Beast Mode wrote:I can't believe one of you dumb as*es said "I don't think players should be allowed to take less to play somewhere they want." Are you ****ing kidding me? Thats why I hate stupid fans. You guys always b*tch and moan when someone takes too much money to where it jeopardizes the team and it's obvious winning isn't in their plans... but when a guy takes less money to try to win a championship people slander that too?

Shut the f*ck up

Woah, baby.

Beast Mode wrote:I can't believe one of you dumb as*es said "I don't think players should be allowed to take less to play somewhere they want." Are you ****ing kidding me? Thats why I hate stupid fans. You guys always b*tch and moan when someone takes too much money to where it jeopardizes the team and it's obvious winning isn't in their plans... but when a guy takes less money to try to win a championship people slander that too?

Shut the f*ck up

Are they playing for the NBA or are they playing for a specific team? The NBA suffers by allowing players to choose their teams. The NBA suffers because the salary cap isn't real.

Most of the players just don't want to play where it's cold, for instance. Most of the players want to play where they will get more media exposure. There is nothing wrong with the players wanting this, but it lessens the league. The NBA allows this to happen, and it doesn't need to.

The NBA is like McDonalds. Each McDonalds is owned by a different person but they are part of the McDonald's franchise. They have to obey the franchise rules or they get the boot. If an employee at McDonalds X would rather work at McDonalds Y that's all fine and good, but the McDonalds franchise can decide that isn't allowed. If the employee doesn't like it then he can quit. If the NBA decides free agents have to go to the highest bidding team then that's how it's going to be. They could always quit and play in Europe.

It's not like these multi-million dollar babies are getting spanked by the league if they have to play in say Minnesota. Aww Rubio's mommy doesn't like the cold weather so Rubio is going to screw the T-Wolves. Ridiculous! The NBA could say that if you enter the draft, and then choose to play in Europe, you can't come back to the NBA. It can be as simple as that. The NBA could say all players have to wear pink party hats if they wanted to. If the player doesn't like it then don't join the NBA.

BTW I don't bitch when a player asks for more money. They should try to make as much as they can. I do kinda blame the players a bit for all trying to jump aboard the winning team. It's kinda like they are taking the easy way out. That being said the majority of the blame should be placed upon the NBA itself. They allow it to happen and it has greatly imbalanced the league.

People are still focusing way too much on the past. Yeah the Celtics and Lakers combine for a lot of championships, but in the last 20 years? There's teams like the Bulls, Spurs, Rockets that have won multiple times. I think people are dwelling a little too much on the Russell era and sh*t when they say the Celtics won everything.

xbay wrote:

Beast Mode wrote:I can't believe one of you dumb as*es said "I don't think players should be allowed to take less to play somewhere they want." Are you ****ing kidding me? Thats why I hate stupid fans. You guys always b*tch and moan when someone takes too much money to where it jeopardizes the team and it's obvious winning isn't in their plans... but when a guy takes less money to try to win a championship people slander that too?

Shut the f*ck up

Woah, baby.

Yeah, woah... but Beast Mode is totally right. If a player wants to take a pay cut to have a chance at a ring (or a few), it's totally up to him. Period.

Chum wrote:

Beast Mode wrote:I can't believe one of you dumb as*es said "I don't think players should be allowed to take less to play somewhere they want." Are you ****ing kidding me? Thats why I hate stupid fans. You guys always b*tch and moan when someone takes too much money to where it jeopardizes the team and it's obvious winning isn't in their plans... but when a guy takes less money to try to win a championship people slander that too?

Shut the f*ck up

Are they playing for the NBA or are they playing for a specific team? The NBA suffers by allowing players to choose their teams. The NBA suffers because the salary cap isn't real.

Most of the players just don't want to play where it's cold, for instance. Most of the players want to play where they will get more media exposure. There is nothing wrong with the players wanting this, but it lessens the league. The NBA allows this to happen, and it doesn't need to.

The NBA is like McDonalds. Each McDonalds is owned by a different person but they are part of the McDonald's franchise. They have to obey the franchise rules or they get the boot. If an employee at McDonalds X would rather work at McDonalds Y that's all fine and good, but the McDonalds franchise can decide that isn't allowed. If the employee doesn't like it then he can quit. If the NBA decides free agents have to go to the highest bidding team then that's how it's going to be. They could always quit and play in Europe.

It's not like these multi-million dollar babies are getting spanked by the league if they have to play in say Minnesota. Aww Rubio's mommy doesn't like the cold weather so Rubio is going to screw the T-Wolves. Ridiculous! The NBA could say that if you enter the draft, and then choose to play in Europe, you can't come back to the NBA. It can be as simple as that. The NBA could say all players have to wear pink party hats if they wanted to. If the player doesn't like it then don't join the NBA.

BTW I don't bitch when a player asks for more money. They should try to make as much as they can. I do kinda blame the players a bit for all trying to jump aboard the winning team. It's kinda like they are taking the easy way out. That being said the majority of the blame should be placed upon the NBA itself. They allow it to happen and it has greatly imbalanced the league.

I understand Chum and in a more fair world, that really would be the case, make your own success, don't ride the success of others as such. The nba really can't go that far though and be that stringent,so these things with players doing what Artest did will continue to happen.

Be good to see the Lakers not win it next season, but either way, other teams continue and really, a team like the Warriors needs to get their act together real serious to be taken seriously by any would be major employee, like a player is. That's the point why this team isn't significant

Beast Mode wrote:I can't believe one of you dumb as*es said "I don't think players should be allowed to take less to play somewhere they want." Are you ****ing kidding me? Thats why I hate stupid fans. You guys always b*tch and moan when someone takes too much money to where it jeopardizes the team and it's obvious winning isn't in their plans... but when a guy takes less money to try to win a championship people slander that too?

Shut the f*ck up

If this was aimed at me, my response is two-fold

1- Go fk yourself

2- I was just having rant as a team I loathe just got even better. If players want to take less to win, fine. It rarely works anyway. Karl Malone says hi

If not aimed at me, scrap answer 1

Quazza wrote:

Beast Mode wrote:I can't believe one of you dumb as*es said "I don't think players should be allowed to take less to play somewhere they want." Are you ****ing kidding me? Thats why I hate stupid fans. You guys always b*tch and moan when someone takes too much money to where it jeopardizes the team and it's obvious winning isn't in their plans... but when a guy takes less money to try to win a championship people slander that too?

Shut the f*ck up

If this was aimed at me, my response is two-fold

1- Go fk yourself

2- I was just having rant as a team I loathe just got even better. If players want to take less to win, fine. It rarely works anyway. Karl Malone says hi

If not aimed at me, scrap answer 1

Read the post (and thread) again, Quazza. It wasn't aimed at you.

Beast Mode wrote:I can't believe one of you dumb as*es said "I don't think players should be allowed to take less to play somewhere they want." Are you ****ing kidding me? Thats why I hate stupid fans. You guys always b*tch and moan when someone takes too much money to where it jeopardizes the team and it's obvious winning isn't in their plans... but when a guy takes less money to try to win a championship people slander that too?

Shut the f*ck up

beast, that was a way over the top response. While I agree with your point of view (as you could tell from my response earlier in the thread) you could have been a bit more tactiful. no reason to take it to that level.

I really don't understand why people would be so adamantly against making the salary cap a hard cap instead of a soft cap, and why they would be against forcing a free agent to take the highest offer. This would bring a crapload of balance to a currently very imbalanced NBA.

Chum wrote:why they would be against forcing a free agent to take the highest offer

Because it would be downright illegal. It goes against any rule of free market. Once a player reaches unrestricted free agency, he's free to decide what he wants to do, sign anywhere, for how long and what amount, retire if he wants... that's why it's unrestricted.

Forcing a player to accept the biggest offer would destroy the league, as every single athlete would turn to football or any other sport that allows him to pick where he wants to play. Simple as that.

I have a feeling this is going to backfire on the Lakers. Just because Artest did well in Sacto and Houston, does not mean he will do well in LA. Look for him to be a cancer in the locker room. Ego clashing will ensue. On the other hand, if he can stay out of that kind of trouble he could be another dagger in their offense and defense.

TMC wrote:

Chum wrote:why they would be against forcing a free agent to take the highest offer

Because it would be downright illegal. It goes against any rule of free market. Once a player reaches unrestricted free agency, he's free to decide what he wants to do, sign anywhere, for how long and what amount, retire if he wants... that's why it's unrestricted.

Forcing a player to accept the biggest offer would destroy the league, as every single athlete would turn to football or any other sport that allows him to pick where he wants to play. Simple as that.

I'm sorry but this makes no sense. First off there wouldn't be anything illegal about it, and no it doesn't go against any rule of free market. If the NBA decided that was the rule then that's the rule. The NBA is a franchise organization. Please see my previous McDonald's comparison.

The players can choose not to play in the NBA if they don't like it, but I seriously doubt you'd start seeing a bunch of basketball players trying to make it in the NFL because a team they didn't like offered them more money then a team they preferred.

The NBA as an entity is bigger and more important than any single team. There are all sorts of salary rules currently in play. They have these rules inorder to keep some sort of balance. The voice of the players is the Player's Union, and I would almost guarentee that they would vote for forcing the players to accept the highest bid if, for instance, a consession was made like say opening 5% more of the net profits to the players.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's best we keep seeing the Lakers win year after year.

Chum wrote:I'm sorry but this makes no sense. First off there wouldn't be anything illegal about it, and no it doesn't go against any rule of free market. If the NBA decided that was the rule then that's the rule. The NBA is a franchise organization. Please see my previous McDonald's comparison.

It doesn't work that way. Each McDonald franchise doesn't have to compete against any other for employees, as it's a job that doesn't require any special capabilities. Here, there's only a handful of players to choose from, and free agency is based on free market, with the players being able to decide their future (like any other worker. You just can't force anybody to sign a contract) as the very basis of free agency. If the league stablishes that kind of rule, we'll have:

1.- A player's strike, as they won't be allowed to choose where to play.

2.- A sue against the league that would finally force them to retire that rule and pay hundreds of millions on damages.

TMC wrote:

Chum wrote:why they would be against forcing a free agent to take the highest offer

Because it would be downright illegal. It goes against any rule of free market. Once a player reaches unrestricted free agency, he's free to decide what he wants to do, sign anywhere, for how long and what amount, retire if he wants... that's why it's unrestricted.

see it's different in the footy here. When your contract expires, your team still has your rights. So if you want to go somewhere else, you have to be traded

TMC wrote:

Quazza wrote:

Beast Mode wrote:I can't believe one of you dumb as*es said "I don't think players should be allowed to take less to play somewhere they want." Are you ****ing kidding me? Thats why I hate stupid fans. You guys always b*tch and moan when someone takes too much money to where it jeopardizes the team and it's obvious winning isn't in their plans... but when a guy takes less money to try to win a championship people slander that too?

Shut the f*ck up

If this was aimed at me, my response is two-fold

1- Go fk yourself

2- I was just having rant as a team I loathe just got even better. If players want to take less to win, fine. It rarely works anyway. Karl Malone says hi

If not aimed at me, scrap answer 1

Read the post (and thread) again, Quazza. It wasn't aimed at you.

ahh so it wasn't:) Point two stands then:P