Spencer Hawes Takes Shot at David Stern
by Michael Levin on Aug 2, 2011 9:26 AM PDT
in Philadelphia 76ers News
Email
Print"Don't miss the bear." Well, Sixers soft-chew cookie center Spencer Hawes went right for the jugular. The Lockout isn't making anybody happy, and with the players and owners so far away in the negotations, Stern's asking of the players to take a pay cut isn't going over too well. A frustrated Spence took to Twitter to express his feelings about his formerly-beloved commissioner, David Stern.
23 million a year for stern huh. Weird no rumblings about a pay cut for the commish while he asks every single player to do so.
I'm not saying Spence is wrong, but going after the commissioner publicly is never a great idea. Providing basketball does get played again somewhere in the world someday, Stern will be in a position of power and if Hawes throws an innocent elbow at, say, Kevin Garnett, expect the fine and suspension to tip the scale towards "Don't Mess With The Bull, Boy."
Thoughts on Spencer's comments? Ideas on how to pass the time during the lockout? What's everybody having for dinner? Miss yous.
65 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don’t feel Spence is taking that big a shot at Stern, I think he’s pointing out the facts here. Stern makes LeBron James-esque money here, if he can make that money yearly. The league isn’t losing as much money as it’s making itself out to look like.(And numerous reports have indicated as such).
This isn’t 1999 anymore for Stern and the Boys. With Twitter and Facebook and all kinds of social media, these facts will be leaked and it’ll be hard to keep it close to the vest.
I feel like the NFL Players Union won the lockout battle with the Owners. The only concession the Owners got, were the rookie salary wages which had to be dealt with anyway because it was blatantly absurd.(Example: Demarcus Russel making some 30+ million for being a bust). The Players got a long-term CBA They got the flexibility to become free agents(Look at Asomugha, how difficult it was for him to break free from Oakland. Such difficulties will be a thing of the past).
But even with all that said, the Owners still make out pretty good. The FA flexibility allows for other teams to compete and that’ll drive up revenues. That, and they own their franchises.
What this is, is Owners trying to cut costs due to other financial ventures not related to the NBA/NFL. That’s why there was a settlement so pre-season could begin as scheduled for the NFL and that’s why I’m expecting a settlement similarly for the NBA.
Especially with Stern losing the PR battle and looking like the A-hole he is.
What this is, is Owners trying to cut costs due to other financial ventures not related to the NBA/NFL.
what
"I admire his competitiveness. As much as I admire it, I thought that he was trying too hard."- Eddie Jordan
Let me spell it out more plainly for you: These Owners have more than one venture going on. The NBA is more of their cash cow than anything else. As an example, the Maloofs lost majority shares in a casino they owned.
These owners aren’t necessarily losing money on the NBA front, but rather on other investments. So, their desire is to get more income from their cash cow, or the NBA.
by LeQuan Glover on Aug 2, 2011 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Uhh no. Most nba owners don’t consider their investment in an NBA team to be a “cash cow”. Where are you getting this information from?
"I admire his competitiveness. As much as I admire it, I thought that he was trying too hard."- Eddie Jordan
No, they don’t? Let’s take the current Sixers situation. Obviously Ed Snider didn’t go all in for this team during his tenure here, and he obviously was a more pro-hockey guy. So why the buy? To be competitive? No, to cash in on his popularity and make another hundred million bucks! Why’d Joshua Harris lead this coaltition to buy the Sixers? As Dweebz said, it was an undervalued commodity at a discount, instant rewards! And if they achieve success with the Sixers, imagine the millions more in: Increased attendance, coverage and press.(Philadelphia is a top-5 sports market). The 76ers could potentially be a huge cash cow.
In Detroit, a family oriented organization owns the Pistons and the Red Wings. Now obviously, they’ve been competitive in both fields, but you can’t tell me that they don’t look at those franchises and say “thanks for the couple of million or hundred-thousand a year”, it’s extremely lucrative.
Thing is, these millionaires keep those business ventures close to the vest, as they should. It would be bad publicity if they were investing in something that was failing. You don’t think the Maloofs weren’t upset their casino difficulties were out there for the world to see?
But trust me, these millionaires/billionaires are not making the majority of their money from a business venture that depends on them and the players getting along whenever the CBA ends
by LeQuan Glover on Aug 3, 2011 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
So why the buy? To be competitive? No, to cash in on his popularity and make another hundred million bucks!
After you factor in the fixed cost per year to run the team, Ed Snider did not make 100 million dollars of profit. I would argue this further with you, but I don’t think you are smart enough to understand it.
There are many other reasons why people buy basketball teams. You should read about it sometime. Also note that I asked you to show me where you got your information from, and you have yet to ciite a source of information…leading me to believe you just make things up.
"I admire his competitiveness. As much as I admire it, I thought that he was trying too hard."- Eddie Jordan
I think youre on to something with this
leading me to believe you just make things up.
The Maloof situation was reported several months ago(during the end of the season, during the rumors of Sacramento moving out to Arizona). And if you want, you can easily go to the Pistons blog to confirm that Davidson and CO also own the Red Wings.(They owned the Shock too, before they moved to Tulsa. Another case in point of a venture losing money)
I’ve taken attack after attack from you Jefu, and with all due respect to the Libertyballers moderators, I think fair is fair if I launch a counter attack against Jefu and the others of his ilk.
I don’t have to gather the facts just so YOU can sit on your ass, the only reason I would have to gather the facts, is if I didn’t believe in my case. But since these reports have been out in the open for quite some time now, I’m quite confident in my “argument”, which is nothing more than laying out the facts and giving proper interpretation of them.
If I, have so-called yet to cite a source of information then Jefu obviously you have not either. In this very post, you state “after you factor in the fixed cost per year to run the team”, yet you do not link to this so-called fixed cost.
You also state that you would “argue” this further with me, but you don’t think I’m smart enough to understand it. This is a personal attack to discredit me and my argument, a high school tactic and it’s truly beneath you..Or at least, it would be beneath you if you hadn’t done anything BUT attack me!
Infact, I’d like to point out he attacked me twice in one post, stating “leading me to believe you make stuff up”, I’ll give him the credit in saying “leading me” at least here he doesn’t look like a total jerkoff. But as I said above, it’s not my fault you want everything given to you on a silver platter. Nor am I obligated to do so for you, maybe if you had ever treated me with a sense of decency and self respect.
Finally, he doesn’t bother to quote my post. It’s four sentences, it’s a paragraph! If he states it’s too long, he clearly isn’t an avid reader. But what he does quote, not surprisingly is a portion that is favorable to his jargon argument. To be sure, Snider isn’t making 100 million of dollars in profit. But I would suggest that he’s probably making at least a few couple hundred thousand. The point stands, if a hockey guy buys a basketball organization, it was likely as a project on the side than anything else. The 76ers had been rumored to be on the market as far back as ’08!
I’m done, ban me or do whatever. But I was tired of Jefu’s antics and I had to blow all the steam that was building up towards him, at least for my own satisfaction.
by LeQuan Glover on Aug 3, 2011 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t have to gather the facts just so YOU can sit on your ass, the only reason I would have to gather the facts, is if I didn’t believe in my case.
It just makes an argument or opinion more credible if you cite the source where you found the information. That way others can read it and have an informed discussion.
You absolutely need to cite sources, or at least have a history of citing sources with other arguments. The problem here, LeQuan, is we’re talking about credibility. If you don’t have any credibility, and your only way of arguing is to keep stating the same opinions over and over again while not considering the opinion of others’, no one will listen to you.
Look, I’m not doubting that there are some owners out there that have a “cash cow” investment on their team. Teams like the Lakers and Knicks churn a decent profit. The problem is, if every owner was making tons of loot on their team, we probably wouldn’t be in a lockout right now. Doesn’t that make sense to you? For example, the Hornets right now wouldn’t be owned by the NBA if their previous owner was making a lot of profit on the team. The structure of the past CBA affected other small-market teams as well. Teams like the Timberwolves, with the past CBA as constructed, will most likely never make a profit. However, most team owners aren’t interested in investing in the team because they think it’s a cash cow investment. Their primary focus is to at least minimize losses.
You also need to look at other sides of the argument. Here is an article talking about reasons why billionaires purchase NBA teams. Notice the words “cash cow” are not mentioned in the article. Read it.
About the fixed cost thing – let me put it into simpler terms -Owners can buy a team, sit on it, and sell it at a higher price, just like you can do with a house. However, with this purchase comes cost. The minimal goal of what an owner wants to do with this team is try to minimize the potential losses in running the team over a certain amount of years (keep in mind this is allegedly true with 22 of the NBA teams) while reaping the benefits mentioned in the above article (please read it).
Lastly, if I was a billionaire owner, and my sole purpose for making an investment was to make a large gain, it would be pretty disappointing if I invested hundreds of millions of dollars and only made a hundred thousand dollars in profit. A hundred thousand dollars might seem like booku bucks to you, but it’s not to a billionaire. As I keep arguing, there are other reasons why owners purchase teams.
PS, In my opinion you haven’t said anything that will get you banned on this site, but you will most likely keep getting attacked if all you do is ramble and argue only with opinions. You shouldn’t bring a knife to a gun fight.
"I admire his competitiveness. As much as I admire it, I thought that he was trying too hard."- Eddie Jordan
The Aforementioned article actually strengthens my argument. It goes on to talk about how selling an NBA franchise can be lucrative. It also mentions how owning an NBA franchise, can help with other business ventures. And as I pointed out with the Maloof situation(and it’s pretty safe to assume these owners have other ventures as well), it’s not like the NBA is their one and only thing.
The article also goes onto dispute the motion that 22 of the 30 NBA teams have lost profits, or at least as much profits as they’ve claimed and I agree. Stern likes to talk about how he’s globalized the game. And he likes to talk about how the NBA broadcasts virtually almost all over the world. It would be an understatement to suggest he isn’t getting millions or perhaps even billions from the NBA’s international support. And the excitement of last year’s NBA playoffs brought Americans to the NBA. Why?
Because there was competition, the reason the NFL is the most popular sport in the world is that as Reid says, anybody can beat anybody in the NFL. Similarly, the NHL has had some recent success with low seeded upsets.
Now, mind you there’s a rhyme and a reason for why they are lower seeds and I’m not about to be a Liberal and call it a crime that they are lower seeds. They put themselves in that position. And they themselves should be the ones to get themselves out of it.
That’s why I’d be pissed if we had another Allan Houston rule, another get out of jail free card for the combined inepitude of most general managers and the greed of most agents.
Let’s really get to the meat of the problem:
-Most Agents use a tactic called “Scarcity”, this, of course, is the theory that there aren’t that many resources of X product. In this case a player.
And because of this, these players get a relative uptick in salary that they don’t deserve. Good examples are Kenny Thomas(his infamous 7 yr deal), Reggie Evans, Andres Nocioni and Lou Williams.
Of course, if role players get inflated salaries due to these scare tactics, so do sixth men/starters. If the NBA season actually starts, Brand would be making 15-16 million dollars(give or take, I don’t remember his contract completely, other than he’ll be making 18 mill in his final year). Brand’s actual salary, given his production and age should be around 10 million. That’s a savings of the MLE.
Other examples include Baron Davis, Andre Kirilenko, Monta Ellis, etc.
-Most GM’’S overvalue their players. Billy King was famous for this, the contracts to Todd Mac, Buckner, Mckie, Snow being prime examples. Then Stefanski got in on the act giving Lou Williams a five year contract for being Jamal Crawford. Only, Lou isn’t consistent from the perimeter so he’s just another small guard. Infact, to be brutally honest most general managers know crap about this game.
An example is Isiah Thomas, he gets credit for finding lightning in a bottle. When his core is in decline however, the pressure’s on the guy and he tries to rebuild quickly with the same idea that once succeeded. Only problem is, there are few players of the quality of the team he assembled. He should’ve just waited and rebuilt patiently
They’ve got Greg Monroe and Brandon Knight, so they’re on their way to rebuilding that model. But with several contracts and a heated lockerroom from last season and Dumars has some damage to undo.
One might say that Dumars ran into some bad luck, I’ll be nice and give leeway. But we both knew that Gordan/Villanueva could neither defend nor make plays for others. Their lack of versatility didn’t fit the Piston model whatsoever.
So how about Danny Ainge? He’s lucky that he’s friends with then-Wolves Manager Kevin McHale. Otherwise, he’d be stuck with the one-dimensional post big man Jefferson and a bunch of busts. Now, young players aren’t exactly in one’s control always. But something has to be said when your entire core ends up busting.
If the NBA wants real reform, it’s going to have to start with Agents being honest and ethical about the real, actual value of their players. It’s going to have to start with some GM’S having an understanding of the game of basketball beyond “stars, luls” And this is the most difficult part, but it’s going to have to have to try to adjust the Scarcity problem.
Free Agency is one such means of helping the Scarcity problem, but at the same time. Owners/GM’S alike don’t want The Decision to happen again. Cleveland and Toronto were both small markets and they were punished for it. Now, Bron/Bosh had every right to go whereever they wanted. But some late first round pick and a useless trade exemption is not compensation for a top-5 and top-30 NBA player.
I recall the MLB has a system, where a team’s free agents are ranked accordingly, and if a FA is highly enough ranked, a team has the rights to the top pick of that team in the draft. Now, in the case of a team like Miami, that’s probably never going to be very high. So how about, something like this:
The team that loses an A or above rated free agent, has the rights to a top-5 pick in the following Draft(The Bobcats had the 4th overall pick for example at the start of their expansion year).
I’m far from an expert, but these problems: Inept Management, corruption from Agents and the Scarcity are the real harbringers of the current NBA model.
by LeQuan Glover on Aug 4, 2011 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions
The Aforementioned article actually strengthens my argument.
Ugh, no it doesn’t. They used the word, “can” meaning possibility. Teams “can” turn a profit, but the reality is that most teams are not. Yet you were arguing that owning a team is a cash cow investment. How did you overlook this?
It also mentions how owning an NBA franchise, can help with other business ventures.
This is what I’m talking about. There are other reasons why billionaires buy teams. Not because buying a team = cash cow investment. How you tried to turn this around to support your argument is beyond me.
"I admire his competitiveness. As much as I admire it, I thought that he was trying too hard."- Eddie Jordan
The article also goes onto dispute the motion that 22 of the 30 NBA teams have lost profits, or at least as much profits as they’ve claimed and I agree.
It doesn’t dispute this, it brings it into question. You’re still overlooking the reality that there probably wouldn’t be a lockout right now if every owner was swimming a backstroke in a giant pile of cash a la Scrooge McDuck thanks to their lucrative NBA team purchase.
"I admire his competitiveness. As much as I admire it, I thought that he was trying too hard."- Eddie Jordan
Doesn’t bringing it into question, mean disputing it? Or how about doubt, does that make you feel better? Either way, with the game’s growing popularity overseas thanks to Der Stern, I highly doubt the NBA is in as a catastrophic economic outlook as Stern proclaims.
Because if 22 of 30 NBA teams are in the red(80%), then the NBA’s business model isn’t a successful one.
That would be like if 220 millon Americans were unemployed screw the National Debt. THAT would be a real default.
In such a situation I imagine that Stern would have been getting the owners/players to the table much more quickly to try and hammer a deal to fix what would be a very crucial problem. Instead, we came to this lockout very slowly with few talks on either side, in fact a few days ago they talked for the first time in the two-month long lockout, for two whole hours!
Jefu: This is a powerplay, by the Owners. I won’t dispute they haven’t lost money, what I will dispute is them basically being broke as you seem to believe. Again, look towards the NFL. If their interest was really in recouping their losses, they wouldn’t have been as eager as the Players to get things rolling to not lose any games.
I won’t even dispute the system being broken, it is broken. And I haven’t employed that they’re swimming in a giant pile of cash. But what I am suggesting, is that most other business ventures have what’s called “fixed capital”, these owners no matter how much they want it so, can’t get more capital from these other ventures.
But, they can potentially get more capital from the NBA in a more favorable CBA deal. The 57/43 split for the Players is unfair, no matter how Spencer Hawes wants to slice it. If the Players proposed a 50/50 on the basis of Good Faith, watch the Owners/Players get a deal done quick!
by LeQuan Glover on Aug 5, 2011 2:22 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m going to break down for you the idiocy behind a lot of your comments and arguing “techniques”. Watch and read carefully:
Doesn’t bringing it into question, mean disputing it? Or how about doubt, does that make you feel better?
No. Disputing is a much harsher word. A word that would favor your argument, while manipulating the message behind the article (that it’s unknown).
Because if 22 of 30 NBA teams are in the red(80%), then the NBA’s business model isn’t a successful one.
Hence, lockout.
In such a situation I imagine that Stern would have been getting the owners/players to the table much more quickly to try and hammer a deal to fix what would be a very crucial problem.
Now you’re pretending as if you understand the business structure of the NBA, when in reality, you don’t. Once again, you have provided zero evidence that you have any understanding of this.
his is a powerplay, by the Owners. I won’t dispute they haven’t lost money, what I will dispute is them basically being broke as you seem to believe.
Now your’e putting words into my mouth. I never once said that. What I did say was that most investors don’t invest in the NBA because they believe that’s going to be their true cash cow investment.
Again, look towards the NFL. If their interest was really in recouping their losses, they wouldn’t have been as eager as the Players to get things rolling to not lose any games.
Now you’re bringing up a completely irrelevant topic. The NFL was in a lockout for completely different reasons. The NBA owners want to completely revamp the system, indicating a potentially much longer lockout.
I won’t even dispute the system being broken, it is broken. And I haven’t employed that they’re swimming in a giant pile of cash
Now you’re somehow agreeing with me, sort of.
But what I am suggesting, is that most other business ventures have what’s called "fixed capital", these owners no matter how much they want it so, can’t get more capital from these other ventures.
Now you’re pretending as if you have full knowledge of the other investment ventures of every NBA owner(s), when in fact, you don’t. You’re also declaring that the other investment ventures of every NBA owner is somehow crippling them financially. Once again, you have no knowledge of this.
But, they can potentially get more capital from the NBA in a more favorable CBA deal.
Now you’ve completely changed your argument. You’ve gone from suggesting that the owners are losing money in their other investments and are making up for it with their NBA cash cow investment (conspiracy theory, anyone?).
Now that I’ve broken it down for you, I hope you can see how your argument technique (or lack thereof) is to make stuff up, go in circles, and then change your argument. All while never citing a single source of information.
"I admire his competitiveness. As much as I admire it, I thought that he was trying too hard."- Eddie Jordan
The article suggests that it’s unknown, while the NBA has presented “facts” to the table, if something is not “known” or not perceived by the majority of people, despite the “facts”, that’s what we call bullshitting. And nearly every article/every player/every analyst has during this lockout called what Stern is doing BULL. The fact that it’s unknown means that the NBA is not presenting information in good faith and it’s not conducting itself in good faith.
The NBA is a business, to this we can concur, no? Granted, it is a different business than most, but I think that we can concur that the NBA has a budget, it has a product to sell(NBA games) and it’s job is to sell a good number of tickets. And to get as many people to watch these games in America/Abroad as possible.
If I were running a business, and my budget was significantly in the red, I would call all of my representatives, agents, etc, fellow business owners to the table to work out some kind of deal. Either to increase selling techniques or to reduce spending where we can afford to reduce it.
Notice, I wouldn’t wait several months or years to get this done, thereby making the situation a hell of a lot worse than it needs to be. We didn’t come to this lockout quickly, we came to it slowly with very little progress being made.
In the negotiations for a new CBA, it’s the Players union that has the most to lose. The players want games to be played, because the NBA is their source of income.
What does the Owner have to lose? Well, in a normal economy he has absolutely nothing to lose, the case in point is the 1999 lockout, where that took an entire episode to resolve(they ended up playing 50 games). The owners can frankly, sit on their asses while the players fidget around.
Let’s define what a cash cow investment is, A cash cow investment is something where you can put money in for a short period of time, while watching it grow. Some examples include a savings account, or you can buy stocks.(although those are more volatile and less secure).
Or, you can buy ownership shares! Of a company, corporation or a franchise! OMG, I think that’s what an NBA team is. The Philadelphia 76ers are more than a team,more than a company, they are a franchise.
And Joshua Harris invested into the 76ers franchise, as Dweebz pointed out, as an underappreciated asset that could gain massive value in the future.
OMG, I don’t believe it, but I think that’s a cash cow investment.
By, and large the NBA owners do not, by definition own the NBA. That is to say, the 30 NBA teams are a portion of the NBA league. These owners in reality own a small share(the team) of the NBA.
I have proof of this theory, Stern making a LeBron James-esque salary, if Stern is making this type of money, imagine what other top ranked NBA office officials are making.
The overall costs of NBA operations, are therefore most likely headed by the NBA. And the overall costs are also most likely divided by the teams.
Let’s take Der Stern at face value for the sake of argument. 300/22= 13.6 million dollars of the debt is owned by each team. Not as dramatic as first thought by the gigantic 300 million number.
These are some of the reporting tactics by major corporations. Remember how we were told the sky would fall if we didn’t bail out Freddie and Fannie? Same business practices, different business.
The Players union talked about revenue sharing being uneven, that may be a way for owners to recoup the 13.6 million dollars they’re losing.
And I think even the players, if approached respectfully would come to agree that the 57/43 split is unfair. And that a 50/50 split would be the ideal business relationship between owners/players.
Finally, a system that could possibly improve the Scarcity Problem and Agents acting in a honest,ethical manner regarding the value of their clients would go a long way to an NFL-style solution(The new CBA is 7 years min-10 years max).
The owners aren’t massively in debt here, I mean compare the 13.6 million in losses, to the 350 million on average to buy an NBA franchise! They’re hardly suffering.
And while you surmise that I’ve no idea if these owners engage in other ventures, or if these ventures are losing capital. I will admit, I’m not in the same meeting rooms as these guys.
But what I am doing, is looking at the state of the economy today, looking at the millions/billions of dollars it takes to run this thing and I’m saying “If the NBA is losing capital, so are these other businesses.”
But, honestly what can these other businesses do? They can try to increase revenue, but as reported worldwide, Americans have become conservative due to the economic crisis. They can try to cut worker’s salary, but then you’ll get the union on you quicker than you can say “profit” and here we are at a strike.
And while some Americans/people may be specialized in a job, unlike the NBA players, there’s no contract stopping them from actually getting a second job. In fact, they may make out better for themselves during work stoppage!
For these owners, this means alot more than merely making a better return on their NBA investment. By and large, it would be a rebound effect for their entire economic outscape.
This is not a conspiracy theory, like some nut believing Hitler’s Aryan superhuman theory nonsense. This is a theory based on known economic conditions and basic business models.
If it makes you feel any better, I’ve admitted to not being in the same room as these guys, and I’ve admitted to not knowing the “NBA business model”, but I think I’ve also proven the plausibility of my theory, a much larger plausibility than Stern’s boo-hooing and acting out of bad faith.
by LeQuan Glover on Aug 6, 2011 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions
This is just rude. It’s rude that you would expect me to read all of this and do your work for you in consolidating your argument. It’s obvious that you lack the ability clearly express your opinion. It’s also obvious that you most likely ignore everything I say and rebuttal via mindless rambling. With that said, I’ll attempt to read what you have written, but I know all too well that it’ll just be a waste of time.
"I admire his competitiveness. As much as I admire it, I thought that he was trying too hard."- Eddie Jordan
if something is not "known" or not perceived by the majority of people, despite the "facts", that’s what we call bullshitting.
Let’s stop saying, “we”. No one here respects your opinion or agrees with you. No one here is on your side. “BS” is one way to look at it, it’s also another way to talk about something that can only be speculated about.
That doesn’t mean you can form a conspiracy theory that NBA owners are all losing money in their other investments and so they need to make up with it from their cash cow NBA team investment. That is just a stupid argument backed-up with zero facts. You have yet to present any of these facts.
Everythin else you’ve stated is completely irrelevant to your original argument (which I have summed up in the above couple of sentences).
You have done nothing this entire time but prove that you 1.) don’t know what you are talking about 2.) change your argument when you don’t know what you are talking about 3.) mindlessly ramble, mostly in part because you don’t know what you are talking about.
"I admire his competitiveness. As much as I admire it, I thought that he was trying too hard."- Eddie Jordan
Sorry, this needed to be quoted…
Let’s define what a cash cow investment is, A cash cow investment is something where you can put money in for a short period of time, while watching it grow. Some examples include a savings account, or you can buy stocks.(although those are more volatile and less secure).
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Now you DEFINITELY don’t know what you are talking about.
"I admire his competitiveness. As much as I admire it, I thought that he was trying too hard."- Eddie Jordan
I keep finding goodies…
This is not a conspiracy theory, like some nut believing Hitler’s Aryan superhuman theory nonsense
Based upon this statement, it’s clear that you don’t know what a conspiracy is, let alone a conspiracy theory.
"I admire his competitiveness. As much as I admire it, I thought that he was trying too hard."- Eddie Jordan
I’m not sure why you go to the trouble of engaging with him. Seriously. It’s bad for your blood pressure, and someday you’ll end up like me.
I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, there will be no trade for Monta!
I find it amusing, actually. His definition of “cash cow investment” gave me a good laugh.
"I admire his competitiveness. As much as I admire it, I thought that he was trying too hard."- Eddie Jordan
LeQuan doesn’t need facts and figures to prove that a savings account is a short term, high risk/reward investment!
by The Crooked Man on Aug 10, 2011 6:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Last night, I made chicken soup...
…and there was no Sixers game to go with it. It made me sad.
Spence isn’t wrong. Der Stern is a douche. But he will win eventually.
I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, there will be no trade for Monta!
ahhhhh chicken soup. Miss it.
Liberty Ballers / Ridiculous Upside / Twitter
The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Michael Bourn
by Michael Levin on Aug 2, 2011 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Stern has been a key component to the NBA making money. While Hawes is really tall.
I’d say Stern has earned his high salary more than Hawes.
Not as bad as Jame Harrison saying he hate Roger Goodell and calling him “the devil.”
Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook
Spencer’s right. He may get in trouble for it and that’s a shame but nobody even knows how much Stern makes! Now was that wise for him to say that? Probably not. But somebody better keep Stern in check. It’s way too overblown to say Stern’s salary is too high and caused the lockout but it’s really messed up how secretive things are.
And now the NBA is suing the NBPA. It’s going to be a long lockout folks. People will get hurt (in a bussiness sense). Relationships hurt (again, in a bussiness sense). Too bad.
Dante Nelson-Staff Writer at "The Sixer Sense" and "Hardcourt Mayhem"
Follow on Twitter @Dantewrites
In other off-season news...
I saw Captain America and Cars 2. Both were solid. Anyone seen Cowboys and Aliens yet?
Didn’t like Cars 2 as much as I thought I would. Even my son wasn’t that into it, which surprised me.
I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, there will be no trade for Monta!
I'm a big James Bond fan
so the whole spy aspect of it amused me enough for me to enjoy it. I think they limited their audience though, my nephew didn’t seem thrilled with it either, and he loved the first one.
by The Mad Hopper on Aug 3, 2011 7:32 AM PDT up reply actions
I liked Captain America a lot. Even though I am more of a DC fan. I will say though that on the whole, Marvel has made better movies recently. The Batman series however is better than anything Marvel has ever done in terms of cinema.
I am going to see Cowboys and Aliens on Sunday.
Ed Snider is a crotchety old fuck.
That is all.
Agreed
Captain America, Thor and X-Men:First Class crushed the Green Lantern in terms of film quality this summer. But you’re right, the Batman series can’t be touched.
I prefer DC too, it just seems that they’re limiting themselves in terms of films produced. Their comics, outside of Batman and Superman don’t have a big fan drawing.
I guess I should also add, GO SIXERS!
by The Mad Hopper on Aug 4, 2011 6:33 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree completely. DC has a lot of good characters but the following just isn’t there. Marvel has Hulk, X-Men(Wolverine), Iron Man and Spider Man as their main staples, now they added in Captain America and Thor, they really are going all out. The Avengers looks like it will be fantastic. I do like Hawkeye a lot so I am excited to see how his character is portrayed in the movie, I’m a big fan of the actor playing him.
With D.C, all they have, all they have ever had is Batman and Superman. Arguably the two biggest Superheroes ever and they have done nothing with them but reboot. Green Lantern is popular but that movie was a spectacular disaster, which I was really bummed about as I love Hal Jordan and I do like Ryan Reynolds. I am also a big Green Arrow fan and would love to see him portrayed on the big screen and maybe DC will do that one day. They are talking about making a Justice League film but I don’t see it happening. Batman is coming to a close, Superman is just starting and Green Lantern was…well, that was bad those are the only established DC characters they have right now. Wonder Woman got no love and thus never made it to TV…I seriously doubt anyone is going to want to make a tv show or film about Martian Manhunter or Cyborg. Personally I would love to see an Aquaman film, mostly because I love the concept of the lost city of Atlantis and would like to see it but it won’t ever happen. Marvel has just killed DC in the box office and in comic sales, and I don’t think it’s even going to change. Maybe DC’s reboot will help close the gap but I doubt it.
And with that…yes, I am a nerd, yes I am ok with it. And Go Sixers.
Ed Snider is a crotchety old fuck.
That is all.
I would love to see them do a Flash film, but my fear is that his audience wouldn’t be enough to bring in crowds, and that it would end up being a cheesy film like Fantastic Four(which I also had high hopes for.) Aquaman would be cool too if they could get James Cameron to direct, lol(Entourage, anyone?)
I was also disappointed that Wonder Woman didn’t get picked up by NBC. I love Adrianne Palicki, and after their string of loser shows (The Event, The Cape) you’d think they’d give a superhero show with some following a shot.
by The Mad Hopper on Aug 4, 2011 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Cameron would probably do a good job, as long as he didn’t cast Vincent Chase…that actor is terrible.
I also love Adrianne Palaciki…I heard she just got a role in the new GI Joes film.
Ed Snider is a crotchety old fuck.
That is all.
I hated the first G.I. Joe
but with Adrianne and The Rock being in the sequel, it has to be better.
by The Mad Hopper on Aug 4, 2011 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Seeing Rachel Nichols and Sienna Miller in tight leather was worth the admission for that movie. Just sayin.
"They say that nobody is perfect. Then they tell you practice makes perfect. I wish they'd make up their minds." - Wilt Chamberlain
Someone should tell Spencer that it's not just pro athletes who have the right to collectively bargain with their employers
Not trying to get into politics, I just think kind of funny.
http://twitter.com/#!/spencerhawes00/statuses/43392805401407488
HI NICK
Liberty Ballers / Ridiculous Upside / Twitter
The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Michael Bourn
by Michael Levin on Aug 3, 2011 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions
wat?!
Liberty Ballers / Ridiculous Upside / Twitter
The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Michael Bourn
by Michael Levin on Aug 4, 2011 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions
I just recently got a job at walmart as an overnight stocker.. movin on up. but how’ve things been with you?
I pegged you as a stocker from the beginning. I’m making my way up the proverbial ladder in the entertainment industry. My face is turning plastic just from being here. But I luuuuuuuuv it.
Liberty Ballers / Ridiculous Upside / Twitter
The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Michael Bourn
by Michael Levin on Aug 5, 2011 12:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Have you slept with any porn stars yet? If not, you’re not really an LA guy…
I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, there will be no trade for Monta!
What if they are a pornstar now but weren’t when you slept with them? Does that count?
Ed Snider is a crotchety old fuck.
That is all.
We’ll split the difference. If they had had the plastic surgery, but hadn’t actually been in a film yet, i’ll allow it.
I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, there will be no trade for Monta!
Lawyer’d.
Liberty Ballers / Ridiculous Upside / Twitter
The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Michael Bourn
by Michael Levin on Aug 8, 2011 1:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Stern's Salary
I can’t believe that I’m defending Stern’s salary, but here goes. He and his predecessor, Podoloff, have made the NBA players the richest in sports. Their average salary is 4.8 million for a part of a year. Further, the two commissioners integrated basketball (minorities in ownership, coaching and management) faster than any other sport. Unlike other sports, the NBA tried to improve health care benefits and retirement pools for players who had played before the good years in the NBA.
Stern’s 23 million is less than five times what the average player makes (Hawes makes about 3million and he is a journeyman). Look at what CEO’s are making and compare their income to the average worker in their company. A CEO making SEVERAL THOUSAND TIMES as much as their average worker is not uncommon.
Now, having said that, I do think that as a show of good faith, Stern would do well to take a cut commensurate with what he is asking the players to do.
NBA revenue not matching player salaries
Opposite of NFL…..unless the teams are lying about their accounting, they’ve got to take money from the players. Teams can’t jack up ticket prices, the current prices are keeping fans away as it is.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on Liberty Ballers
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
