[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

lebron, wade, bosh are friends, i guess, but...
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum


Author Poll
dk7th
Posts: 10006
Joined: 5/14/2012
Member: #4228
USA
to all my fellow knicks fans, i have a question about these three guys. i believe that the three of them colluded to play together because they wanted to win titles, first and foremost. another poster, fishmike, believes that they got together because they were friends and wanted to play together, first and foremost. please weigh in with your opinions.
these three guys decided to play together because their collective goal was to win titles, and though they are friends, their friendship was a purely secondary reason to get together
nope, they are friends and friends want to play together, and a title or two doesn't really trump the joy of playing with your friends, now does it?
View Results


« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
Dagger
Posts: 22065
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/12/2012
Member: #4184
11/22/2013  1:19 AM    LAST EDITED: 11/22/2013  1:23 AM
It's both, not one or the other . They wanted to play together because they were friends that thought they could win a championship as 3 stars on one team. For Lebron I think the main goal was a championship, for bosh I think it was to play with friends that would take a ton of weight off his shoulders. I'd say it's a little more that they wanted to win championships but I read the thread that the idea for this poll originated from, and I thought fishmike's argument was more logical overall. You can't expect players to turn down money once the organization has offerered them riches. Just imagine Carmelo sitting there saying "Nah, Dolan, I don't need the extra millions, the privilege of playing with all-time greats like Danillo galinari and Wilson chandler is enough compensation for me", such thoughts belong in dreamland and are not based in reality.
AUTOADVERT
Swishfm3
Posts: 23312
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/28/2003
Member: #392
11/22/2013  7:53 AM
You're funny

dk7th wrote:if you are so certain of your point of view why don't you do a poll and see what other knick fans believe?

did they take less money (1) because they were friends, or (2) because they wanted to win titles?

i don't need a poll to tell me what the answer is so why don't you find out for yourself?

i double dare you!

yet...here you are, lol.

Exactly what is it you're trying to prove?
fishmike
Posts: 53863
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
11/22/2013  7:59 AM
Swishfm3 wrote:You're funny

dk7th wrote:if you are so certain of your point of view why don't you do a poll and see what other knick fans believe?

did they take less money (1) because they were friends, or (2) because they wanted to win titles?

i don't need a poll to tell me what the answer is so why don't you find out for yourself?

i double dare you!

yet...here you are, lol.

Exactly what is it you're trying to prove?

that he's a douchebag. Job well done
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
fishmike
Posts: 53863
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
11/22/2013  8:03 AM
to all my fellow knicks fans, i have a question about these three guys. i believe that the three of them colluded to play together because they wanted to win titles, first and foremost. another poster, fishmike, believes that they got together because they were friends and wanted to play together, first and foremost. please weigh in with your opinions.
and aslo ya donkey you didnt even quote me correctly. I said they TOOK LESS MONEY because they were friends, and that winning was a nice addition but no way do they take less money just to win, they took less money because it was going directly to their buddies, not to the Heat.

You really suck. Almost as much as this poll does. Hew haw buddy.

"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
dk7th
Posts: 30006
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/14/2012
Member: #4228
USA
11/22/2013  8:11 AM
Swishfm3 wrote:You're funny

dk7th wrote:if you are so certain of your point of view why don't you do a poll and see what other knick fans believe?

did they take less money (1) because they were friends, or (2) because they wanted to win titles?

i don't need a poll to tell me what the answer is so why don't you find out for yourself?

i double dare you!

yet...here you are, lol.

Exactly what is it you're trying to prove?

lookit i asked him twice to make a poll after a lengthy exchange on the subject and i all i got was <crickets> . seemed chickenish so i forced the issue.

knicks win 38-43 games in 16-17. rose MUST shoot no more than 14 shots per game, defer to kp6 + melo, and have a usage rate of less than 25%
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
11/22/2013  8:21 AM
Fish has driven dk7 insane
dk7th
Posts: 30006
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/14/2012
Member: #4228
USA
11/22/2013  8:30 AM
fishmike wrote:
to all my fellow knicks fans, i have a question about these three guys. i believe that the three of them colluded to play together because they wanted to win titles, first and foremost. another poster, fishmike, believes that they got together because they were friends and wanted to play together, first and foremost. please weigh in with your opinions.
and aslo ya donkey you didnt even quote me correctly. I said they TOOK LESS MONEY because they were friends, and that winning was a nice addition but no way do they take less money just to win, they took less money because it was going directly to their buddies, not to the Heat.

You really suck. Almost as much as this poll does. Hew haw buddy.

come on now!

the core issue is their collective motivation. they were willing to take less money for both eventualities. and because taking less money is common to both eventualities in the poll, all you need do to save face is say which option takes precedence. your most recent foray is a red herring.

and here again you say that their friendship was the motivation for coming together, with winning as a nice addition. i say that is bull**** and that it the other way around.

you already know perfectly well that they want to win and were willing to take less money to do so. why not just admit that you misspoke? your vehement retorts are not a good look.

knicks win 38-43 games in 16-17. rose MUST shoot no more than 14 shots per game, defer to kp6 + melo, and have a usage rate of less than 25%
dk7th
Posts: 30006
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/14/2012
Member: #4228
USA
11/22/2013  8:41 AM
Dagger wrote:It's both, not one or the other . They wanted to play together because they were friends that thought they could win a championship as 3 stars on one team. For Lebron I think the main goal was a championship, for bosh I think it was to play with friends that would take a ton of weight off his shoulders. I'd say it's a little more that they wanted to win championships but I read the thread that the idea for this poll originated from, and I thought fishmike's argument was more logical overall. You can't expect players to turn down money once the organization has offerered them riches. Just imagine Carmelo sitting there saying "Nah, Dolan, I don't need the extra millions, the privilege of playing with all-time greats like Danillo galinari and Wilson chandler is enough compensation for me", such thoughts belong in dreamland and are not based in reality.

so in the case of the heat, lbj's motivation was winning and bosh's was friendship? okay i guess that is plausible.

and as the catalyst for this poll was carmelo's primary motivation for coming to new york, your answer is that carmelo's main motivation was winning titles or getting the most money? if both which comes first?

knicks win 38-43 games in 16-17. rose MUST shoot no more than 14 shots per game, defer to kp6 + melo, and have a usage rate of less than 25%
dk7th
Posts: 30006
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/14/2012
Member: #4228
USA
11/22/2013  8:42 AM
Bonn1997 wrote:Fish has driven dk7 insane

insane? really? how about taking pity on me then and vote with some commentary?

knicks win 38-43 games in 16-17. rose MUST shoot no more than 14 shots per game, defer to kp6 + melo, and have a usage rate of less than 25%
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
11/22/2013  8:43 AM
dk7th wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:Fish has driven dk7 insane

insane? really? how about taking pity on me then and vote with some commentary?


I was just playing around.
I think both of you are being silly. We can't possibly know which one of these factors was more important.
dk7th
Posts: 30006
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/14/2012
Member: #4228
USA
11/22/2013  8:52 AM
Bonn1997 wrote:
dk7th wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:Fish has driven dk7 insane

insane? really? how about taking pity on me then and vote with some commentary?


I was just playing around.
I think both of you are being silly. We can't possibly know which one of these factors was more important.

well it's sociological and although these guys are already multi multi mutli millionaires what about putting yourself in their shoes... or is that impossible for you to do?

humor me.

knicks win 38-43 games in 16-17. rose MUST shoot no more than 14 shots per game, defer to kp6 + melo, and have a usage rate of less than 25%
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
11/22/2013  8:54 AM    LAST EDITED: 11/22/2013  8:54 AM
Both positions are equally plausible (as is Dagger's) and we don't know which is right.
I wouldn't call it sociological. It's more guess-work
dk7th
Posts: 30006
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/14/2012
Member: #4228
USA
11/22/2013  8:59 AM
Bonn1997 wrote:Both positions are equally plausible (as is Dagger's) and we don't know which is right.
I wouldn't call it sociological. It's more guess-work

okay, but now i am asking something a little different: put yourself in that situation. what would you do?

knicks win 38-43 games in 16-17. rose MUST shoot no more than 14 shots per game, defer to kp6 + melo, and have a usage rate of less than 25%
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
11/22/2013  9:02 AM
dk7th wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:Both positions are equally plausible (as is Dagger's) and we don't know which is right.
I wouldn't call it sociological. It's more guess-work

okay, but now i am asking something a little different: put yourself in that situation. what would you do?


I'd like to think I wouldn't care at all about the money and would just go to the team with the best chance of winning, but I have no idea. People are pretty bad at predicting how they'd behave in different circumstances.
dk7th
Posts: 30006
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/14/2012
Member: #4228
USA
11/22/2013  9:08 AM
Bonn1997 wrote:
dk7th wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:Both positions are equally plausible (as is Dagger's) and we don't know which is right.
I wouldn't call it sociological. It's more guess-work

okay, but now i am asking something a little different: put yourself in that situation. what would you do?


I'd like to think I wouldn't care at all about the money and would just go to the team with the best chance of winning, but I have no idea. People are pretty bad at predicting how they'd behave in different circumstances.

thanks for the answer.

knicks win 38-43 games in 16-17. rose MUST shoot no more than 14 shots per game, defer to kp6 + melo, and have a usage rate of less than 25%
Panos
Posts: 30109
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2004
Member: #520
11/22/2013  10:07 AM
fishmike wrote:
to all my fellow knicks fans, i have a question about these three guys. i believe that the three of them colluded to play together because they wanted to win titles, first and foremost. another poster, fishmike, believes that they got together because they were friends and wanted to play together, first and foremost. please weigh in with your opinions.
and aslo ya donkey you didnt even quote me correctly. I said they TOOK LESS MONEY because they were friends, and that winning was a nice addition but no way do they take less money just to win, they took less money because it was going directly to their buddies, not to the Heat.

You really suck. Almost as much as this poll does. Hew haw buddy.

SO much so, that I'm not even curious how the voting goes. Not even going to look.
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
11/22/2013  10:21 AM
dk7th wrote:
fishmike wrote:
to all my fellow knicks fans, i have a question about these three guys. i believe that the three of them colluded to play together because they wanted to win titles, first and foremost. another poster, fishmike, believes that they got together because they were friends and wanted to play together, first and foremost. please weigh in with your opinions.
and aslo ya donkey you didnt even quote me correctly. I said they TOOK LESS MONEY because they were friends, and that winning was a nice addition but no way do they take less money just to win, they took less money because it was going directly to their buddies, not to the Heat.

You really suck. Almost as much as this poll does. Hew haw buddy.

come on now!

the core issue is their collective motivation. they were willing to take less money for both eventualities. and because taking less money is common to both eventualities in the poll, all you need do to save face is say which option takes precedence. your most recent foray is a red herring.

and here again you say that their friendship was the motivation for coming together, with winning as a nice addition. i say that is bull**** and that it the other way around.

you already know perfectly well that they want to win and were willing to take less money to do so. why not just admit that you misspoke? your vehement retorts are not a good look.

LEBRON may be a douchebag but he is no fool.. He knows what it takes to win, and he got together with the right guys..

remember, walsh initially wanted to sign both bosh and lebron. And I think even walsh felt those two were a great fit. and when you look at how bosh game has transformed, he has been a great complimentary player to lebron.

This just wasn't about friendship IMO, To me this was mostly about winning...

Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
11/22/2013  10:22 AM
The answer is obvious.
By getting less money directly from the contract they get much more money from endorsements and other income because they win the titles.
So it was just a smart business decision with some risk involved. Any business decision has some risk. But they hedge the risk by having the opportunity to play together with their bodies in nice warm tax-free place.
Championship is won mostly using brains not legs...
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
11/22/2013  10:24 AM
Bonn1997 wrote:
dk7th wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:Both positions are equally plausible (as is Dagger's) and we don't know which is right.
I wouldn't call it sociological. It's more guess-work

okay, but now i am asking something a little different: put yourself in that situation. what would you do?


I'd like to think I wouldn't care at all about the money and would just go to the team with the best chance of winning, but I have no idea. People are pretty bad at predicting how they'd behave in different circumstances.

I think lebrons motivation was winning.. just think about it, a few years ago, wade was arguably the second best player in the NBA... He was also a well rounded player and defender... I think lebron was looking to play with guys who had similar skills and values on the court... not sure where bosh fit in, but as we can see, he fit like a glove.. LOL..

I mean could you honestly see lebron leaving cleveland to pair up with guys who were not complete players? I can't...

Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
Sangfroid
Posts: 24681
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/7/2009
Member: #2784
11/22/2013  10:37 AM
fishmike wrote:
to all my fellow knicks fans, i have a question about these three guys. i believe that the three of them colluded to play together because they wanted to win titles, first and foremost. another poster, fishmike, believes that they got together because they were friends and wanted to play together, first and foremost. please weigh in with your opinions.
and aslo ya donkey you didnt even quote me correctly. I said they TOOK LESS MONEY because they were friends, and that winning was a nice addition but no way do they take less money just to win, they took less money because it was going directly to their buddies, not to the Heat.

You really suck. Almost as much as this poll does. Hew haw buddy.

They took less money because it was a direct act of collusion. They were also able to contemplate this because Florida does not collect state taxes on income. So in this case, less was more.

"We are playing a game. We are playing at not playing a game..."
« Reply To Topic
lebron, wade, bosh are friends, i guess, but...
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy