What I think is the worst about this, is that Dream SPOKE to the media about it, not just because media can spin things, but because that's just not a professional manner. Yes, the Rockets owe Dream a lot, but Dream should be loyal to the organization. We can't control what he wants to do. But, there's a huge difference between him talking to Les, CD, and Rudy behind the scenes, and something leaking, with no quotes, or anything, or Hakeem speaking directly to the media. This isn't about Rudy or Riley. Players compliment other coaches all the time, and I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with him leaking "confidential" information, which complicates the Rockets situation as far as possible trades, and PR work. The difference? Instead of looking like a mutual breakoff around the league, it would look like Hakeem twisted the Rockets' arm hard enough, and got what he wanted. ------------------ The Serious Police are watching. Follow the rules or be assimilated. Shandon is underrated.
You know what I can't believe? I can't believe I read this entire post and didn't puke once! Next thread... ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
If I'm paying you $16 million, and you signed a contract to play basketball, then you fulfill that contract. End of story. ------------------ "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and STATISTICS..." - Mark Twain -
I don't get how people can possibly compare NBA contracts to regular job contracts for Joe Public... The CBA stipulates that NBA contracts are guaranteed---almost all the time, the few exceptions being for marginal players involved for one-year scrub free agent contracts...this is not the case in the NFL and other pro sports. Sure, when I want to quit my job I can whenever I want, and for me at least, there would be no moral or ethical bones about it. But that's because my soon-to-be former employer is not obligated to pay me once I demand "my release." With Hakeem, there is that ethical concern since he's going to be getting paid REGARDLESS. Hey, I have no problem if Dream wants to be released, but as I wrote in another post, he should either give the money due him for the remainder of his contract back to Les or to a charity of some sort. ------------------
TheFreak Nigerian *ss is a Racial slur? It is an insult to be sure but not a Racial Slur If he would have used that OTHER N-word then I can be with you on that The fact is. . . Hakeem *is* Nigerian and Calling someone a nigerian IS NOT AN INSULT If you use it as an INSULT then I would have to worry about your racial biases. MOVING ON I think this whole thing has been mishandled for a while. Hakeem SHOULD NOT have asked to be waived. To use my job as an example. . . .I say I QUIT but please pay me for the rest of the year WHAT THE H*LL IS THAT? Hakeem says ok . . .TRADE ME .. but not to the clippers/boston/or anywhere that is out of the playoff picture again WHAT? like telling your girlfriend we breaking up . . . hook me up with your friend BUT NOT THE UGLY ONEs and by the way . . . You get my friend here that is worse than I am and be stuck with him for 4~5 yrs If you and ya GF had a nce relationship for 15+ yrs it still does not make it right You cannot [At least IMO] say. . . well you gotta do this because I took you to Paris I got you those nice rings. . .I did this and I did that . . . Rocket River I'll always be a Hakeem fan but he has mishandled this situation and it will stain his glory ------------------
"Indentured servant"? Man, that crap really burns me up. We live in such a pampered society now that people go around complaining about "high-paid slavery" and "indentured servitude" among pro athletes who are making seven and eight figures a year. Go read about slavery in a book, or watch a documentary about it, or talk to some old person whose grandparent was a slave or an indentured servant. Real slaves and indentured servants were treated like cattle and commonly died of abuse or neglect. They did not sign contracts for $16M a year -- because they WANTED to guarantee themselves an extra year of megabucks in their declining days -- and then moan that they were being paid to do nothing. It's like we've lost all sense of shame in this country. A man signed a contract to do a job for a guaranteed $16M this year. Either he was swindling his employer, or he was promising to deliver $16M worth of performance. He is failing to deliver that performance, and he can't be traded for reasonable compensation precisely because he locked his employer into that $16M. So until and unless he delivers the performance he promised, he is being given the barbaric punishment of having to collect his $16M for doing nothing. And we compare him to an indentured servant. Incredible.
Okay, my left knee has a strange buzzing feeling to it, but the Hefeweizen makes everything else okay. I think I've fairly read over each and everyone's angry rants (God I love UT, it seems as if people actually choose to be fetching happy here). I find it enlightening that I now agree w/ a longtime hangout combatant (TheFreak) as well as a Karl Malone lover (Juan). Although this issue is probably old in everyone's eyes (since you probably got over it in the past 12 hours), I'm going to summarize what I think are the outstanding arguments: 1) Will is upset about Dubya and takes it out on me merely b/c I'm a moderate. 2) Dream's loyalty, and some bs about a Toronto trade. 3) A player's contractual obligations. 1) Now I honestly have no idea as to what the hell Will is talking about, but I'm fairly confident it is in the wrong forum. Seriously though, I'd like to thank TheFreak at least, for reading words in the context of a paragraph. I do still think Will's cool though, since he's a MJ Hellraiser. I also got points w/ the wife when we listened to him on NPR. 2) As far as 'Loyalty' goes, I'd like to say that I'm bummed about not getting points for my attempt at humor. Merely b/c I'm annoying, I'll tell my joke again and look around the room checking for smirks: I watched Dream say on espn, the jim rome show, etc. that had he been traded he would have seriously considered retiring. IMO, that sounds like a hell of a deal killer so you can dispense w/ the 'loyalty' bs now. Toronto wasn't going to trade Willis + Christie + 5 + 12 just to see Dream quit. Besides, ask Otis Thorpe about 'loyalty'. Ask Othella how much he trusted the Rockets right up until he found out about his new home. 3) A player's contractual obligation. Essentially, when a player and team make an agreement, both sides take on various risks. This is by far the most convincing argument that the Dream bashers pose. Now I personally haven't been on too many of the meetings that Les, Dream, CD and Rudy have had discussing Dream's future. Heypartner extended the invitation, but I wasn't about to show until Les himself invited me. What I have surmised from the media has clued me in on a few things that may be going through Dream's mind: a) The Rockets offered to buy out the Dream over the summer. Hell, I wonder if it was for less than eight million? b) Matt Maloney, tough guy, NSync. c) Don McClean, drug addict. d) Stacey Augmon, Cliff Robinson wannabe. e) Brian Shaw, NBA champion. f-bb) Countless other contracts that the Rockets have discarded. cc) Personal friendship w/ Les Alexander, the owner and money behind the Houston Rockets. dd) TO the Kid has the audacity to wave him out of the post. Again, I may be wrong. I wouldn't want to make unfair assessments on a situation that I'm not part of. However, I think that you guys may be a bit unfair. Remember when theCabbage posted something about staying above the fray regarding Dream? I think it's awesome advice. ------------------ I keep plugging away, but I just can't get a 3 way to work on realwife.com
a) The Rockets offered to buy out the Dream over the summer. Hell, I wonder if it was for less than eight million? b) Matt Maloney, tough guy, NSync. c) Don McClean, drug addict. d) Stacey Augmon, Cliff Robinson wannabe. e) Brian Shaw, NBA champion. f-bb) Countless other contracts that the Rockets have discarded This is all irrelevent. The Rockets have the right to pay people for not playing, if they choose to. Players shouldn't expect the Rockets to pay them for not playing, or worse, for playing for another team. However, I think that you guys may be a bit unfair. Remember when theCabbage posted something about staying above the fray regarding Dream? I think it's awesome advice. Why is he "off-limits"? We criticize / comment on anyone and everyone else - why not Hakeem? Is he somehow a better person than everyone else because he happened to be a great basketball player? Inquiring minds would like to know ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
Look for the good, Achebe, look for the good... just not from shanna. . How is 'a)' not relevant? He was offered money to not play at the beginning of the year... it sounds exactly what you guys are moaning about right now. It also sounds as if something that Dream, since he's a logical human, would think of as a basis for his release request recently (alliteration ). Besides, you ignored my most salient point. Someone that argues a point (i.e. Dream is a bad person b/c of issue x) has to have proof behind such a claim. You... have no proof. Rudy reminded your side (read the quotes in Clutch's posts) that you're not privy to the conversations... you don't know what's going on and therefore should quit making an ass of yourself. ------------------ I keep plugging away, but I just can't get a 3 way to work on realwife.com
How is 'a)' not relevant? He was offered money to not play at the beginning of the year... it sounds exactly what you guys are moaning about right now. (a) is not relevent because that is a ROCKETS OPTION. It's not Hakeem's choice whether he gets to have his contract bought out or not. Someone that argues a point (i.e. Dream is a bad person b/c of issue x) has to have proof behind such a claim. You... have no proof. LOL, it doesn't work this way. We make assumptions about people ALL the time. Other athletes (Allen Iverson comes to mind in particular), Politicians (have you ever said anything about ... oh, GW Bush?), and any other public figure... and its NEVER based on all the information. To say we suddenly shouldn't do it in this case is silly, unless you're willing to never form opinions about any athlete. Why don't you argue that people shouldn't say Cato is lazy? Or Walt sucks? Or Francis is a good kid? Why are all these character judgements OK to make even though we don't have all the facts, but not one that Hakeem is being selfish, or whatever the case may be? As humans, we form opinions about people all over the place, and it is never based on all the facts. I fail to see why its suddenly so wrong now. Rudy reminded your side (read the quotes in Clutch's posts) that you're not privy to the conversations... you don't know what's going on and therefore should quit making an ass of yourself. Besides, if this is true, why are you making statements such as: I watched Dream say on espn, the jim rome show, etc. that had he been traded he would have seriously considered retiring. IMO, that sounds like a hell of a deal killer so you can dispense w/ the 'loyalty' bs now. You weren't privy to all the information behind the scenes here, yet you felt comfortable enough to make the the judgement that we can "dispense w/ the 'loyalty' bs now". How exactly is your inference any better or more valid than ours? ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
I didn't say it was Dream's option to have his contract bought out, did I? I've never argued that. Please reread my posts shanna, I was making the argument that such and such might be going through his mind. I personally could give a crap whether or not Dream is traded, waived or thrown on IR for the year. I was merely trying to argue against the maniacal rants that had flooded the bbs. People have argued that Dream is a horrible person b/c he even mentioned being waived. He's horrible b/c he complimented Pat. He's horrible b/c he's 38. Give me a break. Point. I consider Dream saying to the media that he would have retired had he been traded a matter of fact. A poster here a long time ago mentioned (as did m&m) that the trade fell through when Dream demanded an extension and that when Toronto balked he said 'no way'. These are premises that everyone on this bbs accepts. I'm not sure if they're true, but I was trying to convince m&m that using his premises, that the Rockets weren't necessarily loyal. I'm suggesting that given these premises that the Rockets weren't loyal, that the trade merely didn't work. Is that coherent? Do you think the Rockets were 'loyal' to Dream given that scenario? [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited February 02, 2001).]
I find it weak too, I just let it slide in the hangout b/c she's a democrat. ------------------ I keep plugging away, but I just can't get a 3 way to work on realwife.com
Dang. I've seen folks use the word "liberal" as a substitute for answering a political argument. But this is the first time (well, the second, if you count Freak's post) I've seen it used as a substitute for answering a sports argument. I guess this is why Rush Limbaugh didn't work out as a MNF commentator. Michaels: "Rush, looking at these numbers, wouldn't you have to say that this has been one of the most porous defenses the Cowboys have fielded in recent years?" Limbaugh: "Still sore about Florida, eh, Al? Pretty funny to hear a liberal complaining about soft defense."
LOL Will, but I was thrown so far back by your rant I figured that I'd be cute about it and rehash TheFreak's attempt at humor. I still think that you were being unfair to the context of my original post. I also won't play the game 'who has met more racists or classists' w/ you (since you so kindly suggested that I go and fill my pampered mind w/ news about the real world). ------------------ I keep plugging away, but I just can't get a 3 way to work on realwife.com
Oh yeah, I forgot that I have to disarm periphery arguments: I agree. I'm sorry Will that I used the term(s) 'indentured servant'. That was very offensive. I didn't mean to liken a spoiled brat like that mother f@#$er Hakeem to the plight of an indentured servant. Do you have any comments about my arguments about 'contractual obligation' and how they tie to a retiring player that has been offered a buyout before? Thanks in advance. ------------------ I keep plugging away, but I just can't get a 3 way to work on realwife.com
OK, let's set aside the "rants" and deal with this question of the buyout. What was the amount offered? Do you know? I don't know, but we can deduce that it was significantly less than the $16M he was due for the year. And since it didn't end up happening, we can deduce that Hakeem rejected the offer. By doing so, he forced the Rockets to pay him the $16M and, in turn, he committed to play for the Rockets. Now he's trying to have it both ways: collect the $16M and NOT play for the Rockets. What are the arguments in his defense? 1. Screw the money. At this point, he'd rather play more minutes elsewhere and forego the $16M. Answer: Too late. By refusing the buyout, he guaranteed himself the $16M and guaranteed that the Rockets couldn't recover any of it by releasing him. AND he tied their hands as far as trading him. 2. He deserved better options than having to choose between the buyout and serving out the final year of his contract. Answer: He waived those options in exchange for the $16M when he signed the contract. The logic of advancing age surely implies that it was his idea, not the team's, to add that year to the contract. Bottom line: Hakeem has absolutely no one to blame but himself. He locked the Rockets into a $16M contract for this year. Evidently, that deal was a mistake on both sides. The Rockets are living up to their end of the deal. Hakeem isn't. If he wanted to be traded for anything approaching equal value, all he had to do this year was play REMOTELY well enough to justify his salary. Explain to me who, other than the man himself, is responsible for the fact that he hasn't.
Isn't the "Hakeem is contractually obligated to play for the Rockets" a "rationalist" argument, rather than a "homer" argument? I don't have a problem with that argument. It's tough to beat. But if I was going to throw that out there, I think I would have also been against the Rockets' acquisition of Steve Francis, because he did not live up to his obligation to the NBA to play for whomever selected him in the draft. If I was going to be RATIONAL and slam Hakeem for not wanting to honor his obligations, I would also not support the acquistion by the Rockets of a player who refused to do the same. This includes Francis as well as BARKLEY, who forced a trade out of Phoenix, thus choosing not to honor his obligations to that club. Another problem with the contract argument, is that Hakeem has already honored his contract. His salary now is BACK PAY. If you're going to say it's not, you're going to have to come up with a reason why the Rockets thought that Hakeem would be worth 16 million at the age of 38. In other words, Hakeem has already earned his money many times over. The Rockets knew that when they agreed to his last contract. They KNEW he wasn't going to be worth it in his last year, or probably his last few years.
