I've dealt with a lot of employees over the years as well, but I'm not sure any of those interactions are very relevant to the situation Tanner is going to face with Paris. The financial concerns of my employees were along the lines of how to pay for their kids' college, how to retire comfortably, how to pay for the care of an aging parent, etc. I've never sat down with an employee who was already making over $2m per year and discussed whether he thought a $1.5m raise was fair, or if he would need a $3m raise to stay with the organization. If some of y'all have had employee discussions involving those types of dollar-figures, more power to you. I'm just not sure many of us really understand what motivates coaches at this elite level. It certainly isn't about lifestyle - a $5m-per-year coach in Columbus, OH, doesn't live that differently than a $3m-per-year coach in Columbia. If it's about legacy and prestige, what is better, to coach for 20-30 years at a place that loves you like a god, or to be one in a long line of great coaches at a blue-blood program? Hard to say and every coach is going to be different. Or maybe some of them are chasing whatever their agent says is the best deal.
The bottom line is Tanner has to decide which is the worst fate: To overpay and run the risk that you have to pay off an absurd buyout in a few years, or underpay and run the risk that you let the next Coach K or Dean Smith get hired away from you? I'm as fiscally conservative as they come, but I think the 2nd outcome is the worst of the two for an SEC basketball program.