bill for the owners -- with an annual net loss likely well into 9 figures, and likely one they cannot or will not cover.

So at that point, the questions are:

(1) Will any of them play for less than the max, in order to stay together?
(2) If so, how will they share that "sacrifice?"
(3) How much of an annual loss will the owners accept?
(4) As part of the player decisions, are they even able to know (with accuracy) what loss for the owners a given payroll would create?

Lacob is not a MULTI-billionaire, and Guber is only about half a billionaire, so annual losses >$100 million are not sustainable. Bill Gates or Warren Buffet could shrug and think: "Oh well, that's the price of owning a Dynasty," but not Lacob and Guber. They could sell all or part of the franchise to such a person.

Given the highly progressive nature of the luxury tax, every dollar of salary saved creates a marginal savings of AT LEAST $6.00. So, let's say Curry and KD are both earning the same -- $43 million -- and for the sake of argument, let's say Klay & Dray would have a market value $8 million lower - $35 million per year. If all 4 of them played for 10% less, that would save $15.6 million in salary, and ~$94 million in total payroll cost. That $94 million could make the difference for the owners. And yes, in the strictest sense, it would be a sacrifice, but compared to being part of what could be among the greatest dynasties in all of sports, how much of a sacrifice is it really to be earning $30-plus million per year?

By contrast, trading (or waiving, or just not re-signing) just one of those players and replacing them with a FA at $15 million per year would save $20 - 33 million per year in total payroll cost, and $120 - $198 million in total payroll (possibly less, if it was enough to drop below the luxury tax top bracket, but in that case, the owners would probably be at least close to profitable again anyway).

[spree2kawhi]

What the hell? Lowballing Curry wouldn't even affect their cap. Offering him less than the max he deserves would have been incredibly stupid, disrespectful and not worth saving a few million over potential backlash of the move.

if "offering" meant faxing a below max contract to curry's agent w/o discussing it, then yeah, that would've been stupid. on the other hand, there would have been no harm in saying "hey steph, you're worth every penny of the max, but do you have any interest at all in taking less to potentially help the team down the road? I wouldn't if I were you, but I have to at least ask the question, y' know?"

Well there is a story where Curry asked if taking a paycut would help and Bob assured him it wouldn't make a difference and he should take the full max.

Exactly. I call bull.

[Clyde Frazier]

What a "light years ahead" idea...

[PDXKnight]

How would that even be a consideration? Just pay the man you won 2 ships with him and that's not changing anytime soon...

[CanesHeatFins]

So..........Klay not gonna be offered the max CONFIRMED?

[NY2TheBay]

What a "light years ahead" idea...

Funny part is, depending on the discount, he still wouldve re-signed.

[Clyde Frazier]

What a "light years ahead" idea...

Funny part is, depending on the discount, he still wouldve re-signed.

Or he could've threatened to go home to the hornets to get his max. Not offering him it right off the bat would've been flat out foolish.

[NY2TheBay]

What a "light years ahead" idea...

Funny part is, depending on the discount, he still wouldve re-signed.

Or he could've threatened to go home to the hornets to get his max. Not offering him it right off the bat would've been flat out foolish.

Or he wouldve taken a 2-4% discount, stayed with a historic team playing alongside of 2 maybe 3 HOF'ers in line to win a few more rings. Move into a new arena in SF all while making 4 mil a year from UA on the side. Should he have gotten the Max? Of course. Would he have left to the hornets if offered 2-4% less...

[Sam195]

It was the smartest move in Bob Meyers career because it may have actually generated payroll savings. The fact Curry got the full max with no questions gave KD the confidence to take the discount he did to keep rest of the team together because he can expect ownership to pay his market value when he like Curry has full bird rights in 2 seasons. Lacob could have offered Curry just the max instead of the supermax which would have been 5 years 175M (Blake Griffin Money) or his ufa max 4 years 128M (Gordon Hayward Money). However, it would have sent a bad signal to KD camp who saw these games with the Harden negotiations in OKC - where Billionaire ownership group with ballooning team equity skim the payroll to save bucks on luxury tax. Curry won 2 mvps, 2 titles and recruited KD there is no room for negotiation even JESUS KNOWS THAT LOL !!!

[Sam195]

In 2018 (KD), 2019 (KT), and for sure by 2020 (DG), there needs to be some kind of discussion about how much everyone wants the 4 stars to stay together. Paying all 4 the max (or "market value," if that is lower) will result in a punishing tax bill for the owners -- with an annual net loss likely well into 9 figures, and likely one they cannot or will not cover.

So at that point, the questions are:

(1) Will any of them play for less than the max, in order to stay together?
(2) If so, how will they share that "sacrifice?"
(3) How much of an annual loss will the owners accept?
(4) As part of the player decisions, are they even able to know (with accuracy) what loss for the owners a given payroll would create?

Lacob is not a MULTI-billionaire, and Guber is only about half a billionaire, so annual losses >$100 million are not sustainable. Bill Gates or Warren Buffet could shrug and think: "Oh well, that's the price of owning a Dynasty," but not Lacob and Guber. They could sell all or part of the franchise to such a person.

Given the highly progressive nature of the luxury tax, every dollar of salary saved creates a marginal savings of AT LEAST $6.00. So, let's say Curry and KD are both earning the same -- $43 million -- and for the sake of argument, let's say Klay & Dray would have a market value $8 million lower - $35 million per year. If all 4 of them played for 10% less, that would save $15.6 million in salary, and ~$94 million in total payroll cost. That $94 million could make the difference for the owners. And yes, in the strictest sense, it would be a sacrifice, but compared to being part of what could be among the greatest dynasties in all of sports, how much of a sacrifice is it really to be earning $30-plus million per year?

By contrast, trading (or waiving, or just not re-signing) just one of those players and replacing them with a FA at $15 million per year would save $20 - 33 million per year in total payroll cost, and $120 - $198 million in total payroll (possibly less, if it was enough to drop below the luxury tax top bracket, but in that case, the owners would probably be at least close to profitable again anyway).

Out of what pipe you smoking - these owners even if they experience huge operating losses on the team will claim it against their personal and other corporate income as investment losses and reduce their taxes. We have an Orange devil in the White House who is infamous for executing this mechanism and fails to release his tax return. If the new GOP bill passes the nba owners will save billions in their succession plans if they pass down the teams to their children with the repeal of the estate tax. Ironically Trump and his pro-business and pro-1% policies are what is helping gsw stay together despite the entitled athletes views against the POTUS.