Agents,NBPA irate over stars possibly taking pay cuts

[Lucky_Lefty]

It is all about options
If a player want his max deal, then he should go for it
If he sees not seeking the max as a long term win if the risk is rewarded, then he should go for it
Eitherway, the owners are still going to be greedy billionaires that will try to reduce the player's cut

but the very guys who the stars were being constantly reminded of taking care of during the negotiations aren't taking paycuts and the ones who are on their last leg of their career....that's why during the D Rose recruiting thing, I was on his side...he got his money...it's not his job to get Melo to come play there for the limited funds the FO had to work with...you can't tell me I need to take a paycut or come play for your club when teams are giving Avery Bradley $8 mil & Meeks $6 mil respectively...that's fiscally irresponsible. I'm going to get my market worth, even if it's really not what I'm truly worth

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

but the very guys who the stars were being constantly reminded of taking care of during the negotiations aren't taking paycuts and the ones who are on their last leg of their career....that's why during the D Rose recruiting thing, I was on his side...he got his money...it's not his job to get Melo to come play there for the limited funds the FO had to work with...you can't tell me I need to take a paycut or come play for your club when teams are giving Avery Bradley $8 mil & Meeks $6 mil respectively...that's fiscally irresponsible. I'm going to get my market worth, even if it's really not what I'm truly worth

nobody is doing that though
if there was no salary cap, then having 3 players making $70-100+ mill would be possible
But there is a cap. So players get to choose what is more important right now: get payed or get the ring

 

[threattonature]

He would be stupid too. It was a horrible contract the Angels have him.
They have him a very reasonable offer and he had every right to decline.

The point isn't if the contract was a good one or not. It's the perception of players being selfish for switching to a team offering more money but the owners aren't looked at as smart businessmen for not paying that extra money. Especially in baseball since there is no salary cap. The loyalty and sacrifice is only expected to go in one direction. Even if Pujols was overpaid, he would have deserved it for the money he helped generate previously and for all he did for the franchise. On one hand it's cool for a player in his prime to take a little less to help the team out. But as soon as a player's production is dropping off these owners won't show the same loyalty and will be quick to cut their ass loose or force them into a pay cut. That's why I'm all for athletes getting it when they can cause in the end they are the ones that'll be shorted compared to what they could've earned.

Taking it to Kobe, as much as I absolutely hate how his contract hamstrings the Lakers from making moves as a man I fully respect him for taking that money.

 

[Big Boss]

When a owner makes a move, its called a business move



When a player makes a move, its called being disloyal

 

[IGSaint12]

shyts been like this in America, as a whole, since the recession, the whole "take one for the team" narrative has run rampant. once corporations saw they could get more effort from people and pay less, shyt was never adjusted once the economy rebounded.

-DMP-

It's ironic when they want players to take one for the team yet won't embrace single payer health care. It's a disgusting disconnect.

 

[NYC Rebel]

That's why Kobe did the right thing by taking that money


Carmelo and LeBron as well are doing the right thing......get your money brehs


In no other sport is a star player told to take less money like the NBA GMs and NBA "fans" try and make these players do.

I will never blame Kobe for taking the most offered to him.

 

[Big Boss]

The point isn't if the contract was a good one or not. It's the perception of players being selfish for switching to a team offering more money but the owners aren't looked at as smart businessmen for not paying that extra money. Especially in baseball since there is no salary cap. The loyalty and sacrifice is only expected to go in one direction. Even if Pujols was overpaid, he would have deserved it for the money he helped generate previously and for all he did for the franchise. On one hand it's cool for a player in his prime to take a little less to help the team out. But as soon as a player's production is dropping off these owners won't show the same loyalty and will be quick to cut their ass loose or force them into a pay cut. That's why I'm all for athletes getting it when they can cause in the end they are the ones that'll be shorted compared to what they could've earned.

Taking it to Kobe, as much as I absolutely hate how his contract hamstrings the Lakers from making moves as a man I fully respect him for taking that money.

yep just like paul pierce got traded from the celtics to the nets.

 

[Majestic Pape]

Is this a "well actually" moment, xyz isn't a superstar OR are you claiming that teams paying this much, didn't get quality players?

I'm saying when Minnesota gave KG that big ass contract, they never surrounded him with talent.