The man has earned well over $200 million just in salary, and he’s not a big endorsement guy (he’s got Nike and Adidas deals and been in a few Coke ads and a few other things) but if he wanted to, even in retirement, I’m sure he’d have no problem getting any endorsement deal he wanted. More importantly he’s earned the right to retire and walk away with dignity, on his own terms.
Well, I doubt Duncan’s too hard up for money, though I guess lots of these guys end up broke. He’s made something like 230 million just from NBA salary, right?
Great player, anyway.
On a much less glittery stage, the Blazers matched the offer on Allen Crabbe. Crabbe is a terrific bench player, who often sparks a rally when he comes in. Now if he can just stop getting reach-in fouls. They also re-signed Meyers Leonard, which surprised me. He has his moments when healthy, but that shoulder could continue to be an issue for him. He also needs to bulk up so he can bang with the big boys underneath. I suspect they got a good deal on his contract, as I doubt that other teams were beating down his door.
I tried to watch the latest Blazer summer league game, but that’s some pretty boring stuff that seems to do more to point out player shortcomings than strengths.
Yes, they end up broke because they trust people who steal 10% of their lifetime earnings in one blow. Buy $100k+ autos like they’re going out of style. Purchase mansions that require six-figures yearly for upkeep.
Tim D can always eat for free in San Antonio, but you can’t live for free. He’s not the biggest spender but he does have his flash, his pet company’s (his favorite is his auto repair center about a mile from my house, his mansions, and believe it or not, you can write a paragraph like the following about TD:
“Stepping out of his blue Porsche 911 Turbo with gold-finished Pur Wheels—one of his nine customized cars—Duncan opens the front door wearing sunglasses, army cargo shorts and a T-shirt with the ThunderCats logo of the animated TV series. He greets his BlackJack business partner and friend for 18 years, Jason Pena, with a special handshake, only reserved for the two of them. They give each other three slaps with their right hand, a creative touch you wouldn’t see from the no-nonsense basketball version of Duncan.”
http://blackjackspeedshop.com/lifestyle/
I’m just saying that from a financial standpoint, given what little I know about TD’s finances, that retiring just right now is not at all a good move.
Maybe it’s already been said, but the money NBA free agents are getting is outrageous. We’re talking tens of millions per year for bench warmers. Solomon Hill, Timofey Mogzov, Jared Dudley, Marvin Williams, the list goes on. And Harrison Barnes got a max deal from Dallas. Max money! For probably GSW’s 6th best player!
Don’t tell me - he kicked someone in the nuts?
Tim Duncan doesn’t strike me as the type who would turn to broadcasting.
It’s because the new TV deal lead to a huge jump in the salary cap this year. The NBA offered to instead bump every players salary so their contract would remain the same % of the salary cap it was before, but the players association denied them.
I think the real problem (if it is a problem) is the max salary per player rule. If you have a team salary cap, why do you need to cap each player’s salary, too? I get that they did it to prevent the super team and give the small market team some kind of advantage at keeping their stars, but clearly that isn’t working. If you eliminate the max salary, the real superstars would make absurd amounts of money, but role players would be appropriately valued. It might actually make it easier for small market teams to keep their stars that aren’t quite elite superstars.
I agree. Capping max salaries does nothing to prevent super teams, nor to prevent players from going to their “favorite” team (I can make 20 million in New York or 20 million in Milwaukee, why the hell would i go to Milwaukee?). Getting rid of the max salary would mean teams would not be able to afford more than one super star. You’d probably need a hard salary cap instead of what they have now though.
Because 20 mil in Mil is a lot more than 20 mil in NYC.
But it’s still in Milwaukee, though. And the conventional wisdom is that, all other things being equal, it’s more fun to be a young rich black male in New York City than it is to be a young rich black male in Milwaukee. Even Greg Monroe choosing the Bucks over the Knicks says more about the state of the Knicks than it does about Milwaukee.
NBA has made a rule change to (partially) address the “Hack-A-” strategy. Basically they’re just applying the current “last 2 minutes of regulation (and OT)” rule (i.e., one free throw and possession of the ball) for away-from-the-play fouls to the last 2 minutes of every quarter.
Also, jumping on an opposing player’s back to commit a deliberate foul is now a flagrant foul.
Not a sweeping change by any means, and of course does nothing to address the use of the strategy at any other times of the game, but it’s something, I guess.
Changing the hack-a-? irritates me. I hate that it’s done, but I think it’s a legitimate strategy. Free throws and fouls are a part of the game, learn to shoot or make intentional fouls two shots and the ball.
Three pointers are part of the game too, but we don’t make some players shoot them. Same thing with lots of other aspects–poor defenders can be “hidden” on weak offensive players, bad passers won’t be given the ball far from the basket, etc. But poor free throw shooting is the one aspect that can be openly exploited.
What you have is an erstwhile “penalty” being used for advantage by the team committing the penalty. I’m not sure there is another equivalent in other team sports, where committing a foul is often considered beneficial. Even something like an intentional walk in baseball is something that could be done almost as easily (and in fact, often is) without explicitly doing it, and has debatable strategic merit anyway.
Ultimately whether you think it’s good strategy or not, I think we can all agree that it is bad basketball, and putting forth an entertaining product is one of the NBA’s chief concerns. For that reason alone I would prefer the Hack-A-Shaq be done away with.
I disagree, it should never be beneficial to intentionally foul a player.
I definitely agree that it’s bad basketball, I just don’t like changing the rule to cover for a lack of skill.
Teams were also fouling to prevent a team with a lead from dribbling out the clock.
If they want to change something, why not start calling @#$% offensive fouls when a shooter intentional leans into a defender? That is the play I hate most.
Why should teams be allowed to foul a guy who’s not handling the ball? If we see the rule change as covering for people who can’t shoot free throws, I see the off-the-ball intentional foul as rewarding teams who are too slow to catch up to the ball being passed around