comments of Gee's mail-in

[Kestutis.Kveraga@dartmouth.edu (Kestutis Kveraga)]

I know I shouldn't be wasting my time on this schlock, but...

"Look at last year's Eastern titlists, the 76ers. First, Allen Iverson
went from tremendous but troubled talent (sound familiar?) to runaway
MVP. Then, Philly traded for Dikembe Mutumbo. And they still didn't get
a sniff of the Lakers in the finals."

I wouldn't call winning one game, and nearly winning two others not getting a
sniff. 

"The NBA's labor laws have destroyed competition for the foreseeable
future. Teams can't acquire critical masses of All-Star talent (under
the current rules, Dennis Johnson would never have joined the '80s
Celts). They can only improve when their stars get better. Since half
the NBA's teams have no stars, they also have no hope."

Gee, Michael, I guess your definition of competition is concentrating all the
best players into  2-3 powerhouses, while the rest of the teams play the role
of the Washinton Generals.  In Gee's universe, the Cubans and Allens of the
league could just buy up every superstar from the less fortunate teams, while
driving the size of the player contracts into outer space from the stratosphere
that they're currently in. Gee, I wonder how he'd like it if, say, the Lakers
could offer Pierce $150M to come home and collect a championship every year. On
a second thought, he'd probably love it, because he could look like he knows
his stuff (in his mind) by mailing-in columns about how much the Celtics suck
and how they have no chance of winning more than 20 games next season.  

The reason the Lakers look invincible now is because they peaked at the right
time, while Portland and San Antonio bottomed out at the wrong time. I wonder
what Gee was saying about the Lakers earlier in the season. Now every media
schmuck is on the bandwagon, saying how the Lakers can't be beaten. Yet Phily
had a legit chance of winning3 of the 5 games, and that's with AI rapidly
breaking down, Lynch coming back from injury, and Hill having a crappy series.
Moreover, Gee and his brethren are predicting this without considering what
effect the new rules will have on Shaq, who, needless to say, is by far the
primary reason the Lakers are thought to be unbeatable. A slight change in how
offensive contact is called would make him merely imposing, rather than
unstoppable. 

The other stupid thing about his statements is that teams with superrich owners
can still concentrate talent if they want to, it's just that the process can't
be as direct (and that's a good thing, if you care what happens to the majority
of the team that don't have free-spending owners). The logic of his thinking
totally escapes me. To wit: teams "can't acquire critical masses of All-Star
talent" so there's no competition. Half the teams have no stars (however he
defines "star"), so they have no hope. Yet if these "have nots" COULD acquire
those "critical masses of All-Stars", where would they come from if not from
the "haves"? But then the "haves" wouldn't have "critical masses of All-Stars"
anymore, so there'd still be no competition (how he understands it).  There's
no concept there of complementarity of talent, understanding that competition
is not the same as oligarchy, or even the fact that he's not dealing with an
8-, or even 23-team league anymore. 
Kestas