Of Shoes and Cynicism
by rbiegler on Oct 11, 2011 10:02 AM PDT
Email
PrintBiegler waxes on the underlying narrative and risk of the lockout. -- TZ
ESPN: The Magazine publishes an ongoing piece entitled "Show Us Your Closet" or "Out of the Closet" or something to that effect that features professional athletes taking readers on a tour of their wardrobe. A recent edition showcased Joe Johnson and his shoe closet. A shoe closet that had literally thousands of pairs of shoes, many of which Johnson admitted he had never worn, and was protected by some combination of code, handprint, eye scan and Rachmaninoff piano solo. I thought at the time, as did many others, that it was a humorously unfortunate piece to run in the midst of a protracted labor dispute between NBA owners and players. And it was a particularly unfortunate player to have featured as Johnson, more than anyone with the possible exceptions of Eddy Curry and Rashard Lewis, has personified the excess of recent NBA contracts.
Labor disputes are resolved, to some degree, by one side or the other's ability to engender popular support. One side, or the other, is usually a victim of inequity. One side, or the other, is usually being taken advantage of. I am ardently pro-labor largely because most members of my father's family were Eastern European coal miners in Southern Utah who spoke little English and exposed themselves daily to black lung. If there was not some structural support system to prevent the working class from being taken advantage of there is no doubt they would be taken advantage of.
At least from a perception standpoint, the NBA labor dispute exists at the opposite end of this spectrum. This has been depicted as a fight between millionaires and billionaires. Because it is a fight between millionaires and billionaires. And this is why, many would argue, the players, despite so clearly being in the right, have struggled with popular support. The NBA, more than any other professional sports league, overcompensates its players. NBA players, more than any other professional athletes, have options outside of the NBA. Maybe playing in Greece isn't ideal, but it's a better alternative to those afforded back-up long snappers that end up managing Sharper Images in Tulsa.
Ostensibly this is the leverage the Association is currently using in its negotiations. That NBA players, as their shoe compounds would indicate, are already richly compensated. That owners do indeed need to be saved from themselves. That owners do indeed deserve to be saved from themselves. But the problem, of course, is that that isn't the real leverage the Association is using. The problem is the leverage the Association is covertly, maybe even sub-consciously, using is the leverage it always uses when there's a dispute with players, whether regarding the age limit, or the dress code, or even the Heatles. It is the issue that dogs the NBA daily no matter how much we may sophisticate as a fan base, culture, country. It is the issue of race.
The NBA, it is often said, will never be as popular professionally as the other major sports because of the fundamental disconnect between the core viewing audience of professional sports and the core participating in professional basketball. The middle aged white man, historically, is at odds culturally with the 20 something African American. Now this argument, to most of us, seems antiquated, and it is, but it keeps showing up. There is a chicken and egg like quality to it. Does a middle class white fan-base resent professional basketball players because they're blacks who happen to be multimillionaires? Or do they resent professional basketball players because they're multimillionaires who happen to be black? It is an ugly question to ask and an even uglier question to answer. And it is a question the NBA has gone to great lengths to make moot. The more young people that grow up in the culture of basketball, the more that the culture of basketball becomes culture the more the issue of race in basketball becomes less an issue and more the perception of an issue.
And this, to me, is the fundamental sin of the lockout. That the NBA is squalidly, cynically leveraging the exact thing that it, at least superficially, has spent the last 3 decades trying to transcend. The perception of race. It isn't that NBA players are multimillionaires. It's that they're multimillionaires with thousands of pairs of Jordans. This is the reason Russian oligarchs and destitute Vegas carnies can somehow come across sympathetically. Because of cultural dissonance. The NBA knows this. The NBA is the most self aware business there is. The NBA knows not just that is has the luxury of a long season, public disinterest until at least late January and arena revenue. It has the luxury of decades of disconnect. A disconnect it has worked to bridge simply by bringing the public the game of basketball. It is not just depriving the public of that game, it is depriving the public of what that game represents.
That is the real tragedy in all of this. Not that we're losing two weeks of a season and that by losing two weeks of the season we will almost inevitably lose more. The real tragedy isn't that it sets back all the goodwill the NBA earned after last year's playoffs. The real tragedy is that it, perhaps tacitly, sets back race relations. Which is, fundamentally, what basketball is all about. And it is why a lockout, even two weeks' worth of one, matters. We, the fans, the owners, the players, remain trapped in a closet.
(This is a FanPost from a member of the Sactown Royalty community. The views expressed come from the member, and not Sactown Royalty staff.)
49 comments
|
18 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rec'd
Agree or disagree, it’s a substantive viewpoint the major media players will not or can not bring to the forefront.
disagree
to me race is a non-issue in this. it comes down to business. i’ve been the guy on several occasions to outsource a group of people or to shut down business in one location and move it to another. the only thing that is a factor is the bottom line – how much money is this going to save the company and how does it impact the budget. who those people are, what their race is, what their income level is, etc. etc. has nothing to do with it. that’s business in the world we live in.
people can fight it, they can make excuses for it, they can talk all day about whether it is right or wrong but the reality is it is not going to change. decisions are made for financial reasons – to try and interject race into a financial decisions is ridiculous. the nba players could be oompa-loompas for the owners care.
I doubt rbiegler disagrees with this
it comes down to business.
That’s really the point of the article (or what I garnered from it). The NBA has a leverage in their business negotiations, and they are using it.
And I'm a veteran of union-management labor negotiations (on both sides of the equation)
The public perception is often a big piece of how things eventually shake out – I’d gather especially so in a high-profile business like the NBA.
That
is probably more to my point. It’s how you can control a narrative. How you can shape a debate. An argument can be made that how you run, say, an office supply store, is fundamentally no different than the way in which you run an NBA franchise. I’d agree with that on the ground level (concessions, receptionists etc.) But this is fundamentally an argument of inequity between two wealthy sets of people. And, yes, I think the general public has a hard time feeling sorry for players because of how obscenely they’re compensated. But some of that I think still has to do not just with how people are compensated but who is being compensated.
I do, however, agree with Mustang’s comment that if the players are our variation of Occupy Wall Street these aren’t individuals struggly to pay their bills, these aren’t individual empathetic, really, to the current state of the middle class. And that further skewers this standoff.
Class trumps race for me.
I think what really got me was that the owners said they were offering up a certain percentage, but then that ended up being out of a net amount. Really reducing it down considerably.
The owners came across as trying to shaft the players by cooking the books, so to speak, while presenting to the fans that they were offering something they weren’t. That put the owners into a bad light and made me think of them more in terms of Wall Street rather than Main Street.
The middle class have more in common with the players, who generally come from poor to middle class roots, than billionaires who inherited money to squander. I really do think, that an emotional and subconscious level, class trumps race.
I didn't major in Common F-cking Sense, but ...
by MustangMBS on Oct 11, 2011 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I could write a dissertation on classism
and I won’t since it’s not what we talk about here, I’ll just say I agree with you and that many of our society’s challenges are associated with the hidden effects of classism.
Where's my pie
by TheFifthMookie on Oct 11, 2011 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Why don't you
call me when you have no class?
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Oct 11, 2011 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The disposition of the American Black male will always be controversial
because it is based on experience. Regardless of actual economic, political, or cultural background, Black men’s identities are reduced to a phenotypical representation.
You made reference to the chicken or the egg, and in my opinion prejudice is built in to society. But, not a single average Joe can identify with any professional athlete of any race if we start with their salaries. The idea that White viewers can somehow identify with Peyton Manning or Jimmer Fredette is a marketing trick.
The labor negotiations doesn’t put off any fan because of racial tensions, but because these young men are characterized as complaining about not getting a big enough share of the pie while still becoming millionaires while playing a game.
A brief comparison between Mormonism and Historic Christianity
http://carm.org/comparison-between-christian-doctrine-and-mormon-doctrine
A former atheist's (me) appeal: Creation Science
http://creation.com/creation-answers
And as others have summarized your point, its all about business.
A brief comparison between Mormonism and Historic Christianity
http://carm.org/comparison-between-christian-doctrine-and-mormon-doctrine
A former atheist's (me) appeal: Creation Science
http://creation.com/creation-answers
by sac_faithful on Oct 11, 2011 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
We are a society of diverse and disparate parts with little in common
With common culture that which is perpetuated, or often perpetrated, on TV it can be argued that which we view binds us all a bit closer to each other as a society. As such, I prefer the typification of black males as rich basketball players with some sense of style over their portrayal as gang-bangers doing drivebys.
The NBA does present another proto-type of the black males, but I don’t think that fans will translate their entire NBA viewpoint through that lense. I think many will see the struggle against “the man” by those black, yellow, red, white, or rainbow as a class struggle. This is after all and ultimately a class struggle and the players are doing a good job of saying the money isn’t the issue.
Just put this in the context of the ultra rich making huge profits on Wall Street by ripping off Main Street and the protests going on in New York. The player’s union and the labor disagreement have to be taken in context. And that is the tide turning on basing our culture on furthering affluent interests over those trying to get ahead.
I didn't major in Common F-cking Sense, but ...
Great piece
First of all this kudos for a such a thought provoking piece
I’m inclined for the most part to be pro player as I look at the money in the league people come to see the players who drive the engine get their fair share of the income. Of course what is fair is why there is a lockout now isn’t there! When you look at many of the owners in the league (hello Maloof Brothers, Donald Sterling et al) its not like it talent to make money to own a team, I would be more sympethetic to ownership if they were contributing to new stadiums, all they do is just pocket money, is there anything wrong with that no, but I don’t need hear about the risk they are taking, when for most owners owning a team is a glorified fantasy league
I wonder if the NBA maybe a league overly reliant on talent, for a league that markets its stars that’s great when the stars are genuinely talented, ie MJ and the Bulls, but when its Andrew Bogut and the Bucks fans see through that and fans switch off. The league is lucky now with Labron et al but there is no guarantee that there will be stars forever, which I think leads to problems for the NBA drawing fans on a consistent basis
Should we really care who players spend their money, do we care how Donald Sterling spends his money, he has been involved in some really awful real estate issues in LA with not renting to minorities, the Maloofs have not made friends with some of there business decisions, but there is outrage that Joe Johnson is buying shows at a rate that would make Imelda Marcos jealous. That Atlanta Hawks chose to give him this money is probably why there is a lockout, but why is it the players fault that team management and ownership chose to give him that money. Why should the players have to protect the owners from themselves?
ESPN is a broadcast partner of the NBA, what a surprise that they would run this story, is this a news story or great PR by the League to paint the players in a negative light. It helps the PR narrative of the country struggling in hard economic times, but is that really the case in the lockout, I think its NBA owners trying to redress an imbalance and using the recession backdrop as PR leverage
...
At the risk of setting off a political debate, when you’re looking to improve race relations, one of the last places you should look is pro sports.
Media discipline aside, the ownerships usually do crazy and stupid shit as well, as our own destitute Vegas carnies showed with their infamous Carls Jr commercials.
The only advantage the ownerships have is that there’s only 30 of them to say or do stupid billionaire crap, while there’s something on the order of 300 players out there able to say or do stupid millionaire crap.
The message discipline is far greater on the ownerships than it is on the players, and that’s where the difference in public perception lies in this conflict.
"You take one step out that door and somebody’s gonna get fucked real bad" ... Elfboy
by SierraSpartan on Oct 11, 2011 3:01 PM PDT reply actions 7 recs
Rec'd for:
Media discipline aside, the ownerships usually do crazy and stupid shit as well, as our own destitute Vegas carnies showed with their infamous Carls Jr commercials.
Where's my pie
by TheFifthMookie on Oct 11, 2011 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions
The only advantage the ownerships have is that there’s only 30 of them to say or do stupid billionaire crap, while there’s something on the order of 300 players out there able to say or do stupid millionaire crap.
And people wonder why the commissioner’s office was willing to throw around all of those massive fines.
by wallywagon11 on Oct 18, 2011 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions
It definitely works both ways
Because the owners are white, over middle aged, and rich, everyone assumes they must be greedy, lying, jerks who inherited all of their money from their even richer parents and don’t know how to manage anything, causing the problem in the first place.
And because the players are young, rich, and in many cases black, people assume they are spoiled arrogant punks who are going to blow their money anyway and have no idea what it is like to work a day in their lives.
And the fact that in some cases both of these are true does nothing to help the matter. The truth is that you have a company that is hurting financially like pretty much all companies in this economy. And you have workers who are being asked to take huge pay cuts in a situation where they are not only the workers, but the entire product.
There are going to be hot tempers, dumb comments, and eventually a deal. I don’t think it matters a hill of beans what people think about rich white guys or rich black guys. It’s easy to try and make this more than it is, but all we can really do is wait for the pain on both sides to get high enough that they finally come to a point or mutual agreement.
It comes down to reality
And it's fine with me 'cause I've let it slide
by SavageBeast on Oct 11, 2011 5:16 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Rec'd, with special appreciation for this line
The truth is that you have a company that is hurting financially like pretty much all companies in this economy. And you have workers who are being asked to take huge pay cuts in a situation where they are not only the workers, but the entire product.
by LPKingsFan on Oct 12, 2011 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
First thought:
A couple of months ago we joked that TZ keeps rbiegler locked in his closet, chained up and only allowed sunshine about an hour a day, and rbiegler begins his piece with mention of a closet… hmm.
Second thought: As an international fan, I’m not as exposed to the concept of white v black racism. It’s not to say that racism doesn’t exist in my country – just not white v black. We have brown v beige v yellow. (Even more messed up is that brown v brown v beige v beige v yellow v yellow happens too – Asians are racist against all Asian races, including our own). So the thought about this being about race perception had truly never entered my mind. Perhaps being a product of a mixed race marriage means I’m actually messed up.
MustangMBS did hit it on the head though, it is a class thing. And not billionaires v millionaires, that’s not why the public perception is not strongly supporting NBA players. It’s not labor v management either. It’s employment v unemployment.
I think as a guy struggling with the new economy, hustling to make a buck and/or a living, someone choosing not to work is not going to get our sympathy. In fact it gets our indifference. The Players Association (NBPA or whatever acronym they use) has made the mistake of advertising they can go elsewhere to work. They wouldn’t like to but they can.
It’s not a luxury the common fan has, because it is a luxury. What we’re left with is the perception that players have work, but are greedy, while the rest of us common folk are struggling to find steady jobs.
As an international fan, I can tell you that most of us don’t care about ownership – simply because most of us don’t know who owns the teams. In fact I could tell people that Michael Jordan owns a team and they’d say, Chicago right? Internationally, the players are the most visible and therefore the most known and the most cared about.
We care about the players but don’t care about their fight against ownership? Why? Because we have our own leagues. We may not pay top dollar, but we have work here. If you really want to work, come. But you don’t really wanna work, even with all those “Let Us Play” tweets. You want more money, and that sucks.
Now, ownership is losing money, because they’re stupid. Well tell us something we don’t already know. All of us who work for the man, or at least somebody else, know, our bosses are the stupidest pieces of shit to have ever crawled onto the surface of the Earth. Ownership is stupid, but throughout this entire lockout, our perception of them hasn’t worsened. I mean, it’s hard to hate stupid people more than you already hate them. The players though, have gone from awesome talent to greedy wastrels to clueless mofos to just uncompromising asses. The fans perspective on them has worsened.
The players aren’t going to win this battle in the short term or the long one. The biggest threat to the NBA isn’t 360 players. Because the NBA isn’t really 360 players. It’s the top 50 players. Maybe even the top 30 because that’s what it is internationally branded as.
The biggest threat to the NBA (and David Stern knows this) is other leagues. International leagues. The league that can put the top 30-50 NBA players in the world together will be the new NBA internationally.
Stern has worked tirelessly to make NBA synonymous with basketball all over the world. Bird v Magic took the game national. Jordan took it international. Yao took it to China. Everyone else is reaping the benefits.
I hear time and again that the NBA is the players. Without the players you have no product. Well, let’s say that’s true. In business, what do you do when you’re selling a product to a person who says they can’t afford it and they won’t pay for it? Well, you don’t sell them the product right? You look for another buyer. That’s where super agents like Leon Rose need to be looking at. Taking all their NBA clients and looking for another buyer to hire them all.
NBA owners can’t collude, but those limitations do not apply to players, agents and other leagues. So if the players really want to work and really wants David Stern to be on their side? The top 30-50 players in the NBA, your LeBrons, your Kobe’s, your CP3’s need to collude. And collude with a foreign league. One league. Join the Chinese League. Or Spain, play for less money but take the product away from the NBA.
It’s kind of a bluff, but the threat needs to be real. Stern & co. aren’t on the players side at the moment, and therefore nothing will get done. They will willingly risk losing a season because they think that the players will cave in by the time they’re canceling Christmas games. The owners aren’t too fussed because of 1998. They feel this has happened before and are on comfortable ground, because 1998 got saved. That has to change.
If the top NBA players though agreed to all go overseas, commit to a season of overseas ball, then Stern & co. will start sweating. Plus, the players will do their own brands a lot of good. Sponsors aren’t going to abandon players for not playing in the NBA, especially if they play in another huge domestic market. NBA superstars will have as much marketability as ever. Also huge plus – future lockouts will only threaten owners, not players.
Now I’m actually against the players leaving the NBA, but if the players really want this to be about work, to be about basketball and not money (at least perception wise), then have them all look overseas seriously. Not the old we’re trying to save a season shit. Have headlines like 30 of the biggest NBA stars looking to take their talents to South Korea. Make the NBA sweat knowing that someone else is going to benefit from the marketing of the NBA.
In short, to win at this and all future CBA negotiations, the players are going to have to bite the bullet and try to take their talents global – just as the NBA took its marketing global.
*My longest post ever!
This.
by elfboy_ on Oct 11, 2011 8:39 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Good thoughts
I really would like to see more European and other national leagues on TV. It would be cool to get to know basketball as it is played in the broader world and having NBA elite talent in those teams could get them air time on US television…
Also, Stern works for the owners and will never be on the side of the players. He really is only accountable to the owners, but if the Stern and owners realized that they really have the potential of losing their basketball monopoly in the US they would be more willing to negotiate.
The player’s union has talked about de-certifying and, though I don’t know all the ins and outs, it could be a real possibility if players started to take guaranteed one-year contracts out of the US.
I didn't major in Common F-cking Sense, but ...
I'm not very good at writing, so this is all I have to add
by chenp22 on Oct 11, 2011 11:21 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Just my 2 cents
But there seems to be a general agreement that the majority of owners are losing money with the current agreement. That to me is the biggest reason that the public is less sympathetic to the players this time around.
my two cents
Just cos the owners say they are losing money are they, I’m sure some teams are losing money, but I think part of this is how the league is structured. I think if the owners worked out some of there issues rather than trying to place it all on the players I’d be more sympathetic
One more question, As someone who was not born in the US, I thought the American Dream was the opportunity to work hard and make the most money you could. It seems that serves the guys who own the teams just fine, but when the players make too much money they get called greedy and selfish. Are athletes overpaid for what they do, that may well be the case but if someone wants to offer you a max contract ala Rashard Lewis are you going to turn them down.
The owners losing money is their own fault...
but I still side with them because smaller markets have to over-pay to avoid having players leave to join a larger market. Additionally, I haven’t seen any argument for the players side in these negotiations that haven’t essentially boiled down to “we want more money”. The owners, on the other hand, have AT LEAST brought up the concept of “improving the system”, by limiting the “haves” so that the “have nots” (like Sacramento) can be competitive on a regular basis.
In light of all this, I hope this mediator they are bringing in will have a fan perspective:
We pay to watch the players, not the owners : Give the players 55% of BRI.
We pay to watch a league, not three teams and some bottom-feeders : Institute revenue sharing and a more strict luxury tax as the “haves” spend more on their team.
We pay to watch our favorite teams : Institute a system which essentially amounts to cap-relief for teams when their drafted players stay on their team; in other words, don’t count a team’s own draft picks against the cap. Teams will build through the draft rather than free agency and players can still get their money by being the best player on their team.
REKEROY
@ MIL : Game winner
@ CHI : Leads Kings to GREATEST ROAD COMEBACK ever
vs WAS : Game-sealing steal and FTs
Rook. vs Soph. : MVP
vs DEN : Game winner
vs UTA : Game-sealing layup
vs TOR : Triple Double
Some good points here
I have a really tough time with the “small markets can’t be competitive” angle though. I did a quick analysis (very unofficial and based on my own idea of smaller vs. larger markets) of the final four teams in the playoffs over the length of the last CBA. Here’s what I found:
8 of the 13 champions would be classified as “larger” market teams, 5 would be classified as “smaller” market.
Of the “final four” participants, I show 22 as “larger” market teams, and 30 as “smaller” market teams.
So clearly, while the system may need tweaking, and the BRI should be modified a bit – there’s no proof that small market teams were completely handcuffed under the prior CBA. They may have to operate smarter than the big market teams, but that’s why you hire smart people, right?
by otis29 on Oct 14, 2011 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Nice. Quick question though. Is Portland a small market team in your analysis?
If so, I contend that it may be more informative to look at Billionaire owners vs. millionaire owners. Just another thing to take into consideration.
by Kfan in Korea on Oct 14, 2011 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Here's the problem to me
Big markets get the stars regularly. In other leagues this either doesn’t happen (football) or doesn’t matter as much (baseball).
In basketball stars matter. Your analysis probably includes LeBron’s teams in Cleveland (who he abandoned) and San Antonio (where Duncan is the rare exception to the rule). Durant is lining up as the new Duncan, which may preserve this to some extent. However, there is already all sorts of chatter about Howard going to LA. And now “super-teams” are becoming popular. The NBA needs to counteract this long term.
I don’t think most NBA fans require NFL style parity where any team can win any year. But small market teams need to know they have an equal chance. If Sacramento fans watch Tyreke and Cousins become stars and then flee to LA and NY, then it will kill the market. What is the point of cheering for a small market team, praying that you get the once a decade star like Duncan and Durant who don’t mind playing in a smaller market?
Just curious
but why is Duncan the rare exception? What about David Robinson (heck even same team) or Barkley, the Dream, Dirk? Or Iverson, Garnett? Sure they moved around but both played over 10 years in Philly and Minny. And how long was Lebron in Cleveland? 7 years? And won’t Howard push 8 at the least?
I dunno. I get the sense people are treating player movement today like everyone is trying to pull a McGrady when in fact it’s more like Grant Hill’s situation.
by wallywagon11 on Oct 15, 2011 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Once you start reaching too far back I think you are getting into a different era
It used to be that stars stayed with their teams, which made basketball accessible to all markets.
Now it is the rare exception when a start doesn’t try to flee a smaller market. Over time, I think this will cause more problems. Why invest your time, money and emotion into what is essentially a minor league team?
Now is the rare exception? Bullshit.
I remember Brian Grant leaving Sac after three years. I remember Shaq leaving Orlando after 4, McGrady leaving after 3, and Marbury being able to force the Twolves during his third season. Even saw Boozer and Gilbert leave after just two years.
by wallywagon11 on Oct 16, 2011 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I think the LeBron thing caused a whole bunch of hysteria
Apparently it’s an epidemic.
by otis29 on Oct 16, 2011 6:40 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I'm not sure how much relevance you can give to my off-the-cuff research
All I’m saying is that the prior CBA wasn’t a deal-breaker for the smaller market teams. IMO, the players should be willing to adjust the BRI down a bit (because clearly the expenses of running a team in this economy are higher), and leave everything else as is.
LeBron and D12 leaivng has nothing to do with wanting bigger bucks in a bigger market
It’s about being on mis-managed teams and being forced to play with subpar teammates during their entire tenure (LeBron more-so than D12 obviously). And the fact that LeBron and D12 did stick with their teams for 7 years each, giving ample time to make smart personnel decision and build talent-laden rosters, shows that it’s not just about fleeing ASAP.
Duncan stayed cause the Spurs were well run. Durant is (likely) gonna stay cause the Thunder are well run. LeBron didn’t because the Cavs weren’t well run, and D12 isn’t cause the Magic are not well run.
If the Kings make good personnel decisions and manage the team effectively, Tyreke and DeMarcus will stay. Book it and send it to the line.
" 1 + 1 = 3 " - David Kahn
by Shizzo on Oct 20, 2011 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
First, rec.
Second
Duncan stayed cause the Spurs were well run.
Duncan came very close to signing with the Orlando Magic after his third season, in the summer of 2000.
by wallywagon11 on Oct 20, 2011 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Yea. But he chose to stay. And I can only assume it's because he liked what the Spurs were up to.
" 1 + 1 = 3 " - David Kahn
yeah sorry
it wasn’t a critique of what you wrote, it’s to point out how the perfect example over 10 years ago could have been different. Basically, what is happening today is not new or unique is all.
by wallywagon11 on Oct 20, 2011 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh no worries, wasn't taking it as a critique.
In fact, I was imagining how different a narrative we’d have regarding Tim Duncan. Right now he’s a golden boy with perfect morale fortitude, a true champion, and a throwback player with ultimate fundamentals.
But if he abandoned (notice the word I chose there) San Antonio to join up with Shaq in Orlando, and each others’ presence diminshed their individual games we might be thinking of him as a great 2nd banana – first to David Robinson and then to Shaq – but never good enough to be a primary option. Now obviously this is pure conjecture that they would significantly bring each others’ numbers down.
" 1 + 1 = 3 " - David Kahn
Of course it boils down to how the franchise is run...
but that doesn’t change the FACT that some teams have more options and more opportunities than others. The Lakers can spend 12 million on Luke Walton, Derek Fisher, and Steve Blake and still afford to bring in 4 All-Stars. Sacramento… hell that would have been 25% of their payroll last year. For scrubs.
Looks to me like…
OKC, Sacramento, San Antonio… they can legitimately build through the Draft.
L.A., Boston, Chicago… they can legitimately build through both the Draft AND Free Agency.
There’s a real issue here, isn’t there?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on Sactown Royalty
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Behind the Box Score, where the Boston Celtics are moving on to the conference finals
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
