I work in IT for nearly 25 years. In that time, I've rarely stayed in a company more than three years. Sometimes, it's just time to go, and I've always appreciated that my career offers that sort of mobility.
But clearly, there's perks to staying with a company for a long time- IF they recognize your value, IF they pay you appropriately, IF it's a healthy work environment.
Do NBA athletes make great money? Absolutely- but they give up control of where they want to go. Look at all the drama around Kevin Durant. If he was in IT, his career path wouldn't be viewed as an outlier. He moves on when the situation isn't right for him. In my field, there's nothing wrong with that. But in basketball, his career path is viewed as weird, an outlier. How DARE he leave working in the midwest to go to a successful situation where he can achieve the highest heights of his profession? How DARE he move to Brooklyn to work with some of his closest friends? And how DARE he ask to leave when those friends might no longer be working there (even if there's REALLY GOOD REASONS for his friends to not be there)?
So good for Bradley Beal. Honestly, I'd love to see what the NBA would be like if more players had the ability to control where they ply their trade.
Today's Thought Exercise in Futility and Hindsight: could Minnesota have traded for Durant with the same package offered for Gobert? Would the Nets have accepted? If the Gobert trade was never announced what would be the market value for Durant?
What's the difference if it's a no trade or a player forces their way and dictates where they want to go? Isn't better that the team agreed to this with the player in a contract?
As a baseball fan who is used to no trade clauses being all over the place, it boggles my mind that NBA players don't demand them more. Granted, just because you can trade KD to Sacramento doesn't mean he'll go. But no trade clauses just seem like something players would want in writing.
The Wiz are probably in the muddle for the play in spots. And I am not sure what could have gotten them any higher. The top four teams are nearly set in stone. ATL and CHI are probably five and six with ease. And that least a scrum for six through ten and even if the Wiz are better than the Knicks or Pacers or whatever the Nets turn into, they are a long way from getting past the Bulls and Hawks, I think. So maybe best to just ride it out with Beal and KP and see how it goes.
I work in IT for nearly 25 years. In that time, I've rarely stayed in a company more than three years. Sometimes, it's just time to go, and I've always appreciated that my career offers that sort of mobility.
But clearly, there's perks to staying with a company for a long time- IF they recognize your value, IF they pay you appropriately, IF it's a healthy work environment.
Do NBA athletes make great money? Absolutely- but they give up control of where they want to go. Look at all the drama around Kevin Durant. If he was in IT, his career path wouldn't be viewed as an outlier. He moves on when the situation isn't right for him. In my field, there's nothing wrong with that. But in basketball, his career path is viewed as weird, an outlier. How DARE he leave working in the midwest to go to a successful situation where he can achieve the highest heights of his profession? How DARE he move to Brooklyn to work with some of his closest friends? And how DARE he ask to leave when those friends might no longer be working there (even if there's REALLY GOOD REASONS for his friends to not be there)?
So good for Bradley Beal. Honestly, I'd love to see what the NBA would be like if more players had the ability to control where they ply their trade.
Today's Thought Exercise in Futility and Hindsight: could Minnesota have traded for Durant with the same package offered for Gobert? Would the Nets have accepted? If the Gobert trade was never announced what would be the market value for Durant?
What's the difference if it's a no trade or a player forces their way and dictates where they want to go? Isn't better that the team agreed to this with the player in a contract?
As a baseball fan who is used to no trade clauses being all over the place, it boggles my mind that NBA players don't demand them more. Granted, just because you can trade KD to Sacramento doesn't mean he'll go. But no trade clauses just seem like something players would want in writing.
The Wiz are probably in the muddle for the play in spots. And I am not sure what could have gotten them any higher. The top four teams are nearly set in stone. ATL and CHI are probably five and six with ease. And that least a scrum for six through ten and even if the Wiz are better than the Knicks or Pacers or whatever the Nets turn into, they are a long way from getting past the Bulls and Hawks, I think. So maybe best to just ride it out with Beal and KP and see how it goes.