Reply With Quote
lol last post on this. The "option" isn't an hypotetical. Actually *using* said "option" is an hypothetical. Until he does that, and he removes the Spurs from the picture, he's bound to the Spurs' decision.
Maybe is they are injured hey can.
lol last post on this. The "option" isn't an hypotetical. Actually *using* said "option" is an hypothetical. Until he does that, and he removes the Spurs from the picture, he's bound to the Spurs' decision.
Goodnight all. It's been fun. Early rise.
ing Manu.
Wait that's not manu.
This is America, you post this in American.
JK
Says who? Kristina Kirchner?
Even though we disagree on some takes, it's been fun voicing opinions and getting feedback. Take it easy LCC.
Unless they deem they're not healthy or if they cannot obtain insurance. The Spurs would be making this decision on the healthy part (FIBA-NBA agreement Section C, Clause 1).
Now they're just trying to extinguish the fire that drives Manu. Expect him to be traded by Mid season SMH
This is good news to me.. It means I can now cheer 100% for Gilas (we are in the same 1st round bracket with Argentina) & with Manu resting, more chances for the Spurs to repeat.
This 2013-2014 Spurs team will still be team to beat next season.
Last edited by milkyway21; 07-28-2014 at 11:11 PM.
Yeah. People love to conveniently forget that Hakeem was being single-covered because he was surrounded by shooters (Horry, Smith, Mad Max, Elie, Cassell, Drexler), while poor DRob was being doubled and had little in the way of help.
He's a gamer that's part of his charm. If he wasn't he'd probably have hung it up after the 2013 disaster or chronic injury status years before.
I was fine with Manu playing for the national team IF HEALTHY. Any doubt and no way. He's already earned an Olympic Gold medal and it's not like a repeat is going to happen, let it go already and concentrate on an NBA championship repeat which is still well within his grasp.
Gilas won't win a game
On THAT we can agree. That's what I was saying the whole time! Sorry for the delay, had to rinse some of the stink of this thread off me in the shower. Another g'nite. Take care all.
I'm happy he's not playing but the Spurs should've expected this when they went ahead and tried to resign him. He already said he was serious about retiring when they asked him back. Of course he wants to finish with the NT team that helped him get his career started.
You, too!Even though we disagree on some takes, it's been fun voicing opinions and getting feedback. Take it easy LCC.
I don't speak Mexican. Is he trying to sell you silver?
It's the basketball "world cup" who the cares? Olympics is the flagship international bball compe ion, just because it's called the "world cup" and happens the same year as the soccer world cup people are going to start caring? This is only marginally more of a big deal then a team asking a star not to play in the Drew League.
The winner of three out of the last six FIBA World Cups was Yugoslavia. Spare me.
The are the Manu trolls even arguing? Ginobili is obviously injured and even the Argentinian doctor said the test results were inconclusive. I remember a few years ago Ellis was injured in a mo-ped accident and was suspended almost half the season. So yes, teams can dictate what you do outside of the NBA. If the player is taking an unnecessary risk, teams have a right to stop the player. If the player doesn't listen, he gets suspended.
Too late. He already sabotaged the 2013 Finals.
I think people are misunderstanding what is happening here. Unless something big changed, NBA teams cannot actually disallow a player participating in international play. This is why Cuban always complains about it and has to talk Dirk into opting out of the German National Team. So the Spurs can't just tell Ginobili that he can't play. What they can (and could always) do is warn him that they will terminate his deal if he gets (more) hurt during the tournament or sue him for damages. This is pretty standard practice for every team.
Usually, insurance companies are willing to insure a player, so the teams have no financial leverage. But with Ginobili already having a broken leg, I doubt anyone will insure him. So he has to hope the Spurs are willing to trust him to not get further injured by playing next month. Obviously they don't. There's not much Ginobili can do besides negotiate with Pop and RC. Unless I misunderstood the situation myself, there's really nothing to appeal. If Manu either convinces the Spurs he won't actually play a lot this summer or is willing to forfeit next year's salary if he gets hurt, he'll get to go. If not, he won't.
Also, the Finals argument that was circling about a few pages ago is misguided. The Spurs were willing to let Ginobili play hurt during the Finals because they were paying him. They were willing to absorb the risk of him getting hurt since they benefited from him playing. They get no such utility in this case. There's nothing hypocritical about their stance. They were willing to risk $7 Million to win a le for themselves, and they weren't willing to for Manu to have a swan song with his national team.
Manu don't look worried about the harvey tweet:
The numer 5 is in the cake, lol, Manu is going to play in the WC. I'm sure!
Incorrect. The FIBA-NBA Agreement stipulates (Section C, Clause I): "Players are not authorized to practice or compete with their National Teams when there's a reasonable medical condition that might create a substantial risk of injury, disease or other damage" (I translated this from Spanish, it might not be word for word the actual text, but I couldn't find a copy of the agreement on the internets).
The FIBA-NBA Agreement is well known, since it's also the one that stipulates that players are required to obtain insurance (when healthy).
My last take on this: The fact that they were willing to "risk" anything has little to do with it being hypocritical. Manu was in fact injured - the degree that they knew can be debated, but the injury itself cannot. They chose to let him play in the Finals because it benefited them and they do not want him to play in the World Cup because they have nothing to gain (and everything to lose) - it seems that we agree on that.
Hypocrisy is defined as: behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel.
If the Spurs honestly feel that Manu cannot and should not play basketball because of the risk of injury, he should not have been able to play in the Finals. Now, am I glad that they let him play in the Finals? ABSOLUTELY! Am I glad they're wanting him to sit out the summer? Again, ABSOLUTELY!
Just because one benefits from doing something hypocritical, doesn't negate the hypocrisy. In fact, isn't that why most people DO act hypocritical? They stand strongly to their beliefs and morals - until the opportunity presents itself where they benefit greatly from doing otherwise. Haven't you learned anything from politics?
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
