Whether these guys can be quality MBAs is debatable for sure. I'm sure they have less incentive to even try for great grades to get into a great business school if they can get an easier payday by getting drafted.
That's my interpretation as well. Although the fact that he's twittered the opinion in the first place makes me question his qualifications.
Have you pro-owners ever considered that maybe he wants an MBA just to manage his own large amount of money, not to make a big salary managing that of others? You pro-owners assume that the only motivation of the players is, which course of action will make them the most money. So you keep saying, they'll lose money by not surrendering 100% instead of their offer to surrender 90% of the way. Maybe their biggest motivation is that the owners are screwing them over with gigantic pay cuts and any human being would come out fighting. They'll accept pay cuts, but the owners insist on totally raping them. You pro-owners don't see the world clearly because you're focused on one human motivation, money and selfishness, instead of the many motivations that make the world go around. Then to make it worse, you ascribe that one motive only to players instead of, equally if not more, to owners.
Jordan earned $30M his final season. He said it wasn't about getting the most he could, but to be paid in a way that recognizes his value. At the time, he was probably making over $10 in endorsements. It's not like he needed all that much more money.
Can somebody decipher this gibberish for me? What is a "pro-owner", anyhow? As for 'massive' pay cuts, the CBA that the union leaders rejected would still have left their members as the most highly compensated athletes, in any league, in the entire world.
I don't consider myself 'pro-owner'. I am pro-fan. I have however become anti-player. It doesn't show, does it? The players have managed to get me to dislike them more than I dislike Herr Stern. That's quite an accomplishment.
I don't have a least favorite at the moment. They're all responsible for acting in bad faith and being incredibly myopic and/or idiotic. They had two years to start working on something but each side waited until the 11th hour to even begin putting forth realistic proposals. The real laugher is that the owners never even tried to put out a proposal where the players could accept it without feeling like they'd just been tea-bagged, and the players foolishly thought they had any leverage to begin with and took a stand on emotional grounds rather than recognizing when to fold and cut their losses. To hell with all of them.
A 50/50 split isn't an insult to any player. Giving up 7% is hard, I suppose, but they're not going to see that offer again without agreeing to more restrictions on player movement and a stronger cap limit.
ooooh, sorry. I don't know how one can't be Pro Pink Floyd. in fact, it should be mandatory listening for young adults between the ages of 12 and when they die.
You went right back to the money motive after I patiently explained the other motives! As my girlfriend used to tell me when we were 15, you have a one-track mind!
I have no idea what you mean at this point. Then again, I've never known what you've meant for 7 or 8 years now, at least.
