# Michael Jordan is a sell-out hypocrite...



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

http://www.sbnation.com/2011/11/4/2...ichael-jordan-owners-50-percent-revenue-split

"According to the person who spoke with the owners, Jordan's faction intends to vote against the 50-50 deal, if negotiations get that far. Saturday's owners meeting was arranged in part to address that concern."



Maybe if he had offered to take less than 50 percent during the last lockout, we wouldn't have missed part of that season too.

Dude cost us fans games back in the day to stand on 57 percent. Now he's an owner he wants 47 percent for the players. All he gives a **** about is the money. Greedy ass.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

MJ to Abe Pollin in 1998: "If you can't make a profit, you should sell your team." MJ to players in 2011: "Bail us out!"


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Money Mike


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

Just another reason for me to hate the guy.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Umm he is a business man, he's not in it for charity.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

HB said:


> Umm he is a business man, he's not in it for charity.


Not really the issue. Obviously he should be interested in getting a nice return on his investment, but to completely flip flop sides of an issue that you were previously passionate about is a true sign of (a lack of) character. Can't hate him for doing what's best for him, but at the same time, you can certainly respect him less for being two-faced and blatantly self-serving.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

MJ has always been like this. This is nothing new.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

MJ has always pretty much been about MJ. He can't really afford to own a NBA team either, especially if he is not going to be better at decision making.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

When he was a player, he wanted the lion's share. Now he's an Owner, he wants the lion's share. That's the opposite of hypocrisy when you break it down.

I don't see what his feelings as a player have to do with him as an Owner. So he's supposed to feel the player's plight and succumb to them because he was one at one point? At a healthier economic point at that?

And HKF you're the main person in threads justifying the Owners' position because it's a different economic time than the last lockout...but oh Jordan is wrong here.

What's wrong with him being for the deal he was last time, then seeing (especially as an Owner recently) how it wasn't entirely viable for small market Owners the past 10 years? Is he not allowed to change his mind based on new information? Reaching


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

futuristxen said:


> Maybe if he had offered to take less than 50 percent during the last lockout, we wouldn't have missed part of that season too.
> 
> Dude cost us fans games back in the day to stand on 57 percent. Now he's an owner he wants 47 percent for the players. All he gives a **** about is the money. Greedy ass.


If you're not going to look out for your own interests who will?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

In '97, the players had to get a larger split than the owners because the owners at that time were nothing more than a middleman between the players and the sponsors. The owners' service wasn't worth any more than 43 percent back then.

Today, NBA stock is crap. The owners are keeping the thing from falling apart while the players are bleeding it dry and ruining the product. The shoe is now on the other foot and the owners are the ones taking their majority dues.

The players took advantage back when they had the opportunity and now the owners are taking advantage. Don't make it out to be more. As HKF said in the Gumbel thread, these guys aren't slaves. They're free to go take their skills elsewhere if they don't like the way the owners operate.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

It's just hilarious that the guy who told Abe Polin to sell his team if he couldn't afford it, now is an owner who really can't afford to be, and wants to take the players money to compensate.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Why are people in here counting MJ's money for one?

And again, the climate he said that in was one where money was flowing freer. The players could afford to eat like kings and the owners didn't mind because they got by...but now they're not anymore. Maybe we should get past the "hilarious" face value and realize this.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> It's just hilarious that the guy who told Abe Polin to sell his team if he couldn't afford it, now is an owner who really can't afford to be, and wants to take the players money to compensate.


I'll try to defend Mike. Abe Pollin purchased the Bullets in 1964 for $1.1 million dollars. Ted Leonsis bought the team in 2010 for $560 million.

MJ was correct and Pollin should have kept his mouth shut when he told him. There was an era when NBA owners were sitting on huge athletic bonds waiting to be cashed in for their payoffs. Short term expenses were not going to trick the players' union into giving them any more money because everyone knew the score.

Nowadays the game is different. We've had so many team sales and teams sold for losses (Hornets) that NBA franchises have owners wondering if they can even recoup their money where in the past it was a given.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Dre said:


> Why are people in here counting MJ's money for one?
> 
> And again, the climate he said that in was one where money was flowing freer. The players could afford to eat like kings and the owners didn't mind because they got by...but now they're not anymore. Maybe we should get past the "hilarious" face value and realize this.


The climate hasn't declined that much...not 57 down to what was it initially? 40 percent the owners were demanding the players take?

The players have gone down to 52, which should be more than enough to compensate for the "climate". Especially since before this lockout the NBA was as popular as ever, and gaining in popularity.

This is a cash grab plain and simple. The owners know that fat TV deal is around the corner, and they want to cash their chips.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Dre said:


> When he was a player, he wanted the lion's share. Now he's an Owner, he wants the lion's share. That's the opposite of hypocrisy when you break it down.


Defending a position, when it's in your favor, and then later defending the opposite position, because it's in your favor, is literally the definition of hypocrisy.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Adam said:


> I'll try to defend Mike. Abe Pollin purchased the Bullets in 1964 for $1.1 million dollars. Ted Leonsis bought the team in 2010 for $560 million.
> 
> MJ was correct and Pollin should have kept his mouth shut when he told him. There was an era when NBA owners were sitting on huge athletic bonds waiting to be cashed in for their payoffs. Short term expenses were not going to trick the players' union into giving them any more money because everyone knew the score.
> 
> Nowadays the game is different. We've had so many team sales and teams sold for losses (Hornets) that NBA franchises have owners wondering if they can even recoup their money where in the past it was a given.


Sorry that your hero is a sell-out/hypocrite who only cares about his own dollar bills...but no. Either MJ was wrong then and he's right now, or he was right then, and is wrong now. You can't be rabidly pro-player one minute, and then the minute it benefits you otherwise, become pro-owner.

That's like you're a democrat all your life, and then you get rich, and now your a republican.

If MJ cared enough about the players cut to lose an NBA season before, it's ridiculous that he is now causing us to lose another part of a season because he now cares only about owners cuts.

And the irony is that MJ is Abe Pollin.

And I don't know that any NBA teams are struggling to be sold. I refer you to the Nets and Warriors recent purchases.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

BlakeJesus said:


> Defending a position, when it's in your favor, and then later defending the opposite position, because it's in your favor, is literally the definition of hypocrisy.


You know what, you're right. But the intent on winning out overrides the hypocrisy for me so I don't care. I don't agree with a negative connotation of the word in this instance.

He was on one side of the table and thought one thing, he got on the other (in a different climate at that)and realized he was wrong.

I'm just trying to figure out how an Owner can sell out the opposite block


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> Sorry that your hero is a sell-out/hypocrite who only cares about his own dollar bills...but no. Either MJ was wrong then and he's right now, or he was right then, and is wrong now. You can't be rabidly pro-player one minute, and then the minute it benefits you otherwise, become pro-owner.
> 
> That's like you're a democrat all your life, and then you get rich, and now your a republican.
> 
> ...


And I'll refer you to the Hornets recent sale.

The Nets were a real estate, political purchase. The Warriors are another score in my argument column because they're the new-age ownership group that we suddenly have too much of in today's NBA. Gone are the Davidsons and Pollins who were figureheads for decades. Now you have half the league changing ownership in the last ten years and ownership groups all over the place. You think in ten years with the current global economy that Golden State will be able to sell the team for $500 million? On top of that figure in their yearly expenses. Ha. They would probably kill to get an offer what they paid.

Also, not my hero. I hate Jordan. But this isn't hypocrisy. The world has changed and the NBA system needs to change with it.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> The climate hasn't declined that much...not 57 down to what was it initially? 40 percent the owners were demanding the players take?


Have you ever been in a negotiation? You obviously start from the far end of what you want, noone legitimately thought that was going to work.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Dre said:


> And HKF you're the main person in threads justifying the Owners' position because it's a different economic time than the last lockout...but oh Jordan is wrong here.


Just going to isolate this quote because you addressed me. I never said Jordan was wrong. I said, he has always been this way, this is nothing new. I want an NBA deal that allows every team to compete on the same economic level, that's all I care about. I want shorter deals (which helps the players who continue to improve and work hard, 3 years, 4 years MAX players), a hard cap and pretty much that's it. 

If the owners get what they want and the league is still this messed up financially, then I will concede this league is run by a bunch of morons.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

My biggest problem with this lockout is that they keep talking about the middle class of the NBA. This is not class-warfare like in the rest of the country. In the NBA, we only watch for the stars. We do not watch for Roger Mason Jr. or Maurice Evans or even Derek Fisher, yet these dudes have all been wildly overpaid. 

You create an economic system that devalues contracts and guess what, things will look more manageable, like I don't know the 80's when the salary cap was first introduced. Take a look at the cap in the late 80's and how the money was distributed. Too me, the middle of the NBA is where we have gotten screwed for years. How an above average player like Kenyon Martin gets 16 million simply because a team has caproom and can spend over it. Blech

You can't compare a middle-class NBA player to a middle-class worker because in many respects, someone in the middle of a company has the ability to eventually move up into an executive position through talent, drive, networking, brilliance, etc... Sports is a meritocracy. You are judged by how good you are relation to your peers. It's not politics as to why Jerryd Bayless isn't as good as Derrick Rose. He simply isn't talented enough to be and we can see that when we watch them play.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Dre said:


> You know what, you're right. But the intent on winning out overrides the hypocrisy for me so I don't care. I don't agree with a negative connotation of the word in this instance.
> 
> He was on one side of the table and thought one thing, he got on the other (in a different climate at that)and realized he was wrong.
> 
> I'm just trying to figure out how an Owner can sell out the opposite block


I think we're pretty much both right in the middle, just leaning slightly different ways. 

I totally understand why Jordan is saying what he's saying, because he's one of the owners in the red that this CBA is supposed to help out. But it's all 100% self-serving, and that's not really an admirable trait. Dude comes off as a weasel from where I'm sitting, not the fondest way to think about the supposed greatest player of all time.

FWIW - HKF nailed it. The Rashard Lewis' of the world are why we're in this situation, not the LeBron James'.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

last I checked he is no longer a player and is now an owner. Your opinion and circumstances change so how is he a hypocrite for changing his opinion when his circumstance changed.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Wow I read where he made 30M one year and Scottie made less than 3


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

MJ made like 65 million his last two years with the Bulls, which with KG's monster deal was the root cause for the lockout that followed those two years. I think he made like 23 million in all of the years before that. Of course he was making like 30 million per year off Nike, Mickey D's et al.

The person who is the real hypocrite in this thing is Paul Allen. He was the leading actor in exactly the behavior that he's now taking a hardline against, apparently because he wants to sell the team now that he found out he is not good enough at owning a team to buy a ring.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

jayk009 said:


> last I checked he is no longer a player and is now an owner. Your opinion and circumstances change so how is he a hypocrite for changing his opinion when his circumstance changed.


That's the entire idea behind being a hypocrite. If you're just taking whatever side is best for you instead of the side you actually believe in, what value does your opinion have? 

I looked up the definition of the word we're throwing around here, "hypocrite". Here's what I found..."a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings".

So I ask you, how is he _not_ a hypocrite?


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

MJ's stated beliefs has always been to do what was best for MJ. How are we supposed to be shocked? Truth is that he is probably in real jeopardy if he is as exposed (financially) by owning the Bobcats as I think he is. He took a long time trying to arrange it so he minimized his own exposure, but if we lose the entire season I think that would put him in a real bind.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

A lack of surprise in his lack of character doesn't mean there's not a lack of character.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Diable said:


> MJ made like 65 million his last two years with the Bulls, which with KG's monster deal was the root cause for the lockout that followed those two years. I think he made like 23 million in all of the years before that. Of course he was making like 30 million per year off Nike, Mickey D's et al.
> 
> The person who is the real hypocrite in this thing is Paul Allen. He was the leading actor in exactly the behavior that he's now taking a hardline against, apparently because he wants to sell the team now that he found out he is not good enough at owning a team to buy a ring.


Paul Allen? Of all people I honestly don't remember him being the most egregious of the salary offenders.

I do remember the Blazers had a high payroll but they were contending, in the 2000s you had to pay to play.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Diable said:


> MJ's stated beliefs has always been to do what was best for MJ. How are we supposed to be shocked? Truth is that he is probably in real jeopardy if he is as exposed (financially) by owning the Bobcats as I think he is. He took a long time trying to arrange it so he minimized his own exposure, but if we lose the entire season I think that would put him in a real bind.


Reading up on this one source said he was approached to buy 50% of the team.

The same article made the point that he could ruin his brand by being the face of a missed season. We're heading into an era of college kids who remember him with the Wizards at best...


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Dre said:


> Paul Allen? Of all people I honestly don't remember him being the most egregious of the salary offenders.
> 
> I do remember the Blazers had a high payroll but they were contending, in the 2000s you had to pay to play.


Trading for 30+ year olds owed over 80 million with coke habits, bad knees and cancerous attitudes is the epitome of overspending.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Who are we talking about


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

It's been a while but I believe he had Pippen, Damon Stoudamire, Rasheed Wallace and Sabonis all making 10M per year while his team was at the top of the league in salaries


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

There is no such thing as hypocrisy in business. MJ bought a team because he wanted to make money. If he wanted to just give money away he could've just donated everything to charity.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

"mj bought a team because he wanted to make money..."

"if you cant pay the players sell your team..."


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Is Michael Jordan a sell-out? How do you sell out when you are already as commercialized as any human being has ever been? You guys are 30 years late to this party. 


Is Michael Jordan a hypocrite? Here is where I think we need to remember our history - Michael Jordan has always been anti-Union (the players Union, that is) to my knowledge. When he was a player he was upset that the Union might prevent him from making as much money as he could possibly make (anyone remember playing NBA video games with "SG 23" instead of "Michael Jordan" when he wasn't in the Union?). It isn't hypocritical in my mind because he has been consistently selfish (or at least looking out for himself) this entire time.

People expecting Mike to be an advocate on behalf of the players are going to be disappointed, but they shouldn't be surprised. Even beyond his consistently ego-driven behavior, he is an owner now.... that's his job.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Laker Freak said:


> It's been a while but I believe he had Pippen, Damon Stoudamire, Rasheed Wallace and Sabonis all making 10M per year while his team was at the top of the league in salaries


Add kemp, dale Davis and Steve smith was about 8 million. He took on contracts of decent, average players other teams couldn't afford.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Dornado said:


> Is Michael Jordan a sell-out? How do you sell out when you are already as commercialized as any human being has ever been? You guys are 30 years late to this party.
> 
> 
> Is Michael Jordan a hypocrite? Here is where I think we need to remember our history - Michael Jordan has always been anti-Union (the players Union, that is) to my knowledge. When he was a player he was upset that the Union might prevent him from making as much money as he could possibly make (anyone remember playing NBA video games with "SG 23" instead of "Michael Jordan" when he wasn't in the Union?). It isn't hypocritical in my mind because he has been consistently selfish (or at least looking out for himself) this entire time.
> ...


We could change the thread title to Michael Jordan is a complete asshole--if that makes you feel better?


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Don't try to get slick now..you're the one who ran with hypocrisy and you got called on it. 

So sure if you want to change the thread to that I'll be happy to do that for you


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

HKF said:


> My biggest problem with this lockout is that they keep talking about the middle class of the NBA. This is not class-warfare like in the rest of the country. In the NBA, we only watch for the stars. We do not watch for Roger Mason Jr. or Maurice Evans or even Derek Fisher, yet these dudes have all been wildly overpaid.


The owners created that shit to get out of the last lockout. Suprise suprise, it's going to be really hard to take away now. They traded a cap on max contracts for the MLE. They made their bed. Now they have to lay in it.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Dre said:


> Don't try to get slick now..you're the one who ran with hypocrisy and you got called on it.


I was thinking for your benefit. 

I don't think you understand that saying someone has always been a greedy asshole, doesn't make them not a hypocrite. In fact, that's one of the defining characteristics of hypocrisy. Self-contradiction for your own benefit. That is what hypocrisy is. You're not not a hypocrite just because you are being consistent in your hypocrisy in that it's self-serving.

Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs/opinions which you do not actually believe. Telling Polin he should sell his team if he can't afford to pay his players is obviously not a belief that he actually holds, because he is directly refuting it in his role in this lockout. He only professes to believe in these things because they serve his own interests.

Mike is a ****ing whore for that dollar. He'd tell you anything to make a buck. Snake-oil salesman, wouldn't trust him farther than I could throw him.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Jason Whitlock agrees (C)HB


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

"David Stern and ownership have decided to unleash their token minority owner from the house to play hardball"

careful...


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Jason Whitlock would make a black/white issue out of a set of die


----------



## M.V.W. (Apr 2, 2011)

e-monk said:


> "David Stern and ownership have decided to unleash their token minority owner from the house to play hardball"
> 
> careful...


Yea, that could be taken in different ways.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

I think it was taken as meant

just from reading the rest of the loaded diatribe


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Dre said:


> Jason Whitlock would make a black/white issue out of a set of die


isnt it? I mean the dots are black but the die faces are white so the black parts are the minority and the white parts are....?

I dont know, something


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

I find this all very interesting.

I was a Union man all my working career, and I found the most-lowlife form of management were guys that had been Union members alongside me, then did whatever they had to do to become management, in some cases even stooping low to conquer if you get my drift

Those people NEVER wanted me to be working for them, as I would expose their secret past union member lives, and the deeds they had done as a craft worker, and what they had done to get promoted.

There isn't much I miss about working, but screwing over management is something I really enjoyed.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

this is the same cheapskate jordan who chastised barkley for giving a dollar to a panhandler. lol


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

27dresses said:


> did whatever they had to do to become management, in some cases even stooping low to conquer if you get my drift


They blew their bosses?


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

I remember back when he was with the Wiz, he was all set to hire Mike Jarvis as coach...until Jarvis saw what the offer was. Basically making him one of the lowest paid coaches in the league ! Jarvis thought it was a joke until he saw that it was the real offer and wasn't gonna negotiate. 

Jordan was , is and will always be cheap. Why else would he give away the only two reasons to watch his team just to save payroll...then cry poverty ?? 

He's not a hypocrite though. And his faction will lose out. And his team should contracted...but, that's another issue.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)




----------



## M.V.W. (Apr 2, 2011)

e-monk said:


> *I think it was taken as meant*
> 
> just from reading the rest of the loaded diatribe


It was a failed joke about the possible double meanings.



e-monk said:


> isnt it? I mean the dots are black but the die faces are white so the black parts are the minority and white parts....
> 
> I dont know, something





ChosenFEW said:


> *this is the same cheapskate jordan who chastised barkley for giving a dollar to a panhandler.* lol





Adam said:


> They blew their bosses?


:laugh:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Is Michael Jordan a sell-out? How do you sell out when you are already as commercialized as any human being has ever been? You guys are 30 years late to this party.
> 
> 
> Is Michael Jordan a hypocrite? Here is where I think we need to remember our history - Michael Jordan has always been anti-Union (the players Union, that is) to my knowledge. When he was a player he was upset that the Union might prevent him from making as much money as he could possibly make (anyone remember playing NBA video games with "SG 23" instead of "Michael Jordan" when he wasn't in the Union?). It isn't hypocritical in my mind because he has been consistently selfish (or at least looking out for himself) this entire time.
> ...


this right here is simply the truth , its funny as a bulls fan you pay closer attention and you see and hear things about MJ the avg. is usually unaware of.

he never takes a stand when his own bottom line is in any danger , his lack of political inclination is one example of that ("Republicans buy shoes too.") basically he is human he has flaws and an inordinate amount of wealth, power and access to any and all vices he could possibly imagine.

this is a hypocritical stand on the surface until you realize when he said that to Abe Pollin he wasn't speaking on behalf of the players ....just himself....and today he is still in it for himself. owner or not, he is and always will be an army of 1.

to the players he wants a hard cap. 

as a player he wanted all he could earn.

to the owners he wants revenue sharing.

3 completely different stands ....1 specific goal ...MJ.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Yeah any player not being paid by jordan, wearing Jordan brand next time there's basketball...is a fool


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

futuristxen in 2004: "I hate Kobe and will tell you why he's horrible every chance I get."

futuristxen in 2011: "People who hate LeBron don't realize they are only hyping him up when they bash him."


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

It would be more troubling if I said those in reverse order. I've definitely matured over the last 7 years.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

You're not allowed to mature. Every post you make is a piece of your legacy that will haunt you every minute of every day...deal with it..


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

ok but after all this arent we still faced with someone who makes statements more or less opposite in meaning depending on circumstances that are essentially self serving? because if so I like that as a nice definition for the term we're all circling around - of course that's what we have in our heads, the popular definition is simply: 

*hypocrite:* 
(1) A person who engages in the same behaviors he condemns others for. 

(2) A person who professes certain ideals, but fails to live up to them. 

(3) A person who holds other people to higher standards than he holds himself.

so that is a decent definition for what people 'think' the word means (from urban dict.)


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

on the other hand we could and will and seemingly are being even now embroiled in the taxological rhetoric of arguing over(essentially) what the meaning of 'is' ultimately 'is' so if we go with the OED def (which many hold as the end all) you get something different but clearer:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines hypocrisy as follows: "The assuming of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, with dissimulation of real character or inclinations" (which, you know, has certain ramifications regarding republicans but let's not do that here)

now.... did Mike put on a display of some sort in the 90s trying to appeal to somebodies (in order to make his cut) that is in opposition to where he sits now (or who he actually is)? did he in fact put on a 'false appearance'?

OF COURSE HE DID! hands here who saw Space Jam? Here who still wants to be like Mike?

hands up here anyone who thinks THOSE Mikes are really like the real Mike? so question number one according to those wierd brits who do the definition is, I suppose: 'did Mike assume a false appearance of virtue or goodness while hiding his real character'?

answer: do Popes reassign raping priests to new dioceses and also act like bear (or bears, plurals being so trixy) who shit (or shits?) in the wood? of course they do! tertiary answer...

what celebrity (or, you know, any given normal person) doesnt?

Hypocrisy, it's a thing and we are it

embrace it


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

another thought (and perhaps a bumper sticker): "Hypocrisy, it's the glue of society"


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> It would be more troubling if I said those in reverse order. I've definitely matured over the last 7 years.


Did Jordan "mature"?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

only in the sense that single malts do


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

27dresses said:


> I find this all very interesting.
> 
> I was a Union man all my working career, and I found the most-lowlife form of management were guys that had been Union members alongside me, then did whatever they had to do to become management, in some cases even stooping low to conquer if you get my drift
> 
> ...


I hate every word you just typed. Everybody has the right to try to better their station and the fact that you would not only begrudge somebody that right, but actively sabotage them makes you a worse person than any of the management 'low-lifes' you so feverishly resent.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)




----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

:2worf:


----------



## BeeGee (Jul 9, 2010)

HB said:


> Umm he is a business man, he's not in it for charity.


He's a shoe salesman. Everything else is just hobby sh_t..


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/33129080

Posted by Ben Golliver. 

Basketball legend and Charlotte Bobcats owner Michael Jordan became the face of the hard-liner NBA owners this week, when a report broke that he is the face of a group of 10-14 owners who think a 50/50 revenue split with the players is too generous, preferring instead to offer a 47 percent stake.

On Saturday, as labor talks between the NBA and the National Basketball Players Association were winding down, at least three NBA players took to Twitter to express their frustration with Jordan. 

"I'm not wearing Jordans no more," Washington Wizards guard Nick Young said. "Can't believe what I just seen and heard from MJ. Elvis Done Left The Building." 

"Damn MJ," Indiana Pacers guard Paul George wondered aloud. "That's how you feel?"

Later, Golden State Warriors rookie wing Klay Thompson replied to George: "You think the 1996 MJ would pull this? Straight hypocrite bro."

George agreed: "Man straight hypocrite bro.. He should've been the 1st one behind us smh."

The charges of hypocrisy stem from the fact that Jordan was a major advocate for NBA players' rights during his playing days. During the 1998 labor negotiations, for example, Jordan famously told then-Washington Wizards owner Abe Pollin: "If you can't make a profit, you should sell your team."


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

hardline ownership groups: 
Atlanta, Charlotte, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Memphis, Philadelphia, Washington, Portland and Minnesota.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

Ballscientist said:


> hardline ownership groups:
> Atlanta, Charlotte, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Memphis, *Philadelphia*, Washington, Portland and Minnesota.


If a major metropolis like Philly can't survive,the model truly is broken.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Philly has made some stinky business decisions and hasnt put a competitive product on the floor in years, it's sad given the history of the team but I wouldnt judge the model by them given that they've stepped on their own dicks repeatedly for 5 years


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Washington D.C. is a major market as well. The NBA system has been broken since 2005. And it's only gotten worse.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Some of these mofos could just be greedy too...don't act like everyone on that list is just oh so downtrodden

And Prokhorov is actually within that group too.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Some of these mofos could just be greedy too...don't act like everyone on that list is just oh so downtrodden

And Prokhorov is actually within that group too.

I see new owners looking for a return on the investment, I see teams in Ownership limbo looking to have an appealing CBA to offer a new owner...nobody on that list is really suffering or hasn't spent the same money everyone else...they just haven't spent it the right way


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

HKF said:


> Washington D.C. is a major market as well. The NBA system has been broken since 2005. And it's only gotten worse.


the Wizards are another example of a poorly run team - there's no reason either town wouldnt pay for a better product on the floor


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

The Wizards have been spending money...it's gonna be the Gilbert Arenas clause for a reason

Again I say the teams in this hard line group aren't all necessarily broke victims of a flawed system, 'cause they've been spending too. Maybe they're just greedy

Or maybe in Jordan and Leonsis' cases, they just spent a hefty sum on a team and want to see a profit for what they invested.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

yeah they paid out the money (so did the 76ers) but did they do so wisely? did they draft well? their 'basketball related/product on the floor' decisions have been questionable and I cant speak to their actual business business decisions (in terms of marketing, regional tv contracts, facilities management or what have you) but maybe those could have been better too?


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I agree with you on that so I guess I don't know what we're debating


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

I dont think anything but hey it's fun to type right?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Whitlock goes hard after Jordan:

Calls for a player-led boycott of his brand:


> He should pay a price for his betrayal. There should be a player-led boycott of his Nike brand. The current players should do everything in their power to make the Air Jordan brand unfashionable in the ’hood and the ’burbs.
> 
> Don’t support a man who stood for nothing until it was time to do the bidding of billionaire owners.


Good luck trying to sell your shoes in a bad economy with the tag "sell-out" draped all over you.

Sell-out is a term that had really started to fall out of the culture too. I don't think people really cared about it anymore. But Jordan embodies it so fully, he's bringing it back.

The man who never took a stand for ****ing anything, is taking a stand to keep young black basketball players from the riches he made as a player. A-mazing.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Why would anyone bemoan a sellout, especially considering the state our nation is in financially? "Keeping it and real" and staying poor is not the business.


----------



## Tooeasy (Nov 4, 2003)

Once another clean pair of jordans come out, Im gonna cop em without hesitation. His stance associated with a dispute between rich owners and rich players wont influence what I put on my feet. It was Jordans skillset, marketability, and his own brand that brought him the riches as a basketball player, as his total career salary he earned while in the league is right around the same as Raef Lafrentz.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

HKF said:


> Why would anyone bemoan a sellout, especially considering the state our nation is in financially? "Keeping it and real" and staying poor is not the business.


Sellout as a term has been at it's most popular in times of the greatest social stratification--because when you are poor, and there's no hope, all you've got is your principles--and when you see someone violating those principles to be a slave to the same people who are keeping you down--it pisses you the **** off.

See also the tweets from a lot of the young NBA players about Jordan's stance.

I don't know why anyone would be eager to throw their support behind a sell-out who stands for nothing but their own gain. It's like asking to get shot in the face.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Tooeasy said:


> Once another clean pair of jordans come out, Im gonna cop em without hesitation. His stance associated with a dispute between rich owners and rich players wont influence what I put on my feet. It was Jordans skillset, marketability, and his own brand that brought him the riches as a basketball player, as his total career salary he earned while in the league is right around the same as Raef Lafrentz.


It was the hard work of the player's union that got Jordan paid 30 mill a year his last two years. The very player's union that he's ****ing over with his hardline stance. He should give back all his career earnings, because not a dime of that came his way without the hard work of greats before him, and greats in his own era, who helped push for the labor advantages that he's now working hard to completely undo.

Dude is basically spitting in the face of guys like Oscar Robertson.


----------



## Tooeasy (Nov 4, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> It was the hard work of the player's union that got Jordan paid 30 mill a year his last two years. The very player's union that he's ****ing over with his hardline stance. He should give back all his career earnings, because not a dime of that came his way without the hard work of greats before him, and greats in his own era, who helped push for the labor advantages that he's now working hard to completely undo.
> 
> Dude is basically spitting in the face of guys like Oscar Robertson.


You just said it yourself, the last two years of his career. He was extremely underpaid for his first decade in the league, especially considering him being the face of the nba. Its a role reversal now because the players have simply been given too much leverage and freedom to reign in money at the expense of ownership losses and the damage that they can do to a team when they decide to pack it in after signing lucrative contracts. Theres so damn many references of players contracts crippling teams, hell just my hornets alone in the past few years have had to deal with baron davis basically refusing to play, jamal mashburns crippling injury that he "tried" to play through and thus his salary stayed on the books, and James Posey signing for the full MLE and being worth less than the paper he signed the contract on. This is just one team, a few seasons, and a few examples, I could make this list long enough to look like a dissertation.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> It was the hard work of the player's union that got Jordan paid 30 mill a year his last two years. The very player's union that he's ****ing over with his hardline stance. He should give back all his career earnings, because not a dime of that came his way without the hard work of greats before him, and greats in his own era, who helped push for the labor advantages that he's now working hard to completely undo.
> 
> Dude is basically spitting in the face of guys like Oscar Robertson.


Jordan's last two season were for one million dollar contracts that he donated to 9/11 relief efforts.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Jordan's last two season were for one million dollar contracts that he donated to 9/11 relief efforts.


Then I'm probably not referring to those last two seasons, you think maybe? But then you knew that.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

futuristxen said:


> I don't know why anyone would be eager to throw their support behind a sell-out who stands for nothing but their own gain. It's like asking to get shot in the face.


Two of the three tenants America was founded upon have to do with a person's right to act in their own interest.

Maybe it's not so much support for Jordan as it is disgust at people resenting him for acting in his own interest.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Mrs. Thang said:


> Two of the three tenants America was founded upon have to do with a person's right to act in their own interest.
> 
> Maybe it's not so much support for Jordan as it is disgust at people resenting him for acting in his own interest.


Greed is what is ruining this country. So there's that.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Then I'm probably not referring to those last two seasons, you think maybe? But then you knew that.


Maybe I was referring to you saying he only cares about himself and his money maybe?

correcting your factually incorrect statement was a bonus.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

> Al Iannazzone: Hunter was asked about what he would say to Michael Jordan: "I would give him the advice he gave to Abe Pollin."


...


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

futuristxen said:


> Greed is what is ruining this country. So there's that.


Is it ruining it? Or is it just making things be a way you don't want them to be. 

The act of declaring something is being ruined implies a change being made by the desires of others is conflicting with your own desires. Are you not acting in greedy self-interest by declaring support for your own desires? 

Greed is a paradox. Accusations of 'greed' are most often made by people who want somebody else to give them more money. It's a pretty worthless concept.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Mrs. Thang said:


> Greed is a paradox. Accusations of 'greed' are most often made by people who want somebody else to give them more money. It's a pretty worthless concept.


I'm accusing the owners of being greedy and yet I'm not asking them to give me more money...... so yeah... great theory.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

> Micheal Fake Jordan is a sell out. #Period. He forgot which hole he came out of. I said it "Stephon X Marbury"





> MJ went from MJ the black cat to a guy who forgot he was a player. Sell your team if you can't make a profit.. Your just a regular dude now!





> @kylerdraper when he rapped the BULLS for 36 million for one year no ones said nothing about that. We said he's Mike he should. Now look!


http://twitter.com/#!/StarburyMarbury

:2worf:


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I'm not sure I would want to listen to Marbury talk about anything. This dude has emotional problems. Just keep balling in Beijing dude, nobody cares about you anymore.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Even a crazy person speaks some sense now and again, and he's on point there.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

Dornado said:


> I'm accusing the owners of being greedy and yet I'm not asking them to give me more money...... so yeah... great theory.


You're accusing them of being greedy in their dealings with the players, who want more money.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Mrs. Thang said:


> You're accusing them of being greedy in their dealings with the players, who want more money.


The players started the negotiations by giving up a lot of money. So I don't know how you could term their stance as wanting more money. The players only want to lose less money than the owners want them to. The owners are the only ones who are actually going to make more money in this CBA. The players have already given up game checks on this negotiation. 

And at any rate, saying one side should get money over another, isn't greed. So even if you could say that the players are after more money, it's immaterial to what Dornado is saying. Which is that your definition of greed is ****ing stupid as hell.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Greedy Jordan

"Michael Jordan earned $2 million for his last 142 games. Kobe Bryant earns $2 million every 7 games." - Chris Palmer


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Greedy Jordan
> 
> "Michael Jordan earned $2 million for his last 142 games. Kobe Bryant earns $2 million every 7 games." - Chris Palmer


Haha Money Mike only did that because he thought by playing nice with Polin after he retired again, he'd get his old job back running the Wizards. He didn't(because he was terrible at it). And subsequently pitched a fit about it.

It was at BEST a PR stunt. At worse an idiotic business decision(like buying the Bobcats was).


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I just think it's funny how guys like Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, and even Hakeem have had a much larger impact on these NBA players since they come into the league, then Jordan has. He should be the one advising guys like Lebron against things like the decision. He should be sheparding this generation to be better than he was.

But it's the true OGs who do that and are still doing that. KG grew up on Jordan, but it was Bill Russell who he was thanking when he won a title.

Compare it to someone like Hakeem who is actively giving something back to the game teaching these guys how to work the post. It's pretty stark. Jordan is a greedy, bitter, lonely, old man. He's pretty much Mr. Burns. But not nearly as wealthy.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

futuristxen said:


> The players started the negotiations by giving up a lot of money. So I don't know how you could term their stance as wanting more money. The players only want to lose less money than the owners want them to. The owners are the only ones who are actually going to make more money in this CBA. The players have already given up game checks on this negotiation.


Losing less money is more money than losing more money. They are trying to get as much money as they can.



> And at any rate, saying one side should get money over another, isn't greed. So even if you could say that the players are after more money, it's immaterial to what Dornado is saying. Which is that your definition of greed is ****ing stupid as hell.


I think it's stupid as hell to accuse either side of greed when all they are doing is trying to negotiate the best position they can for themselves. I don't begrudge either side that right like a lot of people seem to do. Accusations of 'greed' is a crutch people use to take the moral high ground when the weather turns in an unfavorable way. It's all sour grapes and sore losing.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Greedy Jordan
> 
> "Michael Jordan earned $2 million for his last 142 games. Kobe Bryant earns $2 million every 7 games." - Chris Palmer


you should read "When nothing else matters" on jordan's 2 seasons with the wizards.

2 mil. or not Jordan is one greedy self centered mf'er

he took 2 mil planning on coming back to a team with ownership shares that he made worth 30% more...not greedy , i'd call it smart except it didn't work out for him because but his lack of getting abe's john hancock to prove it got him the boot , and abe a heck of alot richer.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> I just think it's funny how guys like Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, and even Hakeem have had a much larger impact on these NBA players since they come into the league, then Jordan has. He should be the one advising guys like Lebron against things like the decision. He should be sheparding this generation to be better than he was.


The difference is, Jordan is an owner. While he may have advised LeBron not to do the decision a year before free agency, his contact with players is greatly reduced by being an owner.

Besides, thats never been Jordan, even as a player.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

TucsonClip said:


> The difference is, Jordan is an owner. While he may have advised LeBron not to do the decision a year before free agency, his contact with players is greatly reduced by being an owner.
> 
> Besides, thats never been Jordan, even as a player.


Like you say, that's never been Money Mike. Being an owner has nothing to do with it.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Like you say, that's never been Money Mike. Being an owner has nothing to do with it.


Right, im just saying either way, Jordan being an owner does diminish his ability to do so.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Haha Money Mike only did that because he thought by playing nice with Polin after he retired again, he'd get his old job back running the Wizards. He didn't(because he was terrible at it). And subsequently pitched a fit about it.
> 
> It was at BEST a PR stunt. At worse an idiotic business decision(like buying the Bobcats was).


Whats your theory on him donating the salary to charity?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> you should read "When nothing else matters" on jordan's 2 seasons with the wizards.
> 
> 2 mil. or not Jordan is one greedy self centered mf'er
> 
> he took 2 mil planning on coming back to a team with ownership shares that he made worth 30% more...not greedy , i'd call it smart except it didn't work out for him because but his lack of getting abe's john hancock to prove it got him the boot , and abe a heck of alot richer.


Is that a book? What's it about?


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Like you say, that's never been Money Mike. Being an owner has nothing to do with it.


Stop calling him Money Mike. Nobody calls him that.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Cinco de Mayo said:


> Stop calling him Money Mike. Nobody calls him that.


If you think I came up with that nickname, you don't know much about Jordan...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Whats your theory on him donating the salary to charity?


PR 

Just like how Lebron donated all of the money from the Decision to charity.

The whole wizards thing was that he thought he'd be able to go back into management after he re-retired, and get his old ownership shares back. So he thought any money he made for the Wizards, he'd make back in the end, through the added prestige he gave the franchise. He was wrong of course. But it's pretty obvious judging by his reaction afterward, that that was his thinking all along.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Money I've heard but not Money Mike, ever.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

"MJ was drafted under the assumption that he would be a part, and not the sum, of a great team. Rod Thorn, the Bulls general manager at the time, did not think *“Money Mike”* was anything special." 
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/914984-michael-jordans-legacy-how-the-nba-the-media-lied/page/3

That only took me two minutes on google...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Blu said:


> Money Mike


And here is the first usage of it in this thread...


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> "MJ was drafted under the assumption that he would be a part, and not the sum, of a great team. Rod Thorn, the Bulls general manager at the time, did not think *“Money Mike”* was anything special."
> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/914984-michael-jordans-legacy-how-the-nba-the-media-lied/page/3
> 
> That only took me two minutes on google...


Like I said, first time I ever heard Money Mike, but not about to get into a semantic throwdown

That seems like one of those stupid nicknames some old/swaggerless guy gave him at UNC and thank god it didn't stick


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Yeah I just remembered. When MJ bought the Bobcats he really did not pay for them per se. He really just took over 150 million in debts. Of course Bob Johnson gave every other owner in the NBA 10 million dollars, so he probably spent a lot of that on vaseline. At any rate MJ better hope there is a season, because I really doubt that he can sell enough Big Macs and Toyotas to service that sort of debt if there is no season.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> "MJ was drafted under the assumption that he would be a part, and not the sum, of a great team. Rod Thorn, the Bulls general manager at the time, did not think *“Money Mike”* was anything special."
> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/914984-michael-jordans-legacy-how-the-nba-the-media-lied/page/3
> 
> That only took me two minutes on google...


Bleacher Report :lol: That's about right.

Just saying that taking a completely obscure or imagined nickname and then using it over and over, either thinking it's clever or that it'll catch on among the 15 people who still post here, is, well, something 23AJ would have done. Why don't you just refer to him in every instance as "Michael Jeffrey Jordan" to drive home your obnoxiousness? Sure, it's his full name, but nobody talks like that. Because it's weird.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

Cinco de Mayo said:


> is, well, something 23AJ would have done.


What became of that guy? He must have gone straight bat-shit after all the flip flopping he's done over the years.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

The only Money Mike I know of, is Mike Thomas from the Jaguars...

Thats because he was always "on" when playing at Arizona.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)




----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Cinco de Mayo said:


> Bleacher Report :lol: That's about right.
> 
> Just saying that taking a completely obscure or imagined nickname and then using it over and over, either thinking it's clever or that it'll catch on among the 15 people who still post here, is, well, something 23AJ would have done. Why don't you just refer to him in every instance as "Michael Jeffrey Jordan" to drive home your obnoxiousness? Sure, it's his full name, but nobody talks like that. Because it's weird.


Who cares honestly? How often are we going to talk about Jordan? It just seems like you guys are being overly sensitive about it. Especially considering the context.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Who cares honestly? How often are we going to talk about Jordan? It just seems like you guys are being overly sensitive about it. Especially considering the context.


People are bored with no hoops. We have to make up arguments.

Who is Jordan anyways? You mean Adonis Jordan? If you are talking about the Bobcats owner I only know him as Money Mike.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I remember Adonis Jordan. Rex Walters too.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

**** the lockout...


----------

