Reply With Quote
Well, you certainly believe it did. I didn't.
Yeah, because the OP tried to imply that we're doing well 'cause Manu and Tony didn't play in the offseason, and diego pointed that lately the teams that have won it all had their best players playing during the summer, including the Spurs, dissmising the OP's theory.
Well, you certainly believe it did. I didn't.
Tony was moping around like a zombie all year last year
One guess why that was?? Actually never mind...
“After a long discussion with Gregg Popovich, I know now that I won’t play for the World Championship. The Spurs told me that it would be best for me to focus on the club only. This season was wasted by injuries, they don’t want it to happen during my last year of contract.”
Injuries happen everywhere, in fact Manu's big injury happened playing in the NBA not FIBA.
And re-injured in Beijing.
Injuries can indeed happen anywhere, but an NBA player that spends the offseason following a rest and fitness regimen is likely to be in better condition on Day 1 of training camp than a player who plays compe ive basketball in the offseason. There are no guarantees either way, but the odds favor the rest and fitness regimen, especially as a player gets older.
I'm not arguing with you but more expanding your claim that the only reason for this is a contract by some savvy lawyers. My point is that there is a good argument to be made why the contract exists.
Actually that is not entirely true since I remember the insurance value to be more than the salary of the player. If I remember correctly it was something like player's salary + fixed lump sum defined by the club. I also remember the insurance companies charging an arm and a leg for those.
While I agree that the insurance does little for the fans, I am pretty sure that the bottom line on the owner's balance sheet would be hardly impacted by the player's injury.
Again not criticizing this, just pointing out that some posters are a little naive thinking that smart owners (for the most part) would agree to loan their players and risk jeopardizing their business completely at their own risk.
While I agree with you, this type of threads always about foreign players playing for their national teams and almost never about Team USA.
Got it. The agreements exist because of money.
Think about it this way.
There is a substantial amount of money to made if an NBA club makes a deep playoff run.
What are the chances that the Spurs make a deep playoff run without Tony or Manu?
My point on this side issue, and that's all I believe it is, is that the owner of a franchise with great international player assumes a disproportionately portion of the overall risk associated with FIBA tournaments.
True, which is why I objected to the patriotism issue when it was first brought up in this thread. It's irrelevant.
Of course, there would be plenty of ing about Team USA if Timmy kept playing in FIBA events....
1.- The owner has the choice of not drafting international players. The FIBA clause is there and they know it.
2.- I'm going on a limb here and say that in pure dollars and cents the difference in the pocket of the owner whether the team make the playoffs or not is not that great. So in reality by drafting cheaper players and risking only a small portion of his profits. The decision for the owner, form a pure financial aspect, is pretty easy.
3.- The owners are businessman that don't gamble their profits on the team making the playoffs (let alone a deep run) - too many variables. Believe me their business plan is made for the regular season. Look at the playoffs as an end of year bonus - they're nice, but not essential.
A point I agree with and have made in a slightly different form many times.
FWIW, I've read that each Spurs playoff game improves the bottom line by one million dollars.
Doesn't really matter though. As far as I'm concerned, the insurance requirements are just one element of the larger agreements. We don't need to agree on how well, or poorly, an NBA owner is compensated for the loss of a Manu or a Dirk. His compensation is as per the existing agreements.
I do agree with your general point that the owners are big boys and quite capable of making choices that affect their bottom line, I've said as much in this thread with regard to Holt paying to extend Manu and Tony.
My man.
They can. But I don't like it. Pretty much says it all.
Once. Twice maybe. Any more than that, and I'd no matter what country the player was representing.
BTW - a lot of things are legal. It's legal to burn the flag, too. And I get pissed when people do that. Apparently people have the right to turn the music up in their ing cars until it rattles the windows in my house. I get pissed about that. It's legal to leave your cell phone on in the theater. It's legal for people to have contracts that pay them millions of dollars to make them go away, even when they get fired for being incompetent. You get the idea.
Don't act like just because someone has a right to do something, we should all applaud them for doing it. Ultimately, the fans pay the bills for the NBA. We ing SHOULD have SOME influence. Even though we really don't.
You don't want International players to play for their NT . . . don't draft them in the first place. Otherwise, STFU and move on . . .
There is more in basketball player life than NBA, you need to be humble and respect that "overseas ", you might not like it, but you need to respect it, after all that overseas gives Manu and Tony to your team.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
