come to canada and say thatJay wrote:
That's nice Poseidon. You wanna know why your sport is so 'pure'? Because it's fucking broke. No one watches hockey.
I did.Poseidon wrote:
So I just listed some of the biggest names in sports - all who signed for less money to either stay loyal or have a better chance at a championship - and you tell me "explain everyone else"? What, you want a list of every free agent signing since 1947?
Explain how a lockout is going to up their stats or win them championships. That, after all, was the point of my comment. They are not fighting saying: Hey, this isn't about money, 18 million a year is fine, lets just get out there and win a championship. They want MORE than their already exuberant benefits provide, and a championship isn't mentioned.
You are nuts if you do not think they know a championship win increases their money intake. That is all they want a championship for. Fame and fortune, not for the love of the game.
loleleven bravo wrote:
if the half the population is below average intelligence, wouldnt that make that average intelligence?Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes.
Also - Half the population is below average intelligence.
Fuck Israel
Absolutely. Like I said, I absolutely don't deny that players enjoy making the money they do, but to say that love of the game and desire to win a championship isn't at least a decent portion of the reason athletes play is fucking stupid.Jaekus wrote:
I agree. It must be said though that love of the game is indeed part of it; trying to become a professional athelete for the sole purpose of making money is a little ludricrous as there are MUCH better and more surefire ways to make money, but I'm sure greed is a pretty good reason too when you have 7-8 figure salaries offered to you.Jay wrote:
Love of the game is bullshit. It's a friggin job. Anyone that doesn't try to maximize his salary during the limited time frame of his playing career is an idiot. They are anomalies, hardly the rule.
Yeah, clearly they're so excited because they're about to get more money from bonuses.
they are just happy. ofc. would they do it for free? nope.
There are more than enough instances of prof. sportsmen forgoing easy money to focus on less financially lucrative national commitments in particular.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Of course they wouldn't do it for free. Who could devote their life to a pursuit for no money? You gotta eat etc.
Point is, no one pursues a sports/music/art/acting career purely for the money. They love doing it and the money is a by product of success. Of course, as time goes on, the two can switch in priority.
Point is, no one pursues a sports/music/art/acting career purely for the money. They love doing it and the money is a by product of success. Of course, as time goes on, the two can switch in priority.
would kobe stay in LA if he was paid less than i dunno...some bench player?
no
no
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2011-05-24 07:31:42)
Would you stay at your job if they paid you half of what you're on now? Or would you find a better job because you know you're worth more money to a company than that?
thats not what i asked. they are not cutting my pay. they are just paying another coworker more money. and if i loved it then why would i go?Jaekus wrote:
Would you stay at your job if they paid you half of what you're on now? Or would you find a better job because you know you're worth more money to a company than that?
here how about this. i really dont feel like a lowing philosophical debate circle jerk here. so......
all players are paid the same. lets say 100k per year. after expenses the rest go to charity and the local communities. they still get money for food and etc and get to play for the love of it. win win win. right?
all players are paid the same. lets say 100k per year. after expenses the rest go to charity and the local communities. they still get money for food and etc and get to play for the love of it. win win win. right?
Your statement implied getting less than someone else, ie. pay cut.
Either way it's up to the individual. There's no one-size-fits-all answer.
Either way it's up to the individual. There's no one-size-fits-all answer.
no my statement implied what happens all the time here. that is the common thing that happens, not the exception.Jaekus wrote:
Your statement implied getting less than someone else, ie. pay cut.
Either way it's up to the individual. There's no one-size-fits-all answer.
Thing is it depends where they're coming from.11 Bravo wrote:
here how about this. i really dont feel like a lowing philosophical debate circle jerk here. so......
all players are paid the same. lets say 100k per year. after expenses the rest go to charity and the local communities. they still get money for food and etc and get to play for the love of it. win win win. right?
If they're a new player to the A league, that'd be a nice pay cheque.
If they were an elite pro used to getting paid millions, they'd feel ripped off.
In a perfect world the scenario would sound good, if communism is your perfect world
You mean Kobe Bryant, yeah? I read it as him getting paid less than a bench player would normally get, not the other way around, but anyway now I see where you're coming from.11 Bravo wrote:
no my statement implied what happens all the time here. that is the common thing that happens, not the exception.Jaekus wrote:
Your statement implied getting less than someone else, ie. pay cut.
Either way it's up to the individual. There's no one-size-fits-all answer.
Thing is not just in sport but in the workplace people who excel tend to get paid more, eg. like in sales commissions, performance review and promotion, etc. When you look at it that way it's not a lot different in the sporting world. The elite get paid the most because they're worth more to a team than a standard bench player.
its not communism. its for the love of the game and they still get paid good money.
I was referring to all pay being spread equally and no one earning more than the other, regardless of whether they work harder or not.11 Bravo wrote:
its not communism. its for the love of the game and they still get paid good money.
That's a really dumb analogy. Would a CEO stay at his job if he earned less than a typical cubicle zombie? Of course not.11 Bravo wrote:
would kobe stay in LA if he was paid less than i dunno...some bench player?
no
And as Spark mentioned, what about the olympics? Athletes barely get paid for anything there. The only athletes who really get anything are gymnasts, swimmers, etc who don't get much attention outside of the olympics so they get a lot of endorsement deals. USA Hockey, USA Basketball, USA Baseball, etc... make very little money for competing in the games.
They recently had the IIHF world championships in hockey, and there was a big argument whether John Tavares should go on the Isles forum I frequent. He went because he loves the game and wanted to improve his skills.
again...i am talking about the big 3. not the friggin olympics.
if he loved his job and could win the ceo championship with that company then yes. isnt that your argument?Poseidon wrote:
Would a CEO stay at his job if he earned less than a typical cubicle zombie? Of course not.
Elon Musk does it. So does Steve Jobs. So does Eric Schmidt.11 Bravo wrote:
if he loved his job and could win the ceo championship with that company then yes. isnt that your argument?Poseidon wrote:
Would a CEO stay at his job if he earned less than a typical cubicle zombie? Of course not.
It's a stupid comparison because there is no specific "trophy" you can win as a CEO.
I wasn't thinking Olympics because there the highest paying prize is also probably the biggest honour as well - I'm thinking stuff like IPL of which Jaekus will be awarePoseidon wrote:
That's a really dumb analogy. Would a CEO stay at his job if he earned less than a typical cubicle zombie? Of course not.11 Bravo wrote:
would kobe stay in LA if he was paid less than i dunno...some bench player?
no
And as Spark mentioned, what about the olympics? Athletes barely get paid for anything there. The only athletes who really get anything are gymnasts, swimmers, etc who don't get much attention outside of the olympics so they get a lot of endorsement deals. USA Hockey, USA Basketball, USA Baseball, etc... make very little money for competing in the games.
They recently had the IIHF world championships in hockey, and there was a big argument whether John Tavares should go on the Isles forum I frequent. He went because he loves the game and wanted to improve his skills.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
saggers
Tu Stultus Es
well you brought ceo into the conversation so........Poseidon wrote:
Elon Musk does it. So does Steve Jobs. So does Eric Schmidt.11 Bravo wrote:
if he loved his job and could win the ceo championship with that company then yes. isnt that your argument?Poseidon wrote:
Would a CEO stay at his job if he earned less than a typical cubicle zombie? Of course not.
It's a stupid comparison because there is no specific "trophy" you can win as a CEO.
those guys make less than the cubical monkey?