LeBron James calls out Harrison Barnes' in-game trade as hypocrisy against players, and Anthony Davis agrees

[Yahoo Sports]

LeBron James has received his fair share of criticism for leaving teams that had little to offer him. Harrison Barnes and the rest of the NBA received a strong reminder that basketball is a business on Wednesday when the Dallas Mavericks forward was shipped to the Sacramento Kings while he was still on the court. “So let me guess this is cool cause they had to do what was best for the franchise right???” James wrote.

Continue reading...

 

[VF21]

LBJ needs to STFU. How can he even say "what was best for the franchise" when "THE DECISION" is in his past? And, if we're gonna go there, how about his blatant attempts to get a coach fired? And his tampering with Anthony Davis? And his willingness to throw a whole bunch of young players under the bus to get Mr. Davis?

James is the LAST player in the NBA to be saying a blasted thing. I wish Adam Silver would fine his posterior but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Lebron James is NOT bigger than basketball.

 

[NME]

As it turns out, Barnes did know the trade was imminent before the game but wanted to play anyway.

 

[PurpleHaze]

Harrison Barnes was asked about it after tonight's game and basically gave a shrug of shoulder answer. Acknowledged was unaware trade actually went down during the game but again was not offended like apparently "some" drama queens.

 

[Joshoua]

LBJ needs to STFU. How can he even say "what was best for the franchise" when "THE DECISION" is in his past? And, if we're gonna go there, how about his blatant attempts to get a coach fired? And his tampering with Anthony Davis? And his willingness to throw a whole bunch of young players under the bus to get Mr. Davis?

James is the LAST player in the NBA to be saying a blasted thing. I wish Adam Silver would fine his posterior but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Lebron James is NOT bigger than basketball.

The nba will be a better place when king drama retires

 

[Cojc]

I do not have much respect if any for Lebron and starting to see AD have that same attitude about me first.
Yeah I hope he does go to the Lakers sometime about the trade deadline next year and the Lakers gut their team to do so
.he can watch lebrons farewell tour and be stuck on a lousy team worse than what they have now.

 

[Gguod]

I think that this was a valid point, Im not sure wether I personnally agree or not but still I understand his point of view. Sometimes players get crap for doing whats best for them and certainly Lebron has got his fair share of that crap. He just noted that sometimes players do whats best for them and sometimes teams do whats best for them and more often its the player that gets the crap.

Agree or disagree but at least I dont think its worthy of losing respect over a guy that is a huge benefactor and someone who uses his platform constantly to fight racial injustices and so on. At least off the court the guy has been very close to a perfect role model to all young kids out there.

 

[mac]

I think that this was a valid point, Im not sure wether I personnally agree or not but still I understand his point of view. Sometimes players get crap for doing whats best for them and certainly Lebron has got his fair share of that crap. He just noted that sometimes players do whats best for them and sometimes teams do whats best for them and more often its the player that gets the crap.

Agree or disagree but at least I dont think its worthy of losing respect over a guy that is a huge benefactor and someone who uses his platform constantly to fight racial injustices and so on. At least off the court the guy has been very close to a perfect role model to all young kids out there.

Maybe I'm just too old-fashioned or stuck in some "loser" mindset, but to me this is just something that 99% of the world deals with. 99% of employees receiving a paycheck do not have the same rights or privileges that the owners/employers do. You sign a contract that pays you X, you don't get to demand to your employer that you want to go work for a different company but still get paid X (the argument being made about the supermax and whatnot). You don't get to tell your boss to transfer you to a different division or you'll bum it out in your current job. When your company doctors say you're fit to work, you don't get to say nope I'm not well I'm staying home and you still have to pay me. You don't get to tell your boss that you have every intention to leave the company in a year, and in the meantime still expect to be paid and given every development opportunity. And to say that just because you're ridiculously good in basketball you should be exempt from these normal workings of working in an organisation AND be paid millions is rather arrogant if you asked me.

And as far as doing what's best for oneself? Who says organisations don't get criticized? We of all franchises should know that. Most non-local/non-fans of the team don't criticize a player for leaving in free agency in itself (obviously the local/team's fans would be upset ... and they are similarly upset when FOs trade their favorite players! They even leave message boards!). What is criticized is their larger decision to team up with other stars, join a rival etc. And the reason is because we don't want a league of 30 teams becoming a farce where year in and year out it's 2 or 3 teams locked for the finals, or we don't want the big markets to consistently have the advantage over smaller markets. That's the real sentiment that underpins any discussion about a player's "legacy" ... I mean really, our lives go on whether or not Kevin Durant has a ring or not, but we sure would get a whole lot more entertainment watching him try and get it on a team that has never made the finals rather than with 3 other all stars...

 

[Gguod]

Maybe I'm just too old-fashioned or stuck in some "loser" mindset, but to me this is just something that 99% of the world deals with. 99% of employees receiving a paycheck do not have the same rights or privileges that the owners/employers do. You sign a contract that pays you X, you don't get to demand to your employer that you want to go work for a different company but still get paid X (the argument being made about the supermax and whatnot). You don't get to tell your boss to transfer you to a different division or you'll bum it out in your current job. When your company doctors say you're fit to work, you don't get to say nope I'm not well I'm staying home and you still have to pay me. You don't get to tell your boss that you have every intention to leave the company in a year, and in the meantime still expect to be paid and given every development opportunity. And to say that just because you're ridiculously good in basketball you should be exempt from these normal workings of working in an organisation AND be paid millions is rather arrogant if you asked me.

But the point wasnt that players dont have a choice. The point was that players get critizised more than teams when making decisions that are best for oneself.

And as far as doing what's best for oneself? Who says organisations don't get criticized? We of all franchises should know that. Most non-local/non-fans of the team don't criticize a player for leaving in free agency in itself (obviously the local/team's fans would be upset ... and they are similarly upset when FOs trade their favorite players! They even leave message boards!). What is criticized is their larger decision to team up with other stars, join a rival etc. And the reason is because we don't want a league of 30 teams becoming a farce where year in and year out it's 2 or 3 teams locked for the finals, or we don't want the big markets to consistently have the advantage over smaller markets. That's the real sentiment that underpins any discussion about a player's "legacy" ... I mean really, our lives go on whether or not Kevin Durant has a ring or not, but we sure would get a whole lot more entertainment watching him try and get it on a team that has never made the finals rather than with 3 other all stars...

Both get critizised but as a player Lebron noted that players get critizised more. For example, Boston completely screwed over Thomas. Guy played after his sister died and hurt his overall health trying to win in the playoffs and the next offseason Boston traded him and left him with his recovery. If Thomas didnt play hurt, he would've had a decent chance to get that big contract. Now it will never happen. That didnt get critizised nearly as much as things like "The decision" or Durant going to Golden State and one could argue that what Boston did was far worse. On a side note I personally hated KD going to GSW so I'm not defending it or saying that it didnt deserve criticism.

The point is that Lebron made a point that is arguable and losing respect over that is a bit much considering how good of a human being he has been off the court. Hate him or love him on the court but his actions off the court has been mostly exemplary

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Threads like this make me glad that I stopped staying up to watch west coast games: I would have been up until 4 in the morning arguing this, knowing that I had to be up at 8 to get ready for work, had I seen this last night. After a night's sleep, I feel less inclined to insert myself, except to comment on this:

But the point wasnt that players dont have a choice. The point was that players get critizised more than teams when making decisions that are best for oneself.


Both get critizised but as a player Lebron noted that players get critizised more...

It's weird, right? Sports is, basically, the only industry in which people side with ownership over labor. I've never understood it.

 

[whozit]

.....

It's weird, right? Sports is, basically, the only industry in which people side with ownership over labor. I've never understood it.

Not really. In this case we're essentially the stockholders. What's good for the company is good for us, the dividends in the form of entertainment. Probably a little too simplistic but still.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Not really. In this case we're essentially the stockholders.

No, we're not.

What's good for the company is good for us, the dividends in the form of entertainment.

1. That only makes sense if the way you consume sports-as-entertainment is rooted in tribalism. What happens if it's not?
2. In terms of entertainment, what's good for the labor is still what's good for the company.

 

[whozit]

No, we're not.

1. That only makes sense if the way you consume sports-as-entertainment is rooted in tribalism. What happens if it's not?
2. In terms of entertainment, what's good for the labor is still what's good for the company.

I didn't say I agreed with it. Just gave a simplistic reason why we would side with the industry over the individual.

We forget that the players are human just like us and justify that attitude because of the money they make. The antics of the player elites masks the reality that the great majority of the players live with.

 

[parker]

It's weird, right? Sports is, basically, the only industry in which people side with ownership over labor. I've never understood it.

Even in other industries labor has been vilified for all sorts of ills. Unions became uncool in the 50s and 60s.

Owners have been hoarding donuts for years, while the masses have cheered them on, looked up to them, and pointed to others as the source of problems.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I would say that one reason sports is where fans side with ownership over labor is because to a certain extent fans feel like they are part of the ownership of their clubs (and certainly anyone who buys tickets or pays out of pocket to watch events feels like they contribute directly to a player's salary) and because the large salaries at stake don't garner players any sympathy. I think there are plenty of great arguments on both sides but don't have much interest in that debate.

What bugs me about LeBron's take on this is that while he is a player, he is not on any regular player's level. He isn't ever going to be traded (unless he forced a trade) and he has unprecedented control of the teams he has played on since his move back to Cleveland. He has personally seen to it that players were traded and coaches were replaced. He is engineering the move of a superstar player with a year plus on his contract in a way to get that player to his team. It is reported that his contract with Nike is worth a billion dollars. When his playing days are over he'll probably buy into a team himself. And while he has been a force for fellow superstars agency throughout the league, the ripple effect of that agency has had less positive effects for the lower tier players. I think it goes without saying that whatever the league does in the future to prevent the next AD situation from happening will be more harmful to non-superstars than it will be to folks like LeBron.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

... And while he has been a force for fellow superstars agency throughout the league, the ripple effect of that agency has had less positive effects for the lower tier players.

Like what?

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Like what?

Hard to say before we see how the league responds. But I just can't imagine it will ever fully hit the superstar level players. Then again LeBron's power is so far beyond everyone else that maybe it won't be duplicated in the future.

 

[Gguod]

Like what?

Exactly. If anything Lebron has made lower tier players a lot of money. Even Daniel Gibson had a payday because of Lebron, Tristan Thompson, Jr Smith, Dellavedova, Shumpert all looked better with Lebron and got paid a lot more than they probably should have.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Hard to say before we see how the league responds. But I just can't imagine it will ever fully hit the superstar level players. Then again LeBron's power is so far beyond everyone else that maybe it won't be duplicated in the future.

But you just said:

... And while he has been a force for fellow superstars agency throughout the league, the ripple effect of that agency has had less positive effects for the lower tier players.

How'd we get from "the ripple effect has had less positive effects" to "we have to see what the effects will be"?

 

[pdxKingsFan]

But you just said:
How'd we get from "the ripple effect has had less positive effects" to "we have to see what the effects will be"?

Do you not think that if they make an Anthony Davis rule it won't have more impact on guys who earn less and don't have social media platforms and the other superstars of the league advocating for them?

Let's say the NBA acknowledges this as a new kind of tampering. Say they fined LeBron, AD and his agent a million dollars. Big deal for those guys but it would be for a guy earning a fraction of their salaries. Or maybe it's rules just to force players into staying with their teams somehow (obviously those all fail); again the top players have media advocates and others looking to swing the court of public opinion, etc and will get their way while lower tier players don't.

Yes, I'm speculating, but I think this applies fairly universally in life not just the NBA.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I don't believe that the NBA can make a rule that this is tampering, so I don't know where else to go with your hypothetical. How do you make a rule to prevent players from talking to each other?

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I don't believe that the NBA can make a rule that this is tampering, so I don't know where else to go with your hypothetical. How do you make a rule to prevent players from talking to each other?

That's why I am saying I don't know exactly what the next CBA will do, but we've had 4-5 superstars dictate that they are leaving with multiple years remaining on their contracts over the last 3-4 seasons and I think that the NBA will address it. And while some of these guys just wanted out of their team, the AD case seems to be the one that is going too far. And when they do address it, whatever happens will probably have a lot further reaching consequences than the problem it was intended to fix.

Obviously they can't stop players from talking to each other but I don't think they are going to allow players to plot moves to join up on another team when they are under contracts to others. It's a matter of when not if that gets addressed. IMHO, of course.

 

[mac]

But the point wasnt that players dont have a choice. The point was that players get critizised more than teams when making decisions that are best for oneself.

And I would like to challenge that point. Organisations get ridiculed plenty, coaches and GMs get fired etc. But if the point is, why do we not get upset as often when a team trades a player as opposed to when a player leaves in FA, the answer is pretty obvious... Fans of a team are more vested in the team's success than in the player's success/ "wellbeing" (and as pointed out by others, the large pay kind of makes the average person feel that the players are pretty well off). I think that's what pdxkingsfan means by likening fans to the shareholders.

And even then, there's plenty of cases where fans have been vocal about their displeasure with the organisation's lack of loyalty to certain players.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

That's why I am saying I don't know exactly what the next CBA will do, but we've had 4-5 superstars dictate that they are leaving with multiple years remaining on their contracts over the last 3-4 seasons and I think that the NBA will address it. And while some of these guys just wanted out of their team, the AD case seems to be the one that is going too far. And when they do address it, whatever happens will probably have a lot further reaching consequences than the problem it was intended to fix.

Obviously they can't stop players from talking to each other but I don't think they are going to allow players to plot moves to join up on another team when they are under contracts to others. It's a matter of when not if that gets addressed. IMHO, of course.

Why should the league address it, though? I disagree with the premise that it's a problem that needs to be solved. Like you said, the players are still under contract... So, let the teams call the players' bluff. The only reason why the trade threat is effective is because teams feel entitled to be "compensated" for a player, beyond the terms of the player's contract. Well, I don't necessarily believe that they should be so entitled. New Orleans "owns" (for lack of a better choice of words) the rights to Anthony Davis as an NBA player until July 1, 2020. Beyond that, they aren't owed anything.

If I were New Orleans, not only would I not trade Anthony Davis, I'd go completely in the other direction, and trade whatever I could to acquire players to go all in on 2020.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

And I would like to challenge that point. Organisations get ridiculed plenty, coaches and GMs get fired etc. But if the point is, why do we not get upset as often when a team trades a player as opposed to when a player leaves in FA, the answer is pretty obvious... Fans of a team are more vested in the team's success than in the player's success/ "wellbeing" (and as pointed out by others, the large pay kind of makes the average person feel that the players are pretty well off).

The part in blue is particularly hard for someone who doesn't consume sports-as-entertainment through the lens of tribalism to relate to. And the part in red is the sort of meat peeping that I personally take umbrage at. Besides which, you know who's more well-off than NBA players? NBA owners.

 

[mac]

The part in blue is particularly hard for someone who doesn't consume sports-as-entertainment through the lens of tribalism to relate to. And the part in red is the sort of meat peeping that I personally take umbrage at. Besides which, you know who's more well-off than NBA players? NBA owners.

Do you at this point consider yourself as a "fan of a team" (which is what I specifically said)?

 

[Gguod]

And I would like to challenge that point. Organisations get ridiculed plenty, coaches and GMs get fired etc. But if the point is, why do we not get upset as often when a team trades a player as opposed to when a player leaves in FA, the answer is pretty obvious... Fans of a team are more vested in the team's success than in the player's success/ "wellbeing" (and as pointed out by others, the large pay kind of makes the average person feel that the players are pretty well off). I think that's what pdxkingsfan means by likening fans to the shareholders.

Thats a valid reason on why the players get critizised more than teams but that doesnt mean its right or how its supposed to be, that reason doesnt justify it. At least it seems fair to me that a player can make a comment if and when the case is that players get critizised more.

And even then, there's plenty of cases where fans have been vocal about their displeasure with the organisation's lack of loyalty to certain players.

Yes there is but still there is a lot less criticism and hate for players doing whats best for them. Boston completely screwing Thomas is a good example imo.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Do you at this point consider yourself as a "fan of a team" (which is what I specifically said)?

I consider "fan of a team" and "consume sports-as-entertainment through the lens of tribalism" to be synonyms. YMMV.

 

[whozit]

I consider "fan of a team" and "consume sports-as-entertainment through the lens of tribalism" to be synonyms. YMMV.

That's probably a little too deep. A "fan of a team" can cover a lot more territory than simply "consume sports-as-entertainment." And the latter one may have nothing to do with the first.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

That's probably a little too deep. A "fan of a team" can cover a lot more territory than simply "consume sports-as-entertainment."

Like what?

And the latter one may have nothing to do with the first.

Okay, I'll bite: what reason is there for "the name on the front to mean more than the name on the back" that isn't rooted in tribalism?