How many people can prove they are the top .01% of their professions? How many normal people beat out a million people for their job? Top .01% of Wall street bankers can get paid millions in bonuses on assets that can become extremely toxic. Top .01% money managers/traders probably will get a large check for their best years even if they lose more money than god the year after. The top .01% of Doctors will probably be able to make incredible bank even if they start to perform sub-par, and insurance + legislation ensures that future poor performance wont hurt the assets they earn in their good years. Top .01% of lawyers will make and be able to charge insane retainers for several years even if they start to go on a losing streak, they'll still make bank for another few years (especially considering how long large cases draws out). Top .01% of politicians (the ones that can get into federal house, senate, or become President) will still have nice cushy lobbying jobs even if they sucked as a politician (sometimes because of it). Top .01% of actors, writers (the ones that get movies made for every book they wrote), directors and etc. will get huge advances and contract even if their future work tanks. Top .01% of educators become university presidents/tenured professors and I think we all know how hard it is to get rid of a tenured professor. The NBA employees the top .01% of basketball players in the world, they beat out millions of people to get that job, then the superstars beat out the rest of one in a million people for one of twenty spots in a career that lasts usually less than 15 years. Don't compare them to normal people, we treat them like gods because they proved they are better than the other millions upon millions of people that tried to do what they do. Edit: Also, it's 0.0001%.
That's kind of the point. They are the best at what they do in the entire NBA. Companies lose their best employees all the time. Ask google. Team owners and GM's now know that they need to step it up to keep their players and I think that's fair.
No. They don't live to entertain us and keep us satisfied with their product. They get paid millions upon millions per year to entertain us and keep us satisfied with their product. And, honestly, if the league doesn't figure out a way to keep things more balanced and competitive, there is no reason to watch. And then the millions aren't there anymore. I'm not a football fan, but the NFL seems to handle things the right way. Free agents can still move about the league but there are no Yankees or Lakers in Football. Every team seems to stand a chance.
He wasn't talking about a particular group of players he was talking in general terms. Its common sense if you sign a contract you honor it. If you have an issue with the terms of your contract then you can exercise your right to find other employment.
I'd still be disgusted. First and foremost I am a fan of competitive basketball. Then, and only after, am I a fan of the Houston Rockets. Basketball is my first love, not this particular team.
When people like us are the reason that they even have a job (lets be serious, most of these guys aren't super students) then we can treat them however we want. He/she who opens their wallet has the power. Don't get it twisted. Yes LeBron triple clutching and slamming is impressive. But if nobody decided they wanted to watch that anymore...then alot of players don't have a job. If the NBA packed up and ended tomorrow, another sport would rise to takes it place. If the NBA's entire audience walks away from the sport...then thats it. It dies a lonely death We live in a CAPITALISTIC society.....money runs everything. And He who has the money is in charge. (I.e. the customer....ever heard the expression the customer is ALWAYS right)
You can't blame other star players for wanting to team up, they know they have no chance at beating heat, celtics and lakers in a 7 game series with all the star power they have, you cant expect them to just stay the course when their team doesn't have a legitimate shot at a championship. It's puzzling how everyone can criticize players for putting themselves in a better position to to win, at the end of the day star players are judged for how many rings they've won not how they've stayed loyal to a franchise that's mediocre.
So if a guy at work(Player) wants a friend(Other Player) to come work with him where together the company(NBA team) can be more successful and have more fun together while arguably making more $ Why would he say no?
If your the customer, yes you can. When you are paying the bills, you have every right to act, think, and be unreasonable. Its not fair, but who ever said life was
How balanced and competitive has the league been in the last 30 years when only 8 teams have won titles? Or when two teams have won more than half of the titles...the same two teams that were rebuilt 3 years ago with bs trades?
League history shows that the NBA makes more $$ (ie more paying customers pay attention) when there are a few dominant teams, aka a dynasty. You think it's a coincidence ratings went up once LA and Boston got superteams again? The league has never been competitive on that way, at least not in the last 3-4 decades.
Nice tidbit......but I don't see how that is relevant to what you replied to. I simply said that when the customer has every right to be unreasonable if he/she desires because they are paying the bills. Do you disagree with this statement?
I agree with that statement. But in the context of this convo, it makes no sense to me that customers would be pissed now when the end result is still the same. And history shows most customers seem to like it that way.* Why are you pissed (not you per se)? Because there are a few superteams and the majority of the league has no shot to win...ie the league really isn't competitive? Ok....exactly what the hell does that change? It has NEVER been competitive. Again, 2 teams have half the titles!! Only 8 cities have won since 1980. The only true difference is now players can decide to team up on their own. The end result is still the same...a few stacked teams with a shot to win. Looks like the 80's, 90's and 00's to me. And if it's ok for the Celtics to be able to trade for KG and Allen in one offseason when they have Pierce then it should be ok for Bron and Bosh to decide to go play with Wade. The same result at the end of the day....just via a different avenue. BUT THE LEAGUE IS STILL THE SAME!!
I've grown irritated with the super team fiasco. Your point about titles is valid, but even though those two teams hold the most titles there was always some element of suspense involved. The way this new trend seems to have the NBA heading will kill all of that suspense for me. The thought of watching the LeBrons, Howards, Durants, Williams's, etc. beat up on the Gibsons, Wests, Lowrys, etc. is not entertaining to me. I wouldn't pay to see that. Basically you would have a few teams buying up ALL the talent. Granted bigger markets will always be a bigger draw, but at least a decade ago, it seemed like smaller market teams at least had a chance....or a struggling team had a shot at being good again. I might be wrong, but I feel that this new trend might destroy what is left of the competitive nature in the NBA. Maybe that has already happened, and I've been fooling myself. Idk. What happens this offseason will probably determine how many more NBA games (if any) I watch in the future.
Your right.......Miami broke no rules by making these trades. However....having 2 of the top 5 players in the NBA on the same team at the same time is just boring to me. Am I being unreasonable.....probably. But, that is my opinion. I wasn't irritated by the move Boston made in 08 because all three of those guys "paid their dues" so to speak and were on the downsides of their careers. Is it fair of me to feel this way......yes and no. It isn't fair because there is no rule in placing saying that is has to be this way. But it is fair because I'm paying to be entertained and I feel that these kind of moves take away from what I want to see...competition.....or at least some level of it.
^^^^^ Please explain what you mean when you say you have grown tired of the super team fiasco, since we have had super teams since the 80s. Even Russells Celtics were a superteams. Are you tired of guys deciding to get on one on their own, instead of the concept of a stacked team? My point is the leagues history is built on superteams.* As far as the suspense in the past...what suspense? Seeing which team would tank to get a star (see the Spurs, Bulls and our Rockets). Seeing what team would be changed by a BS trade (see the current Lakers/Celtics, 95 Rockets, 96-98 Bulls, 80s Celtics, Pistons post bs Sheed trade). Or are you referring to the suspense of teams like LA always reloading?
I'm grown tired of watching top tier players in their prime team up with other players to beat up on inferior players. There is not entertainment in that. I don't think that the top two players in the league ( arguably of course) should be on the same roster. Thats just my opinion. As far as suspense, I'm referring to when it seemed like the teams were a tad more balanced. I miss the dogfight out West ( which is declining due to age and injury) and certain marquee matchups (LeBron v. Wade). If this new trends continues, there will be less LeBron v. Durant and more LeBron v. Sasha Pavlovic (sp). Thats not entertaining. There have always been loaded teams, but when the majority of your top players are spread between 3-4 teams then things can get dull. That is where I think the NBA could be heading. With almost all your top players in NY, MIA, LAL, CHI. Thats dull. Where as now, the talent is kinda spread out. Utah, N.O, SA, LAL, OKC, DAL, POR,NY,ORL,etc. all have at least one player who is all-star caliber. ********* Here is an example of a team that I did not have an issue with: S.A Spurs from their years of dominance: Duncan- HOF lock player, arguably the best at his position. Clearly top-tier league player. Ginobili- All-Star caliber...certainly not a lock for the HOF. Parker- See above.
Exactly, the customer is in charge and we are in a capitalistic society, customers want super stars, super stars are in demand. NBA superstars are a demanded supply (like diamonds and gold), thus they are/can demand what they want. If people decide that they want a product, then the demand will decrease and supply starts to worth less. But just like you wont sell gold for less because you anticipate a stronger dollar when the dollar is weak, players wont demand less when they have leverage. Also if the NBA becomes less profitable for the players to play in, they will go to something thing else, ie. playing Europe, or you might see some of the top athletes in the U.S. focus back more on baseball/football/soccer (if players see going to premier league as a viable career).
