re: Offseason thoughts

[bird <birdwl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Kim Malo <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> At 01:47 PM 7/19/02 -0700, bird wrote:
>
> > Perhaps the fundamental conflict here is between winning and money. If 
> you conduct your NBA franchise entirely like a business, you will not win.
>   If you say money is no object, then you pay a bucketload (and you still 
> may not win).
>
> Key word is *entirely*. Gaston's father ran it like a business too but 
> had a love for the game that I don't think his kid shares that tempered 
> some of his decisions.

Precisely.  If someone *had* the money, though, I think the ideal is to 
have a Mark Cuban-type as an owner.  He's like a rich dad who buys you 
almost anything you want -- who cares what he pays for it?  I just think 
that's too much to ask for.  Nor is it necessarily good for the game.  I 
think a hard cap of some sort is a likely option ... and I mean "likely" 
as in "to work" and not "to happen".  I used to like the old "slots" 
way --  -- and perhaps a modified form of that would be workable.  They 
could have 2 slots for "superstars", 3-4 to round out the starting five or 
so, 3 more for the main backups.  Maybe they could distribute some "mad 
money" to teams to "shop around for" for the rest.  Hey, they could even 
televise the event, make GM's or owners run an obstacle course to grab 
free agents.  I'd pay real money to see Chris Wallace or Paul Gaston -- 
not to mention El Greaso or the Zen Master -- run around tackling NBA free 
agents (or perhaps just their simulacrums -- no need to risk injury!).  
Anyway, back in the real world, an owner who was tempered as you described 
above would be more than acceptable ... it'd be welcome.

[demime 0.98e removed an attachment of type application/pdf which had a name of Box.pdf]
> Wasn't this in fact a big complaint when they were negotiating and after?

Sure.  I take a sort of historical view on these sorts of things, though.  
The effect of something gets clearer the more time passes.  All too often,
  we are too concerned, I think, with "firsts": first to know, first to 
report, first to say.  Often, though, this leads to reckless predictions 
("The Celts will suck forever because of this trade!", "Because they didn'
t do as *I* suggested, the C's will *never* compete!").  But for those who 
said that at the time, or you felt it, but never told anybody, or even for 
those convinced now that they did say it even though they really didn't: 
looks like you were right.  And even if they *didn't* negotiate with the 
intention of defending the max contract to the detriment of the NBA's 
middle-class, that's apparently what's happening.  Plus, it just looked 
like Billy Hunter and Pat Ewing were out-classed from the get-go.

Bird