This is not the column I was anticipating writing today, but some times things just happen.
As usual, I called home today and talked to my mom and dad. As usual, my conversation with my dad eventually turned to sports. As usual, I ended up reacting more strongly than I expected to some news my dad had to tell me about the local perception of some issue.
This time the issue was, to my surprise, Jim Brown and the Ring of Honor.
My dad has already posted his own feelings about the friction between Brown and the organization. I don’t have a personal connection to Brown since I never saw him play live. In fact, like most people in my generation, I know him more as an actor and activist than a football player. Honestly, it seems like Brown would prefer it that way.
People are always arguing about whether professional athletes should be role models or not. I don’t normally engage in that debate, but if I was ever going to hold up an athlete as someone worth mimicking, Jim Brown would be that guy. Since the 1960s, he’s been taking public stands on tough issues; since retiring and forming his anti-gang Ameri-I-Can program, he’s spent an enormous amount of time trying to better the lives of unfortunate kids sucked into a deadly way of life; and most importantly, since he was probably able to speak, he hasn’t taken any shit from anybody—but he also hasn’t made a big demonstration out of that attitude, either.
In short, he was awesome at his craft, tried to use his stardom to make a difference in the lives of real people and real issues, never backed down from controversy if it was in the name of a just cause, and remained forever his own man. What’s not to admire?
Apparently if you consider yourself a Browns fan, a lot.
Because of his probable no-show at the Ring of Honor induction ceremony, I’m hearing and seeing “the fans,” (c) Terry Pluto, are turning on Jim Brown en masse. What right does he have to skip the illustrious inauguration? The Browns gave him an opportunity he should be thankful for when they drafted him and paid him for nine years, and now he won’t even acknowledge them when they try to reward him? He’s not the only great player in their history, so why does he think he’s better than the others who are being inducted? Who the hell does he think he is, showing up the franchise and the fans like this?
First off, let’s get this straight: Brown is already in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was inducted in 1971, a mere 6 years after he retired. He was, as far as I can tell, indisputably the biggest reason that Cleveland won its last pro sports championship in 1964. He was a 3-time MVP (in only 9 career seasons), 8-time First Team All-Pro, 9-time Pro Bowler, led the league in rushing 8 times, and once held the records for most single-season rushing yards, career rushing yards, and most touchdowns. The Sporting News voted him the greatest NFL player of all time.
In short, this is a guy who’s received a ton of legitimate accolades. Should he really be bowled over by the opportunity to stand around at the induction ceremony for, essentially, the Cleveland Browns hall of fame? I don’t think so. Not when the franchise stripped him of his Executive Advisor position and abruptly stopped funding Amer-I-Can, which appears to be Brown’s life’s work.
More important than his justification, though, is Brown’s method. He is making his stand in the most respectful, unobtrusive way possible. He’s demanding the Browns exclude him from the Ring of Honor as a whole. He’s not blasting “Lost in Space” or “Holler Back” Mike Holmgren in the press. His only public comments were these, on a Syracuse radio station:
“I’m a very sensitive person. I do like to be respected. I’m very loyal. I like it to be a two-way street.
“I’ve been very quiet about the situation in Cleveland. Sometimes when you comment on things, all you do is create problems. The last thing I want to do is create problems for anyone or disrupt the team or ownership or the plans of other people.
“On the other hand, as an individual I have plans of my own. I have a dignity and character of my own that I also protect. I don’t really need to comment on where I go, why I go, why I don’t go. All the people involved are doing all the commenting. They’re the ones with the power. I’m just an individual who played football and worked for the Browns for a while … .
Really? This is what Brown is getting killed for in the court of public opinion? After everyone’s spent all summer talking about how they just wish pro athletes would stop blaring their egos on every media outlet available?
Incidentally, I got the issue of GQ with J.R. Moehringer’s LeBron interview yesterday. I read it today. And in conjunction with this conversation about Jim Brown, I realized that on the surface, some of the same things are happening in the minds of fans in regard to these two men and their situations. Both are seen as, in one way or another, spurning the love and dedication of the wonderful Cleveland fans by doing something selfish and petty. The response has been the same in both cases as well: near-universal stone-throwing (in LeBron’s case, literally).
However, if we really look beneath the surface, Brown’s actions and LeBron’s couldn’t really be much more different. Brown’s resistance is quiet and dignified, but clear. He’s not demanding anything of the organization in the press, not openly bashing them for any of their slaps in the face. LeBron, on the other hand, concluded three years of coy media-baiting and speculation-fostering by ripping the franchise’s heart out on national TV like the villain in INDIANA JONES & THE TEMPLE OF DOOM.
LeBron likes to talk about becoming an icon. Jim Brown really is one—not just in sports, but in the wider culture, in politics, in civil rights, in social work. If the fan base is really going to turn on this guy for something as minor and justified as skipping a second-rate induction ceremony after being brazenly insulted by the Browns, then it’s time for the fan base to take a long, hard look in the mirror.
LeBron suggested in that GQ article that “maybe the [fans] burning my jersey were never LeBron fans anyway.” I thought it was kind of a dumb comment at the time. Now I’m wondering if he doesn’t have a point, even if it’s not exactly the one he was trying to make.
Look, Philadelphia is widely regarded as the most intense, bloodthirsty, hard-hearted sports city in the country. When you think of Eagles fans in particular, one of three famous incidents probably pops into your mind: one, fans regularly chucking batteries from the stands at opponents and under-performing home town players; two, an entire stadium booing Santa Claus; and three, an entire stadium cheering as Michael Irvine lay on the field with what was feared at the time could have been a career-ending injury. These are absurd things to do. Cold, vindictive, brutal things.
But at least sports fans in Philly acknowledge that they happened and admit that that’s their identity.
Cleveland fans, I’ve noticed, like to think of themselves in a different light. In their minds, they give their teams and their athletes everything they have. They care about them, they nurture them, they defend them. Especially if they’re home-grown.
Never mind that half of Cleveland (myself included) wanted Ohio boy Brady Quinn run out of town for not being able to throw a spiral farther than 6 yards. Never mind that local product Joe Jurevicious said that after Browns losses, people would come up to him and curse at him in the grocery store. Never mind that Akron product LeBron James is now the Antichrist.
Never mind because that’s not who we are, right?
Apparently, wrong. Because if the fan base can’t overwhelmingly respect Jim Brown’s quiet and justified defiance, then by and large that is exactly who “the fans” are. Brown implied this himself only a few months ago, when he called the fan reaction to LeBron after the Celtics series “an atrocity.” In fairness, considering that I still believe that James quit in that series, I can’t totally agree with Brown in that particular instance. But more and more, I think his general premise is pretty true.
Cleveland fans are, by and large, beaten down and starved for success. But as a result, we’ve also by and large allowed ourselves to become some of the most cut-throat fans in the country. The championship drought has made things worse, because we now feel entitled (ironic choice of words, in a way) to success. We think we deserve it. It’s only right. And if any of “our” players can’t get the job done on even the most minor stage, can’t justify spending their entire careers here, or God forbid, can’t avoid doing even the slightest thing that could be perceived as a blow to our pride, then look out.
The word “perceived” is really important to that last sentence. Because if Brown indeed skips the Ring of Honor ceremony, it’s not an insult to the fans. It’s a justified counter-punch to the organization. “The fans” should recognize and respect that. If they want to blast someone, they should blast Holmgren and Lerner for mishandling one of the great men ever affiliated with the franchise and the city.
If they don’t…well, maybe they were never really Jim Brown fans anyway. And maybe, just maybe, “The Decision” really was what many of us deserved.
Throughout this week, ESPN’s Chad Ford (of T.I.T. fame) and John Hollinger have been serially releasing their “future power rankings” of the 30 NBA teams. The concept is simple and interesting, if inexact: create an overall rating for every team’s cumulative prospects in the 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 seasons.
Ford and Hollinger attempt to do this by ranking each franchise in five categories—Players, Management, Money, Market, and Draft. “Players” means the players currently on the roster and under contract for any or all of those upcoming seasons; “Management” means the quality of the front office and its decision-making; “Money” means the owner’s willingness to spend; “Market” means the appeal of the city or region in which the franchise is located; and “Draft” means quantity and likely quality of picks in future drafts.
Each category is weighted differently, but together, they create a total possible point total of 1,000. Players account for 400 possible points, Management for 200, Money for 200, Market for 100, and Draft for 100.
Not surprisingly, the Cavs check in near the bottom of the list—specifically, at number 28, ahead of only Minnesota and Charlotte.
However, this is not because the Cavs, in Hollinger’s and Ford’s joint opinion, rank poorly in all categories. Instead, it’s because the categories in which they are strong are, in the system devised, two of the least valuable overall. For instance, Gilbert’s checkbook is good for 7th place in the league in “Money,” and the Cavs’ draft prospects place 2nd. Unfortunately, those two high ranks qualify the franchise for a grand total of only 219 points. In “Players” they rank 29th (good for a mere 45 points), “Management” they rank 26th (45 points), and in “Market” they rank 27th (22 points).
I don’t entirely disagree with some of the assessment. (In all likelihood, the parts contributed by Hollinger.) As I’ve written before, I find it entirely possible that Cleveland is, to most players, the least desirable location in the league. In that sense, ranking 27th in “Market” may be generous on Ford’s and Hollinger’s part.
That said, the inherent problem is that the entire list is based on perception—and much of the perception informing the analysis isn’t particularly in touch with reality. For instance, I think it’s ludicrous to state that the Cavs have the 5th worst front office in the NBA, especially considering the circumstances they’ve been forced to operate under for the past 3-4 years. (A point that I am currently considering for the epitaph on my tombstone.) I’m not even going to bother to link to my previous post as to why—I’ve had to do it too many times already. If you don’t know, turn off your Bill Simmons brainwashing and email me.
As usual, the roster is also being drastically underrated—a misrepresentation made even worse by the idea that the Cavs “lack trade assets.” I fully suspect Chad Ford is steering the boat on that particular argument, since he’s written it several times over the past year-plus. Somehow he seems to have missed the fact that the Cavs and Rockets were the only two teams who managed to put together sign-and-trade offers for “Lap Dog” Chris Bosh that the Raptors were interested in consummating. Not to mention that the Cavs are now flush with draft picks and a massive trade exception from the LeBron deal. But what am I thinking, other teams are never interested in picks or, essentially, the ability to trade away contracts without taking salary back. I’m being silly again.
By far my favorite swing-and-miss in the analysis, though, is the mythical power of the Dan Gilbert letter. Not coincidentally, it also comprises the overwhelming bulk of Ford’s and Hollinger’s written break-down of the numbers.
The argument in play is that Dan Gilbert’s 21-gun wake-up call to LeBron the night of “The Decision” has damaged the franchise’s rep with players as long as Gilbert owns the team. By blasting a guy who “made him hundreds of millions of dollars over the past several years,” the argument goes, Gilbert showed his true colors. No free agent will ever want to ball for the Cavs as long as they have such a fork-tongued tyrant at the helm. Hence, the Cavs’ future is so bleak.
There are just a few tiny problems with this argument.
First, as we all know, there weren’t any high profile free agents clamoring to come to Cleveland anyway. Most recently, the Cavs offered Matt Barnes a two-year contract worth ~$3.5MM per—more than double what he ultimately accepted to play for the Lakers ($1.7MM), and by far the biggest contract he’d ever been offered in his career. (The fictional one the Raptors offered doesn’t count.) Didn’t matter. He turned it down.
Did Barnes make that choice because he was afraid he’d be yelled at by Dan Gilbert? Uh, I doubt it. Dude’s got multiple neck tattoos. Considering he grew up in Sacramento and went to UCLA, living in LA and playing for a title might have had more to do with the choice.
Again, this is the entire reason Chris Grant and company are planning on rebuilding the team through trades and the draft. Hard to believe that the 5th worst front office in the league would be able to recognize its strengths and weaknesses and adjust its plan accordingly, but hey, I guess even a broken clock is right two minutes a day, right?
Second, all this talk about how terribly Gilbert treated LeBron after he chose to play elsewhere completely ignores how absurdly well he was treated while he was playing for Gilbert. Under his watch (and more importantly, on his dime), the Cavs:
Completely renovated their practice facilities to the tune of tens of millions of dollars
Moved Cleveland Clinic Courts to Independence to minimize the commute from LeBron’s house
Routinely invited LeBron’s entourage to take the team charter to road games
Created jobs within the organization for LeBron’s friends (see: Player Liaison Randy Mims)
Mandated that film sessions be kept short to accommodate LeBron’s attention span
Remade the roster according to LeBron’s urgings (see: Shaq, Jamison)
Fired the coach and GM with whom LeBron was unsatisfied—without a guarantee he’d even return to the team if it happened
Offered him the richest possible contract extensions the league would allow
And these are just some of the things that are either true or have been reported. I’m sure there were countless other concessions made in a desperate attempt to keep James happy for the past half-decade since Gilbert assumed ownership. Personally, I don’t care what the guy says about me when I embarrass him on national TV to go to another team; five years of the above kind of treatment sounds like a good deal to me.
Look, professional athlete is perhaps the only job in the world where your former boss’s opinion of you literally does not matter. Did LeBron need a letter of recommendation to get his new job with the Heat? Uh, no. Anywhere else, people in executive positions change jobs. Assuming you stay in the same or a similar industry, your former boss could somehow end up at a new company and once again have an effect on your future. Not in pro sports. It’s not as if Dan Gilbert is going to suddenly sell the Cavs, go buy the Spurs, and then freeze LeBron out of contract. Who the hell cares what Gilbert thinks of you after you vacate the team?
Third, perception is a shifty thing. Right now, few players reportedly want to play for the Cavs. My guess? The problem isn’t Gilbert; it’s that few if any players really believe the Cavs are going to be any good right now.
Think about it this way: if Donovan McNabb thought the Raiders were going to be a Super Bowl contender this year, would he have told the Eagles not to trade him there this past off-season because the team is owned by a tyrannical mummy? I highly doubt it. On a more close to home front, look at how Eric Mangini somehow transformed over the course of a season from being perceived by fans and players as a maniacal dictator (when the team was 1-11) to exactly the type of tough but admirable head coach the Browns have needed since their resurrection (when they ended the season on a 4-game winning streak, including a victory over the Steelers at Heinz Field).
Is anyone ever going to totally forget the Dan Gilbert letter? No, it’s going to be a part of Cleveland sports and NBA lore until an asteroid hits. But you can bet on the fact that when the team starts winning and Gilbert’s checkbook stays open, its perception in the basketball community is going to be completely different. And you can say the same thing about the franchise as a whole.
Trust me, I’ll be more than happy to point this out to Chad Ford in 2014 when the Cavs are surging and the Mesa team has courtside seats.
Since LeBron announced his decision to “take [his] talents to South Beach” last Thursday night, I’ve seen a couple of different people pose questions to NBA pundits about the Cavs’ fate for next year. Specifically, how many games should we anticipate they’ll be able to win without James in the line-up?
The consensus answer from those pundits seems to be “not many.” Big surprise. Specifically, 30 wins seems to be about the best case scenario the pundits believe Cavs fans can hope for.
Of course, the pundits who were asked this question weren’t people who I would expect are using advanced statistics in their projections. I, on the other hand, anticipate that the team will be better than most of the rest of the people in the country would think, because I know how well many of the players on the roster rate in metrics that the average fan (and average pundit) aren’t considering. For instance, when the idea of Toronto signing-and-trading Chris Bosh to the Cavs was being heavily discussed, our buddy Chad Ford (one half of T.I.T.) made the point that the Cavs could potentially use the deal to unload a bad contract like…Anderson Varejao’s. Whereas we here at Mesa have regarded Andy as the Cavs’ second-best player since about 2006.
But since “better than these other guys think” still isn’t a good answer to “How good do you think the 2010-11 Cavs will be?”, I decided I would use Wins Produced Per 48 Minutes (WP48) to build a rough model that would spit out some actual numbers.
Here are the parameters I set:
I can only use players who are actually under contract for next year
I’m excluding Delonte because Chris Grant has all but said that he will be cut or traded prior to his contract becoming guaranteed early next month
There is a total of 240 minutes per game to distribute among the roster, since 5 players have to be on the floor for 48 minutes (5 x 48 = 240)
The starting 5 will be Mo at 1, Parker at 2, Moon at 3, Jamison at 4, Varejao at 5
Each starter will average 36 minutes per game.
JJ will be the 6th man, and will average 20 minutes per game
Sebastian Telfair will be the “most likely to DNP” and will only average 4 minutes per game
All of the other subs on the roster will average 9 minutes per game
Each player will play all 82 games
If use each player’s WP48 from the 2009-10 season and the minutes-per-game assumptions above, we get the following projection.
Varejao = .179 WP48 x 36mpg x 82 games = 11 wins
Mo = .136 WP48 x 36mpg x 82 games = 8.4 wins
Moon = .131 WP48 x 36mpg x 82 games = 8.1 wins
Hickson = .123 WP48 x 20 mpg x 82 games = 4.2 wins
Gibson = .117 WP48 x 9 mpg x 82 games = 1.8 wins
Jamison = .115 WP48 x 36 mpg x 82 games = 7.1 wins
Parker = .103 WP48 x 36 mpg x 82 games = 6.3 wins
Powe = .097 WP48 x 9 mpg x 82 games = 1.5 wins
Green = .083 WP48 x 9 mpg x 82 games = 1.3 wins
Jawad = .069 WP48 x 9 mpg x 82 games = 1.1 wins
Telfair = .020 WP48 x 4 mpg x 82 games = 0.1 wins
TOTAL PROJECTED WINS PRODUCED BY 2010-11 CAVS: 51 wins
Now, supposedly the WP48 statistic only accounts for 80% of wins. If we assume that to be true, then we should adjust this 51-win total by dropping it 20%.
TOTAL ADJUSTED PROJECTED WINS PRODUCED BY 2010-11 CAVS: 41 wins
The problem here is that it’s flawed to assume that these players are going to be able to play the same way without LeBron that they did with LeBron. In that sense, it’s misleading to use their 2009-10 WP48 stats in a projection. It’s likely more accurate to use their career WP48 stats.
Admittedly, this revised model would still be a very rough one, since there are some players—Andy, Jawad, Boobie, Hickson, and Danny Green—who have played with LeBron for their entire NBA careers. But it’s the best we can do right now.
When we plug career WP48 stats into the model, we get these numbers:
Varejao = .156 WP48 x 36mpg x 82 = 9.6 wins
Mo = .095 WP48 x 36mpg x 82 = 5.8 wins
Moon = .122 WP48 x 36mpg x 82 = 7.5 wins
Hickson = .116 WP48 x 20 mpg x 82 = 4.0 wins
Gibson = .107 WP48 x 9 mpg x 82 = 1.6 wins
Jamison = .118 WP48 x 36 mpg x 82 = 7.3 wins
Parker = .100 WP48 x 36 mpg x 82 = 6.2 wins
Powe = .183 WP48 x 9 mpg x 82 = 2.8 wins
Green = .083 WP48 x 9 mpg x 82 = 1.7 wins
Jawad = .068 WP48 x 9 mpg x 82 = 1.0 wins
Telfair = .013 WP48 x 4 mpg x 82 = 0.1 wins
TOTAL PROJECTED WINS PRODUCED BY 2010-11 CAVS: 48 wins
Again, if we drop this “best case” number by 20%, we get something likely much closer to reality.
TOTAL ADJUSTED PROJECTED WINS PRODUCED BY 2010-11 CAVS: 38 wins
In short, WP48 suggests that the pundits are, as usual, low-balling the Cavs. It’s possible that the team could still be competing for the final playoff spot in the East next season, even if they made absolutely no adjustments to their roster. Granted, this would take a remarkable level of health and consistency from all players involved, but it’s not out of the question.
However, we’re undoubtedly going to see changes to the roster in the coming weeks. My personal hope is that those changes are geared toward making the team better in the long run rather than the short. But as it stands now, we should feel comfortable that the Cavs are not going to be a 15-win team. Cold comfort if you consider where we thought the team was only a few months ago, but the first step towards improvement is realism. Hopefully the front office agrees.
By the time anyone reads this article, LeBron’s second day of free agency meetings will have begun. He’s scheduled to hold court with the Clippers and Heat today, then the Bulls and Cavs Saturday. But Thursday was all about the NY/NJ metropolitan area—and shockingly, all sources from inside the Knicks and Nets indicate the meetings went “extremely well.”
Pardon me if I’m not sweating yet. And pardon me again if I go on to say that none of you Cavs fans reading this post should be sweating either.
As we here at Mesa have pointed out multiple times over the course of the past few weeks (via Twitter and in columns), generating excitement about a business prospect during a meeting falls somewhere between “producing saliva” and “crapping” on the scale of difficulty. I’m not even denying that the excitement in the room for the Nets and Knicks was genuine. But the reality is that unless one of these other teams walk out of the LRMR offices with a verbal commitment from James, the emotion in the room during a presentation is irrelevant.
Let’s also not forget that the pundits reporting about yesterday’s meetings were entirely basing their opinions on sources within the Nets and Knicks, most of whom probably weren’t even at the meetings in question. As a result, reporters and beat writers end up gushing in print about how great their chances of landing LeBron are—like this, for example. (Caveat: kudos to Rod Thorn for sounding like the voice of reasonable expectation in the midst of this blowjob of a report.)
Examining this situation rationally for a moment, consider this: what else are these partisan sources going to say? “You know, I gotta be honest, I thought our presentation sorta sucked”? “I’ll tell ya, LeBron seemed really disinterested”? “We couldn’t even get a meeting with Amar’e earlier than Monday and Rudy Gay already re-signed with Memphis. Why the hell would we have any chance at signing LeBron”? Something tells me that’s not going to fly if you want to remain employed by either of those organizations.
Second, what about any of LeBron’s media appearances since he was 16 would lead anyone to believe that he wouldn’t portray interest and enthusiasm in these meetings? Not only was the first of them led by one of his best friends and biggest role models, but this is a guy who declared that at one time or another he’s dreamed about playing for every team in the league, and that he’s been looking forward to this day (free agency) for four years. This is a mega-holiday for him. I’m convinced that today’s teams could give their presentations entirely in Korean, and LeBron would still be giddy.
Third, thanks to the information that’s out in the public realm about the Knicks’ presentation, I can say with knowledge that it was laughable. For starters, one of the supposed ringers the NYK brain trust brought in for the meeting was…Allan Houston, a guy whose greatest legacy in the league is as arguably the worst return on a max contract investment in NBA history. Houston missed a combined 94 regular season games in the 3rd and 4th seasons of that contract and retired before the start of the fifth. For that, the Knicks paid him over $20M per. My sources tell me that Donnie Walsh followed up his decision to include Houston in the meeting by flying to New Orleans to pitch the Saints’ brass on selling the Super Dome’s naming rights jointly to BP and FEMA.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, Forbes got a hold of an actual piece of the Knicks’ presentation—a slideshow by a marketing consultant called Interbrand that claims LeBron has the potential to gross $2 Billion (yes, that’s a ‘B’) by playing the rest of his career with the Knicks. At the very worst, his signature on a Knicks’ contract would give him a 48.6% chance of grossing at least $1 Billion.
As Forbes’s Steven Bertoni points out in the article, “the report is light on the details of its methodology.” Having gone through the slideshow personally, I concur. The results seem to be based on…well, nothing tangible, other than the fact that James Dolan cut them a check to come to a specific conclusion. Interbrand claims that the findings were determined via a battery of computers running career projections based on a variety of factors, but the overall vagueness of the presentation creates the distinct impression of junk science (or technically, junk math. I wouldn’t want to confuse my junk).
Even funnier, the unintended take-away from this preposterous slideshow is that staying in Cleveland is actually a much more profitable decision for LeBron than anyone would have ever anticipated. Interbrand’s “study” shows that James’s maximum lifetime value in Cleveland is $1.176B, his lifetime average value is $699M, and his chance at making a billion dollars stands at 1.3%. By comparison among the other non-Knicks franchises included in the model (Chicago and Miami), Chicago would offer him a slightly higher maximum lifetime value ($1.233B), but a lower average value ($689M) and lower probability of grossing his first billion (1.0%). Miami is a distant fourth in all categories. In short, Cleveland is pretty clearly his second-best option behind the bumbling carnival side show that is the Knicks.
Considering that Dolan paid for this presentation, he may have wanted to suggest that Interbrand skew the findings even further than they’re already skewed. Telling LeBron he has any chance of grossing over a billion dollars by staying in his hometown, which is widely acknowledged by now to be neck-and-neck with Chicago as his chosen destination, isn’t necessarily a tactic I’d have recommended. But then again, this is why the Knicks have been an NBA afterthought for most of the past decade.
I also love the fact that the Interbrand “study” finds that LeBron has a 0% chance of making a bill in Miami because of “lack of fan avidity,” i.e. because no one living in Miami gives a shit about the Heat. I think it may be the only nugget of truth in the entire slide show. But that’s neither here nor there.
My final point as to why Cavs fans should remain calm: Pat Riley’s grand plan for wooing LeBron is going down in flames. According to reliable sources (and common sense, my favorite of all sources), Riley’s strategy hinged on getting verbal commitments from both Wade and Bosh to come to Miami before meeting with LeBron. As of now, that has not happened. Considering that Wade met with the Bulls today, and Bosh has been tweeting like a jackass about his meetings with Houston and New Jersey (with other meetings scheduled), it seems highly unlikely that King Slickback will be able to make that pitch as planned. Without commitments from those two players, the Heat have to try to sell James on living at South Beach with Mario Chalmers and Michael “Every GM in the League Thinks I Might As Well Be Made of Uranium” Beasley. Not exactly a strong hand, especially considering that if past history is any indication, the Heat might just retire James’s jersey even if he never plays for them.
In short, I still believe that the Cavs’ faithful have nothing to fear from the tri-state area, and all signs point to Miami and the Clippers being non-factors. Which means it will all come down to Saturday. Chicago Vs. Cleveland. Only time will tell if Dan Gilbert comes out of that match-up as the ownership equivalent to Craig Ehlo. But for today, at least, I believe we can all rest easy.
Since the Cavs broke off contract talks with Brian Shaw earlier today, I have no real news to discuss right now. Instead, I’m going to take this time to address a half hour of TV that thousands of sports fans watched tonight—ESPN’s Free Agent Summit. Or, as I like to call it, “4 Guys Ignore Reality for 30 Minutes.”
In case you missed it, the show consisted of ESPN’s Tony Kornheiser, Mike Wilbon, Dan Lebatard, and Bill Simmons discussing the ins and outs of the Summer of Money. The problem is that apparently, none of them understand anything about the salary cap, let alone some basic things about the players involved. But what do you expect from a guy who, as far as I can tell, now only watches golf (Kornheiser); a guy who’s too busy being friends with the players and coaches to actually report on them objectively (Wilbon); a South Beach homer (Lebatard); and a reality TV scholar (Simmons).
It would take me all night to try to address every mistake or misconception this esteemed panel proclaimed, so instead I’ll just try to hit a few of the high points. It’s the best way I can think of to try to combat the dumbing down of American basketball fans.
1) It’s fiscally possible for LeBron, Wade, and Bosh to all play for Miami without anyone taking a pay cut
A max contract for the above players next season will be 105% of their 2009-10 salaries, or $16,568,908 according to cap sorcerer Larry Coon. Also per Coon, Miami will have $27,596,072 of cap space after re-signing Wade. That leaves Miami roughly $5.4MM away from being able to accommodate three max guys. Even if they manage to shed the radioactive Michael Beasley (guaranteed $4.9MM for 2010-11), they’re still short.
Further, a sign and trade isn’t possible because Miami doesn’t have the assets to match salaries for a third max contract. As of this moment, the only other players besides Beasley that are even on their roster are Mario Chalmers ($854,389), Joell Anthony ($885,120), and Kenny Hasbrouck ($762,195, unguaranteed). It may be possible via getting a third team involved, but what third team is going to want to help enable that deal? Oh, maybe the Wizards, since they seem to just want to help other teams clear cap space. But even that seems doubtful.
Bottom line: this scenario can play out, but only if one of the three stars voluntarily takes a pay cut. There’s a minimal chance of that happening with so many other teams willing to dish out max money.
2) Dirk Nowitzki should be the next player mentioned in all free agent talks (behind the guys mentioned above)
The amount of time that the panel spent on this topic was just remarkable to me. To Wilbon’s credit, he admitted what makes this subject so ridiculous: Dirk’s not going anywhere. His opt out just means he gets to negotiate a longer, higher-dollar extension with the Mavericks. This is the same scenario as with Paul Pierce, who opted out of the final year of his Boston contract tonight.
Beyond the dollars and cents aspect, I got a good laugh out of the notion that Dirk is such an important player that he should be in on the alleged face-to-face talks with Wade, James, and Bosh. Just think about that room for a second: the three supposedly tight-knit buddies in the primes of their careers…and then the 32 year-old German guy. For the record, Dirk would probably be a welcome presence in that room from a personality standpoint, since as far as I can tell he’s hilarious. But he’s not repped by CAA and can’t know any of those guys very well, let alone the fact that he’s on the complete opposite side of his career. It’s a little absurd.
Kornheiser really took the cake on this one. He predicted that Nowitzki would end up in Miami when it was all said and done. Frankly, I was surprised that Kornheiser was even aware that Miami had a franchise, but part of his reasoning for Dirk’s move may have been projecting how well he would fit alongside the likes of Rony Seikaly and Glen Rice. So I’m holding back the credit.
3) High quality veteran players will take the league minimum to play with a “Super Team”
I say this over and over again, but this is my favorite idea in the entire free agency discussion. I especially like it when pundits spout this minutes or seconds after declaring how ridiculous it is to think that in this crucial final year before the new CBA, the big-name free agents will opt for less money. I agree with that statement. But the notion that the little guys—the ones who aren’t making any endorsement money or getting any other major perks—are going to have a different mindset on the same issue is just unrealistic.
Think about it: Tarence Kinsey and Dorell Wright—both low dollar role players in 2008-9—both got cited for traffic violations in Bentleys they’d bought that same season. It may be unfair to project that every guy in the league is living this far beyond his means, but I’m willing to bet that many of them are. Factor in their wives/girlfriends, kids, friends, and other expenses, and every dollar counts. Yes, chasing a championship is great, and some guys may take less money for the opportunity. But the notion that really high quality players who could easily command a bigger contract this summer—say, Ray Allen—are going to voluntarily opt for a veteran minimum contract…please.
4) The Nets will be shut out in free agency because “if you want to play in New York, why would you want to play for a team that stinks?”
Yes, the Nets were the worst team in the league last season with an abysmal 12-70 record. But they have the highly productive Brook Lopez, #3 pick Derrick Favors, and former All-Star Devin Harris. The Knicks were 29-53, traded their first round pick to the Rockets at last season’s deadline, and will lose their most productive player, David Lee, to free agency so they can clear cap space to chase a bigger star.
Bottom line: the Knicks had more than twice as many wins as the Nets last season, but they were still sub-30 wins. Does that mean they’re good, or just good by comparison? Plus, when you take the cool factor into account (Nets: charismatic billionaire owner, Jay-Z, upcoming Brooklyn move vs. Knicks: incompetent owner, decaying MSG as home floor), the Nets have to be considered a more appealing option. But maybe that’s just me.
5) LeBron will skyrocket to multiple titles as soon as he changes teams, because he’ll “finally have a say in who his teammates are”
A lot of preposterous comments were made tonight. But this one, from the Miami Herald’s Dan LeBatard (whom I normally like), may have been the crown jewel. I really wish that Woj had been able to call into the show so he could set the record straight on this, but obviously it didn’t happen.
If the reports that came out at the end of this season were true—and I have every reason to believe they were—no single player in NBA history has had as much say in the roster around him as LeBron James. We know that LeBron approved the Shaq trade. He supposedly told the front office to go out and get Antawn Jamison mid-season. Multiple deals that Ferry had constructed were allegedly vetoed by James, and thus, by Dan Gilbert. To blame Ferry for the failures of the roster is a near-preposterous exercise.
In fact, if LeBron does end up winning a title or titles with a team such as Miami or Chicago, it will be precisely because he does NOT have a say in who his teammates are (beyond the obvious initial choice made by the switch itself). If Riley couldn’t be strong-armed by Wade, he won’t be strong-armed by LeBron. And if Jerry Reinsdorf couldn’t be strong-armed by MJ, he won’t be strong-armed by LeBron. For James, an iron-willed owner and/or team president may be the best thing. The question is whether or not that’s what he really wants.
I could go on forever about more topics. For instance, the “summit” spent an entire segment analyzing who would be a better pick-up between Shaq, AI, Jermaine O’Neal, and Tracy McGrady, but the phrase “sign and trade” never came up a single time in any of the talk of the marquee free agents. However, I have better things to do with my life than continue to talk about all the ways in which the mainstream sports media once again missed the boat.
My advice: til signatures start going on contracts, believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. Especially if Kornheiser, Wilbon, Lebatard, or Simmons is involved. Good night and good luck.
