Rashard Lewis

[Emory889 353]

quote:

Originally posted by jecMagicMan:

Every basketball player is overpaid. What they are actually doing is not worth the kind of money they make.

 

I have no problem with people playing with balls being millionaires. But ****.

 

Yes, but Rashard is overpaid in comparison to the rest of the overpaid players. He's overpaid X 2.

[Luke_FfS 251]

quote:

Originally posted by Kramer:

quote:

Originally posted by Miller4Prez64:

quote:

Originally posted by Kramer:

quote:

Originally posted by Miller4Prez64:

Until he starts putting up numbers that match up with the best in the league......he's overpaid.

 

Thats stupid. He is the second option on his team and when you lead your team in scoring as a second option, it isn't fair to be compared to first options.

 

Not really, he's being paid 120 million. He'll always be overpaid unless he turns into an elite player.

 

and 22-7-3 isn't elite for a second third option?

 

Corrected.

 

I mean, if Lewis would be playing in a bad team, he would be the first option, and he would probably making similar stats as the elite players. Point is, he's playing out of position in a team in which he's not the main options, and too many times he's not even the second.

Without complaining!!!

 

I would overpay a player like Shard over a selfish one that falls in love with his stats every day of the year.

[Kramer 0]

quote:

Originally posted by emory889:

The man is making money that is reserved for Kobe and Lebron. He is and will always be overpaid. Once all of us accept that the sooner we can all truly appreciate what he brings to the table. He is playing fantastic basketball and the team would not be where they are today without him.

 

But that's false. There are a lot of max deal players. AI, Jason Kidd, Jermaine O'neal, Tmac, Shaq, Paul Pierce, Shawn Marion, Ray Allen, and Dirk Nowitizki also make money like Kobe and Lebron. All they all overpaid? No. Rashard is an elite player in his prime and an important part a team that will make championship runs for the next 3-4 years. That has max deal written all over it.

[Ambrose 0]

I think SVG is starting to get what he can do with Rashard. All season he was basicly 3 point option and sometimes drive to the basket. Next year his stats will be better.

Yes he is overpaid but we didn't have a chance for a Lebron or Kobe, so why not pay for a player like him. I'm looking forward to seeing play next year during the season. We'll kill people with all our options.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

quote:

Originally posted by jecMagicMan:

Every basketball player is overpaid. What they are actually doing is not worth the kind of money they make.

 

I have no problem with people playing with balls being millionaires. But ****.

 

Disagree. Teams make money because people are willing to pay money to see these guys play. Massive amounts of money. And the players are entitled to a cut of that.

 

As long as people are willingly paying money to watch them play, either directly through ticket sales or indirectly by watching on tv and making advertising space valuable, the players aren't overpaid.

 

If people really had a problem with how much money was being made by these guys, they'd stop watching and going to games. Otherwise, they're contributing to it.

[ThisIsTheYear 241]

quote:

Originally posted by jecMagicMan:

Every basketball player is overpaid. What they are actually doing is not worth the kind of money they make.

 

I have no problem with people playing with balls being millionaires. But ****.

 

I don't think that's true. They get paid according to how valuable they are to their respective industry. People pay big money to see the greatest athletes in the world compete against each other.

[tom0131 0]

i agree. if we dont like how much athletes are making, guess what we control that. its our dollars that pay these guys. its an entertainment industry, just as the tv business and movie business.

[TheRevTy 6]

OK, first of all, in my opinion, people should be paid according to how many people they affect. On a given night, a star player directly affects the emotions of tens of thousands of people based on his performance. How many people can truly say that?

 

Second, I believe it takes a special type of player (and person, for that matter) to be a good secondary player. Most guys with a stitch of skill can effectively be a number 1 option and put up nice numbers (I'm looking at you, Jamal Crawford and Corey Maggette). However, it takes a different mentality and skill set to be a dangerous scorer and support player when your are second banana. As the secondary option, you rarely get to control the ball, and you have to pick your spots to score. Think it is a coincidence Joe Johnson plays for the Hawks? Or how Andrei Kirilenko, once a name known throughout the league, becomes an overpaid afterthought when Deron Williams and Boozer take over? And then there are the guys that have the skill set to be a great second option, but not the mentality (Hi Amare, Kobe, Shaq, Shawn Marion, Tracy McGrady). You want to know who Rashard should be compared to? Ray Allen, Pau Gasol, Mo Williams, Manu Ginobli, Lamar Odom.

 

Should he be getting paid what he is? No. But, is he more valuable than a guy like Micheal Redd, who gets better stats? Yes.

[tom0131 0]

come on, a bench player that stays healthy is more valuable then Redd. at least you know you'll have a healthy body for a year.

[TheRevTy 6]

Here is how the Sports Guy describes 2nd Banana:

 

Back to the Second Banana thing, which I never fully explained last month: Think of Tubbs and Crockett from "Miami Vice." Crockett was the star of the show. He was The Man, the Go-To Guy ... and everyone knew it. But we also knew that you can't carry a show by yourself. So Tubbs' job was to play off Crockett, cover his back, kick him in the butt, provide some laughs, pull off the Jamaican accent from time to time, hook up with any black actress who was appearing on the show, knock the Unintentional Comedy Rating through the roof every so often, and occasionally -- not often, but occasionally -- carry his own episode, just to mix things up.

 

Could Tubbs have carried his own show? Maybe. It would have been an OK show ... probably would have lasted two or three seasons, before it finally got canceled, depending on his supporting cast. And then Philip Michael Thomas would have been relegated to game shows and infomercials for the rest of his career, which is pretty much what happened, anyway. But at least with "Miami Vice," he was a crucial component of the greatest detective show of the '80s. It wouldn't have been nearly as good without him.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

quote:

Originally posted by TheRevTy:

OK, first of all, in my opinion, people should be paid according to how many people they affect. On a given night, a star player directly affects the emotions of tens of thousands of people based on his performance. How many people can truly say that?

 

Second, I believe it takes a special type of player (and person, for that matter) to be a good secondary player. Most guys with a stitch of skill can effectively be a number 1 option and put up nice numbers (I'm looking at you, Jamal Crawford and Corey Maggette). However, it takes a different mentality and skill set to be a dangerous scorer and support player when your are second banana. As the secondary option, you rarely get to control the ball, and you have to pick your spots to score. Think it is a coincidence Joe Johnson plays for the Hawks? Or how Andrei Kirilenko, once a name known throughout the league, becomes an overpaid afterthought when Deron Williams and Boozer take over? And then there are the guys that have the skill set to be a great second option, but not the mentality (Hi Amare, Kobe, Shaq, Shawn Marion, Tracy McGrady). You want to know who Rashard should be compared to? Ray Allen, Pau Gasol, Mo Williams, Manu Ginobli, Lamar Odom.

 

Should he be getting paid what he is? No. But, is he more valuable than a guy like Micheal Redd, who gets better stats? Yes.

 

Any random doctor might only effect 1,000 people in his career. Any high school teacher might only effect a few thousand people in their career ( depending on size of school etc.). A radio DJ might effect 100,000 people in the course of his career. I dont think your effect/pay idea is a good one. People should get paid based on the amount of other people that can do their job at the same level.

 

There is so many different interpretations to the overpaying(or not) i dont really feel like adding to that.

 

I generally agree with your other points though.

[TheRevTy 6]

quote:

Originally posted by Lewis4thewin:

quote:

Originally posted by TheRevTy:

OK, first of all, in my opinion, people should be paid according to how many people they affect. On a given night, a star player directly affects the emotions of tens of thousands of people based on his performance. How many people can truly say that?

 

Second, I believe it takes a special type of player (and person, for that matter) to be a good secondary player. Most guys with a stitch of skill can effectively be a number 1 option and put up nice numbers (I'm looking at you, Jamal Crawford and Corey Maggette). However, it takes a different mentality and skill set to be a dangerous scorer and support player when your are second banana. As the secondary option, you rarely get to control the ball, and you have to pick your spots to score. Think it is a coincidence Joe Johnson plays for the Hawks? Or how Andrei Kirilenko, once a name known throughout the league, becomes an overpaid afterthought when Deron Williams and Boozer take over? And then there are the guys that have the skill set to be a great second option, but not the mentality (Hi Amare, Kobe, Shaq, Shawn Marion, Tracy McGrady). You want to know who Rashard should be compared to? Ray Allen, Pau Gasol, Mo Williams, Manu Ginobli, Lamar Odom.

 

Should he be getting paid what he is? No. But, is he more valuable than a guy like Micheal Redd, who gets better stats? Yes.

 

Any random doctor might only effect 1,000 people in his career. Any high school teacher might only effect a few thousand people in their career ( depending on size of school etc.). A radio DJ might effect 100,000 people in the course of his career. I dont think your effect/pay idea is a good one. People should get paid based on the amount of other people that can do their job at the same level.

 

There is so many different interpretations to the overpaying(or not) i dont really feel like adding to that.

 

I generally agree with your other points though.

 

I suppose I can agree with that. I whole-heartedly feel that professions like teachers and :ahem: clergy are woefully undercompensated.

 

Perhaps if we combine the 2? Both the number of individuals you directly affect and the number of people who can/are willing to do your job? As in, how easily replacable are you, and what percentage of society would notice if you left? Either way, professional athletes come out smelling like roses.