Damian Lillard is unhappy with the way things are going in Portland. 👀

[Lebron23]

https://scontent.fmnl9-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/207220238_10169522373392037_1809230722565547945_n. jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_eui2=AeFAzLaQo8GTlP1H5AvRWZvcdm2R1W3GVzJ2bZHVb cZXMm4FYQAV7xo68YGAPrXo5kiIL96ZlE8UctMr3h5B7uML&_nc_ohc=qDyrpCJMsrcAX-n9xBo&_nc_ht=scontent.fmnl9-1.fna&oh=224c841a0a7640f9c3df4a506293e2cf&oe=60DDDF76

https://scontent.fmnl9-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/205393743_4257116717687702_8264381405989366062_n.j pg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_eui2=AeFz3N2H9b73avlfbn67lT0Ujo5uecEPtteOjm55w Q-21xpnrz6JJAXOah-M0l0Mde3yDh-w2up9yhzyhu3Mvain&_nc_ohc=scTnAIkXRIIAX_0kTZF&_nc_ht=scontent.fmnl9-2.fna&oh=96576a10b81e960f9797c34efcba9698&oe=60DEB1A1

[Axe]

Since stotts departed

[8Ball]

He signed a 220M extension with 4 years left and now he wants out.

There should be a way for teams to "void" a contract and re-sign another max player in his place and the player gets to go in free agency.

[Manny98]

Simmons for Lillard + picks

Who says no?

[red1]

Simmons for Lillard + picks

Who says no?

glad you're still alive.


I was worried that you'd stop posting after you hid like a little bitch when the nets lost.

[red1]

I would try to get more than simmons if I was the blazers. lillard plus embiid is a championship duo if embiid can stay healthy.

[Manny98]

glad you're still alive.


I was worried that you'd stop posting after you hid like a little bitch when the nets lost.
You're team missed the playoffs altogether bitch

Sit yo ass down

[red1]

thought you jumped off a bridge and killed yourself.


glad you were just in hiding. like a little bitch hiding in a hole.

[Manny98]

Imagine missing the playoffs altogether :oldlol:

What a joke of a franchise the Raptors are and their fans are a bunch of soft little scrawny Candians

[Patrick Chewing]

You're team missed the playoffs altogether bitch

Sit yo ass down

:oldlol:

[rawimpact]

Exactly why these owners need to grow a pair and start forcing players to STFU and play. They signed a contract, an extension ontop of it so they know what they're in for. Each game they don't play should be an unpaid sitout.

Why is it that these owners are forced to pay players a shit ton of money if they underperform, but the players can violate a contract if they are 'unhappy with the way things are going'?

Sit his ass on the bench the next three or four years.

[j3lademaster]

He signed a 220M extension with 4 years left and now he wants out.

There should be a way for teams to "void" a contract and re-sign another max player in his place and the player gets to go in free agency.
Why should franchises have all the power?

[FultzNationRISE]

Why should franchises have all the power?

Agreeing to a contract that pays you 220 million dollars to play basketball for five years is having no power?

That's an interesting take.

[j3lademaster]

Agreeing to a contract that pays you 220 million dollars to play basketball for five years is having no power?

That's an interesting take.It’s tough to read sarcasm over text, so forgive me if I seem gullible replying to this.

Yes, having hundreds of millions of dollars makes you more powerful than 99.9% of society. That was not the context of my reply. I was replying to a poster who suggested teams should have the power to void contracts of players who don’t want to play for them.

[red1]

Imagine missing the playoffs altogether :oldlol:

What a joke of a franchise the Raptors are and their fans are a bunch of soft little scrawny Candians

nets are still ringless. :oldlol:

[bladefd]

He signed a 220M extension with 4 years left and now he wants out.

There should be a way for teams to "void" a contract and re-sign another max player in his place and the player gets to go in free agency.

Or you can trade him for another max player and lots of assets.

[bladefd]

Exactly why these owners need to grow a pair and start forcing players to STFU and play. They signed a contract, an extension ontop of it so they know what they're in for. Each game they don't play should be an unpaid sitout.

Why is it that these owners are forced to pay players a shit ton of money if they underperform, but the players can violate a contract if they are 'unhappy with the way things are going'?

Sit his ass on the bench the next three or four years.

Unfortunately, the players just have a lot more power in the NBA and every penny of their contracts are guaranteed. But I do think that the team should be allowed to hold back the money for each game the player refuses to play. I don't know how it would go if the owner decided to take the player to court over it - never been done.

[Ice Trae]

Portland needs to do the right thing and send Lillard off to a contender. I saw some kind of draft picks combination and Ben Simmons for Lillard.

[8Ball]

Why should franchises have all the power?

If a player "demands" a trade after signing a 200M contract or a supermax, a team should be able to void it and sign another "max contract" in free agency to replace that.

I am talking about the player initiating the contract "breach".

[8Ball]

Or you can trade him for another max player and lots of assets.

Nobody ever gets equal value in a distress fire sale.

The Pelicans got good value for AD but that wasn't equal value.

[8Ball]

Exactly why these owners need to grow a pair and start forcing players to STFU and play. They signed a contract, an extension ontop of it so they know what they're in for. Each game they don't play should be an unpaid sitout.

Why is it that these owners are forced to pay players a shit ton of money if they underperform, but the players can violate a contract if they are 'unhappy with the way things are going'?

Sit his ass on the bench the next three or four years.

Owners are trapped. They have fan bases to appease and 82 games to play and "attract" fans and pay the bills. Sponsors and advertisers want stability and viewership. Some of these players don't care to lose a few million in order to get traded to another super team.

[bladefd]

If a player "demands" a trade after signing a 200M contract or a supermax, a team should be able to void it and sign another "max contract" in free agency to replace that.

I am talking about the player initiating the contract "breach".

If you void the contract altogether then you get nothing at all for him. There is no guarantee there will be a superstar available in free agency. Perhaps they should relax the s&t rules and make it easier to do a s&t :confusedshrug:

[bobopenguin]

the problem is portland fans.

who da fuq wanna play for a team supported by bunch of lunatic political correctness fans.
they started with demanding of hiring black coach, then ask u to include female staff, later will ask u to hire ppl form LGBTQ community, then they probably want u to promote ppl who's a strong vegan and fight environmental awareness, while hold 0 guns.

[Spurs m8]

He happily took a ridiculous HUGE contract...and its just started too.

Earn your money you little b1tch

Hes always been a pouting woe is me cvnt

[hold this L]

Dame, what a fake ****ing punk ass dude. Can't build your entire persona over loyalty and make some BS to jet once you see there's no future babyboi. No problems if he just left because he wants to win a ring instead of making a story up to force a trade. F*cking punk.

[plowking]

He signed a 220M extension with 4 years left and now he wants out.

There should be a way for teams to "void" a contract and re-sign another max player in his place and the player gets to go in free agency.

Absolutely ridiculous salaries for a bunch of dudes who put a ball in a ring.

Even 1/2 is ridiculous.

Situations like COVID arise, and guaranteed contracts for sports athletes are around, while most cant afford to do much else but eat and live.

[Sportal]

Lakers, 76ers, Celtics....... Lillard could push all of these teams over the top..

[8Ball]

Lol just a few months ago he posts this:


"My Loyalty Is My Biggest Flaw... I'm Too Solid For This Weird A** Era."

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNCyAOMg7Wp/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=1898036c-1063-41ff-ae6f-d8de86e1889f



Now this dude saw what AD / Harden did and wants some of it too. :roll:

[Jasper]

obviously he wants a chip.
Doubt he will ever get traded unless Portland feels they are holding him up / but they are making ton's of money off of him.

[GOBB]

Why do fans take the owners side? Where is the penalty for franchises signing a player to a big contract then after year 1 trading said player for cap expiring deals to avoid the big contract they gave in the first place? It’s ok to do that.

[GOBB]

Absolutely ridiculous salaries for a bunch of dudes who put a ball in a ring.

Even 1/2 is ridiculous.

Situations like COVID arise, and guaranteed contracts for sports athletes are around, while most cant afford to do much else but eat and live.

And you say zero about the owners who are actually wealthy as hell. Fans are so envious of player salaries but are blind to owners making bank. Makes no sense to me. You’re all worried about the avg joke day to day life. And how players get paid so much to play a game. As the owners fly private jets over your heads. Genius.

[plowking]

And you say zero about the owners who are actually wealthy as hell. Fans are so envious of player salaries but are blind to owners making bank. Makes no sense to me. You’re all worried about the avg joke day to day life. And how players get paid so much to play a game. As the owners fly private jets over your heads. Genius.

The owners take on far more risk than players do financially.

A quarter of a billion dollars over 5 years is ridiculous for all but a few guys in the league maybe. These player unions are the worst thing to happen, because you have salaries higher than what a players output is reflecting, and consequently you have owners than protecting these overpaid assets by allowing more rest, resulting in a lower quality output over the course of the season because the best guys aren't out there as much.

Stay angry and spouting off though.

[GOBB]

The owners take on far more risk than players do financially.

A quarter of a billion dollars over 5 years is ridiculous for all but a few guys in the league maybe. These player unions are the worst thing to happen, because you have salaries higher than what a players output is reflecting, and consequently you have owners than protecting these overpaid assets by allowing more rest, resulting in a lower quality output over the course of the season because the best guys aren't out there as much.

Stay angry and spouting off though.

No the hell they don’t. You weird ass fans support and defend these owners is sad. I’m far from angry when it’s you envious of players making bank while the avg joe is trying hard to make a dollar today. The day you stop pocket watching is the day you’ll be happy. The hilarious part is if your talentless non athletic self was as gifted as these athletes? You would sign those contracts happily and defend why you feel you deserve it. That’s why I don’t get you dudes here. No franchise is in debt because that are paying these athletes you feel don’t deserve the kind of money they are making. It’s ok for everyone to make money in this business but the player. Were you a slave owner in your former life? It’s amazing how many billionaire owners are in the NBA. And it’s ok how they make their money by you. But got damnit dame Lillard you don’t deserve the money you get shooting a ball in a hoop. The former owner of the blazers was a well known billionaire who stayed on Forbes wealthy f*cks list. The guy had a yacht worth more than dame contract. No issue from you. Well deserved right? Oh ok. But in the angry one that can’t comprehend numb nuts like yourself who always shit on athletes making bank but say zero about the owners. Got it man. I know I know I know their outside wealth is different, it’s well deserved they they they do phenomenal stuff unlike shooting a ball in a ring. Ok ok ok got it bud.

[ArbitraryWater]

Lol just a few months ago he posts this:



https://www.instagram.com/p/CNCyAOMg7Wp/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=1898036c-1063-41ff-ae6f-d8de86e1889f



Now this dude saw what AD / Harden did and wants some of it too. :roll:

Cmon now.

Dame did his time.

He's due a shot at a title.

He gutted it out long enough with them and they're not building the necessary team around him.

He tried.

Now tbf he's only been a superstar for 2 years now but still.

[hold this L]

Cmon now.

Dame did his time.

He's due a shot at a title.

He gutted it out long enough with them and they're not building the necessary team around him.

He tried.

Now tbf he's only been a superstar for 2 years now but still.
Dame has never been a superstar in his entire career, unless we count 15-20 players as superstars now. No one has a problem if Dame wants to ring chase, but don't talk all that shit about how "loyal" you are and do this. And if you are going to ring chase, at least man the **** up instead of making stories about the coach that you signed off on before he got hired.

What a ****ing fraud :lol

[ThatCoolKid]

Kuzma, Schroeder and 2nd round pick for Dame who says no?

[ArbitraryWater]

Dame has never been a superstar in his entire career, unless we count 15-20 players as superstars now. No one has a problem if Dame wants to ring chase, but don't talk all that shit about how "loyal" you are and do this. And if you are going to ring chase, at least man the **** up instead of making stories about the coach that you signed off on before he got hired.

What a ****ing fraud :lol

Hell yes he has been a superstar the last 2 years.

He averaged thirty ****ing points per game last year. On 20 shots.

Tell me the 15-20 players doing that..

while going 46/40/90.

THREE 60 point games...

7 times 47 or more.

29 on 20 this year.

4 game winners..

[Kblaze8855]

The owners take on far more risk than players do financially.

A quarter of a billion dollars over 5 years is ridiculous for all but a few guys in the league maybe. These player unions are the worst thing to happen, because you have salaries higher than what a players output is reflecting, and consequently you have owners than protecting these overpaid assets by allowing more rest, resulting in a lower quality output over the course of the season because the best guys aren't out there as much.

Stay angry and spouting off though.


There is no risk to owning an nba team. What’s the biggest possible downside? You burn through literally all your liquid cash and sell it off for a billion and a half dollars?

This isnt 1980 where you sell an nba team for 2 million and a parking garage. There is no more secure investment than owning a major sports team. The worst case scenario is still generational forever wealth. Even fine art is occasionally found out to be fake. All stock and crypto has fluctuations. If you have a billion dollars to spend on something and want to make sure you can get it back....owning an nfl or nba team is a pretty solid choice. There are equal ways but not really better. Some of these teams have local tv deals....outside the normal multi billion dollars nba rights deal....in the 800 million to 1 billion range.

Owners aren’t paying deals out of pocket. The asset they own generates the money to pay the contracts and if they run it poorly enough so it doesn’t they walk having made a profit. The least profitable nba team is the Pistons who were bought with an initial investment of 325 million for a controlling share. They are now worth 1.5 billion and would likely sell for even more than that.

The risk in owning an nba team is virtually zero. Not literally zero...but being realistic?

Its zero.

[tpols]

The owners take on far more risk than players do financially.

A quarter of a billion dollars over 5 years is ridiculous for all but a few guys in the league maybe. These player unions are the worst thing to happen, because you have salaries higher than what a players output is reflecting, and consequently you have owners than protecting these overpaid assets by allowing more rest, resulting in a lower quality output over the course of the season because the best guys aren't out there as much.

Stay angry and spouting off though.

Owners are billionaires. What are you smoking?

[GOBB]

plowking you like apples? How do you like those apples?!

[Kblaze8855]

And it’s weird seeing people complain about owners having the pay big guaranteed deals.....because they don’t. There is nothing in the cba requiring guaranteed money. It’s like the nfl. You get that money by refusing to sign a contract without it. Kirk Cousins has a 100% guarantee because he wouldn’t sign the bullshit offers players get and made them franchise him till he was a true free agent. The Blazers could offer Dame 250 non guaranteed and obviously he would t sign it. He’d take the guaranteed money elsewhere and the Blazers front office and owner would be vilified for giving him a valid reason to leave when he was willing to stay in Portland.

Owners aren’t required to offer fully guaranteed deals....they do it because they are in competition with each other. You can offer 200 with a bunch of options for the team and add extra scenarios on top of the usual that let them void it. But no superstar signs it. It’s entirely up to the teams to have the discipline....but they don’t. So they are to blame.

Its not the fault of an employee he has a great deal. The employer is in competition with others and the good deals he offers are a means to an end. But it’s up to them. Go on and offer a deal you can easily void. It doesn’t get signed. You lose forever.

Up to you.

NFL teams will just let you go. They can afford to. Nfl teams don’t rely on individuals the way nba teams do. It takes dozens of people to win in the nfl. The right 2 people make any nba team compete so those people have more pull if you wanna win.

Nothing forces guaranteed contracts but competition.

[rawimpact]

And it’s weird seeing people complain about owners having the pay big guaranteed deals.....because they don’t. There is nothing in the cba requiring guaranteed money. It’s like the nfl. You get that money by refusing to sign a contract without it. Kirk Cousins has a 100% guarantee because he wouldn’t sign the bullshit offers players get and made them franchise him till he was a true free agent. The Blazers could offer Dame 250 non guaranteed and obviously he would t sign it. He’d take the guaranteed money elsewhere and the Blazers front office and owner would be vilified for giving him a valid reason to leave when he was willing to stay in Portland.

Owners aren’t required to offer fully guaranteed deals....they do it because they are in competition with each other. You can offer 200 with a bunch of options for the team and add extra scenarios on top of the usual that let them void it. But no superstar signs it. It’s entirely up to the teams to have the discipline....but they don’t. So they are to blame.

Its not the fault of an employee he has a great deal. The employer is in competition with others and the good deals he offers are a means to an end. But it’s up to them. Go on and offer a deal you can easily void. It doesn’t get signed. You lose forever.

Up to you.

NFL teams will just let you go. They can afford to. Nfl teams don’t rely on individuals the way nba teams do. It takes dozens of people to win in the nfl. The right 2 people make any nba team compete so those people have more pull if you wanna win.

Nothing forces guaranteed contracts but competition.

Umm no one is blaming the player or employee, you said it yourself... it's the owners collective fault for offering that money.
The issue with the player is if he demands a trade or threatens to not play despite being cleared to.

[GOBB]

Umm no one is blaming the player or employee, you said it yourself... it's the owners collective fault for offering that money.
The issue with the player is if he demands a trade or threatens to not play despite being cleared to.

Teams don’t honor contracts so it’s fair game. And what players sits out a full season over not wanting to play? Forcing a trade usually comes when a player has a little left on his deal before becoming a free agent. A trade me now and get the most value you can get or lose me for nothing later when I don’t resign.

[StrongLurk]

Lilliard has put his time in for the Blazers...he deserves new scenery. Hopefully he moves to a mid-level playoff team and we can see if he can make the finals.

[j3lademaster]

The owners take on far more risk than players do financially.

A quarter of a billion dollars over 5 years is ridiculous for all but a few guys in the league maybe. These player unions are the worst thing to happen, because you have salaries higher than what a players output is reflecting, and consequently you have owners than protecting these overpaid assets by allowing more rest, resulting in a lower quality output over the course of the season because the best guys aren't out there as much.

Stay angry and spouting off though.WTF. So you think these owners are charities? If salaries were higher than player output the nba wouldn’t exist. That’s like the most simple, basic aspect one learns in their 8th grade economics class. And even before that most kids already understand the basic concepts of capitalism by just reading some current events. How is anyone this clueless?

Sure, you can argue some roleplayers are overpaid since they don’t have the cache to draw viewership. But the 500 players overall, if anything, is underpaid compared to the profit they generate.

[GOBB]

Yikes plowshot is getting body shot after body shot. Can’t wait for his snarky reply.

[Kblaze8855]

Umm no one is blaming the player or employee, you said it yourself... it's the owners collective fault for offering that money.
The issue with the player is if he demands a trade or threatens to not play despite being cleared to.

For one....a trade “demand” while under contract doesn’t force anything. You can keep him and have the story wreck chemistry and likely make your team worse long term. Keep him and shitty chemistry then eventually watch him walk for nothing. Or....trade him for assets. A player not wanting to be there letting you know early in the deal is best for both when you take the emotion out of it. A star with 3 years is a lot more of a trade asset than one who can walk in 3 months like happens when you do deadline deals for guys who wait till the last minute.

This is one of those “sounds wrong but isn’t” things. If Lebron told the Cavs he wanted out in 2008 whatever they get is a LOT better than watching him walk for next to nothing. You could trade 08 Lebron with 2 years left for damn near any asset you wanted. You can trade deadline Lebron for something....but you can’t call the 08 Hornets with peak young Paul and say “Give me Paul and David West” like you could earlier. You could trade him for anyone but Kobe. Hell you could have traded him for Kobe during his trade demand if not for Kobe having veto power. That’s the best asset on the trade market since Kareem leaving the Bucks. But not when he can walk in a few months.

Id rather a guy who wants out tell me on day 3 instead of when I have 2 months to move him with other teams knowing they have the advantage.

Dame is worth a lot more to a team trading for him now than before he signed.

Think about it for a moment. Tell me I’m wrong.

Tell me the trade market is worse for a soon to be free agent Dame than a 4 years left one. If they called the Pelicans for Ingram and Lonzo or the Warriors for Wiseman, 7 , 14 and future picks....they would listen.

You get the whole league to listen for Dame with 4 years left short of like Luka, Trae, and Giannis. The young healthy stars are off limits. Everyone else takes the call.

Offer the same thing when he can walk end of the year? Whole other conversation.

[rawimpact]

For one....a trade “demand” while under contract doesn’t force anything. You can keep him and have the story wreck chemistry and likely make your team worse long term. Keep him and shitty chemistry then eventually watch him walk for nothing. Or....trade him for assets. A player not wanting to be there letting you know early in the deal is best for both when you take the emotion out of it. A star with 3 years is a lot more of a trade asset than one who can walk in 3 months like happens when you do deadline deals for guys who wait till the last minute.

This is one of those “sounds wrong but isn’t” things. If Lebron told the Cavs he wanted out in 2008 whatever they get is a LOT better than watching him walk for next to nothing. You could trade 08 Lebron with 2 years left for damn near any asset you wanted. You can trade deadline Lebron for something....but you can’t call the 08 Hornets with peak young Paul and say “Give me Paul and David West” like you could earlier. You could trade him for anyone but Kobe. Hell you could have traded him for Kobe during his trade demand if not for Kobe having veto power. That’s the best asset on the trade market since Kareem leaving the Bucks. But not when he can walk in a few months.

Id rather a guy who wants out tell me on day 3 instead of when I have 2 months to move him with other teams knowing they have the advantage.

Dame is worth a lot more to a team trading for him now than before he signed.

Think about it for a moment. Tell me I’m wrong.

Tell me the trade market is worse for a soon to be free agent Dame than a 4 years left one. If they called the Pelicans for Ingram and Lonzo or the Warriors for Wiseman, 7 , 14 and future picks....they would listen.

You get the whole league to listen for Dame with 4 years left short of like Luka, Trae, and Giannis. The young healthy stars are off limits. Everyone else takes the call.

Offer the same thing when he can walk end of the year? Whole other conversation.

Contracts mean absolutely nothing for the owners, it just something for the player. a 4 year contract doesnt mean hes going to play for you for 4 years as seen here. A bullshit 'demand' to get him to leave. He isn't any more valuable with 4 years vs 2 years left on his contract because those years dont matter. All he has to do is demand another trade and you'd say the absolute same thing. Better to trade now vs later.

The way the owners set things up, there is no penalty for not playing or demanding trade or atleast I don't think there is.

[8Ball]

For one....a trade “demand” while under contract doesn’t force anything. You can keep him and have the story wreck chemistry and likely make your team worse long term. Keep him and shitty chemistry then eventually watch him walk for nothing. Or....trade him for assets. A player not wanting to be there letting you know early in the deal is best for both when you take the emotion out of it. A star with 3 years is a lot more of a trade asset than one who can walk in 3 months like happens when you do deadline deals for guys who wait till the last minute.


It does force things Kblaze.

1) You have a team distraction where the media digs at you every day about "chemistry".
2) Your other players are discouraged.
3) You end up losing more games.
4) Your fans / sponsors / advertisers are demanding changes.

It ain't just easy to ignore the trade demand and go on with life.

[Kblaze8855]

Contracts mean absolutely nothing for the owners, it just something for the player. a 4 year contract doesnt mean hes going to play for you for 4 years as seen here. A bullshit 'demand' to get him to leave. He isn't any more valuable with 4 years vs 2 years left on his contract because those years dont matter. All he has to do is demand another trade and you'd say the absolute same thing. Better to trade now vs later.

The way the owners set things up, there is no penalty for not playing or demanding trade or atleast I don't think there is.

Ok.

Youre an opposing owner. 25 year old Lebron or Kobe or whoever...top guy...he wants out. Will play for you. Has 4 years left.

They want your best player, your third best, 2 picks and for you to take a bad contract.

Them having 4 years as opposed to it being a trade deadline deal when they are a free agent in 3 months doesnt factor in?


Of course it does.

Even if they later want out....they are more valuable the further they are from being able to leave for nothing.

Getting the news last minute is the absolute worst that can happen. Getting it immediately is actually better than not signing him to begin with. You don’t have a top guy walk then use the space to sign another one usually. But if he signs back you can start shopping around the league for what you want for him.

The less time he waits....the better. You’re thinking emotionally not rationally on this. I understand...but it is what it is.

[Kblaze8855]

It does force things Kblaze.

1) You have a team distraction where the media digs at you every day about "chemistry".
2) Your other players are discouraged.
3) You end up losing more games.
4) Your fans / sponsors / advertisers are demanding changes.

It ain't just easy to ignore the trade demand and go on with life.


Same thing as guaranteed deals. You can do what you want if you aren’t a competitor. If you want to help the team....sign players to guaranteed money...and trade them when they want out.

You can be a tough guy and say “Nope” but that’s just choosing spite over a well run franchise. You aren’t gonna set some precedent and get all the other owners behind you. One of them will just do what you won’t because they wanna win.

People don’t stick together for what’s best for all of them. People want a little more for themselves....and there’s nothing to eat done about it.

[imdaman99]

The owners take on far more risk than players do financially.

A quarter of a billion dollars over 5 years is ridiculous for all but a few guys in the league maybe. These player unions are the worst thing to happen, because you have salaries higher than what a players output is reflecting, and consequently you have owners than protecting these overpaid assets by allowing more rest, resulting in a lower quality output over the course of the season because the best guys aren't out there as much.

Stay angry and spouting off though.

OH NOEZ, WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF DA OWNAZ

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/82/ab/e2/82abe267c71fb13cebdb7bea2a922243.png

[plowking]

There is no risk to owning an nba team. What’s the biggest possible downside? You burn through literally all your liquid cash and sell it off for a billion and a half dollars?

This isnt 1980 where you sell an nba team for 2 million and a parking garage. There is no more secure investment than owning a major sports team. The worst case scenario is still generational forever wealth. Even fine art is occasionally found out to be fake. All stock and crypto has fluctuations. If you have a billion dollars to spend on something and want to make sure you can get it back....owning an nfl or nba team is a pretty solid choice. There are equal ways but not really better. Some of these teams have local tv deals....outside the normal multi billion dollars nba rights deal....in the 800 million to 1 billion range.

Owners aren’t paying deals out of pocket. The asset they own generates the money to pay the contracts and if they run it poorly enough so it doesn’t they walk having made a profit. The least profitable nba team is the Pistons who were bought with an initial investment of 325 million for a controlling share. They are now worth 1.5 billion and would likely sell for even more than that.

The risk in owning an nba team is virtually zero. Not literally zero...but being realistic?

Its zero.


Anyone making initial investment is taking on risk.

COVID comes along and impacts viewership, attendance, etc., that all plays in your valuation of a business. Sure, they still get billions back, but it could be at a loss.

Current salaries, especially for role players impact the quality of product. More players rested as more and more are considered giant investments by these businesses. You protect your assets. What bit of that is controversial?

Not sure why everyone is clinging onto the one comment I made about owners taking on more risk. This is a fact. No where did I say anything supporting them lol.

[plowking]

WTF. So you think these owners are charities? If salaries were higher than player output the nba wouldn’t exist. That’s like the most simple, basic aspect one learns in their 8th grade economics class. And even before that most kids already understand the basic concepts of capitalism by just reading some current events. How is anyone this clueless?

Sure, you can argue some roleplayers are overpaid since they don’t have the cache to draw viewership. But the 500 players overall, if anything, is underpaid compared to the profit they generate.

I was speaking of output of product produced in quality.
Less and less players are playing full seasons. More and more are sitting out in the regular season. Fans are less and less interested in the regular season as owners are protecting these extremely expensive investments.

Revenue distribution for players is fine compared to other businesses.

[plowking]

Yikes plowshot is getting body shot after body shot. Can’t wait for his snarky reply.

You're such a ***** its hilarious.

Ultimate definition of a keyboard warrior.

Honestly wish you the best and hope you're happy with the postman job in Philly. Don't know if that is the case considering how mad you are on here.

[GOBB]

You're such a ***** its hilarious.

Ultimate definition of a keyboard warrior.

Honestly wish you the best and hope you're happy with the postman job in Philly. Don't know if that is the case considering how mad you are on here.

All your replies to me are hostile bud. Who is really the mad one? You got worked in here for a silly ass comment. Own it.

[plowking]

All your replies to me are hostile bud. Who is really the mad one? You got worked in here for a silly ass comment. Own it.

1. Sports stars in general are overpaid.

2. Those who make ownership investment take on more risk.

Which of the comments are silly?

I never said anything about poor owners, nor do I care about them. You implied that. :oldlol:

[GOBB]

1. Sports stars in general are overpaid.

2. Those who make ownership investment take on more risk.

Which of the comments are silly?

I never said anything about poor owners, nor do I care about them. You implied that. :oldlol:

How are they overpaid when the NBA generates f*cking billions you nitwit? You want them to make what you make for the year? So where does all that excess money go that’s being made? You sound dumb

[Charlie Sheen]

1. Sports stars in general are overpaid.

2. Those who make ownership investment take on more risk.

Which of the comments are silly?

I never said anything about poor owners, nor do I care about them. You implied that. :oldlol:

I used to be into collecting those sports trading cards and going to those shows where retired athletes would sell autographs. Most of those guys were in bad shape, having more trouble walking than my 80 year old dad does today. Now that im getting older, I wouldn't trade millions of dollars for an aging body that's been surgically repaired dozens of times. They're getting paid for more than just their athletic prime. A lot of these players are selling the quality of life off the last 20, 30 or whatever years of their lives after retirement.