It's not really about the money or the ring, it's about having fun. Being on a winning team in a great city that will go far in the playoffs has to be fun. Especially when all you have to do is stand on the perimeter and jack 3's. I envy Ray Allen. I'd love to have his job. Not sure if he's married or not but he'll have plenty of tail to hit in Miami as well. Exotic tail, not ugly ass Boston tail.
I would rather have Kevin Martin, but Miami wouldn't. They don't need a Kevin Martin, they need a guy who can hit open 3's when LeBron/Wade get double teamed. It's going to be gravy.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3sJwYGsbe5g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So the celtics actively shop Ray Allen, he is replaced in the starting line up and then Boston signs another guy in free agency who plays the same position to as much or more money than they were willing to pay him and you have the nerve to call him out! Smh, what a joke!
I really do hope Jason Terry signs with Boston and is 10 times more productive than Allen was with Boston last year....of course it still won't matter - James/Wade alone can shut down any of Boston's old dudes unless Rajon learns to shoot over the summer.
Pretty sure he was still not happy the Celtics almost traded him at the trade deadline last year. What I've read anyways, good for him. The Heat just keep getting better and better..
To the Y U MAD THO Brigade: It's about parity. It's about competition. And it does affect us, because it sets the precedent for stars colluding. Regardless of how good your front office is, how the hell are you supposed to compete for a championship if you're in a city like Toronto or Charlotte, or Houston? You draft a superstar, who will bolt in free agency to join other stars in a large market. You trade for a superstar, who will bolt in free agency to join other stars in a large market. I didn't like the Big 3 in Boston, but at least that was due to trades and not three superstars picking a city to play in together. I fail to see how this is entertaining. It's akin to watching a boxing match between a heavyweight and a featherweight. Sure, there's something to be had in the whole David v Goliath sense (which is why Rockets fans were rooting for Dallas last year), but for the most part it's rather pointless. For whoever called it an inferiority complex; that's pretty telling of yourself. I'm sure it feels good to latch on to a dominant powerhouse. I can understand it, of course. Constantly suffering through the Rockets' mediocrity cannot do good for the soul. So if it makes you feel good to root for the most likely victor, to "belong" to the forgone winner, which, in turn, makes you a winner, I suppose: more power to you, I guess. For me, I'd rather watch a competitive sports league.
Go watch the NHL, the league with the most parity. 9 different champions in the last 9 years since their new CBA. People who bring up parity apparently has NEVER watched the NBA. You have Boston and the Lakers with 10+ championships. There has NEVER been any parity in the NBA. There are ALWAYS only a handful of teams who have a legit shot at the championship before the season starts. You watch the NBA for its excellence, individually and team-wise. The NBA had its HIGHEST ratings in its history when one player/team (the Bulls) dominated the entire league for more than half a decade. Its 2nd best period was when the Lakers/Celtics saw each other in the Finals every other year in the 80s. And now we're entering the 3rd best period of the NBA with the Heat v. the world. Get over it. The NBA never had, and never will have parity.
Yeah... I'm sure Ray Allen is hoping to have fun with the likes of Lebron and DWade while chasing Miami tail. I bet that is exactly what he was thinking. F*** the ring he could win. He just wants to hang wit his new homies. Grow up dude.
So true. Think about it. Early 50s: Lakers dynasty 1960s: Celtics dynasty 1980s: Lakers / Celtics win multiple 'ships 1990s: Bulls dynasty 2000s: Lakers / Spurs win multiple 'ships The league has only had parity for one decade--the 70s. It wasn't so popular then (even though there were EIGHT different NBA champs). 1970: Knicks 1971: Bucks 1972: Lakers 1973: Knicks 1974: Celtics 1975: Warriors 1976: Celtics 1977: Trailblazers 1978: Bullets (Wizards) 1979: SuperSonics (Thunder)
Funny how it went from "All they care about is money, nobody wants to win" to "All they care about is winning, why won't they take our money?"
Sold his soul to the devil for a championship. Gone from loved to hated instantly by the majority of nba fans. I really miss 90's basketball.
I do watch the NHL. It's a much better league, but I like the sport of basketball more. But your logic is flawed. People who bring up parity always comment on the lack of it in the NBA. You're saying it never existed, and therefore those who want parity have never watched the NBA? I didn't realize recognizing a problem with the league meant that you never watched it, but okay. I'm sure these dynasties are great for bandwagon fans like yourself, but what of the rest of us? You know, the ones who want to see their hometown team succeed? Your mindset is absolutely what's wrong with the world. "Oh this is the way it's always been, so therefore it must be right."
