If a player demonstrated that he is the best, and a team decides, even so, we don't want to pay him, as in any other business, he should be able to play elsewhere.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
If you have the money and you find the one player who can make you win and make the difference, no matter how expensive he is, you should do it. But there are not many players in the world who will make a real difference.
I think that players play, and they compete, and it's not about incentives.
Sure, sometimes guys pass you up in salary, and maybe it's a lesser player, but it's all based on what a team has as far as value in that person.
Players today are concerned about the money, but the large dollars only go to those players who are the best.
We can take action with a player without the league taking any action. But all that we can do is, we can deactivate him. But we're limited under the collective bargaining agreement to four games.
There should not be an entitlement that because you get paid the most money, that you should finish every game. But if you don't do it, then the agents are going to call, and the players are going to mope, and so you negotiate that. It's a compromise as a coach.
I won't accept anything less than the best a player's capable of doing... and he has the right to expect the best that I can do for him and the team!
The situation was, the team I was on when I got injured went down to the lower leagues. In America, they don't have that relegation, so when the team went down to the lower region, every player has his value, and they went off and sold any player who had value.
Every professional athlete owes a debt of gratitude to the fans and management, and pays an installment every time he plays. He should never miss a payment.
It is not about money. It is about how you treat the player.