League should have forced a 1% ownership transfer of the Rockets to him right then.

[Kblaze8855]

https://youtu.be/RXIp7P-28iE?si=WVoVn1mqwmbrFrtX

[sdot_thadon]

https://youtu.be/RXIp7P-28iE?si=WVoVn1mqwmbrFrtX

Why you gotta do that to us Kbalze:oldlol:

[Kblaze8855]

Why you gotta do that to us Kbalze:oldlol:


In the time since I posted it I’ve started to think of ownership as an incentive.

People are against all the rewards players get for accolades and longevity. Supermax. No trade eligibility.

What if at 10 years with a team you become eligible for .5 a year ownership adding up till you retire…but only if you retire on the team you built eligibility with?

Like Luka in his 11th season gets half a percent of the mavs and if he plays 20 years he can retire a 10% owner. But if he plays 15 and goes to ring chase he doesn’t get the ownership portion.

You would think owners wouldn’t do such a thing but historically you’d be wrong.

Isiah Thomas, Magic Johnson, and others got those deals. Pat Riley got part ownership of the Heat when he left the Knicks.

Owners would do it with some guys I bet.

Would it help the team hopping issue if a guy knows he can potentially retire owning 5-10 percent of 5 billion just off loyalty?

Weird place to go with this topic but I’ve been on vacation with no outlet for my weirdness.

[highwhey]

the last comment..."that's an adult right there" :oldlol:

[iamgine]

Is that even allowed for players? I mean they can take a massive paycut for a 10% ownership.

[Kblaze8855]

Is that even allowed for players? I mean they can take a massive paycut for a 10% ownership.


it was allowed until some point in the early 90s when Isiah Thomas signed his last deal with the Pistons, which included a guaranteed ownership stake at retirement. I believe it was invalidated before he got his portion. But the CBA they just passed changed it so NBA players can be investors in the NBA and WNBA. I suppose it will be a salary cap issue from there, but like I said owners in the past have proven willing to make these offers to significant enough players.

[Kblaze8855]

Did all this only to retire 3 months later:





According to the News source, Thomas also will receive 10% of Piston owner William Davidson’s sports empire, which includes the Pistons, The Palace, and the Pine Knob Music Theater. The team is worth an estimated $132 million, according to Financial World magazine. Davidson could not be reached for comment Tuesday, the Free Press said.
The team announced Tuesday that Thomas will remain in a Piston uniform until he retires.

That came after reports Sunday that he was about to be traded to the New York Knicks for Tony Campbell and a draft pick.
“I’m very pleased we’ve finalized the whole controversy,” Coach Don Chaney said from Chicago after the Pistons lost, 97-91, to the Bulls.
“It was a very distracting thing. Now the decision has been made.”

Thomas did not play Tuesday, the sixth game in a row he has sat out because of foot and toe injuries.
“I take my hat off to him,” Chicago’s Scottie Pippen said. “He’s being repaid for what he did for the franchise. It would be a shame if he didn’t end his career in a Pistons uniform.”
Thomas, a 12-time All-Star, is averaging 14.3 points and nine assists a game for the struggling Pistons.

Thomas’ contract allows him to veto any trade. But he said Monday he would consider a move if it would help the team.
“This is my new home,” he said. “I plan to live here after my career is finished. But I wouldn’t stand in the way if the Pistons wanted to progress.”
But things apparently changed after a meeting between Thomas and Davidson on Monday night.

“It’s safe to assume that he is going to be with the team for the remainder of his career,” Piston spokeswoman Sue Emerick said Tuesday.

[Jimmy Rustler]

In the time since I posted it I’ve started to think of ownership as an incentive.

People are against all the rewards players get for accolades and longevity. Supermax. No trade eligibility.

What if at 10 years with a team you become eligible for .5 a year ownership adding up till you retire…but only if you retire on the team you built eligibility with?

Like Luka in his 11th season gets half a percent of the mavs and if he plays 20 years he can retire a 10% owner. But if he plays 15 and goes to ring chase he doesn’t get the ownership portion.

You would think owners wouldn’t do such a thing but historically you’d be wrong.

Isiah Thomas, Magic Johnson, and others got those deals. Pat Riley got part ownership of the Heat when he left the Knicks.

Owners would do it with some guys I bet.

Would it help the team hopping issue if a guy knows he can potentially retire owning 5-10 percent of 5 billion just off loyalty?

Weird place to go with this topic but I’ve been on vacation with no outlet for my weirdness.

But what would keep teams from trading players right before the ownership clause kicks in? You know some of them would do that if they could.

[Kblaze8855]

Wouldn’t be guaranteed it would be an option available to try to entice superstars to be lifers. Lebron would own 10.5 percent of the Cavs if they could have made him that offer. The way he wanted to build wealth? He might never have left if he knew that was on the table. Granted 10% of an NBA team in 2013 was a lot less than it is now. Might not have been as enticing.

[sdot_thadon]

In the time since I posted it I’ve started to think of ownership as an incentive.

People are against all the rewards players get for accolades and longevity. Supermax. No trade eligibility.

What if at 10 years with a team you become eligible for .5 a year ownership adding up till you retire…but only if you retire on the team you built eligibility with?

Like Luka in his 11th season gets half a percent of the mavs and if he plays 20 years he can retire a 10% owner. But if he plays 15 and goes to ring chase he doesn’t get the ownership portion.

You would think owners wouldn’t do such a thing but historically you’d be wrong.

Isiah Thomas, Magic Johnson, and others got those deals. Pat Riley got part ownership of the Heat when he left the Knicks.

Owners would do it with some guys I bet.

Would it help the team hopping issue if a guy knows he can potentially retire owning 5-10 percent of 5 billion just off loyalty?

Weird place to go with this topic but I’ve been on vacation with no outlet for my weirdness.

Well this thread took a turn. Man I think it would then be a thing where the best of the best would weigh their legacies vs the financial security the ownership would bring. Strategic thinking on an even more intense level than these brand building stars do atm. How would it affect a guys marketability? Might not be worthwhile for a star on the level of Lebron or Kobe but it would be smart money for a guy like Dirk or TD I'd imagine. Kinda makes me think more stars would end up like Kg in Minny. But imagine the fringe, almost not allstar level guys that can hang around long enough, the ones that get the max deals teams regret a couple of years in. They would be the real winners.

[Kblaze8855]

The optional part of it would save a lot of teams though. How many players in the league right now would get such an offer? Obviously curry would’ve begin building ownership at 10 years. LeBron had he stayed on the Cavs. Durant in Oklahoma City. They probably let Westbrook walk though. Don’t they? You can’t lose 20% of $3 billion. Can you? Even with two stars teams would prioritize the best of them. Milwaukee would absolutely never lose Giannis. He’s too frugal and concerned with money to leave 10% of what could be a $5 billion franchise on the table. He would play for the bucks for 20 years and retire with his full 10 percent.

Would Dame have been made that offer from Portland? Would Paul Allen still have been alive at the time he hit 10 years?Being worth about 100 billion I don’t know he would be as conservative with such a thing as a lot of owners. Dame might be a couple years into building his retirement stake. Maybe not though because I don’t remember exactly when Alan dad and I know his estate has issues.

A healthy Luka definitely get this offer. Same for Jokic. The Nuggets owner also owns the LA Rams and Arsenal and his wife’s dad found at Walmart. He doesn’t need that a few percentage points of the nuggets. If Jokic is gonna walk without it? Sign him up. He won’t play the full 10 years anyway. He will retire and take like 3 percent tops.

[Wardell Curry]

The optional part of it would save a lot of teams though. How many players in the league right now would get such an offer? Obviously curry would’ve begin building ownership at 10 years. LeBron had he stayed on the Cavs. Durant in Oklahoma City. They probably let Westbrook walk though. Don’t they? You can’t lose 20% of $3 billion. Can you? Even with two stars teams would prioritize the best of them. Milwaukee would absolutely never lose Giannis. He’s too frugal and concerned with money to leave 10% of what could be a $5 billion franchise on the table. He would play for the bucks for 20 years and retire with his full 10 percent.

Would Dame have been made that offer from Portland? Would Paul Allen still have been alive at the time he hit 10 years?Being worth about 100 billion I don’t know he would be as conservative with such a thing as a lot of owners. Dame might be a couple years into building his retirement stake. Maybe not though because I don’t remember exactly when Alan dad and I know his estate has issues.

A healthy Luka definitely get this offer. Same for Jokic. The Nuggets owner also owns the LA Rams and Arsenal and his wife’s dad found at Walmart. He doesn’t need that a few percentage points of the nuggets. If Jokic is gonna walk without it? Sign him up. He won’t play the full 10 years anyway. He will retire and take like 3 percent tops.

This once again becomes a 'only 2 or 3 guys in the entire league are worth this in reality' type of situation but out of desperation to attract / retain players, and owners having to compete with one another, owners would just start doing it as a standard and 'not really stars' on the Damian Lillard level of play would likely all get it.

And before someone argues that Lillard is a star, I get it. He's an All-Star. But ownership worthy? No. That guy isn't providing enough to the product on the floor or off of it to deserve such a thing, but he'd get it. Would people that didn't closely follow the NBA identify Damian Lillard on the street? No shot. Sort of like Klay Thompson getting interviewed on the street and the reporter having no idea. Stars within NBA circles, but definitely not outside of it.

[Wardell Curry]

How many players in the league right now are widely known outside of NBA circles?

LeBron James? That's probably it? I gave my friend this list just now...

LeBron James, Stephen Curry, Kevin Durant, Kawhi Leonard, Damian Lillard, Jayson Tatum, Nikola Jokic, Luka Doncic, Anthony Davis, Joel Embiid, Giannis.

The only three whose names she recognized were LBJ, Curry, Durant. And then she told me LeBron is the only one who she could identify with a picture.

So basically the NBA currently has three stars and they're all on their way out of the league within 5 years.

[Real Men Wear Green]

It would create a game of chicken where old players try to guess how long they can play before the owner trades them to avoid losing their 5%. And it would guarantee that roleplayers don't get to stay on one team for 10 years, no owner is handing Udonis Haslem 10% of their franchise. Come ip with a fix for those two issues and it could be workable, also likely have to drop that percentage significantly.

[Kblaze8855]

One issue I realized reading it back if I was inconsistent on the percentages. If you get half a point per year after 10 years, you don’t have 10% at 20 years. I make too many mid post edits to keep up with my own nonsense at times. That 5% is much more workable.

And people like Haslem wouldn’t expect that. As was mentioned a guy like Dame might. But it could also my ice a bit of an out for a team with a star who is eligible but unworthy. Would a Fanbase be understanding if you lit someone love locally, who doesn’t do much nationally Wok, because he expects to fool mega max, which includes ownership? Nobody would blame LeBron if he spent 10 years in Cleveland, and raised their value by a huge percentage, and he walked because they wouldn’t give him points on the package. It would be reasonable. At the same time fans would get it if you don’t sign Demar as the Raptors because as good as he was…he’s not so great you gotta literally give him equity.

I think a refusal makes it more publicly acceptable for a star to leave and the star demanding it makes it more publicly acceptable for an owner to just refuse to pay and let him walk.

Thats serious till death do us part shit that would be largely for back pay.

Given the option to transition a guy into minority ownership, while his cap number decreases at a commensurate rate despite his pay staying the same?

Like say he’s due 30 million…he gets 15 million in ownership(.05 of nearly 3 billion) and 30 in cash….with a cap hit of 15.

Who loses? You get more cap room, he gets full pay plus equity….team has flexibility he has reward for 10+ years service.

The Warriors would give Steph that deal in a second just to cut luxury tax costs wouldnt they?