Re: Offseason thoughts

[bird <birdwl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Saturday, July 20, 2002, at 07:05 PM, Kim Malo wrote:

> Yeah, but the thing is that regulating the salaries further has got to be 
> linked with regulating revenues because I'll be damned if I want to limit 
> players salaries just to have the owners gleefully continue to raise 
> prices as much as possible etc to increase their own profits at both 
> player and fan expense. No problem with an owner making a profit if he 
> can, but it should be based upon product quality  rather than on the fact 
> that everyone but him has limits. And, um, with competent accounting 
> rather than Arthur Anderson overseeing the results. Owners have their 
> ways, such as transferring profits to the stadium/arena so that they can 
> *cough* truthfully say that they're losing money.
Yes, I agree.  One of the bottom lines, for me, is the fact that it's not 
a level playing field.  You've got a few owners who are willing to 
overspend, most who aren't.  Gee, what will happen?  It often seems like 
people will take either the players' side of it, or the owners'.  Both are 
ruining the game.  Both have their valid arguments and reasonable 
expectation, as well.


> >   The way it is now, men's professional basketball is as much about the 
> > money and business side of it as the basketball itself.  Maybe more so.
> Marketing. Mixture of MJ and Stern, when they decided to sell the league 
> through loyalty to stars rather than to a team or the game itself, with 
> MJ giving them the perfect person to launch that focus around. And the 
> game itself has deteriorated in so many ways from it's fundamentals that 
> it's tough to see how they could turn the clock back, even if they wanted 
> to.
Yes, that's nearly impossible.  Somehow and someway, it'll change, though.
  Few things remain static, and the NBA is changing even as we speak.  I 
suspect, however, that the money side of it will only become *more* 
important and not less.  Again, I say that if it is to be such a major 
part of the game, we ought to embrace it to its most absurd level.  Have 
player salaries replace their numbers, for instance.  More honest, and it 
would get rid of that pesky Celtic tradition of retiring numbers.  Or 
would it?  "I'm sorry Free Agent X, but Antoine already has that salary...
".


> I've never objected to a player accepting offered money even though the 
> world knows he's not worth it. It's not his fault someone else is being 
> stupid. I have other issues about things they do to make a killing, but 
> can't blame them for that. While the owners figured they can pay whatever 
> because they can get it back from the fans one way or another.
>
> Which means that fiscal sanity, such as Gaston has been preaching isn't 
> bad in itself, it's just a problem when that becomes an end in itself 
> rather than a way of trying to manage success, leading to shortsighted 
> tunnel visioned decisions.
the player is a fool if he doesn't accept ridiculous money.  It'd be nice 
to have some player say "Hey, I make too much to sign this guy, I'll take 
a pay cut so we can do it" but that almost never happens, and it's 
probably too much to expect of people.  I tell people that, if i had the 
talent, I'd play for the Celtics for free, and I just might do that, but 
you know, if they insisted on paying I could hardly refuse, right?  And I'
m not the normal NBA player who has confidence and skill.  I'd be happy 
just to be there.  What American worker is just happy to have a job?  
People got to get paid... .


> Evil thoughts dancing in my head of adding in a wired slalom to the chase 
> course where fans can use their computer/webTV to activate/deactivate the 
> charge as a GM or player approaches, with what actually happens based 
> upon simple majority punching yes vs no. Want your GM to catch a player? 
> Zap the player slightly to make him pause and collect himself and hope a 
> lot of others feel the same. Looking around for the 10 foot pole that's 
> the only thing you'd touch him with? Zap the GM to slow him down.
I can see the XBox/Playstation/Nintendo game now; "No, Chris Wallace, you 
*won't* grab Vin Baker!"


> *Groan* Cheerleaders, I suppose. Y'know every game I'm at the Fleece I 
> keep thinking that they really need to get more female cameramen so that 
> I get something good to look at too.
> So, um, maybe tear-away uniforms...
As most already know, traditional Greco-Roman athletics were done in the 
nude.  I just can't understand that.  I can't even hoop it up in boxers.  
You know what I'm talking about.  It's painful just thinking about it.

Bird