Why Vince and Kidd Are Not Real Champions

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
furnace

furnace

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
166
Likes
0
Points
16
I've thought of this before, but it didn't really hit home until I read the first section of this article from NetsDaily:</p>

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=ApvE...o&type=lgns</p>

If Kidd and Vince really wanted a championship, they would not have driven the Nets to the cap limit. They can talk the talk, but they did not walk the walk. Not like Duncan and Garnett, leaving money on the table...</p>
 
I don't think its fair to compare those two to Kobe. Neither one is commanding 20 million a year and keeping Thorn from putting quality guys around them.</p>
 
Hey, they gots to feed their family.</p>

Why should these guys give up cash for the franchise? The Nets nearly traded Kidd at the deadline last year. The NBA is too competitive for either side to treat it as anything but a buisiness.</p>

Duncan's situation was a special one - a long term relationship built out of trust between a player, a coach and a franchise that is unique to San Antonio. There isn't another situation in basketball, or in all of professional sports, like it.</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ly_yng)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

Hey, they gots to feed their family.</p>

Why should these guys give up cash for the franchise? The Nets nearly traded Kidd at the deadline last year. The NBA is too competitive for either side to treat it as anything but a buisiness.</p>

Duncan's situation was a special one - a long term relationship built out of trust between a player, a coach and a franchise that is unique to San Antonio. There isn't another situation in basketball, or in all of professional sports, like it.</p>

</div></p>

</p>

True.</p>

</p>

Still nice of Duncan and Garnett though.</p>
 
What are you talking about?</p>

Almost every player in the league has chosen the money. Garnett wanted another max contract if he was going to stay in Minnessotta but once he got traded he settled for a bit less which is still a huge contract btw.</p>

</p>
 
I often wonder this. Why not take less for your team and worryabout endorsments. LeBron makes 100 mil just from Nike so we does he need 50 mil more?</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'>

I don't think its fair to compare those two to Kobe. Neither one is commanding 20 million a year and keeping Thorn from putting quality guys around them.</p></div>

</p>
First of all, Kidd DOES make 20 million a year, and Carter makes around 14, which will jump again next year.

</p>
If both players took a cut to 12 million a year, that would be an extra 10 million for Thorn and Stefanski to play with each year. All you guys used to talk about Chris Wilcox etc. Who knows what could have been.
 
you can say this about every superstar. most stars probably make more from endorsements like nike,gatorade,adidas, but you compare yourself to other players in the league and to what they earn. that is how they judge themselves and value themselves. last year people were saying vince wanted a paul pierce like deal, so he was comparing himself to pp in a way. how about AROD? he make 250mil from his contract PLUS endorsement deals which im assuming is another 100mil he made, but now he wants 30 mil a year!?!?! why? beacuse its ego that shows that he is at teh top of the sporting world. when Arod signed his 252 (i think that was the exact number), why did he want that extra 2mil and not just 250? because it was double KG's contract who has the highest contract in sports at that time. so as an outsider it blows my mind that these players need so much from the franchise, yet say they wana win when their taking up a nice percentage of the payroll. now baseball is different than baseball, but not everyone has money in baseball either like the yanks or sox. lotta teams dont wana pay the tax and arod would be like 25% of their payroll or something crazy like that lol. bottom line is that if you can make the money and the franchise is willing to give it to you take it. then i think once you finish making that huge deal if you still want that ring then take less on your next contract. im curious what kidd is going to resign for.</p>
 
Vince did take less this summer. His contract was friendly to the Nets cap situation.</p>

When Kidd was a free agent, the Nets had to offer the max because the Spurs were offering the max.</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xcalibur`)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

you can say this about every superstar. most stars probably make more from endorsements like nike,gatorade,adidas, but you compare yourself to other players in the league and to what they earn. that is how they judge themselves and value themselves. last year people were saying vince wanted a paul pierce like deal, so he was comparing himself to pp in a way. how about AROD? he make 250mil from his contract PLUS endorsement deals which im assuming is another 100mil he made, but now he wants 30 mil a year!?!?! why? beacuse its ego that shows that he is at teh top of the sporting world. when Arod signed his 252 (i think that was the exact number), why did he want that extra 2mil and not just 250? because it was double KG's contract who has the highest contract in sports at that time. so as an outsider it blows my mind that these players need so much from the franchise, yet say they wana win when their taking up a nice percentage of the payroll. now baseball is different than baseball, but not everyone has money in baseball either like the yanks or sox. lotta teams dont wana pay the tax and arod would be like 25% of their payroll or something crazy like that lol. bottom line is that if you can make the money and the franchise is willing to give it to you take it. then i think once you finish making that huge deal if you still want that ring then take less on your next contract. im curious what kidd is going to resign for.</p>

</div></p>

</p>

Kidd and Carter have already HAD high paying deals in their lives. They were both MAX contract players before their current deals. They basically want money more than a championship. Full Stop.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (furnace)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

Kidd and Carter have already HAD high paying deals in their lives. They were both MAX contract players before their current deals. They basically want money more than a championship. Full Stop.</div></p>

</p>

Kidd's deal before resigning with the Nets wasn't very high. He never even made 10 million in a season on it.</p>

Vince did take significantly less than the max on his most recent contract.</p>
 
Well Kidd signed a 9 year deal as a rookie it was for 60 million. Then the Suns gave him an option 2 year extension on that deal.....which Kidd opted out after the 2003 season, leading to the great Kidd Free Agency tour and his current max deal. In his 2002 he pulled in 8.4 million. In 2003 he pulled in 9.2 million. 2004 his new deal, 13.1. The day he was traded to NJ he wanted out, his earliest was 2003. There was no loyalty, he knew it. If there was a good deal to be had, he knew as most players know, he'd be shown the door. So given the 2 titles, he could easily command a max deal, which he did....moreso than the ring, if he wanted the ring he'd be in SA. So for him to take a pay cut at that point in his career, I think wouldn't necessarily help him. It'd be easier to trade him first off. I see Kobe has a trade kicker, Kidd could have asked for that as well as a no trade clause. He gets a max salary as soon as he's traded...etc. Duncan was shown loyalty first by the Spurs, he knows his place in Spurs history, he knows how David Robinson was treated in SA, so it was an easy decision for him. He's never been about himself, he's been about winning, thus he's never been traded, nor entertained recruiting trips. Kidd's, VC and Kobe's career have been dotted with controversy, thus Kidd and VC's trades and Kobe forcinig Shaq out. Duncan's just stayed out of the limelight, stayed home, been a team first guy, yea then throw in the talent. I've said this about Kidd, Kidd can't be your front guy if you want to win it all. He needs a big man to complement him, a big man #1 option. If McDyess had stuck it out in PHX, they might have done something special.</p>
 
business is such a huge part of the game now, plus you have agents who keep saying, oh i can get u this deal and that deal and youll make this much more than this guy. you cant hold it against someone who can get max or close to max money. i think there is one type of player that is worth max deal and that is a franchise player like kidd,kg,duncan,shaq who do everything they can for their team day in and day out (shaq of course in his prime, hes not a franchise money guy now but is still effective when he wants to be). the game is bringing in more money than before and players want to get paid so just because a player could get a max deal and the franchise will give it to him doesnt mean that player doesnt want to win a title. this is just the nature of the business now.</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ly_yng)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

Hey, they gots to feed their family.</p>

Why should these guys give up cash for the franchise? The Nets nearly traded Kidd at the deadline last year. The NBA is too competitive for either side to treat it as anything but a buisiness.</p>

Duncan's situation was a special one - a long term relationship built out of trust between a player, a coach and a franchise that is unique to San Antonio. There isn't another situation in basketball, or in all of professional sports, like it.</p>

</div></p>

What about Sindey Crosby? He left a lot on money on the table so the Pens could retain their top talent.</p>

</p>
 
The scary part about all this being a business is those guys who are on the brink, those guys include Derrick Rose, OJ Mayo, Mike Beasley, guys who are walking sometimes alone on college campuses with out having that extra security that money buys. They have targets on their backs not just on the court, but off it too. I think an added reason these guys go for the jugular is the knowledge of people making money by using them. People are probably hounding them for autographs, pictures etc to sell them. Antoine Walker was targeted and robbed this past summer. A few years ago in a return trip home Gary Payton was robbed too. Even all the money won't buy them safety nowadays.</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shookem)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ly_yng)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

Hey, they gots to feed their family.</p>

Why should these guys give up cash for the franchise? The Nets nearly traded Kidd at the deadline last year. The NBA is too competitive for either side to treat it as anything but a buisiness.</p>

Duncan's situation was a special one - a long term relationship built out of trust between a player, a coach and a franchise that is unique to San Antonio. There isn't another situation in basketball, or in all of professional sports, like it.</p>

</div></p>

What about Sindey Crosby? He left a lot on money on the table so the Pens could retain their top talent.</p>

</p>

</div></p>

Crosby has his own line of clothing and all that other crap that has him making that much money outside of the rink. Plus he's a bitch too.</p>

</p>
 
Furnace I'm not sure what your end result is here. Since the market determines the price of the players you'd have to get every single player in the NBA to take a pay cut (to prevent situations like the Kidd-Spurs one that cpaw introduced). So then yes, teams would have much more money to offer to players...and then they woudl be at bidding wars to sign these free agents with this extra cash.</p>

While a nobel cause, I don't think you've thought through the context this has in a capitalist market.</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

Furnace I'm not sure what your end result is here. Since the market determines the price of the players you'd have to get every single player in the NBA to take a pay cut (to prevent situations like the Kidd-Spurs one that cpaw introduced). So then yes, teams would have much more money to offer to players...and then they woudl be at bidding wars to sign these free agents with this extra cash.</p>

While a nobel cause, I don't think you've thought through the context this has in a capitalist market.</p>

</div></p>

</p>

That's why Duncan and Garnett should be commended...to do that in the face of the Latrell Sprewell's of this world...

If Kidd took 12 MM a year instead of 20 MM, do you really think Thorn and Stefanski would trade him away?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xcalibur`)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

you can say this about every superstar. most stars probably make more from endorsements like nike,gatorade,adidas, but you compare yourself to other players in the league and to what they earn. that is how they judge themselves and value themselves. last year people were saying vince wanted a paul pierce like deal, so he was comparing himself to pp in a way. how about AROD? he make 250mil from his contract PLUS endorsement deals which im assuming is another 100mil he made, but now he wants 30 mil a year!?!?! why? beacuse its ego that shows that he is at teh top of the sporting world. when Arod signed his 252 (i think that was the exact number), why did he want that extra 2mil and not just 250? because it was double KG's contract who has the highest contract in sports at that time. so as an outsider it blows my mind that these players need so much from the franchise, yet say they wana win when their taking up a nice percentage of the payroll. now baseball is different than baseball, but not everyone has money in baseball either like the yanks or sox. lotta teams dont wana pay the tax and arod would be like 25% of their payroll or something crazy like that lol. bottom line is that if you can make the money and the franchise is willing to give it to you take it. then i think once you finish making that huge deal if you still want that ring then take less on your next contract. im curious what kidd is going to resign for.</p>

</div></p>

IIRC when Wilt Chamberlain got a $100,000 per year contract, Bill Russell asked for and got $100,001.</p>

</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (furnace)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

</p>

That's why Duncan and Garnett should be commended...to do that in the face of the Latrell Sprewell's of this world... If Kidd took 12 MM a year instead of 20 MM, do you really think Thorn and Stefanski would trade him away?</div></p>

</p>

Oh I don't think he's getting traded regardless, and its hard to disagree that getting him for 12 would allow us to field the best team (and not the best team for our budget), but its unfortunately unrealistic in this day to expect widespread paycuts.</p>

Maybe if the NBA had a bonus system similar to the pre-Deion Sanders NFL. For those who don't know his deal with the cowboys was structured so that all of his money was given in bonuses (and there for only a million counted against the cap!)</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (furnace)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

Furnace I'm not sure what your end result is here. Since the market determines the price of the players you'd have to get every single player in the NBA to take a pay cut (to prevent situations like the Kidd-Spurs one that cpaw introduced). So then yes, teams would have much more money to offer to players...and then they woudl be at bidding wars to sign these free agents with this extra cash.</p>

While a nobel cause, I don't think you've thought through the context this has in a capitalist market.</p>

</div></p>

</p>

That's why Duncan and Garnett should be commended...to do that in the face of the Latrell Sprewell's of this world... If Kidd took 12 MM a year instead of 20 MM, do you really think Thorn and Stefanski would trade him away?</div></p>

Much easier to trade with that kind of salary than 20 million. NJ won't have to take back so much dead weight contracts, just a few young players, a contract and picks. Much, much easier to make deal.</p>

</p>
 
Carter left money on the table. He was due $16.38 million this season. He is being paid $13.0 million.</p>
 
</p>

"Maybe if the NBA had a bonus system "</p>

Ah. You're hitting close to my NBA in a perfect world. Lower the team caps way down says I. Then take that $$$ from each team and put it into a big-fat playoff pool. Make winning it all per player somewhere in 7 figures with less for each playoff round exit. It'll never happen cuz ....well, the world ain't perfect.</p>

</p>

</p>
 
Ok, whoever suggests VC and Kidd should have taken a pay cut I want you to go to your job tomorrow and ask them to lower your salary. Im Sure you have experience and credentials to be paid what your salary is now, but you should do the noble thing and help out the people in your same job function who dont make as much as you do. If you take a pay cut then Chuck can be paid more which should help motivate him and get even more work done in the office. Let's be serious, this is America, if your job would over pay you or just pay you more I dont see you turning it down. Dont blame Kidd and VC for taking what someone else feels they are worth. Yes taking less money can help a franchise, but at the same time the franchises of the NBA hold no loyalty to the players at all and can trade any of them on a whim. You take less money to help out and you're traded in 2 months, then who looks like the fool. For some reason people always have this weird perception that the players should be loyal and help the franchise, yet the franchise is never expected to have loyalty to them.</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheMann)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

Ok, whoever suggests VC and Kidd should have taken a pay cut I want you to go to your job tomorrow and ask them to lower your salary. Im Sure you have experience and credentials to be paid what your salary is now, but you should do the noble thing and help out the people in your same job function who dont make as much as you do. If you take a pay cut then Chuck can be paid more which should help motivate him and get even more work done in the office. Let's be serious, this is America, if your job would over pay you or just pay you more I dont see you turning it down. Dont blame Kidd and VC for taking what someone else feels they are worth. Yes taking less money can help a franchise, but at the same time the franchises of the NBA hold no loyalty to the players at all and can trade any of them on a whim. You take less money to help out and you're traded in 2 months, then who looks like the fool. For some reason people always have this weird perception that the players should be loyal and help the franchise, yet the franchise is never expected to have loyalty to them.</p>

</div></p>

</p>

Very good point, TheMann. Doesn't make sense for Steve Francis to take a pay cut to play on the Rockets, either...when he isn't even getting playing time. (Let's be honest, some bozo team would've paid him more than he's getting now, whether he's worth it or not)</p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top