Wolves fan commiserate here!
https://forum.midwestvolleyball.com/phpBB3/
https://forum.midwestvolleyball.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=31932
I hadn’t see that. Thanks for posting. Credit the Bucks front office for a valiant effort to cobble together a potential Eastern Conference title competitor around Giannis one more time in spite of the Lillard debacle.
YEAH I'm happy for the Bucks and happy for Anthony to get a good opportunity. He isn't the best player or whatever but he can play and I think he can help a team. I hope Doc Rivers is the right guy for the group they have.
Lip how much of Kyrie's comments did you read or see?Lipoli390 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 11:28 am Here’s a recent comment from Kyrie Irving that serves as a reminder of his combination of ignorance and arrogance:
Stephen A. Smith, arguably the most recognizable name in sports broadcasting, recently signed a five-year, $25 million contract with ESPN. That’s more annually than Victor Wembanyama, the San Antonio Spurs’ rising star, who’s making $13.7 million. “Does Smith deserve to earn more than Wemby?” Kyrie Irving asked rhetorically—highlighting the strange optics of a broadcaster out-earning a generational basketball talent.
Of course, Kyrie clearly believes the answer is no. Thankfully, what ESPN pays Stephen A Smith or anyone else is not up to Kyrie Irving. There’s something called a market economy that determines Smith’s value. Smith’s new 5-year, $100M contract comes after 21 years at ESPN building a following and establishing his value to the network in the marketplace. Whether you like him or not, he’s a big personality that brings viewership and the market sets a price for what he brings. Meanwhile, Wemby is 21 years old in heading into year 3 of a 4-year $55.17M contract. Wemby’s stats in his first two seasons were impressive, although he missed 50% of last season’s games. But truth is, Wemby’s next contract will dwarf Stephen A. Smith’s unless in the unlikely event Wemby fails miserably.
NBA player compensation is regulated by the League under an agreement with the Players Association. Without that regulation, Wemby would probably make more money now than he’s current making and likely more money later at the expense of other less gifted players who would make less as a result. So for the good of the League overall, the CBA introduces a level of discipline and equity that the market would not otherwise provide on its own. The compensation ESPN pays its personalities is left entirely to the market. In this case, after over 20 years, Stephen A Smith will get a 5-year $100M deal.
Does Smith “deserve” to earn more than Wemby right now? It’s a dumb question, but if forced to answer it the answer is yes. The market tells us Smith “deserves” his new $100M contract. And the CBA tells us the Wemby deserves exactly what he’s making, which is the top of the rookie scale for the #1 pick in the NBA draft. Will Wemby “deserve” what he ends up making in his future NBA contracts, which will be far more than anything Smith ever gets? Again the answer is yes. Wemby will end up getting what a team is willing to pay him within the constrains of an agreement (the CBA) Wemby effectively agreed to when he decided to become part of a League and a Players Association with a collective bargaining agreement. It’s that simple and there’s nothing profound in Kryrie’s ridiculous point dressed up as a rhetorical question.
I took the time to write about this otherwise meaningless comment by Kyrie only because I grow weary of this “woe is me” victim culture that’s developed among some modern professional athletes. I supposed Kyrie probably holds a grudge against Smith for something Smith said about him and that might be what triggered him in this instance. He can worry and fret about what Stephen A and others say about his effort and commitment to the teams he’s played for. But one thing no one should worry about is some sort of perceived injustice between what a highly popular television/Internet personality makes compared to an elite NBA player. If there’s some sense of cosmic justice when it comes to compensation for work, my maternal grandfather working in a steel mill and my paternal grandfather fresh off the boat from Lithuania selling vegetables from a cart on the streets of Philly should have been paid a lot more than they made. I consider their work more valuable than what Wemby or Stephen A do, but alas we live in a world where neither I nor Kyrie Irving determines the value of each person’s work - and that’s a good thing.
I saw all of it. I take it from your question that you believe I left out context so I’ll add the context myself.Monster wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 11:40 amLip how much of Kyrie's comments did you read or see?Lipoli390 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 11:28 am Here’s a recent comment from Kyrie Irving that serves as a reminder of his combination of ignorance and arrogance:
Stephen A. Smith, arguably the most recognizable name in sports broadcasting, recently signed a five-year, $25 million contract with ESPN. That’s more annually than Victor Wembanyama, the San Antonio Spurs’ rising star, who’s making $13.7 million. “Does Smith deserve to earn more than Wemby?” Kyrie Irving asked rhetorically—highlighting the strange optics of a broadcaster out-earning a generational basketball talent.
Of course, Kyrie clearly believes the answer is no. Thankfully, what ESPN pays Stephen A Smith or anyone else is not up to Kyrie Irving. There’s something called a market economy that determines Smith’s value. Smith’s new 5-year, $100M contract comes after 21 years at ESPN building a following and establishing his value to the network in the marketplace. Whether you like him or not, he’s a big personality that brings viewership and the market sets a price for what he brings. Meanwhile, Wemby is 21 years old in heading into year 3 of a 4-year $55.17M contract. Wemby’s stats in his first two seasons were impressive, although he missed 50% of last season’s games. But truth is, Wemby’s next contract will dwarf Stephen A. Smith’s unless in the unlikely event Wemby fails miserably.
NBA player compensation is regulated by the League under an agreement with the Players Association. Without that regulation, Wemby would probably make more money now than he’s current making and likely more money later at the expense of other less gifted players who would make less as a result. So for the good of the League overall, the CBA introduces a level of discipline and equity that the market would not otherwise provide on its own. The compensation ESPN pays its personalities is left entirely to the market. In this case, after over 20 years, Stephen A Smith will get a 5-year $100M deal.
Does Smith “deserve” to earn more than Wemby right now? It’s a dumb question, but if forced to answer it the answer is yes. The market tells us Smith “deserves” his new $100M contract. And the CBA tells us the Wemby deserves exactly what he’s making, which is the top of the rookie scale for the #1 pick in the NBA draft. Will Wemby “deserve” what he ends up making in his future NBA contracts, which will be far more than anything Smith ever gets? Again the answer is yes. Wemby will end up getting what a team is willing to pay him within the constrains of an agreement (the CBA) Wemby effectively agreed to when he decided to become part of a League and a Players Association with a collective bargaining agreement. It’s that simple and there’s nothing profound in Kryrie’s ridiculous point dressed up as a rhetorical question.
I took the time to write about this otherwise meaningless comment by Kyrie only because I grow weary of this “woe is me” victim culture that’s developed among some modern professional athletes. I supposed Kyrie probably holds a grudge against Smith for something Smith said about him and that might be what triggered him in this instance. He can worry and fret about what Stephen A and others say about his effort and commitment to the teams he’s played for. But one thing no one should worry about is some sort of perceived injustice between what a highly popular television/Internet personality makes compared to an elite NBA player. If there’s some sense of cosmic justice when it comes to compensation for work, my maternal grandfather working in a steel mill and my paternal grandfather fresh off the boat from Lithuania selling vegetables from a cart on the streets of Philly should have been paid a lot more than they made. I consider their work more valuable than what Wemby or Stephen A do, but alas we live in a world where neither I nor Kyrie Irving determines the value of each person’s work - and that’s a good thing.
Thanks for the reply I'm glad you had the full context of what he said.Lipoli390 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 12:05 pmI saw all of it. I take it from your question that you believe I left out context so I’ll add the context myself.Monster wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 11:40 amLip how much of Kyrie's comments did you read or see?Lipoli390 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 11:28 am Here’s a recent comment from Kyrie Irving that serves as a reminder of his combination of ignorance and arrogance:
Stephen A. Smith, arguably the most recognizable name in sports broadcasting, recently signed a five-year, $25 million contract with ESPN. That’s more annually than Victor Wembanyama, the San Antonio Spurs’ rising star, who’s making $13.7 million. “Does Smith deserve to earn more than Wemby?” Kyrie Irving asked rhetorically—highlighting the strange optics of a broadcaster out-earning a generational basketball talent.
Of course, Kyrie clearly believes the answer is no. Thankfully, what ESPN pays Stephen A Smith or anyone else is not up to Kyrie Irving. There’s something called a market economy that determines Smith’s value. Smith’s new 5-year, $100M contract comes after 21 years at ESPN building a following and establishing his value to the network in the marketplace. Whether you like him or not, he’s a big personality that brings viewership and the market sets a price for what he brings. Meanwhile, Wemby is 21 years old in heading into year 3 of a 4-year $55.17M contract. Wemby’s stats in his first two seasons were impressive, although he missed 50% of last season’s games. But truth is, Wemby’s next contract will dwarf Stephen A. Smith’s unless in the unlikely event Wemby fails miserably.
NBA player compensation is regulated by the League under an agreement with the Players Association. Without that regulation, Wemby would probably make more money now than he’s current making and likely more money later at the expense of other less gifted players who would make less as a result. So for the good of the League overall, the CBA introduces a level of discipline and equity that the market would not otherwise provide on its own. The compensation ESPN pays its personalities is left entirely to the market. In this case, after over 20 years, Stephen A Smith will get a 5-year $100M deal.
Does Smith “deserve” to earn more than Wemby right now? It’s a dumb question, but if forced to answer it the answer is yes. The market tells us Smith “deserves” his new $100M contract. And the CBA tells us the Wemby deserves exactly what he’s making, which is the top of the rookie scale for the #1 pick in the NBA draft. Will Wemby “deserve” what he ends up making in his future NBA contracts, which will be far more than anything Smith ever gets? Again the answer is yes. Wemby will end up getting what a team is willing to pay him within the constrains of an agreement (the CBA) Wemby effectively agreed to when he decided to become part of a League and a Players Association with a collective bargaining agreement. It’s that simple and there’s nothing profound in Kryrie’s ridiculous point dressed up as a rhetorical question.
I took the time to write about this otherwise meaningless comment by Kyrie only because I grow weary of this “woe is me” victim culture that’s developed among some modern professional athletes. I supposed Kyrie probably holds a grudge against Smith for something Smith said about him and that might be what triggered him in this instance. He can worry and fret about what Stephen A and others say about his effort and commitment to the teams he’s played for. But one thing no one should worry about is some sort of perceived injustice between what a highly popular television/Internet personality makes compared to an elite NBA player. If there’s some sense of cosmic justice when it comes to compensation for work, my maternal grandfather working in a steel mill and my paternal grandfather fresh off the boat from Lithuania selling vegetables from a cart on the streets of Philly should have been paid a lot more than they made. I consider their work more valuable than what Wemby or Stephen A do, but alas we live in a world where neither I nor Kyrie Irving determines the value of each person’s work - and that’s a good thing.
Kyrie was responding to Smith’s comment that the $119M offer to Kyrie was a lowball offer and that Kyrie deserved more. So Kyrie was ostensibly making the point that the contracts of TV personalities like Smith are fair game for criticism. That’s sort of fair but silly. It’s interesting that Kyrie would lash out at Smith over what was really Smith complementing Kyrie by suggesting the Mavs’ offer was too low. But when you watch Kyrie it’s obvious he doesn’t like Smith, probably because of all Smith’s pointed criticism of Kyrie over the years.
But whatever the motivation or context, it doesn’t change the fact that Kyrie’s comment was dumb. Smith’s comment that the Mavs’ offer was too low was also dumb in my view but he’s paid to comment on NBA players and teams, including their play and their pay. That’s his job. Kyrie could have responded to Smith by saying something like “the offer was acceptable to me and that’s all that matters - just as Stephen A found ESPN’s $100M contract offer acceptable to him.” But Kyrie is obviously pissed at Stephen A and couldn’t help lashing out and making a ridiculous comparison.
Love that series. While fictional, “The Gilded Age” depiction of that time in our history is pretty accurate. Also, great acting and smart dialogue. Things have definitely changed a lot - for the better. My grandfather in had it better working in the steel mill in the 1940s-1960s than his predecessors during the Gilded Age. But he still worked 12-hour shifts and came home drenched in sweat from the mill that had no AC and no doubt steel workers today have better working conditions and pay than my Grandfather back then.Monster wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 12:37 pmThanks for the reply I'm glad you had the full context of what he said.Lipoli390 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 12:05 pmI saw all of it. I take it from your question that you believe I left out context so I’ll add the context myself.
Kyrie was responding to Smith’s comment that the $119M offer to Kyrie was a lowball offer and that Kyrie deserved more. So Kyrie was ostensibly making the point that the contracts of TV personalities like Smith are fair game for criticism. That’s sort of fair but silly. It’s interesting that Kyrie would lash out at Smith over what was really Smith complimenting Kyrie by suggesting the Mavs’ offer was too low. But when you watch Kyrie it’s obvious he doesn’t like Smith, probably because of all Smith’s pointed criticism of Kyrie over the years.
But whatever the motivation or context, it doesn’t change the fact that Kyrie’s comment was dumb. Smith’s comment that the Mavs’ offer was too low was also dumb in my view but he’s paid to comment on NBA players and teams, including their play and their pay. That’s his job. Kyrie could have responded to Smith by saying something like “the offer was acceptable to me and that’s all that matters - just as Stephen A found ESPN’s $100M contract offer acceptable to him.” But Kyrie is obviously pissed at Stephen A and couldn’t help lashing out and making a ridiculous comparison.
I'm not a fan of either of these guys I'd really prefer not to spend much time on either of them so I'll keep this short.
I'm not saying I agree with Kyrie but it seems like he has a right to have an opinion and express it if he wants. That's what SAS has done to get paid a shit ton of money. SAS seemingly says whatever he wants and gets paid handsomely for it.
All of these guys are drivers of vast amount of money so in that regard they deserve what they get. They also give up something most of us cannot fathom in terms of privacy and how they can live their life. I'm not saying we should feel sorry for them but it's a reality...and quiet frankly one that I'm OK not experiencing. Without players a sports league has nothing but media absolutely drives interest in the league and that's how games are broadcast.
Lip you mentioning your family history in your post made me think about the show "The Gilded Age". It's fascinating to me for a variety of reasons. It's definitely one of things that's made me think more and more about how I see myself in the world I live in. It also makes me realize both how the more things change the more things stay the same but there is some change over the years that is different than say even 25 years ago when I was a younger adult.
.