- 07/09/2012, 04:17AM ET
J-Business said 07/09, 04:17 AM
I'm always amazed when I hear some fans say "players back in the old days would have never signed with a rival" or "that guys a traitor for signing with them"
It's professional sports and if there's one thing we know, it's that the owners of the team, don't really care a thing about them
He signed with the Heat and now has a chance to extend his career
But it seems as if everyone isn't happy for him
Would anyone be crying if he was traded to the the Toronto for cash?
Or if his ankle didn't heal and he was cut?
No, it's professional sports
Of course, well would like to see a player finish out his career with a city and team, but if he decides to go elsewhere, he's not a traitor
Peyton Manning - cut
McNabb - Traded to a division team
Montana - Traded
Dr. J - The Sixers were going to trade him but he retired
Ray Lewis - If he isn't healthy, they'll cut him
Point being, professional sports is about love and the game, team and city, but it's also about money
An owner or GM won't think twice about cutting a guy not resign him trade him
Free agents, if you feel you have something left, go where you please
Gruden said 07/09, 02:30 PM
Peyton would still be a Colt, and would have retired a Colt, if he had been intelligent and retired when he broke his neck. And in reality, he has retired as a Colt, because his career is all but over anyway and when its all said and done he'll sign a one day contract in Indy and "retire a Colt". And the city will praise him once again.
But look at players like Todd Helton. He could have left Colorado anytime and gone to New York or Los Angeles, but he decided to play his entire career in a city he loved. And as he has broken down, the team stands by him. There has been plenty of loyalty on both sides with him.
The Yankees have stuck with Derek Jeter, and certainly stuck with Posada, much longer than they deserved at salaries much higher than the level they were playing at.
Phoenix stuck with Nash, and Nash with Phoenix, out of pure loyalty, until his playing abilities reached a point where it was dumb to keep him. The Lakers will find out.
And Tim Duncan could have cashed big with a larger market team. But loyalty kept him in San Antonio.
There's still plenty of loyalty in professional sports.
J-Business said 07/10, 11:55 AM
A team keeping a player has nothing to do with love, they're doing it merely, because they think the fan base will be upset
If the Colts hadn't gotten the number 1 pick in the draft, they'd have probably arranged a way to keep Peyton because they knew fans would still show up.
It's all about money with professional sports teams. If the player can still draw a crowd, they'll keep him around
This is why it amazes me to hear Jarret Jack say that Ray Allen is a traitor.
To who? The Celtics who have been dangling him in trade talk for yrs
In fact, the Celtics considered trading Larry Bird towards the end of his career, but knew that the fan base would have been upset and stopped coming
The NFL is probably worse than the NBA
Their team doctors routinely misdiagnose sever concussions and regularly push players into playing
This has resulted in numerous players having brain damage and life long injuries
Obviously, the players know the risks, but if they are going to put their bodies on the line, they should do it for the highest paying team and in whatever city they want
Owners could care less and once a player's knees go out, he's done
Gruden said 07/10, 01:23 PM
I didn't mention the team keeping a player out of love. I said Todd Helton loves Denver. And by your own statement, the team is showing loyalty to their fan base. So..again..more loyalty.
If Peyton hadn't broken his neck, they wouldn't have earned the #1 pick. Exactly my point. Peyton would still be the quarterback for them if he hadn't broken his neck. You really can't blame a team for letting a player with a broken neck go, can you?
As for your NFL argument about concussions, it really isn't germane to the discussion is it? That's not about loyalty between players and ownership.
As for money, there are simply too many examples of where you are wrong. Ray Lewis could have signed with better teams for more money at any time in his career. 17 seasons, one bad team. Barry Sanders easily could have gone to a winner for more money. He stayed and retired, rather than play somewhere else. Lindstrom stayed a Red Wing. Brodeur stayed a Devil. Holladay stayed a Blue Jay for 12 years. Jimmy Rollins is still a Phillie. Garret Anderson stayed an Angel for 17 years. The list is endless.
J-Business said 07/11, 05:12 AM
Concussions and injuries have a lot to do with this because if the owners cared one iota about a player, they wouldn't send him back into action prematurely
One of the main reasons why Barry Sanders retired is because the Detroit Lions categorically refused to consider trading him and basically he was stuck on a team that wasn't going anywhere
Those players you mentioned stayed out of their love for the fans and the city
But the teams didn't decide to keep them out of loyalty. They simply couldn't find a player to replace them for the skill and cost
Phillies fans love Jimmy Rollins but I'll guarantee that he'll most likely not receive another extension
You're mentioning the player side of the equation and that's the opposite of the entire argument.
What I'm saying is that players have shown commitment to the team and fans but the owners have shown very little
Thus if a player is a free agent, he should go to where he pleases and not be held back by "loyalty"
Another example, look at Tebow
The fans loved him, he took the team to the playoffs and is still developing
Denver rewarded him by signing Manning and shipping him off
Is that a way to be loyal?
Gruden said 07/11, 12:39 PM
Actually, if you go by facts rather than your opinion, Barry Sanders simply tired of losing and lost his competitive spirit. But if making up some trade request helps you feel better about your argument, by all means invent away.
And you keep saying that players stay out of love for their fans or their city. ISN'T THAT LOYALTY? And if you agree there is still loyalty, WHY DO YOU KEEP ARGUING THAT THERE ISN'T?
Your argument here, if you READ THE TITLE YOU WROTE YOURSELF, had nothing to do with ownership or management. You said there was NO loyalty. Anywhere. And I showed you loyalty beyond argument.
Heck, Tim Tebow was traded to the Jets at his request, for far less than other teams were offering, because the team felt like they owed him that much. Hmm....sounds like LOYALTY.
In the end, your arguments have not supported your concept about loyalty in the slightest. There is plenty of loyalty in sports. Tampa signed a paralyzed player because the coach had a LOYALTY to him. Bret Favre played far longer than he was effective in Green Bay out of LOYALTY.
Just look around and stop being so jaded.
|9||Schad - Notorious Deadbeat||71||43||9||61.4%|
|10||PCH-LEH GO HEAT!||936||1541||408||39.5%|
- Fantasy baseball Roundtable: Dissecting Myers, Wheeler debuts
- Fantasy football focus: Mendenhall among top 30 running backs
- Fantasy baseball Pitching Report: Bartolo Colon's monster year
- Fantasy baseball Injury Report: Tigers ailing as Sanchez, Avila hit DL
- Fantasy baseball Waiver Wire: Joyce's hitting lifted Rays
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia