I mean 85 mil or 150 who cares? All semantics at that point unless you are about as economically "responsible" as majority of NBA stars. To be fair one could include 15mil in that company aswell but let's say you wan't to have margin of error for doing some really stupid stuff or doing something really lavish for fun.
Which option would you take as a player
- Thread starter slapKing
- Start date
I mean 85 mil or 150 who cares? All semantics at that point unless you are about as economically "responsible" as majority of NBA stars. To be fair one could include 15mil in that company aswell but let's say you wan't to have margin of error for doing some really stupid stuff or doing something really lavish for fun.
JabbaJabba
Registered User
Option 2. 85 million is a lot of money. Smart investor could use it to make small fortunes. Family's future would be secured. Also, winning the cup is the goal and winning it even once would be huge. A lot of players don't win anything. There's more to life than money.
MikeyMike01
U.S.S. Wang
More money = always better. For your family, children, their children, and so on.
Also. ~85M$ in career earnings is close to Phil Kessel. Maybe Corey Perry, or Paul Stastny. at 155M$ - you're a Crosby/McDavid/Ovechkin level player. Generational/best in league. Wouldn't that be so much more fun/fulfilling as a career?
People are overlooking the fact that 155M$ means you're best in league. ~85M$ you're only some random star. I'd pick first option easily.
JabbaJabba
Registered User
This only assumes we're talking about current era salaries. Gretzky for example only took home 46 million over his career, but won multiple cups. Maybe 30 years from now your average star is pulling in 150 million in their career. Matthews for example will have made 70 million when his next contract kicks in at age 27, so it's not farfetched to think the players a tier below him could be making his salary in 30 years assuming inflation. That 15 million dollar and 4 cup player could potentially have been a part of the Islanders dynasty team. It's just another interesting way to perceive the OP's question. I'm pretty sure he means what would you rather have today heh
Last edited:
I assume this is today and not 30 years past or present.
But to take your example literally - if 30 years from now you can earn 155M$ as an "average star" - wouldnt it mean you'd barely be a 4th liner at 85M$? Either way you slice it the player earning 70M$ more is the much better player.
Yeah I edited my post to say it was just another way to frame the question. Like if you slide the timeline back and forth how it would change the way the numbers looked. Suddenly 15 million isn't such chump change when you made it back in the 80's.
In terms of your happiness it might, given that you already have $70m in the bank. There are a lot more things you can buy at that level (an even bigger yacht!) but it's not much added happiness once you're already rich. I can't think of anything that would provide the permanent emotional lift of a cup.
If I had 155 millions, I would not give up 70 millions just to have a cup.
Option 2 pretty easily. $85M is still a TON of money...I feel like you reach a point where diminishing utility kicks in. And then winning one Stanley Cup is really all that matters. Anything above that would be a bonus
Nathaniel Skywalker
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2013
- 13,845
- 5,414
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
SotasicA
Registered User
- Aug 25, 2014
- 8,489
- 6,405
All of these options sound awesome. I'd happily take either of them.
But I'll choose the $155m. For starters, I'm not very good at hockey, so I'd probably just be like a backup goalie or a fourth liner. The 70m extra bucks is probably a bigger deal after a few years have passed.
And I'm assuming all this money is coming from some sort of a giant endorsement deal. I don't want the Stanley Cup to become a joke, with some backup goalie who is only on the team because his rich dad/sponsor thinks it's funny.
But I'll choose the $155m. For starters, I'm not very good at hockey, so I'd probably just be like a backup goalie or a fourth liner. The 70m extra bucks is probably a bigger deal after a few years have passed.
And I'm assuming all this money is coming from some sort of a giant endorsement deal. I don't want the Stanley Cup to become a joke, with some backup goalie who is only on the team because his rich dad/sponsor thinks it's funny.
The Nuge
Some say…
Option 1 would have you as the highest paid player of all time. Having a long career as one of the best players of all time would probably take a lot of sting away from never winning a Cup
nowhereman
Registered User
Personally, I care more about my team (the Canucks) winning the Cup than I do myself winning it (probably one of the many reasons I didn't make it to the NHL, lol). With that, I would take the 155 million if it was between that and winning a Cup with, say, Chicago or Toronto. Now, if I could win that Cup on the Canucks, I might take the 85 million, since that is an actual dream of mine and would leave me fulfilled enough to MAYBE make up for the lost money. Maybe.
Conspiracy Theorist
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2016
- 5,675
- 1,910
There is more to life than money... but Stanley Cups are pretty far down the line.
That extra 80 million would help with those other things in life as well.
Sidney the Kidney
One last time
- Jun 29, 2009
- 55,817
- 46,986
I'd take Option 2. Best of both worlds. I'd be filthy rich AND I'd get to experience winning the ultimate prize.
bukwas
Stanley Cup 2022
- Sep 27, 2017
- 5,644
- 2,801
Option 2 without a doubt. That's plenty of money to live another hundred years while still being able to set your children up very nicely financially. Also as a competitive individual I'd have the satisfaction of cherishing that Stanley cup memory.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
GDT: SCP24 | RD2 | GM3 | Dallas Stars @ Colorado Avalanche | 9:00PM CT | TNT- Latest: brighteststars
