Where's the outrage ?! vol. hypocrisy

What was the point of you making this thread? Did you really not expect a bunch of replies trying to make it look how the two situations couldn't possibly be any more different from each other?
 
I see the same similarity with the Lakers getting rid of Fisher and Odom. These were two players who contributed a great deal to the Lakers and considered LA their home, but they were still traded.
 
Xtapolap??

I just wanted other peoples take on the situation, nothing more...I guess I'm in the extreme minority with my view of it.

I honestly don't see how they're so different, seriously.

Bron decided the cavs weren't worth going back to, and the colts decided manning wasn't worth bringing back...bottom line.

The reasons were very different, but bottom line was similar IMO. Both parties said " ehh I'm moving on ".
 
Originally Posted by truthteller


Bron decided the cavs weren't worth going back to, and the colts decided manning wasn't worth bringing back...bottom line.

The reasons were very different, but bottom line was similar IMO. Both parties said " ehh I'm moving on ".

Thats the basics of sports as a business though, how the parties handle "moving on" is where the massive difference is though.

LeBron made a "I dont think I can win here" move, and the Colts made a "It's time to move on in a difference direction" move.  Two very different principles.
 
If you make a topic defending LeBron, you will never win. It's like a swarm of vultures on a carcass
 
When organizations get rid of players it's business, when players decide to leave they're vilified.

FTR, I never hated LeBron for leaving the Cavs. I believe had he stayed he'd end up like KG had he stayed in Minny. I just despised him for not coming to NYK.
 
Durden, I understand its a business but where was all this business talk last year.

Bron was called ungreatful, disloyal and many other names when he thought with his brain and not his heart and took what he felt was his best shot to get chips.

This makes him look smart IMO, why should players show any loyalty when its rarely returned. Should be a wake-up call for any player thinking his team cares about them at all. If a top qb in history gets kicked to the curb for an unproven rookie nobody is safe.
 
Agree but his is nothing new. People always talk about the hypocrisy of the NFL with non guaranteed contracts, guys quickly cut, etc...
 
Originally Posted by truthteller

Durden, I understand its a business but where was all this business talk last year.

Bron was called ungreatful, disloyal and many other names when he thought with his brain and not his heart and took what he felt was his best shot to get chips.

This makes him look smart IMO, why should players show any loyalty when its rarely returned. Should be a wake-up call for any player thinking his team cares about them at all. If a top qb in history gets kicked to the curb for an unproven rookie nobody is safe.

Because it was the way in which he did it.  Thats where the difference lays.

Irsay didnt hold an hour show debating whether or not he was going to release Manning.  Irsay didnt throw a party claiming Luck was going to win them multiple titles.

Youre also framing the cases poorly.  Manning being a "top QB in history" means nothing considering the circumstances of the past 2 years and every rookie is unproven so that is inconsequential.

To be fair to LeBron, the majority of the hate comes from the how he handled the choice and not the choice he made.
 
Originally Posted by Durden7

Originally Posted by truthteller


Bron decided the cavs weren't worth going back to, and the colts decided manning wasn't worth bringing back...bottom line.

The reasons were very different, but bottom line was similar IMO. Both parties said " ehh I'm moving on ".

Thats the basics of sports as a business though, how the parties handle "moving on" is where the massive difference is though.

LeBron made a "I dont think I can win here" move, and the Colts made a "It's time to move on in a difference direction" move.  Two very different principles.
couldnt you say.. lebron " i think its time to move in a different direction" and colts saying "we cant win the peyton anymore?"... 
 
I'm just thinking how funny it would have been if the Colts held an hour-long ESPN special.

"We've decided to move forward with the talents of Andrew Luck."

Really though, Manning sat out an entire season and was due $28M. This dude should not be walking based on some of the hits I've seen him take (and I really only watched him a few times each season). One SuperBowl win isn't enough to give a guy with neck issues 28 MILLION as a "thanks." Business is business.
 
^^
Same could be said about the cavs right?

Mo Williams and Antwon Jamison, shouldn't be reason enough for him to go back to Cleveland. Bron made a business decision too, except he was vilified for it.
 
Originally Posted by YoungTriz

Originally Posted by Durden7

Originally Posted by truthteller


Bron decided the cavs weren't worth going back to, and the colts decided manning wasn't worth bringing back...bottom line.

The reasons were very different, but bottom line was similar IMO. Both parties said " ehh I'm moving on ".

Thats the basics of sports as a business though, how the parties handle "moving on" is where the massive difference is though.

LeBron made a "I dont think I can win here" move, and the Colts made a "It's time to move on in a difference direction" move.  Two very different principles.
couldnt you say.. lebron " i think its time to move in a different direction" and colts saying "we cant win the peyton anymore?"... 
No, not at all.  Thats not how things played out.
 
Originally Posted by truthteller

^^
Same could be said about the cavs right?

Mo Williams and Antwon Jamison, shouldn't be reason enough for him to go back to Cleveland. Bron made a business decision too, except he was vilified for it.
I think you are confusing vilification of HOW he left with vilification simply BECAUSE he left. 
Like I mentioned, if the Colts held a "decision," then the comparison might make sense. The Colts didn't make this decision after a playoff run with everyone healthy. It's very different. You're comparing a franchise shoring up it's future by not spending a 28 Million dollar bonus to a guy with NECK ISSUES after a season of inactivity to a guy want to leave to take the load off of his shoulders and play with his friend. 

I honestly think LeBron had every right to do what he did, but it doesn't really doesn't compare with the Colts line of thinking other than the root thought of "doing what's best."  Keep in mind that Peyton Manning still hasn't played in an NFL game yet. No one knows how hurt he is better than the Colts. 
 
I think ESPN and sports writers have crept into a lot of people's psyche.

You honestly think those cavs fans burning jerseys or Dan Gilbert gave a damn about an hour long special, or the NY fans who painted a mural of him in rucker park? Hell no, they were just mad he didn't make the decision that they wanted him to make.

If he had an hour long special and went to Cleveland or NY it would've been business as usual, it was when he went against the grain and headed to mia with Wade and bosh that it got ugly.
 
No, I think youre just looking at the situation wrong.

You cant compare the Cavs fans with the Knicks fans.  They were coming from two very different situations, and yes of course the Cavs fans burning the jerseys and Dan Gilbert gave a damn about the hour long special.  How can you say that they werent mad about that?

You also cant say that it would have been business as usual if he did The Decision and chose NY or Cleveland.  There are so many layers to the hatred he gets that you can simplify it to "He chose to leave Cleveland".
 
No durden, what I'm saying is if he went back to Cleveland they wouldn't give a dam about an hour long special.

Cleveland, NY, and Dan Gilbert hate lebron for leaving...regardless of how he announced it.
If he said in front of his locker on the 1st day of free agency that he's out to southbeach he would've still been called every name in the book.
 
Again, youre playing out crazy hypotheticals involving people you dont know.

I dont know what NY has to do with this at all by the way.  They shouldnt even be a part of this discussion.  The Decision was going to receive a massive amount of criticism no matter where he said he was going to.  He just chose the say the worst of all the options in terms of criticism.  If he would have made a simple announcement that he was leaving Cleveland for a different city, I highly doubt there would be this kind of backlash towards him.  People who understand sports know it's a business and teams/players are going to do what's  in their own best interests.  How they go about doing that is where the difference in attitudes towards decisions is.
 
I noticed this. Teams do this all the time, make business decisions beneficial to them. But let an athlete who really doesn't have much control say anything, and he's crucified.
ie Dwight Howard.  Dude is human, and has a right to ponder what would be right for his future, and they blamed his simple mulling of his options on everything wrong with Orlando.  Had Orlando had just cut him and said @*#+ it; "oh well, business decision" like both parties aren't business partners.
 
I get what you saying OP. Youre talking about loyality.

Sport fans want their superstars to be loyal to the organization even when the team and city cant offer the player what they want ( Lebron, Dwight Howard, Albert Pujols and Clemens) but the team is never gonna give the player "free" seasons( meaning seasons when they let the player hang on for all the past success he brought to the team)
 
Back
Top Bottom