[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Baker and future

"James A. Hill" <jahill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Actually this isn't really a supportable position, IMO.

Sure it is, Jim.  Listen:
Gaston grew up with this team. He is well educated and has a history of
business success. He himself most likely knows more about the NBA then most
on this list. My understanding is that after he turned around the money
losing TV station and earned his family and the Celtics an extra $20+
million over projected selling price, his father offered him any position
within the family businesses. He had "earned" the opportunity of his choice
according to his family. He chose to run the Celtics and brought along his
good friend Pond who also helped with the TV station.

As the head of the Celtics Org. he supported, strongly, the salary cap
within the NBA, least the NBA turns into the disaster of MLB. The owners
voted and agreed to work within the cap, collectively, to promote
competition within the league so everybody's team has a somewhat even
chance, financially, to make a run for a championship.
Two paragraphs in, and I still have heard only about his business dealings.
If you were talking about Larry Bird, or the guy from "Hoosiers" or any other basketball player, the history would include how he spent winter nights banging a ball into a peach basket hung on the barn door. I know: Gaston is a businessman. This is part of my point.


So there is a couple/few owners who run their teams like a hobby. (Without
much success so far actually) For the most part they damage the game for
everyone else and the fans. (Though I trade emails with Cuban and enjoy his
enthusiasm) Fortunately none of these few are as smart as Steinbrenner and
pocket the championship each year, but give it time and someone will if
owners like Gaston don't hold the line for the fans sake.
I know that anything not a business is a hobby to you, Jim; that much came through very clear in both your list posts and the emails we have exchanged, but it's not fair to say Cuban or other freespending owners run their franchises like their "hobbies". Perhaps they have so much money they actually care more about the winning. Perhaps they don't. I agree about how they aren't very good for the game, and I've said so. But, if I was the C's owner, I'd do what it took to win. Cuban lives within the new CBA just as much as Gaston does.

And I'm sorry, I'm not believing the "Paul Gaston as the Defender of the Basketball Faith" sort of argument. If the owners were serious about "holding the line" they'd institute a harder cap. (I mean, I realize they can't do this unilaterally, but given the advantage in the current CBA towards the owners, you'd think they could get something passed by the player's union.)


Gaston chooses to work within the guidelines of what he agreed to do, as do
most owners, and this somehow means he doesn't care about winning?
Try to represent my position a little more accurately. Gaston, I think, cares about wining as it affects the bottom line. Would he like to win the NBA championship? Yes, of course. It would both bring in revenue and legitimize Gaston and his decisions. Do I think Paul Gaston has this burning desire to win it all, the way a Larry Bird, or a Jerry West, or a Michael Jordan does? No, I do not. Neither is he stupid, though. (Unlike Donald Sterling.) He knows the best way to maximize profits and minimize expenditures is to field a decent, winning team. A team that does well enough to sell out the arena and make such-and-such an amount in merchandizing, TV revenues, etc, etc, etc. Anything more is gravy. If it can be attained through "fiscal sanity", great. If not, he still has a profitable franchise. Which is the whole point.


If Gaston didn't care about basketball he would have sold the team for $300+
million and never had to work another day in his life or just taken another
job elsewhere.
And if pigs could fly they'd have wings. Sure, Jim, he "cares" about basketball. He asked for this plum assignment within the family and got it. He "cares" about basketball because it's the high-profile job within the family. Look, you can continue to think of Paul Gaston as a basketball man, but when I say that phrase I think Jerry West, Red Auerbach, Larry Bird, et al. I think of Paul Gaston as a businessman. I suspect Paul Gaston thinks of himself, professionally, at least, as a businessman, first and foremost.


Instead he makes the difficult decisions, right or wrong in
the fans opinion, within the structure he agreed to work within with his
fellow team owners.  That's allot more socialistic then capitalistic.
It's "socialistic" because it involves a group of people working together,
not socialist in the economic sense. By the way, I'm supposed to be pleased that he makes difficult decisions, and has abided by his "agreement with his fellow team owners", by which I take it you mean the CBA? Well, then I'd like to thank him for not releasing toxic fumes into the Fleet during games, because, you see, this is a partial bare minimum for an NBA owner. If you can't make difficult decisions, get out of the kitchen, and if you don't abide by the CBA I think the league will sanction you. Certainly there would be penalties.


To suggest that he only wants to collect his nominal salary, in NBA terms of
course, without regard to building a winning team just isn't believable.
You're right. Luckily for me, fielding a winning team is very important for Paul Gaston. Fewer people go to see losing teams, and they don't make as much money.


Nor is there any actual proof of this opinion. Does anyone really think the
Boston press wouldn't harp on this as they do about Jacobs and the Bruins if
there was any facts to support this position?
Ah, the press. The Fourth Estate. Yes. Trust the press, Jim. The press always finds out the truth, don't they?

There is no "proof" of this position. There's evidence, though. Look at how Gaston has run the team/had his GM's run the team. "Fiscal sanity" is the number one priority. Winning is not irrelevant, but it must be accomplished on a budget. He's not afraid to throw money at people (Pitino, Walker, Pierce, Baker), but -- and this is most important -- he will not pay the luxury tax. When payroll gets near tax threshold, he will dump salaries. Is this so terrible? Not in the great scheme of things. Possibly, it's "cheap" though. Would it be better to have a more freespending owner for the fans? Probably. Might it be better to have an owner who would be willing to take a short-term tax hit? Yeah, I think so.
But, it remains to be seen whether or not this will actually happen,


Maybe he didn't think exceeding the cap for RR would actually bring another
championship and that other moves were a better opportunity for success. I
happen to agree, even though I liked RR on our team but we'll see if he was
right. Maybe he is just wanting to keep his word and not be a hypocrite with
the other owners, I don't really know.
Maybe he didn't think exceeding the cap with RR would bring a championship.
However, to him, most important of all is not exceeding the luxury tax threshold. "Very important," as Mr. Miyagi would say.


I do know that the big spenders haven't won anything yet and even Cuban has
started talking about controlling his payroll and offered small contracts to
some players on his team. Look at the Knicks mess as well. To compare
Sterling and Gaston is so off base it's funny/sad.
Good thing the only "comparison" I made between Sterling and Gaston was to say that Gaston's different in that he wants to field a decent team and Sterling only wants to brag about owning a team to his business associates,
huh, Jim?

The big spending owners haven't won a championship yet. No one but the Lakers has yet. Now, everyone talk about the big spenders, but where's LA on this scale? I really don't know, but with Shaq and Kobe's salaries,
they have to be up there, don't they?

Look, I think you think I think Gaston's a really lousy guy. And I probably don't have all that high an opinion of him. I think the Boston Celtics deserve better than an emphasis on "fiscal responsibility". But it could be worse. And in an era where more and more players are thinking of the game like a business, it's not hard to think of an owner being more concerned with the business side than the basketball side, is it? Perhaps that was the whole idea behind the big-name "savior" that turned into Rick Pitino: Here's the money to turn the team around. I'll be over there with my friend Dick Pond keeping an eye out on the budget. What? Sign Walter McCarty? Sure.

Bird