PDA

View Full Version : Less money to win OR More money to be the man?



beasted86
09-29-2012, 11:56 AM
Which type of player would you have more respect for?

Player A:
Left a playoff caliber team they played on for some time (at least 3 seasons) to take below their market value to play on a championship caliber team, but will be less of a focal point.

Common examples: LeBron James to Miami, Chris Bosh to Miami, Artest to LA

Player B:
Left a deep playoff team they played on for some time (at least 3 seasons) to get as much money as they could from a lottery team, but will also embrace being "the man" or more of a focal point.

Common examples: Joe Johnson to Atlanta, McGrady to Orlando, Stoudemire to NYK.

Both scenarios are via regular free agency not a forced buyout.

ATX
09-29-2012, 12:01 PM
Player A

These players are already making stupid money, and if it's all about money, then winning will help get themselves more exposure and thus more marketing opportunities. Lottery teams don't get national TV coverage. There is certainly something to be said for the value of self sacrifice for a greater good, and in this case winning...and that's really what it's supposed be all about. Legacy's are left by rings, not stats or contracts.

BklynKnicks3
09-29-2012, 12:05 PM
it depends on the situation If iam a top 5 player who made his money and all he needs is a ring then id take a cut. I would never be a coward like lebron thoe but in the after math u have no choice of joining other stars with all these damn super teams

IndyRealist
09-29-2012, 12:52 PM
Player C: on a deep playoff team and resigns with them. Ex. Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Reggie Miller.

I know it'ls not the point of the thread, I just wanted to mention that it DOES happen from time to time. It's not always about money, or chasing rings, or being the man.

RaiderLakersA's
09-29-2012, 03:02 PM
It depends.

Are both players already set for life? Have they earned enough financially to take care of their family and the next generation after that? If so, then I respect them both equally.

But if not, then I respect Player B more.

Ebbs
09-29-2012, 03:10 PM
Winning should be more important than cash. Especially since they're all getting paid.

abe_froman
09-29-2012, 03:18 PM
a. really isnt isnt making less money,sure their nba salary is less but they more than make up for it with the bigger exposure and the increase in endorsements that come with that

naps
09-29-2012, 03:23 PM
Option A. What's up with If they are set for life BS?? They are all getting paid tons of millions even after a pay cut.


it depends on the situation If iam a top 5 player who made his money and all he needs is a ring then id take a cut. I would never be a coward like lebron thoe but in the after math u have no choice of joining other stars with all these damn super teams

Oh the irony! He MAD!

topdog
09-29-2012, 03:39 PM
I respect guys who want to win above all else (especially considering "pay cuts" mean something like $15-17M instead of $20M). There is one caveat though: no one year contracts at the minimum.

Im_in_Mia_bish
09-29-2012, 03:39 PM
A for Apple.

Stress
09-29-2012, 03:41 PM
Player B.
The window to make alot of money as an athlete is small.
I can understand it. I don't knock players looking out for themselves.

likemystylez
09-29-2012, 03:53 PM
Player C: on a deep playoff team and resigns with them. Ex. Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Reggie Miller.

I know it'ls not the point of the thread, I just wanted to mention that it DOES happen from time to time. It's not always about money, or chasing rings, or being the man.

didnt kevin garnett jump ship on the t wolves though???... and left the wolves with a horrible package to replace him. They havent sniffed the playoffs since he left.

JasonJohnHorn
09-29-2012, 06:55 PM
Doesn't really matter to me. I understand that players generally do not have a very long shelf life and that they really need to maximize what they get out of playing in this league to maintain a good lifestyle after they retire, so I don't blame a guy who takes a larger contract and plays for a team that isn't a contender. And guys who take less to be on a team that is already a contender, I understand what they are doing. Mitch Richmond is a great example. He played on a bad team for a long time and was paid well for doing so. Then he signed up with LA for the vet min, won a ring and got no minutes in the finals. I'm sure that is not how Richmond wanted to get his ring, but, c'est la vie. We don't all get to be like Bird or Magic who are drafted by teams that are already good.

A player has to do what is in his best interest.

beasted86
09-30-2012, 01:23 AM
Player C: on a deep playoff team and resigns with them. Ex. Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Reggie Miller.

I know it'ls not the point of the thread, I just wanted to mention that it DOES happen from time to time. It's not always about money, or chasing rings, or being the man.

Then WTF are you talking about? :confused::mad::facepalm:

95% of players resign with their native team if all money is equal or greater, so your post is 100% pointless.

DoMeFavors
09-30-2012, 01:49 AM
I would keep taking more money and be the man and get more jersey sales and more people to talk about me. Even at 35 if I got offered a vet min to be on Miami or something or go to Bobcats for 5 million a yr I would take the 5 million.

LongWayFromHome
09-30-2012, 02:06 AM
I respect a player who loves to compete. He can do either A, B or anything else. I have trouble understanding guys that just wanna have fun and make cash. Ricky Davis and Larry Hughes at least admitted it (but there are a lot of guys out there that don't seem to care about competing).

topdog
09-30-2012, 02:10 AM
didnt kevin garnett jump ship on the t wolves though???... and left the wolves with a horrible package to replace him. They havent sniffed the playoffs since he left.

No. The Wolves traded him. I'm not certain on all the internal workings but it was reported that Garnett initially didn't want to go to Boston until after the Ray Allen trade. Kevin McHale wanted to trade him there because he wanted Al Jefferson.

The "horrible package" was a result of McHale's choice which may or may not have been partially influenced by wanting to do right by Garnett and send him to a contender. The other 2 proposed deals I remember were Atlanta's first round picks (Horford and Acie Law) to Minny, Garnett to PHX, Amaré to ATL; or Lamar Odom and change to Minny for KG. Also, Ainge balked when pushed to include Rondo.

b@llhog24
09-30-2012, 03:51 AM
It's a job. Try to get as much money as you could.

ink
09-30-2012, 11:38 AM
It's a job. Try to get as much money as you could.

That's actually a perversion of the word.


sport   [spawrt, spohrt] Show IPA
noun
1.
an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.
2.
a particular form of this, especially in the outdoors.
3.
diversion; recreation; pastime.
4.
jest; fun; mirth; pleasantry: What he said in sport was taken seriously.
5.
mockery; ridicule; derision: They made sport of him.

People are so completely commercialized now so the actual meaning of the word "sport" isn't even understood anymore.

heyman321
09-30-2012, 11:45 AM
Lol Lebron Wade and Bosh BARELY took "less money". They gave up what, 10 mil off the max contracts?

Chronz
09-30-2012, 11:51 AM
Tmac joined Orlando to go home and play alongside Grant Hill, so he actually left for a seemingly better situation, alot of reasons besides being the man.

hugepatsfan
09-30-2012, 11:51 AM
didnt kevin garnett jump ship on the t wolves though???... and left the wolves with a horrible package to replace him. They havent sniffed the playoffs since he left.

They got Al Jefferson (arguably one of the top young big men in the game at the time). They should have gotten Al Jeff plus a top 5 pick, but KG wouldn't sign an extension so the deal fell through. By the time the trade talks rekindled, LA had backed out of negotiations and BOS had already traded their top 5 pick for Ray. MIN got the best deal they could IMO based on their circumstances.

SINCESTARBURY25
09-30-2012, 11:56 AM
Take the money become the man.

IndyRealist
09-30-2012, 12:06 PM
Then WTF are you talking about? :confused::mad::facepalm:

95% of players resign with their native team if all money is equal or greater, so your post is 100% pointless.

Tim Duncan took less than market on his last two contracts. Parker took an extension worth $12.5 million/yr with no raises. Jordan Hill took $3.5M/yr to stay with the Lakers when players with his skill set and athleticism are getting double that. Alonzo Gee took less than $3.5M/yr, and with a team option at the end. How long had Steve Nash and Grant Hill been playing with sub-market contracts? Garnett just signed a sub market contract, and Rondo's playing on a ridiculously low contract for a top PG in the league. As laughable as Gilbert Arenas' massive contract was, they offered him max and he took less.

Plenty of players take less money to stay with their team. You're full of it if you think that Duncan wasn't worth max on his previous deal. Nash probably gave back $20M over the course of his career for teams with no hope of contending.

FOXHOUND
09-30-2012, 12:14 PM
It really depends on the situation, there are way too many variables to make this poll so black and white.

In option A there are;

The Ray Allen types, leaving the Celtics and more money to join the Heat in a smaller role, with a much higher chance of winning and a big pay cut overall because he's old and time is almost up.

The Ron Artest types, a player who was never nearly good enough to lead a team anyways, so he did the smart thing and became a role player on a contender, helping them and himself get a ring.

The LeBron James type (note: singular), the player with the best talent in the world by far, who decides to join a team with another top 3 player (at the time) and a top 10 big man at the peak of his career. He could have went to Chicago (Rose, Noah, Deng, Gibson), the Knicks (Amare, Gallo, Chandler, Fields) or even the Clippers (Griffin, Gordon, Jordan) and still ended up on a stacked team as the true man.

I have respect for scenarios 1 and 2, but not 3, although I understand why he did it. The showdown of LeBron's Bulls/Knicks vs Wade's Heat would have been spectacular. Instead he chose the easy way out, and the least competitive option.

In Option B there are,

The Joe Johnson type, a good up and coming player stuck in a small role on a team due to it being stacked with All-Stars, wanting to leave and prove to all that he's way better by leading a team of his own.

The Amare Stoudemire type, a good player on a contending team, but a team that is very old. Leaves to pave his own way before he gets too old to do so, proving that he's more than just a side kick.

The Carlos Boozer type, money is the main, and truly only, motivator. Team build and success is secondary.

I have respect for scenario 1 and 2, but not 3, although I understand the decision. Sports is about competing, and as a player, especially in such an individually driven sport such as basketball, it's the players duty to be the best he can be and challenge himself.

Joe Johnson did this, instead of the easy route of staying in Phoenix and just jacking open 3's at an insane clip the rest of his career, he went on to prove he was a whole lot better than that.

Amare Stoudemire did this, by having that huge January in his first year with Felton, proving that he just needed a nice PG like any big man, and not a great one like Nash, to have teams at his scoring mercy.

Carlos Boozer is just scum, a player who only competes when his wallet is on the line.

TyrionLannister
09-30-2012, 12:20 PM
The answer for everyone is whichever helps their particular team.

b@llhog24
09-30-2012, 12:45 PM
That's actually a perversion of the word.



People are so completely commercialized now so the actual meaning of the word "sport" isn't even understood anymore.

If I ever ended up in the Nba that's what I imagine I would view it as. Let everybody ***** about "heart, competitor, winning, rankings" at the end of the day those people don't care about you so you're left to look out for your best interest which more often than not is to make money.

ROY 2 MVP Braun
09-30-2012, 12:49 PM
id rather have no super teams and have 1 star on more teams and watch them compete with their role players on their team! ala lebron as bad as the cavs may have been outside of him they could have won with him but he choose to leave n take the easy way out and i cant respect that! i would have rather seen him stay w the cavs and see if he could win it on his own as the man, if he would have done that his 1st championship would have meant more than this 1! i have alot of respect for players like timmy n parker and others who dont want to leave their team and take the easy way out! I also like what stat did by going to NY as THE MAN!

ink
09-30-2012, 06:18 PM
If I ever ended up in the Nba that's what I imagine I would view it as. Let everybody ***** about "heart, competitor, winning, rankings" at the end of the day those people don't care about you so you're left to look out for your best interest which more often than not is to make money.

A lot of the Olympic athletes we care about make hardly anything at all. For them it's about competition. Of course they want to win but they don't have this ****ed up false set of dilemmas outlined in this thread.

Iron24th
09-30-2012, 06:31 PM
I hate to lose.

Nothing's better than winning.

Player A, no doubt.

beasted86
09-30-2012, 09:01 PM
Tim Duncan took less than market on his last two contracts. Parker took an extension worth $12.5 million/yr with no raises. Jordan Hill took $3.5M/yr to stay with the Lakers when players with his skill set and athleticism are getting double that. Alonzo Gee took less than $3.5M/yr, and with a team option at the end. How long had Steve Nash and Grant Hill been playing with sub-market contracts? Garnett just signed a sub market contract, and Rondo's playing on a ridiculously low contract for a top PG in the league. As laughable as Gilbert Arenas' massive contract was, they offered him max and he took less.

Plenty of players take less money to stay with their team. You're full of it if you think that Duncan wasn't worth max on his previous deal. Nash probably gave back $20M over the course of his career for teams with no hope of contending.

You've heard of Fool's gold, right? Most of those scenarios you just talked about is what I call a Fool's discount.

Gilbert Arenas "took less"? Feel free to go back to 2008 and see how many teams even had the cap space to offer a $17M starting year contract, and see how many of those teams with that cap space were willing to offer that to Arenas, then finally out of whatever teams are left, count how many of them were playoff caliber teams.

Even if you can wither the options down to actually match a playoff team with cap space that was willing to pay Arenas, it's still not equal money because nearly every scenario you just mentioned all of those players signed the maximum 6 year contract which no outside team can offer without a sign a trade. So I'm not sure how much of a discount it is when it's more total money guaranteed because of that added 6th year bonus no other team can offer.

That's what's known as a Fool's discount IMO.

There is a secondary form of Fool's discount where a player opts out of an overpaid contract, and re-signs for a less, but still overpaid contract. See Richard Jefferson 2010 re-signing with the Spurs for an example of this. Not one team with cap space in the Summer of 2010 was going to sign Jefferson for 4yr/$40M after missing out on the Big 3, Stoudemire, Boozer, etc... So it was a Fool's discount for Jefferson to opt out of $15M and re-sign for $9M starting.

IndyRealist
09-30-2012, 10:46 PM
You've heard of Fool's gold, right? Most of those scenarios you just talked about is what I call a Fool's discount.

Gilbert Arenas "took less"? Feel free to go back to 2008 and see how many teams even had the cap space to offer a $17M starting year contract, and see how many of those teams with that cap space were willing to offer that to Arenas, then finally out of whatever teams are left, count how many of them were playoff caliber teams.

Even if you can wither the options down to actually match a playoff team with cap space that was willing to pay Arenas, it's still not equal money because nearly every scenario you just mentioned all of those players signed the maximum 6 year contract which no outside team can offer without a sign a trade. So I'm not sure how much of a discount it is when it's more total money guaranteed because of that added 6th year bonus no other team can offer.

That's what's known as a Fool's discount IMO.

There is a secondary form of Fool's discount where a player opts out of an overpaid contract, and re-signs for a less, but still overpaid contract. See Richard Jefferson 2010 re-signing with the Spurs for an example of this. Not one team with cap space in the Summer of 2010 was going to sign Jefferson for 4yr/$40M after missing out on the Big 3, Stoudemire, Boozer, etc... So it was a Fool's discount for Jefferson to opt out of $15M and re-sign for $9M starting.

That's pretty far fetched. Every scenario? Tim Ducan signed a 7 year deal an extension and a 3yr deal for less than the max. In 2010 he could have gotten a 5yr deal worth more total money than those extensions from virutally any team in the NBA with cap room.

Steve Nash and Grant Hill were not on 6 year deals, Alonzo Gee signed a 3yr deal and Jordan Hill a 2yr deal. Rondo is on a 5 yr extension. In fact, the only player I mentioned to sign a 6yr deal was Gilbert Arenas. And he was offered more and took less. So no, "almost every scenario" I described was NOT more than other teams could offer. They took less than market to stay with their own teams.