Nba Players/Stars Have Lost Respect

[I.D.]

IMO this has NOTHING to do with history.

History did not dictate how Lebron James wants to play in New York or how Dwayne Wade relishes only the "heat" of Miami. Also for the matter of fact, how Vince Carter just "needed a change" and even Chris Bosh's change of attitude.

History doesn't decide those things.

What has decided these things are today's superstars are not or have not been properly prepared to handle the responsibilites and off the court ethics that are justified. Who you play for doesn't even matter anymore, as long as they win. Only a few of today's superstars can handle consecutive downfalls and rise from within.

Today, MVP means you take the most shots in the All-Star game to give you the greatest odds. Today, a champion means requesting a deadline trade to an odds-on favourite.
Today, Reggie Miller would be scrutanized for staying with "his" team because he will not get a ring!

History has to do with everything. Every decision you make whether you realise it or not is informed by your personal history which in turn is invariably influenced by the history of your surroundings in turn. Avoiding a rambling post on causality I'll just say you are over-simplifying this immensely. Stop taking the talk radio and media "opinion" so seriously, be critical and form your own opinions, it will help you in life dude.

Also, you really have no right to tell LeBron James where he can and can't play, or Dwayne Wade for that matter. Nor can you tell them what they can and can't say. If you don't like it, don't listen. Society won't fall apart if LeBron wears a Knicks jersey. Babies won't die because Wade says he'll only play in Miami. Both those guys are actually very respectful dudes and have the respect of the vast majority of the Legends and greats you talk about. Many of those guys played in different times where they were not the international celebrities that these guys are today. Times have changed. Just deal with it. Funny enough I highly doubt you were even alive in those times you are nostalgic for, so... I don't know, grow up?

[I.D.]

How do I say this politely?

...Too many big words?

Stay. In. School. Kids.

Sorry school has six letters I was doing my best though. Oh **** sorry again, that thing before this and this thing too, they are called: Sentences.

You just owned yourself, hard. Re-read the post.

This is why the education system and the internet fail.

Edit: To break it down, I was poking fun at your suggestion that your post had too many big words, I mean if you're gonna make fun of me like that at least throw in ONE big word, maybe make me have to use a dictionary. But if you consider 'Colosseum' a big word then I consider you borderline illiterate (assuming you are of a certain age group), so I made fun of you back but we should stop now, this won't get us anywhere. Bye.

[sl64]

Obviously it's different today with mass media... that goes without saying. However, the basic underlying mechanism (the masses, especially kids, idolizing the wealthy and famous precisely because of their wealth or fame, and not looking up to the educated class) has remained much the same.

Anyways, there is also 1 successful athlete to 10000 unsuccessful. Ditto actors, musicians, or actors. What is that supposed to demonstrate?

What kids parents wanted them to do and what kids wanted to do were always two very different things. Parents have always wanted their kids to be educated and respectable, but moreso they've wanted their kids to have financial security, and in today's world being an athlete is a good way to achieve that. But the masses have always idolized the undeserving. To believe it was otherwise in the past is to give in to the same ignorant, rosy-hued recollections of a time that didn't actually exist apart from your imaginings that spawn conservativism.

[Shockwave-]

Obviously it's different today with mass media... that goes without saying. However, the basic underlying mechanism (the masses, especially kids, idolizing the wealthy and famous precisely because of their wealth or fame, and not looking up to the educated class) has remained much the same.

Anyways, there is also 1 successful athlete to 10000 unsuccessful. Ditto actors, musicians, or actors. What is that supposed to demonstrate?

What kids parents wanted them to do and what kids wanted to do were always two very different things. Parents have always wanted their kids to be educated and respectable, but moreso they've wanted their kids to have financial security, and in today's world being an athlete is a good way to achieve that. But the masses have always idolized the undeserving. To believe it was otherwise in the past is to give in to the same ignorant, rosy-hued recollections of a time that didn't actually exist apart from your imaginings that spawn conservativism.

You can't be serious, you're telling me Celebrities have the same powers as the OP described all throughout history? Even as recent as Babe Ruth who was an icon to millions, he was still property of the team. He could be traded or even sold (and was) on a whim. He couldn't dictate his playing conditions and had nothing to do with the amount of money he's making. This is a recent development and there's your example, that was the whole point of my original post, please go back and re-read.

Summary:
OP asked why celebrities go ape ****, my answer: celebrities gained power due to society's increasing value placed on entertainers, it is a recent development.

[Hendrix]

Kareem asked to be traded out of Miluakee in the 70's. The things that have changed imo are.

The Media. Kobe basically cheated on his wife, and it's everywhere in the media. That didn't happen to Jordan, or any of the old timers that have cheated. LBJ wears a Yankees cap, and everybody knows about it, wtf. Back when there was no internet, and a million tv channels to watch fans didn't see everything someone did wrong. so it lends us to seeing the past with rosey coloured glasses.

Salaries have probably sqrewed things up too, like you said. Back then the coach was the boss, and even now in the euroleague the coach is the boss. In the NBA some players are making 10x what their coach makes, and don't need to listen to the coach. It's thrown off the hierchy. Their very few coaches that demand respect even with those factors like Sloan, Popovich, and Jackson, and if you're not playing for your coach, then you're not playing for the team.

The marketing of players over teams probably hasn't helped the whole thing either.

[Sprite Zoner]

History has to do with everything. Every decision you make whether you realise it or not is informed by your personal history which in turn is invariably influenced by the history of your surroundings in turn. Avoiding a rambling post on causality I'll just say you are over-simplifying this immensely. Stop taking the talk radio and media "opinion" so seriously, be critical and form your own opinions, it will help you in life dude.

Also, you really have no right to tell LeBron James where he can and can't play, or Dwayne Wade for that matter. Nor can you tell them what they can and can't say. If you don't like it, don't listen. Society won't fall apart if LeBron wears a Knicks jersey. Babies won't die because Wade says he'll only play in Miami. Both those guys are actually very respectful dudes and have the respect of the vast majority of the Legends and greats you talk about. Many of those guys played in different times where they were not the international celebrities that these guys are today. Times have changed. Just deal with it. Funny enough I highly doubt you were even alive in those times you are nostalgic for, so... I don't know, grow up?

History gives you a pattern in which you choose to follow or not. History changes. If one thing has occurred, it does not mean it will repeat itself. If you go strictly by history my friend, it doesn't always repeat itself.

Where I do agree is history on the fact that Lebron learned from his parents and Lebron's parents learned from theirs. From generation to generation, each family's culture and ethics have been passed down. I do agree.

The matter of the fact is, those "histories" are not always correct. History contains war and hatred, and it also contains happiness and wealthiness. It's up to each person, how they deal with it.

It's my opinion that when you are under a long-term contract as an athlete, also seen as the "franchise" player, where teammates, coaches, owners, fans and children look up to you. It is morally wrong to state your desire to play elsewhere, make public trade requests because of your own disatisfication and other immature things when there are better ways to go about doing these things. Aka behind closed doors, with the right people.

Grow up? Heh, your opinion is no better than mine, to each his own.

[I.D.]

History gives you a pattern in which you choose to follow or not. History changes. If one thing has occurred, it does not mean it will repeat itself. If you go strictly by history my friend, it doesn't always repeat itself.

Where I do agree is history on the fact that Lebron learned from his parents and Lebron's parents learned from theirs. From generation to generation, each family's culture and ethics have been passed down. I do agree.

The matter of the fact is, those "histories" are not always correct. History contains war and hatred, and it also contains happiness and wealthiness. It's up to each person, how they deal with it.

It's my opinion that when you are under a long-term contract as an athlete, also seen as the "franchise" player, where teammates, coaches, owners, fans and children look up to you. It is morally wrong to state your desire to play elsewhere, make public trade requests because of your own disatisfication and other immature things when there are better ways to go about doing these things. Aka behind closed doors, with the right people.

Grow up? Heh, your opinion is no better than mine, to each his own.

I never said anything about history being cyclical. I'm not sure what you mean by histories are not always "correct" do you mean a history that contains war is "wrong"? Because that's...I mean, it could be tragic, maybe sad, a shame even, but it certainly isn't wrong. If it happened, it happened. It can be learned from, yes, but that's the thing about learning, it often doesn't come without the mistake.

Perhaps these young millionaires are prone to mistakes just like any other human being hm? Their freedom to make a mistake in that capacity and in the context of their reality, is no different from yours. Just like our opinions are of equal value, even if I choose to be smarmy. Just because they are in front a camera doesn't mean they can't be human. And quite frankly kids should be raised to understand humanity, and vulnerability, idol worship is escapism. Parents should strive to be the most direct and intimate rolemodel for their kids, but of course at a certain age these kids will rebel, at that point one hopes they've been taught how to use their better judgement and trust and have faith in themselves. I know raising a kid is not as easy as all that, but trying for that is better than just tossing the role model status off on athletes and actors and such. I see no difference with that than letting my kid worship some lush at the local pub. Unless of course you are saying athletes should be better human beings than us normal folk. Which, well I won't get into that.

[Sprite Zoner]

I never said anything about history being cyclical. I'm not sure what you mean by histories are not always "correct" do you mean a history that contains war is "wrong"? Because that's...I mean, it could be tragic, maybe sad, a shame even, but it certainly isn't wrong. If it happened, it happened. It can be learned from, yes, but that's the thing about learning, it often doesn't come without the mistake.

Perhaps these young millionaires are prone to mistakes just like any other human being hm? Their freedom to make a mistake in that capacity and in the context of their reality, is no different from yours. Just like our opinions are of equal value, even if I choose to be smarmy. Just because they are in front a camera doesn't mean they can't be human. And quite frankly kids should be raised to understand humanity, and vulnerability, idol worship is escapism. Parents should strive to be the most direct and intimate rolemodel for their kids, but of course at a certain age these kids will rebel, at that point one hopes they've been taught how to use their better judgement and trust and have faith in themselves. I know raising a kid is not as easy as all that, but trying for that is better than just tossing the role model status off on athletes and actors and such. I see no difference with that than letting my kid worship some lush at the local pub. Unless of course you are saying athletes should be better human beings than us normal folk. Which, well I won't get into that.

We are on the same page now. I agree 100% with this post. I just believe that Lebron didn't make a "mistake" when he stated his desire to play in New York. He was being honest, and honesty is not a mistake in this instance. The same goes for Wade as he claims NY is too cold for his desire.

I guess the whole point I'm trying to make in one sentence is, if you are making $20 million/year and you are a franchise player, try to handle yourself in a more respectful manner. Our ancestors died at war for us to live this way today and if the "cold" bothers you to do the exact same job in one city rather than another, that is just pathetic.

[Shockwave-]

This is why the education system and the internet fail.

Edit: To break it down, I was poking fun at your suggestion that your post had too many big words, I mean if you're gonna make fun of me like that at least throw in ONE big word, maybe make me have to use a dictionary. But if you consider 'Colosseum' a big word then I consider you borderline illiterate (assuming you are of a certain age group), so I made fun of you back but we should stop now, this won't get us anywhere. Bye.

lol keep em coming, why stop now. Damn this is OT, but this is too much fun Much more fun then actual Raptor games.

How am I suppose to make fun of you in my original post which used "Colosseum" when it came BEFORE your post.

Here's the summary:

1) OP asks a question

2) I post my response, a discussion ensues.

3) You come in, your first post is criticizing my post that it "Didn't make sense".

4) I suggest that you couldn't understand my post because I used too many big words.

5) The insult completely escapes you, and you use small words in your response to me, suggesting that I somehow indicated that I couldn't understand big words, when I was actually speaking of you.

6) I inform you of your mistake "You just owned yourself, hard".

7) You post a reply to the OP thinking it's me speaking "times you are nostalgic for" when the OP made no such remarks, telling him to "grow up"

8) You finally realize your mistake and edit your post, unfortunately to more nonsense.

Did I miss anything?

[420520620720]

When exactly was it that doctors and teachers were making big money? I must have missed that time period in history class.

Salary is all relative. What drove salaries up was that the owners of teams began to make obscene amounts of money. You know who makes the real big money? It's the same people now as before... the owners.

This argument is funny to me.
I can tell you exactly when.
Im 41. When i was in high school and you were thinking about a profession. The most intelligent people even when they were the best atheletes didnt consider pro sports unless they were already rich.

Reggie jackson got the first million per year deal in like 76 or 77.The average player made around 200 000.
A corporate lawyer could make 3 times that easy and do it his whole life vs a what 5 year career?

You could only dedicate yourself seriosly if your intellectual upside was a job rather than a carreer.

[I.D.]

lol keep em coming, why stop now. Damn this is OT, but this is too much fun Much more fun then actual Raptor games.

How am I suppose to make fun of you in my original post which used "Colosseum" when it came BEFORE your post.

Here's the summary:

1) OP asks a question

2) I post my response, a discussion ensues.

3) You come in, your first post is criticizing my post that it "Didn't make sense".

4) I suggest that you couldn't understand my post because I used too many big words.

5) The insult completely escapes you, and you use small words in your response to me, suggesting that I somehow indicated that I couldn't understand big words, when I was actually speaking of you.

6) I inform you of your mistake "You just owned yourself, hard".

7) You post a reply to the OP thinking it's me speaking "times you are nostalgic for" when the OP made no such remarks, telling him to "grow up"

8) You finally realize your mistake and edit your post, unfortunately to more nonsense.

Did I miss anything?

Okay, sigh, I suppose we'll have to go there.

1) True.

2) Also true.

3) My first post was BEFORE that comment. (Me 1 - You 0)

4) Yes you said that, proof is still right there.

5) Wrong, I know you think your joke was funny. I found it amusing too. My youngest sister writes with "bigger words" than you and I suspect she is much younger. So I wrote with small words to indicate that you really might want to reconsider how literate you are. I mean, that was your joke right? I'm illiterate? Well, I'm not entirely convinced you understand what the word means. So I used irony to amuse myself. You know irony right? You may want to assume a heavy dose of it is present almost anytime I post. (Me 2 - You 0)

6) Yeah you did, this made it even funnier to me. I "owned" myself. As in "ohhh snap, completely owned! I'm teh awesome!" Unfortunately, you're not in this case. But tomorrow is another day.

7) Wrong again buckoo. The OP referred to the Legends and old timers. If you read the dialogue him and I are having, seperate you, you'll see I was referring to the time of Bird etc. Where I think the OP was just quoting something rather than referring to something he'd actually seen. But I'll give you a cookie. In my third post, or so, I did actually confuse you and the OP when I quoted sl64 and made a comment regarding the reconstruction of history through popular media. At that point the OP had said nothing about history in the broader and I was in fact referring to your post. (Me 3 - You 0.5)

8) Read that again, I was explaining my joke to you. Colloseum is about the biggest word I've seen you use, so I used it as a point of reference to try and clarify for you that you have no reason to claim you're using too many big words for anyone to misunderstand. In other words, your claim is hollow, empty, lame, kinda embarrasing, sorta like this defeat. (Me 4 - You 0.5)

Almost a shutout. Dahhhh well.

As for what's missing 9) You return apologize, we shake hands and play nice.

[bassmastert]

Wow, this thread was a VERY entertaining read all around. I guess we should add interpretation of history on our list of politics and religion as subjects we don't talk about.

As I read through all the propaganda and innuendos, I come to the ironic conclusion that everyone is right in their own way!

I believe most history as we know it to be very jaded and is presented as too 'matter of fact'. All history books seem to be presented from one side of the equation, trying so hard to persuade the recipient that a certain event/lifestyle was absolute in its certain period of time. However it can be easily argued that one person/group can be seen as a martyr with one interpretion and a hero with another, and both sides with any logical thinking can be proved as accurate.

How that relates to this query about NBA players losing respect is that there are many interpretations that could all be correct given any set of circumstances. To reach a consensus, you would have to ask many questions like:

What is respect and how does it relate to the star players' situation? It is respectful to the player to stay in what they feel is a bad situation? It is respectul to show your loyalty to your certain club? Does the players' ideals/goals/objectives coincide, exceed, or interject with their respective, players, club or management? What is more important, the success of one player or the team as a whole?

I would like to see more loyalty, however there is just too much conflict between ideals and goals for it to ever happen. Some teams' goals are to build a competitive championship team, some are to provide entertainment, some are simply to build revenue. But that is what democracy, freedom of speech/thought, and expression are for. They create controversy, interpretations, and go away from a linearness that a communistic society or 'matter of fact' situations create.

So, to sum it up, you're all right, but I think you're wrong

[I.D.]

We are on the same page now. I agree 100% with this post. I just believe that Lebron didn't make a "mistake" when he stated his desire to play in New York. He was being honest, and honesty is not a mistake in this instance. The same goes for Wade as he claims NY is too cold for his desire.

I guess the whole point I'm trying to make in one sentence is, if you are making $20 million/year and you are a franchise player, try to handle yourself in a more respectful manner. Our ancestors died at war for us to live this way today and if the "cold" bothers you to do the exact same job in one city rather than another, that is just pathetic.

I see. Well you are quite free to your opinion. I still disagree and I don't think brining up those who died in past wars is a justification of anything. I could say 'well they died so we have to the right to do exactly this, express our honest opinions and desires, to pursue our own freedom', whether we make 20million or 20 dollars. But I won't assert that, because quite honestly, I can never make sense of why people "must" die in wars. I'll simply say, having heard a cleaner version of your view I disagree, them saying what they did doesn't bother me and I hope it doesn't bother you too much.

[Shockwave-]

Okay, sigh, I suppose we'll have to go there.

3) My first post was BEFORE that comment. (Me 1 - You 0)

4) Yes you said that, proof is still right there.

5) Wrong, I know you think your joke was funny. I found it amusing too. My youngest sister writes with "bigger words" than you and I suspect she is much younger. So I wrote with small words to indicate that you really might want to reconsider how literate you are. I mean, that was your joke right? I'm illiterate? Well, I'm not entirely convinced you understand what the word means. So I used irony to amuse myself. You know irony right? You may want to assume a heavy dose of it is present almost anytime I post. (Me 2 - You 0)

6) Yeah you did, this made it even funnier to me. I "owned" myself. As in "ohhh snap, completely owned! I'm teh awesome!" Unfortunately, you're not in this case. But tomorrow is another day.

7) Wrong again buckoo. The OP referred to the Legends and old timers. If you read the dialogue him and I are having, seperate you, you'll see I was referring to the time of Bird etc. Where I think the OP was just quoting something rather than referring to something he'd actually seen. But I'll give you a cookie. In my third post, or so, I did actually confuse you and the OP when I quoted sl64 and made a comment regarding the reconstruction of history through popular media. At that point the OP had said nothing about history in the broader and I was in fact referring to your post. (Me 3 - You 0.5)

8) Read that again, I was explaining my joke to you. Colloseum is about the biggest word I've seen you use, so I used it as a point of reference to try and clarify for you that you have no reason to claim you're using too many big words for anyone to misunderstand. In other words, your claim is hollow, empty, lame, kinda embarrasing, sorta like this defeat. (Me 4 - You 0.5)

Almost a shutout. Dahhhh well.

As for what's missing 9) You return apologize, we shake hands and play nice.

1) and 2) obsolete.

3) Your first two comments were again addressed to the wrong poster, therefore I assumed they weren't directed towards me.

4) Nothing new.

5)

So I wrote with small words to indicate that you really might want to reconsider how literate you are. I mean, that was your joke right? I'm illiterate? Well, I'm not entirely convinced you understand what the word means. So I used irony to amuse myself. You know irony right? You may want to assume a heavy dose of it is present almost anytime I post.

How does you writing in small words to me challenge my literacy when the post was directed at you? This is what you wrote:

"Stay. In. School. Kids. Sorry school has six letters I was doing my best though. Oh **** sorry again, that thing before this and this thing too, they are called: Sentences."

How is that even CLOSE to irony. I'm glad you're amused because no one else got it. All I see is you using small words for my benefit, further proof that the joke has escaped you. Did I use the word illiterate? No. Did you? No. So where does your justification of me not knowing the word come from?

6) If I didn't tell you, you'd still think typing short words is incredibly clever, when it actually made zero sense.

7) Pretty big deal when you quote someone, post a reply, insult them and it's the WRONG person LOL. Nice arbitrary scoring btw.

8) You have to explain your joke about staying in school well after the fact because you finally realized it made no sense on it's own. Those are the best kind of jokes am I right? The ones you need to explain?

It's at best saying "no you are" but in a confusing and overly elaborate manner that ended up making no sense, why else would you need to explain anything. Give up, that post is a complete failure and in no way ironic.

9) I'm sorry for someone who's claiming to be a master of wit and the English language to have spelled Colosseum and embarrassing wrong.

Embarrassing.

[chsh22]

NBA legends used to play for salaries that did not equal to even a quarter of what today's stars make. You say those were old times and indeed they were! BUT, comparing the money they make today, it is absurd! Furthermore, legends used to play for the name infront of the jersey, not on the back. It didn't matter if your name was Larry Bird or Scott Skiles. Michael Jordan or Dennis Rodman. Of course, some were better and more marketable and famous than others, but overall they were all part of a team. Not only were they part of their own individual team, but the whole NBA.

These days you have stars publicly requesting trades. Publicly stating that they would be open to playing elsewhere, when still under contract. Not only are some of these men under contract, but they are considered the cornerstones of their respected teams. They are the idols of young kids who aspire to reach their heights one day. Others go as far as stating some cities are too cold to play for, too far, too unknown.

There's no doubt the players have gotten a bit more clout. Part of that has to do with the NBAPA, I mean, that *is* what it is there for.

I don't mind players making tons of cash because it's better they make it than just letting the owners have that much more in their pockets. That said, I can see your point about that maybe adding to the entitlement they might feel.

What happened to respect for the game? Respect for their coaches and owners? Their teams and cities? Themselves?

Everyone knew $10, $20 Million per annum could go far, but how far has it gone that it has caused this selfishness?

I don't think it's related to salary at all. It's just how society itself is. You can literally replace "the game" with "the classroom" and "coaches and owners" with "teachers and parents" and equally be talking about a kid in the 8th grade. Somewhere around the time when parents were no longer able to give their kids savage beatings for doing stuff that was deemed out of line the younger crowd realized they could get away with more. I think all you're seeing is one of the consequences of that.


To I.D. and Shockwave-:
The OP has an interesting discussion point that really didn't require your pissing contest. One of you should have played the part of the bigger man a while ago for the sake of discussion.