I'm not angry, I think when your knees have been bad for year you know you have a condition to deal with. Now if he could play in pain to the level he's been, GREAT! He can't, he misrepresented himself and "I" would want to do the right thing by my teamates and still try and win some games for a franchise that has made my life amazing! I don't think it's a hard concept unless you feel 45 mill after tax is a GOD given right! He'll still be a millionaire Minstrel.....
The team obviously felt he was a franchise type of player as well. Your anger seems misplaced. Instead of being mad at Roy for him signing a contract presented to him, wouldn't it make more sense to be upset at the people who actually offered him a max deal?
Misrepresented himself? Yeah, I'm sure you'd be giving money back. Come on. And at the time you were yelling at KP to get his deal done, and how it was bad of KP to not just give him anything he wants. Can't demand he be given whatever it is he wants, and then be upset that it happened, and that you somehow feel duped. Easiest thing to do, since you know Roy isn't givng money back, and can't, is to stop supporting the team.
How did he misrepresent himself? He signed the contract after being the only player to show up against HOU in the playoffs (with a 26 PER) and playing in a career-high number of games. At the time, he absolutely was a franchise player.
Both Roy and the management are at fault here! Once again I'm not angry, mad or anything...... I'm just making a point about doing the right thing! I would however check where these team Dr.'s went to med school! HAHAHAHA
He has been bone on bone since college, that was one of his knocks in the draft...... So he can score 28 a game but he can't move the next day, how many years do ya think you can do that for? Is it wise to put the franchise spotlight on yourself knowing you aren't going to get any better? It's not like he blew out his MCL after signing a long term contract, his knees have always been bad. There has to be a little personal responsibility there! That said the Blazers organization also drafted a trim Shawn Kemp! HA!
Since we are wool-gathering: Let's say the owners get exactly what they want in the new CBA - nonguaranteed contracts, made retroactive. In that scenario, the Blazers could save a big chunk of change by just releasing Roy outright. How would people respond to that? If the team had the option of saying "you are no longer worth your contract - good-bye" would people be outraged, or would they understand?
You're really not making any sense. From I do understand, you seem to be saying that Roy should have declined a max extension, and demanded a contract for less money because he (apparently?) knew that someday he would be a lesser player? Did I get that right? Using that logic, why should any player sign a large contract, since a catastrophic injury can happen at literally any moment. Would you feel differently if Roy was 100% healthy, signed his extension, and then blew out both of his knees last season. And I mean total blowout; MCL, ACL, and cartilage, resulting in microfracture on both knees as well as reparing the ligaments. Roy was 2nd team All-NBA when he signed his max extension. I've seen some crazy criticisms here, but yours is off the charts, IMO.
Funny you should mention that. Artest IS giving his salary away this year (or at least part of it) to charity.
The owners aren't going to get the retroactive provision, but I'll play along. If Roy or any player in a non-guaranteed/NFL salary structure isn't performing up to their contract, I have no issues with that player being released. I'm a big fan of the NFL and the Raiders, and what you describe is commonplace in the NFL. It does lead to fans identifying less with a player than with the team, and there is a much larger of margin for error in releasing a player in the NFL due to roster size, but I'd be cool with it. I'm used to it already, and it does allow for much more team flexibility in terms of rebuilding.
I'm pretty sure you cannot legally retroactively void binding contracts (unless there were shenanigans that suggest it was not mutually consensual at the time of signing). I'd say that would be pretty unethical, since it's not what the two parties agreed to. If a player and team agreed to mutual options and the team said "Sorry, you're not worth it--goodbye," that would be perfectly fine. I don't believe either player or team owe the other sentiment. I do believe that both sides owe sticking to a binding contract that both agreed to.
Why didn't the Blazers defy the CBA and demand in the media that Roy should get more money during his rookie deal, when Brandon was an All-Star 3 straight seasons? That would have been a nice goodwill gesture.
He's not "apparently" a lesser player, Roy after 1 year on his contract has no explosive first step, anyone can guard him, he can't finish and he's never played defense. Now if he'd given this team say three good years on this contract that would be one thing, he knew his knees were crap and he was in pain, he didn't disclose how bad they were. I doubt KP or anyone would have maxed him knowing that year two he'd be a role player or even thought to come off the bench......
Well I guess than the opposite should be true to...... Since he's been paid, shoot him up with cortisone nightly and ride him till he can't walk again! I say up his minutes to 38 and he'll have to medically retire within a year.... A contract is a contract right? I'd fire Nate bring in Nelly and run and gun like hell for the rest of the season... Problem solved!
He was an All-Star player and 3rd-team All-NBA after signing the extension. I'm guessing Roy thought he would continue to be that player, but you can continue to libel him by stating as fact that he is guilty of knowingly defrauding the team.
Bullseye! Some folks are acting like Roy is the victim of an ungrateful fan base. I don't see it that way. In the NFL, Roy would have been kicked to the curb, and nobody would think twice about it. If anything, Roy is one lucky so-and-so. Oh, and I agree that it isn't going to happen!
Well, that's one approach. I doubt the team will go that route, but you never know! Of course, nightly cortisone injections is basically medical malpractice, so in the end, Roy would probably get even more money from the Blazers if they follow your hare-brained idea.
In the NFL Roy would have been kicked to the curb? Really? Why didn't NE cut Tom Brady after he went down for the season two years ago, or three or whenever the hell it was. they had a young guy in Cassel, totally could have built around. What idiots. I bet their fan base was pissed off that they hung on to him. I bet they were all calling to cut him. Same with Romo. Why has he not been cut yet? WTF?
Well, I disagree in one way, because in the NFL, as a #7 pick, Roy would have actually been paid at a level much closer his production his first four years. It will be interesting to see how rookie contracts are affected by non-guaranteed deals. The rookie salary slotting will pretty much have to be eliminated, or at least the union should make that a demand. If contracts aren't guaranteed, then being drafted in the first round of the draft would actually be worse than being a 2nd round pick, at least for all but the very top picks.
In the NFL, the guaranteed money for top players comes in the form of huge signing bonuses. That money gets paid up front, in addition to yearly salaries. You can cut a player at any time, but they've already received a large chunk of the contract's value. For cap purposes, the signing bonus is considered to be divided evenly over the length of the contract...unless you cut or trade the player, in which case the remaining bonus money is "accelerated" to that year's cap figure. So it's not at all trivial to cut a highly paid player loose.
