-
You asked and we delivered! AMPReviews now provides the option to upgrade to VIP access via paid subscription as an alternative to writing your own reviews. VIP Access allows you to read all the hidden content within member-submitted reviews AND gives access to private VIP-only forums in each city. You can upgrade your account INSTANTLY by visiting the Account Upgrades page in your own user profile and using a valid credit card to purchase a subscription. You can get to this page by clicking the link in any review, by clicking the red "See the Details Now" banner on the home page, and by clicking the Purchase Private Details link in the navbar at the top of every page
Gisella vs Aurora vs Koreanna
- Thread starter digdug69
- Start date
Season Team Salary
1984-85 Chicago Bulls $ 550,000
1985-86 Chicago Bulls $ 630,000
1986-87 Chicago Bulls $ 737,500
1987-88 Chicago Bulls $ 845,000
1988-89 Chicago Bulls $ 2,000,000
1989-90 Chicago Bulls $ 2,500,000
1990-91 Chicago Bulls $ 2,500,000
1991-92 Chicago Bulls $ 3,250,000
1992-93 Chicago Bulls $ 4,000,000
1993-94 Chicago Bulls $ 4,000,000
1994-95 Chicago Bulls $ 3,850,000
1995-96 Chicago Bulls $ 3,850,000
1996-97 Chicago Bulls $ 30,140,000
1997-98 Chicago Bulls $ 33,140,000
2001-02 Washington Wizards $1,000,000
2002-03 Washington Wizards $1,030,00
It's reasonable to assert that the Jordan that scored 63 in the playoffs against the Celtics in '86 was the greatest Jordan. But it really isn't reasonable to assert that it's crazy to say otherwise. It's a matter of taste. He may have lost a bit of explosiveness and just a touch from the visual OMG impact in the 2nd half of his career, but his overall dominance of the game was arguably greater - not arguably, it's more or less conventional wisdom. And the visuals were still better than almost all of, the younger players. And of the others who are in that conversation visually....well, in 1997 are you taking Kobe or MJ?
In my view, Gisella is roughly analagous to 92-93 Jordan, who could suddenly hit you with the unexpected and nail 6 three-pointers in the first half against the Blazers.
Aurora is the 95-98 version. Coming out of retirement of sorts and returning greater than ever in terms of having near absolute control over her opponents and doing essentially as she pleases. Too bad for us and Jerry Reinsdorf, about that 1996-97 bump in pay. But did Reinsdorf say, "why am I paying this guy this much when I had him for 1/10th the price before?" Well, he probably did say that. But he did it anyway. The market is the market.
Never met her, but it does sound to me like Koreanna is Wizards Jordan. Yeah, I wouldn't give Wizards Jordan that 97-98 salary either, so I probably won't be meeting her until she drops to Wizard Jordan salary. I do pray that both G and C/A get out before they become Wizards Jordan themselves. That would make me sad. But they have some time. Though Wizards Jordan actually was still a pretty great player. And at that salary, a great value. Just not MICHAEL JORDAN.
Hey, the analaogy works for CherryDD too: Now that I think about it, CherryDD might be bordering on Wizards Jordan. But at 360, she's analagous to the bargain Wizards Jordan salary.
Learned something today - MJ got a salary for that missing 93-94 season. I wonder what Chanel's version of the Birmingham Barons was.
1984-85 Chicago Bulls $ 550,000
1985-86 Chicago Bulls $ 630,000
1986-87 Chicago Bulls $ 737,500
1987-88 Chicago Bulls $ 845,000
1988-89 Chicago Bulls $ 2,000,000
1989-90 Chicago Bulls $ 2,500,000
1990-91 Chicago Bulls $ 2,500,000
1991-92 Chicago Bulls $ 3,250,000
1992-93 Chicago Bulls $ 4,000,000
1993-94 Chicago Bulls $ 4,000,000
1994-95 Chicago Bulls $ 3,850,000
1995-96 Chicago Bulls $ 3,850,000
1996-97 Chicago Bulls $ 30,140,000
1997-98 Chicago Bulls $ 33,140,000
2001-02 Washington Wizards $1,000,000
2002-03 Washington Wizards $1,030,00
It's reasonable to assert that the Jordan that scored 63 in the playoffs against the Celtics in '86 was the greatest Jordan. But it really isn't reasonable to assert that it's crazy to say otherwise. It's a matter of taste. He may have lost a bit of explosiveness and just a touch from the visual OMG impact in the 2nd half of his career, but his overall dominance of the game was arguably greater - not arguably, it's more or less conventional wisdom. And the visuals were still better than almost all of, the younger players. And of the others who are in that conversation visually....well, in 1997 are you taking Kobe or MJ?
In my view, Gisella is roughly analagous to 92-93 Jordan, who could suddenly hit you with the unexpected and nail 6 three-pointers in the first half against the Blazers.
Aurora is the 95-98 version. Coming out of retirement of sorts and returning greater than ever in terms of having near absolute control over her opponents and doing essentially as she pleases. Too bad for us and Jerry Reinsdorf, about that 1996-97 bump in pay. But did Reinsdorf say, "why am I paying this guy this much when I had him for 1/10th the price before?" Well, he probably did say that. But he did it anyway. The market is the market.
Never met her, but it does sound to me like Koreanna is Wizards Jordan. Yeah, I wouldn't give Wizards Jordan that 97-98 salary either, so I probably won't be meeting her until she drops to Wizard Jordan salary. I do pray that both G and C/A get out before they become Wizards Jordan themselves. That would make me sad. But they have some time. Though Wizards Jordan actually was still a pretty great player. And at that salary, a great value. Just not MICHAEL JORDAN.
Hey, the analaogy works for CherryDD too: Now that I think about it, CherryDD might be bordering on Wizards Jordan. But at 360, she's analagous to the bargain Wizards Jordan salary.
Learned something today - MJ got a salary for that missing 93-94 season. I wonder what Chanel's version of the Birmingham Barons was.
An older a provider gets and she is able to continue to increase prices on guys who just are in awe of her service and perhaps even their looks. To even compare them to Michael Jordan and the market is astounding to me.
In no way do i think a provider past 33 should be the most expensive provider at an agency in the city.
However many of you make this a reality for them. I can't hate they definitely have several of you convinced. Make that bread ma'am. I like to say babygirl when i say make that bread but it doesn't apply with these Women.
I think a better analogy is how Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander were over paid and the Mets had to eat some salary for a team to take them.
Most people are aware that overall older providers are better at their craft than younger providers. However they do not typically command as much as the younger providers. This sometimes gets out of wack with certain pros.
Glad you and others enjoy yourselves with these pros . However myself i can't justify these rates with these ages on pros. It's like justifying buying or leasing a 2014 Audi to a 2022 Audi for a higher price.
Lastly Cherry is at a good rate and if anything at all could be a bit less.
In no way do i think a provider past 33 should be the most expensive provider at an agency in the city.
However many of you make this a reality for them. I can't hate they definitely have several of you convinced. Make that bread ma'am. I like to say babygirl when i say make that bread but it doesn't apply with these Women.
I think a better analogy is how Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander were over paid and the Mets had to eat some salary for a team to take them.
Most people are aware that overall older providers are better at their craft than younger providers. However they do not typically command as much as the younger providers. This sometimes gets out of wack with certain pros.
Glad you and others enjoy yourselves with these pros . However myself i can't justify these rates with these ages on pros. It's like justifying buying or leasing a 2014 Audi to a 2022 Audi for a higher price.
Lastly Cherry is at a good rate and if anything at all could be a bit less.
"Command" in this context would normally mean: able to successfully complete a transaction with consumers who knowingly agree to pay that amount. So you are demonstrably incorrect factually.
"Deserve" OTOH is subjective, and you all are entitled to your opinion, and your opinions are not inherently wrong or crazy. I would never tell anyone how to value their marginal dollars. But I am hardly alone in valuing those names as being at the top of the list, and we are fully informed customers. I see younger providers too. They have their advantages. You value those advantages more than I do. No question in my mind that G and C/A are better FOR ME than any younger girl.
Glad I could astound you. I will not be budging from that analogy. His pure athleticism was better in the 80s, but he was a better player in the 90s. And even when he started to decline he was still better than anyone else.
@Uniquelyme, scanning who we both have seen this year it looks like it's just Hana at Xoxo. I take it you prefer those two. That's fine. Both very lovely girls. Yuri is in my top 20 (though she ain't that young either) and Hana in my top 30. No way in hell would I value those two over my top two. That's my taste. Once you get the ranking out of the way, then it's a question of marginal cost for marginal quality. That's a different question for everyone depending on their ability to pay.
Which brings us to the Mets.
I don't do baseball as much. So I'll probably screw up the analogies here. Forgive me. But going with the notion of value of marginal dollars. Steve Cohen thought that those two were worth more than any younger pitcher. They were going to get top salaries no matter what, right? He just paid the most. And with the funds that he has, he doesn't care about marginal dollars. Some of us are Steve Cohen/Mets. Some of us are the Oakland As and have to care about marginal quality/marginal $. Cohen knew what he was doing. And without knowing baseball, if those two were complete free agents, somebody is still going to pay them very high salaries, right? More relevantly, the analogy is flawed, because I assume the Mets are getting top prospects in return.....WHO ARE NOT BE GOOD AS SCHERZER AND VERLANDER RIGHT NOW. (Are they? If they're not getting top prospects, then those are terrible trades). So that's a different sort of equation when you're dealing with a lost season and now are planning for 2025. I mean, if this were baseball, I might consider trading one of my top two to acquire SL Kotone and then lock her up on a long-term deal, knowing that by 2025 Kotone might develop into one of the greatest pitchers ever - assuming those fabulous massive but ridiculous implants soften up over time and she refines some of her skills and personalizes her passion a little bit more. But she's too young right now).
For the record, I'm closer to the A's. I haven't decided yet how high I'll go myself. But if I was Steve Cohen I would be commanded.
"Deserve" OTOH is subjective, and you all are entitled to your opinion, and your opinions are not inherently wrong or crazy. I would never tell anyone how to value their marginal dollars. But I am hardly alone in valuing those names as being at the top of the list, and we are fully informed customers. I see younger providers too. They have their advantages. You value those advantages more than I do. No question in my mind that G and C/A are better FOR ME than any younger girl.
Glad I could astound you. I will not be budging from that analogy. His pure athleticism was better in the 80s, but he was a better player in the 90s. And even when he started to decline he was still better than anyone else.
@Uniquelyme, scanning who we both have seen this year it looks like it's just Hana at Xoxo. I take it you prefer those two. That's fine. Both very lovely girls. Yuri is in my top 20 (though she ain't that young either) and Hana in my top 30. No way in hell would I value those two over my top two. That's my taste. Once you get the ranking out of the way, then it's a question of marginal cost for marginal quality. That's a different question for everyone depending on their ability to pay.
Which brings us to the Mets.
I don't do baseball as much. So I'll probably screw up the analogies here. Forgive me. But going with the notion of value of marginal dollars. Steve Cohen thought that those two were worth more than any younger pitcher. They were going to get top salaries no matter what, right? He just paid the most. And with the funds that he has, he doesn't care about marginal dollars. Some of us are Steve Cohen/Mets. Some of us are the Oakland As and have to care about marginal quality/marginal $. Cohen knew what he was doing. And without knowing baseball, if those two were complete free agents, somebody is still going to pay them very high salaries, right? More relevantly, the analogy is flawed, because I assume the Mets are getting top prospects in return.....WHO ARE NOT BE GOOD AS SCHERZER AND VERLANDER RIGHT NOW. (Are they? If they're not getting top prospects, then those are terrible trades). So that's a different sort of equation when you're dealing with a lost season and now are planning for 2025. I mean, if this were baseball, I might consider trading one of my top two to acquire SL Kotone and then lock her up on a long-term deal, knowing that by 2025 Kotone might develop into one of the greatest pitchers ever - assuming those fabulous massive but ridiculous implants soften up over time and she refines some of her skills and personalizes her passion a little bit more. But she's too young right now).
For the record, I'm closer to the A's. I haven't decided yet how high I'll go myself. But if I was Steve Cohen I would be commanded.