DM on AD
- Thread starter oneye
- Start date
Bawse Dawg
Well-Known Member
I fight for the right for players to seek happiness however they choose to do so, because they are the ones that make the league I love great.
I definitely do work against the billionaire owners and fans who act like a player is their property though.
Then stop signing the long term contracts that guarantee you financial security (which they obviously like) and sign one year deals and play where you want. There are trade offs in every part of life.
In the end that’s all it’s about. You don’t like the rich owners or the fact it’s the NBAs league. It’s not even close to property you idiot. The players willingly choose to play in the NBA and willingly sign the contracts. It’s so damn stupid when people make this accusation. I agree to the terms of my employer too, doesn’t mean I’m their property. I can leave when I please and if they don’t want to sign the contract of their employer they’re free to go. Get the **** outta here. When you bring up the “property” argument you’re just pathetic. It’s not even close.
Last edited:
framer
Well-Known Member
They are good to have, but the issue that you have is you are going to give up assets for a one year rental or the opportunity to overpay that player. If you feel like he would resign with you, the better move was not to trade and keep your assets, then sign the dude a year later. Just what Boston did. You sell the farm for a shot at someone who is going to crush it on a max contact. That was never going to be Haywood.
I mean Paul George got a middling prospect and a dude most considered a bad contract. Indiana struck gold, but nobody saw that type of value in those players other than Indiana's GM and their mothers. That was the value of a player clearly better than 6th year Hayward.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Good point. I can too. Still don't really like it. I prefer a different mentality but I can see his side too
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Bawse Dawg
Well-Known Member
For sure.
KD has taught me that he’s a lot like me, except he happens to be seven feet tall and a basketball god. But he’s still petty as hell and cares what people think about him. They are just dudes who happen to be awesome at putting a ball in a hoop. And they deserve to pursue happiness however they choose, just like anyone else. I’d advocate for everyone on Jazzfanz to do whatever makes them happy too.
I think this plays into old narratives that are constantly reinforced, and in particular out on full display any time there’s a lockout. It’s the old false dichotomy of players vs. owners. We’re seeing a struggle played out where the millionaires are facing off against the billionaires, and we’re to see this in a vacuum. As we fall back on societal narratives and stereotypes, the millionaires then, clearly, become the little guy. But the fact is that in all this fighting, both groups are in the 0.1%, but since we’re superimposing our societal beliefs, we’re inclined to see the millionaires as being representative of the other 99%, or we’re supposed to see them as the less fortunate and downtrodden. But this whole thing neglects the forgotten party in this false dichotomy — us, the fans, those who are neither billionaires nor millionaires, yet we provide the capital to make this whole venture work and be profitable. You can go ahead and pick sides on players vs. owners, but any compromise is not coming at the expense of either party — every cost of compromise is being passed on to the silent funding party — to the single mom taking her kid to a game, to the guy living paycheck to paycheck who bought league pass, to the “really rich guy” with lower bowl season tickets who makes less annually than the league minimum salary. We make this whole operation go. The owners sign the checks, but we pay the salaries. Yet our representation is not just silent — our presences is not even acknowledged. But here we are, faced with a false dichotomy, where we’re expected to see our own struggles in the faces of the lowly millionaires as they go up against the billionaires.
Make no mistake, both the millionaires and the billionaires are looking to **** you in the ***.
1 year deals handicap teams way more than players signing long term deals and asking to get traded.
If Anthony Davis wanted to sign with Utah and demanded a trade the next day, I'd be stoked. You know how much value you can get for him?
I don’t think that’s what he’s saying.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
If you thought a player was going to resign, why would you even offer him a ****ing contract?
Yes it is.
His whole point of crying like a baby over players having power is that it hurts teams. And yes, in a way it does.
If every star just decided to do 1 year deals that would hurt teams even more.
I just find it funny that the team we are all fans of, the Utah Jazz, had a star player take the opposite path. He stayed in Utah and didn't publicly demand anything. He just left.
As fans we should know first hand that Davis is doing the "moral" thing. He doesn't want to stay in New Orleans long term, he stated so publicly, then he gave a list of multiple teams he would sign with long term. He isn't refusing to play basketball games for the Pelicans.
There isn't an imbalance of power. The Pelicans have the guy for 8 years under contract. Pelicans had a long time of team control over him to make him happy by putting a good coach with him and good players. They largely failed on both fronts.
Y'all are just being morons.
framer
Well-Known Member
Dude don't blame me, blame the peculiarities of the English language. Why the hell would resign mean "nope the hell out?" Freaking British. . .
I think he’s saying that they have freedom that can be exercised in the same fashion that Porzingis will do. Or the freedom for Cousins to sign a one-year minimum deal. But I’m not oneye’s spokesperson, nor am I personally invested in what it was he was trying to say, but at least to me it seemed like you were misreading that. I could be wrong.
Lol you know the Porzingis thing was fabricated, right?
And Cousins is trash. Did you watch the Jazz/Warriors game? He was the reason the Jazz were in the game. No one was giving him a big money long term deal.
You think he signs that deal if he had real offers on the table?
You think he signs that deal if he had real offers on the table?
I think the player/team power balance is basically perfect.
Teams get to draft players and pay them super cheaply for 4 years, then they get 3-5 more years on the 2nd contract.
Then there is a window when a player becomes expiring on their 2nd contract when they have the "trade demand" power.
If anything the power is too tilted towards teams/owners.
Teams get to draft players and pay them super cheaply for 4 years, then they get 3-5 more years on the 2nd contract.
Then there is a window when a player becomes expiring on their 2nd contract when they have the "trade demand" power.
If anything the power is too tilted towards teams/owners.
Well, if we want to move back out into discussing the macro, where you said that players signing one year deals handicaps teams, then I’d say they are free to do so. I don’t think the league should step in to address that and despite it being true, I’m for it. And teams can choose whether they want to do that or not.
framer
Well-Known Member
Well, no, not right off of an injury. There was a decent chance he didn't play at all this year. No one is going to pay full price for that. I'm also sure there were teams he just wouldn't have met with. Cousins will sign a long term, high dollar contract next year, probably with New York or New Jersey if I had to lay odds.