Results 1 to 10 of 10
-
02-20-2017, 01:09 AM #1
Boogie to the Pelicans
Woj and The Vertical are reporting it's Hield, Tyreke, Langston Galloway, a first and a second round pick for DeMarcus Cousins. Cassipi may be involved as well
I'm sick to my stomach. Boogie was my favorite King ever. I can't root for this team anymore.
Thoughts?
-
-
02-20-2017, 05:05 AM #2
Be like me, a fan of players NOT teams.
It has NEVER made since to me to be a "team" fan as teams are bu$ine$$es and just about the bottom dollar whereas players are human beings who are trying to become great, win titles, etc., and you can actually relate to them. I honestly don't even really understand team fans ... I was a Kobe fan and had he waived his no-trade clause and agreed to go to the Pistons back in the day the Pistons would have been my fave team.
As for Boogie ... I love the guy as well ... I also love Unibrow so this trade was great for me ... and really, I think great for everyone outside Sacramento as who isn't excited to see the two best young big men in the NBA play together in their primes? It's awesome!
To me this trade would have been like the Magic drafting Chris Webber instead of Penny Hardaway in 1993 and pairing him with a young Shaq ... man that would have been awesome!
Now, as for the trade itself ... the Pelicans won it hands-down imho. The Kings are a complete mess, they are the NBA's version of the Cleveland Browns and the team should probably be taken away from Vivek as the front office seems completely clueless.
I don't necessarily think this trade guarantees the Pelicans a playoff spot this year, though I could definitely see them grabbing that #8 seed ... but they will probably be very thin until this off-season when they can sign some quality free agents.
Anyways, that's my two cents ...
-
02-20-2017, 07:37 AM #3
Not sure how that's going to work out in NOLA with that pairing. The Pels are now very top heavy. It looks as though both teams have just begun to re-tool their rosters. Just as Ben McLemore started gaining momentum he's pushed aside in favor of Buddy. We've seen that happen before; poor Ben. It will be interesting to see what WCS does with FT minutes in Sacto. I guess we'll finally see how good he can be.
-
-
02-20-2017, 01:40 PM #4
Prior to OKC getting a team in 2008 (I live in the southwestern part of MO and am thus not far from the OKC border), I was always a fan of players more than teams (I liked Rex Chapman wherever he went, Antoine Walker, Grant Hill, etc.). There were some teams I liked more than others, but I found it easier to stick to a player since the context of teams can change so much. As a team fan, I finally learned the frustration of having a favorite player leave (Durant last year), and it was super annoying.
But it sounds like you're more dedicated to Cousins than to Sac in this case, whereas I became more dedicated to OKC than to Durant. In that case, Cheer Boogie wherever he will go. If you can't root for Sac because of any potential deal, then you're more of a Boogie fan than a Sac fan.
I'm kind of that way with the Cavs right now. I like Love (well on the court anyway -- he's a sex object who gives me moral frustration off it), and if he were to be traded, it would be harder to cheer for Cleve, even though I love LeBron's game (not so much his attitude) and have grown to even like Kyrie's as well (that over-dribbling flat Earther, lol).
-
02-20-2017, 02:20 PM #5
Totally understand what you're saying. But, the way I see it is that I've supported this team since I was a kid and management kept surrounding him with awful draft picks and made him out to be the reason we've struggled. He was our best draft pick ever IMO. I may have overreacted a bit last night when I posted and the trade went down. I will forever be a Kings fan but this one stings because of my time rooting for them he was my favorite player.
That being said, here's hoping Buddy is as fun as he was to watch in college.
-
-
02-23-2017, 06:18 PM #6
Supposedly the Kings had better offers but they passed on those hoping for something better to come along and this is what they ended up with....
Selling All My Cards Here------>Hidden Content
Baseball Autograph and Game Used Only Trade Page: pwaldo.webs.com/
//s123.photobucket.com/albums/o299/pwaldo/
-
02-24-2017, 08:09 AM #7
Your right they are a business but so are players. Your statement of players being human beings is mind blowing. Is not a team (organization) comprised of human beings? Why else would a player need a agent. Too get the most dollars from a contract, commercials, endorsements, etc. Both entities should be looking out for themselves as in the end no one cares about the other sad to say. It very seldom you see player sign for a discount to stay in his hometown, a good situation, etc. Not a team take care of a player at the end of his career for medical expenses when they were subjecting their body for the betterment of the so called franchise. A team should be looking at a player as a commodity to get as much as they can out of the player to benefit the team, franchise, toward it end goal which is winning. It would be nice to see a perfect world but we all know that is not the case.
DON
-
-
02-24-2017, 06:59 PM #8
No, players are individual human beings. There is a massive difference. Do you look at the McDonald's corporation as being identical to a relative of yours that just happens to flip burgers for that corporation? Of course not.
Your statement of players being human beings is mind blowing.
I'm sorry to have blown your mind but if you believe a corporation is identical to a human being it was bound to happen some time anyways.
Is not a team (organization) comprised of human beings?
Technically, no, a corporation (not "organization") is a legal entity that is not "human" in any way, shape or form. It's primary goal is to make money for it's share holders. On the flip side, many players do not have the primary goal of making money as can be seen when players take pay-cuts or when they sign contracts for far less than their market value simply to play in a city they want to live in or to play on a team they feel can win a title, etc.
It makes zero sense for anyone to be "loyal" to a corporation as that corporation feels no loyalty towards anything but the almighty dollar.
Why else would a player need a agent. Too get the most dollars from a contract, commercials, endorsements, etc.
Some players don't have agents and some that do have agents willfully ignore their agents all the time. Players do not have agents just so they can "get the most money" but because most players are entirely incapable of understanding, let alone drafting complex legal documents.
Both entities should be looking out for themselves as in the end no one cares about the other sad to say.
This isn't true. It is true that corporations primary goal is to make as much money as possible but that is not always a players goal as I noted above. There are also many players who do in fact feel "loyalty" for their team and that cannot even be debated.
It very seldom you see player sign for a discount to stay in his hometown, a good situation, etc. Not a team take care of a player at the end of his career for medical expenses when they were subjecting their body for the betterment of the so called franchise. A team should be looking at a player as a commodity to get as much as they can out of the player to benefit the team, franchise, toward it end goal which is winning. It would be nice to see a perfect world but we all know that is not the case.
DON
I agree with you that a "team" or "corporation" SHOULD be all about the bottom-line and that it makes perfect sense for them to be cut-throat with their players who are indeed nothing more than commodities. However, players are different as they are human beings and do feel loyalty and other emotions.
It just has never made any sense to me to be a fan of a corporation when I could be a fan of a particular player or players who are human beings just like I am and who I can actually associate with on some level. Even as a small child, when my dad told me, "we are Lions fans" I just didn't buy it. I loved Barry Sanders and was a huge fan of his but had he been traded to the Raiders or even the hated Packers, I would have wanted his new team to crush his old team (Lions).
-
02-25-2017, 12:11 AM #9
You say player feel loyalties but it the same with the corporation as the owner,manager, etc, feel loyalty. How many managers let a player stay in a game to only loose it. Owners have helped players during hardship even though there was no need to do so. It just personal loyalty because again there are individuals in the organization just like a individual player.
Love Barry and he was one of those athlete that stood by his guns. No need for accolades or bravado to say he was the best. You cannot name too many athletes like that. So again the majority of athletes are looking to make as much money as possible because their income window is small.
Don
-
02-25-2017, 04:06 PM #10
No, you're confusing "corporation" with "organization". The organization is simply the individuals who run things, who are human beings. The corporation is the non-human legal entity that is, of necessity, all about the bottom dollar. I have no problem with people being fans of coaches as that is just like being a fan of a player as coaches are human beings and one can associate with them n a personal level.
Love Barry and he was one of those athlete that stood by his guns. No need for accolades or bravado to say he was the best. You cannot name too many athletes like that. So again the majority of athletes are looking to make as much money as possible because their income window is small.
You are certainly right that the majority of athletes are probably "about the dollar" but there are a few that one could mention with Barry, guys like Tom Brady, Tim Duncan, Derek Fisher, David West, Pau Gasol ... even my main man Jameis (who offered to give up some of his cheap rookie contract money if it would help the Bucs be able to move up and draft Jalen Ramsey last year).
-