Steph signs 473mill deal with under armour

[Thavoiceofthevoiceless]

Because it’s disrespectful to the union. If a superstar of Curry caliber takes a pay cut owners will use that against other superstars. The Union would never allow that.

Not to mention in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't matter anyways as the majority of teams would still be on the cap. It would benefit the owner in saving luxury tax than it would the player.

I also would argue against owners using it against other superstars you'd almost always find a team willing to overpay.

 

[KidJSoul]

Under Armour underachieved with Curry low key

His shoes should be more popular and mainstream

 

[FaTaL]

Under Armour underachieved with Curry low key

His shoes should be more popular and mainstream

yea if they looked like the spawn gs shoes

his shoes look old

 

[Kiyoshi-Dono]

Nike fukked up

 

[Greenhornet]

in before he blames it on "god"

 

[King Eros]

I mean, if these shoe companies throw around all this money, why not take a lot less nba contract money to help your team stack all star players to remain champions year end? He can’t spend half that money in his entire life if he tried

People lol'd at your post, but this is low key a brilliant question.

Seems like milking the Dubs for $50M into salary cap luxury tax oblivion, causing you to have Anthony Lamb and Ty Jerome as teammates instead of OG Anunoby and Myles Turner.... just might be short-sighted in the grand scheme of Curry Goat Empireness.

 

[smitty22]

Akron Sniper got the big bag.

 

[King Eros]

Shut your broke ass up and get back on your fry shift.

Why should the BEST player take LESS money so the players beneath him can get more?? That’s cool if it’s something he wanted to do out of the kindness of his heart but it’s dumb advice to actually give to anyone.

You got your lolz, but to take $20M less in paid salary, to make $100M more in business, while dramatically increasing your chance of winning more rings, and expanding your legacy...is very much a boss move.

Only NBA peasants care about salary in a vacuum.

 

[King Eros]

Because it’s disrespectful to the union. If a superstar of Curry caliber takes a pay cut owners will use that against other superstars. The Union would never allow that.

Good point.

Would have to get creative with the fadangle.

 

[In The Zone '98]

Signing below your market value fukks it up for everybody else.

 

[Shadow King]

I mean, if these shoe companies throw around all this money, why not take a lot less nba contract money to help your team stack all star players to remain champions year end? He can’t spend half that money in his entire life if he tried

Tyson blew through 300M 30 years ago Steph doesn't live like Tyson but still

Shut your broke ass up and get back on your fry shift.

Why should the BEST player take LESS money so the players beneath him can get more?? That’s cool if it’s something he wanted to do out of the kindness of his heart but it’s dumb advice to actually give to anyone.

Winning?

 

[ROFL_GUY]

i want to smoke a blunt and eat subway with steph .

he seems so down to earth

 

[Bryan Danielson]

i accept this challenge

And I would love join you on this journey

 

[Spence]

People lol'd at your post, but this is low key a brilliant question.

Seems like milking the Dubs for $50M into salary cap luxury tax oblivion, causing you to have Anthony Lamb and Ty Jerome as teammates instead of OG Anunoby and Myles Turner.... just might be short-sighted in the grand scheme of Curry Goat Empireness.

That’s why I posed it. I get the Union wouldn’t go for it. But I would easily reduce my salary significantly if it meant more rings and even more outside endorsement money coming in because my team is on top of the league every year stacked with an all star Monstar squad

 

[Spence]

Shut your broke ass up and get back on your fry shift.

you don’t know who you’re talking to, little boy

Check my receipts in the Amex thread