Minnesota Sports Forum

I don't know if this is going to be a lively thread or not, but KAT's contract situation in NY makes me think about which teams are going to be successful in the future in this second apron era. None of us here can get into the heads of NBA players making tens of millions of dollars, but it does seem to me that there are two types of NBA stars...those who are always going to want to get the biggest contract they can because it's just another way of competing with their peers, and those who recognize "enough is enough" and value winning games rather than winning the contract game, and "settle" for an extension far below what the market might pay them. I admire KAT both as a basketball player and a man, but I think the way he is approaching contract negotiations is embarrassingly silly. He has reported that he and the Knicks are far apart on an extension, and at least to me, it might be affecting his play. I know it's only pre-season, but we've all seen discontented players play below their capabilities, and how often does KAT get only 2 rebounds in 22 minutes?

My point is the teams that are going to be successful are the ones who can convince their stars that making $35 million a year instead of the $70 million they are eligible for is meaningless in terms of their life style...but it might mean everything to a GM trying to piece together the best roster he can while still staying below the second apron. And for every KAT who is not satisfied with taking a discount to help build a dynasty, there are several smarter players who realize they can be both filthy rich and NBA-successful by taking less then the market...see Jalen Brunson, Wemby, LeBron and our own Gobert.

So I think that at least until the financial rules change (if ever), we are going to see teams with less greedy superstars dominating the league. So, a couple questions: if this iteration of the Wolves ends up being as good as many of us think they might be, are Ant and LaMelo (and even Jaden) the kind of players thar realize taking half of what the market may offer isn't going to impact their life style at all, but will certainly allow their team to retain the players they need to be successful over multiple years? Or are they going to channel KAT and go for the biggest contract they can to the detriment of the team.

We'll have to see. Don't get me wrong...I'm a big fan of salary caps and other financial handcuffs...do you enjoy seeing the Yankees and Dodgers in the playoffs every year just because they spend more? I'm just saying the philosophy of the star players on a team when it comes to winning and money is going to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, factors in building a competitive team.

Fungo, one thing that works against the players who might take less is the players association. When you take less it has a trickle down effect on the rest of the league. I respect players who have done it, but I think their peers and agents are less enthusiastic about it. The concept of wanting more (Edward Lewis invented it) is built in to the DNA of the players association and they don't look kindly on those who don't push the envelope toward "more".

When the new apron systems were intially announced the immediate consensus reaction was how it would squeeze the middle class but I have been of the belief that the 2nd apron would force out more max contracts that would have otherwise been a given. I think that is what is happening. There shouldn't be so many max guys and it seems like teams are moving to that thought process.

I imagine it will be toughest for guys that get that first max, don't exactly live up to it and then expect to not take a step down but it will become more common.

I'm very curious to see the direction our guys take. I would assume Jaden will want a raise, especially afyer hearing that he is aiming to be an all-star. What will Ant and Melo want? They all have 3 years left but will be up for extensions pretty much the entire time.

Outside of NAW's first contract and maybe Bones and Clark's contracts, Tim Connelly hasn't signed any our our players to team friendly deals. Maybe he paid the going rate to Ayo, Naz, and Randle, but they weren't great deals. It's up to the new owners how long they are willing to pay the repeater taxes and if they are willing to dip back into the 2nd apron again. We've already been in the 2nd apron once before, if we stay out of the 2nd apron next season I believe we get our frozen draft pick back.

Dolan in New York is clearly against it. Wemby took 25% instead of 30%. Brunson didn't actually take a paycut, what he did was extend early versus waiting. He signed for the max deal that he could at that time, but had he waited a year he could have signed a bigger/longer contract. It's essentially what Jimmy Butler refused to sign in Minnesota way back when. Jaden would be similar case right now, he can sign a 2 year extension at 80 something million adding 2 additional years at the end of his contract, but if he waits he can sign for significantly more.

OKC is paying their top three guys 85% of the cap. I think we would be lucky if you could somehow talk Ant, Ball, and Jaden to take a combined 75% between them. Something like 30% for Ant, 25% for Ball, 20% from Jaden which would all would be taking 5% less than what they might be able to sign for if they make the All Star game, All NBA, all defensive teams.

Who know the collective bargaining agreement can be opted out during the start of their next contracts, so they may change the rules around the aprons. Maybe they will count the cap percentage lower, if a player stays with the team that drafted them. Similar to how the minimum contract is higher but only counts as 2.4 million against the cap. The owners themselves are the ones that really pushed the aprons, so they had an excuse to cap themselves. Dolan is probably regretting that decision now, as they already lost Mitchell and will probably lose one more player. Than again he got the one thing that he wanted a championship, and now might think he's good for life and won't cross the 2nd apron.

I will always be on the players side on this argument. Get as much money as you can. The same people who want you to take a pay cut are the same people who will trade you to the kings to rot for the rest of your career because you are easier to trade now.

KAT I believe had the best playoff +\- in nba history since the stat became a thing. Get your money, could care less that a billionaire wants you to take a pay cut to save money for themselves when the workers are the ones that are making you rich.

Yes it would be nice from a team building standpoint for players to take a paycut but I will always say go get your money.

I tend to not knock players for wanting to get the most they can get to some extent but they also have to live with what comes with that. I read that Towns is willing to take a discount but maybe what the Knicks are offering is a very steep discount. This was partly why he was moved. I'd like to see what the numbers are on both Towns and the Knicks side are but idk if we will ever have those numbers.

A player like Edwards taking half of what he can get seems unrealistic. Maybe like 75% or like 5 or 10 million less would make some level of difference especially if multiple guys did it. I think part of that would be driven by if there was a player or players specifically you can bring in or keep. Other big-time max players during the big 3 type era gave up a little to have lesser guys signed. The money a guy like Edwards could get is a pretty big number especially when he has other revenue streams...of course some of his money is already going elsewhere. I could see Edwards being like fuck it let's keep Player X and taking a some sort of legit discount.

Yes the players Union isn't going to want to have guys take discounts but they are also for all the players not just star players. The question will be if a star player takes less money does that mean players as a whole still get paid. If star player A takes 10 million less and that goes too player D and or G then the Union might be like ok we are still getting that money. If it means an owner still kinda cheap out on the roster than they are definitely not gonna be happy about that.

Ultimately the market can dictate what players are "worth" there are players in the past like Duran who would have probably just gotten the max a few years ago. Teams simply can't afford to hand out those type os deals even though it's possible he is still overpaid although he is a good young player that could easily get better.

It's gonna be as important as every to be able to navigate and find talent that costs less. Can you find the undrafted guy the NAW the Bones the Jaylen Clark (even just as a rotation player) that provide more value than their contract?

Connelly has paid up for some guys but Reid clearly had lots of value this off-season on his current deal. I would not be surprised if Ayo has similar value and MAYBE becomes a guy you would want to give up a lot of stuff to acquire.

Finding guys via the 2-way deal will matter. Maybe even finding ways to develop a guy not under contract in your G-league program will matter even more. It would be interesting if it was financially feasible at all to have a few minor league type contracts for G-league rosters. Maybe 3-4 spots that are protected from other teams and they get paid around 300k. Maybe other teams can only sign them if they give them a multi-year contract with at least some sort of guarantee for the 2nd year. I think having more opportunities to develop players at the lower levels will give teams more chances to find good players and increase the level of play across the league. I think this would make G-league games better and more investment from local fans. I know in some sports local fans are kinda invested in their minor/independent leagues (sole fans don't even care all that much about the next level/levels they just like watching the lives games and having some of the same players return matters. For this to happen the players and the union would need to be willing to invest in this too. Note that for merchandising checks (or something like that) players get from he NBA players currently all get the same cut. Jaylen Clark gets the same as Edwards or Lebron. For guys making a lot less than those guys that cut is a nice addition to their salary.

Anyway it's an interesting discussion and a definitely new era. Very different in terms of player salaries than when guys like Wade Wilson and Kirby Puckett got their big deals! Lol of course ironically KG's deal years ago was part of why we are here today.

kekgeek wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2026 11:17 pm I will always be on the players side on this argument. Get as much money as you can. The same people who want you to take a pay cut are the same people who will trade you to the kings to rot for the rest of your career because you are easier to trade now.

KAT I believe had the best playoff +\- in nba history since the stat became a thing. Get your money, could care less that a billionaire wants you to take a pay cut to save money for themselves when the workers are the ones that are making you rich.

Yes it would be nice from a team building standpoint for players to take a paycut but I will always say go get your money.

100% this

Also if any team is able to convince their top three players to take half of what they're eligible for that team will be immediately investigated and those players would justly invite the ire of their peers.

The reality is that the union hates the aprons and will try to negotiate out of them as soon as possible, Wemby opting for the discount was likely the canary in the coal mine

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2026 7:37 am

kekgeek wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2026 11:17 pm I will always be on the players side on this argument. Get as much money as you can. The same people who want you to take a pay cut are the same people who will trade you to the kings to rot for the rest of your career because you are easier to trade now.

KAT I believe had the best playoff +\- in nba history since the stat became a thing. Get your money, could care less that a billionaire wants you to take a pay cut to save money for themselves when the workers are the ones that are making you rich.

Yes it would be nice from a team building standpoint for players to take a paycut but I will always say go get your money.

100% this

Also if any team is able to convince their top three players to take half of what they're eligible for that team will be immediately investigated and those players would justly invite the ire of their peers.

The reality is that the union hates the aprons and will try to negotiate out of them as soon as possible, Wemby opting for the discount was likely the canary in the coal mine

I agree with Kek's main point about players trying to maximize their pay, but I will also nit-pick:

- Kek is using language akin to something out of an Upton Sinclair novel! The NBA players (or "workers" to use his word) are not making the billionaires rich. They already were rich, otherwise they couldn't have even owned the team! Increasing franchise valuations are mostly caused by scarcity. The growth of NBA teams to own is far slower than the growth of people with the wealth to buy them, thus driving the price up.

- Additionally, I think it's a false premise on Kek's part to believe the owners want a player like KAT to take a pay cut out of pure greedy self-interest. Ummm, what about building a sustainable team that can compete in the playoffs!?! Don't fans and other team mates benefit from that???

- To FNG's point, do we really want to go back to the days where the big-market teams owned by guys like Ballmer (9th richest man in the world) can simply blow everyone else out of the water with their spending. We have had a different team win an NBA title for 8 straight years! That makes fans of every NBA team feel like they have a shot.

Where I agree is that despite all of this, a player like KAT and his agent certainly should try to get as much as he can. It's totally the player's perogative to bargain for the maximum he can get. But the idea that they are dealing with some Mr. Burns-esque caricature on the other side of the table is simply wrong in most cases (may be not the new Portland owner, haha).

1. Towns isn't asking for the max ($276M), so he's not necessarily going for the most he can get. Speculation is that he wants about what he's making now. ($220-$230M). Considering the Knicks are coming off a title... I can see why any player in that situation is wondering why they'd need to take a paycut ($200M offer from Dolan). It's interesting because James Dolan had a TERRIBLE reputation and he finally seemed like he was about to shake it a little bit...

2. According to the Internet, James Dolan's net worth is listed at $2B. Towns's was at $100M. Both seem low when you consider that the Knicks are worth $13B and Towns has made closer to $400M in his career if you count endorsements. But the gap between them is immense. HUGE. So I hesitate to think "well the player makes enough" but not use the same logic for a billionaire...

Know where even a bigger gap is? Between the salary of a guy like Towns and 99.999% of the people watching an NBA game. So I always get cranky when discussions center around who should take the financial hit... a player worth hundreds of millions or an owner who makes billions... all while it costs a family of 4 around $1,000 (or more) to see a game at Madison Square Garden. The median household income in NYC is $78K.

Disappointed in how old I must be for no one to get my "Pretty Woman" reference. FNG, I thought at least you would appreciate it.