Shaq's comments on Harangody signing:

worcester wrote:Is NY a larger market than LA? Just wondering.

Yes, NY is larger.
See below:
This is listed by city, # of TV households and % of US market.

1 New York, NY 7,493,530 6.524
2 Los Angeles, CA 5,659,170 4.927
3 Chicago, IL 3,501,010 3.048
4 Philadelphia, PA 2,955,190 2.573
5 Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX 2,544,410 2.215

That's impressive but makes me wonder - why does LA not have an NFL franchise? How can the NFL afford to go so long without one?

TJ

i don't think I or anyone else said your view is wrong but different. We come from different eras.

And when a player makes a move from a team he has been with for his entire career he best expect a back lash from those fans......esp if he turns down a truckload of money, to go somewhere else.

beat

tjmakz wrote:Why is there such negativity toward free agents or potential free agents wanting to sign with a different team? These players earned the right to sign with whatever team makes them an offer.
I doubt Carmelo is an idiot...
I am pretty sure he will handle his future free agency better then LeBron did.
Denver is not making a run at the title. Anderson, Nene and Martin all have injuries that have slowed them down.

yup, the Nug's will start off with key injuries, but two of the three are expected back soon, and as far as "Denver is not not making a run at the title", didn't they beat LA twice last year before the wheels fell off ? (of course, if bright twinkling lights and big city stardust lure Carmelo away, they are second tier for sure.)

best regards,
Michael

W

As to LA not having an NFL team is sort of crazy but where would they play? The colosseum is about as old as it's namesake in Rome. Think they would need a new stadium there. Perhaps (as the saying goes) If you build it they will come.

Of course the days of the old LA Rams are long gone and Al Davis and his Raiders didn't click there either.

You would think someone might give it a shot again. If the build a new park they certainly will get someone to go there.


beat

tjmakz wrote:Outside,

Do you view all the players that signed with new teams this year as having ego-driven plans or is that just for the superstars like LeBron and Carmelo? I didn't hear anyone saying that about Mike Miller, Steve Blake, Jermaine O'Neal or countless other players.

If a team trades a premier player, it is ok, but if that player wants to leave, he is ridiculed for it...

Sigh... this is my last word on the subject with you. My original comment to Michael (bigpygme) was that Carmelo's decision to leave Denver was a shame. As I subsequently explained, that was a gut reaction from someone who misses something that used to be common in sports but is now increasingly rare. Beat said it well -- "The ability of players to move around these days is different and makes it difficult for fans to embrace them to quite the same degree."

It's an intangible thing, a gut reaction, just the way I feel, yet your response continues to be that my position has no validity whatsoever. You asked why I felt the way I do, I explained, and I'm done explaining. This is not a discussion on some scientific issue. If you're not willing to accept someone's answer when they explain why they have a particular opinion, then don't ask the question. If I say I don't like mayonnaise on my sandwich and you ask me to explain why, I'll tell you why. Your job at that point is not to argue with me that mayonnaise is the best condiment ever made and I therefore have no reason to not like mayonnaise. Accept the fact that I don't like mayonnaise.

Have a great day.

Outside

Thanks for the complement. My son will never quite appreciate being a fan now as we were when we wer ehis age.

I mentioned the Yankes cause growing up in upstate NY that was really all you heard about. Seems they were always in the Series and it was the only team local AM radio covered.

Really had little to no choice, if you loved baseball you loved the Yankees. And even after they fell off aftert the 64 worlds series, taking the winning cards manager from them (Johnny Keane) they were still my team for they had the Mick. And as he was fading along came Bobby Murcer. In his first full season he smacked 26 homers and had at least 22 the next 4 seasons. I had his photos and autograph.............he even helped them back to being contenders. Then his trade for Bonds the death of another favorite, Munson, and I was gone. No Reggie Jackson stir the drink star for me. I moved on just like a player these days and have never looked back. I root for any team they play now.
basketball was little different but came a few years later, as to being a diehard. Loved Hondo the way I loved the Mick.

I could not imagine what it would be if the C's ever traded him, or he wanted to move on in 70 as the team basically sucked then. (after Sam and Russ retired) but did he move? NO WAY........and in 3 years the C's had the best record in the league and 1 year later they won it all. and did it again 2 years later.

It was a time that is gone..............but not forgotten by those of us old enough to remember.

beat

Outside

PS.

Remember the fairwell tributes to players like Cousy, Bird, Hondo, even later on Russ. Or like with the Yankees, Mantle, Munsons tribute and for the history buffs Gehrig, Ruth, Dimaggio, (Ruth played all of his meaningful years with 1 team)

So fast forward 10 years or so. Bron (wherever he is) Carmelo are set to retire..............what fans from Cleveland or Denver will applaud then.


Even are recent aquisition Shaq. What will his farwell be like?

Yeah as Dylan sang.............the times they are a changin.
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.

beat

beat wrote:

Yeah as Dylan sang.............the times they are a changin.
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.

beat

beat,

Ah, the good old days when Dylan wrote like a poet.

bob

.

beat wrote:TJ

i don't think I or anyone else said your view is wrong but different. We come from different eras.

And when a player makes a move from a team he has been with for his entire career he best expect a back lash from those fans......esp if he turns down a truckload of money, to go somewhere else.

beat

LeBron/Bosh/Carmelo are all willing to accept the negative consequences of the fans they left behind.

As an FYI, of the top 10 scorers in NBA history, none of them played for the same team their entire career.

TJ

Who is talking about the top ten scorers but YOU!! Geesh let me have my opinion!!

God. Help Us.

What part of the word opinion don't you understand?
Geesh I wish youd go away and stay away sometimes!

beat

Outside,


I understand that you come from a different era, I just don't think that it is right or fair to call out a few of the superstar players for wanting to play for another team.

Dozens of players do it every year.

tjmakz wrote:

bobheckler wrote:This might be the first time I've heard of someone trying to suggest that NBA superstars (like LeBron and Carmelo, to name two) are not ego-driven promoters. The LeBron-a-thon was nothing but that.

What can we expect next? Non-power hungry politicians? Movie stars who don't want camera time?

Seriously, though, I'm ok with players moving around. What bothers me is the collusion. A symbiotic system is a healthier system and if the owners can't collude then the players shouldn't be able to either. Is that enforceable? Probably not, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be severe penalties for doing it if caught ("severe" should be defined in the context of that we're talking about mega-multi millionaires here whose tips are bigger than my take-home). Many cities have HUGE investments in the infrastructure (arenas, parking, concessions) to lure major league franchises of various sports. When a player decides they're going to conspire (a nastier, slightly more legally specific way of saying "colluding") with another player and, as a result of that conspiracy, effectively kneecaps an entire metropolitan area's tax base, there will be an outcry and backlash. One could argue that the pendulum swing should come in the body of a newly renegotiated CBA, but it will come. You are not going to have mayors, city councilmen, local chambers of commerce (not to mention the franchisees themselves) and millions of fans held hostage to any single individual without a struggle.

bob

.

bob,

How much money do these players bring to the cities they play for? Millions. How much did LeBron increase the value of the Cavs? Somewhere in the 9 figure area. The cities/teams shouldn't be able to hold all the power to keep the players tied to their team indefinitely.
I hate everything about how LeBron handled what he did. I do support him for having the right to sign with Miami or any team that offered him a contract.
Players who talk to each other about playing for the same team is not collusion or a conspiracy. See below what David Stern said about the James/Wade/Bosh signings.

“What we told the owners was that the three players are totally, as our system has evolved, within their rights to talk to each other,” Commissioner David Stern said after the meeting, which was held here in conjunction with the N.B.A. summer league.

Players on different teams who discuss the idea of someday playing together “is not tampering or collusion that is prohibited,” Stern said.

TJ,

Mr. Potato Head was right. "Players on different teams who discuss the idea of someday playing together “ is not tampering or collusion that is prohibited.”

Doesn't mean that's right. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be stopped. It means that under their system, as it has evolved and currently exists, it IS not prohibited. What I was saying is that perhaps that system needs to evolve some more.

Personally, I think this is poetic justice. Stern created a league that glorifies the cult of the individual. He exalts players as individual performers over team contributors. When smaller market teams take it on the chin as their sole superstars "discuss the idea of someday playing together" somewhere else, it will be Karmic retribution.

And it couldn't happen to nicer Mr. Potato Head.

bob

.[img]

beat wrote:TJ

Who is talking about the top ten scorers but YOU!! Geesh let me have my opinion!!

God. Help Us.

What part of the word opinion don't you understand?
Geesh I wish youd go away and stay away sometimes!

beat

The top 10 scorers of all time is an example that even the best of the best usually don't stay with the the same team their entire career.
Why bash modern day players for wanting to leave?
You know what they say about opinions...
I wish you would try to be a little open minded.

bob,

I doubt the curtailing of free agency rights will be changing anytime soon.
It is good for the NBA when large market teams are successful. (Boston vs. LA Finals ratings).
If the NBA wants to change or disallow these signings from taking place, they can change the sign and trade rules or make it much more lucrative for a team to re-sign their own player. If they allowed a team to pay their own free agent double what a regular free agent makes, then we would see the changing of teams reduced dramatically.
Stern has publically said on many occassions that he wishes to see players stay with their team. He didn't write the CBA and I doubt he expected that it would have gotten to the point where we are at now with the player movement or rumors of players wanting to play for only a handful of teams.

Beat,

Yep, I do remember. Definitely a special fondness for athletes who spent the majority of their career with one team, through thick and thin. My favorite player (the guy on the right in my avatar) was Nate Thurmond, and although he played his last couple of years in Chicago and Cleveland, I gained a lifelong admiration for him during his 11 years with the Warriors. It's a special status that LeBron (and apparently soon Carmelo) cannot attain.

Like I said, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, and I hope that eventually a way will be found to achieve some sort of balance. One can hope.

Outside

tjmakz wrote:bob,

I doubt the curtailing of free agency rights will be changing anytime soon.
It is good for the NBA when large market teams are successful. (Boston vs. LA Finals ratings).
If the NBA wants to change or disallow these signings from taking place, they can change the sign and trade rules or make it much more lucrative for a team to re-sign their own player. If they allowed a team to pay their own free agent double what a regular free agent makes, then we would see the changing of teams reduced dramatically.
Stern has publically said on many occassions that he wishes to see players stay with their team. He didn't write the CBA and I doubt he expected that it would have gotten to the point where we are at now with the player movement or rumors of players wanting to play for only a handful of teams.

TJ,

You're probably right about curtailing free agency rights. The players association would NEVER stand for that.

As far as large market teams being successful, sure it's good for the large market team fans like us. But if smaller market teams are perceived as "never winners" that's not good either ESPECIALLY if players start to manipulate things to go where they can make more money (endorsements) and have bigger crowds and have owners that are ready, willing and able to go over the salary cap because they're in bigger markets.

I don't believe one word that comes out of Mr. Potato Head's mouth. Not yes, not no, not maybe. If he said it was nighttime, I'd put on my sunglasses.

Actually, Stern did write it. He was the NBA's General Counsel in 1980 and became Commissioner in 1984.

In 1983, the CBA was amended to provide players with between 53-57% of all revenues, which made them kingmakers. I'm sure the then-NBA General Counsel had something to do with the negotiating and writing of that, don't you?

In 1983, the CBA was amended to eliminate restricted free agency after completion of the player's second contract, which increased the ability of players to test free agency. I'm sure the then-NBA General Counsel had something to do with the negotiating and writing of that, don't you?

The current version of the CBA was ratified in 2005. The Commissioner of the NBA (and longtime CBA negotiator), David Stern, was heavily involved with that as well.

bob

.

I can't help myself. This low-lying fruit is too tempting to resist.

tjmakz wrote:The top 10 scorers of all time is an example that even the best of the best usually don't stay with the the same team their entire career.

All Time Leaders: Points http://www.nba.com/statistics/default_all_time_leaders/AllTimeLeadersPTSQuery.html?topic=4&stat=1
Player PTS
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 38,387
2. Karl Malone 36,928
3. Michael Jordan 32,292
4. Wilt Chamberlain 31,419
5. Shaquille O'Neal 28,255
6. Moses Malone 27,409
7. Elvin Hayes 27,313
8. Hakeem Olajuwon 26,946
9. Oscar Robertson 26,710
10. Dominique Wilkins 26,668

Karl Malone - 18 years with Utah, last 1 with LA
Michael Jordan - 13 years with Chicago, last 2 with Washington
Hakeem Olajuwon - 17 years with Houston, last 1 with Toronto
Dominique Wilkins - 12 seasons with Atlanta, last 3 with other teams

You're claiming that these guys are in the same category as LeBron and Carmelo because they played their twilight years (in two cases, a single year) with another team? Please.

tjmakz wrote:You know what they say about opinions...
I wish you would try to be a little open minded.

YOU are asking US to be open-minded? Now THAT'S funny.

tjmakz wrote:It is good for the NBA when large market teams are successful. (Boston vs. LA Finals ratings).

That's true to an extent, but I'd say it's bad for the NBA when small-market teams lose their best players to large-market teams at a disproportionate rate. How can a small-market team hope to compete with a large-market team like the Lakers who are willing to go miles over the cap and can pay the luxury tax because their local revenue is so much higher? The only way is to be exceedingly well-run, like San Antonio and OK City. Even a poorly run large-market team like the Knicks can still draw the attention of top free agents. Minnesota had cap room to spare this offseason and couldn't get a second glance.

At least the NBA has a salary cap, even if it isn't a hard cap. The inequities are even more severe in baseball, which doesn't have a salary cap. An occasional "moneyball" team sneaks into the postseason, but it's largely the same group of power franchises year after year, while storied franchises in small markets like Pittsburgh have no hope to compete.

Having large market teams in the finals obviously helps boost the ratings for those finals, but the long-term health of the league depends on more than just large-market teams.

Outside,

I never said Carmelo and LeBron were in the same category as anyone.
My point was, why bash these young stars when none of the top 10 stayed with one team their whole career? What about Kareem, Shaq, Barkley and others?

It's easy to jump of the hate bandwagon against these NBA players. If you were in their shoes are you sure you would stay in Cleveland, Toronto or Denver your whole career?

No, that last comment was not directed at you or US.

TJ, Milwaukee and Orlando fans surely were severely rankled when Kareem and Shaq left their towns. The police force of Philly was relieved when Sir Charles found other towns in which to drive under the influence.

To anyone:

1. To claim that the 10 highest scorers in history were the "best of the best" is ludicrous because it does not take each player's entire body of work into account.

2. The "fact" that many of the 10 top scorers changed teams could very well mean that at least some of them were considered sufficiently uni-dimensional to be expendable.

3. Moreover, I believe most of those top 10 scorers changed teams because they were traded—not because they elected to leave via free agency.

4. I went to the list of the 50 players voted the best of all-time. It admittedly omits some of the current players who haven't yet played long enough to make a career-long assessment—you know, guys like Kobe and Carmelo, who have—to date—played with only one team. But it's recent enough to include a guy who will play center for the Celtics this season.

My criterion was that, if someone played not more than one season or less of a long career (and it had to be a long career) with a different team, he qualifies as loyal to one team for all intents and purposes. For example, Bob Cousy played 7 games for the Royals when he was coaching for them something like five years he had retired a Celtic; and I'd argue the ears off anyone who said he didn't play his entire career with the Celtics.

Those who made an end-of-career signing with a team for a year were over the hill and just catching on...which is very different from a player in his prime who deserts a team that brought him into the league and helped him evolve to where he's now an attractive player.

Anyway, for whatever it's worth, twenty-nine (or 58%) of the greatest 50 players of all-time played virtually all of the NBA careers with the same team.

I'm not sure what any of this discussion proves. Nowadays, it's very likely that more players sign through free agency than are traded. Because they can by league rules.

On one hand, it makes sense to believe that they're not doing anything that earlier players wouldn't have done if they'd been able to. But, as someone who knew a lot of former players very closely, I believe the earlier players were inherently more loyal in their intrinsic value structures.

Not that the current guys are necessarily to blame for what appears to be greed at the expense of loyalty. I see very little difference in the direction of their values than the direction of the society that has conditioned them.

None of this stops me from preferring the caliber of play back when players typically stayed with teams for long times and the team chemistry was so much better. As much as I hate to say it, I might not have become a basketball fan but for the degree of team roster stability at the time. It definitely infused me with the appreciation of team over individual. Now I'm sort of on "basketball automatic pilot" as far as appreciating the game is concerned, because today's game ironically encourages fan loyalty more than fan passion on my part.

Sam

I find it hard to believe that Tony Allen would put the "blame" on PP and Allen.
Overshadowed? What a joke. A few good games and his head blows up like he is irreplaceable. Sorry, by the third month of the season, he will probably be hurt again and out for a lengthy period. The Celtics carried this guy for five years, putting up with his foolishness, I am glad he is gone. Everytime he got the ball, my heart was in my mouth. This is how he shows his thanks to a team that put up with more than any other would have? Shame on you Tony.

Are you guys going to tell me that if given the same opportunity the 'team loyal' players from 30 or 40 years ago would not have seriously considered or done the same thing that LeBron and Bosh did, or that Carmelo might do?
Those guys had to stay with the team their whole career unless the owner decided that he didn't want the player anymore then the player could be traded.
Nobody here has said anything about the 2nd or 3rd tier free agents. Is it ok to leave their team after 3 or 7 years, but it's not ok for the superstars in the league? Where's the uproar over CJ Watson leaving GS and Raymond Felton leaving Charlotte?

beat,

The Yankees just called and said they are sorry about he Murcer for Bonds trade in 1974. They want to reconcile with you. Yogi forgave the Yankees...

TJ,

The impact of a lower-level free agent's leaving is not at all comparable with that of a superstar who is the face of the culture of the team as well as (at least on many teams) the cog around which the team's style is built. And they received massive financial rewards for assuming those responsibilities. Role players occupied very different positions on the same teams, and they were compensated at much lower levels. Totally apples and oranges.

I think people in their 50s and older are naturally going to feel differently than younger people about this topic because there is a basic difference in the value systems in the societies of which they have been products. Most people whose formative years were in the 30s to at least the early 60s were taught that loyalty is one of the most important character traits—whether loyalty to a job or a personal relationship or even a country. We learned to treasure what we were lucky enough to have and to avoid get-rich-quick schemes. (I don't recall any lotteries back then.) But, perhaps most of all, it was drilled into us that one of the worst things a person could do was to let down a comrade.

In the 70s, John Havlicek was offered FAR greater money than his then-current Celtics salary to join the ABA. Boston held its collective breath while he seriously considered it. And he stayed with the Celtics and gave up hundreds of thousands of dollars (huge money over an extended period in those days) in the process.

I remember talking about it with him after a practice, and he had a slew of reasons for making the choice he did. He and his family were thoroughly ensconced in the community, and he was comfortable here. He didn't want the pressure of having to be "the man" on an NBA team, being much more comfortable as one of several leaders on the Celtics. He felt a deep sense of responsibility toward his teammates and Red. And he believed in Celtics-style basketball rather than the brand of "hero ball" he might be subjected to in the ABA. The money was attractive, but the bucks turned out to be FAR down in his list of priorities, when push came to shove.

For anyone to assume that the only thing that kept at least many players of the past from being disloyal to their teams was indentured servitude is short-sighted.

Frankly, I can understand perfectly why so many of today's free agents are making the decisions they are. People raised in today's world seem to be taught that the more you push it, the more you can get. If $ is not now the #1 priority among the majority of those people, I'm not sure what is. And, once pro basketball players get a sniff of big-time money and realize that leveraging their basketball skills is the road to power, it's human nature for them to capitalize on those skills to the max...and stuff like loyalty, dependability, and sense of community are readily pushed aside in the bargain.

As I said earlier, I don't think today's players are guilty of exercising values that they haven't been indoctrinated to by society as a whole. But understanding these dynamics doesn't mean people from other eras have to appreciate them. In castigating prodigal superstars, we older folks may be subconsciously bemoaning the changes in society. Who knows?

But one more thing we were taught way back when was to hold firm to our beliefs. So we'll certainly consider what others have to say; but none of it is likely to change our opinions on a matter this intertwined with values. Just as nothing we can say is likely to change your opinions. It makes for interesting debate, but that's about as far as it goes.

Sam