夫妇飞美国打儿媳

390万签下德罗赞，奢侈税却高达7500万！掘金签约代价是工资的19倍_我的网站

爱情魔发师

A | 好家伙，390万的工资，背后跟着7500万的税单。

China US Photo:VCGAmerican scientists have voiced opposition to a proposed rule which seeks to ban federal funding for US science collaboration with China, saying that it would instead hurt US interest, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday. Chinese experts also warned that the slew of US restrictions on China-US scientific cooperation is unlikely to deal a fatal blow to China's scientific development, but could instead backfire on the US.
The proposed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rule, set to take effect in December, would mark one of the biggest overhauls of US science funding in decades, giving political appointees greater authority over grant awards previously guided by scientific peer review and requiring that they "advance the President's policy priorities," according to the Washington Post.
It would also effectively expand the 2011 Wolf Amendment, which bars scientists from using NASA funding for bilateral collaborations with China, to all federal agencies and scientists receiving federal funds, marking the largest break in US-China scientific engagement in decades, the US media outlet reported.
So far, the proposed rule has garnered nearly half a million public comments, many from scientists and leading US science bodies. A Washington Post analysis of 50,000 of those comments found that around 88 percent were negative.
The rule, initially set to take effect in October, was pushed back to December after a bipartisan stopgap funding bill temporarily halted its adoption. Unlike the Wolf Amendment, the rule does not require congressional approval to take effect.
"I do think there are still members of Congress who think we have a monopoly on knowledge. They think we're still in the Cold War Soviet era ... where we were ahead in most areas of science and technology. That is not the case with China. We are no longer the leader in many areas of science," said Tobin Smith, senior vice president for government relations and public policy at the Association for American Universities, which advocates on behalf of leading US research universities, per the Washington Post.
Scientists warn that the rule risks subjecting long-term scientific research to four-year political cycles. "We will not succeed if with every new administration we are ping-ponging back and forth about priorities," the American Association for the Advancement of Science said in a blistering comment, urging the administration to withdraw the rule. "Fast-tracking such profound changes ... hands an easy victory to nations like China," it said, the Washington Post reported.
This reflects a fundamental divide between the US government and the scientific community over how science should develop, Wang Yiwei, a professor at Renmin University of China's School of International Studies, told the Global Times. He noted that politicians tend to believe that suppressing China as a competitor would allow the US to preserve its market dominance and technological edge.
Scientists, however, tend to follow a different logic, as scientific progress depends on openness, exchanges and collaboration. If science and technology are driven solely by competition and private capital, with the ultimate goal of maintaining technological monopolies, this could create greater risks and ultimately undermine US interests as well, Wang said.
The proposed rule change is the latest salvo in a broader battle in Washington over how to respond to China's rise as a scientific superpower. In July, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) also moved to ban collaborations between scientist it funds and many Chinese research institutions and their employees, according to Science magazine.
Liu Shaoshan, director of the Center for Embodied AI at the Shenzhen Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics for Society and a former US-based researcher, told the Global Times in a previous interview that the NSF's new proposed rules created a "talent wall," arguing that restrictions based on nationality, institutional affiliation, and research partnerships could reduce the global talent pool available to the US, weaken its ability to attract leading scientists, and slow scientific innovation.
Liu also said scientific advancement relies not only on discovery but also on the exchange, validation, and dissemination of knowledge.
Wang also said China has built significant strengths through its vast pool of scientists and engineers, complete industrial chains and massive application scenarios, while increasingly moving from application-oriented innovation toward original research. Against this backdrop, US technological blockades and restrictions on cooperation are unlikely to halt China's progress, but could instead isolate American scientists from China's latest research and collaboration opportunities. Such an approach could also prevent the two countries from leveraging their respective strengths and ultimately undermine US competitiveness, Wang said.
。

B | 这账，搁谁算都得懵。德罗赞签了，1年390万，老将底薪。掘金把他拿下了。但丹佛的会计可能已经在办公室里薅头发了——为了这390万，他们得再掏7500万的奢侈税罚款。这不是签约，这是用一台印钞机换一个37岁老将的最后一搏。先别急着说掘金疯了。咱把账本摊开看看。约基奇，5000多万。穆雷，3000万往上。戈登，也是3000万级别。

C | 六大核心合同加起来，1.93个亿。全队总薪资直接冲破2.23亿，比第二土豪线还高出315万。全联盟独一份。就掘金一家，超线超成了孤家寡人。触发第二土豪线什么概念？中产特例，没了。交易特例，没了。

D | 所有非底薪的签约通道，全给你焊死。掘金能用的，就剩老将底薪这一条缝。

E | 所以不是他们抠门，是规则把他们逼到了墙角。但德罗赞是真够狠的。

F | 不是没人要。奇才那边，1500万的中产合同摆桌上。热火手里，890万的空间也留着。德罗赞上赛季什么水平？场均18.4分，2.9篮板，4.1助攻，命中率49.7%。 37岁了，还能保持这个效率，过去五个赛季每年出场都不少于70场。放联盟里，1500万绝对有人抢着给。

G | 但他选了390万。底薪。就为了一个冠军窗口。说实话，老球迷看到这儿，心里多少有点不是滋味。这哥们生涯总得分超过26000分，NBA历史第16位，六届全明星。结果到了职业生涯尾巴，还得自己砍价，砍到脚脖子，就为了摸一摸那枚戒指。当然，掘金也没亏待他。约基奇、穆雷、戈登，三个人亲自出面招募。管理层加教练组，轮番上阵，给德罗赞展示战术板——你看，你来了之后，球可以这么运转，你和约基奇这么打，和穆雷那么配。诚意确实拉满了。而且你细想，掘金是真缺德罗赞这号人。约基奇被包夹的时候，穆雷被锁死的时候，掘金的进攻经常就卡壳了。过去几个赛季，替补得分效率一直联盟下游。

H | 德罗赞什么本事？中距离。不需要体系，不需要复杂跑位，球给他，约基奇一吸引包夹，他就能在罚球线附近把球稳稳投进去。这就是掘金最缺的“中距离答案”。说白了，掘金在赌。赌德罗赞油箱里还有油，赌他的中投能在季后赛杀人，赌约基奇32岁的巅峰尾巴还能再冲一次冠军。代价呢？ 7500万美金的税。还有，如果赛季结束时掘金还在第二土豪线之上，他们2034年的选秀权会被冻结。一个390万的签约，可能搭进去一个未来的首轮签。这才是最狠的。有球迷评论说：“丹佛还能签人？” 答案是能，但代价是7500万的税和可能消失的选秀权。掘金不是在补强，他们是在抢时间。约基奇32了，三届MVP，巅峰正在流逝。如果连德罗赞都搞不定，那约基奇的耐心还剩多少？美国媒体Bleacher Report评价说，这笔签约的性价比可能是2026年夏天最高的——前提是掘金愿意为它付出7500万的代价。双向奔赴，也是双向豪赌。德罗赞放弃了千万年薪，掘金透支了未来选秀权。