Is it time we stop referring to our players as assets and pieces?

Sorry... I hate to break it to you man, but depending upon the size of the company you work for (some smaller one's might still have the human element), you are a number on a paper.

Its about production = revenue = positive net worth= asset.

You are confusing the word asset with currency. Asset is really just relative to value. James Harden & Dwight Howard are assets... that doesn't mean they are currently viewed as currency that needs to be exchanged for something else. Their asset quality is also tied to their production now and in the future.

The whole "but he's a hard worker" days are over-with. Working hard & having respect are all nice attributes but at the end of the day, working hard doesn't keep the lights on.

I wish we still lived in a world where the guys who put the most sweat into their jobs got the furthest, but now its a different world. You have to work smarter not harder. I say this as someone who for a living consults companies on employee development (leadership being one of the areas of development).

Sorry for the harsh truth. Being an asset means you are productive & valuable which means your family will eat tonight & you can get that trip to the Bahamas at the end of the year.

 

That's not true. It's used to describe people who have value to an organization. Bosses use the term to describe the employees they like. It's been used on me and it doesn't offend me. It's actually a positive not a negative.

 

Hinkie begs to differ. The student has surpassed the master.

 

I think he let it slip once or twice, as have most NBA GMs. It's kind of a faux pas but only Morey gets any flak for it.

 

You sure?

He clearly treats his players as humans.

 

you shouldn't but the front office should. anything you say can and will be used against you by the other GMs.

Carmelo free agency near future (2017 A.D)-
Cuban to Carmelo: "Breh, Maury just sees you as an asset and will not hesitate trading you if he can get someone younger and prettier.
See this man here(pointing to a poster of dirk), we found him in an ice block near the andes mountains and we still value him as the franchise player.

Carmelo to cuban: No way. Morley would not trade me, does he not know who I am?! He promised me to build me an app to spot which girls are posting nude shots on instagram. no way he would trade me.

Carmelo then decides to stay in new york, again, again.

 

From now on, they will be referred to as role players.

 

So because Morey is trying to make trades constantly (the job of a GM) and not being satisfied with not winning a title (what most GMs do), he is being screwtinized?

If the Rockets had KD, Westbrook and Ibaka, Morey would just chill and fill in the pieces.

Look at 2009 when we had Tmac and Yao. Morey just made a few trades/tweeks (got Artest, couple of small signings/trades).

Morey has turned our 9th seed team into Harden and Howard, and if Bosh wasn't a dickweed, we'd have arguably the best team in the league because Morey is treating players the same way they treat the teams they play on (see Parsons, Chandler)

 

Parsons was the first guy in a long time who was treated like a human and we did him a solid. He stabbed us in the back immediately.

This is a business and we need to continue to be ruthless in that regard.

 

No need to call them assets in public. No value in doing that. Potential negative for doing it. So why not stop.

Voted Yes.

 

It's not about what you call them, and it's not about signing free agents. It's about how you convey the sense of TEAM. You don't want players to see playing for the team as "just business." You want them to play for win, play for each other. That's called chemistry. Everybody who has played team sports understands what chemistry is like.

It's hard to play for each other when they see each other as just interchangeable pieces.

 

Pieces of assets. ..

 

Jason Bourne never got offended for being called an "Asset."

 

They are assets, euphemisms are for sissies.

For example, I don't call them flight attendants, I call them whores on wings.....I kid I kid.

 

You obviously have never owned a business.

 

you guys are great assets to clutch,

 

And how often does a FA sign a discounted contract and take one for the team? They might love playing for a certain team but they are going to go where the money is. Parsons is a perfect example of this. So stop this nonsense. For the players it's about what is best for them not the team. And for the team it's about what's best for the team not the player. It goes both ways.

 

I think people can (and have) pull up examples. But, I don't think the problem is the vocabulary used but the mindset that shines through in everything he says.

And, I don't think the problem is so much that he treats players as assets -- which all GMs do -- but that he treats them like they are commodities. He behaves as though players are plug-and-play assets that can be readily swapped out and will function just as well. Got a bad contract situation with a 3-and-D guy -- well, here's another 3-and-D guy whose 3P% is almost the same, and he's half the price. Unplug that guy, plug in this guy, install the driver, and go. Personnel decisions are driven by market values instead of use values. Intangible benefits, chemistry, teamwork, loyalty and continuity are discounted in the face of the need for flexibility.

I still think he's a great GM. And maybe his behavior will change when he adds his third star and flexibility becomes less important. But, at least, at least, he could handle how he talks a little better, and stop being quite so forthright about how flexibility is more important than everything else.

 

RudyT and CD personified the antithesis of the "players as assets" school of team management. They rewarded dedication and loyalty, and it felt great as a fan to feel a part of that.

You know what didn't feel good to the fans? Watching your beloved team stagnate under the weight of those "loyalty contracts," unable to take advantage of opportunities to improve. (There's a part of me that wonders if we are still paying Matt Maloney.)

This whole question is absurd. Every team treats players like assets, but few are as frank and transparent about it as the Rockets. And for an owner like Cuban to pretend that he's all warm and fuzzy on this issue is simply cynical and disingenuous. Does anyone honestly believe that Mark Cuban would overlook due diligence on a business decision in the favor of loyalty, or simply turn a blind eye to the more successful outcome?

That's not to say that loyalty doesn't exist in the NBA. There are times when both sides — players and management — find it agreeable and beneficial to engage in a give-and-take for the greater good. It's a huge factor in the sustainability of the Spurs success, and in some cases, allows a player to take a little less than he is worth (Dirk) so the team can pay another player a little more than he is worth. But these instances are not the norm.

This loyalty thing works in both directions. Was Morey treating Parsons like an asset by offering him only what the team could responsibly afford? Was he disloyal to Parsons, or was Chandler disloyal after Morey did him a solid and let him out of his contract a year early?

More likely, everyone in both circumstances was simply looking after their own best interests. It's only business, after all.