Knicks · BREAKING: Wade close to signing with Bulls (page 5)
People questioning his moves are just jealous that they can't make as much as him at the end of their careers or at any point of time for that matter. Me first society blah blah is all bullshit.
All those people seeing it in any negative light need to be in his shoes first and then tell the rest of us if they'd really be giving up millions of dollars knowing their career is ending in 2-3 years.
Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/complex_sports/status/751075065442230272
Click here to view the Tweet
earthmansurfer wrote:The condescending was not directed towards you.. apologies for lack of clarity on that. That was directed to the posted comments above yours.. the guy with the genius screen name. The one who told me I should look up greed.fishmike wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:meaning like the USA? Take a look at the bolded text. Here's another word to look up: condescendingmeloshouldgo wrote:fishmike wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:I agree... this notion that Wade going out and making the best living he can = greed? Especially when this is likely his last payday. I mean wow. People really lose perspective. People put their own feelings on these guys. The guys that "take less money to win" are really just giving up some money for a better work environment. Exactly what I do. I could boost my earnings by probably 40-50% but I am in a great situation and the extra money doesn't appeal to me nearly as much as the lower stress lifestyle that gives me more life balance. Now if my situation changes and I go get a job that pays a bunch more and I leave my current team is that selfish? Funny!earthmansurfer wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:Wade should have signed in Cleveland for 1 million less than Riley was offering him. (If Cleveland could have cleared the space.)Right. I dont get Wade's thinking. I dont see his Bulls being better now than his Heat would have been. And the extra $$$ that he'd be getting from the Bulls are not that much relative to his sneaker deals, ads income. What a way to tarnish one's legacy for virtually nothing.
Huh? Tarnish his legacy? He had taken less money his entire career compared to people of equal talent so his team could win championships. He was also the main reason people agreed to go play in Miami and they didn't even try to find an extra 10M to keep him after promising to do just that for KD. Not comparing Wade to KD but clearly they had the means to find the cap space. Why shouldn't Wade want to increase his career earnings at this point. He has already delivered three championships to Miami he doesn't owe them anything
Why? Well, the same as many of these multimillionaires with so much public appear. How much do you need? He has enough money to help transform aspects of society (if combined with his being well known), along with a handful of other players. When they keep going for the money, that is the message they transmit. If more players (and people for that matter) went or did what makes them happy, many more would follow. And from all walks of life.
Instead of that we have a society that is "me" oriented at the expense of others. And look where it is going.
This is very hard to argue in a capitalist society. Our economic model as well as social philosophy is me first by definition, To single out Wade to be the receiving end of such gripe is a bit thick. You can easily make the case that he has been the least greedy of the people of his caliber along with LeBron. Salaries are set by supply and demand (unless Dolan is involved, then they are set by demand alone). The market set his salary and he is taking it. Do you hold all other professional players and movie stars and politicians to the same standards?
Well, I'm not singling him out, just the one I am talking about now.
He took less money to win, but with Bron coming, how many players wouldn't?
Less Greedy vs Greedy? Let's just call it greed. Don't mean to be hard here but prices keep going higher, people keep losing jobs, banks keep stealing from them via inflation, and on and on.
I wouldn't call this "holding a standard" and I'm not judging them, just communicating another perspective. I'm saying we can each change things my making what others would call a sacrifice, but what in actuality is just plain understanding. Not many people understand though, we'll get there.Just getting these ideas out there has an effect, albeit a very small one.
What are you talking about? I hate when people bitch about how much money people make. How about starting at home with your views. You can give all.your salary away to charity. Will forward list.
Btw. He chose Chicago because it's his home town.
making the best living he can = greed?
Are you really equating making 20MM a year to making a living? Do you even understand the concept of making a living? When you fixate on wanting more stuff than you need to make a living it actually is called greed. You may wanna look those up. Capitalism fosters greed. Right or wrong is a judgment call, but to act like this isn't greed is very novel.Well said. And to all those who replied, it is nothing personal. It is hard to live outside of a system you are born into.
I made it clear I am not judging - not my intention. That said, I can clearly see why you see it / feel it that way.
The system I was referring to is capitalism. (Not that I am against this either, but in a sense, by definition, it is in part largely about greed and competition.) We are where we are.
The problem is that we are afraid to see what we are. When you take much more from a system than what you need, you are greedy. I'll let you be the judge of what too much is. I'm not meaning any of this in a bad way. It is more an observation and it is "normal" because the system is based on competition, corruption throughout the upper layers (as are perhaps all systems), and pits us against each other. So, when we are born into this "matrix", how can we even see it? I never really saw my American cultural ways until I left the country for a while. And then I never really saw the Western ways until I left those societies (long vacation.)
This is maybe condescending to you because you think we are judging you. We are not. It's hard to be a part of (this) system and see how it turns us against one another. I don't mean that in a judgmental or condescending way (again). But for it to change, we have to change. In due time. If you don't see a problem in any of this, that is fine. But if and when you do, then understanding will probably immediately change how you (we) go about our day to day existence. It will probably be our children, eventually, who bring it to our attention. And they won't be judging us. They will be trying to fix a broken system.
EMS... in essence EVERY system is broken if you look at it at that level. Our kids are going to know the same thing we know. That the negative forces aren't negative at all. They are human nature. There isn't a system on this Earth that isn't broken simply because they are all based around people, which are incredible flawed. I have worked for international companies for a decade plus so I get a lot of exposure to EU, APAC, AU... they all have problems. The countries that have the least amount of economical and cultural diversity do the best, because when everyone looks the same and kinda is the same there is less hate and competition.
In any case my point is I take exception with calling Wade greedy. Passing judgment on a person, especially when the information one has to pass that judgment in the first place is extremely limited, is every bit the character flaw they are suggesting Wade has in the first place. Of course the other side of the coin is if Wade isn't greedy, takes whatever folks think is fair, where does the left over money go? To the poor? To education? To the homeless? To the pockets of the owners?
fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:making the best living he can = greed?
Are you really equating making 20MM a year to making a living? Do you even understand the concept of making a living? When you fixate on wanting more stuff than you need to make a living it actually is called greed. You may wanna look those up. Capitalism fosters greed. Right or wrong is a judgment call, but to act like this isn't greed is very novel.Full Definition of greed:
a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is neededyea.. so I work for a living, am 43, have 3 kids from 4-15, own a house in the burbs, have a wife that also works and am currently saving for college funds etc... so please don't talk to me about making a living.
Where do you draw the line? And quite frankly who are you to judge? If I make a $100k a year but want to make $120k does that make me greedy? Do my kids *need* a quality college education when they can go to county college? Do I *need* a ribeye when I could just buy some ground chuck? Do you *need* to drive when you could take the bus?
Reading comprehension would help a little - Your comment was about Dwayne Wade "making a living" - I asked if you understood what making a living means in that context. This had nothing to do with your personal situation or your family life. I hope you can meet your aspirations and I don't hold that or anything else you do against you. We live in a country where the average salary is about 45K a year, to say that someone making 20MM a year is making a living is disrespectful to people who work two full time jobs and can't make enough money to put food on the table or pay rent. Just my opinion we may disagree on this.
I don't have an issue with Wade making 20MM or 25MM, I think he deserves it and I said so. But you have put your imaginary words in my mouth and proceeded on a witch hunt.
Greed is an easy word to throw out there when someone lacks the same skills to earn. I suppose by your standards EVERY pro athlete is greedy right? I mean they could make a great living on $200k, or $500k... I mean taking anything more is pure greed right? When you walk past a homeless man are you greedy for not giving him the $5 bill in your wallet you really wont miss?
Words are neither easy nor hard, they are words. It's people who take them out of context to make them what they need them to be. I have no issues with either capitalism or greed. And by a lot of definitions I would be considered greedy as would you. I actually don't have a problem with it and I don't need to rationalize it away and I don't feel defensive about it.
Here's a word for you look up:
sanctimoniousIf you want to tell me capitalism is evil and to blame than yea... Im American so these ears are deaf.
DWade owns a skill that very people have. I always laugh when people think athletes are overpaid and I always tell them the same thing. Go learn to throw a baseball 95mph with pinpoint accuracy and you can join that club. Its not a members only... anyone can join.
I know what it means and I am sure you feel that I am being sanctimonious, but I am not trying to.I think you are taking what I said out of context
I honestly don't know why people respond by attacking people when having a forum discussion - without any provocation you accused me of hating capitalism, not having skills, being judgmental and god knows what else. I hope it made you feel better. BTW I am American too and loving it.
POGS
I don't blame him but I wouldn't want to take a huge contract and be on a lotto team at the end of my career.
meloshouldgo wrote:Yea so its not that complicatedfishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:making the best living he can = greed?
Are you really equating making 20MM a year to making a living? Do you even understand the concept of making a living? When you fixate on wanting more stuff than you need to make a living it actually is called greed. You may wanna look those up. Capitalism fosters greed. Right or wrong is a judgment call, but to act like this isn't greed is very novel.Full Definition of greed:
a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is neededyea.. so I work for a living, am 43, have 3 kids from 4-15, own a house in the burbs, have a wife that also works and am currently saving for college funds etc... so please don't talk to me about making a living.
Where do you draw the line? And quite frankly who are you to judge? If I make a $100k a year but want to make $120k does that make me greedy? Do my kids *need* a quality college education when they can go to county college? Do I *need* a ribeye when I could just buy some ground chuck? Do you *need* to drive when you could take the bus?
Reading comprehension would help a little - Your comment was about Dwayne Wade "making a living" - I asked if you understood what making a living means in that context. This had nothing to do with your personal situation or your family life. I hope you can meet your aspirations and I don't hold that or anything else you do against you. We live in a country where the average salary is about 45K a year, to say that someone making 20MM a year is making a living is disrespectful to people who work two full time jobs and can't make enough money to put food on the table or pay rent. Just my opinion we may disagree on this.
I don't have an issue with Wade making 20MM or 25MM, I think he deserves it and I said so. But you have put your imaginary words in my mouth and proceeded on a witch hunt.
Greed is an easy word to throw out there when someone lacks the same skills to earn. I suppose by your standards EVERY pro athlete is greedy right? I mean they could make a great living on $200k, or $500k... I mean taking anything more is pure greed right? When you walk past a homeless man are you greedy for not giving him the $5 bill in your wallet you really wont miss?Words are neither easy nor hard, they are words. It's people who take them out of context to make them what they need them to be. I have no issues with either capitalism or greed. And by a lot of definitions I would be considered greedy as would you. I actually don't have a problem with it and I don't need to rationalize it away and I don't feel defensive about it.
Here's a word for you look up:
sanctimoniousIf you want to tell me capitalism is evil and to blame than yea... Im American so these ears are deaf.
DWade owns a skill that very people have. I always laugh when people think athletes are overpaid and I always tell them the same thing. Go learn to throw a baseball 95mph with pinpoint accuracy and you can join that club. Its not a members only... anyone can join.
I know what it means and I am sure you feel that I am being sanctimonious, but I am not trying to.I think you are taking what I said out of context
I honestly don't know why people respond by attacking people when having a forum discussion - without any provocation you accused me of hating capitalism, not having skills, being judgmental and god knows what else. I hope it made you feel better. BTW I am American too and loving it.POGS
making the best living he can = greed?This was your quote. Now maybe you are right and my reading comprehension does stink, but what I comprehend from this post is a pretty douchy tone. Yes I am equating it to "making a living." The only people that is an insult to are the ones that spend time out of their day being pissed because a guy like Wade makes so much money. The rest dont give a rats ass, they understand these guys get paid like Tom Cruise and Mick Jagger because people PAY to see them play, and they are entitled to as much of that money as they can get.
Are you really equating making 20MM a year to making a living? Do you even understand the concept of making a living? When you fixate on wanting more stuff than you need to make a living it actually is called greed. You may wanna look those up. Capitalism fosters greed. Right or wrong is a judgment call, but to act like this isn't greed is very novel.
Sorry "meloshouldgo" no witch hunts here. "You hope it made me feel better." Good stuff buddy. I look forward to reading your future musings and insight with great anticipation. You are a message forum winner and I am owned once again. Damn. MOM! MEATLOAF!!!!!!!!
Many GM's including Riley uses the NO STATE tax to his advantage, saying they could offer less to players but it would still be more than what other teams could pay them at the max
Reasons why I think they need to MAKE the same TAX for players and NOT give teams an advantage, MAKE EVERY TEAM pay the same amount of tax, so no team/players/GM's and owners can use that as leverage
If the NBA and the owners can share all basketball related income and divided it to much smaller markets, then they should be able to have the players contracts be the same when it comes down to TAX
If Florida and Texas both STATE tax no longer existed, would this still have happened?
It gives a clear cut advantage to lure ALL STAR's, TOP Tier, 2nd Tier, role players, UFA's, even vet mins to take less, and Undrafted FA's (often giving these Texas and Florida teams the ability to acquire assets if they sign that could be moved in the future or moving other pieces therefore having other ways of acquiring more assets
ON TOP OF ALL OF THIS, it has a domino/multiple affects/effects to attract talent/assets
The BIG 3 took less along with other players through those years at the time, whether it was Haslem, Shane Battier *his versatility to DEFEND top tier talents at SG/SF/stretch 4's and hit the wide open 3pter was crucial that lead to the 1st ring with Lebron, Wade, Bosh together as they loss to Dallas their first year*, Chris Anderson, Ray Allen, Mario Chalmers, Mike Miller, James Jones, etc..
Either by trades, let go for nothing, used to acquire assets, clear cap space for luxury tax or future cap space etc,
When players were traded for luxury tax reasons when they are legit title contenders, it rubs NBA ALL STARS the wrong way if they took less
Miami did it with Mike Miller and many other players
OKC did it with Harden, Reggie Jackson...
Wade
Lebron
Bosh
Battier
Ray Allen
Haslem
Chris Anderson
Mario Chalmers
Mike Miller
James Jones
Norrise Cole
Shabazz Napier
Joel Anthony
Yes, some of these players could easily be let go, but many took less to join a contender as well
Mike Miller had an awesome season when he was amnestied but after earned a multi year deal and then father time caught up
So did Riley do the correct thing?
Eventually though this "loyalty" lead to players/contracts being dealt, either for financial reasons/acquire assets, clearing cap space for other talents, etc....
Whether it was Riley idea or the owners decisions, the boss's that Riley answer to...
I believe when Mike Miller was traded after his pivotal playoff's final appearances for the luxury tax
But the whole point of Lebron James, Wade, Bosh, taking less was to be able to attract talent for players that would also take less to improve their chances in winning
Now Cleveland had put up the money to chase talent and keep talent in order to get their ring
I believe this was something that Lebron James talked about with Dan Gilbert before his decision to go back home
And how they would use their many draft picks at the time to continue to get better...
Now I think Lebron totally understand that Cleveland can not match the offers for Delly/MosGoV for their respective roles
But not letting Mike Miller go as he makes much less at the Heat, during that time
So the point is, do you want to be part of franchise that would eventually do the same to you, when your time MAY be coming up?
IMO, Lebron make the correct decision my leaving The Heat and the way they traded D Wade proves it....
He joined the team that had the highest chance of winning, continue to acquire talent as they owned multiple draft picks as they stockpiled up when Lebron left to Miami...
So why do some posters here feel Durant decision is "weakness"
He made the correct decision on and off the court
Who would not want to be part of a team that plays the style of basketball the way they do?
A team that has many young talents, a team that was still the favorites to win the West without Durant?
A team that he could also improve with his skill on both ends and would improve his game with their talents/style of play?
On top of that OKC's Hero ball style, management giving up talent *Harden, rather than keeping him for another year and letting him be a RFA after they just made the finals* and even Reggie Jackson, Ibaka *who took less at the time...
Harden
Reggie Jackson
Ibaka
So if a team is capable of developing/drafting much talent, but because they become too good, then the team lets them go?
Where does that sit from a players/leaders of the team point of view?
When Durant/Westbrook's mid 30s hits and Payne, Sabonis, or whoever in the future, would they do the same to Durant/Westbrook?
Very possibly, so why would they want to stay with such a franchise that have proven they would do it to such players...