Shaq wants to be a Celtic

[Snakehead]

Speights - solid pick and athletic. Sixers won't deal him for garbage (sheed+garbage) coz i know they're quite high on him. i haven't really seen him play so maybe another poster could inform us. but point is, he's unavailable.



- LilRip

Speights has height and can shoot. Tommy and Mike like him. I haven't seen him play much defense but then again no one else on his team did either. The sixers may be high on him, but they haven't given him much playing time yet.

yeah, i've heard good things about him too. And they haven't played him much because Elton Brand is in front of him. but when you have a promising big man who's only 23 years old and isn't complaining about playing time or anything, you don't give that up for garbage. Would you have given up Big Al for nothing except cap space after his 2nd year?



- LilRip

Speights is a PF and can play C against many teams.  He's a great athlete and is a very versatile scorer being able to shoot and finish around the rim well.  He is sometimes inconsistent (being really great so often and less so others) but that's something I see being ironed out soon in his game.  He is very promising and is absolutely not available. He's a good fit in the versatile 76ers lineup that is mostly forwards.  He'll also big the big of the future once they can be free from under Brand's bloated contract.  Seems like a good guy too, hasn't complained at all and even was in Summer League this year.  Not going to be available.

Birdman, despite his faults, is a great help side defender and is not bad on the ball and can be a good finisher.  Solid rebounder and he brings energy, especially at home where crowds eat him up.  He has value beyond just raw stats.  But also not going to be available, he's loved in Denver.

I don't see us being able to pry any good bigs, especially young ones.

[moiso]

Yeah, these two aren't going anywhere.  Speights is a talented building block and Birdman is a nice piece of a contending team.  I'd like either one, especially Speights due to his age and potential, but we'd have to give up a lot for him and he's not necessarily going to help us win a title next year.

[nickagneta]

I think one of the problems with the two sides in discussing Shaq is the way in which he is perceived. So many pro bring-Shaq-to-the-C's guys, keep saying that he is the best  back up center available.

I don't see it that way.

I see it as being that he was the worst of the starting centers available. Why? Because Shaq is not and never will be a back up center. He doesn't have it in his mental make up to consider himself anything but a starting center. And that is what will cause problems for this team and why Danny Ainge has been smart enough to steer clear of landing Shaq.

People who have it in their mental makeup that they are something more than what they are being employed for, especially if they have been something more than at the level they are currently employed at, are problematic. They cause dissension. They undermine. They are difficult to handle. They do what they can to sow seeds that will land them into the position they think should be theirs. They do whatever they can to make life tough for others until they get what they want.

Listen, this isn't just an opinion. It's pretty common knowledge among people who are in decision making positions when it comes to hiring in the business world. You hire people to fill the position that fit the position. You DO NOT over hire a person at a rate or position that the person being hired feels is beneath them. Complications and problems will only arise if you do.

So, please, enough with the "He's the best back up center available" because he's not. He's the worst centering center available. If you owned a business and needed a one ton pickup truck to do some small hauling and errands you wouldn't go out and buy an old, used, 18 wheel semi because you could get it at the same price. You go get that pickup. And that's what the Celtics have to do.

[Evantime34]

I think one of the problems with the two sides in discussing Shaq is the way in which he is perceived. So many pro bring-Shaq-to-the-C's guys, keep saying that he is the best  back up center available.

I don't see it that way.

I see it as being that he was the worst of the starting centers available. Why? Because Shaq is not and never will be a back up center. He doesn't have it in his mental make up to consider himself anything but a starting center. And that is what will cause problems for this team and why Danny Ainge has been smart enough to steer clear of landing Shaq.

People who have it in their mental makeup that they are something more than what they are being employed for, especially if they have been something more than at the level they are currently employed at, are problematic. They cause dissension. They undermine. They are difficult to handle. They do what they can to sow seeds that will land them into the position they think should be theirs. They do whatever they can to make life tough for others until they get what they want.

Listen, this isn't just an opinion. It's pretty common knowledge among people who are in decision making positions when it comes to hiring in the business world. You hire people to fill the position that fit the position. You DO NOT over hire a person at a rate or position that the person being hired feels is beneath them. Complications and problems will only arise if you do.

So, please, enough with the "He's the best back up center available" because he's not. He's the worst centering center available. If you owned a business and needed a one ton pickup truck to do some small hauling and errands you wouldn't go out and buy an old, used, 18 wheel semi because you could get it at the same price. You go get that pickup. And that's what the Celtics have to do.

If Shaq is taking the vet min isn't he by definition willing to be a back up?

In business employers prefer people who are satisfied where they are? I think employers hire people who are ambitious and looking to move up because that increases the companies talent pool. If you hire someone at a low level job it is easier to retain them as they move up than hire someone from outside.

In this case Shaq would come in as the back up but he would try to play well enough to earn the starting job. I think by signing with a contender for less he's stating that he's willing to come off the bench. If he didn't care about winning he would just sign with a bad team for much more money than he's worth.

[manl_lui]

I think one of the problems with the two sides in discussing Shaq is the way in which he is perceived. So many pro bring-Shaq-to-the-C's guys, keep saying that he is the best  back up center available.

I don't see it that way.

I see it as being that he was the worst of the starting centers available. Why? Because Shaq is not and never will be a back up center. He doesn't have it in his mental make up to consider himself anything but a starting center. And that is what will cause problems for this team and why Danny Ainge has been smart enough to steer clear of landing Shaq.

People who have it in their mental makeup that they are something more than what they are being employed for, especially if they have been something more than at the level they are currently employed at, are problematic. They cause dissension. They undermine. They are difficult to handle. They do what they can to sow seeds that will land them into the position they think should be theirs. They do whatever they can to make life tough for others until they get what they want.

Listen, this isn't just an opinion. It's pretty common knowledge among people who are in decision making positions when it comes to hiring in the business world. You hire people to fill the position that fit the position. You DO NOT over hire a person at a rate or position that the person being hired feels is beneath them. Complications and problems will only arise if you do.

So, please, enough with the "He's the best back up center available" because he's not. He's the worst centering center available. If you owned a business and needed a one ton pickup truck to do some small hauling and errands you wouldn't go out and buy an old, used, 18 wheel semi because you could get it at the same price. You go get that pickup. And that's what the Celtics have to do.

If Shaq is taking the vet min isn't he by definition willing to be a back up?

In business employers prefer people who are satisfied where they are? I think employers hire people who are ambitious and looking to move up because that increases the companies talent pool. If you hire someone at a low level job it is easier to retain them as they move up than hire someone from outside.

In this case Shaq would come in as the back up but he would try to play well enough to earn the starting job. I think by signing with a contender for less he's stating that he's willing to come off the bench. If he didn't care about winning he would just sign with a bad team for much more money than he's worth.

you both make a very good point

however I agree with the comparison with Shaq and hiring someone

If Shaq is willing to come for the Vet Min, in my opinion he does seem to be stating that he's willing to help a winner rather than go somewhere else for more money like Atlanta...

If hes publicly states he will come off the bench and take the vet min or whatever the Cs give him, then I will support this...

yes Shaq is 38 years old, yes hes not the player he used to be but hey

the dude is 7 feet something and 300 lbs, obviously thats saying something, basketball is still a game where being tall is an advantage

[Jon]

I think one of the problems with the two sides in discussing Shaq is the way in which he is perceived. So many pro bring-Shaq-to-the-C's guys, keep saying that he is the best  back up center available.

I don't see it that way.

I see it as being that he was the worst of the starting centers available. Why? Because Shaq is not and never will be a back up center. He doesn't have it in his mental make up to consider himself anything but a starting center. And that is what will cause problems for this team and why Danny Ainge has been smart enough to steer clear of landing Shaq.

People who have it in their mental makeup that they are something more than what they are being employed for, especially if they have been something more than at the level they are currently employed at, are problematic. They cause dissension. They undermine. They are difficult to handle. They do what they can to sow seeds that will land them into the position they think should be theirs. They do whatever they can to make life tough for others until they get what they want.

Listen, this isn't just an opinion. It's pretty common knowledge among people who are in decision making positions when it comes to hiring in the business world. You hire people to fill the position that fit the position. You DO NOT over hire a person at a rate or position that the person being hired feels is beneath them. Complications and problems will only arise if you do.

So, please, enough with the "He's the best back up center available" because he's not. He's the worst centering center available. If you owned a business and needed a one ton pickup truck to do some small hauling and errands you wouldn't go out and buy an old, used, 18 wheel semi because you could get it at the same price. You go get that pickup. And that's what the Celtics have to do.

That's all well and good; however, the NBA isn't as comparable to those other professions as you make it out to be.  I'd contend that in the NBA, there isn't really all that much difference between backups and starters, other than the fact that starters tend to play more minutes (but this isn't even always the case with teams with great sixth men). 

And last year Shaq played less than half the game (he averaged 23 mpg).  With another year of age on him, we could knock it down to 20.  So with the exception of the fact that he plays the first 5-6 mpg--which is pretty darn irrelevant in the scheme of things--he'd be a backup.  We can still play Jermaine close to 30 mpg and we can still close with him. 

[nickagneta]

I think one of the problems with the two sides in discussing Shaq is the way in which he is perceived. So many pro bring-Shaq-to-the-C's guys, keep saying that he is the best  back up center available.

I don't see it that way.

I see it as being that he was the worst of the starting centers available. Why? Because Shaq is not and never will be a back up center. He doesn't have it in his mental make up to consider himself anything but a starting center. And that is what will cause problems for this team and why Danny Ainge has been smart enough to steer clear of landing Shaq.

People who have it in their mental makeup that they are something more than what they are being employed for, especially if they have been something more than at the level they are currently employed at, are problematic. They cause dissension. They undermine. They are difficult to handle. They do what they can to sow seeds that will land them into the position they think should be theirs. They do whatever they can to make life tough for others until they get what they want.

Listen, this isn't just an opinion. It's pretty common knowledge among people who are in decision making positions when it comes to hiring in the business world. You hire people to fill the position that fit the position. You DO NOT over hire a person at a rate or position that the person being hired feels is beneath them. Complications and problems will only arise if you do.

So, please, enough with the "He's the best back up center available" because he's not. He's the worst centering center available. If you owned a business and needed a one ton pickup truck to do some small hauling and errands you wouldn't go out and buy an old, used, 18 wheel semi because you could get it at the same price. You go get that pickup. And that's what the Celtics have to do.

If Shaq is taking the vet min isn't he by definition willing to be a back up?

In business employers prefer people who are satisfied where they are? I think employers hire people who are ambitious and looking to move up because that increases the companies talent pool. If you hire someone at a low level job it is easier to retain them as they move up than hire someone from outside.

In this case Shaq would come in as the back up but he would try to play well enough to earn the starting job. I think by signing with a contender for less he's stating that he's willing to come off the bench. If he didn't care about winning he would just sign with a bad team for much more money than he's worth.

This is absolutely true of young talent in the business world. But let's say you want to hire and associate project manager. If you hire someone out of college with some experience and a bunch of education then your scenario is correct.

But what you don't want to do is hire a guy in his mid 40's who's been an executive vice-president in a major construction firm who oversaw 8-12 production managers. These people are definitely qualified to do the job but they will only ever be problematic. Guaranteed.

And that's what we would be doing with Shaq.

[nickagneta]

I think one of the problems with the two sides in discussing Shaq is the way in which he is perceived. So many pro bring-Shaq-to-the-C's guys, keep saying that he is the best  back up center available.

I don't see it that way.

I see it as being that he was the worst of the starting centers available. Why? Because Shaq is not and never will be a back up center. He doesn't have it in his mental make up to consider himself anything but a starting center. And that is what will cause problems for this team and why Danny Ainge has been smart enough to steer clear of landing Shaq.

People who have it in their mental makeup that they are something more than what they are being employed for, especially if they have been something more than at the level they are currently employed at, are problematic. They cause dissension. They undermine. They are difficult to handle. They do what they can to sow seeds that will land them into the position they think should be theirs. They do whatever they can to make life tough for others until they get what they want.

Listen, this isn't just an opinion. It's pretty common knowledge among people who are in decision making positions when it comes to hiring in the business world. You hire people to fill the position that fit the position. You DO NOT over hire a person at a rate or position that the person being hired feels is beneath them. Complications and problems will only arise if you do.

So, please, enough with the "He's the best back up center available" because he's not. He's the worst centering center available. If you owned a business and needed a one ton pickup truck to do some small hauling and errands you wouldn't go out and buy an old, used, 18 wheel semi because you could get it at the same price. You go get that pickup. And that's what the Celtics have to do.

That's all well and good; however, the NBA isn't as comparable to those other professions as you make it out to be.  I'd contend that in the NBA, there isn't really all that much difference between backups and starters, other than the fact that starters tend to play more minutes (but this isn't even always the case with teams with great sixth men). 

And last year Shaq played less than half the game (he averaged 23 mpg).  With another year of age on him, we could knock it down to 20.  So with the exception of the fact that he plays the first 5-6 mpg--which is pretty darn irrelevant in the scheme of things--he'd be a backup.  We can still play Jermaine close to 30 mpg and we can still close with him. 

This is a case of human psychology not a case of the difference between the NBA and the regular business world. People are the same not matter where they work.

And as for what Shaq says in public, is it any different than what some seriously overqualified guy says in a job interview to get the job in the first place? No. He says what he has to. Then, inevitably, he gets the job and the problems arise.

[Jon]

I think one of the problems with the two sides in discussing Shaq is the way in which he is perceived. So many pro bring-Shaq-to-the-C's guys, keep saying that he is the best  back up center available.

I don't see it that way.

I see it as being that he was the worst of the starting centers available. Why? Because Shaq is not and never will be a back up center. He doesn't have it in his mental make up to consider himself anything but a starting center. And that is what will cause problems for this team and why Danny Ainge has been smart enough to steer clear of landing Shaq.

People who have it in their mental makeup that they are something more than what they are being employed for, especially if they have been something more than at the level they are currently employed at, are problematic. They cause dissension. They undermine. They are difficult to handle. They do what they can to sow seeds that will land them into the position they think should be theirs. They do whatever they can to make life tough for others until they get what they want.

Listen, this isn't just an opinion. It's pretty common knowledge among people who are in decision making positions when it comes to hiring in the business world. You hire people to fill the position that fit the position. You DO NOT over hire a person at a rate or position that the person being hired feels is beneath them. Complications and problems will only arise if you do.

So, please, enough with the "He's the best back up center available" because he's not. He's the worst centering center available. If you owned a business and needed a one ton pickup truck to do some small hauling and errands you wouldn't go out and buy an old, used, 18 wheel semi because you could get it at the same price. You go get that pickup. And that's what the Celtics have to do.

That's all well and good; however, the NBA isn't as comparable to those other professions as you make it out to be.  I'd contend that in the NBA, there isn't really all that much difference between backups and starters, other than the fact that starters tend to play more minutes (but this isn't even always the case with teams with great sixth men).  

And last year Shaq played less than half the game (he averaged 23 mpg).  With another year of age on him, we could knock it down to 20.  So with the exception of the fact that he plays the first 5-6 mpg--which is pretty darn irrelevant in the scheme of things--he'd be a backup.  We can still play Jermaine close to 30 mpg and we can still close with him.  

This is a case of human psychology not a case of the difference between the NBA and the regular business world. People are the same not matter where they work.

And as for what Shaq says in public, is it any different than what some seriously overqualified guy says in a job interview to get the job in the first place? No. He says what he has to. Then, inevitably, he gets the job and the problems arise.

Forget the semantics and metaphors for a second: you're getting so caught up in them that you're missing the point.  

What I'm saying is that for all intents and purposes, Shaq was a backup last year.  

Like a backup, he played less than half the game.  Like a backup, it wasn't uncommon for him the Cavs to finish games without him on the floor.  And completely unlike his old superstar self, he shot and scored far less than he ever did before.  And he lived with shooting less when LeBron James was the only player on the team clearly a better scorer than Shaq.  I think he can live with getting fewer shots when he's playing with 3 other Hall of Famers, a 6 time All Star, and a top 5 point guard. 

If we're going to be playing Jermaine 28 mpg and Shaq 20 mpg, who cares if Shaq plays the first 5-6 minutes?  

Listen, I'm not in love with Shaq.  I'd rather see Josh Howard here, and I'd probably like to see Rudy Fernandez here more than Shaq.  However, if those aren't real possibilities, and Shaq is the best we can do, I think we're better off with him than without him.  

I think the risks of Shaq being a locker room problem are far smaller than the risks we take of not having enough quality big men if Kendrick can't get back or if another of our bigs go down.  

[BballTim]

In business employers prefer people who are satisfied where they are? I think employers hire people who are ambitious and looking to move up because that increases the companies talent pool. If you hire someone at a low level job it is easier to retain them as they move up than hire someone from outside.

  Shaq isn't "on the way up" though. I'd liken it more to a case where you're hiring an entry level employee and one of your applicants is a former manager who can't find work in his field. If the guy starts talking about  how he doesn't really want to do some of his expected tasks because it's beneath someone who used to run an entire department, do you still hire him?

  Of course, this is all hypothetical, as we haven't made Shaq an offer and he hasn't made any demands about playing time or touches on offense. But the point is, his role on the team has to be based on what he can contribute now, not on how many titles he won in his prime.

[LilRip]

I think one of the problems with the two sides in discussing Shaq is the way in which he is perceived. So many pro bring-Shaq-to-the-C's guys, keep saying that he is the best  back up center available.

I don't see it that way.

I see it as being that he was the worst of the starting centers available. Why? Because Shaq is not and never will be a back up center. He doesn't have it in his mental make up to consider himself anything but a starting center. And that is what will cause problems for this team and why Danny Ainge has been smart enough to steer clear of landing Shaq.

People who have it in their mental makeup that they are something more than what they are being employed for, especially if they have been something more than at the level they are currently employed at, are problematic. They cause dissension. They undermine. They are difficult to handle. They do what they can to sow seeds that will land them into the position they think should be theirs. They do whatever they can to make life tough for others until they get what they want.

Listen, this isn't just an opinion. It's pretty common knowledge among people who are in decision making positions when it comes to hiring in the business world. You hire people to fill the position that fit the position. You DO NOT over hire a person at a rate or position that the person being hired feels is beneath them. Complications and problems will only arise if you do.

So, please, enough with the "He's the best back up center available" because he's not. He's the worst centering center available. If you owned a business and needed a one ton pickup truck to do some small hauling and errands you wouldn't go out and buy an old, used, 18 wheel semi because you could get it at the same price. You go get that pickup. And that's what the Celtics have to do.

If Shaq is taking the vet min isn't he by definition willing to be a back up?

In business employers prefer people who are satisfied where they are? I think employers hire people who are ambitious and looking to move up because that increases the companies talent pool. If you hire someone at a low level job it is easier to retain them as they move up than hire someone from outside.

In this case Shaq would come in as the back up but he would try to play well enough to earn the starting job. I think by signing with a contender for less he's stating that he's willing to come off the bench. If he didn't care about winning he would just sign with a bad team for much more money than he's worth.

This is absolutely true of young talent in the business world. But let's say you want to hire and associate project manager. If you hire someone out of college with some experience and a bunch of education then your scenario is correct.

But what you don't want to do is hire a guy in his mid 40's who's been an executive vice-president in a major construction firm who oversaw 8-12 production managers. These people are definitely qualified to do the job but they will only ever be problematic. Guaranteed.

And that's what we would be doing with Shaq.

the analogy is clever, but it doesn't completely capture what's going on because the NBA is a unique setting. You see, a person's skills in that setting doesn't diminish with age. instead, they should get better and more qualified as they gain more experience and learn more and more about the industry. if we were to follow your analogy, then what did the Miami Heat just do? Sign 3 Presidents, 2 accountants and 9 janitors? the analogy only works so far.

If a team depends on Shaq to be their starting Center, then yes. He wouldn't do great for a contender. Shaq can potentially cause problems, and i've acknowledged in my posts that the biggest deterrent for us to not sign him is Chemistry. and if DA and the brain doctor thinks that they can't get through to Shaq regarding the chemistry issue, then fine. maybe we shouldn't sign him. But posters on this board have been clamoring about his skills along with his attitude and i don't think we should question the skillset he can bring off the bench or "bench" (a starter playing 18mpg). The focus should entirely be on the team chemistry issue.



- LilRip

[LilRip]

In business employers prefer people who are satisfied where they are? I think employers hire people who are ambitious and looking to move up because that increases the companies talent pool. If you hire someone at a low level job it is easier to retain them as they move up than hire someone from outside.

  Shaq isn't "on the way up" though. I'd liken it more to a case where you're hiring an entry level employee and one of your applicants is a former manager who can't find work in his field. If the guy starts talking about  how he doesn't really want to do some of his expected tasks because it's beneath someone who used to run an entire department, do you still hire him?

most probably not. but that's because the labor force is so huge that there are plenty of alternatives. how many more alternatives do we have? the dropoff in big men after Shaq is significant. after all, Kwame Brown just MIGHT be the next best thing available.



- LilRip

[Roy Hobbs]

I think one of the problems with the two sides in discussing Shaq is the way in which he is perceived. So many pro bring-Shaq-to-the-C's guys, keep saying that he is the best  back up center available.

I don't see it that way.

I see it as being that he was the worst of the starting centers available. Why? Because Shaq is not and never will be a back up center. He doesn't have it in his mental make up to consider himself anything but a starting center. And that is what will cause problems for this team and why Danny Ainge has been smart enough to steer clear of landing Shaq.

People who have it in their mental makeup that they are something more than what they are being employed for, especially if they have been something more than at the level they are currently employed at, are problematic. They cause dissension. They undermine. They are difficult to handle. They do what they can to sow seeds that will land them into the position they think should be theirs. They do whatever they can to make life tough for others until they get what they want.

Listen, this isn't just an opinion. It's pretty common knowledge among people who are in decision making positions when it comes to hiring in the business world. You hire people to fill the position that fit the position. You DO NOT over hire a person at a rate or position that the person being hired feels is beneath them. Complications and problems will only arise if you do.

So, please, enough with the "He's the best back up center available" because he's not. He's the worst centering center available. If you owned a business and needed a one ton pickup truck to do some small hauling and errands you wouldn't go out and buy an old, used, 18 wheel semi because you could get it at the same price. You go get that pickup. And that's what the Celtics have to do.

At least in year one, Shaq would pretty much be our starting center, right?  I'm a big J.O. fan, but I think he would be better off the bench if we added Shaq.  (I'm not expecting much of anything from Perk next year.)

I think if Shaq agreed to a minimum deal, or something around $2m - $3m, it would go a long way toward showing that he has accepted his role. 

[Evantime34]

I think one of the problems with the two sides in discussing Shaq is the way in which he is perceived. So many pro bring-Shaq-to-the-C's guys, keep saying that he is the best  back up center available.

I don't see it that way.

I see it as being that he was the worst of the starting centers available. Why? Because Shaq is not and never will be a back up center. He doesn't have it in his mental make up to consider himself anything but a starting center. And that is what will cause problems for this team and why Danny Ainge has been smart enough to steer clear of landing Shaq.

People who have it in their mental makeup that they are something more than what they are being employed for, especially if they have been something more than at the level they are currently employed at, are problematic. They cause dissension. They undermine. They are difficult to handle. They do what they can to sow seeds that will land them into the position they think should be theirs. They do whatever they can to make life tough for others until they get what they want.

Listen, this isn't just an opinion. It's pretty common knowledge among people who are in decision making positions when it comes to hiring in the business world. You hire people to fill the position that fit the position. You DO NOT over hire a person at a rate or position that the person being hired feels is beneath them. Complications and problems will only arise if you do.

So, please, enough with the "He's the best back up center available" because he's not. He's the worst centering center available. If you owned a business and needed a one ton pickup truck to do some small hauling and errands you wouldn't go out and buy an old, used, 18 wheel semi because you could get it at the same price. You go get that pickup. And that's what the Celtics have to do.

That's all well and good; however, the NBA isn't as comparable to those other professions as you make it out to be.  I'd contend that in the NBA, there isn't really all that much difference between backups and starters, other than the fact that starters tend to play more minutes (but this isn't even always the case with teams with great sixth men). 

And last year Shaq played less than half the game (he averaged 23 mpg).  With another year of age on him, we could knock it down to 20.  So with the exception of the fact that he plays the first 5-6 mpg--which is pretty darn irrelevant in the scheme of things--he'd be a backup.  We can still play Jermaine close to 30 mpg and we can still close with him. 

This is a case of human psychology not a case of the difference between the NBA and the regular business world. People are the same not matter where they work.

And as for what Shaq says in public, is it any different than what some seriously overqualified guy says in a job interview to get the job in the first place? No. He says what he has to. Then, inevitably, he gets the job and the problems arise.

Great analysis. I guess since I graduated in 09 I am viewing this from an entry level perspective which is not the correct way to view your analogy.

Shaq would be the equivalent of a retired CEO deciding to come back as a figurehead lesser role in his company because he is not ready to stop working.

However, in business I think the employees goal is to make the most money possible, the older you get the more money you are trying to make. In basketball (or sports in general) players care less about making money and more about winning when they get older. There isn't a corollary in business because the importance of being on a winning team even if it means a lesser role does not exist in business.

[Redz]

25 pages of Shaq!

Have we even had a confirmed discussion yet?