Is he worth it?

To me, it's them paying him for all the years they underpaid him. He's not a $40 million/year player if you ignore how low (relatively) his contracts were before and what he gave to the team. Durant imo is a better player and more valuable to the team, but has barely any sweat equity in it so he shouldn't get paid more than Curry. If you were paying based on performance and increase in value to the team alone, then Durant should get more.

 

Ridiculous

 

I agree with this somewhat. If the owner's are making sufficient profits to afford this contract, then why shouldn't the players that people are paying all that money to see, and generating the interest and revenue, not be rewarded appropriately?

On the other hand, the story from what I skimmed highlights the oft-raised issue that such a contract will limit their flexibility in keeping the complementary players that are necessary to maintain this mini-dynasty. So, in the end, do you take less and leave the team with extra $$ to keep the other players/acquire new players? Hard for me to say/judge since I'm in that position. Certainly, Curry has earned the right to be handsomely compensated...T

 

That is huge money!!

This guys plays ball because he loves the sport.

He is obviously very good at it and is getting paid an enormous amount of money to do it.

Getting paid an enormous amount of money to do what you love doing................some people are extremely fortunate in life.

 

HELL NO!!! If he couldn't dribble, what could he do?

 

Agreed.

Underpaid? LeBron James says Steph Curry should be getting $400M this summer - CBSSports.com

 

That's a BS statement.

HE signed the contract, HE didn't know how good he would mesh with his team mates, the
owners didn't know either, but they also built a team AROUND him that allowed him to do
what he does, take away 2 of those starters* and he'd suck.
There are very few other teams he can go to and perform even close to the same
as he does in GS.

AND as I always say: If the owners don't pay it, they keep it, so either one, someone
is getting rich(er).

* 'two of the other starters' - pretend KD isn't there - him and two of the guys from a year agos' team.

 

It will be a dynasty until that luxury tax kicks in. I heard a stat that over the next 3 or 4 years as the salary cap rules change it will cost this owner over $1.3 billion in salaries and tax just to keep it together. So unless the owner is worth billions to keep this train going, the dynasty may only last 2 more years. These new cap rules are specifically designed to break up super teams so the league has a little more parity.

 

But the problem is, you can still have 'super teams', it just depends on how much
of a pay cut the 'stars' will take in order to all get on the same team.
The Lakers tried that a few years ago, when they signed Karl Malone?, Gary Payton, had
five really great starters - problem was they were all past their prime.
LeBron tried that in Miami but didn't have anywhere near the success he thought they would.

In pro sports, it's all about chemistry, you either have it, or you don't, period.

Brady would be nowhere near as good on any other team, without Belicheck.
Would Drew Brees be as good anywhere else without Payton?
Some players can go to other teams and thrive (PManning), but most cannot.

How many times have we seen a star go to another team and do nothing?