Durant Admits That It Was Really Him

[oaktownwarriors87]

Curry didn't take a paycut. Even the contract he got was widely seen as a risk due to his ankles. He took what the market gave him.

Honestly I don't know why I'M the one having to tell you this. You're a Dubs fan. You should know this.

He didn't take a paycut and the deal was a win-win at the time for both Curry and the Dubs, but the point remains that jbk's post reeks of a salty Cavs fan. Players have by in large been praised for taking less than the max, all of a sudden KD is soft because he took a little less to keep the core together? Weren't guys like Duncan getting praised for this? This is a classic case of ripping a player because of who he is.

Max players in their prime don't usually take paycuts, and when they have it's been for cap reasons (Pippen, Bron, Wade).

Durant's literally affects nothing with the Warriors' options. The only thing it affects is Lacob's pocketbook.

That's the difference.

That's not true.

The Warriors didn't have the cap space to give Durant a max unless they renounced the bird rights to either Livingston or Iguodala. Durant wanted them to stay, so he let them sign first and then he took the max the Warriors were able to offer.

He didn't take a pay cut for Lacob, he took a pay cut so Iguodala and Livingston could both get paid and stay on the Warriors.

It also allowed Durant to save face. He didn't want to be responsible for the Warriors loosing Bogut, Barnes, Iguodala and Livngston.

[xfactor]

Curry also took a paycut and is now holding 2 rings and 3 finals in a row. He was due his max. KD did it to keep the team together while he makes a ton of money. This just reads like salty sprinkled narrative by a Cavs fan that's sour at current circumstances, and well..

Curry didn't take a paycut. Even the contract he got was widely seen as a risk due to his ankles. He took what the market gave him.

Honestly I don't know why I'M the one having to tell you this. You're a Dubs fan. You should know this.

You're right about that. However, Curry would have taken less than the max on his current contract to keep the core together, however Lacob would have none of it (Rightfully so).

[Andre Roberstan]

He didn't take a paycut and the deal was a win-win at the time for both Curry and the Dubs, but the point remains that jbk's post reeks of a salty Cavs fan. Players have by in large been praised for taking less than the max, all of a sudden KD is soft because he took a little less to keep the core together? Weren't guys like Duncan getting praised for this? This is a classic case of ripping a player because of who he is.

Duncan was praised because he took a paycut for the small market team that drafted him. Durant is not being praised because he took a paycut for the stacked 73-win team he joined after they beat him in the playoffs. There's no hypocrisy here, you're just comparing two completely different situations.

And yet the idea of Lebron joining the Clippers would most certainly involve a pay cut from a big market team. Would he be blasted for that?

This whole players taking pay cuts is now a bad things is really mind blowing.

I don't know what other people's rationale is for it, but I'll try to explain:

Because of the salary cap, every NBA team is theoretically competing on the same level playing field as far as salary. That's true to a greater or lesser extent. Salary limits the LA Lakers and NY Knicks from being like the Yankees and paying huge amounts of money more than smaller markets can.

Because the cap precludes stacking the decks with high-salary players, championship teams must exceed their expected value. Every championship team is stacked with players that exceed their EV.

The two groups that are usually most underpaid are the rookies and the must-max players. When you look at value added on the court as opposed to contract value, there are several guys that stand out—the LeBron/KD/Steph/Russ/Kawhi/Harden/CP3 et. al. of the world. Those guys are actually UNDERPAID. Bron, if compensated fairly for his talent, would make almost twice what he's making right now IIRC. The other guys similarly, to a lesser extent.

Rookies are the same. They're artifically limited in salary, and at worst they're a below-replacement-level guy on a small salary (which won't kill you). At best? You get Kawhi Leonard or Draymond Green on a couple of million dollars a year.

The money that should go to impact rookies and true max guys goes to the middle class of the NBA—your Danny Greens and Serge Ibakas and Wilson Chandlers. Most of the guys in that middle section (so not veteran minimum, but MLE or greater) are actually OVERPAID relative to their production.

There are multiple ways to get better-than-expected EV out of your players without paycuts.

1: Sign multiple true max players. Bron and Wade and current GSW are prime examples of this (more on this later).
2: Find rookies who make an exponential impact beyond their contract. Kawhi, Bynum, Draymond are all examples of this.
3: Use coaching/development to maximize your roster. Self-explanatory.
4: Sign undercosted veteran players. David West, Shane Battier, Zaza Pachulia are all examples of this.

Golden State has done all of these. To a degree that's impossible to replicate, mainly because of the amount of luck involved to line up the set of circumstances they have right now. (NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING THEY ARE NOT VERY VERY GOOD AT THEIR JOBS. CHAMPIONSHIP TEAMS ARE BOTH GOOD AND LUCKY.)

KD taking a paycut on TOP of that—when he's already underpaid—is insane. It would be like asking your boss at 7-11 "I don't need that much money, just pay me pre-tip waiter's salary". It's absurd. He's making so much less money than he's worth that it's almost unfathomable.

[xfactor]

This is such hysterical semantics, that it's comical. Kobe not taking a paycut was essentially highway robbery on his part but it goes in line with his ego. And other stars when given a chance to win a ring, they will do what is needed. If next year, there is a bunch of superstar/stars heading to LA, they will have to take paycuts. And it won't be from some completely nonsensical narrative that "KD did so it's ok", it will be because it's necessary.

Curry also took a paycut and is now holding 2 rings and 3 finals in a row. He was due his max. KD did it to keep the team together while he makes a ton of money. This just reads like salty sprinkled narrative by a Cavs fan that's sour at current circumstances, and well..

One of the reasons I'm skeptical about a super team forming in L.A. is because I don't see three prime stars taking pay cuts. Perhaps I'm wrong about that but I'd be very surprised if CP3 & LBJ take less than max deals next year. It would go against everything they've been saying for years.

Curry didn't take a pay cut this year. Curry took less than the max after his rookie contract because of his injury history. If a max had been offered, he wouldn't have turned it down.

I thought Curry asked Myers if he needed to take less to keep the team together?

Correct

[Andre Roberstan]

He didn't take a paycut and the deal was a win-win at the time for both Curry and the Dubs, but the point remains that jbk's post reeks of a salty Cavs fan. Players have by in large been praised for taking less than the max, all of a sudden KD is soft because he took a little less to keep the core together? Weren't guys like Duncan getting praised for this? This is a classic case of ripping a player because of who he is.

Max players in their prime don't usually take paycuts, and when they have it's been for cap reasons (Pippen, Bron, Wade).

Durant's literally affects nothing with the Warriors' options. The only thing it affects is Lacob's pocketbook.

That's the difference.

That's not true.

The Warriors didn't have the cap space to give Durant a max unless they renounced the bird rights to either Livingston or Iguodala. Durant wanted them to stay, so he let them sign first and then he took the max the Warriors were able to offer.

He didn't take a pay cut for Lacob, he took a pay cut so Iguodala and Livingston could both get paid and stay on the Warriors.

It also allowed Durant to save face. He didn't want to be responsible for the Warriors loosing Bogut, Barnes, Iguodala and Livngston.

He could have taken non-Bird and made $6mil more than he did without impacting their ability to keep Iggy and Livingston. We're not even talking full max here.

You're correct that to get the full max they would have had to lose one. But he took a paycut on top of what he was already taking with the non-Bird option. They could have kept everyone and still paid him $31.6mil. They did not.

[xfactor]

This was indeed pretty pathetic, but athletes have done worse things

-cheat on their wives
-beat up on kids
-beat up on wife
-shoot people
-drunk driving

I respect making fake twitter accounts to belittle your critics much more than i respect anyone who's done the 5 things above. If you think this is worse than athletes who do any of the things above, then you need to re-evaluate what you consider pathetic.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Max players in their prime don't usually take paycuts, and when they have it's been for cap reasons (Pippen, Bron, Wade).

Durant's literally affects nothing with the Warriors' options. The only thing it affects is Lacob's pocketbook.

That's the difference.

That's not true.

The Warriors didn't have the cap space to give Durant a max unless they renounced the bird rights to either Livingston or Iguodala. Durant wanted them to stay, so he let them sign first and then he took the max the Warriors were able to offer.

He didn't take a pay cut for Lacob, he took a pay cut so Iguodala and Livingston could both get paid and stay on the Warriors.

It also allowed Durant to save face. He didn't want to be responsible for the Warriors loosing Bogut, Barnes, Iguodala and Livngston.

He could have taken non-Bird and made $6mil more than he did without impacting their ability to keep Iggy and Livingston. We're not even talking full max here.

You're correct that to get the full max they would have had to lose one. But he took a paycut on top of what he was already taking with the non-Bird option. They could have kept everyone and still paid him $31.6mil. They did not.

Interesting, I didn't know that!

Is there a source for that or any kind of explanation?

[LLcoleJ]

Duncan was praised because he took a paycut for the small market team that drafted him. Durant is not being praised because he took a paycut for the stacked 73-win team he joined after they beat him in the playoffs. There's no hypocrisy here, you're just comparing two completely different situations.

And yet the idea of Lebron joining the Clippers would most certainly involve a pay cut from a big market team. Would he be blasted for that?

This whole players taking pay cuts is now a bad things is really mind blowing.

I don't know what other people's rationale is for it, but I'll try to explain:

Because of the salary cap, every NBA team is theoretically competing on the same level playing field as far as salary. That's true to a greater or lesser extent. Salary limits the LA Lakers and NY Knicks from being like the Yankees and paying huge amounts of money more than smaller markets can.

Because the cap precludes stacking the decks with high-salary players, championship teams must exceed their expected value. Every championship team is stacked with players that exceed their EV.

The two groups that are usually most underpaid are the rookies and the must-max players. When you look at value added on the court as opposed to contract value, there are several guys that stand out—the LeBron/KD/Steph/Russ/Kawhi/Harden/CP3 et. al. of the world. Those guys are actually UNDERPAID. Bron, if compensated fairly for his talent, would make almost twice what he's making right now IIRC. The other guys similarly, to a lesser extent.

Rookies are the same. They're artifically limited in salary, and at worst they're a below-replacement-level guy on a small salary (which won't kill you). At best? You get Kawhi Leonard or Draymond Green on a couple of million dollars a year.

The money that should go to impact rookies and true max guys goes to the middle class of the NBA—your Danny Greens and Serge Ibakas and Wilson Chandlers. Most of the guys in that middle section (so not veteran minimum, but MLE or greater) are actually OVERPAID relative to their production.

There are multiple ways to get better-than-expected EV out of your players without paycuts.

1: Sign multiple true max players. Bron and Wade and current GSW are prime examples of this (more on this later).
2: Find rookies who make an exponential impact beyond their contract. Kawhi, Bynum, Draymond are all examples of this.
3: Use coaching/development to maximize your roster. Self-explanatory.
4: Sign undercosted veteran players. David West, Shane Battier, Zaza Pachulia are all examples of this.

Golden State has done all of these. To a degree that's impossible to replicate, mainly because of the amount of luck involved to line up the set of circumstances they have right now. (NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING THEY ARE NOT VERY VERY GOOD AT THEIR JOBS. CHAMPIONSHIP TEAMS ARE BOTH GOOD AND LUCKY.)

KD taking a paycut on TOP of that—when he's already underpaid—is insane. It would be like asking your boss at 7-11 "I don't need that much money, just pay me pre-tip waiter's salary". It's absurd. He's making so much less money than he's worth that it's almost unfathomable.

Ok. You just explained the CBA to me. I appreciate the effort, but I am aware of everything you said. That wasn't my point. Since when do we as fans and most specifically us here on RealGM ever and I mean EVER knock a guy for taking less money? It's what every team talks about in trades and player accusation talk. Now, it's the evil-soft KD who is distributing the financial eco system of the NBA? I am not buying this new outrage.

He signed a 25 million dollar deal with a player option. He is actually doing what very few people in the NBA can do. Control his destiny, player for a team he likes and leave if needed. He is betting on himself. Lebron is doing the same thing, CP3 could have opted out and signed the mega deal etc.. meanwhile Russ is NOT signing the deal.

I am not a fan of Durant nor the Warriors. But him taking less on a team like the Warriors is a exactly what you want to do. It helps the Warriors, it helps Durant and guys like Livingston who benefited a little by it. ( yes, Livingston could have left and got paid more elsewhere and so could Iggy) But they choose to get their number and stay with their team. There should be no outrage over this.

[Andre Roberstan]

That's not true.

The Warriors didn't have the cap space to give Durant a max unless they renounced the bird rights to either Livingston or Iguodala. Durant wanted them to stay, so he let them sign first and then he took the max the Warriors were able to offer.

He didn't take a pay cut for Lacob, he took a pay cut so Iguodala and Livingston could both get paid and stay on the Warriors.

It also allowed Durant to save face. He didn't want to be responsible for the Warriors loosing Bogut, Barnes, Iguodala and Livngston.

He could have taken non-Bird and made $6mil more than he did without impacting their ability to keep Iggy and Livingston. We're not even talking full max here.

You're correct that to get the full max they would have had to lose one. But he took a paycut on top of what he was already taking with the non-Bird option. They could have kept everyone and still paid him $31.6mil. They did not.

Interesting, I didn't know that!

Is there a source for that or any kind of explanation?

I live and breathe this stuff, but a quick Google should get you something. There's multiple articles out there about it. USA Today had one I think, and Albert Nahmad's Twitter feed should have plenty to get you started.

[DuckIII]

the irony of this is that you have people criticizing him on a forum who probably do exactly the same thing he does on a regular basis.

While this wasn't a good look for KD, the words 'haters gona hate' has never been truer. The moral police is out in full effect, and KD must be the first star athlete to be insecure with his image. Definitely a low character guy lol. #greenfont

Look, I have no issue with him taking to Twitter to defend himself, wearing a cupcake hat, etc. But:

(a) pretending to be someone else to defend yourself; and more importantly

(b) using that fictional persona to trash your former teammates and coach who helped you get to within one win of the NBA Finals?

Yeah, that does evidence a low character guy. There's really no disputing it. Once he turns his insecurity onto others and blames them for his current circumstances, its a character flaw.

[LLcoleJ]

You're correct that to get the full max they would have had to lose one. But he took a paycut on top of what he was already taking with the non-Bird option. They could have kept everyone and still paid him $31.6mil. They did not.

And yet he choose to take 1+1 starting at 25. Would you feel better if he squeezed another 6 million ? Maybe the deal was we will give you the full non-bird right max but you commit to us for 3 years? He said I will take less and do a 1+1. His options his decisions.

[Andre Roberstan]

Ok. You just explained the CBA to me. I appreciate the effort, but I am aware of everything you said. That wasn't my point. Since when do we as fans and most specifically us here on RealGM ever and I mean EVER knock a guy for taking less money? It's what every team talks about in trades and player accusation talk. Now, it's the evil-soft KD who is distributing the financial eco system of the NBA? I am not buying this new outrage.

Yeah, sorry—not meaning to be condescending. More for rest of thread than you.

He signed a 25 million dollar deal with a player option. He is actually doing what very few people in the NBA can do. Control his destiny, player for a team he likes and leave if needed. He is betting on himself. Lebron is doing the same thing, CP3 could have opted out and signed the mega deal etc.. meanwhile Russ is NOT signing the deal.

I am not a fan of Durant nor the Warriors. But him taking less on a team like the Warriors is a exactly what you want to do. It helps the Warriors, it helps Durant and guys like Livingston who benefited a little by it. ( yes, Livingston could have left and got paid more elsewhere and so could Iggy) But they choose to get their number and stay with their team. There should be no outrage over this.

He's not betting on himself because there's nothing to bet.

A guy taking the QO because he thinks he's better than the contract his team will offer him is "betting on yourself". KD could tear both ACLs tomorrow and STILL get a max contract from any team in the league the next offseason. Same with Bron.

It's player agency. Which I'm good with in a vacuum, and as I've said elsewhere in the thread—it's his life and his money, he can do with it what he wants.

But this doesn't actually help Iguodala and Livingston. It helps Lacob and Guber.

Assuming he didn't want the full max, he could still have made a fair bit more than he did. He took a paycut for no other reason than to save his owners a little money. No mechanical cap reason whatsoever for it. The only thing this impacts is Lacob's wallet.

If Lacob doesn't want to pay full price for Iguodala and Livingston, that's Lacob's problem, not Durant's. There's no impact on where Durant plays or how much money he makes from keeping Iggy and Livingston, no cap benefits like CP3 opting into his contract for an easier trade. It's literally just saving Lacob money.

THAT is what I have a problem with.

[Andre Roberstan]

Maybe the deal was we will give you the full non-bird right max but you commit to us for 3 years? He said I will take less and do a 1+1. His options his decisions.

They would be morons to do that, and the one thing their FO isn't is morons. If you're dealing with a true max player, you come correct.

We know they came with the full meal deal and all the trimmings for Curry. No way they would have been dumb enough to push him taking non-Bird for 3 years when it's the worst possible option.

[LLcoleJ]

Ok. You just explained the CBA to me. I appreciate the effort, but I am aware of everything you said. That wasn't my point. Since when do we as fans and most specifically us here on RealGM ever and I mean EVER knock a guy for taking less money? It's what every team talks about in trades and player accusation talk. Now, it's the evil-soft KD who is distributing the financial eco system of the NBA? I am not buying this new outrage.

Yeah, sorry—not meaning to be condescending. More for rest of thread than you.

He signed a 25 million dollar deal with a player option. He is actually doing what very few people in the NBA can do. Control his destiny, player for a team he likes and leave if needed. He is betting on himself. Lebron is doing the same thing, CP3 could have opted out and signed the mega deal etc.. meanwhile Russ is NOT signing the deal.

I am not a fan of Durant nor the Warriors. But him taking less on a team like the Warriors is a exactly what you want to do. It helps the Warriors, it helps Durant and guys like Livingston who benefited a little by it. ( yes, Livingston could have left and got paid more elsewhere and so could Iggy) But they choose to get their number and stay with their team. There should be no outrage over this.

He's not betting on himself because there's nothing to bet.

A guy taking the QO because he thinks he's better than the contract his team will offer him is "betting on yourself". KD could tear both ACLs tomorrow and STILL get a max contract from any team in the league the next offseason. Same with Bron.

It's player agency. Which I'm good with in a vacuum, and as I've said elsewhere in the thread—it's his life and his money, he can do with it what he wants.

But this doesn't actually help Iguodala and Livingston. It helps Lacob and Guber.

Assuming he didn't want the full max, he could still have made a fair bit more than he did. He took a paycut for no other reason than to save his owners a little money. No mechanical cap reason whatsoever for it. The only thing this impacts is Lacob's wallet.

If Lacob doesn't want to pay full price for Iguodala and Livingston, that's Lacob's problem, not Durant's. There's no impact on where Durant plays or how much money he makes from keeping Iggy and Livingston, no cap benefits like CP3 opting into his contract for an easier trade. It's literally just saving Lacob money.

THAT is what I have a problem with.

If he wants to help Lacob, why is that a problem?

They have to also re-up Klay next year and him taking a non-bird right deal this year would limit his ability to to sign the full max next year ? He takes a hair cut this year, Warriors get Klay extended and sign KD to the full max. Is that not a strategy? All of this for a guy who has made nearly 150 million in his NBA career and due up 350 million on his Nike deal and will still make another 150 million in his NBA career and 6 million dollars this year, to save Lacob some money is hot button?

It's like you are representing KD's best interest here by saying he saved Lacob 6 million ( or whatever the lux tax of that turns into) but that is KDs fault.

[Andre Roberstan]

If he wants to help Lacob, why is that a problem?

They have to also re-up Klay next year and him taking a non-bird right deal this year would limit his ability to to sign the full max next year ? He takes a hair cut this year, Warriors get Klay extended and sign KD to the full max. Is that not a strategy? All of this for a guy who has made nearly 150 million in his NBA career and due up 350 million on his Nike deal and will still make another 150 million in his NBA career and 6 million dollars this year, to save Lacob some money is hot button?

It's like you are representing KD's best interest here by saying he saved Lacob 6 million ( or whatever the lux tax of that turns into) but that is KDs fault.

My feelings regarding Durant personally are well-documented. I also have a very deep-seated dislike for the Warriors that dates back to before the Durexit, but I'm making an effort to stand aside from that.

But my feelings for players in general (particularly max guys) are: get paid. If your front office isn't good enough to put a workable team around you, that's their problem. Owners should pay and players should get paid market value for their services. If they can't afford you when the league is the most profitable it's ever been, they're doing something wrong.

Non-Bird doesn't matter for whether he can get full Bird rights next year so far as I can tell (I can't find a minimum length for NB contracts).

Normally it's a clear-cut calculus for players: take less money to up your chances of winning rings. Duncan and Dirk are both examples of guys who did this late in their careers. But those directly affected cap space. Durant's doesn't.

Sure, it'll save Lacob some money in the long term, which will help with the luxury tax bill. They're one of the most profitable teams in the league. They can afford it, and if they can't, that's the whole reason the CBA exists.

I'd kind of like to see someone else have an outside chance of winning a championship before the heat death of the universe.

[RoyceDa59]

I'm so happy this happened. It's epitomizes everything that is true about Durant, and actually does the opposite of what he was 'trying to do' defending himself in disguises.

Looks good on him. He should stop talking and just focus on basketball. The next 5 years are his for the taking, and he can go down as one of the greatest ever. The only way to redeem his reputation is to stop focusing so much on it.

[LLcoleJ]

If he wants to help Lacob, why is that a problem?

They have to also re-up Klay next year and him taking a non-bird right deal this year would limit his ability to to sign the full max next year ? He takes a hair cut this year, Warriors get Klay extended and sign KD to the full max. Is that not a strategy? All of this for a guy who has made nearly 150 million in his NBA career and due up 350 million on his Nike deal and will still make another 150 million in his NBA career and 6 million dollars this year, to save Lacob some money is hot button?

It's like you are representing KD's best interest here by saying he saved Lacob 6 million ( or whatever the lux tax of that turns into) but that is KDs fault.

My feelings regarding Durant personally are well-documented. I also have a very deep-seated dislike for the Warriors that dates back to before the Durexit, but I'm making an effort to stand aside from that.

But my feelings for players in general (particularly max guys) are: get paid. If your front office isn't good enough to put a workable team around you, that's their problem. Owners should pay and players should get paid market value for their services. If they can't afford you when the league is the most profitable it's ever been, they're doing something wrong.

Non-Bird doesn't matter for whether he can get full Bird rights next year so far as I can tell (I can't find a minimum length for NB contracts).

Normally it's a clear-cut calculus for players: take less money to up your chances of winning rings. Duncan and Dirk are both examples of guys who did this late in their careers. But those directly affected cap space. Durant's doesn't.

Sure, it'll save Lacob some money in the long term, which will help with the luxury tax bill. They're one of the most profitable teams in the league. They can afford it, and if they can't, that's the whole reason the CBA exists.

I'd kind of like to see someone else have an outside chance of winning a championship before the heat death of the universe.

So would you be against a max player coming to join Russ and George take less to help the owner out?

[Andre Roberstan]

So would you be against a max player coming to join Russ and George take less to help the owner out?

I would, actually. Not saying I'd complain as loud, since I'd have better basketball to go watch, but I'm against it on principle. This isn't just a KD thing.

That's been a change over the last few years—used to be more on ownership's side—but as I've learned more about the economics of the league I generally come down on the side of player agency and getting paid what you're worth.

Now, if you get better and outperform your contract? Or you're a rookie/max guy and you're capped? Fair enough, that's life. Nothing you can do. But taking paycuts to help fill out the roster shouldn't be necessary.

[LLcoleJ]

Non-Bird doesn't matter for whether he can get full Bird rights next year so far as I can tell (I can't find a minimum length for NB contracts).

Also on this point. If he takes the NB deal of 31. He has to wait 3 years to get full bird rights? No? Wasn't that put in place to prevent cap circumvention?

[LLcoleJ]

So would you be against a max player coming to join Russ and George take less to help the owner out?

I would, actually. Not saying I'd complain as loud, since I'd have better basketball to go watch, but I'm against it on principle. This isn't just a KD thing.

That's been a change over the last few years—used to be more on ownership's side—but as I've learned more about the economics of the league I generally come down on the side of player agency and getting paid what you're worth.

Now, if you get better and outperform your contract? Or you're a rookie/max guy and you're capped? Fair enough, that's life. Nothing you can do. But taking paycuts to help fill out the roster shouldn't be necessary.

Ok. Not buying it. But ok.