Just saw that the nets signed Jason Collins and put him on the court. For those that don't know, he is an NBA player who was unsigned and came out and stated he was gay. I have no problem with that, my problem lies in the fact that with Michael Sam coming out before the NFL draft he was slated to be the first openly gay active player in the 4 major sports leagues. To me it seems that the Nets saw this as a way to jump the gun and be able to say that they had the first openly gay athlete in the 4 major sports. Collins played for my favorite basketball team (Boston Celtics) for a short period of time before he came out and after watching him I am convinced that the Nets didn't sign him for his basketball skills. Is this going to be trend in the major sports? Signing less qualified athletes just for bragging rights about their lifestyle? Thoughts?
Gay bandwagon LOL? I don't really see how it is something to brag about so I think you reaching a bit here? The Nets needed some help with interior defense and rebounding so they signed Collins...are their better options out there? He did play 11 min in thier game the other night. There are teams which will avoid Michael Sam in the NFL draft not wanting to deal with the media distractions.
Although I think this post is ludicrous, professional franchises care about making money. If they think signing someone will make them more money, they will sign them. Did you gripe when the Jets signed Tebow?
Hmmm, now every professional sports team will have to get a token gay guy. Maybe they should like wear pink socks or something so we'll know who they are.
Why do you guys think we had Dan on the Pro Staff when we started Bowhunting.com? Now that was some forward thinking right there. As for Collins, who cares? I still fail to see the significance of having gay people on a pro sports team. There's gay people everywhere in our society and chances are most of us interact with them on a regular basis and probably don't even know it.
I think the original point is that media is making a big deal out of it, sensationalizing it to the point where they no longer see a basketball player that can boost the inside game but a gay player that can bring ratings. Which, regarding the religion comment, the media decried, whereas it seems homosexuality here is possibly (probably) being celebrated and further polarizing issues.
I know know nothing about basketball and I don't want to.....But I do know NY and there is money in this for a team in the NY market (Brooklyn and Manhattan).
I don't really think it matters one way or another. I'm sure there are plenty of gay athelets in professional sports, what does it matter if everyone knows they are gay or not - nothing changes about it one way or another. Being a professional athelete is just as much a job like yours and mine. I know of a few at work and just because I don't morally/spiritually support the lifestyle it makes absolutely no difference to me that they are gay and doesn't change anything, I still work and treat them like everyone else. EDIT: I'm sure every team is chomping at the bit to be the first to sign someone who is gay, it's political correctness, and it's also a heaping pile of dog crap.
One of the more ignorant things I've read... Care to elaborate on why Collins is a "less than qualified athlete"? It was a basketball decision, simple as that. The Nets traded Reggie Evans and needed a big man to replace his rebounding skills. You can't expect him to come out and run the floor scoring/shooting threes the entire game... What you saw was a player doing what he does best, play defense.
I don't follow the NBA, know how good the Nets are or how good Collins is. However, when this story broke, that exact thought went thru my head and it's a legit question to ask. From what I understand Collins has been available for quite a while and many said no teams were taking him because he was gay. Or it could be because he wasn't that good. Now he's signed to play days after another player announces he's gay. Is it coincidence he suddenly fit into the team's line up or did they want to grab a headline? I really don't know or care, but I still think it's a valid question to ask.
The Nets are right in the middle of a tight race to make the playoffs. There were high expections for this team going into the season due to some bold off season moves which haven't quite panned out so far. Their new coach and GM are under extreme pressure for this team to win. There is no way in hell they are putting a guy on the floor who they don't feel can help them win games.
This type of contract is generally for teams which need short term help due to injuries, trades, etc. The team is able to tryout a player without commiting long term. The Nets would have the option of trying to sign him to another contract after the 10 days are up if they choose. Low risk deal for the team.
Or, a convenient publicity stunt? Might be interesting to see what happens after the 10 days is up. How common is it to sign a player for such a short term? Maybe it happens all the time and I am just oblivious to it. Its not like I follow the NBA really.
It's certainly a valid question to ask given the timing and length of contract. Sure the argument could be made that they need short term help and he is a serviceable big... but there are literally dozens of serviceable bigs I'd take before him (other teams as well given the fact Collins has been available for quite some time now). Why him right now is a valid question. For people to act like it shouldn't be news at all is ludicrous as well. Whether or not being gay is a big deal, being gay in professional sports IS a big deal as it's never officially happened before. ESPN and other media outlets are in existence to bring us the news. This certainly qualifies as news.
