Dude, the crux of both our arguments rest on his words. He may not have repeated those sentiments, but since then, has he said anything else to the contrary? ... or maybe you're the one with special access to his inner thoughts? Keep in mind that without him saying anything to refute or dismiss the quote as "frustration" it's going to be very hard to prove. For your argument (that his primary motivation in obtaining the kicker was to secure a place to "settle down") to succeed, you need his recent words to be untrue - that they were spoken out of frustration. A trade kicker can work two ways as we've discussed: 1) to discourage a trade and 1A) as incentive for a player to seek or force a trade. If what he said is true .. then it casts strong doubt over option #1 leaving option #1A. Through reasonable deduction, you eliminate one motivating factor and what do you have left? (Hint: 15% gravy) It's your prerogative as the President of his "love" club, to give him the benefit of the doubt. So in that respect, this is a dead issue. I shouldn't expect you to drop the love, and I'm certainly not gonna jump on the MJ love train any time soon .... But, get back with me if he does come out and say anything like "Sorry, I spoke in haste. I want to stay in Minnesota and help KG win a championship." I will admit I'm wrong then.
The times we struggled were mainly because of Garnett being awesome, not because of Mike James's great defense.
I'm not expecting nor am I asking you to admit you're wrong. You seem totally content with basing your entire argument off of one quote, which is fine. This is getting more and more pointless. First, you claim that "Me James" is simply a manipulative businessman more than a basketball player. As your support for this argument you chose to bank on (surprise, surpise) this lone apparent world-altering quote. Then, once you realized that wasn't enough you decided to come up with this convoluted definition of what a "trade kicker" really is. Instead of acknowledging the fact that it's general purpose is to provide security and discourage other teams from attempting to trade for a player, you seem determined to now debate NBA salary cap semantics. .....and for one moment let's actually dare to discuss real basketball. Have you actually watched the T-Wolves play? This "aggressive" quote Wittman made was referring to his feeling that as a starter James looked too much to set up for others. Since KG, Ricky Davis and Mark Blount all need plenty of touches to be effective that's obviously going to take away from his production if he's playing the majority of his minutes with the first team. Wittman's goal is bring him off of the bench for an offensive spark and to lend his experience to some of their younger guys like Craig Smith and McCants. The T-Wolves are mediocre, this is just a lateral move to shake things up a bit. Was MJ out of line by creating this little one sentence argument of your's condemning his character? Absolutely. Voicing your displeasure to the media is rarely ever a good thing, however I can understand where he's coming from. He's a tremendous competitor that wants to win. By Wittman demoting him to the bench it can be seen as a move that indirectly labels him a scapegoat. Furthermore, if you're a proven veteran how would you feel if you were demoted on a BAD team in favor of a rookie fresh off of legal trouble? You would question the move too. The good news for T-Wolves fans is he's a professional and will accept the decision. He has made no further suggestions about being unhappy or possibly wanting to be moved since. Let's hope it stays that way.
It's like a rule. It's there for a purpose and 99% of the time it's going to be used for that very reason. I was merely acknowledging your suggestion that this "rule" could potentially be abused and used to a player's advantage. In this case, the advantage is more money. More money in the sense that as if the $5-6M salary isn't enough they must manipulate an NBA franchise by forcing a trade and killing their credibility all for that extra $800K or so for a guy that's already a millionaire.
It's like a rule? ... so it's really not a rule? or is it a rule exclusive to just the MJ "love" club used to deflect accusation of possible Kicker abuse? By the way, it's a 15% raise - not a bonus. So that would be about 800k multiplied by length of contract = ~3.2mil total kicker value ... hardly chump change ... but then, I ain't a multi-millionaire. He may not lose any credibility at all if he can keep his mouth shut. Anyway, some people will even overlook it when he does let the cat out of the bag ... especially those who "love" him.
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#83 Are you for real? It's a contractual stipulation. I was making a simple comparison between a rule and a stipulation since they function the same way. NIT-PICK. Also, if you want to get technical it is indeed called a "bonus". Not a raise, although they essentially mean the same thing in this case. But hey, you're the one nit-picking and trying to shift focus. And you can try to shift your lack of any discernable point to my "love" for him. I guess my blatent obsession with this guy has diluted my common sense and now i'm just blabbing on about nothing. Sure. It makes you sound all that more intelligent. By the way, nice job dodging my earlier post.
And where did I actually make that kind of statement? Thanks. I'll look into it. Although I still think they're decent defensive team, or were under Casey (haven't watched them since).
Are YOU for real? How does that contract stipulation equate to a "rule" that it should only be used to discourage trades and not for financial gain? So it's a "bonus" but the player ain't supposed to view it as a means for financial gain? Once again, Are YOU for real? so the words "raise" and "bonus" mean the same in this instance. Who's nit-picking over semantics now? You simply pointed out only $800k (as if it were a 1 yr bonus) ... This was a 15% bonus that equates to a 15% raise ... You're the one arguing semantics and trying to deflect or minimize the actual value (or finiancial gain) from the kicker.
Alright, i'm done. This is not even worth debating anymore. I can't even make a simple comparison between a contactual stipulation and an everyday "rule" without you going off on some off-topic rampage about nothing. I was talking about a rule. Any normal rule that say's you can do certain things and cannot do others. Rules are bent and broken the same way there are loopholes in contracts. So what I am saying is it is conceivably possible to pull the "loophole" in a rule designed to provide player security and demand a trade to gain monetary value -- but that's it. What you're suggesting would be unprecedented and given the fact that you're only armed with one sentence I will maintain my position that you're pulling this all out of your ass. I promise if you write a book someday on NBA trade kickers and your conspiracy theory behind them i'll buy it. In the meantime, if you want a real tragedy take a look at the likes of Webber, Eddie Jones, Jalen Rose, Michael Finley and guys like that. Players making a ton of money from their previous contracts that either demanded or received buyouts then signed with contenders for even more money. You want to talk about unfair? Nothing has even gone down yet in Minnesota (nor is there any hint) yet you're ready to label this guy a villian. While you're doing that Eddie Jones is making $16M this year to come off the bench for the defending NBA champions.
What if I just write about Mike James' use of the trade kicker ... will you still buy the book? BTW, keep love alive.
