EPTPaul + Jokic + Murray + Harris man
NBA Offseason 2017 - Page 26
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
GranDGranT
Sri Lanka2141 Posts
Paul + Jokic + Murray + Harris man | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
WOW | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
dsyxelic
United States1417 Posts
| ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
The way Horowitz was handling the digital content was horrible but shocked he is out from everything altogether. (could have put this in NFL thread probably but w/e) edit:apparently related to conduct (through reason not known) http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2017/07/03/Media/Jamie-Horowitz-out-at-Fox-Sports.aspx last update(was more interested when i thought it was a business move): http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-fox-sports-jamie-horowitz-sex-harassment-20170703-story.html | ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
He would be too great of a get for the Lakers on a one-year deal if that happens. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16711 Posts
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19798109/chauncey-billups-withdraws-name-cleveland-cavaliers-front-office-search EDIT: Doh! too late. On July 04 2017 03:51 ZenithM wrote: Billups removing his candidacy from Cavs' GM. The Cavs are going nowhere but the East is emptying itself, so I guess they'll make another finals :D. if Miami brings back everyone i think they're the Cavs #1 challenger next year and they got an outside shot at knocking them off. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + This first paragraph seems impossible to respond to since apparently I am a part of the system. I have a comment regarding what level of exaggeration or level of disinterestedness I'm displaying, but I'll save that for later. Yes, this is a fairly insignificant issue, but it's a reasonable test case. Moreover, there's a serious issue if I can't just the truth about a fairly straightforward case. To plagiarize Orwell, it's a sign of the times if you can't make these basic statements and it's an important build up. If we can't just say we don't like this, what makes you think we can do that with major society-wide issues? More on this later. Three, you are subscribing to an obsolete framework of communication. The magic bullet theory of "monkey-see-monkey-do" has long been rendered deficient, along with Mcluhan determinism, in making sense of something as complex as social interaction. It may hold some ground in child developmental psychology where the variables are limited ans easily identifiable, but no one has been brave enough to academically summon such frameworks since the late 60s. You might be familiar with studies on television, and more recently video games, and violence among children. More than half a decade of academic work has been on this and there is no direct causative or even correlative relationship between the two. Television and games may be one of the factor, but there is such a rigid structure in place that shapes personal and social knowledge and behavior like parental influence, geography, peers, socio-economic background, and religion that violent television and games are rarely if ever the tipping point in determining violent behavior. People have been violent and nonviolent as well all throughout history, and it is simplistic to reduce the matter to a simple "monkey-see-monkey-do" equation, no matter how apparently self-evident it is. OK, let's not pretend that these frameworks are some sort of gospel that invalidated everything that came before. (Frankly, they seem as much an indictment of the monumental dullness of the Moderns as anything.) They are comments and useful observations, but don't make the mistake of thinking your one slice of pie is the whole universe. As for the theories themselves, if anything, what I took away is the complexity and unpredictability of influence. I don't know if you thought I was asserting Ball as the top of an influence hierarchy. He can be small potatoes and still be impactful, or maybe he is just the result of something impactful. The violent TV/videogames studies seems like a poor example because it seems like as much a test of whether people can differentiate between media and real life. I would be more interested in whether kids who watched TV/games with cursing cursed more. "Monkey-see, monkey-do" is a simplification, but probably not in the way you think. It could actually be way worse than that. There could be an action that will be imitated no matter how forcefully it's decried. The mere whisper of the action could lead some to investigate it. You've given me some descriptions of how influence has spread and then told me not to worry about influence spreading. Classical factors like the ones you described are important and a good base, but they also don't describe change very well, which is always happening. All of these isolated events and individual focused factors are not my main concern, however. I'm criticizing the reaction to Ball more than Ball. I'm sure you've noticed that your attitude is fairly commonplace. There's no need to consider vectors of influence; it's already done. Four, How is Ball hurting himself? By any measure, he is succeeding. Lonzo is playing for the Lakers, he owns his own brand, he has prominent B-level media exposure, and by the looks of it, he is having the time of his life. No matter how Lonzo Ball turns out, as long as he manages an average NBA career. he is either in zero or positive position. The only negative scenario is when Lonzo Ball turns out to be a gun-carrying mass murdering maniac, or something along these lines. If you go back to my first post, I explained it in more detail. Briefly, his style is the product of an underlying idea that has been stripped of moral consideration. I guess it comes down to whether you think being moral or not is helpful or harmful. As I said before, the danger here is that it's taken a probably essentially decent person and convinced them that they do not need to pay any heed to the potential goodness of their actions, only the benefit. Has he really gained anything? His son was drafted 2nd, as was long predicted, and he has a brand which has sold a few shoes and whose success will largely depend on his son's success on the court. All of this would happen or could happen without all the bluster. I would take issue with the idea that the only dangerous ideas are the one that immediately cause some material harm, but I'll just comment in passing that by the time you get to the "gun-carrying maniac" phase, it's usually to late to address underlying issues. Five, and let me use this point by way of summation. Our discussion/disagreement is an attempt to understand the Ball phenomenon. Ball may or may not be a moral person, and from your perspective, his shameless self-promotion and egotism is a wrong/not good, and we should do something about it. I can not however tell from our discussion so far what you propose to do about it. Do we stage organized protests in LA games? Twitter bomb him? To my mind, the correct course of action is to let the whole phenomenon play. I have already expressed how I have changed my mind after learning that all of this is for Ball is a spectacle to promote his agenda, and unless he is doing any damage, say threatening economic sustainability, building divisive walls, putting incompetent people in power, threatening net neutrality, making access to affordable health care difficult for people, let him be. Boycott all BBB products and boo at Lonzo Ball's games, all you want, but never yourself get caught in the charade as the serious fool amidst the clowns. I'm not really criticizing Ball, though. He's just the subject of our discussion. What I'm criticizing is the attitude that, even as you are still able to distinguish what is good and what is not so good, you are unable to even make a passing statement about it's morality. I can't speak to you specifically, but this is the classic liberal idea that everything should either be illegal or be above reproach. Since I'm criticizing Ball, I must then think that what he's doing is illegal. That's why you're ascribing this massive overreaction to me. You also only consider that the only real harm is if violence is being done. I would respectfully disagree with that. Ball is small potatoes and not evil, but it's telling if we can't even just matter o' factly assert that he's doing less than good and move on. That's all that really needs to be done. You and others have agreed with me that Ball is not acting his best and you have waxed a few times on the state of (at least part of) the culture. Do you not think that your attitude makes you complicit then? If not, what is it that you think needs to be done to reverse this culture? | ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
OK, let's not pretend that these frameworks are some sort of gospel that invalidated everything that came before. (Frankly, they seem as much an indictment of the monumental dullness of the Moderns as anything.) They are comments and useful observations, but don't make the mistake of thinking your one slice of pie is the whole universe. The violent TV/videogames studies seems like a poor example because it seems like as much a test of whether people can differentiate between media and real life. I would be more interested in whether kids who watched TV/games with cursing cursed more. "Monkey-see, monkey-do" is a simplification, but probably not in the way you think. It could actually be way worse than that. There could be an action that will be imitated no matter how forcefully it's decried. The mere whisper of the action could lead some to investigate it. This statement is false, bordering on the illiterate. Theories and frameworks are attempts at describing and explaining social phenomena. The more systematic and rigorous the framework, the more widely acceptable it is. Those that are proven wrong or deficient are discarded. Being social constructs themselves, theories and frameworks are subject to temporal and cultural changes. What was once true may not anymore be the case, because of changes in social interaction and technology, and often because we simply find better tools and ways to analyze things that expose the falsity of our earlier methods and conclusions. Your enthusiastic defense of the "monkey-see-monkey-do" concept betrays your fundamental ignorance on the matter. Despite its self-apparent nature, that concept remains only as a niche in child psychology and has long been debunked and abandoned in cultural and communication theory. You are at least four decades late on your reading list on this issue. I will detail a more academic response on this matter once you answer the related questions in the section below. He can be small potatoes and still be impactful, or maybe he is just the result of something impactful. If you go back to my first post, I explained it in more detail. Briefly, his style is the product of an underlying idea that has been stripped of moral consideration. I guess it comes down to whether you think being moral or not is helpful or harmful. As I said before, the danger here is that it's taken a probably essentially decent person and convinced them that they do not need to pay any heed to the potential goodness of their actions, only the benefit. I would take issue with the idea that the only dangerous ideas are the one that immediately cause some material harm, but I'll just comment in passing that by the time you get to the "gun-carrying maniac" phase, it's usually to late to address underlying issues. What I'm criticizing is the attitude that, even as you are still able to distinguish what is good and what is not so good, you are unable to even make a passing statement about it's morality. I can't speak to you specifically, but this is the classic liberal idea that everything should either be illegal or be above reproach. Since I'm criticizing Ball, I must then think that what he's doing is illegal. That's why you're ascribing this massive overreaction to me. You also only consider that the only real harm is if violence is being done. I would respectfully disagree with that. Ball is small potatoes and not evil, but it's telling if we can't even just matter o' factly assert that he's doing less than good and move on. That's all that really needs to be done. I assume by the sentence in bold you mean to say that my assessment of you overreacting on this matter is not true because you are not overreacting? Is this a correct assumption? If so, then I concede that point. But maybe we are operating on a different reaction scale. That you have to make the above statement, at one point, meditating on the impact of Ball and his actions, and then jumping on the conclusion that this influences people to emulate him, is proof to me that you are taking him too seriously. You even make the fatal mistake of sliding down the slippery slope of Ball's actions specifically as a representative of an act "stripped of moral consideration" to irreversible violent result (I don't know what you propose specifically in Ball's case, but in the general scope of society, this is where gun violence falls in). In reference to the first question, here are the questions 1. Can you name specific cases of people being influenced by Ball's actions/words? 2. In present society, is Ball's brashness and self-aggrandizement unique? 3. Throughout history, is Ball's brashness and self-aggrandizement unique? That Ball is moral or immoral, good or not good, is not the argument. That can or cannot comment on this phenomenon is not the argument as well. The mere fact that we have been engaged in this discussion is proof that it is natural and encouraged. All I am remarking is that you are overreacting on this matter. If from your perspective going on a lengthy tirade demonizing ball and fearing the effects of his actions on society is not an exaggeration, then,as I said earlier, I concede my point. But from my point of view, as a previous rabid hater of Lavar Ball, it is all a show and all that he deserves is a guilty chuckle and a meh. Has he really gained anything? His son was drafted 2nd, as was long predicted, and he has a brand which has sold a few shoes and whose success will largely depend on his son's success on the court. All of this would happen or could happen without all the bluster. Let's see: Scenario 1: Lavar is a loudmouth showoff (current scenario)
Scenario 2: Lavar is out of spotlight, like the usual NBA draftee dad
To summarize:
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
| ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
Durant could have made at least ~$32-35M this year, and even more next year. Instead he chose to take $53M for 2 years, sacrificing ~$10M per year in the next 2 years. Reports indicate that he would have even accepted less if they could have acquired Rudy Gay. All this is to ensure that GSW could accomodate Curry's $201M 5-year salary as well as those of the other superstars and players in order to keep the team together. In addition, this also allows the GSW to avoid an expensive luxury tax and overpay like the Cavs. Part of me applauds KD for taking the hardest road and making sure the teams continues to be competitive, and by sacrificing so much thereby also shows leadership. (Although with various endorsement money, $10M is not too much of a blow for KD). On the other hand, from the political economic perspective, this is horrible. It shows that when it is needed. it is always the players and not the owners who must make the sacrifice. Lebron and CP3 must be livid. This is a horrible blow to the CBA. If this continues, I expect a lockout this season or the next. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
You can argue that he's "still a bitch tho". | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
| ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
On July 04 2017 23:46 JimmiC wrote: I guess chris paul is a bitch for joining the rockets after thry beat him after being up 3-1. Funny how some people get certain storey lines and others dont I didn't realize it until you mentioned it lol. Maybe because the Clippers are expected to do Clippers thing? I don't know. But yeah, funny that no one even brought that up. | ||
|
zev318
Canada4306 Posts
On July 04 2017 23:58 Twinkle Toes wrote: I didn't realize it until you mentioned it lol. Maybe because the Clippers are expected to do Clippers thing? I don't know. But yeah, funny that no one even brought that up. everyone who has ever joined a better team is, by the definition placed on durant, a bitch. everyone would do what durant did, i mean if pay is relatively the same, it comes down to is the working conditions and gsw is definitely a better system to work in than OKC's. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On July 04 2017 23:46 JimmiC wrote: I guess chris paul is a bitch for joining the rockets after thry beat him after being up 3-1. Funny how some people get certain storey lines and others dont I could argue the various differences between those moves, I'm sure you see them as well, but point taken. People see some story lines and don't see some others, but maybe that's only because they're different stories. | ||
|
Nemireck
Canada1875 Posts
On July 04 2017 23:55 Twinkle Toes wrote: I'm totally over that bitch and cupcake thing already. What bothers me is that behind all these "selflessness" and "sacrifice" narrative, it undermines all the progress in the CBA that puts the players interests first. This move gives the power right back to the owners. It is not as cut and dry as it seems, but it definitely could be prone to abuse. How does this undermine the CBA? It's not as if he was stuck in GS no matter what and his owner/GM said "Eff you, you're taking $53m over 2 seasons or you're not playing at all!" A move like that WOULD undermine the CBA, but in this case, a player made the decision that he felt was right for him... That's the whole POINT of Free Agency. The player can make whatever decision he likes to make himself happy. KD had all the power in this situation. Did he want to sacrifice a bit of pay (which is really peanuts compared to his endorsement deals) and continue to play on (one of) the greatest team(s) ever assembled? Or did he want to take a pay increase that is fairly meaningless to him and "put it to the man?" For what gain? To whose benefit? The way I see it: Demanding a raise would put a few extra dollars in his bank account, but then he'd have to play for a worse team, or a different team... Maybe a team with a shitty culture, or a terrible coach, or fucking James L Dolan as the team owner. If I were KD, and I already had my millions, and I had the chance to play for a Dynasty in the prime of my career... That's not a very difficult decision to make. And while I'm thinking about it, did anyone in the Players Union criticise Duncan, Parker or Ginobli when they took lesser deals to help the Spurs continue to be a perennial Championship contender? I don't remember hearing it. Granted, not every player is driven by a desire to win, some just want to score 20-30 a night and collect their $35mil/y (Lookin at you Melo), but we see how well that's working out for those teams... Don't we? | ||
| ||
