I would scream every time I hear people compare NBA players to slaves. It is an utter insult to the real slaves in the world. Do you know how they are being treated? The fundamental principle of slavery is that they are owned like a thing, which means they CANNOT QUIT. They have NO CHOICE in what kind of work they perform. NBA players have plenty of choices. They can quit any time they want. But why don't they quit? Oh yeah, there are tens of million reasons they don't want to quit even when they don't like the team they play for. Most of us would give a nut to be an NBA player. And the real slaves out there would give both of their nuts to be us.
Nobody should get mad at players trying to work in their chosen city. Nobody should get mad at teams not wanting to accommodate them. Both sides are empowered, both can do whatever they want. The player has a say in his livelihood, there's no reason for them not to try to alter it as they see fit, contract be damned. The team has a say as well. Harden wants to move cities, Lillard wants to move cities - it's fine, they don't owe you anything. They don't even owe the team anything. Even if you accept a contract for X million dollars you don't really forfeit the right to want to change it - the other party should have put that in the contract if they wanted it. Likewise there's nothing wrong with the teams driving hard bargains. It's just the system we have and they're working within it.
I could be persuaded to agree that it's fine for players to try and force their way out of cities after signing contracts - however, in the rare cases that they choose to sit out they should not get paid as they are not providing the services agreed upon in the contract. Also given that the value of sports are mostly in their ability to entertain and allow people to practice their beloved tribalism, I have a harder time seeing why fans shouldn't get "mad" if their preferred player decides to leave their city. Fans have far more incentive to align with the owners versus the players in these situations, especially in circumstances where it results in the franchise taking back diminished value. My argument is that "player empowerment" (under the guise of "pretend you're a free agent when you're not") is contrary to the goal of a competitive league and should result in some sort of tampering cost to the acquiring team, similar to the reward for an RFA being signed to an offer sheet.
The business leveraging between players and ownership is fair game. But from the fans' perspective, it is unethical for the players to sabotage their performances either by sitting out or by half-assing/fat-suiting, when they are making tons of money from the fans who pay to watch them perform.
My argument is that players are employees - or more accurately, self organizing agents and it's absolutely fine for employees/agents - to try to improve their station as they see fit. The system in place circumscribes their ability to do so, but it's absolutely fine for them to try it Too many fans approach from a lens of "OMG that ungrateful b*stard gets paid so much to play a game and im stuck down at Piggly wiggly!" First, the ungrateful b*stard gets nothing compared to the even less ungrateful bastards that pay him, but second and way more importantly - empathy is very helpful here By empathy i don't mean sympathy i mean understanding other agents actions in the context of their own goals and motivations as a way of making sense of the world. Not as a way to make friends and influence people like some ****in sociopath - but in a way to go through the world without getting super upset about things not really worth getting upset about.
Can't believe I had to argue with people on why Harden wasn't the guy to lead/transistion this young group towards a winning franchise again. Some were ok with us giving him the MAX lmfao.
If the Rockets had gotten Harden at a reasonable number (probably not the 4 year max) - somethign that seems more likely now given his dissatisfaction with Philadelphia - none of this other stuff would have happened and the entire offseason would have gone differently. People are too quick to run counterfactuals that are too far removed from reality to have any credence.
So you think if Harden had opted out of his contract and signed somewhere else- he still would demand a trade from Philly to the Clippers ? Tell me how that works
People already feel burned from Harden's trade request three years ago. Just because he might have had some short honeymoon period here doesn't mean his return would have been a success. Harden's blow up with a third team in three years doesn't inspire confidence. Yeah, Harden wouldn't have requested a trade from Philadelphia if he signed with us. That doesn't mean he'd be happy here in the long term and you know it. A lot of people don't want to deal with that uncertainty.
Fair enough observation, I guess I'm saying that on the alternate timeline the vibes in the short term are different (and probably the whole team is different with a different coach etc). But whatever its in the past as an alternate history - I don't see anyone still discussing it as a possibility (other than those that need validation or vindication - hello @xaos ! ) He's gone and unlikely to come back. Doesn't really even have anything to do with the Rockets anymore (other than the drama involving Rockets Legends)
I was a proponent of bringing back Harden. I have no problem looking at current events and thinking "we potentially dodged a huge bullet". And if Harden somehow ends up being on a rebuilding team like Charlotte and ends up being a positive factor, that'll come up too. You can't just expect a 222 page debate like this to die because of hurt pride. The thread title makes the topic very clear. Anyone who doesn't want to discuss it anymore should just not click.
