Draymond Green rants that players are not treated well enough

Yes, and he's wrong. An owner having a player sit so he doesn't get injured while trade discussions are under way hurts the player....how? He gets paid for sitting. Not a bad gig.

If Draymond wanting his analogy to stand, he'd have to be paying the owner to play, and then sit out.

 

How many people here on this board would consider it a breach if their employer paid them to not work?

This is pretty simple...I really don't get how people aren't getting it.. The entity that loses if they pay someone to not play is the owner, not the player. They are paying for something they're not getting (albeit by their own choice).

 

Ok...can you then explain exactly what the double standard is? You have players who sign a contract, to play for that team. That team pays them money for this. If they decide not to play someone (which, remember, happens with about 1/3 or more of their roster, every night), they STILL pay them. If a player sits out, they are VIOLATING that contract. So, yes, please do explain the double standard?

 

Ok, perhaps you can explain the double standard then?

Not exactly a news flash. What is interesting is that Draymond seems to think they do. Which is where he is wrong. I would bet a fair amount of money he'd do a 180 on his opinion if he were an owner, too. You think if one of his players tried to sit out, he'd be just fine with that, you know, to avoid this double standard he is imagining?

 

What your missing is this... granted they are millionaires with a numerous amount of perks along with playing a game you love they are still not making ruling class decisions in the NBA on a consistent basis. Granted there is the CBA and CP3 is the president of the players union... and yes the NBA has been more than flexible in their quest to meet the players halfway they still want ruling class status over this league. This is what this is about on a more broader aspect but I feel what your saying too.

 

Calm down. My post was sarcastic... The owners got the short end. They don't get to be loved and cheered by the fans.

Th point is, of course there's a double standard. The owners and the players are doing different jobs. I don't even know why Draymond is complaining.

 

He is free to go leave and get a job in the everyday world.

dD

 

Coming from the biggest piece of **** from the league, nothing to be heard here.

Teams can say they are trading him, because it is up to THEM trading or not.
Players can whine, push for trades, some can pull it of, some can't. That's life.
Meanwhile, players need to stay professional for their own sake. Or less and less teams will want them.

NBA guys are losing it, thinking they are more important of what they really are. And it is becoming annoying as hell.
Their pitch of "I was a poor black man in the ghetto, now I won in life and want to face social injustice", is like any socialist strategy out there: put the political correct in the phrase, and you are entitled to tell whatever **** coming next.

Want to help? DO IT. Give back to your community, donate to schools, hospitals, HELP PEOPLE.

 

I am calm...just trying to get those who keep saying there is a double standard to explain what the double standard actually is.

No, the point is, of course there is no double standard. The owners are still honoring the contract, even though the player isn't playing. Unless you're saying the double standard is just that owners and players are different? If so, totally agree (Draymond doesn't, though), but that's not a double standard. It's just the nature of the owner-employee contract.

This we agree on. But Draymond does like to pontificate, err, complain. Sometimes he even has a good point. This isn't one of those times. IF an owner were sitting a player for like the whole year, then maybe. But for a few games, while trade talks are ongoing? Nope, no double standard at all.

What Draymond is really saying is 'this whole contract nonsense has got to go'. He's upset that players just can't go wherever they want, do whatever they want to do. If he actually said that, it would not only make it more sensational (he likes that), but probably spark an interesting discussion. Ironically, he probably can't say that because...he's under contract. ;-)

 

Yes, that's what I am saying. If I understood Draymond's point correctly, he's saying that the media made the players the bad guys when they went public in a forced trade, and the owners got a pass in the media when they publicly forced the players to sit while attempting to trade them. If Draymond's complaint was that ownership should not go public when they were talking about trades, then sure, everybody should just do it quietly, including the players.

My point is, players are public figures, owners aren't. The media of course would focus more on the players when they are doing something unprofessional. And the media would also focus on the players when they are doing amazing things to win games. Owns almost never get praise when their teams win. That's just the natures of their respective jobs.

 

That's usually how it happens. Not sure what happened in the particular case Draymond was mentioning.

BUT...he's still wrong. There is nothing wrong with teams sitting players they intend to trade, to make sure they don't get hurt while that is going on. There IS something wrong with players deciding 'You know what, that really high dollar contract I signed? Ya, I don't want to honor it'

If Draymond really wants to go down that path, the outcome is then owners saying 'You know what? That really high dollar contract I gave you? Ya, you're not earning it, so I'm deciding to not pay you.'

Depends on the player, and the owner. Cuban is certainly a public figure. Conversely, I don't even remember who the dude was that Draymond was referencing. STAR players are certainly public figures. Most of the league...notsomuch.

 

Barkley > Draymond

 

The double standard is people criticize players quitting on a team but people are ok with teams quitting on a player.

Onviously Draymond is wrong as I have said in my original post like nobody thinks he is right. But there is still a double standard here as the audience was not ok with Harden quitting on the Rox but they are ok with Cavs sitting out Drummond while he can technically still play.

 

If he wants the players to have more power tell them to stop accepting multiyear contracts that way they can maximize and play where they want from year to year.

 

It's obvious people are looking at what Draymond is saying and bring their own biases into the discussion and a lot of it is based on how Draymond looks.

I don't really agree with him but there is a media double standard on if a player wants to be traded and if the team wants to trade a player, the term it's just business gets flipped on its head on the word loyalty loses all meaning.

It's just business should work both ways.

 

How he looks? I doubt anyone here cares about anything other than the fact that he's always been a complete *******

Unless they have a bias towards Shrek or donkeys in which case you have a point

 

ok.

 

Great rebuttal. Glad we had this riveting conversation

 

Your welcome.

 

It's not a double standard. If a team wants to trade a player, is that player hurt in any way? Current value? No, his current contract is guaranteed. Future value? No, the player will be able to showcase his abilities for the next team.

Conversely, if a player demands a trade to a specific team, is his original team hurt in any way? Tremendously, for obvious reasons.

It really shouldn't work both ways.