For a fan with negligible financial stake, "winning" is of great concern, more so than the organization itself, which juggles the sometimes complicated relationship between maximizing profit and winning games. The pseudo-idealism of fan-hood is made possible by the self-fulfilling return on the non-binding time investment; following the team is entertaining, nostalgic and fosters community in addition to the side pot of winning or losing. A quick search, however, on the history of NBA fans volunteering ticket/merchandise price hikes to improve player acquisition capital for small market teams reveals that it hasn't happened. The dollars to wins risk aversion occurs on a progressive scale for teams, players and fans alike: skewed by funds and diverging priorities and coexisting in dynamic equilibrium. Of course, the current CBA structure makes "maximum" contracts more likely given their reduced fraction of the soft salary cap. Melo owes neither the fans nor the organization a discount.

Looking at Melo's dual career ambitions towards compensation and winning games reveals a preference for the former. His on-court decision making includes poor shot selection and half-hearted defense. While these may be related to a larger self-serving diathesis, the first is a contractually unimpeded subjective risk assessment and the second is an agreed-upon performance standard. Fixing the latter is not contingent on the first but potentially requires a more nuanced perspective on the interaction between organizational parts.

H1AND1 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Splat wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:You weren't calling him names and saying he did this interview when the team was spiraling. That is what Splat did. Not accurate.

Yep. Bastard. Whore. Thief. I stand by those words. His words speak for themselves today or a month ago. It doesn't change anything. Those are his words. This season. After he got paid. Anything else?

The timing of you joining is interesting. Are you tkf?

splat is not TKF! Geeeeez

TKF had aspergers. Its obvious that splat does not have aspergers.

I have some family members with Asperbergers so let me tell you this: They wouldn't have a problem understanding that Kevin Love should shoot threes and the reason why eFG and TS% are better values to look at than FG%.

hahaha

could be from the dumbest conversations I ever had

Splat wrote:

codeunknown wrote:Every part of an organization represents a weighted risk assessment of the opportunity costs. Once incorporated into an organization, the party then and only then subsumes the role defined by the contract. The variable evolution of that relationship may or may not result in goodwill or strategically related contributions outside of the stipulated domains. As such, a reasonable interpretation of "sacrificing" for the team is one that should remain bound to the on-court obligations determined by the contract.

For a fan with negligible financial stake, "winning" is of great concern, more so than the organization itself, which juggles the sometimes complicated relationship between maximizing profit and winning games. The pseudo-idealism of fan-hood is made possible by the self-fulfilling return on the non-binding time investment; following the team is entertaining, nostalgic and fosters community in addition to the side pot of winning or losing. A quick search, however, on the history of NBA fans volunteering ticket/merchandise price hikes to improve player acquisition capital for small market teams reveals that it hasn't happened. The dollars to wins risk aversion occurs on a progressive scale for teams, players and fans alike: skewed by funds and diverging priorities and coexisting in dynamic equilibrium. Of course, the current CBA structure makes "maximum" contracts more likely given their reduced fraction of the soft salary cap. Melo owes neither the fans nor the organization a discount.

Looking at Melo's dual career ambitions towards compensation and winning games reveals a preference for the former. His on-court decision making includes poor shot selection and half-hearted defense. While these may be related to a larger self-serving diathesis, the first is a contractually unimpeded subjective risk assessment and the second is an agreed-upon performance standard. Fixing the latter is not contingent on the first but potentially requires a more nuanced perspective on the interaction between organizational parts.

Based on that socio-economic analysis, are you by any chance the lovechild of Stephen Hawking and Margaret Mead?

Are you by any chance the lovechild of Kevin Garnett and Lala Anthony?

codeunknown wrote:Every part of an organization represents a weighted risk assessment of the opportunity costs. Once incorporated into an organization, the party then and only then subsumes the role defined by the contract. The variable evolution of that relationship may or may not result in goodwill or strategically related contributions outside of the stipulated domains. As such, a reasonable interpretation of "sacrificing" for the team is one that should remain bound to the on-court obligations determined by the contract.

For a fan with negligible financial stake, "winning" is of great concern, more so than the organization itself, which juggles the sometimes complicated relationship between maximizing profit and winning games. The pseudo-idealism of fan-hood is made possible by the self-fulfilling return on the non-binding time investment; following the team is entertaining, nostalgic and fosters community in addition to the side pot of winning or losing. A quick search, however, on the history of NBA fans volunteering ticket/merchandise price hikes to improve player acquisition capital for small market teams reveals that it hasn't happened. The dollars to wins risk aversion occurs on a progressive scale for teams, players and fans alike: skewed by funds and diverging priorities and coexisting in dynamic equilibrium. Of course, the current CBA structure makes "maximum" contracts more likely given their reduced fraction of the soft salary cap. Melo owes neither the fans nor the organization a discount.

Looking at Melo's dual career ambitions towards compensation and winning games reveals a preference for the former. His on-court decision making includes poor shot selection and half-hearted defense. While these may be related to a larger self-serving diathesis, the first is a contractually unimpeded subjective risk assessment and the second is an agreed-upon performance standard. Fixing the latter is not contingent on the first but potentially requires a more nuanced perspective on the interaction between organizational parts.

the essential flaw of your post i have bolded for you. it is not axiomatic that basketball or sport is mere entertainment. there is a deeper sociological and societal meaning to sport that, although over the heads or outside the rather shallow set of values that many modern fans and professional athletes and owners possess, nonetheless is what provides more than entertainment, ie there is meaning and purpose to winning, and a certain kind of ineffable fulfillment that feeds the human spirit.

spiraling outward from this converse perspective, your argument essentially implodes.

codeunknown wrote:

dk7th wrote:

codeunknown wrote:Every part of an organization represents a weighted risk assessment of the opportunity costs. Once incorporated into an organization, the party then and only then subsumes the role defined by the contract. The variable evolution of that relationship may or may not result in goodwill or strategically related contributions outside of the stipulated domains. As such, a reasonable interpretation of "sacrificing" for the team is one that should remain bound to the on-court obligations determined by the contract.

For a fan with negligible financial stake, "winning" is of great concern, more so than the organization itself, which juggles the sometimes complicated relationship between maximizing profit and winning games. The pseudo-idealism of fan-hood is made possible by the self-fulfilling return on the non-binding time investment; following the team is entertaining, nostalgic and fosters community in addition to the side pot of winning or losing. A quick search, however, on the history of NBA fans volunteering ticket/merchandise price hikes to improve player acquisition capital for small market teams reveals that it hasn't happened. The dollars to wins risk aversion occurs on a progressive scale for teams, players and fans alike: skewed by funds and diverging priorities and coexisting in dynamic equilibrium. Of course, the current CBA structure makes "maximum" contracts more likely given their reduced fraction of the soft salary cap. Melo owes neither the fans nor the organization a discount.

Looking at Melo's dual career ambitions towards compensation and winning games reveals a preference for the former. His on-court decision making includes poor shot selection and half-hearted defense. While these may be related to a larger self-serving diathesis, the first is a contractually unimpeded subjective risk assessment and the second is an agreed-upon performance standard. Fixing the latter is not contingent on the first but potentially requires a more nuanced perspective on the interaction between organizational parts.

the essential flaw of your post i have bolded for you. it is not axiomatic that basketball or sport is mere entertainment. there is a deeper sociological and societal meaning to sport that, although over the heads or outside the rather shallow set of values that many modern fans and professional athletes and owners possess, nonetheless is what provides more than entertainment, ie there is meaning and purpose to winning, and a certain kind of ineffable fulfillment that feeds the human spirit.

spiraling outward from this converse perspective, your argument essentially implodes.

The essential flaw of most of your posts is the single-minded conviction you have in your drivel. It begins with the incorrect interpretation of what you bolded; it is neither written or suggested that sports is "mere" entertainment. Your version of "ineffable fulfillment" may not exist for other parties nor is it necessarily sought in the broad spectrum of happiness.

Once again, it would be instructive for you to re-evaluate both the content of your posts and the demeanor with which you approach others posters.

ok cool, thanks!

Splat wrote:

codeunknown wrote:

dk7th wrote:

codeunknown wrote:Every part of an organization represents a weighted risk assessment of the opportunity costs. Once incorporated into an organization, the party then and only then subsumes the role defined by the contract. The variable evolution of that relationship may or may not result in goodwill or strategically related contributions outside of the stipulated domains. As such, a reasonable interpretation of "sacrificing" for the team is one that should remain bound to the on-court obligations determined by the contract.

For a fan with negligible financial stake, "winning" is of great concern, more so than the organization itself, which juggles the sometimes complicated relationship between maximizing profit and winning games. The pseudo-idealism of fan-hood is made possible by the self-fulfilling return on the non-binding time investment; following the team is entertaining, nostalgic and fosters community in addition to the side pot of winning or losing. A quick search, however, on the history of NBA fans volunteering ticket/merchandise price hikes to improve player acquisition capital for small market teams reveals that it hasn't happened. The dollars to wins risk aversion occurs on a progressive scale for teams, players and fans alike: skewed by funds and diverging priorities and coexisting in dynamic equilibrium. Of course, the current CBA structure makes "maximum" contracts more likely given their reduced fraction of the soft salary cap. Melo owes neither the fans nor the organization a discount.

Looking at Melo's dual career ambitions towards compensation and winning games reveals a preference for the former. His on-court decision making includes poor shot selection and half-hearted defense. While these may be related to a larger self-serving diathesis, the first is a contractually unimpeded subjective risk assessment and the second is an agreed-upon performance standard. Fixing the latter is not contingent on the first but potentially requires a more nuanced perspective on the interaction between organizational parts.

the essential flaw of your post i have bolded for you. it is not axiomatic that basketball or sport is mere entertainment. there is a deeper sociological and societal meaning to sport that, although over the heads or outside the rather shallow set of values that many modern fans and professional athletes and owners possess, nonetheless is what provides more than entertainment, ie there is meaning and purpose to winning, and a certain kind of ineffable fulfillment that feeds the human spirit.

spiraling outward from this converse perspective, your argument essentially implodes.

The essential flaw of most of your posts is the single-minded conviction you have in your drivel. It begins with the incorrect interpretation of what you bolded; it is neither written or suggested that sports is "mere" entertainment. Your version of "ineffable fulfillment" may not exist for other parties nor is it necessarily sought in the broad spectrum of happiness.

Once again, it would be instructive for you to re-evaluate both the content of your posts and the demeanor with which you approach others posters.

If are going to deconstuct, then do it all the way and deal with what they said. If DK countered that the values under question are not simply a clear demarcation between fans with no financial skin the game vs. corporations juggling the profit imperative with building competitive teams, then what are the assumptions being questioned?

Is it just the public projecting their own values onto corporate entertainment products?

or

Is it possible it is more than that?

It'd be more substantive to answer these questions than to say he posts mere drivel.

He didn't ask questions - you did. Moreover, your open-ended queries about an unexplored variable remain your responsibility to define. You tacitly went along with the "ineffable fulfillment" of winning; to whom is it owed? If not contractually specified, under what premise should it be expected? Who else is expected to identify and deliver these pockets of utility and at what cost? The bottom line is it would be more substantive for you to think more carefully about your own questions.

Moreover, they are already adequately answered. To restate, while its clear that utility transactions aside from and partially involving financial deals are important, the exchange rate between them is muddled by covariates and poorly quantifiable elements. Nonetheless, both financial and non-monetized utility elements coexist in dynamic stepwise equilibrium between the parties, and gross deviations in one category eventually affect the other. Yearly financial records (http://www.forbes.com/teams/new-york-knicks/) and anecdotal qualitative evidence without a doubt suggests that Melo's approach to his contract is not grossly in violation from a cumulative utility standpoint; of course, it remains equivocal whether Melo is responsible for that cumulative utility in the first place. If a minority feel shortchanged because they believe their "value" system to be superior, a proof of that would go substantially beyond "ineffable fulfillment."

Splat wrote:

codeunknown wrote:

Splat wrote:
If are going to deconstuct, then do it all the way and deal with what they said. If DK countered that the values under question are not simply a clear demarcation between fans with no financial skin the game vs. corporations juggling the profit imperative with building competitive teams, then what are the assumptions being questioned?

Is it just the public projecting their own values onto corporate entertainment products?

or

Is it possible it is more than that?

It'd be more substantive to answer these questions than to say he posts mere drivel.

He didn't ask questions - you did. Moreover, your open-ended queries about an unexplored variable remain your responsibility to define. You tacitly went along with the "ineffable fulfillment" of winning; to whom is it owed? If not contractually specified, under what premise should it be expected? Who else is expected to identify and deliver these pockets of utility and at what cost? The bottom line is it would be more substantive for you to think more carefully about your own questions.

Moreover, they are already adequately answered. To restate, while its clear that utility transactions aside from and partially involving financial deals are important, the exchange rate between them is muddled by covariates and poorly quantifiable elements. Nonetheless, both financial and non-monetized utility elements coexist in dynamic stepwise equilibrium between the parties, and gross deviations in one category eventually affect the other. Yearly financial records (http://www.forbes.com/teams/new-york-knicks/) and anecdotal qualitative evidence without a doubt suggests that Melo's approach to his contract is not grossly in violation from a cumulative utility standpoint; of course, it remains equivocal whether Melo is responsible for that cumulative utility in the first place. If a minority feel shortchanged because they believe their "value" system to be superior, a proof of that would go substantially beyond "ineffable fulfillment."

OK, I tried to draw the silly side out of you earlier, but maybe you don't have one. That's OK.

And you have no obligation to speak layman's English. I understand you just fine. However, I have to conclude you don't want to engage most posters here seeing how you frame your arguments using philosophical maps most don't traffic in. It is clearly a bubble you wish to function within. I'm not psychoanalyzing you to get an edge, but I am commenting on the peculiarity of that form of argumentation on a sports board. Just odd when placed in this context you know, but no matter, your choice.

John Stuart Mill aside, I do not believe the value judgments being debated about Melo's actions or comments can be reduced to the kind of normative ethics you're engaging in.

Sorry, but your cold, clinical statements about contractual obligations as the sum total of Melo's obligations is not convincing at all. If you truly believe a ball player should not be judged on issues of character other than whether they lace up on the days their contractual calendar obligates them to, then what is being evaluated here? Their contractual rectitude? Their ability to show up?

Maybe you are a Knicks fan with a clinical mind and you feel nobody owes you anything outside of their contractual obligations. Sounds bloodless to me and devoid of the constituents for investing any emotional commitment to something like being a fan of a particular franchise regardless of its success. I know fandom is essentially a fiction of the mind, a pseudo construct as you'd put it, but what then is your point? On what basis do you have any investment in a team, its players, its future?

Yes, I'm cold and bloodless. And you're a confused, whiny dilettante. That's OK.

Listen, every fan brings a set of standards to the table. I'd like Melo to improve on the court and understand the impact of interviews. You bring your feeling that he owes it to fans to leave money on the table. For the detailed reasons above, I think that's ridiculous.

You might like it and you might think your emotions justify it and you might even think he would like it if he gave it a try. But the problem is your emotions are a bubble the rest of us don't traffic through, very likely even less than my "philosophical maps."

The lack of any structure to your position leads to a dead end; sorry, but I prefer my "normative ethics" infinitely more than your gut feeling. You shouldn't be surprised that others here have found your argumentation "out there" as well.

As I've posted repeatedly now, there are clearly non-contractual elements of player behavior which affect fan perception and may eventually manifest financially. Melo not leaving money on the table is not one of them for me because of my perspective on the relative contributions of the team, player and fan. At any rate, as fans, we all have frustrations and perhaps there will be some we agree on. This is one we don't. Good night.

TripleThreat wrote:

jrodmc wrote:He wants more than a basketball career. The FUKTARD! How dare he! Why, doesn't he know he's a DOUCHE?

I remember surfing through cable one night, many years ago, where it was sort of documentary on the car culture ( I think this was post Fast and Furious) And it showed this one guy, where he had a wife and newborn, and they were living all together in one bedroom that they rented out from another family, half the room was filled with car parts, and instead of actually getting a quality living space for his family, the guy was shown buying some kind of fancy new muffler for his car. And talking about how he wanted to be a car designer and premier professional racer.

And I kept thinking, what a sad sorry douchebag mother ****er this guy is, his family is eating Ramen, scraping by, never sees him, and he's off spending all the money he makes on car parts.

You make certain choices in life, you have responsibilities. If a guy does right by his family, does right by his job, takes care of business, actually raises his kid, actually acts like a stand up husband, actually provides for those he chose to be responsible for, then if that dude wants to take some of that extra hard earned money, after he's filled a college fund and set up for retirement and ensured his family has a safe place to live and opportunity for his kids to go to good schools and such, and then get a "fun car" for himself, then ok. I think no one would begrudge him that.

But often responsibility comes with sacrifice. Doing right by your family often means you can't choose to be a racer or spend all your money on car parts or ignore your family and shove them into a small room with no other future prepared for them.

Melo wants more than to be a NBA player, then fine. Then first, do your JOB and be excellent at being an NBA player first. Your JOB is to be a FRANCHISE PLAYER. That means you are obligated to lead, on and off the court. You are obligated to be in elite physical condition. That means you are obligated to play and commit to elite defense. That means you are obligated to develop your game each season, adding more and more to your arsenal.

I don't think you seem to get it. I don't think anyone begrudges Melo a life outside of basketball if he was ACTUALLY DOING HIS JOB ON THE BASKETBALL COURT. Being a relentless gunner isn't enough. Having some nice individual stats isn't enough.

Chris Bosh could have signed with a team where he was the primary player. Instead, he signed with the Heat, knowing he'd have to subvert his game and not be the first option. He doesn't get the benefit of being the Alpha Dog, but neither does the full weight of responsibility fall on him either. Melo "forced" his way to NY. He wanted to be the MAN in NY. You want the job, you have to eat the responsibility that comes with it.

Melo is EXACTLY like that douchebag I saw in that documentary who left his wife and newborn rotting in a single room, eating Ramen, with no future, so he could buy a new muffler for his car. You CHOSE to be a father and husband, then own your responsibility for it. You don't get to flush those duties because you discovered you want to be a racer. You CHOSE to be the Alpha Dog of the New York Knicks. I don't care if you want to be a rapper on the side, or develop your own clothing line, or your own investment company, or you own stupid hat company, or any other brand horse ****. Your job is to lead the team and act like an example and leader.

Dude, even kids understand this concept. Do your chores first. Do your homework. Help out your little brothers and sisters. Help out your mom and dad around the house. Then you can go play. Then you can turn on the video game machine. Then you can do more of what you want to do, after you've taken care of your responsibilities first.

EVEN CHILDREN UNDERSTAND THIS.

That Melo should be taking care of business as a Knick first and foremost before he spouts off on the media about all the other things he wants to do, with money he gets paid to be a Knick, first and foremost, but seems to elude you, is just plain sad.

Do you really think that way? Do you really have no concept of accountability? Of duty? Or owing your choices?

Jesus H Christ dude, I hope you don't have children. Because I would feel sorry for kids who have to get raised by someone who doesn't even understand the basic concept of being responsible for your choices.

"Cicero, do you find it hard to do your duty?" - General Maximus

"Sometimes I do what I want to do, the rest of the time, I do what I have to." - Cicero, from the movie, Gladiator.

Jesus Christ is most likely wondering if you can actually read, dude.

Nice of you to only respond to my first sentence, and then practically rewrite the rest of my post by droning on about some more silly tripe that's so case in point, it's beyond frightening. Perhaps you should try to find a documentary on the truly self-absorbed.

Melo is talking about LEGACY. He wants to be remembered and accomplish MORE than what your little hissy fit, entitlement fan mindset will allow. Please stop with the pathetic analogies about deadbeat dads and little kids. Even your imgainary kindergardners realize you're making absolutely no sense. Comparing Melo to some loser on a documentary, [BY THE WAY, GENIUS, WHY DID YOU INVEST YOUR TIME WATCHING A DOCUMENTARY ABOUT A DOUCHEBAG? WERE YOU TAKING NOTES AND PATTING YOURSELF ON THE BACK?] because he's not living up to your knotted panty, self-important rantings about basketball the way you see it to be, which, of course to all the rest of the populace, is the way it OUGHT to be.

In case you haven't noticed, we are talking about a 30 year-old professional athelete, who, by the way, has a fairly impressive resume to all but the few dikheads on here who can't get it through their self-important skulls that the man's pretty much lifted us out of the Sixer/Brooklyn model of 23 wins and a wasted draft pick all by himself.

Before you cut and paste your insipid "he made this bed gutting a great franchise" arguments, please stop. I've read them all already. Melo, despite your deranged hate, did not trade himself to the Knicks, did not make JesusLin go to Houston, does not hold the GM reins and ownership rights to multiple franchises, and if he was negotiating with weapons and live ammo, Phil most likely would have let us read about it.

He makes a sheetload of money, we haven't won a chip or even a second round yet. Relax Mr. Auerbach, I get that. I've been watching and cheering the Knicks since before the first and only pair of chips. I want the trophy here too. I've suffered through Louie Orr and Pat Cummings and the whole lot.

Let's recap professional basketball for second, shall we? And despite your brethren dktf's obvious penchant for reposting his posts after hitting the "thesaurus" function, I'm going to try and use really small words for you. Just like you and your imaginary responsible little children can understand. Because you see, I've actually raised three kids, remained married to the same woman for over 30 years, and I pay all my taxes each and every year right on time.

Melo has spent his entire adult life thus far as a paid professional athelete, and a part-time actor, and business hobbiest. Making millions upon millions playing a sport and wearing kicks. Now, let that sink in for a second. He makes a ton of money for practicing and playing a sport. Not running for Congress, not curing cancer, or trying to solve the deep mysteries of particle physics. Grown professionals, who would laugh at you until pissless if you even tried to offer your dopey insights about how to run a professional franchise, have lined up to pay the man. Now, think about that for maybe a few minutes. Let it sink in. Despite the fact that he doesn't train to your liking, defend to your liking, assist to your liking or even speak or think to your liking, he's accomplished enough to have fairly smart, accomplished, wealthy people offer him boatloads to perform at levels that don't reach your standard of model pro basketball and stellar human existence.

Now, does that say ANYTHING TO YOU? Or do you just want to continue spouting your verbal dysentery that really just sounds over and over again like the same tkf, dtkf, guns, 3G4G, etc etc line of ugly, beetchy self-centered jealous PMS whining? Because seriously, if you really enjoyed your years of watching 23 and 29 win Knicks teams with lowlights of Gallo being beat up by the late Tractor Traylor or Nate the Not So Great shooting at the wrong basket, or losing games because we've got players slapping backboards... than watching the best player this team has had since Ewing, then there is really, really something alot more wrong with you than your docudrama homie living in an apartment trying to be Enrico Ferrari.

Try worrying more about living up to your own standards of responsibility and humanity as much as you do worrying about Melo's ability to do the same. I can almost guarantee you'll live longer.