HiAndTight

Didn't get get rocked in SA already this year?

I can see your point, and the Packers, in particular, are technically publicly owned...and as I've said, I like the access as much as anyone else. I just don't see how you can enforce it or why anyone would want to continue speaking with someone who just said/wrote something scathing about you. Speaking of which, I just saw one of the most asinine clips I've ever seen on ESPN.com. Marcus Spears...the former Cowbow is calling Arod a "Toxic player" because of "all the former players coming out with all these stories." We all agree he's sensitive. We have varying opinions on how important that is, ie, the height issue and the condescending remark he made to the guy who met him. But toxic? And then lets break down the "stories" from "all these players." Finley-His complaint was LITERALLY that Rodgers wouldn't throw you the ball unless you ran your routes right all the time. Go back and look at it. I don't believe he EVER cites a single thing that Rodgers said or did. I believe he's become bitter because his football career ended and he came off as obsessed with how much Rodgers was making in the article. Jennings-Rodgers made ONE comment, I believe in passing, others believe it was more deliberate, but it was inbetween plays. One comment in 7 years and THAT is his problem with Aaron Rodgers. Jeff Janis-I'm not a big Stephen A Smith fan, but if I was, I'd be doing that voice he does when he repeats a irrelevant players name over and over. But in fairness, this is the ONLY legitimate issue I've heard a former player actually bring up. That he's too hard on the young guys, he rides them and then they get in the dog house and he won't throw to them. As others have said, you can see it at times. Of course I have a very vivid memory or Janis running a terrible route on 3rd and goal from inside the 5 his last year in GB. It was probably dependant on the coverage. If the DB opens his hips up, you hit him wth that out. If he stays square, you run the fade. Whatever it was, I don't know what the hell he ran. He ran about 4 yards in the endzone and instead of putting foot in the ground, planting and cutting, he kinda rounded off his route, so when Rodgers threw a bullet with a guy in his face, the ball was about 3 feet out of his hands because he ran a sloppy route. That was long enough for him to have developed his route running. But I do believe that Rodgers is likely too tough on the young guys and that he probably didn't give Janis the fair shake he earned at times, particularly when we were running short. Rodgers didn't make great throws at the end of that Arizona playoff game. He threw the ball far and did a great job of creating more time. ON the other side, you've had a LOT of players come out and say a helluva lot of great things about Rodgers. Woodson and Nelson for example. So I believe that he's petty, I believe that he's extremely sensitive, I believe that he can be too hard on young guys. Guess what? Lots of great athletes are like that. Remember how gracious Michael Jordan's Hall of Fame speech was? And that's a guy that's universally lauded as the greatest of all time. Issues with teammates? The stories about him punching Steve Kurr and Robert Parish are well known, particularly the Kerr one, and Rodman says he didn't talk to Jordan in his years with the Bulls. How'd a lot of Kobe's teammates like him? Oh, and by the way, of the THREE players(that I know of), GREG JENNINGS has said that more of the blame falls on McCarthy's shoulders for not winning more. He talks about how McCarthy wasn't willing to change or be creative or innovative. So now the MOST critical of those players....is the one who says that McCarthy has limited Rodgers and Rodgers was obviously going to grow frustrated because McCarthy wasn't evolving. So please Marcus Spears, you ignorant clown...a guy who probably hadn't heard a single thing about this issue before he's asked to come on one of ESPN's 15 shows that repeat the same thing and says something outrageously stupid just so he can get people like me worked up. There are a lot of issues here....but the Packers losing DAMN SURE isn't because Aaron Rodgers is toxic or THEE problem. There are SOME problems with him, but he's carried this team long enough and willed them to the playoffs year after year. This year was so shocking because time after time Rodgers has gone on runs at the end of the season in order to get this team into the playoffs even with talent like this team has. Sorry, this turned into a rant, but some of the Rodgers bashings is getting stupid. Don't tell me that we can't win with Rodgers or that he is the reason why we're not winning more Super Bowls. That is beyond asinine.

Based on? There isn't exactly a long list of young phenoms who have been out of baseball by his late 20's after putting up a historically good rookie year at the age of 20. So what would make you suggest such a thing? Edit-I, of course, mean position players, not just all players. Obviously, pitchers are a lot more susceptible to injury and the Mark Prior career arch. It's rare an OF'er is this good, this young, this highly touted and then done by the time he's in his late 20's or a bust. The only recent example I can think of is Jason Heyward. Not out of baseball by any means, just an average player making $28 million--which I would call a bust. That was as close as I could come in recent memory. And since the issue here is finances, it's certainly not applicable to Heyward. I do LOVE looking at Heyward's line since the Cubs gave him 8 years and 184 million though. He's been less than a 2 WAR per year guy on average those three years and it cost them any shot at Harper or Machado. Yet, still...not the worst contract on that team.

I find it a bit odd that they were trying to push Buzz out. What was the reasoning behind those rumors? I'm a Badgers fan first and foremost, but I didn't play any Basketball, so I've got zero trouble rooting for Marquette outside of that one game and follow them pretty closely. Dominic James is probably my favorite CBB player just because of the type of defensive player he turned himself into and how he played. My only recollection of Buzz leaving was a very good run after Crean left and then one disappointing season. Though again, I'm not on Marquette message boards or in the know with anyone who would know anything at Marquette. I do love the campus and the old practice facility. When they had a wrestling program, I went down there from 8th grade through HS to work out with some of their guys. Then Marquette just up and dropped the program after trying to drop it previously citing both Title 9 and financial reasons, both were BS as alum stepped up to support the program financially so it wouldn't cost the University a dime and there were no Title 9 issues without a football team. But I digress. Edit-Found this article by Sports Illustrated. It is pretty adamant about how inferior the job at Tech is compared to the Marquette job...pretty much echoing what you just said about it. Reading this from the 2015 perspective...you gotta give Buzz props for getting this team to a sweet 16 and just SOO close to beating Duke and advancing further than they'd already every advanced in the tourney. https://www.si.com/college-basketball/one-and-one/2014/03/21/buzz-williams-stunningly-leaves-marquette-for-virginia-tech

I remember him bombing pretty hard at least once. I don't remember how late he signed in other seasons, but PED's helped. The point is that even in his case, that kind of acquisition has a pretty low success rate. For every time it works out (Clemens a couple times, Arrieta last year), it seems there are 2 or 3 times it fails, sometimes miserably. Spring training is really important, especially in the post-PED era. Are we talking about Clemens final year when he was 44 years old and put up an FIP of 4.14? At that point, that was what Clemens had planned on doing. The previous year at 43 he was very good doing the same thing. But what pitchers are we talking about specifically who did this and struggled? Are they average to slightly above average pitchers or are they elite pitchers like Kimbrel? Everyone points to Holland last year forgetting how dominant he was the second half of the year when he put up a .84 ERA for the Nats. In that case, he was signed and thrown in almost immediately. That was just a bad move on the part of the Cards. I don't remember many elite pitchers in the prime of Hall of Fame careers struggling badly after signing late because it seldom happens. It's hard to compare Kimbrel to anyone else unless there are examples of other elite pitchers who did this that I just can't remember.

http://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/26453070/nba-awards-picks-best-defenders-league Interesting read about the all NBA defensive teams. This guy has Bled as the 2nd team PG and Giannis as the 1st team PF and runner up DPOY.

Based on? There isn't exactly a long list of young phenoms who have been out of baseball by his late 20's after putting up a historically good rookie year at the age of 20. So what would make you suggest such a thing? Edit-I, of course, mean position players, not just all players. Obviously, pitchers are a lot more susceptible to injury and the Mark Prior career arch. It's rare an OF'er is this good, this young, this highly touted and then done by the time he's in his late 20's or a bust.

Just report it on Schedule E, and you can deduct real estate taxes, mortgage interest, insurance, etc. The personal home in an LLC won't do any good, and may actually harm you when you sell the home. I assume you mean for tax reasons, correct? Because it'd be kinda crazy to not put a rental property into an LLC. I own an apartment building, this lady fell down the stairs saying there was a problem with the elevator(it's two floors, not Trump towers, but I digress) and the railings. There was nothing wrong with either and it turned out her son was pressuring her to sue because he just assumed the owners would settle and had money(we don't and we didn't). But without the LLC, my Dad who invested with me...they could have gone after everything he had. I now have one on each property I have, including a cabin I own in the woods as people have broken in there and it's in an incredibly rural area. If something happens and I'm deemed to be at fault somehow, the most they can get is the value of that cabin.

I wasn't aware you could put your personal home in an LLC. I remember setting one up for each rental property I have and it was extremely cheap and simple.

Personally, I would not object to having the long-term deferred money. I think MLBPA should fight to make sure that the team ensures that the money is going to be there (maybe through insurance, etc.) - but thinking of Hack Wilson (the single-season RBI leader) and how he died penniless, and other athletes who lose the fortunes they had from big contracts... deferred money could be a lifesaver. MLB has one of the best retirement programs in....well the world. You play in the bigs one day, you get life insurance for life. That right there for a couple in their 60's right now could have a value of 30+K a year. Beyond that, Hack Wilson would have been pulling a pension of over 200K in today's game. So players won't die penniless. They may not die wealthy if they waste their money, but they'll always have enough to get by better than the average person.

Why not just wait and see where we're at as the season goes along. If he produces like Braun did when he was in AAA after not dominating AA, there shouldn't be any question. If he struggles ([sarcasm]as he has so badly thus far[/sarcasm]) in AAA, and we have no need for him, then it's not just about team control, but about development. I'm just as bullish on him as you are. I believe he'll come up and be a stud from the jump. That said, that part in blue...does seriously have me slightly concerned. 6K's thus far in 8 ABs? I mean, I know Prince started off similar in his big league career, but...still.

It's not like you have Hiura and then nobody. You DO have an extremely talented athlete in Corey Ray who could just as easily get the call before Hiura due to an injury. Imagine Cain goes down for a little while. Not hard to imagine that Ray comes up and produces.

Could you possibly argue otherwise? They were directly responsible for bringing in two studs that helped carry us into the playoffs and a third who was a good pitcher. The intent seemed to be more about making an impact on the field, but as it was stated...they made enormous impacts to the organization.

Ok, I guess it depends on your opinion of retaliation. I don't view just simply NOT talking to him or granting him interviews retaliation. It's the silent treatment. Ok, I guess it depends on your opinion of retaliation. I don't view just simply NOT talking to him or granting him interviews retaliation. It's the silent treatment basically, and it's the responsible move when you're talking about something as relatively minor as people not liking each other at work....I would have a totally different take if you were talking about them not reporting on ANY of the issues that were similar to what were mentioned in that other thread. The over medicating players, doing anything illegal. That becomes an entirely different issue. I'd have liked to know all this as well and spent about an hour on the article. I read it...then just kept going over it. It really pisses me off. That while New England is building a dynasty with inferior talent because you have BB, the Packers with the most unique QB ever(I think John Elway would have been even closer had he not been hobbled his entire career by a bad knee, but even as talented as he was, he wasn't the accurate passer Rodgers is. Steve Young at his height is as close as I can come to an apt comparison and maybe in a few more years Mahomes) and a lot of talent elsewhere. I just disagreed when it sounded like you believed we should be entitled to this type of information. That's all. WHY THOUGH? We're back. Why as the owner of a private business shouldn't he be able to refuse press privileges to people who have a negative impact on his business? And while the Packers are literally a private business, they run like one. Again, if this was the White House Press Corp and you're shutting down legitimate News Outlets, that's a HUGE problem. There's been a lot of talk about the press that's been VERY dangerous to what may be the single most important aspect of our democracy. But that's not this. This is you saying an owner or an organization shouldn't be able to stop granting interviews to a guy who writes a bad story and....with respect, you haven't really given a why yet other than just because you don't think it's fair. The Press Needs to be protected above just about all else in this country, but I'm just not seeing the same issues as you are. A reporter should be expected to be cut out when he writes a piece that absolutely shreds an entire organization. And real investigative journalist deal with this every single day. It's part of their job description. Get the story about people who don't want you to have the story. There's no reason that this should be easy.

Can someone explain why Va Tech is considered that much better of a job than Marquette? I get it's in the ACC, but it's a football school, it's no an elite basketball school. I was a bit surprised when Buzz did this. I expected Wojo to use Marquette as a stepping stone if he built a successful program(not sure this is what I expected, but we can debate that later). But Marquette seems to be willing to give him whatever he needs to succeed there and it's not like the Big East is a joke. But enlighten me. What am I missing? Proximity from Coach K?

I care if he wins it. While they're ancillary benefits of success, I want to see more recognition given to the Bucks and Giannis. I want to see this team win COY, MVP, DPOY(likely not gonna happen, but he really could). I'd like to see Horst win Executive of the year. He made a couple of pretty remarkable trades, adding a whole lot of value and financial flexibility while giving away very little in terms of assets. While we've gone into depth about George Hill on here, we all agree he's a huge asset to this team and you got him while dumping two contracts that were terrible, and then you picked up a sharp-shooting big man who can rebound and showed up and played his best in the post-season last year.

Not sure where you heard that, but they're 40-16 in their last 56 games. They went 12-5 during Paul's injury. That's pretty good, albeit in a small sample and not all of it against the toughest part of their schedule. The trouble with this sort of debate is that it's easy to come off as overly critical of a great player when really it's just a matter of Giannis setting the bar so high that any little thing you can nitpick in other candidates is magnified. Giannis is neither the best offensive player nor the best defensive player in the game, but he's close on both ends and that's extremely rare. The Bucks have the best drtg and #3 ortg, and it starts with him on both ends. Tied for 5th all-time with 45 double-digit wins, with an outside chance of being alone for 2nd place with 4 games left. Tied for 15th best scoring differential ever. Individual stats hurt by so many blowouts and the reduced minutes, when really that should be a notch in his favor. And all of that with a grand combined total of TWO all-star berths (and both of those borderline ones) for the rest of the team. I don't think I'm being unfair to Harden when I say there's really not a controversy in my mind. Giannis is that good. If Paul was healthy all year, Harden would be just as efficient but wouldn't have such gaudy stats, and nearly everybody would be saying "yeah, Harden is the best offensive player in the game, but I have to give it to Giannis because he's so great on both ends of the court." They were 11-14, they're now 52-28. So at the time I posted that, they'd gone 41-14(now 42-14). I'd imagine that's the starting point they were using on the radio as you only throw out these stats to make a point. Where I heard it, I was on my ride home and listening to the radio. I don't recall who as I was coming from out of town and it wasn't local stations. My point wasn't that Giannis wasn't great. Historical. Absolutely everything you said and one of the best things to ever happen to Milwaukee sports or even about the MVP award. I don't care about Harden...and as such, I don't keep myself particularly informed about Harden or the Rockets other than how a casual fan would. My only point was in response to those who said that he was a volume scorer and that the type of play he was playing was a not good for winning team basketball. And they injuries I was talking about are a lot more than Chris Paul. They were decimated at one point this season with several guys out of the lineup. So I don't think you need to continue convincing anyone of Giannis MVP viability....though frankly, the term Most Valuable means almost nothing to me anymore. If you gave it to the most valuable, Mike Trout would have...5 or 6 at this point, LeBron and Jordan might have had 10 in their careers. The writers put a lot of other nonsense into this award. "Narrative," for instance. Harden scoring 30+ for more games in a row than anyone since Wilt is gonna get more play than it should. So again, only challenging the assertions that Harden is only successful because he shots "23 3's a game and 20 FT's." Or that he can't help a team win that way. I mean...if it were that easy...the uninspiringly athletic James Harden wouldn't be the only guy to do it. He wouldn't be so much more effective than Jordan for example in scoring 35+ a night.

I was thinking maybe it was Cobb...I couldn't remember the second one, but I knew it was supposed to be one of his close friends on the team. I don't blame people who don't find that type of cold standoffish reaction and then ensuing smartass comment and insult about the guy who insulted him's height. I try to find reasons to defend him also(for what little that's worth). I hope he gives me more in the future.

This is the biggest Packers story of the offseason. It's on every talk show, tv station, news site. It's being discussed in offices all around the state, and is the subject of several posts in this string. And it was reported by a respected guy who used to work the beat, next to colleagues from the Press Gazette and Journal Sentinel. And with the local tv sports men and women who deliver us the "news". I just find it disturbing that he wouldn't have been allowed to write this story if he worked locally, but since he has the distance of working for Bleacher Report, that gave him the freedom to write it. Presumably, the toxic relationship between Rodgers and McCarthy was known by other reporters. But they couldn't dare write it, for fear of angering the team they are supposed to write about. This story would have driven traffic to whichever news organization published it, but locals apparently aren't allowed to. The Packers are treated like royalty in this state, and we're all treated like the kids who let them ride their bikes after practice. Again, read how James Dolan, Woody Johnson, the Wilpons, etc. are treated by the NY media. When those guys deserve to be taken to task, they are taken to task. And until yesterday, the Packers mostly hadn't been. And it took the safety of a national sports website to do it. I don't disagree with an of this. I only disagreed that we were in some way entitled to know what was going on or that the Packers weren't well within their rights to no longer talk to a particular writer if he wrote an article. Especially one like this that is incredibly controversial, would have been far-far more controversial during the season or the McCarthy era and is only slightly less so now that Rodgers has a new coach and the GM who was getting sick is out and we have a new GM. I WANT to know lots of stuff. I want to know exactly what our offer is to Kimbrel. But this is a corporation. If they don't want to allow interviews to someone after this type of article, I don't think that's the least bit outlandish. Someone keeps bringing up the Knicks owner Dolan. I honestly could not care less about that guy. I won't care about him if/when Durant signs there this summer. I don't think I'll ever care about him. But he denied interviews to the press for an extended period of time because he was getting bad publicity. Exactly what I'm talking about. The difference there is the rest of the org leaked like a sieve. Plus this has been compared to the reporting on rape accusations and domestic violence and really, just the most astoundingly ridiculous comparisons you can possibly make. Let's not get it twisted. This isn't about if the Paper is allowing you to cover accusations that you raped a college girl in the bathroom. Mainly because once there is a police report, that's public record, so there's almost zero chance it stays sealed due to open record laws. But rather this is an article about why a team that was very good wasn't great and the conclusion they came to.....the HC and the star didn't like each other. So yeah, I'm just not of the mind that this is something we're entitled to. That this is something that the 4th estate is required to ensure that we all know about. It's a workplace issue at a corporation. We just happen to care more about the production of this particular corporation.

Where was this(if you happen to recall)? I remember Rodgers actually saying on I think the Mike McCarthy show that he doesn't like it when people say that to him, but I never actually knew if or when that happened. In fact, I thought there was a segment where guys talked about Aaron and they talked about how sensitive he was and they even brought this up. I'm thinking it was Clay and another guy, but I don't remember exactly. What a stupid thing to worry about though. You're regarded as the most physically gifted person to play the position. Who cares if Bar guy #3 thinks you look taller on TV. Get over it. And I guess I'd counter with, why do you care that he cares? If somebody came up to you on the street and commented on something regarding your appearance or the way you look, do you have a right to react negatively to that? Yep. Does he lose that right because he's an athlete? I don't think so. He didn't slug the guy, he politely told him that he didn't appreciate it. Couldn't be less of an issue, IMO. You realize I'm not the one who brought this up? But ask me why I care? Because I do, doesn't have to be any more to it than that. But then I stated why. I think it's petty. If we're not all just basking in the light that is Rodgers, he gets upset. And he wasn't very polite about it. -Sounds a bit snippy now doesn't it? Especially since the guy wasn't close to 5'7, so Rodgers is being intentionally rude there in mocking him. https://deadspin.com/aaron-rodgers-is-very-sensitive-about-his-height-5957852

Yeah...pretty much exactly my thoughts. I could take everything they've said about Rodgers with a grain of salt and say it's just that Jordan, Kobe-esque type mentality, but cutting your folks out of your life? And this isn't some kid who came up rough and whose parents weren't around. That just made it more obvious that he's got deeper issues. It's not like it breaks my heart like when I was a kid and right as I was leaving for school I heard about Molitor signing with the Jays, it just sucks when your superstar is a diva. We're all pretty sure that while Giannis is hyper competitive, he's NOT a diva, right? We might have the best players in all 3 major sports on our team this year. It'd be nice if a couple of them were good guys.

Where was this(if you happen to recall)? I remember Rodgers actually saying on I think the Mike McCarthy show that he doesn't like it when people say that to him, but I never actually knew if or when that happened. In fact, I thought there was a segment where guys talked about Aaron and they talked about how sensitive he was and they even brought this up. I'm thinking it was Clay and another guy, but I don't remember exactly. What a stupid thing to worry about though. You're regarded as the most physically gifted person to play the position. Who cares if Bar guy #3 thinks you look taller on TV. Get over it.

This thread will go on much longer, but really...we could just cut it right there. I agree with everything you said in here. The "a source who used to be close to Rodgers, but has now been cut out of his life," makes you raise an eye brow, but the overall portrait on top of what we already knew, it doesn't matter if all those things were exactly right, enough of it was right enough that they had to make some drastic changes. They've overhauled the front office bringing in some extremely highly regarded people from teams like the Ravens, they brought back a coach Rodgers has a good relationship with and they brought back a guy who sounds like a hard arse to be their OC, all moves that should make things work better with Rodgers moving forward.

First, I just wanted to say Rodgers and MM both deserve some kudos for keeping all this private. Even after MM firing Rodgers didn't throw him under the bus. Publicly, they supported each other. For that matter, all their coaches, players, etc. did a great job of keeping it in the locker room. Regarding McCarthy, there's plenty of evidence to suggest he's not (and wasn't) a very good football coach. Coaching is managing people, and he failed miserably managing the team's most important player. Even putting that aside, he passed himself off as an offensive guru when he really had nothing to add to the WCO. I've heard these stories over the last few years about opponents knowing the plays, routes, etc. Poor at adjusting as the game goes on, no interest in the defensive side of the ball or ST. Now we hear he skipped meeting before a game. (I'll even give him the benefit of a doubt on that one, as we don't know the details.) Can we really blame Rodgers if all this is true? Look at your own job. If you knew what needs to be done in your company or dept, but you have a boss that has no clue how does that make you feel? Yea, Rodgers is an odd duck, and I believe he is sensitive, driven by past slights, etc. but so what? If that's what motivates him, fine by me. I think there's a pretty substantial list of counterpoints to the ones you made, examples of him being innovative earlier, different examples players pointed to of him motivating them, the whole getting measured for SB rings the day before for example, moving Cobb into the backfield and then Montgomery on a more regular basis. And then if Rodgers isn't running what you're calling... I really don't know the whole, objective story, nor does anyone else. I would say though I think the things you mentioned weren't really applicable the first 8 or so years in GB. Particularly when he came in, took over a 4 win team, and had them a Favre special away from a trip to the Super Bowl. He's gone now, Rodgers is gonna have to show up big this year. If it falls apart again without McCarthy, he's gonna look bad. If he can get back on top the year after McCarthy leaves...well, that alone shold motivate him more than enough this year.

Yeah... Seven years of crap from Rogers... Years of abuse and disrespect heaped on Jennings... and that's the smoking gun of their relationship? And he had time to think about it, yet that is the clearest example of how Rogers disrespected Jennings?... Watch out Columbo... Watch out Perry Mason... You've met your match in Greg Jennings.... Poirot? A fool compared to the systematic case laid out by Greg Jennings... That actually had me laughing pretty good. What's most annoying is how he's STILL talking about it regularly. He goes on that moron Collin Cowherd's show, the wannabe Skip Bayless, tells that single story where Rodges says, "hey, you guys should sign him," and people are just shocked, acting as if it's on par with the Delonte West-LeBron James "issues" in Cleveland. Even Jennings talks about how he had Rodgers over before that and had an open door policy with him and spent holidays with him. That's why I said part of what I got out of all this is how pathetic some of this stuff is as well. If that was really a relationship killer....that's sad. How can you go through life being that sensitive? "He told a Redskins CB that they should sign me, so I knew I was done in Green Bay." Really? I just can't imagine cutting friends out of my life for what I perceive to be a small slight and something that they may not have ever given a second thought to. Imagine how long Jennings was angry about that. It's entirely possible Rodgers never once thought about that exchange. But after Jennings and his 'lil Sis start talking, then that bridge with Rodger IS permanently burned. And that's almost as sad on Rodgers part. Then the discussion turns to Rodgers sensitivity. At this point, I think people understand he's a bit sensitive. But I don't think the players who are speaking out against Rodgers are really saying anything of consequence. All Finley cared about was that 200 million dollars(which is not what he got as we all know). He just kept harping on that...and then the guy who hasn't been around in years has the nerve to talk about how Rodgers is the GM now BECAUSE they gave him that money. It's just hypocrisy. Jennings is obviously every bit as sensitive as Rodgers and Finley, who is calling Rodgers entitled, came into the league and couldn't' get on the field early on because he was too entitled and then was worried about getting more balls so he could get a big contract. So as much as I liked him as a player, he's the last guy I want to hear about from with regard to a player feeling entitled or talking about money.