Jordan's, Barkley's, Magic's, etc. Response to LBJ/Miami

Michael's recent comments on ESPN.com have to hit and sting LBJ at least a little bit. To have your idol question your move has to send up some kind of red flag in LeBron's mind. But in fine Jordan, ambassador-like fashion, he couched/balanced his response by saying that's just what's available in the NBA today. And don't count Michael out of trying something like this or better going forward down here in Charlotte, NC. He's going to have to change his mindset from the '90's method to do it, though.

This is what happens legally in a situation that was started innocently by the Celtics. Going forward, teams will push everything right up to the edge before a new law/ruling gets passed to contain it. By trade or by draft or by FA, what Miami did was in the ballpark and above board. Any team can do this. We tried something legally and it worked. The next question is first, how do you combat it as a team or teams currently looking from the outside and then secondly, can you come up with anything better within the confines of NBA law?

I wonder what LBJ's response will be to Michael? Of course now, though, Michael and his past methods of winning championships are "Old School". This is the new NBA. BTW, when will David Stern retire?

Personally, in 5-10 years after this plays out with no changes in CBA/Owners wishes, etc., putting 5 Rondo-like players starting (~$10MM a piece) is where this is headed. 5 near-All Stars will crush 3 All-Stars and trash most if not all the time, IMHBAO. Just more ego swallowing, that's all. Perfect for the Celtics.

Dbrown

Also heard this AM that Jordan was supportive of the Bulls efforts to get Rodman from the Spurs. Also questionable how much a role Jordan played in that maneuver, having been key opponents during the Piston/Bulls in the late 80's.

beat

I still remember how enraged Jordan was when Rodman assumed his Rodzilla wrestling identity to make an appearance in a tag team match with Hollywood Hulk Hogan on the Monday Nitro WCW show on TNT in the 90's during the playoffs. I'll bet Ted turner paid Rodman's fine to the Bulls, or at least reimbursed Rodam handsomely for his appearnce and contribution to the match. I think Jordan pulled him up by the collar and gave him an ultimatum if he EVER pulled a stunt like that again, risking injury when HIS team was going for a championship!-MD.

Dbrown,

I guess, in a sense, the Celtics started the trend. But they simply traded and got good free agents to put together a good team, a process that has existed for decades in the NBA. In the case of Miami, from all appearances at least, the players colluded to put together the core of the team, and Riley took it from there. So I'm not sure it's quite the same. But, whatever, it's done. Protesting its legality would seem like sour grapes at this juncture.

Sam

I don't have any problems with players getting together to discuss playing on the same team. Existing players on teams frequently contact free agents to try to talk them into signing with the team they play for.

The legality that might be challenged is if Bosh, Wade and LeBron's posse all get jobs in the Heat organization.

This worked for Miami but didn't work so good for Chi, NY and NJ.

NBA great Michael Jordan said Sunday he would never have called Larry Bird and Magic Johnson and suggested the three form a super team in the way LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh have done in Miami.

"There's no way, with hindsight, I would've ever called up Larry, called up Magic and said 'Hey, look, let's get together and play on one team," Jordan said at the American Century Championship, a celebrity golf tournament in Stateline, Nev. "But ... things are different. I can't say that's a bad thing. It's an opportunity these kids have today. In all honesty, I was trying to beat those guys."

James, who became a free agent July 1, has been criticized on several fronts after holding a one-hour television program on July 8 to announce he'd join Wade and Bosh on the Heat.

Prior to Jordan's comments, former NBA star and TNT analyst Charles Barkley weighed in by saying, "(James will) never be Jordan. This clearly takes him out of the conversation. He can win as much as he wants to. There would have been something honorable about staying in Cleveland and trying to win it as 'the man.'"

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/extras/celtics_blog/2010/07/michael_jordan.html

I dont see how protesting or at least questioning the propriety of the situation is sour grapes at all.

If Pat Riley was courting players who were UNDER CONTRACT at the time, he was involved in shady behavior that may violate the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. And any team that feels this colluding put them at an unfair advantage - has every right to launch an inquiry.

Next summer when the owners lock out the union, demanding shorter contracts and less guarantees....WATCH how many big name players will be complaining.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

So, Mrkleen, are you saying the Tremendous Trio took a gander at the Heat's situation and goosed Pat Riley into signing them?

Sam

http://blogs.suntimes.com/bulls/2010/07/jordan_on_miamis_big_three.html

As I wrote before the announcement, going to Miami would be the wrong decision for James. I cited the analogy that when Jordan was frustrated about not winning a title in his first seven years, he didn't call close friends Patrick Ewing and Charles Barkley and say that they should team up to form a super team.

"I mean, in all honesty, I was trying to beat those guys. I don't know if they would have been on my team. If they had been on my team ... then obviously, if you look at the dream team, they were on my team and it wasn't too much of a competitive thing."

I think the trio of Jordan, Ewing and Barkley is more comparable to James, Wade and Bosh than Jordan, Bird and Johnson, but the point is clear: There's no way Jordan would have made the decision James did.

He was too prideful, too stubborn to do it any way other than the hard way -- as the alpha dog on a team that battled through adversity to beat all comers.

The consensus is James' decision will affect his legacy.

"He'll never be Jordan," Barkley told 790 the Ticket in Miami a few days ago. "This clearly takes him out of the conversation. He can win as much as he wants to.

"There would have been something honorable about staying in Cleveland and trying to win it as 'The Man' ... LeBron, if he would've in Cleveland, and if he could've got a championship there, it would have been over the top for his legacy, just one in Cleveland. No matter how many he wins in Miami, it clearly is Dwyane Wade's team."

Sam wrote:So, Mrkleen, are you saying the Tremendous Trio took a gander at the Heat's situation and goosed Pat Riley into signing them?

Sam

I dont know what that means Sam. But I do know that you cannot talk money or anything of the sort with a player that is under contract at the time.

Seems like the Heat acted in a very shady and underhanded manner here - and many people around the NBA are asking this question.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/stories/071010dnspocuban.1235accf2.html

A gander is slang for "a look" as well as signifying a male goose.

Ii guess one had to be there.

As in "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Hey Bob, do you study this stuff?

Sam,

I agree with you. It was kind of the same, but not really. If I remember correctly, Boston's big three was put together by trade, not free agency. You have less fan out cry because at least both teams involved get someone back. If there are some unhappy fans, then they are probably more unhappy with the organization(s) than they are with the players themselves. In the case of Miami's big three, allot of fans are unhappy with both. Miami's front office and the players they received.

Also, unlike the Heat deals where everyone outside Miami is crying fowl (sp), the Celtics' big three and even the Lakers Gasol deal primarily angered the fans of each others closest rivals and/or competitors, not the majority of the NBA like the Heat have accomplished.

In short, I don't think the Celtics and Heats deals were the same. Besides, until the Heat win a championship, I don't think the comparison can be finalized. Ok, not sure if I made much sense with this, but I hope you get what I mean.

P.S. If this was baseball, we would be saying there goes the Yankees again and think nothing more of it.

MG

I am still wondering about how you can be allowed to buy out a player to get salary cap relief and then get him back on veterans minimum.

James Jones got bought out and got offered 6m by San Antonio I think but decided to go with veterans minimum in Miami.

Looks fishy to me.

It is surprising (to me) that it took so long after the advent of free agency for some high end free agents to join together on one team at the same time.

At the beginning of free agency, a single player would get fed up with his current team low-balling him when it came time to sign a new contract. After he waited the alotted time, he could now leave his team and go to a new team that met his salary requirements. That gave the player the power to decide where he would play.

Now it seems that the pendulum has swung about as far as it can in the direction of the players. I don't know about the collusion thing, but often, where there is smoke, there is fire.

A small investigation may find that Pat Riley just set the table and the South Beach Three came for supper. Pat Riley is too smart to have sent an email, made a phone call or any made any other method of traceable communication. Maybe he made a passing comment, who knows?

At the least, he had full access to Wade's ear, who then could legally discuss the grand plan to James and Bosh. David Stern seems to like the turn of events, so we will probably never know.

Now we have Chris Paul and Carmelo Anthony talking about getting together with Amar'e Stoudemire in New York to what, create a Mini-me Three? It seems that we will get more and more of this kind of thing.

gyso

gyso can you blame them?after years of being at mercy of management now they can leverage the rules and choose the best situation for themselves,more power to them.

I'm hoping this leads to contraction myself. The rest of the league will be forced to adopt this philosophy, squeezing/tightening the talent pool and forcing lesser markets out. This is all based, of course on the fact that this will work. Nothing has been proven yet. The Big 3 idea worked in Boston, resurrecting them from the dead. I suppose it's still up for debate as to how well it worked in Boston in that we measure everything in terms of championships. Yes, we won one and came 4 points from the other. Just how successful that is for us the fans I think has yet to be determined until the Big 3 are all retired.

It all comes down to one's definition of success. Would it be considered successful if the league did contract and we could have, say, 16 teams that look like Miami and Boston? To me, that would be some awesome Pro Basketball. We wouldn't have all these watered down teams, probably wouldn't be a need for revenue sharing.

The problem right now is when a team gets in financial trouble, there is always a willing entreprenuer to pick up the pieces, so the team is just moved to a new city with open arms and open legs, as Pete would say.

Except for the fact that Florida NBA players don't pay state income tax, Wade, Bosh, and James all took big salary cuts to play together. Because money talks, I don't think this will become a trend.

gyso and cowens,

Just don't forget the Golden Rule. Owners will get what they want...always. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Cow,

When were TODAY'S players at the mercy of management? Today's players are generations removed from the players who were "at the mercy of management." They are not the same people; and, unlike players of the distant past, today's players have been motivated all along the way by realistic dreams of great riches to spur them on in their quest to become professional basketball players.

The players who were allegedly "at the mercy of management" years ago experienced the reverse of that situation. They had no inkling of where the economics of basketball might be headed three or four decades later. They knew that ownership often struggled and went into hock just to keep a franchise afloat, giving the players work. Many of the players regarded summer jobs as useful training for the job market they'd face when they got out into the real world after they left pro ball. By and large, most of the players were very happy people to have the privilege of playing professional basketball. Most of their efforts were aimed at becoming better players than in figuring out how to beat the system.

Richard Hamilton currently makes about $12.5 million a year. Some people have spoken of him as a Sam Jones-type player. (I'll withhold any laughter out of respect for today's Detroit fans.) At the end of his last season, Red Auerbach offered Sam Jones a $25,000 raise from his $60,000 salary if Sam would stay with the Celtics one more season. Sam was bowled over by the generosity of the offer and refused only because he had accepted a college coaching job and didn't want to renege on the deal. $12,500,000 is roughly 208 times $60,000. Nobody on earth can convince me that any economic indicator has increased by more than a fraction of 208 times over the same period.

The more the league has tried to equalize teams, the more unequal things have become between the haves and the have nots. Smart people being smart people, ways have been found to skirt the spirit of the league regulations and beat the system. It's the same thing with agents and players because, the more the get, the more they want. The league hierarchy thinks it can solve matters through regulation and expansion. But the regulations are just challenges for smart people to find loopholes, and the expansion just strains the underpinnings of the basketball economy while introducing more repositories of greed. And most of the creativity that exists among all the people associated with professional basketball is directed more toward skirting regulations, gaining the economic upper hand, and transitioning basketball into a branch of entertainment than on improving the game of basketball and the competition therein.

Dbrown's suggestion for compacting the number of teams is similar to several I've seen in articles on how to fix the NBA. Isn't that ironic? Loads of people claiming that having fewer teams would enhance the quality of play. While other alleged humanoids are still claiming the quality of play was lower 40-60 years ago, when the league consisted of fewer teams to divide the talent in a draft that included up to 10 rounds or more. Could it be true that more than a lunatic fringe dream they can recapture the authenticity, natural zeal, and fundamental qualities of the game of yesteryear...but on a financial plane 208 times as high? Good luck to them.

Small wonder that a codger like me finds most behind-the-scenes machinations of pro basketball beyond boring and prefers to focus on whatever beauty, skill and competition he can still ferret out of the game itself.

Sorry to get on a rant. This viewpoint is obviously mine alone and does not reflect on the forum in any way. I highly respect and definitely welcome dissenting opinions.

Sam