PDA

View Full Version : Gilbert Arenas on lockout: "Blame the bidders"



beasted86
07-11-2011, 12:10 AM
i read a article yesterday that said im the poster boy for what the owners are complaining about..this will be the last time i talk about this..if u dont get it this time…sorry i cant help u understand. imma explain it in everyday terms..if i put a shoe on ebay..and i spent 100 dollars for it…and now people are biding on that shoe..and 2 people push the bid to 200 dollars but the shoe is only worth 100 dollars…dont get mad at the shoes get mad at the bidders. so if im a free agent and 28owners say im worth 50mil but 2 owners really want me and they start tryn to out bid each other and now im worth 85 mil becuz they pushed the value of me up..and now other free agents have a maker to go by so players who are better then me hav to get paid more then me..so one bad contract sets the playing field for future free agents…so instead of attacking the free agent go after the real problem..the bidders…so if sumone wants to give me 85 mil but im only worth 50..the 29 other owners should pull out there rolled up news papers and say “BAD DOG”lol and start hittn..but they dont so they wanna make it seem like were walkin in there and takin there check books and signing our own deals….rich ppl cant control rich ppl so they attack the workers..if they come together and stop over spending on players then we wouldnt need a lockout..if i offered u guys 100 mil right now ..100 percent of u would say hell yea…and i know u would becuz i give out free shoes and 30 thousand ppl try to answer the question each day…so lets stop lying to our selves..at the end of the day..the owners that over pay will keep over paying becuz they can..and the other owner will suffer..

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/7/1/2254117/2011-nba-lockout-explained-gilbert-arenas

http://twitter.com/#!/agentzeroshow


Kinda jumbled, but it makes sense. And just when you thought it was over....


So I don't see it ending sooner. Trust me, they're gonna sit back and let us kill ourselves like last time. So I'm gonna tell y'all the truth, but no disrespecting anybody. There's no need for all that. If you're boss wants to pay you less he has a right to try and do so. [But] even if they have pay cuts then what? Are they gonna give out free food with all the extra money they're gettng? Ummmm no. They're gonna get a new 20 million dollar scoreboards and still scream we're losing money...

^Funny, but true.

sf-fanatic
07-11-2011, 01:27 AM
Gilbert knows exactly what hes talking about this time. Couldn't agree more.

D1JM
07-11-2011, 01:57 AM
For example, Luke Walton with the lakers. He is getting the full MLE just to chill in the bench. He's not even worth the vet min

sf-fanatic
07-11-2011, 02:12 AM
For example, Luke Walton with the lakers. He is getting the full MLE just to chill in the bench. He's not even worth a d-league contract.

Fixed

Tony_Starks
07-11-2011, 02:35 AM
Gil is dead on. Look at Rudy Gays deal. Or Iggy's. Ben Gordon. Charlie V.... These guys make stupid deals but then it's the players fault....

JNA17
07-11-2011, 03:06 AM
Well what do you know, he's not as dumb as he looks after all :). Way to go Gil, dead on!

LA_Raiders
07-11-2011, 03:16 AM
true... I hope the union realizes that they dont own the NBA and settle for whats fare for the "Sport"

sventhedog
07-11-2011, 03:36 AM
impressive. lol.

even if your brain fails 99 times out of a 100. it would still work at one time.

all of us dumb people now have hope! cheers!

shifty
07-11-2011, 03:51 AM
He doesn't mention that this particular shoe is damaged goods, DOA and should be refunded

Antipod
07-11-2011, 04:24 AM
Nothing new here)

Whatever the new CBA will be, we`ll still have over paid players ... but maybe in a lesser amount that we have now

NYKalltheway
07-11-2011, 04:58 AM
watch out owners... he's got a gun :)

Khalifa21
07-11-2011, 06:22 AM
I've been saying this forever... Do you really think someone like Joe Johnson would turn down $120m at the age of 29? No.. Of course not, that puts him and his family in absolute comfort for the rest of his life. You can't blame the guy for taking that money and spending the next 6 years with the broadest smile you'll ever see.

It's the owners fault they offer these ridiculous contracts... You'd think people with the amount of money to own a team would've only got there through savvy and intelligent investments but here they are overpaying guys left, right and center. They all seem to make the same mistakes and now the players and fans have to suffer from the owners financial ignorance.

knicksfan42
07-11-2011, 07:15 AM
Gilbert is the biggest buffoon I have ever seen, yes he's the poster boy for the owners complaints ,because at the time he signed his contract he was worth the money, then got injured for two straight seasons and then the following season missed the majority of the season due to FELONY ****ING GUN POSSESSION. So his contract was guaranteed despite him getting convicted for felony gun possession a crime which he committed in a locker room so at his job.

cheetos185
07-11-2011, 08:43 AM
he's right owners overpay but than some players like arenas houstan mcdyss curry yao ming get injured out of shape and than what it kills the team because of salary cap

barreleffact
07-11-2011, 08:52 AM
Gilbert is the biggest buffoon I have ever seen, yes he's the poster boy for the owners complaints ,because at the time he signed his contract he was worth the money, then got injured for two straight seasons and then the following season missed the majority of the season due to FELONY ****ING GUN POSSESSION. So his contract was guaranteed despite him getting convicted for felony gun possession a crime which he committed in a locker room so at his job.

I still don't understand why the Wizards neglected to void his contract after the weapon incident.

rwynyc
07-11-2011, 10:57 AM
I get the feeling this guy beats his dogs. Always using the bad dog hit him thing

Gibby23
07-11-2011, 11:46 AM
Gilbert is the biggest buffoon I have ever seen, yes he's the poster boy for the owners complaints ,because at the time he signed his contract he was worth the money, then got injured for two straight seasons and then the following season missed the majority of the season due to FELONY ****ING GUN POSSESSION. So his contract was guaranteed despite him getting convicted for felony gun possession a crime which he committed in a locker room so at his job.

That was all on the Wiz, Gil wasn't worht a Max contract in 2008. He was coming off 2 knee operations in an 8 month span and missed most of the 2007-2008 season. Washington messed up.

AddiX
07-11-2011, 12:22 PM
It's true too, once the owners get there way with the players they are going to say there operational costs are too high. Theres always some where they are going to try and cut corners to raise profit.

Screw the owners, any team not completely in the slumps costs a fortune to see live once your done tallying up all the costs of going to a game.

AddiX
07-11-2011, 12:24 PM
As much as Gil might be the face of what's wrong with player pay,

Bron isnthe face of what's wrong on the players side. Cleveland would of paid doubled a max contract to pay him and it would of been worth it for that franchise.

Jordan was banking 30 mill some years. Never heard anyone complain about that.

Crackadalic
07-11-2011, 12:52 PM
As much of a douch Arenas is he's right.

COOLbeans
07-11-2011, 12:58 PM
I still don't understand why the Wizards neglected to void his contract after the weapon incident.

because that would be ****** up and a terrible business decision.

jiggin
07-11-2011, 01:04 PM
i don't think anyone should take advice or the opinion of Mr. Arenas. He should stick to his day job...which right now is hanging out at home.

He isn't a business man for a reason...

KnicksR4Real
07-11-2011, 01:11 PM
great grammar. but he is very true

ackar
07-11-2011, 01:16 PM
Also the real drive for the lockout is Profit sharing between big markets and small markets.
No matter what the salary cap or financial structure the teams will over pay.

albertc86
07-11-2011, 01:16 PM
The players have to give in, in my opinion. I think after this lockout, the owners will actually smarten up and start paying players what they actually deserve (less). Especially these one-hit wonders that have great contract years then play like crap for the duration of their contract. I understand why big market teams or the better teams in the league overpay but I'll never understand why the underperforming teams do; there's absolutely no profit to be had there.

If the LEAGUE wants to profit and make the players happy then they should follow through with contraction. Drop the underperforming teams and disperse the talent. This will bring some parity back to the league and do away with this diluted talent pool in the NBA. I think we can agree that some players have no business being in the NBA.

Slimsim
07-11-2011, 01:19 PM
i don't think anyone should take advice or the opinion of Mr. Arenas. He should stick to his day job...which right now is hanging out at home.

He isn't a business man for a reason...

Even you have to admit that he is right on the money with this one

heattiltheend94
07-11-2011, 01:30 PM
wow, Im impressed. Completely correct

TO to the CHI
07-11-2011, 01:32 PM
great grammar. but he is very true

This is very funny.

jiggin
07-11-2011, 01:36 PM
Even you have to admit that he is right on the money with this one

sure, he is spelling out the situation in layman's terms...but...

...what he is saying is EXACTLY why they want a cap. The owners can't really police themselves in a competitive league. And when the owners (few but there are some) that are making money start throwing it around...that's when the $$$ go up and teams that aren't making hand over fist have to bail out, making the league less competitive.

A hard cap would solve this, allow the self-policing of owners to stop and for them to not have any wiggle room on breaking that cap. Much harder to stack teams this way, making the league more competitive. Its much harder to drive the $$$ up in a bidding war if you can't sign the player because you already have too much on your books.

This would also help the teams turn a profit quicker, allowing them to eventually raise that cap if they need to and get the players more money on their contracts...but...baby steps first. That hard cap needs to be put in place to right the league.

So...yes, while he is correct in his really weird and layman's terms example...he is only supporting the need for a hard cap by making these kind of comments. THAT IS WHY he is the poster child for a hard cap...because a bidding war would have never happened if one was in place.

NYKalltheway
07-11-2011, 01:39 PM
he's right owners overpay but than some players like arenas houstan mcdyss curry yao ming get injured out of shape and than what it kills the team because of salary cap

and how is that the player's fault? It's the owners that guarantee them that much money for that many years

jiggin
07-11-2011, 01:44 PM
and how is that the player's fault? It's the owners that guarantee them that much money for that many years

which could easily be corrected with non-guaranteed contracts and a hard cap to protect the owners that sign players (from injury issues) and the owners that don't sign him ( from bidding wars ).

See...the easy solution in almost all of these situations ends with the same thing...hard cap and/or non-guaranteed contracts.

jimm120
07-11-2011, 02:11 PM
He is right to a certain extent.

But he isn't analyzing what the owners are doing correctly.

The owners ARE trying to cut down on "bidding". The system right now allows for such bidding to occur. But if there are better rules that don't allow for bids to go up that much, then they can make that $50 million dollar player only be a $50 million dollar player.

The owners ARE doing something to cut back on that. They are trying to put restrictions on the bids. Of course, putting restrictions on the bids, affects player salaries, which is what the players don't want.

By telling the players to take paycuts, the owners are also putting in systems which don't allow them to overbid for things.

Arenas analyzed it perfectly until that last part about "hit the owner, not the player". By "punishing" the owner, the players are punished too because of the reduced ability to overbid, which lowers player salaries, which is what the players don't want.

jimm120
07-11-2011, 02:20 PM
sure, he is spelling out the situation in layman's terms...but...

...what he is saying is EXACTLY why they want a cap. The owners can't really police themselves in a competitive league. And when the owners (few but there are some) that are making money start throwing it around...that's when the $$$ go up and teams that aren't making hand over fist have to bail out, making the league less competitive.

A hard cap would solve this, allow the self-policing of owners to stop and for them to not have any wiggle room on breaking that cap. Much harder to stack teams this way, making the league more competitive. Its much harder to drive the $$$ up in a bidding war if you can't sign the player because you already have too much on your books.

This would also help the teams turn a profit quicker, allowing them to eventually raise that cap if they need to and get the players more money on their contracts...but...baby steps first. That hard cap needs to be put in place to right the league.

So...yes, while he is correct in his really weird and layman's terms example...he is only supporting the need for a hard cap by making these kind of comments. THAT IS WHY he is the poster child for a hard cap...because a bidding war would have never happened if one was in place.


AH. I see someone mentioned it before me.

EXACTLY. How will the owners stop giving out big contracts and stop overbidding? Well, make restrictions that stop the giving of those contracts. Unfortunately, that will affect the players' salaries. But

-players acknowledge that the teams are giving too much money,
-players want the owners to wise up to fix the problem
-Owners try to put in rules so they don't give too much money
-players go and say, "no, we want our money".


c'mon. I personally think that contracts shouldn't be guaranteed as they are. I don't like how Football does it, but a system that after 2 years a team can void a contract would be great. Or something along those lines.

DaBUU
07-11-2011, 02:40 PM
agreed, Gilbert. I've been saying this for a long time, idiot owners want to be saved from their own idiocy.

ttam68
07-11-2011, 02:42 PM
With the BRI distribution set does it even matter in this context? People seem to think that if Gilbert had a smaller contract owners would save money. In reality, they'd still pay out the same amount to players as a whole.

EvanTurner
07-11-2011, 03:12 PM
this would be so simple if there contracts were like the nfl. the signing bonus is guaranteed but the entire contract is not. You perform you get paid......period

jiggin
07-11-2011, 03:20 PM
this would be so simple if there contracts were like the nfl. the signing bonus is guaranteed but the entire contract is not. You perform you get paid......period

and that is one option the owners are pursuing...of course, the players are incredibly against that and do not want to have that in the CBA at all. :facepalm:

cheetos185
07-11-2011, 04:35 PM
this would be so simple if there contracts were like the nfl. the signing bonus is guaranteed but the entire contract is not. You perform you get paid......period

that would be good solution max 4 years with signing bonus and if they get into serious injury or go eddy curry route the team can void there contract

beasted86
07-11-2011, 07:22 PM
He is right to a certain extent.

But he isn't analyzing what the owners are doing correctly.

The owners ARE trying to cut down on "bidding". The system right now allows for such bidding to occur. But if there are better rules that don't allow for bids to go up that much, then they can make that $50 million dollar player only be a $50 million dollar player.

The owners ARE doing something to cut back on that. They are trying to put restrictions on the bids. Of course, putting restrictions on the bids, affects player salaries, which is what the players don't want.

By telling the players to take paycuts, the owners are also putting in systems which don't allow them to overbid for things.

Arenas analyzed it perfectly until that last part about "hit the owner, not the player". By "punishing" the owner, the players are punished too because of the reduced ability to overbid, which lowers player salaries, which is what the players don't want.

Actually this is completely false.

Nowhere publicly have I seen published that owners are trying to lower max salaries.... which is the point you are getting at of limiting their bids. Lowering the max salary for each player by year would do just that... but that's not what the owners want.

The owners only want to "own" the players on where the cap is set, revenue sharing, and non-guaranteed contracst. All of this points to the idea that they still want to 'overpay' to keep the guys they want, but then if something comes up be able to get rid of their mistake quicker than before, that's all.

There will still be overpaying in the new system regardless.

njnets
07-11-2011, 09:05 PM
although it is not in the best form of writing, he is making a great point. good for him to speak up. its a bidding war for FAs. he explains it pretty well.

he is a buffoon sometimes but this time he is dead on.

aztr0
07-12-2011, 04:13 PM
The man does questionable things, but the way he explains the situation is true.