I'm not sure if you heard or not, but LeBron James is going back to Cleveland to play for the Cavaliers. This news may have slipped through the cracks. Either way, prior to LeBron announcement he was going back home to Akron to play in Cleveland for the Cavaliers, Mark Kiszla had a hot sports take about LeBron. Wear your flame retardant suit, please, because this retardant take is extremely hot. See, LeBron may think he is the King, but Tim Duncan has the rings. It rhymes AND it's a play on "King James." It probably took 5-7 seconds to think of this brilliant column idea.
The NBA has a problem. His name is LeBron James.
The NBA's problem is that LeBron James is too good at playing basketball and brings too much interest to the NBA. He stays out of too much trouble and is too much of a role model for kids. He must be stopped immediately. Where's Tim Tebow when you need him? How dare LeBron inadvertently create interest in the NBA.
The league has sold its soul to the cult of King James.
When the NBA sold its soul to Michael Jordan, that worked out terribly. I mean, there was all this interest in the NBA and one of the NBA's greatest players was winning titles. (Shudders) What a dark period that was.
Remember when what happened on the court actually mattered in the NBA?
Yes, I do remember late June. Do you remember when LeBron James played basketball (right now) and he became a free agent (this just happened) and he was able to choose a new team to play basketball for (this just happened)? This resulted in LeBron James joining the Cleveland Cavaliers (he's coming home) and improved the product that they will put on the court (coming this 14/15 NBA season) and that's why his free agency mattered, because he is going to make the team he chose matter on the court this upcoming season.
These days, the only
thing that really counts in the NBA is the courtship of the King. The
wooing of James got so ridiculous, so fast, it even made 69-year-old Pat
Riley look as desperate as a nerd begging for a date to the middle
school dance.
Pat Riley planned for two years to wait for LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh to be free agents so he could sign them. This resulted in four NBA Finals appearances and two NBA titles. But yeah, the fact Riley wanted to spend a day convincing LeBron to win more NBA titles, that was so pathetic. What a loser that Pat Riley is to court the best basketball player on the planet and try to convince him to come back and re-join the Heat. He should have played it cool like Dan Gilbert is known for doing and acted like an adult.
James is either going back to Cleveland. Or he isn't. Next on "SportsCenter"!
Why is it LeBron James' fault that everyone (myself included) were speculating where he might end up signing? He has the right to take his time and choose the right team for him.
Well, the San Antonio
Spurs won their fifth championship of the Tim Duncan era with some of
the most beautiful basketball ever seen. But that's trivial stuff.
Because Tim Duncan has everything to do with where LeBron James plays during the 14/15 season.
So LeBron James is to blame for the speculation, and as Kiszla points out, Tim Duncan has won five NBA titles and plays beautiful basketball. That's totally relevant to the subject of LeBron James' free agency.
While the world of
social media spins out of control 24/7, one truth regarding sports
remains the same, forever and always: It's all about the scoreboard,
baby.
Okay, so while Tim Duncan is the king then that means Bill Russell has the rings, right? Or is it while Tim Duncan has the rings, Michael Jordan is the king and has the rings? Scoreboard, baby!
When that ceases to be the case, we might as well be watching Miley Cyrus twerk.
I don't really understand this reference. It seems like a forced pop culture reference to me.
King James has no clothes.
I'm sure he can afford some now that he will be making $20+ million per year. Besides, it's the emperor who has no clothes, not the king.
And the NBA has been exposed as little more than his prop.
No, the NBA has been exposed as a league whose best player was a free agent and there was a lot of interest in where the NBA's best player would end up in free agency. Funny how this Denver-based writer didn't think the NFL wasn't Tim Tebow's prop during his time playing with the professionals. The interest in where LeBron ended up doesn't make the NBA a prop, it increased interest in the NBA.
To be sure, the two NBA championships won by James are nothing to sniff at.
Well, I'm glad he has your approval. I am sure it means a lot to LeBron to know a hack writer validates his championships as nothing to sniff at.
That gives the King one more ring than Dirk Nowitzki. And one ring fewer than Brian Shaw earned as a player.
And still fewer rings than Robert Horry. ROBERT HORRY IS A BETTER PLAYER THAN LEBRON JAMES BECAUSE HE MORE CHAMPIONSHIP RINGS! SCOREBOARD, BABY!
Everybody in the league puts life on hold for LeBron.
The best basketball player on the planet is a free agent for the second time. This never happens. It never happens that the best basketball player on the planet is a free agent once, but to happen twice, and for him to go back to the team that originally drafted him? It's an interesting story. Dismiss it as uninteresting or an example of the NBA as a prop, but it's a unique situation. Also, what the hell happened to the Tim Duncan strawman argument? I was looking forward to criticizing that line of thought for it's randomness.
The King builds teams as he sees fit.
He had the right as a free agent to choose his next team and he took his time, smartly I might add, choosing his next team. Criticizing James for wanting to play for a winning team surrounded by other quality players is hypocrisy when talking about Tim Duncan playing a beautiful game of basketball. Tim Duncan wants to play for a winning team and he helped build the Spurs team as he saw fit by giving the team cap room to add other players on the roster.
Hey, Houston Rockets,
do you mind if free agent forward Chris Bosh puts you and your piddling
$88 million offer on hold until James tells him it's OK what to do?
LeBron James didn't tell Chris Bosh to wait for him to make a decision. That was Bosh's decision to not sign with the Rockets until James chose a team. You can't blame everything on LeBron James.
Wait until you check
out the unbearable case of inferiority complex the Timberwolves would
acquire if Kevin Love forsakes them for Cleveland, all because James
snapped his fingers.
I'm pretty sure Minnesota already has that inferiority complex due to Kevin Love essentially saying he would never re-sign with the Timberwolves and Kevin Garnett leaving for Boston a few years ago because Danny Ainge promised him a dream team with the Celtics.
Now, like some
jealous little kid, Melo is afraid to announce whether he's staying in
New York or joining the Lakers in the same news cycle as Decision 2.0 by
James.
Carmelo's decision didn't have anything to do with LeBron. It had to do with him not being sure he didn't want to play in Chicago. Carmelo isn't sure where he wants to play. What a shock though. A Denver-based writer bashes Carmelo Anthony.
James broke the
hearts of Cleveland when he took his talents to South Beach in 2010.
What he's doing now is making a mockery of the games, all the flyover
franchises and NBA stars groveling to be LeBron's wingman.
No, he's choosing his next team. All of this other ancillary stuff wasn't his fault or his doing. He has a right to choose his next team in free agency and shouldn't be on Mark Kiszla's time table simply because Kiszla doesn't like the impact around the NBA LeBron's choice had.
I don't begrudge James his power.
Mark Kiszla doesn't begrudge James his power, yet this entire column is Kiszla begruding LeBron James his power and criticizing James for taking time to make a decision in free agency. But no, he doesn't begrudge LeBron...just as long as you ignore this article as a great example this statement is a lie.
More power to him. James didn't write the rules of the collective bargaining agreement; he merely exploited them.
But you are acting like LeBron wrote the rules, forced NBA writers to speculate on his destination and intentionally isn't making a decision so that the entire NBA will revolve around him more than it already does. You also randomly bring up Tim Duncan in the conversation to show how LeBron doesn't have the rings worthy of being discussed at such length.
But any league where the whim of one man is more important than the final score is dribbling down the wrong path.
The whim of James isn't more important than the final score. The season is over. There are no more games. There is no final score. There is no reason James' decision had anything to do with the final score of anything. You have no point. Stop writing crap like this.
Anybody, however, who
tells you James is as great as Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry
Bird, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson or Hall of Famers who relished
competition instead of moving on to whatever's convenient fails to
realize how hard a meaningful legacy is earned in sports.
It does help that Bill Russell, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson didn't have to leave their teams to find great Hall of Fame teammates. Check out the teams that LeBron carried on his back in Cleveland prior to 2010. Heck, compare the Heat teams from 2011-2014. The Celtics and Lakers teams with Russell, Bird and Magic had as many Hall of Fame players (and other quality NBA players) on the roster during the years they won titles as the Heat had during their four year run with LeBron. Whatever though, make up your own narrative through revisionist history.
James wins Twitter.
Duncan wins rings.
Tim Duncan is also 37 years old. He had three NBA title at the age of 29 and LeBron James has two NBA titles at that same age. Randomly comparing Duncan at the end of his career, in terms of championship rings, to LeBron James in the prime of his career is a misleading comparison.
You tell me who the real king is.
Um, Bill Russell or any other NBA player with more than five NBA titles on his resume?
Showing posts with label Miami Heat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Miami Heat. Show all posts
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Thursday, July 3, 2014
4 comments Josh Levin Thinks The Spurs' Stars Shouldn't be Praised for Taking Less Money; May Misunderstand How the NBA Cap System Works
I'm a free market guy. I think athletes should be able make whatever amount of money teams are willing to offer them. I also understand how a salary cap can create more parity and I think adds a certain amount of intrigue to a sport. NFL/NBA teams can't just outspend other teams to get the players they want and have to be careful with the salary cap room they have. Josh Levin thinks it is bad for the Spurs' stars to be praised for taking less money to win games. Yeah fine, players should be able to make as much money as they want to make. That's a position I can understand. The problem is players can make as much money as they want, but if these players want to be on a team with other great players then a sacrifice may have to be made. Tim Duncan may make $12 million instead of $15 million and Tony Parker may make $13 million instead of $15 million. It's up to the individual player to make the decision and I don't think it's a bad thing for NBA players to choose to give up money in order to have room to sign other players.
The main reason Josh Levin seems to not like players like Duncan, Parker, Ginobili taking less money is that these funds end up back in the pocket of very wealthy owners. There are two very fundamental issues with this point of view.
1. The problem isn't Spurs players taking less money, it's the NBA system and the NBA salary cap. Don't take issue with players who want to win and say they shouldn't be praised. Guys like Duncan, Parker, James, Wade, Bosh, and Ginobili made a personal decision within the NBA salary system to take less money. This is the decision they should be praised for. These six players aren't taking less money to put back in the pocket of wealthy owners, they are taking less money so other quality players can play on their same team. The decision should be praised, because while working within the NBA salary system, they are taking less money for team gain. The constant is the NBA salary cap system and that can't be changed.
2. There is a thing called the "luxury tax" which teams pay once they have exceeded the soft cap the NBA has. Now, as I just said, the constant is the NBA salary cap system which can not be changed. So the ideal that Levin works towards is players like Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili getting paid what they are worth on the free market. Say the Spurs choose to sign all of these players to market value contracts and then end up with a total cap amount of over $100 million (like the Nets had this year). The Spurs will then end up with a luxury tax bill of $80 million. Where does this money go? I'll give you a hint...not to the poor, not to the hungry, not to middle class tax breaks...but to the owners of each NBA team. So if the Spurs' three stars did choose to make free market value for their services and the Spurs were willing to pay it, then Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili would actually be putting money in the pockets of wealthy owners anyway. It's the system and it isn't going to be changed soon. Don't blame the Spurs' stars and say they shouldn't be praised for taking less money. The alternative either means Parker/Duncan/Ginobili will play for a different NBA team that will work hard to not go too far over the soft cap (thereby giving the wealthy owners more money) or the Spurs will pay the luxury tax (thereby giving the wealthy owners more money). Guess what? The system is set up to pay wealthy owners more money. It's almost like this isn't a coincidence.
Anyway, here is Levin's article about why the Spurs stars should not be praised for taking less money.
The Spurs play a beautiful game. They show the value of hard work, team play, and humility. San Antonio has one of the best coaches in pro sports, and their general manager is a genius. All of these statements are true, and they merge to form a positive feedback loop.
"A positive feedback loop." Not that Josh Levin is trying to sound super-extra technical when discussing that the Spurs seem to resemble many of the positive attributes sports fans look for in a team.
The players work well together because their GM, R.C. Buford, did a great job acquiring talent, which makes the team more successful, which makes more players buy into Gregg Popovich’s team concept
Those who don't buy-in go find somewhere else to play basketball. Those who are fat (ahem, Fatty Mills) lose weight and buy-in or lose minutes to another player. Nice set-up for an NBA team if you can get it.
This isn’t how things have typically worked in the NBA. When he was the coach of the Los Angeles Lakers, Pat Riley—now the president of the Miami Heat—said his team succumbed to the “disease of more.”
Levin's titles this article "The Disease of Less." So wanting "more" is the way towards a team imploding and not succeeding, while so wanting "less" is the way towards a team succeeding and winning titles. And yet, wanting "less" is a bad thing supposedly. I always thought the purpose was to win games.
As Bill Simmons described it in a 2007 column, “Everyone wanted more money, playing time and recognition. Eventually they lost perspective and stopped doing the little things that make teams win and keep winning.”
In San Antonio, the opposite has happened.
Those Lakers also had a group of younger players with large egos (namely Magic Johnson), while the Spurs best players are older and wiser. I know Levin isn't making a direct comparison, but the "Disease of More" tends to strike teams with players who have leaders that are younger and less able to subjugate their egos.
A little bit of fun from that column is the cockiness and shocking wrongness of Bill's writing. Here are some of the gems from that column:
If you aren't picking the Spurs to take the 2008 NBA title, your reasoning is simple: They won last year.
(And while we're here, if you're turning your back on a proven winner for a McGrady-Yao combo with zero playoff success between them, or a Dallas team with the emotional makeup of the Spears clan, or a Celtics team coached by the immortal Doc Rivers, or a Bulls team that's collectively younger than the cast of "Hannah Montana," you deserve what you get.)
Oh yes, this is back when Doc Rivers wasn't a genius because he didn't have a team of three Hall of Famers surrounding by a probable Hall of Famer (Rondo) and a very deep bench with skilled role players. Amazing how Bill bashed Rivers when Rivers didn't have the talent to succeed, only to forget that he bashed Rivers once the Celtics started winning. And yes, that's a "Hannah Montana" reference.
When the Sox were trying to win in 2003 and 2004, it felt like life-or-death to me. Three years later, I found myself just as caught up in October, but a small piece was missing -- every game carried urgency and tension, only that life-or-death component had vanished. As much as I wanted the Sox to keep winning, my life wasn't going to fall apart if they lost, because they'd already won in 2004. Oddly, it was somewhat liberating to watch these 2007 playoffs. I found myself thinking about how great it would be if they kept winning, not how painful it would be if they lost.
There is a lot of Red Sox talk in this column. Because the column was about the NBA and which team would win the title it obviously makes complete sense to talk about the Red Sox.
It's the boring pick, the logical pick, but as much as we hate to admit it, sometimes sports is boring and logical. That's why I'm going with the Spurs over the Bulls in five, and that's why, eight months from now, you won't even remember that I was right.
No one will remember Bill was right, because he wasn't. The Celtics were NBA Champs and the Bulls didn't even make the playoffs. I like how cocky Bill was about his prediction though. Anyway, back to the Spurs and why the fact their big stars take less money puts money into the pocket of wealthy owners.
As the Spurs’ Big Three of Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili have gotten older and more established, they’ve willingly taken on less, playing fewer minutes and taking smaller salaries. These sacrifices have allowed San Antonio to pay for and develop valuable complementary players like Boris Diaw, Tiago Splitter, and Marco Belinelli. It’s a simple salary-cap calculus: There would be no team ball if Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili weren’t team players when it came to their own contracts.
And this is obviously a disease that should be avoided. Why would these stars take less money for playing fewer minutes so the Spurs can put a better team around them? Don't Parker, Ginobili, and Duncan know doing this puts more money in the pocket of NBA owners who would obviously be extremely poor if it weren't for the corporate welfare these three NBA stars are providing to them?
the same basic story can be found in Miami. LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh all took less than the NBA’s maximum salary to team up together on the Heat. The trio learned to play together and have won two championships in the take-my-talents-to-South-Beach era—one more than the Spurs in that time.
It's taking Josh Levin quite a while to get to the point of this column. These three players can make up some of this money in endorsement deals they would receive for playing on an NBA team that wins multiple championships. Sure, that money be available regardless of whether James, Bosh, and Wade took less money, but the championships very well could not be there.
Elite NBA players are now effectively serving as their own general managers. By slashing their own earnings to fit themselves and their teammates under the salary cap, they’re sacrificing money in addition to the lucre they’ve already given away in the league’s collective bargaining agreement.
This is true. This is how the NBA salary cap system is set up. It is set up to try and prevent a team from signing 3-4 max contract players and dominate the NBA. Of course, it hasn't worked out that way because NBA players are choosing to take less money in order to win NBA championships, which obviously is a good thing in terms of setting an example of teamwork, but a bad thing for these NBA players receiving market value for their services.
Let's not forget these players aren't exactly going broke taking less money. This past season Tony Parker earned $12.5 million, Duncan earned $10.3 million, Ginobili earned $7 million, LeBron/Bosh earned $19.07 million and Wade earned $18.5 million. It's not like they are cutting their earning potential in half or anything like that.
While Detroit Tigers slugger Miguel Cabrera signed a deal that will pay him what averages out to $29 million a year, James makes $19 million annually, which is just below the league’s maximum salary.
And the result of this is the Tigers are having to trade away pitchers like Doug Fister, who wasn't traded away due to the Tigers wanting to save money but to get "flexibility," and not being able to hand Max Scherzer the type of contract he and Scott Boras want. Poor Jon Heyman, now he's going to have write a few articles talking about what a great pitcher Scherzer is in an effort to help Boras get max value for Scherzer's services.
My point is that even in the free market league that is MLB, every team has a budget whether they want to admit it or not.
Though the players agreed to this system—it was collectively bargained, after all—it puts them in the awkward position of having to sacrifice salary in order to preserve their public image.
In terms of "sacrificing money" they are still very wealthy millionaires. I realize they aren't maximizing their value, but this is the same system the NFL has, except theirs is a hard cap.
If guys like Duncan and James were paid closer to what they’re worth in the NBA’s version of an open market, they’d risk being labeled selfish superstars who care more about money than winning...But if you take less and win more games, you’re praised for your selflessness—well, at least if you’re in San Antonio.
I fail to see why the Spurs (and even the Heat) stars should not be praised for being selfless. The fact is these players can't make their market value anyway, so they choose to take less money than they could receive according to the CBA, which means this is a somewhat selfless move.
Seattle Seahawks fans are not aggrieved by the fact that Super Bowl–winning quarterback Russell Wilson made a mere $500,000 in 2014. Rather, they’re overjoyed that he’s so underpaid, which allows the team to spend that much more on other positions. And Saints fans aren’t supporting tight end Jimmy Graham’s quest to be paid as an upper-crust wide receiver rather than a middle-class tight end—the less money he gets, the better players the team can put around him.
What a shocking turn of events that fans of the Saints and Seahawks want their team to put a quality product on the field. Gosh, it's so selfish of Saints and Seahawks fans to want Wilson/Graham to be underpaid so their respective teams can be more flush with open salary cap space. Because I'm sure Russell Wilson and Jimmy Graham are very concerned that Seahawks and Saints fans may be underpaid for the quality of the job they do.
For some players, taking less money is the best possible decision. I’d imagine that Tim Duncan has more cash than he’ll ever need, and that another championship ring will bring him more happiness than another couple of million dollars. It’s also hard to empathize with a player who’s already superrich and passes up the chance to be super-duper rich
It's not about empathizing or not empathizing with a player. It's about whether a player is willing to take less money for the greater good of the team. Some players do, other players don't. I fail to see why not taking the maximum amount of money possible should not be praised.
But when a player doesn’t get paid what he’s worth, much of that money—the portion that doesn't end up in the pockets of lesser NBA talent—just ends up in the pocket of an even wealthier owner
If the player does get paid what he is worth then an NBA team can go over the luxury tax threshold and this goes right in the pocket of more than one wealthy owner. Either way, the system is set up for the owners to get paid. When a player doesn't get paid what's he worth, that money can go to the lesser NBA talent, and then yes, the money can go to making more money for that specific team's owner. But if that player gets what he's worth then that owner is still going to make that money. It's just the team won't spend money on the lesser player.
Josh Levin is working under the false assumption that an owner doesn't have a set salary limit he's willing to allow his team to spend up to. For example, say the owners of the Spurs sets the team's budget at $73 million. That's the budget. Now how that money gets split up to get to $73 million doesn't matter. The owner of the Spurs probably isn't going to say, "Set the budget at $73 million unless Duncan wants a max contract in which case I'm willing to spend $78 million." The owner will say, "If Duncan wants a max contract then make it work to where the team is only spending $73 million and staying as far below the luxury tax as possible."
It's a zero-sum game. Even if the owner did go to $78 million then that's over the luxury tax threshold and other very wealthy owners will reap the rewards of the Spurs owner going over the soft cap. These owners are getting paid regardless. Bet on that. It's not like the money Duncan is choosing to not receive in a salary is going into the owner's pocket. It's being spent on players like Tiago Splitter. So yes, the owners are getting rich but it's not like the Spurs owner is pocketing the money Duncan doesn't receive. It goes to other players. There is only so much of the pie to go around in terms of salary spent on Spurs players. The end result is the same regardless of whether Parker, Duncan, Ginobili take up 85% of this space or 60% of this space. NBA owners are going to spend what they care to spend on players.
There is a reason Parker, Duncan, Ginobili are sacrificing money and it isn't because they just like to. They know the Spurs' budget and they know the owner is getting paid regardless. It's only a matter of how much talent is around them and how much money it takes to keep/acquire that talent.
a fellow whose earnings aren’t capped in any way, and who could sell his franchise for north of $1 billion whenever he gets bored or gets caught being a racist.
But again, Levin is missing the point that the owners are going to be paid anyway. Players sacrifice because the amount ownership will spend is set. If the amount isn't set and a team goes over the soft cap then ALL owners get rich from the luxury tax implications of a team going over the soft cap.
So, let’s praise the Spurs’ selflessness on the court—their crisp passing, movement without the ball, and tireless team defending. But the Big Three’s willingness to reduce their salaries isn’t something that should be celebrated
Yes, their willingness to reduce their salaries is something that should be celebrated. The NBA salary system doesn't have to be celebrated, but the willingness of star players to reduce their salaries within the system should be celebrated. The argument that NBA owners pocket the money not spent on Tim Duncan, LeBron James, etc. isn't a persuasive argument because the reason these players took less money is to fit other players on the team. The reality is an NBA team is going to spend a certain amount of money, so these players have to take less money or else have a crappy supporting cast surrounding them. The NBA salary system is fixed and the amount an NBA team is willing to spend on salaries is somewhat fixed. Tiago Splitter got paid because Duncan/Parker/Ginobili weren't paid market value. If these three players were making more money then Splitter wouldn't be on the Spurs team and the Spurs owner would still be filthy rich.
Instead, let’s stump for a system in which a team like the Spurs can win a title by playing a beautiful game on the court, and NBA legends like Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili get paid something closer to what they’re worth.
These are two separate issues that Josh Levin is failing to separate out as two separate issues. Within the NBA salary system Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili were unselfish in taking less money. Outside of that issue, it is fine to stump for a system in which these three players can get paid closer to what they are worth. Go for it. Do it. Just don't write that these three players shouldn't be praised for taking less money within the confines of the current system. These players should be praised for working within the current system to achieve team success. The fact Josh Levin doesn't like the system these three players are working within is a different issue that has nothing to do with how the Spurs play basketball or whether the unselfishness of taking less money should be praised or not.
The main reason Josh Levin seems to not like players like Duncan, Parker, Ginobili taking less money is that these funds end up back in the pocket of very wealthy owners. There are two very fundamental issues with this point of view.
1. The problem isn't Spurs players taking less money, it's the NBA system and the NBA salary cap. Don't take issue with players who want to win and say they shouldn't be praised. Guys like Duncan, Parker, James, Wade, Bosh, and Ginobili made a personal decision within the NBA salary system to take less money. This is the decision they should be praised for. These six players aren't taking less money to put back in the pocket of wealthy owners, they are taking less money so other quality players can play on their same team. The decision should be praised, because while working within the NBA salary system, they are taking less money for team gain. The constant is the NBA salary cap system and that can't be changed.
2. There is a thing called the "luxury tax" which teams pay once they have exceeded the soft cap the NBA has. Now, as I just said, the constant is the NBA salary cap system which can not be changed. So the ideal that Levin works towards is players like Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili getting paid what they are worth on the free market. Say the Spurs choose to sign all of these players to market value contracts and then end up with a total cap amount of over $100 million (like the Nets had this year). The Spurs will then end up with a luxury tax bill of $80 million. Where does this money go? I'll give you a hint...not to the poor, not to the hungry, not to middle class tax breaks...but to the owners of each NBA team. So if the Spurs' three stars did choose to make free market value for their services and the Spurs were willing to pay it, then Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili would actually be putting money in the pockets of wealthy owners anyway. It's the system and it isn't going to be changed soon. Don't blame the Spurs' stars and say they shouldn't be praised for taking less money. The alternative either means Parker/Duncan/Ginobili will play for a different NBA team that will work hard to not go too far over the soft cap (thereby giving the wealthy owners more money) or the Spurs will pay the luxury tax (thereby giving the wealthy owners more money). Guess what? The system is set up to pay wealthy owners more money. It's almost like this isn't a coincidence.
Anyway, here is Levin's article about why the Spurs stars should not be praised for taking less money.
The Spurs play a beautiful game. They show the value of hard work, team play, and humility. San Antonio has one of the best coaches in pro sports, and their general manager is a genius. All of these statements are true, and they merge to form a positive feedback loop.
"A positive feedback loop." Not that Josh Levin is trying to sound super-extra technical when discussing that the Spurs seem to resemble many of the positive attributes sports fans look for in a team.
The players work well together because their GM, R.C. Buford, did a great job acquiring talent, which makes the team more successful, which makes more players buy into Gregg Popovich’s team concept
Those who don't buy-in go find somewhere else to play basketball. Those who are fat (ahem, Fatty Mills) lose weight and buy-in or lose minutes to another player. Nice set-up for an NBA team if you can get it.
This isn’t how things have typically worked in the NBA. When he was the coach of the Los Angeles Lakers, Pat Riley—now the president of the Miami Heat—said his team succumbed to the “disease of more.”
Levin's titles this article "The Disease of Less." So wanting "more" is the way towards a team imploding and not succeeding, while so wanting "less" is the way towards a team succeeding and winning titles. And yet, wanting "less" is a bad thing supposedly. I always thought the purpose was to win games.
As Bill Simmons described it in a 2007 column, “Everyone wanted more money, playing time and recognition. Eventually they lost perspective and stopped doing the little things that make teams win and keep winning.”
In San Antonio, the opposite has happened.
Those Lakers also had a group of younger players with large egos (namely Magic Johnson), while the Spurs best players are older and wiser. I know Levin isn't making a direct comparison, but the "Disease of More" tends to strike teams with players who have leaders that are younger and less able to subjugate their egos.
A little bit of fun from that column is the cockiness and shocking wrongness of Bill's writing. Here are some of the gems from that column:
If you aren't picking the Spurs to take the 2008 NBA title, your reasoning is simple: They won last year.
(And while we're here, if you're turning your back on a proven winner for a McGrady-Yao combo with zero playoff success between them, or a Dallas team with the emotional makeup of the Spears clan, or a Celtics team coached by the immortal Doc Rivers, or a Bulls team that's collectively younger than the cast of "Hannah Montana," you deserve what you get.)
Oh yes, this is back when Doc Rivers wasn't a genius because he didn't have a team of three Hall of Famers surrounding by a probable Hall of Famer (Rondo) and a very deep bench with skilled role players. Amazing how Bill bashed Rivers when Rivers didn't have the talent to succeed, only to forget that he bashed Rivers once the Celtics started winning. And yes, that's a "Hannah Montana" reference.
When the Sox were trying to win in 2003 and 2004, it felt like life-or-death to me. Three years later, I found myself just as caught up in October, but a small piece was missing -- every game carried urgency and tension, only that life-or-death component had vanished. As much as I wanted the Sox to keep winning, my life wasn't going to fall apart if they lost, because they'd already won in 2004. Oddly, it was somewhat liberating to watch these 2007 playoffs. I found myself thinking about how great it would be if they kept winning, not how painful it would be if they lost.
There is a lot of Red Sox talk in this column. Because the column was about the NBA and which team would win the title it obviously makes complete sense to talk about the Red Sox.
It's the boring pick, the logical pick, but as much as we hate to admit it, sometimes sports is boring and logical. That's why I'm going with the Spurs over the Bulls in five, and that's why, eight months from now, you won't even remember that I was right.
No one will remember Bill was right, because he wasn't. The Celtics were NBA Champs and the Bulls didn't even make the playoffs. I like how cocky Bill was about his prediction though. Anyway, back to the Spurs and why the fact their big stars take less money puts money into the pocket of wealthy owners.
As the Spurs’ Big Three of Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili have gotten older and more established, they’ve willingly taken on less, playing fewer minutes and taking smaller salaries. These sacrifices have allowed San Antonio to pay for and develop valuable complementary players like Boris Diaw, Tiago Splitter, and Marco Belinelli. It’s a simple salary-cap calculus: There would be no team ball if Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili weren’t team players when it came to their own contracts.
And this is obviously a disease that should be avoided. Why would these stars take less money for playing fewer minutes so the Spurs can put a better team around them? Don't Parker, Ginobili, and Duncan know doing this puts more money in the pocket of NBA owners who would obviously be extremely poor if it weren't for the corporate welfare these three NBA stars are providing to them?
the same basic story can be found in Miami. LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh all took less than the NBA’s maximum salary to team up together on the Heat. The trio learned to play together and have won two championships in the take-my-talents-to-South-Beach era—one more than the Spurs in that time.
It's taking Josh Levin quite a while to get to the point of this column. These three players can make up some of this money in endorsement deals they would receive for playing on an NBA team that wins multiple championships. Sure, that money be available regardless of whether James, Bosh, and Wade took less money, but the championships very well could not be there.
Elite NBA players are now effectively serving as their own general managers. By slashing their own earnings to fit themselves and their teammates under the salary cap, they’re sacrificing money in addition to the lucre they’ve already given away in the league’s collective bargaining agreement.
This is true. This is how the NBA salary cap system is set up. It is set up to try and prevent a team from signing 3-4 max contract players and dominate the NBA. Of course, it hasn't worked out that way because NBA players are choosing to take less money in order to win NBA championships, which obviously is a good thing in terms of setting an example of teamwork, but a bad thing for these NBA players receiving market value for their services.
Let's not forget these players aren't exactly going broke taking less money. This past season Tony Parker earned $12.5 million, Duncan earned $10.3 million, Ginobili earned $7 million, LeBron/Bosh earned $19.07 million and Wade earned $18.5 million. It's not like they are cutting their earning potential in half or anything like that.
While Detroit Tigers slugger Miguel Cabrera signed a deal that will pay him what averages out to $29 million a year, James makes $19 million annually, which is just below the league’s maximum salary.
And the result of this is the Tigers are having to trade away pitchers like Doug Fister, who wasn't traded away due to the Tigers wanting to save money but to get "flexibility," and not being able to hand Max Scherzer the type of contract he and Scott Boras want. Poor Jon Heyman, now he's going to have write a few articles talking about what a great pitcher Scherzer is in an effort to help Boras get max value for Scherzer's services.
My point is that even in the free market league that is MLB, every team has a budget whether they want to admit it or not.
Though the players agreed to this system—it was collectively bargained, after all—it puts them in the awkward position of having to sacrifice salary in order to preserve their public image.
In terms of "sacrificing money" they are still very wealthy millionaires. I realize they aren't maximizing their value, but this is the same system the NFL has, except theirs is a hard cap.
If guys like Duncan and James were paid closer to what they’re worth in the NBA’s version of an open market, they’d risk being labeled selfish superstars who care more about money than winning...But if you take less and win more games, you’re praised for your selflessness—well, at least if you’re in San Antonio.
I fail to see why the Spurs (and even the Heat) stars should not be praised for being selfless. The fact is these players can't make their market value anyway, so they choose to take less money than they could receive according to the CBA, which means this is a somewhat selfless move.
Seattle Seahawks fans are not aggrieved by the fact that Super Bowl–winning quarterback Russell Wilson made a mere $500,000 in 2014. Rather, they’re overjoyed that he’s so underpaid, which allows the team to spend that much more on other positions. And Saints fans aren’t supporting tight end Jimmy Graham’s quest to be paid as an upper-crust wide receiver rather than a middle-class tight end—the less money he gets, the better players the team can put around him.
What a shocking turn of events that fans of the Saints and Seahawks want their team to put a quality product on the field. Gosh, it's so selfish of Saints and Seahawks fans to want Wilson/Graham to be underpaid so their respective teams can be more flush with open salary cap space. Because I'm sure Russell Wilson and Jimmy Graham are very concerned that Seahawks and Saints fans may be underpaid for the quality of the job they do.
For some players, taking less money is the best possible decision. I’d imagine that Tim Duncan has more cash than he’ll ever need, and that another championship ring will bring him more happiness than another couple of million dollars. It’s also hard to empathize with a player who’s already superrich and passes up the chance to be super-duper rich
It's not about empathizing or not empathizing with a player. It's about whether a player is willing to take less money for the greater good of the team. Some players do, other players don't. I fail to see why not taking the maximum amount of money possible should not be praised.
But when a player doesn’t get paid what he’s worth, much of that money—the portion that doesn't end up in the pockets of lesser NBA talent—just ends up in the pocket of an even wealthier owner
If the player does get paid what he is worth then an NBA team can go over the luxury tax threshold and this goes right in the pocket of more than one wealthy owner. Either way, the system is set up for the owners to get paid. When a player doesn't get paid what's he worth, that money can go to the lesser NBA talent, and then yes, the money can go to making more money for that specific team's owner. But if that player gets what he's worth then that owner is still going to make that money. It's just the team won't spend money on the lesser player.
Josh Levin is working under the false assumption that an owner doesn't have a set salary limit he's willing to allow his team to spend up to. For example, say the owners of the Spurs sets the team's budget at $73 million. That's the budget. Now how that money gets split up to get to $73 million doesn't matter. The owner of the Spurs probably isn't going to say, "Set the budget at $73 million unless Duncan wants a max contract in which case I'm willing to spend $78 million." The owner will say, "If Duncan wants a max contract then make it work to where the team is only spending $73 million and staying as far below the luxury tax as possible."
It's a zero-sum game. Even if the owner did go to $78 million then that's over the luxury tax threshold and other very wealthy owners will reap the rewards of the Spurs owner going over the soft cap. These owners are getting paid regardless. Bet on that. It's not like the money Duncan is choosing to not receive in a salary is going into the owner's pocket. It's being spent on players like Tiago Splitter. So yes, the owners are getting rich but it's not like the Spurs owner is pocketing the money Duncan doesn't receive. It goes to other players. There is only so much of the pie to go around in terms of salary spent on Spurs players. The end result is the same regardless of whether Parker, Duncan, Ginobili take up 85% of this space or 60% of this space. NBA owners are going to spend what they care to spend on players.
There is a reason Parker, Duncan, Ginobili are sacrificing money and it isn't because they just like to. They know the Spurs' budget and they know the owner is getting paid regardless. It's only a matter of how much talent is around them and how much money it takes to keep/acquire that talent.
a fellow whose earnings aren’t capped in any way, and who could sell his franchise for north of $1 billion whenever he gets bored or gets caught being a racist.
But again, Levin is missing the point that the owners are going to be paid anyway. Players sacrifice because the amount ownership will spend is set. If the amount isn't set and a team goes over the soft cap then ALL owners get rich from the luxury tax implications of a team going over the soft cap.
So, let’s praise the Spurs’ selflessness on the court—their crisp passing, movement without the ball, and tireless team defending. But the Big Three’s willingness to reduce their salaries isn’t something that should be celebrated
Yes, their willingness to reduce their salaries is something that should be celebrated. The NBA salary system doesn't have to be celebrated, but the willingness of star players to reduce their salaries within the system should be celebrated. The argument that NBA owners pocket the money not spent on Tim Duncan, LeBron James, etc. isn't a persuasive argument because the reason these players took less money is to fit other players on the team. The reality is an NBA team is going to spend a certain amount of money, so these players have to take less money or else have a crappy supporting cast surrounding them. The NBA salary system is fixed and the amount an NBA team is willing to spend on salaries is somewhat fixed. Tiago Splitter got paid because Duncan/Parker/Ginobili weren't paid market value. If these three players were making more money then Splitter wouldn't be on the Spurs team and the Spurs owner would still be filthy rich.
Instead, let’s stump for a system in which a team like the Spurs can win a title by playing a beautiful game on the court, and NBA legends like Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili get paid something closer to what they’re worth.
These are two separate issues that Josh Levin is failing to separate out as two separate issues. Within the NBA salary system Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili were unselfish in taking less money. Outside of that issue, it is fine to stump for a system in which these three players can get paid closer to what they are worth. Go for it. Do it. Just don't write that these three players shouldn't be praised for taking less money within the confines of the current system. These players should be praised for working within the current system to achieve team success. The fact Josh Levin doesn't like the system these three players are working within is a different issue that has nothing to do with how the Spurs play basketball or whether the unselfishness of taking less money should be praised or not.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
7 comments Bill Simmons Introduces 24 Questions that Linger from the NBA Finals, Unfortunately One of Them Isn't "How Many Minutes Does It Take for Bill to Throw a Hissy-Fit About Not Getting a Chance to Speak"
Bill Simmons has questions that linger after the NBA Finals, much like the stench of his hissy-fit on the NBA Countdown set about how long it had been since had lost gotten to speak will linger in the mind of those who wonder if Bill Simmons is really the entitled whiner rumors suggest that he can be. So desperate for something to write about now that his ideas for columns have dried up, Bill essentially tries another form of his mailbag. Instead of someone else asking the questions for him to answer, he asks the questions and then answers them.
Leave it to the San Antonio Spurs. Just one day after celebrating one of the most emotional title clinchers in NBA history, the “Ozymandias” episode of the Duncan-Pop era was rendered irrelevant by America’s first World Cup game.
It's called the "24 hours news cycle" and it churns quickly when the hot sports takes run out.
Q: In recent sports history, how many redemption stories were better than that of the 2014 Spurs?
I wouldn't call it a "redemption story" necessarily. The Spurs were beaten by super-clutch Ray Allen last year, but they still had Game 7 they could win and failed to do so. The Spurs were beaten and didn't necessarily need redemption, but I guess it's more fun to create a narrative to go along with an NBA Finals rematch.
There are two kinds of sports redemption:
AND ONLY TWO KIND OF SPORTS REDEMPTION...unless Bill finds another version related to a Boston sports team and needs to create a third type of sports redemption.
The first is an individual battling back from a personal tragedy (think Michael Jordan after his father’s murder), major injury (think Derrick Rose next season)
I think Bill needs to look up the definition of "redemption." I don't think returning from an injury or coming back after two years of retirement really qualify as "redemption." Maybe it's just me.
the second is an entire team recovering from an unforgettably devastating defeat (the 2014 Spurs). Ideally, the team would want to avenge the defeat right away. If it’s against the same opponent, even better. If it’s done convincingly, with all demons being exorcised, even better. There’s no way to rank the redemptive power; you’re either in the group or you’re not.
These are the rules people. Bill doesn't make the rules, well, he does make them. There's also nothing he can do about them. Well, actually he will probably eventually contradict or change these rules. Either way, for right now, these are the rules on how a team can be redeemed.
From the past 40 years, here’s the group that San Antonio joined:
You may not believe this, but three Boston teams will be mentioned in this section. I know, it's shocking that Bill would make rules and then use his favorite sports teams as examples of these rules.
the ’85 Lakers (avenged their ’84 Finals collapse in Boston); Sugar Ray Leonard (avenged his Roberto Duran loss with the “No Más” fight); the ’89 Athletics (won the World Series one year after being haunted by the Gibson homer); the ’89 Pistons (swept the Lakers after getting bounced in back-to-back years by Boston and L.A. in the most excruciating ways possible); and, of course, the 2004 Red Sox (lost on 2003’s Boone homer, rallied from 3-0 down to beat the ’04 Yankees, then won their first World Series in 86 years).
Every column Bill ever writes will at some point call back to the 2004 Boston Red Sox. It's the opposite of the gift that keeps on giving. If we want to talk about lingering, this Boston team is the fart in Bill's column that will always linger. It doesn't go away.
What's interesting (not really) is Bill leaves out quite a few teams on this list (1991 Bulls, 2007 Giants who came so close to ruining the Patriots perfect streak during Week 17 only to ruin it during the Super Bowl, and I can mention others) and now the Heat theoretically could be looking for redemption next year in the NBA Finals. After all, they want to redeem themselves for failing to win three NBA titles in a row, right?
The best thing about a redemption title: That “unforgettably devastating” defeat becomes forgettable pretty fast. Boston fans stopped thinking about Boone’s homer a little before midnight on October 27, 2004.
Still lingering and always will be. Sometimes I think Bill writes columns specifically to mention the 2004 World Series title.
Anyway, I have been in the house in 1984, 1985, 1986, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2014 when an NBA team won a championship; Sunday night was the most emotional scene I can remember.
Little brag going on in that sentence under the guise of providing information (which is actually an opinion) that proves the point Bill wants to prove. Bill has been in the house for eight NBA title clinching games and that was the most emotional scene he can remember, so that proves Bill's point that Game 5 was the most emotionally satisfying win for Spurs fans. Also, Bill has seen eight teams clinch an NBA title. This is important to know.
Q: Magic Johnson, Tim Duncan … Kawhi Leonard??? Wait … what??? How good can this guy be?
In the last three games of the 2014 NBA Finals, Kawhi went head-to-head against the world’s best basketball player AND OUTFREAKINGPLAYED HIM. He even earned a nickname that hasn’t caught on yet: “Kingslayer.”
Small sample size alert. Leonard is developing into a great player, but let's pump the brakes on him a little bit. But good news, this is exactly what Bill will say and use the fact we should pump the brakes on Leonard backed by...Bill's own past opinion on a player who didn't end up being a great NBA player.
So, long-term, what are we looking at? Before you play the Pippen 2.0 card, please read the following paragraph about Mystery Player X from one of my 2007 columns …
Who was Mystery Player X? Josh Howard!!!
OH NO!!!
OH YES, BILL!!!!
If someone as smart as Bill Simmons could be wrong about a player's potential, then nobody is safe from incorrectly evaluating an NBA player's potential.
That might be the single worst paragraph in my entire ESPN.com archives.
It's not.
Could he climb to Pippen 2.0 heights? Like Pippen, he fell into the perfect situation, blessed with an all-time superstar teammate, a Hall of Fame coach, multiple leaders/mentors, successful teams and the luxury of asserting himself offensively on his own terms.
Pippen was drafted in 1987 and played for Doug Collins before playing for Phil Jackson. He didn't fall into playing for a Hall of Fame coach. The Bulls pre-Phil Jackson were a playoff team but nowhere near as successful as the Spurs teams were prior to Leonard playing for them. It's just not a very good comparison. Pippen wasn't even close to initially being in as good of a situation as Bill is painting him as being in.
Since Pippen was a 22-year-old rookie, Kawhi got a two-year career jump on him. But Pippen was Chicago’s backup playmaker, so he handled the ball way more than Leonard does (hence, more points and more assists).
Age 20: 8.6 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 0.6 apg, 50-45-81%, 1.6 stocks, 15.1 PER, 1.2 WS
Age 21: 13.5 ppg, 9.0 rpg, 1.0 apg, 55-39-63%, 2.3 stocks, 18.9 PER, 3.1 WS
Age 22: 14.2 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 1.6 apg, 51-42-74%, 2.4 stocks, 18.7 PER, 2.9 WS
And Pippen’s first four playoff years …
Age 22: 10.0 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 2.4 apg, 47-50-46%, 1.6 stocks, 10.0 PER, 0.1 WS
Age 23: 13.1 ppg, 7.6 rpg, 3.9 apg, 46-39-64%, 2.3 stocks, 14.4 PER, 1.3 WS
Age 24: 19.3 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 5.5 apg, 50-32-71%, 3.4 stocks, 18.7 PER, 1.9 WS
Age 25: 21.6 ppg, 8.9 rpg, 5.8 apg, 50-24-79%, 3.6 stocks, 22.0 PER, 2.9 WS
Because Pippen had a better all-around skill set in terms of handling the ball, that means Pippen has better statistics in terms of assists and points, and well, he was also a better rebounder than Leonard has been so far in his career.
It’s not that ludicrous to compare them.
No, it's not that ludicrous to compare them. It's premature and probably ludicrous, but not THAT ludicrous. Pippen was the better scorer, play maker, and rebounder, but otherwise Leonard and Pippen are pretty comparable to each other.
Over the next two years, as Duncan and Ginobili get phased out, Kawhi will assume a bigger offensive burden.
But can he handle the bigger burden? Leonard is the fourth offensive option (maybe even lower sometimes) for the Spurs. Pippen was the second option for the Bulls offense (by a longshot according to field goal attempts) from his 2nd season in the NBA on. Leonard has never been higher than 5th on the Spurs team in field goal attempts. So he's never been the focal point of the opposing team's defense and hasn't had to assume a bigger burden. It's fallacy to think he'll continue to thrive with more of an offensive burden.
Because I think Scottie would have defended LeBron just about exactly the same way. Regardless, that was awesome. A star was born. Let’s keep him away from Josh Howard, please.
Bill points out the mistake in assuming a Leonard will develop into a great second banana on a championship team, compares him favorably to Scottie Pippen, and then says a star was born. What could go wrong?
Q: Couldn’t you argue that LeBron should have won the Finals MVP, considering Miami would have gotten swept by 40 points per game if he hadn’t played?
A: Put it this way: When I was an unborn fetus during the 1969 Finals, I probably kicked my mom in the stomach when Jerry West won the Finals MVP. How valuable could you have been if your team lost? Absurd.
As a whole, this isn't absurd. This question is more often dealt with in MLB when it comes time to name the AL/NL MVP, but if a guy like LeBron drags a Heat team that Bill describes in this column as looking like the 2010 Cavs to the NBA Finals then that means he is pretty valuable, right? He's possibly the most valuable player in that if any one player was removed from the Spurs or Cavs his removal from the Heat would have most negatively affected his team. I'm just saying, there is a way for a player from the losing team to be the MVP and it's not absurd.
Q: What was San Antonio’s luckiest moment of the past 15 years not counting their three lottery wins?
A: Not trading Tony Parker during the summer of 2010 or 2011 when 90 percent of the league would have reacted to 2010’s Phoenix sweep and 2011’s ass-kicking from Memphis by saying, “Let’s cash in our best trade asset and reboot this thing ASAP.”
This wasn't luck, this was a smart personnel decision. There is a difference.
The lessons: Trust your infrastructure, trust continuity, don’t make big trades just to make big trades, and if that’s not enough, count on the fact that you’re the Spurs and you have a steady stream of horseshoes falling out of your ass.
This from a Celtics fan.
Q: Wait, the Spurs won three lotteries? Didn’t they win only two?
Technically, yes — they won in 1987 (Robinson) and 1997 (Duncan). But considering that George Hill morphed into a third guard during this year’s playoffs, I’m counting 2011’s Leonard-Hill trade as San Antonio’s third lottery win. Grantland’s Zach Lowe wrote wonderfully about that trade last year, but the odds of Leonard falling to no. 15 in 2011 — making that trade possible — had to be lower than San Antonio winning the 1987/1997 lotteries.
After Utah took Burks at no. 12, I wrote in my Draft Diary, “How has Kawhi Leonard not been taken yet? What am I missing?”
Of course while touting that he liked Leonard when he was drafted and traded to the Spurs, and he considers this to be the third lottery the Spurs won, Bill forgets this statement,
TRADE! Ric Bucher reports that San Antonio is sending George Hill to Indiana for the rights to Kawhi Leonard. Like it for both teams.
So while talking about how badly the Spurs robbed the Pacers in the Hill-Leonard trade (based entirely on this year's playoffs by the way), Bill brings out an old quote from his draft diary showing that Leonard should not have lasted until the 15th pick. In that same draft diary Bill states he likes the trade for both teams. Funny how he leaves out "what he knew" at the time and fails to mention how "what he knew" at the time doesn't jive with his current opinion. Interesting how that works.
To recap: The Spurs needed Michael Jordan, Dork Elvis AND the Basketball Jesus to blow the Kawhi thing, along with everything else that happened. They NEVER should have gotten Kawhi. That’s Lottery Win No. 3.
Right, but I don't know if this was luck because the Spurs had to have the foresight to trade up for Leonard. It's not like the Spurs just sat there and took Leonard, they traded a proven NBA player to move up and acquire Leonard's rights. Maybe they were lucky Leonard was there, but they made a smart move to get Leonard when he was available. I don't know if I would call this luck. If so, the Celtics were lucky they landed Rondo and Pierce, which is something I know Bill would never consider to be true.
Also, when did Daryl Morey become a drafting genius? I must have been absent that day.
Q: Will we always remember the Cramp Game, or will that just fade away over time?
The Finals result was so decisive — and LeBron’s overall workload so ridiculously daunting — that I can’t imagine anyone holding those Game 1 cramps against him long-term. (Well, unless they’ve never played sports.)
Um, Skip Bayless.
Not to sound like Clint Eastwood sitting on the porch in Gran Torino, but I attended 40 or 50 Boston Garden games that were hotter than Game 1. The Garden wasn’t air-conditioned and they didn’t have suites, so everyone was packed into that place like 300 college kids cramming into someone’s apartment at a keg party. That’s how Game 5 of the 1984 Finals — a.k.a. the Heat Game, when it was 96 degrees outside and 296 degrees inside — became one of the defining Bird games. Fans were fainting in the stands. The Lakers were sucking from oxygen masks on their bench. We were deliriously hot during that game; we felt like cars overheating.
OUR ARENA IS LESS AIR CONDITIONED AND MORE STIFLING THAN YOUR ARENA!
Yes, we have reached the point where Bill has to point out his favorite NBA team's arena was less air conditioned than another NBA team's arena.
But it actually added to the atmosphere — we felt like we were playing, too — and that’s what happened, to a lesser degree, during Game 1. San Antonio’s fans were going bonkers down the stretch, they loved the conditions and REALLY loved that LeBron couldn’t handle them (even if it wasn’t his fault).
I will also never forget doing the postgame show and SportsCenter segments for an hour after the game, with the humidity from open doors combining with TV lights to make us feel like we were wearing fire-retardant suits. Ever been a groomsman wearing a tuxedo in an oppressively hot church, when the sweat starts soaking through and you start feeling like you just swam in your clothes? That’s what it felt like. Bizarre night.)
These stories from the NBA Countdown set never don't get old. Bill is very, very proud of himself for being on NBA Countdown and I am sure there is a subset of the population (Simmons fanatics) who love these stories because they love Bill, but don't count me in that group. It all sounds like he's bragging and very impressed with himself to me.
I watched every Finals game in San Antonio with Doug Collins from our set behind one of the baskets.
Oh, more stories from the NBA Countdown set. Stories from NBA Countdown are starting to rival YouTube videos and bad pop culture jokes as space fillers in Bill's columns.
And as we became buddies over the last eight months, I realized that Doug had something of a hierarchy of praise that went like this.
Level 1: “Coach, that guy is tough.”
Level 2: “Coach, that guy is a BITCH.”
Level 3: “Coach, that guy is a [12-letter word].”
I'm riveted to my computer screen right now. Is it possible to be riveted to your computer screen? If so, I am. Where will Doug Collins place Kawhi Leonard on this hierarchy of praise? I MUST KNOW AND THE ANSWER ISN'T CLEAR TO ME AT ALL, SO KEEP DRAGGING THIS STORY OUT, BILL!
Level 3 didn’t happen that often (and never in mixed company). And if it happened, he’d usually nudge me and whisper, “Coach, coach, that guy is a [12-letter word].” There was no higher praise from him. During Game 5, Doug blessed Kawhi with Level 1 and Level 2, then something else happened (I think it was one of those big Kawhi 3s) and Doug briefly lost his mind, pounding my arm, breaking Level 3 code and yelping, “Coach, that guy is a [12-letter word]! He is a [TWELVE-LETTER WORD]!!!!!!” That’s right, Kawhi Leonard single-handedly created Level 4 on the Coach Collins Hierarchy of Praise.
Oh my, what an epic turn of events! This story was completely relevant to the column and didn't feel forced at all. I was very, very interested in the hierarchy of praise that Doug Collins has. My only regret is this story is now over, but I'm sure Bill will kill space with more stories from the NBA Countdown set. Maybe he will get to the one where Sage Steele gets fired because she calls Bill a whiny asshole for complaining he went 10 whole minutes without being able to talk. That's a story I would like to hear.
Q: Can you give me three reasons why Miami lost the title other than “San Antonio was better”?
Reason 1: The decrepit East fooled the Heat into thinking they were better than they were — hence last summer’s risky Beasley-Oden dice rolls over targeting more reliable role players,
This is complete hindsight. Augustin wasn't considered a valuable guy, Livingston had never played 76 games in a season during his career where he had played for eight different teams. Bill has to be better than this. Oden-Beasley were a roll of the dice, but he's being disingenuous to use hindsight in order to criticize the Heat for not signing these other players.
Reason 2: They spent the season resting Wade and keeping him from playing back-to-backs, foolishly putting an even bigger burden on LeBron (a far more important player for them). Not only did that gamble NOT pay off — get ready for the eBay listing “GAME-USED FORK FROM DWYANE WADE’S BACK: 2014 FINALS” — but that unneeded LeBron mileage backfired on Miami in the Finals. He wore down and actually seemed human a few times.
Considering the Spurs also used the strategy of resting their older starters, Bill can see why this tactic would be attractive for the Heat though, right? It seems like it makes sense to rest Wade when possible.
Reason 3: Playing in four straight Finals is the NBA’s version of running a marathon, doing a triathlon, scaling a 15,000-foot mountain and finishing a Tough Mudder in back-to-back months. (You can do it; you’d just be a lunatic.) Wade, Bosh and James played five seasons in four when you incorporate those 87 playoff games; combined, they played over 10,000 more minutes than Duncan, Parker and Ginobili since 2010-11.
This is a boring reason based on facts. That can't be the real reason the Heat lost the title. Give me something more intangible and bullshit-based, Bill.
And it’s not just the physical toll — many times in the playoffs, they looked like they didn’t have much fun playing together. On Monday, Chris Bosh confirmed as much, telling an AP writer, “I don’t think anybody really enjoyed this season like in years past. There was no, like, genuine joy all the time. It seemed like work. It was a job the whole year.”
See, Bill had this prior thought WAY BEFORE Bosh said the Heat team wasn't having fun on the court together. See, Bill knew the Heat weren't having fun together, but he just forgot to mention it because that bitch Sage Steele didn't give him a forum to speak his views on the subject. But Bosh's quote pretty much just confirmed what Bill already knew and he isn't at all piggy-backing off Bosh's quote and pretending he thought this was true prior to Bosh's quote. Not. At. All.
If you remember, that kind of happened to them last season, too … and then they ripped off that 27-game win streak and regained their collective mojo.
So the point is the Heat are talented and don't have to enjoy playing with each other? Or is the point the Heat can go on a run and "regain their mojo" anytime they want? Either way, this reasoning is simply hindsight based on the outcome of the NBA Finals.
Q: Which obscure movie quote captures what happened to Miami those last three Finals games?
We have to go back to 1989 for Young Flanagan in Cocktail saying, “Everything always ends badly; otherwise it wouldn’t end.” Just ask the 2004 Lakers (three straight losses), 1991 Lakers (three straight losses), 1991 Pistons (sweep), 2011 Lakers (sweep) and 1996 Rockets (sweep) — all of their “runs” ended ignominiously, only we were saying to the bitter end, They’ll be fine; they won’t go out this way. And they usually do. One of MJ’s greatest moves may have been not returning to the ’99 Bulls. It would have happened to him too.
Michael Jordan and the Bulls just lost the 1999 NBA Finals that occurred solely in Bill Simmons' head. I also like how "we" were saying "They won't go out this way." This is another example of "we" being wrong because "we" share Bill Simmons' thoughts and he has personally never been wrong, so "we" have to be wrong as a collective group.
In his place, we can unretire all Dwyane Wade fat-guy jokes. Once upon a time, we wondered if he’d become the next Michael Jordan — in 2014, it’s actually happening.
Yes, "we" wondered if Wade would be the next Jordan. Not Bill, but "we" were wrong. I hate it when my thoughts I didn't know I had were wrong.
Q: Gut feeling — have we seen the best of Chris Bosh?
Almost definitely. For one thing, he suddenly has 11 years, 796 regular-season games, 89 playoff games and nearly 32,000 career minutes on his NBA odometer. But once the minutes, rebounds and free throw attempts start slipping, that’s the beginning of the end for elite big guys —
Q: Gut feeling — is it over for Dwyane Wade?
He's 32 years old with a lot of wear and tear on his body. I mean, this isn't exactly a bold statement. Still, it seems very reactionary for Bill to start counting the Heat out for next year. It seems like something he would regret and then make an excuse for why "we" were wrong about the Heat.
Everything bottomed out during those last two Finals games — the nadir of Wade’s career, no question — when Wade got swallowed up in the paint over and over again, couldn’t finish plays, kept turning the ball over, couldn’t defend anyone and jogged around on defense with his spirit broken. I don’t meant to sound harsh; this was genuinely disheartening to watch.
Bill watched Wade jog around on defense from the makeshift television in the NBA Countdown so you know he had a better view than anyone else did. The makeshift television doesn't lie.
But his body is breaking down — it’s undeniable now — and the history of terrific 2-guards once they pass that his-body-looks-like-it’s-breaking-down point couldn’t be more bleak. (T-Mac? Richmond? Drexler? Sprewell?)
To be fair, the history of athletes once they pass the point of where it looks like their body is breaking down isn't good. So it's not just 2-guards this affects. Once an athlete looks like his body is breaking down on him, there's a bad history of this simply being true.
Could he reinvent himself Manu-style as a scorer/creator off the bench? Maybe. Just know that this happens to every great player — all of them, without exception — and we never accept that it’s happening until it’s way too late.
"WE" never accept this happens to every great player until it is too late. :WE" never do. I hate it when we as a collective group are wrong because Bill is wrong. But hey, when "we" are wrong "we" are wrong.
I don't mind the use of "we" as it pertains to a group of people, but the way that Bill uses it, to put thoughts into the mind of a large group of people, is just a way to shield himself from being wrong. It's perfectly fine to say, "we" in terms of referring to a large group of people or even"we" in terms of a group whose thoughts you know to be true. Bill just uses the term in assuming everyone else has the same thoughts he has when these thoughts just happen to be wrong.
Q: OK, so if you were LeBron, what would you do this summer?
(LeBron opted out of his contract with the Heat as I copied and pasted the sentence above)
We also don’t know how many skeletons are buried out there — for instance, if Wade and LeBron made a pact during the 2008 Olympics to play together, then spent the next two to three years colluding on their 2010 destination, then got Riley involved at some point during the 2009-10 season, AND MULTIPLE PEOPLE KNEW THIS WHOLE STORY, I think it would be risky for LeBron to walk away (and have that stuff belatedly come out).
Maybe I'm underplaying this story a bit, but I don't know if this is a huge revelation. I've pretty much assumed those three decided in 2008 they would be on the same team once they became free agents, if possible, and then once it became possible they followed through on the deal.
Who would tell this story though, assuming it would be salacious? Not Pat Riley and not anyone in the Heat organization who cares to have a career after the story gets told. Not LeBron, not Wade, not Bosh, and not anyone who wants to deal with the best NBA player on the planet holding a grudge against him/her. I've always assumed they colluded and as much as it sucks as a fan of the Raptors/Cavs, there's not much to be done. It's not like Bosh/James did anything wrong to become free agents.
So here’s where LeBron and agent Rich Paul have to throw their weight around — they have to convince everyone involved (not just Wade and Bosh, but Miami’s owners, too) to restructure those deals. Let’s say Wade and Bosh opt out of their 2014-15 deals, then sign for $58 million apiece over the next four seasons. And let’s say the numbers look like this: $12.5 million (next year), $13.5 million, $15 million, and then $17 million apiece for the 2017-18 season (when the salary cap will be $20 million to $25 million higher, anyway). So Bosh and Wade get slightly more than $15 million guaranteed beyond what they’re already owed.
Now I'm confused. Bill Simmons, who just stated we had seen the best of Chris Bosh and states he would not pay $20 million per year for Bosh, thinks the Heat should give Bosh $15 million MORE guaranteed, including $17 million in the last year of a contract? So Bill wouldn't pay Chris Bosh $20 million per year, but he would give him $15 million more guaranteed, including $17 million in the last year of the contract. I want Bill to be an NBA GM. I need to see him make moves like this.
Also, Bill has just stated that Wade is pretty much done and went to great lengths to point out just how done Wade is. Why would the Heat extend Wade's contract and give him more money guaranteed? Why does Bill think this is a good idea? If Wade is done, is giving him more money guaranteed, including $32 million as a 35-36 year old a great move? This has to be a joke.
And let’s say LeBron exercises his 2014-15 player option for $20.6 million. Throw in Norris Cole’s salary ($2 million), convince Udonis Haslem to retire (and just overpay him as a Heat employee and the newest member of the Miami Mafia), and suddenly you have nearly $20 million to spend on one more big gun (Carmelo). Or, you could go a different way and pursue one or two elite free agents (Kyle Lowry, Pau Gasol, Luol Deng, Marcin Gortat, even Lance Stephenson), combined with a couple of veterans (Paul Pierce, Trevor Ariza, Spencer Hawes, Vince Carter) and maybe one role player (Shaun Livingston, Josh McRoberts, Greivis Vasquez).
This is a typical Bill Simmons idea. He's losing the forest for the trees. Yes, the $20 million can go a long way and I think he has some good ideas, but he also just signed two players that he admits are clearly on the decline to longer contracts worth more guaranteed money. Sure, the cap will be higher (which is being assumed), but the Heat would still be spending $64 million over two years on two players who are on the decline. It's not a smart long-term move.
Q: If LeBron does leave Miami, where would he go?
Door No. 2 (+400 odds): He goes back to Cleveland and convinces Carmelo to come with him. Do NOT rule this out. Especially if Cleveland hires a coach who LeBron likes. The Cavs are loaded with young assets and could create whatever team LeBron wanted.
It would be fun if LeBron came back to the Cavs. The problem is those hurt feelings from four years ago, plus LeBron is 29 years old. He wants to win now. Do the Cavs have a team that can win titles now with LeBron on the team? I think that's debatable.
Door No. 3 (+500 odds): LeBron rolls with Doc and CP3 in Los Angeles — something that would only require the Clippers to trade DeAndre Jordan’s expiring deal, Matt Barnes’s expiring deal and Jamal Crawford’s deal (expires in 2016) to different teams with cap space (super-easy), then use last year’s first round pick (Reggie Bullock) and/or a future first rounder, along with $3 million of Steve Ballmer’s money (chump change!), to dump Jared Dudley (two years, $8.5 million remaining) on someone with cap space (also doable). Chris Paul, Blake Griffin and J.J. Redick will make about $48 million combined next season — if the Clips cleared everyone else (again, VERY doable), they could offer LeBron a deal starting at about $15 million. And he’d get to reinvent himself in Los Angeles, with a coach he loves, a superstar he respects and a billionaire owner who’s ready to splurge on a great team.
I feel the need to mention that Bill harped on and on about how the Clippers needed to sign another big man at the trade deadline this year and he now thinks it is a good idea for the Clippers to trade their best center and essentially have a whole at that spot. It's not a bad idea, but I feel like I need to mention this. It would be fun to watch, that's for sure.
And don’t think the Clips aren’t pursuing it, because they are.
Wait, so you mean an NBA is actively pursuing options to get the best player in the NBA to play for that team? No way.
He’d look like a sellout for going to Houston. Phoenix is never happening. And going back to the Midwest but picking Chicago over Cleveland? Come on.
Right, because LeBron has always worried about looking like a sellout. His move to Miami which netted him two NBA titles made him look like a sellout and it didn't seem to bother him one bit.
Q: Do you really think Carmelo Anthony could save Miami?
No. Serge Ibaka could save Miami. Marc Gasol could save Miami. Joel Embiid four years from now could save Miami. The Heat didn’t lose the 2014 Finals because of their offense; they lost because their supporting cast sucked, they couldn’t defend anyone, and Wade and Bosh aren’t the same guys anymore.
Again, I come back to the question of why the Heat would pay the two guys who aren't the same guys anymore $15 million more guaranteed than they already have to? It's not a smart long-term move and I'm not sure it's a smart short-term move either.
Q: After watching Miami get rolled over in the Finals, how many Eastern Conference teams are saying to themselves right now, We can make the Finals next year!!! No, really, who’s stopping us????
I’m counting eight: Chicago (easily the best bet because of the Noah-Gibson-Carmelo-Butler-Rose potential), Indiana (can it flip Hibbert into a different asset?), Washington (hey, Wiz fans, you ready to wildly overpay Ariza and Gortat???), Charlotte (don’t forget, it has cap space and the no. 9 overall pick), Toronto (one more elite player away from being interesting), Brooklyn (if Brook Lopez can come back and Deron Williams miraculously turns into a franchise point guard again), Cleveland (loaded with tradable assets if it wants to go that way), and Boston (if it gets Kevin Love).
I don't get why the Celtics will become an Eastern Conference Finals contender if they land Kevin Love. He's great, but he's also only one player and the Celtics would have to add more guys than just Love to suddenly vault them into contention for the Eastern Conference Finals. They were the team with the #6 overall pick for a reason.
(Note to any Knicks fan: Please, for your own sanity, stop typing the “What about us?” email, delete it, and stare at your computer screen in silence for a few seconds until you crash back to reality. Thanks.)
With Carmelo opting out of his contract with the Knicks it does open up cap room for them and playing anywhere near Phil Jackson has worked out for superstars in the past. What am I thinking? Of course the Celtics, who will have to trade assets to get Love, will go from being the #6 overall pick in the draft to an Eastern Conference Finals contender simply by trading for Kevin Love.
Q: Enough with the crappy East — let’s go back to the Spurs! What was the most underrated Spurs-related story line?
Second, you can’t sleep on how important it was that Duncan-Manu-Parker took less money to stay with the Spurs.
I think very, very few people have slept on how important it was that these three players took less money to stay with the Spurs. It's pretty much the reason the team was able to put a great team around these three players. I'm not sure who is sleeping on this. Probably "we" are.
But at the same time, they played for 25 to 30 percent less than their market value, which allowed San Antonio to re-sign Tiago Splitter and afford Boris Diaw, Marco Belinelli, Danny Green and Matt Bonner.
This has been covered repeatedly I think. The sacrifices those three players made allowed the Spurs to win the 2014 NBA title. I'm not sure why Bill would think anyone is sleeping on this being a Spurs storyline and it's not at all underrated.
Then Bill does real analysis (no sarcasm) about how the Spurs improved from 2013 and has an interesting point about the Mount Rushmore of NBA coaches. It gives me false hope that he can be salvaged as a writer.
Q: Has anyone in NBA history had a better career than Tim Duncan?
We’re not arguing “Best Player Ever” here, just start-to-finish careers. Think of it this way: You’re starting a team from scratch, you can grab any player from NBA history … and you can build around that one player for up to 20 years. If you pick Jordan, you’re getting 11 full Chicago seasons, two abbreviated Chicago seasons, a lost baseball season and those two Wiz seasons.
Fine, I choose Jon Koncak.
But if you want to succeed for two decades, you’d gravitate toward all-encompassing excellence, durability, longevity and the knowledge that, at some point, the winning pedigree of that player would win you a few titles. (Sorry, Reggie Miller, John Stockton and Karl Malone … you just got crossed off.)
If you notice, Bill essentially setting this up to where a certain player would be the obvious answer. I'm not going to argue against Duncan's career, or "the Duncan Show" as Bill put it in a two-part column over a year ago, but the criteria is essentially being set up to where this certain player is the answer. Bill is rigging it. Why have a player for 20 years? Why not 15 years? Well, then Jordan/Bryant become a guy to consider. Why include winning pedigree? Because that takes Malone and Stockton, both players who performed well over a long period, out of the running. He's rigging it with criteria that takes out certain players who would otherwise be viable candidates.
Duncan’s résumé: 17 seasons; 5-1 in the Finals; won titles 15 years apart; 14 All-Star Games; back-to-back MVPs; three Finals MVPs; Rookie of the Year; 10 first-team All-NBAs; three second-team All-NBAs; never had a winning percentage below .600; never missed the playoffs; 19.9 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 2.2 BPG, 50.6% FG, 24.6 PER, 191.6 WS (reg. season); 21.3 PPG, 11.7 RPG, 2.3 BPG, 50% FG, 24.6 PER, 36.2 WS (playoffs). The best player of the post-MJ generation — it’s true.
The résumé of The Guy You Should Have Picked: 20 seasons (19 as an asset); 6-4 in the Finals; won titles 17 years apart; won two Finals MVPs (14 years apart); six MVPs; 19 All-Star Games (!!!!); 10 first-team All-NBAs; five second-team All-NBAs; 16 seasons with a winning percentage over .600; missed the playoffs twice; leads the NBA in minutes and points; 24.6 PPG, 11.2 RPG, 2.6 BPG, 55.9% FG, 24.6 PER, 273.4 WS (regular season); 24.3 PPG, 10.5 RPG, 2.4 BPG, 53.3% FG; 23.0 PER; 35.6 WS (playoffs).
That guy? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
While it is unusual for Bill to be kind to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, notice that he chooses criteria that perfectly matches up with Kareem's career. Where did the 20 year requirement come from? Oh yeah, that's how long Kareem played. The whole idea of a player having the best career would be better served if the time period required were shorter than 20 years since 99% of NBA players don't play in the league for 20 years.
Kareem remains our most underrated great player. Nobody had a better start-to-finish career. But if Duncan plays two or three more years, makes another Finals and reaches that 20-year mark? It might become an argument, right?
No, because Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant had great careers, but they just didn't play for the cherry-picked 20 seasons. Jordan's career isn't less than Abdul-Jabbar's career simply because Abdul-Jabbar played for so long. The same goes for Kobe Bryant. His career hasn't lasted 20 years, but he's been productive for 16 of his 18 seasons. It sort of ruins the point of the exercise in putting a time period on it when discussing a player's career, since each player's career lasts a different period of time.
Duncan’s most underrated “skill”? He’s one of the greatest and most unselfish teammates of all time. The Spurs realized early on that they could build a franchise around his personality, his competitiveness and his work ethic, so that’s exactly what San Antonio did.
Again, the fact Duncan is unselfish is not in any way underrated. It's defined his career essentially and has been widely mentioned and discussed. I can't fathom how Duncan's unselfishness could be considered underrated.
Everyone from Duncan’s generation was jealous of the players who got to play with Tim Duncan. It’s one of many reasons why he’s had the second-greatest career of all time.
And of course Bill can't simply appreciate Duncan's career, he has to create some sort of contrived way of appreciating Duncan's career in order to be the smartest guy in the room. It's like how Bill can't allow a reader in his mailbag to have a better idea than him. Bill won't allow anyone to appreciate Duncan without trying to find a new way to appreciate Duncan.
Leave it to the San Antonio Spurs. Just one day after celebrating one of the most emotional title clinchers in NBA history, the “Ozymandias” episode of the Duncan-Pop era was rendered irrelevant by America’s first World Cup game.
It's called the "24 hours news cycle" and it churns quickly when the hot sports takes run out.
Q: In recent sports history, how many redemption stories were better than that of the 2014 Spurs?
I wouldn't call it a "redemption story" necessarily. The Spurs were beaten by super-clutch Ray Allen last year, but they still had Game 7 they could win and failed to do so. The Spurs were beaten and didn't necessarily need redemption, but I guess it's more fun to create a narrative to go along with an NBA Finals rematch.
There are two kinds of sports redemption:
AND ONLY TWO KIND OF SPORTS REDEMPTION...unless Bill finds another version related to a Boston sports team and needs to create a third type of sports redemption.
The first is an individual battling back from a personal tragedy (think Michael Jordan after his father’s murder), major injury (think Derrick Rose next season)
I think Bill needs to look up the definition of "redemption." I don't think returning from an injury or coming back after two years of retirement really qualify as "redemption." Maybe it's just me.
the second is an entire team recovering from an unforgettably devastating defeat (the 2014 Spurs). Ideally, the team would want to avenge the defeat right away. If it’s against the same opponent, even better. If it’s done convincingly, with all demons being exorcised, even better. There’s no way to rank the redemptive power; you’re either in the group or you’re not.
These are the rules people. Bill doesn't make the rules, well, he does make them. There's also nothing he can do about them. Well, actually he will probably eventually contradict or change these rules. Either way, for right now, these are the rules on how a team can be redeemed.
From the past 40 years, here’s the group that San Antonio joined:
You may not believe this, but three Boston teams will be mentioned in this section. I know, it's shocking that Bill would make rules and then use his favorite sports teams as examples of these rules.
the ’85 Lakers (avenged their ’84 Finals collapse in Boston); Sugar Ray Leonard (avenged his Roberto Duran loss with the “No Más” fight); the ’89 Athletics (won the World Series one year after being haunted by the Gibson homer); the ’89 Pistons (swept the Lakers after getting bounced in back-to-back years by Boston and L.A. in the most excruciating ways possible); and, of course, the 2004 Red Sox (lost on 2003’s Boone homer, rallied from 3-0 down to beat the ’04 Yankees, then won their first World Series in 86 years).
Every column Bill ever writes will at some point call back to the 2004 Boston Red Sox. It's the opposite of the gift that keeps on giving. If we want to talk about lingering, this Boston team is the fart in Bill's column that will always linger. It doesn't go away.
What's interesting (not really) is Bill leaves out quite a few teams on this list (1991 Bulls, 2007 Giants who came so close to ruining the Patriots perfect streak during Week 17 only to ruin it during the Super Bowl, and I can mention others) and now the Heat theoretically could be looking for redemption next year in the NBA Finals. After all, they want to redeem themselves for failing to win three NBA titles in a row, right?
The best thing about a redemption title: That “unforgettably devastating” defeat becomes forgettable pretty fast. Boston fans stopped thinking about Boone’s homer a little before midnight on October 27, 2004.
Still lingering and always will be. Sometimes I think Bill writes columns specifically to mention the 2004 World Series title.
Anyway, I have been in the house in 1984, 1985, 1986, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2014 when an NBA team won a championship; Sunday night was the most emotional scene I can remember.
Little brag going on in that sentence under the guise of providing information (which is actually an opinion) that proves the point Bill wants to prove. Bill has been in the house for eight NBA title clinching games and that was the most emotional scene he can remember, so that proves Bill's point that Game 5 was the most emotionally satisfying win for Spurs fans. Also, Bill has seen eight teams clinch an NBA title. This is important to know.
Q: Magic Johnson, Tim Duncan … Kawhi Leonard??? Wait … what??? How good can this guy be?
In the last three games of the 2014 NBA Finals, Kawhi went head-to-head against the world’s best basketball player AND OUTFREAKINGPLAYED HIM. He even earned a nickname that hasn’t caught on yet: “Kingslayer.”
Small sample size alert. Leonard is developing into a great player, but let's pump the brakes on him a little bit. But good news, this is exactly what Bill will say and use the fact we should pump the brakes on Leonard backed by...Bill's own past opinion on a player who didn't end up being a great NBA player.
So, long-term, what are we looking at? Before you play the Pippen 2.0 card, please read the following paragraph about Mystery Player X from one of my 2007 columns …
Great player. The closest thing to Scottie
Pippen since Pippen, although he’s not the dunker or the destructive
defensive presence that Pippen was. Still, we could be making room for
[Mystery Player X] in the Second Banana Hall of Fame some day along with
greats like Pippen, Johnny Marr, Kevin McHale, Ricardo Tubbs, Kevin
Johnson, Reed Rothchild, Shawn Kemp, Nate Dogg, Hank Kingsley, Young
Kobe, Old Shaq, Jeff Garlin, Andrew Toney, Beavis and everyone else.
See, "we" may be wrong about Kawhi Leonard because Bill Simmons (the shining example of what every sports fan thinks) was wrong about a player in the past who didn't turn out to be as great as Bill thought he would be.
Who was Mystery Player X? Josh Howard!!!
OH NO!!!
OH YES, BILL!!!!
If someone as smart as Bill Simmons could be wrong about a player's potential, then nobody is safe from incorrectly evaluating an NBA player's potential.
That might be the single worst paragraph in my entire ESPN.com archives.
It's not.
Could he climb to Pippen 2.0 heights? Like Pippen, he fell into the perfect situation, blessed with an all-time superstar teammate, a Hall of Fame coach, multiple leaders/mentors, successful teams and the luxury of asserting himself offensively on his own terms.
Pippen was drafted in 1987 and played for Doug Collins before playing for Phil Jackson. He didn't fall into playing for a Hall of Fame coach. The Bulls pre-Phil Jackson were a playoff team but nowhere near as successful as the Spurs teams were prior to Leonard playing for them. It's just not a very good comparison. Pippen wasn't even close to initially being in as good of a situation as Bill is painting him as being in.
Since Pippen was a 22-year-old rookie, Kawhi got a two-year career jump on him. But Pippen was Chicago’s backup playmaker, so he handled the ball way more than Leonard does (hence, more points and more assists).
Age 20: 8.6 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 0.6 apg, 50-45-81%, 1.6 stocks, 15.1 PER, 1.2 WS
Age 21: 13.5 ppg, 9.0 rpg, 1.0 apg, 55-39-63%, 2.3 stocks, 18.9 PER, 3.1 WS
Age 22: 14.2 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 1.6 apg, 51-42-74%, 2.4 stocks, 18.7 PER, 2.9 WS
And Pippen’s first four playoff years …
Age 22: 10.0 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 2.4 apg, 47-50-46%, 1.6 stocks, 10.0 PER, 0.1 WS
Age 23: 13.1 ppg, 7.6 rpg, 3.9 apg, 46-39-64%, 2.3 stocks, 14.4 PER, 1.3 WS
Age 24: 19.3 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 5.5 apg, 50-32-71%, 3.4 stocks, 18.7 PER, 1.9 WS
Age 25: 21.6 ppg, 8.9 rpg, 5.8 apg, 50-24-79%, 3.6 stocks, 22.0 PER, 2.9 WS
Because Pippen had a better all-around skill set in terms of handling the ball, that means Pippen has better statistics in terms of assists and points, and well, he was also a better rebounder than Leonard has been so far in his career.
It’s not that ludicrous to compare them.
No, it's not that ludicrous to compare them. It's premature and probably ludicrous, but not THAT ludicrous. Pippen was the better scorer, play maker, and rebounder, but otherwise Leonard and Pippen are pretty comparable to each other.
Over the next two years, as Duncan and Ginobili get phased out, Kawhi will assume a bigger offensive burden.
But can he handle the bigger burden? Leonard is the fourth offensive option (maybe even lower sometimes) for the Spurs. Pippen was the second option for the Bulls offense (by a longshot according to field goal attempts) from his 2nd season in the NBA on. Leonard has never been higher than 5th on the Spurs team in field goal attempts. So he's never been the focal point of the opposing team's defense and hasn't had to assume a bigger burden. It's fallacy to think he'll continue to thrive with more of an offensive burden.
Because I think Scottie would have defended LeBron just about exactly the same way. Regardless, that was awesome. A star was born. Let’s keep him away from Josh Howard, please.
Bill points out the mistake in assuming a Leonard will develop into a great second banana on a championship team, compares him favorably to Scottie Pippen, and then says a star was born. What could go wrong?
Q: Couldn’t you argue that LeBron should have won the Finals MVP, considering Miami would have gotten swept by 40 points per game if he hadn’t played?
A: Put it this way: When I was an unborn fetus during the 1969 Finals, I probably kicked my mom in the stomach when Jerry West won the Finals MVP. How valuable could you have been if your team lost? Absurd.
As a whole, this isn't absurd. This question is more often dealt with in MLB when it comes time to name the AL/NL MVP, but if a guy like LeBron drags a Heat team that Bill describes in this column as looking like the 2010 Cavs to the NBA Finals then that means he is pretty valuable, right? He's possibly the most valuable player in that if any one player was removed from the Spurs or Cavs his removal from the Heat would have most negatively affected his team. I'm just saying, there is a way for a player from the losing team to be the MVP and it's not absurd.
Q: What was San Antonio’s luckiest moment of the past 15 years not counting their three lottery wins?
A: Not trading Tony Parker during the summer of 2010 or 2011 when 90 percent of the league would have reacted to 2010’s Phoenix sweep and 2011’s ass-kicking from Memphis by saying, “Let’s cash in our best trade asset and reboot this thing ASAP.”
This wasn't luck, this was a smart personnel decision. There is a difference.
The lessons: Trust your infrastructure, trust continuity, don’t make big trades just to make big trades, and if that’s not enough, count on the fact that you’re the Spurs and you have a steady stream of horseshoes falling out of your ass.
This from a Celtics fan.
Q: Wait, the Spurs won three lotteries? Didn’t they win only two?
Technically, yes — they won in 1987 (Robinson) and 1997 (Duncan). But considering that George Hill morphed into a third guard during this year’s playoffs, I’m counting 2011’s Leonard-Hill trade as San Antonio’s third lottery win. Grantland’s Zach Lowe wrote wonderfully about that trade last year, but the odds of Leonard falling to no. 15 in 2011 — making that trade possible — had to be lower than San Antonio winning the 1987/1997 lotteries.
After Utah took Burks at no. 12, I wrote in my Draft Diary, “How has Kawhi Leonard not been taken yet? What am I missing?”
Of course while touting that he liked Leonard when he was drafted and traded to the Spurs, and he considers this to be the third lottery the Spurs won, Bill forgets this statement,
TRADE! Ric Bucher reports that San Antonio is sending George Hill to Indiana for the rights to Kawhi Leonard. Like it for both teams.
So while talking about how badly the Spurs robbed the Pacers in the Hill-Leonard trade (based entirely on this year's playoffs by the way), Bill brings out an old quote from his draft diary showing that Leonard should not have lasted until the 15th pick. In that same draft diary Bill states he likes the trade for both teams. Funny how he leaves out "what he knew" at the time and fails to mention how "what he knew" at the time doesn't jive with his current opinion. Interesting how that works.
To recap: The Spurs needed Michael Jordan, Dork Elvis AND the Basketball Jesus to blow the Kawhi thing, along with everything else that happened. They NEVER should have gotten Kawhi. That’s Lottery Win No. 3.
Right, but I don't know if this was luck because the Spurs had to have the foresight to trade up for Leonard. It's not like the Spurs just sat there and took Leonard, they traded a proven NBA player to move up and acquire Leonard's rights. Maybe they were lucky Leonard was there, but they made a smart move to get Leonard when he was available. I don't know if I would call this luck. If so, the Celtics were lucky they landed Rondo and Pierce, which is something I know Bill would never consider to be true.
Also, when did Daryl Morey become a drafting genius? I must have been absent that day.
Q: Will we always remember the Cramp Game, or will that just fade away over time?
The Finals result was so decisive — and LeBron’s overall workload so ridiculously daunting — that I can’t imagine anyone holding those Game 1 cramps against him long-term. (Well, unless they’ve never played sports.)
Um, Skip Bayless.
Not to sound like Clint Eastwood sitting on the porch in Gran Torino, but I attended 40 or 50 Boston Garden games that were hotter than Game 1. The Garden wasn’t air-conditioned and they didn’t have suites, so everyone was packed into that place like 300 college kids cramming into someone’s apartment at a keg party. That’s how Game 5 of the 1984 Finals — a.k.a. the Heat Game, when it was 96 degrees outside and 296 degrees inside — became one of the defining Bird games. Fans were fainting in the stands. The Lakers were sucking from oxygen masks on their bench. We were deliriously hot during that game; we felt like cars overheating.
OUR ARENA IS LESS AIR CONDITIONED AND MORE STIFLING THAN YOUR ARENA!
Yes, we have reached the point where Bill has to point out his favorite NBA team's arena was less air conditioned than another NBA team's arena.
But it actually added to the atmosphere — we felt like we were playing, too — and that’s what happened, to a lesser degree, during Game 1. San Antonio’s fans were going bonkers down the stretch, they loved the conditions and REALLY loved that LeBron couldn’t handle them (even if it wasn’t his fault).
I will also never forget doing the postgame show and SportsCenter segments for an hour after the game, with the humidity from open doors combining with TV lights to make us feel like we were wearing fire-retardant suits. Ever been a groomsman wearing a tuxedo in an oppressively hot church, when the sweat starts soaking through and you start feeling like you just swam in your clothes? That’s what it felt like. Bizarre night.)
These stories from the NBA Countdown set never don't get old. Bill is very, very proud of himself for being on NBA Countdown and I am sure there is a subset of the population (Simmons fanatics) who love these stories because they love Bill, but don't count me in that group. It all sounds like he's bragging and very impressed with himself to me.
I watched every Finals game in San Antonio with Doug Collins from our set behind one of the baskets.
Oh, more stories from the NBA Countdown set. Stories from NBA Countdown are starting to rival YouTube videos and bad pop culture jokes as space fillers in Bill's columns.
And as we became buddies over the last eight months, I realized that Doug had something of a hierarchy of praise that went like this.
Level 1: “Coach, that guy is tough.”
Level 2: “Coach, that guy is a BITCH.”
Level 3: “Coach, that guy is a [12-letter word].”
I'm riveted to my computer screen right now. Is it possible to be riveted to your computer screen? If so, I am. Where will Doug Collins place Kawhi Leonard on this hierarchy of praise? I MUST KNOW AND THE ANSWER ISN'T CLEAR TO ME AT ALL, SO KEEP DRAGGING THIS STORY OUT, BILL!
Level 3 didn’t happen that often (and never in mixed company). And if it happened, he’d usually nudge me and whisper, “Coach, coach, that guy is a [12-letter word].” There was no higher praise from him. During Game 5, Doug blessed Kawhi with Level 1 and Level 2, then something else happened (I think it was one of those big Kawhi 3s) and Doug briefly lost his mind, pounding my arm, breaking Level 3 code and yelping, “Coach, that guy is a [12-letter word]! He is a [TWELVE-LETTER WORD]!!!!!!” That’s right, Kawhi Leonard single-handedly created Level 4 on the Coach Collins Hierarchy of Praise.
Oh my, what an epic turn of events! This story was completely relevant to the column and didn't feel forced at all. I was very, very interested in the hierarchy of praise that Doug Collins has. My only regret is this story is now over, but I'm sure Bill will kill space with more stories from the NBA Countdown set. Maybe he will get to the one where Sage Steele gets fired because she calls Bill a whiny asshole for complaining he went 10 whole minutes without being able to talk. That's a story I would like to hear.
Q: Can you give me three reasons why Miami lost the title other than “San Antonio was better”?
Reason 1: The decrepit East fooled the Heat into thinking they were better than they were — hence last summer’s risky Beasley-Oden dice rolls over targeting more reliable role players,
Shaun Livingston, Jodie Meeks, D.J. Augustin, Alan Anderson and Anthony Tolliver were out there.
This is complete hindsight. Augustin wasn't considered a valuable guy, Livingston had never played 76 games in a season during his career where he had played for eight different teams. Bill has to be better than this. Oden-Beasley were a roll of the dice, but he's being disingenuous to use hindsight in order to criticize the Heat for not signing these other players.
Reason 2: They spent the season resting Wade and keeping him from playing back-to-backs, foolishly putting an even bigger burden on LeBron (a far more important player for them). Not only did that gamble NOT pay off — get ready for the eBay listing “GAME-USED FORK FROM DWYANE WADE’S BACK: 2014 FINALS” — but that unneeded LeBron mileage backfired on Miami in the Finals. He wore down and actually seemed human a few times.
Considering the Spurs also used the strategy of resting their older starters, Bill can see why this tactic would be attractive for the Heat though, right? It seems like it makes sense to rest Wade when possible.
Reason 3: Playing in four straight Finals is the NBA’s version of running a marathon, doing a triathlon, scaling a 15,000-foot mountain and finishing a Tough Mudder in back-to-back months. (You can do it; you’d just be a lunatic.) Wade, Bosh and James played five seasons in four when you incorporate those 87 playoff games; combined, they played over 10,000 more minutes than Duncan, Parker and Ginobili since 2010-11.
This is a boring reason based on facts. That can't be the real reason the Heat lost the title. Give me something more intangible and bullshit-based, Bill.
And it’s not just the physical toll — many times in the playoffs, they looked like they didn’t have much fun playing together. On Monday, Chris Bosh confirmed as much, telling an AP writer, “I don’t think anybody really enjoyed this season like in years past. There was no, like, genuine joy all the time. It seemed like work. It was a job the whole year.”
See, Bill had this prior thought WAY BEFORE Bosh said the Heat team wasn't having fun on the court together. See, Bill knew the Heat weren't having fun together, but he just forgot to mention it because that bitch Sage Steele didn't give him a forum to speak his views on the subject. But Bosh's quote pretty much just confirmed what Bill already knew and he isn't at all piggy-backing off Bosh's quote and pretending he thought this was true prior to Bosh's quote. Not. At. All.
If you remember, that kind of happened to them last season, too … and then they ripped off that 27-game win streak and regained their collective mojo.
So the point is the Heat are talented and don't have to enjoy playing with each other? Or is the point the Heat can go on a run and "regain their mojo" anytime they want? Either way, this reasoning is simply hindsight based on the outcome of the NBA Finals.
Q: Which obscure movie quote captures what happened to Miami those last three Finals games?
We have to go back to 1989 for Young Flanagan in Cocktail saying, “Everything always ends badly; otherwise it wouldn’t end.” Just ask the 2004 Lakers (three straight losses), 1991 Lakers (three straight losses), 1991 Pistons (sweep), 2011 Lakers (sweep) and 1996 Rockets (sweep) — all of their “runs” ended ignominiously, only we were saying to the bitter end, They’ll be fine; they won’t go out this way. And they usually do. One of MJ’s greatest moves may have been not returning to the ’99 Bulls. It would have happened to him too.
Michael Jordan and the Bulls just lost the 1999 NBA Finals that occurred solely in Bill Simmons' head. I also like how "we" were saying "They won't go out this way." This is another example of "we" being wrong because "we" share Bill Simmons' thoughts and he has personally never been wrong, so "we" have to be wrong as a collective group.
In his place, we can unretire all Dwyane Wade fat-guy jokes. Once upon a time, we wondered if he’d become the next Michael Jordan — in 2014, it’s actually happening.
Yes, "we" wondered if Wade would be the next Jordan. Not Bill, but "we" were wrong. I hate it when my thoughts I didn't know I had were wrong.
Q: Gut feeling — have we seen the best of Chris Bosh?
Almost definitely. For one thing, he suddenly has 11 years, 796 regular-season games, 89 playoff games and nearly 32,000 career minutes on his NBA odometer. But once the minutes, rebounds and free throw attempts start slipping, that’s the beginning of the end for elite big guys —
I'll be sure to remember this next year when Bosh is the second or third-best player on an NBA title winning team. Bosh may be done, but counting the Heat out after a loss in the NBA Finals seems very reactionary to me.
Q: Gut feeling — is it over for Dwyane Wade?
He's 32 years old with a lot of wear and tear on his body. I mean, this isn't exactly a bold statement. Still, it seems very reactionary for Bill to start counting the Heat out for next year. It seems like something he would regret and then make an excuse for why "we" were wrong about the Heat.
Everything bottomed out during those last two Finals games — the nadir of Wade’s career, no question — when Wade got swallowed up in the paint over and over again, couldn’t finish plays, kept turning the ball over, couldn’t defend anyone and jogged around on defense with his spirit broken. I don’t meant to sound harsh; this was genuinely disheartening to watch.
Bill watched Wade jog around on defense from the makeshift television in the NBA Countdown so you know he had a better view than anyone else did. The makeshift television doesn't lie.
But his body is breaking down — it’s undeniable now — and the history of terrific 2-guards once they pass that his-body-looks-like-it’s-breaking-down point couldn’t be more bleak. (T-Mac? Richmond? Drexler? Sprewell?)
To be fair, the history of athletes once they pass the point of where it looks like their body is breaking down isn't good. So it's not just 2-guards this affects. Once an athlete looks like his body is breaking down on him, there's a bad history of this simply being true.
Could he reinvent himself Manu-style as a scorer/creator off the bench? Maybe. Just know that this happens to every great player — all of them, without exception — and we never accept that it’s happening until it’s way too late.
"WE" never accept this happens to every great player until it is too late. :WE" never do. I hate it when we as a collective group are wrong because Bill is wrong. But hey, when "we" are wrong "we" are wrong.
I don't mind the use of "we" as it pertains to a group of people, but the way that Bill uses it, to put thoughts into the mind of a large group of people, is just a way to shield himself from being wrong. It's perfectly fine to say, "we" in terms of referring to a large group of people or even"we" in terms of a group whose thoughts you know to be true. Bill just uses the term in assuming everyone else has the same thoughts he has when these thoughts just happen to be wrong.
Q: OK, so if you were LeBron, what would you do this summer?
(LeBron opted out of his contract with the Heat as I copied and pasted the sentence above)
We also don’t know how many skeletons are buried out there — for instance, if Wade and LeBron made a pact during the 2008 Olympics to play together, then spent the next two to three years colluding on their 2010 destination, then got Riley involved at some point during the 2009-10 season, AND MULTIPLE PEOPLE KNEW THIS WHOLE STORY, I think it would be risky for LeBron to walk away (and have that stuff belatedly come out).
Maybe I'm underplaying this story a bit, but I don't know if this is a huge revelation. I've pretty much assumed those three decided in 2008 they would be on the same team once they became free agents, if possible, and then once it became possible they followed through on the deal.
Who would tell this story though, assuming it would be salacious? Not Pat Riley and not anyone in the Heat organization who cares to have a career after the story gets told. Not LeBron, not Wade, not Bosh, and not anyone who wants to deal with the best NBA player on the planet holding a grudge against him/her. I've always assumed they colluded and as much as it sucks as a fan of the Raptors/Cavs, there's not much to be done. It's not like Bosh/James did anything wrong to become free agents.
So here’s where LeBron and agent Rich Paul have to throw their weight around — they have to convince everyone involved (not just Wade and Bosh, but Miami’s owners, too) to restructure those deals. Let’s say Wade and Bosh opt out of their 2014-15 deals, then sign for $58 million apiece over the next four seasons. And let’s say the numbers look like this: $12.5 million (next year), $13.5 million, $15 million, and then $17 million apiece for the 2017-18 season (when the salary cap will be $20 million to $25 million higher, anyway). So Bosh and Wade get slightly more than $15 million guaranteed beyond what they’re already owed.
Now I'm confused. Bill Simmons, who just stated we had seen the best of Chris Bosh and states he would not pay $20 million per year for Bosh, thinks the Heat should give Bosh $15 million MORE guaranteed, including $17 million in the last year of a contract? So Bill wouldn't pay Chris Bosh $20 million per year, but he would give him $15 million more guaranteed, including $17 million in the last year of the contract. I want Bill to be an NBA GM. I need to see him make moves like this.
Also, Bill has just stated that Wade is pretty much done and went to great lengths to point out just how done Wade is. Why would the Heat extend Wade's contract and give him more money guaranteed? Why does Bill think this is a good idea? If Wade is done, is giving him more money guaranteed, including $32 million as a 35-36 year old a great move? This has to be a joke.
And let’s say LeBron exercises his 2014-15 player option for $20.6 million. Throw in Norris Cole’s salary ($2 million), convince Udonis Haslem to retire (and just overpay him as a Heat employee and the newest member of the Miami Mafia), and suddenly you have nearly $20 million to spend on one more big gun (Carmelo). Or, you could go a different way and pursue one or two elite free agents (Kyle Lowry, Pau Gasol, Luol Deng, Marcin Gortat, even Lance Stephenson), combined with a couple of veterans (Paul Pierce, Trevor Ariza, Spencer Hawes, Vince Carter) and maybe one role player (Shaun Livingston, Josh McRoberts, Greivis Vasquez).
This is a typical Bill Simmons idea. He's losing the forest for the trees. Yes, the $20 million can go a long way and I think he has some good ideas, but he also just signed two players that he admits are clearly on the decline to longer contracts worth more guaranteed money. Sure, the cap will be higher (which is being assumed), but the Heat would still be spending $64 million over two years on two players who are on the decline. It's not a smart long-term move.
Q: If LeBron does leave Miami, where would he go?
Door No. 2 (+400 odds): He goes back to Cleveland and convinces Carmelo to come with him. Do NOT rule this out. Especially if Cleveland hires a coach who LeBron likes. The Cavs are loaded with young assets and could create whatever team LeBron wanted.
It would be fun if LeBron came back to the Cavs. The problem is those hurt feelings from four years ago, plus LeBron is 29 years old. He wants to win now. Do the Cavs have a team that can win titles now with LeBron on the team? I think that's debatable.
Door No. 3 (+500 odds): LeBron rolls with Doc and CP3 in Los Angeles — something that would only require the Clippers to trade DeAndre Jordan’s expiring deal, Matt Barnes’s expiring deal and Jamal Crawford’s deal (expires in 2016) to different teams with cap space (super-easy), then use last year’s first round pick (Reggie Bullock) and/or a future first rounder, along with $3 million of Steve Ballmer’s money (chump change!), to dump Jared Dudley (two years, $8.5 million remaining) on someone with cap space (also doable). Chris Paul, Blake Griffin and J.J. Redick will make about $48 million combined next season — if the Clips cleared everyone else (again, VERY doable), they could offer LeBron a deal starting at about $15 million. And he’d get to reinvent himself in Los Angeles, with a coach he loves, a superstar he respects and a billionaire owner who’s ready to splurge on a great team.
I feel the need to mention that Bill harped on and on about how the Clippers needed to sign another big man at the trade deadline this year and he now thinks it is a good idea for the Clippers to trade their best center and essentially have a whole at that spot. It's not a bad idea, but I feel like I need to mention this. It would be fun to watch, that's for sure.
And don’t think the Clips aren’t pursuing it, because they are.
Wait, so you mean an NBA is actively pursuing options to get the best player in the NBA to play for that team? No way.
He’d look like a sellout for going to Houston. Phoenix is never happening. And going back to the Midwest but picking Chicago over Cleveland? Come on.
Right, because LeBron has always worried about looking like a sellout. His move to Miami which netted him two NBA titles made him look like a sellout and it didn't seem to bother him one bit.
Q: Do you really think Carmelo Anthony could save Miami?
No. Serge Ibaka could save Miami. Marc Gasol could save Miami. Joel Embiid four years from now could save Miami. The Heat didn’t lose the 2014 Finals because of their offense; they lost because their supporting cast sucked, they couldn’t defend anyone, and Wade and Bosh aren’t the same guys anymore.
Again, I come back to the question of why the Heat would pay the two guys who aren't the same guys anymore $15 million more guaranteed than they already have to? It's not a smart long-term move and I'm not sure it's a smart short-term move either.
Q: After watching Miami get rolled over in the Finals, how many Eastern Conference teams are saying to themselves right now, We can make the Finals next year!!! No, really, who’s stopping us????
I’m counting eight: Chicago (easily the best bet because of the Noah-Gibson-Carmelo-Butler-Rose potential), Indiana (can it flip Hibbert into a different asset?), Washington (hey, Wiz fans, you ready to wildly overpay Ariza and Gortat???), Charlotte (don’t forget, it has cap space and the no. 9 overall pick), Toronto (one more elite player away from being interesting), Brooklyn (if Brook Lopez can come back and Deron Williams miraculously turns into a franchise point guard again), Cleveland (loaded with tradable assets if it wants to go that way), and Boston (if it gets Kevin Love).
I don't get why the Celtics will become an Eastern Conference Finals contender if they land Kevin Love. He's great, but he's also only one player and the Celtics would have to add more guys than just Love to suddenly vault them into contention for the Eastern Conference Finals. They were the team with the #6 overall pick for a reason.
(Note to any Knicks fan: Please, for your own sanity, stop typing the “What about us?” email, delete it, and stare at your computer screen in silence for a few seconds until you crash back to reality. Thanks.)
With Carmelo opting out of his contract with the Knicks it does open up cap room for them and playing anywhere near Phil Jackson has worked out for superstars in the past. What am I thinking? Of course the Celtics, who will have to trade assets to get Love, will go from being the #6 overall pick in the draft to an Eastern Conference Finals contender simply by trading for Kevin Love.
Q: Enough with the crappy East — let’s go back to the Spurs! What was the most underrated Spurs-related story line?
Second, you can’t sleep on how important it was that Duncan-Manu-Parker took less money to stay with the Spurs.
I think very, very few people have slept on how important it was that these three players took less money to stay with the Spurs. It's pretty much the reason the team was able to put a great team around these three players. I'm not sure who is sleeping on this. Probably "we" are.
But at the same time, they played for 25 to 30 percent less than their market value, which allowed San Antonio to re-sign Tiago Splitter and afford Boris Diaw, Marco Belinelli, Danny Green and Matt Bonner.
This has been covered repeatedly I think. The sacrifices those three players made allowed the Spurs to win the 2014 NBA title. I'm not sure why Bill would think anyone is sleeping on this being a Spurs storyline and it's not at all underrated.
Then Bill does real analysis (no sarcasm) about how the Spurs improved from 2013 and has an interesting point about the Mount Rushmore of NBA coaches. It gives me false hope that he can be salvaged as a writer.
Q: Has anyone in NBA history had a better career than Tim Duncan?
We’re not arguing “Best Player Ever” here, just start-to-finish careers. Think of it this way: You’re starting a team from scratch, you can grab any player from NBA history … and you can build around that one player for up to 20 years. If you pick Jordan, you’re getting 11 full Chicago seasons, two abbreviated Chicago seasons, a lost baseball season and those two Wiz seasons.
Fine, I choose Jon Koncak.
But if you want to succeed for two decades, you’d gravitate toward all-encompassing excellence, durability, longevity and the knowledge that, at some point, the winning pedigree of that player would win you a few titles. (Sorry, Reggie Miller, John Stockton and Karl Malone … you just got crossed off.)
If you notice, Bill essentially setting this up to where a certain player would be the obvious answer. I'm not going to argue against Duncan's career, or "the Duncan Show" as Bill put it in a two-part column over a year ago, but the criteria is essentially being set up to where this certain player is the answer. Bill is rigging it. Why have a player for 20 years? Why not 15 years? Well, then Jordan/Bryant become a guy to consider. Why include winning pedigree? Because that takes Malone and Stockton, both players who performed well over a long period, out of the running. He's rigging it with criteria that takes out certain players who would otherwise be viable candidates.
Duncan’s résumé: 17 seasons; 5-1 in the Finals; won titles 15 years apart; 14 All-Star Games; back-to-back MVPs; three Finals MVPs; Rookie of the Year; 10 first-team All-NBAs; three second-team All-NBAs; never had a winning percentage below .600; never missed the playoffs; 19.9 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 2.2 BPG, 50.6% FG, 24.6 PER, 191.6 WS (reg. season); 21.3 PPG, 11.7 RPG, 2.3 BPG, 50% FG, 24.6 PER, 36.2 WS (playoffs). The best player of the post-MJ generation — it’s true.
The résumé of The Guy You Should Have Picked: 20 seasons (19 as an asset); 6-4 in the Finals; won titles 17 years apart; won two Finals MVPs (14 years apart); six MVPs; 19 All-Star Games (!!!!); 10 first-team All-NBAs; five second-team All-NBAs; 16 seasons with a winning percentage over .600; missed the playoffs twice; leads the NBA in minutes and points; 24.6 PPG, 11.2 RPG, 2.6 BPG, 55.9% FG, 24.6 PER, 273.4 WS (regular season); 24.3 PPG, 10.5 RPG, 2.4 BPG, 53.3% FG; 23.0 PER; 35.6 WS (playoffs).
That guy? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
While it is unusual for Bill to be kind to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, notice that he chooses criteria that perfectly matches up with Kareem's career. Where did the 20 year requirement come from? Oh yeah, that's how long Kareem played. The whole idea of a player having the best career would be better served if the time period required were shorter than 20 years since 99% of NBA players don't play in the league for 20 years.
Kareem remains our most underrated great player. Nobody had a better start-to-finish career. But if Duncan plays two or three more years, makes another Finals and reaches that 20-year mark? It might become an argument, right?
No, because Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant had great careers, but they just didn't play for the cherry-picked 20 seasons. Jordan's career isn't less than Abdul-Jabbar's career simply because Abdul-Jabbar played for so long. The same goes for Kobe Bryant. His career hasn't lasted 20 years, but he's been productive for 16 of his 18 seasons. It sort of ruins the point of the exercise in putting a time period on it when discussing a player's career, since each player's career lasts a different period of time.
Duncan’s most underrated “skill”? He’s one of the greatest and most unselfish teammates of all time. The Spurs realized early on that they could build a franchise around his personality, his competitiveness and his work ethic, so that’s exactly what San Antonio did.
Again, the fact Duncan is unselfish is not in any way underrated. It's defined his career essentially and has been widely mentioned and discussed. I can't fathom how Duncan's unselfishness could be considered underrated.
Everyone from Duncan’s generation was jealous of the players who got to play with Tim Duncan. It’s one of many reasons why he’s had the second-greatest career of all time.
And of course Bill can't simply appreciate Duncan's career, he has to create some sort of contrived way of appreciating Duncan's career in order to be the smartest guy in the room. It's like how Bill can't allow a reader in his mailbag to have a better idea than him. Bill won't allow anyone to appreciate Duncan without trying to find a new way to appreciate Duncan.
Friday, June 6, 2014
4 comments Jay Mariotti Keeps Moving the Goalposts to Further the Same Tired LeBron James Narrative
LeBron James has two NBA Championship rings. You wouldn't know from the column that Jay Mariotti has written though. I'm sure many remember the boring, tired narrative propagated by many in the media from two years ago that if LeBron James didn't win a title then:
1. He won't ever be Michael Jordan.
2. He won't be the best player in NBA history.
3. The gathering of the Big 3 in Miami was a failure and they should all kill themselves.
4. This proves he's a choker who can't win the big game.
5. All of the above and more.
Unfortunately for the idiots who wrote columns like this about a 27-year old LeBron James it turns out he has won back-to-back NBA Championships...but only because Ray Allen bailed him out of course. Michael Jordan never had help from anyone like John Paxson when he won an NBA title. Never. So what to do now? LeBron has two NBA titles. How to criticize LeBron and make it seem like he won't ever be what "we" wanted him to be? By moving the goalposts every single time he accomplishes something of course. He and the Heat won the NBA title last year? Well this year it means MORE that they win the NBA title, so LeBron has to win the NBA title again this year or his two previous titles mean absolutely nothing. That's the Mariotti-esque point of view that Jay Mariotti has. THIS YEAR is the most important NBA Finals of LeBron's career. Just like next year will be the most important NBA Finals of his career.
In the most meaningful ways, the human ways, LeBron James has more than passed the flaw test. Since that week in 2002, when Sports Illustrated propped him on its cover as “The Chosen One,’’ not once has he failed himself or his legacy in the searing public eye.
But you know, it all goes away if he doesn't win the NBA title this year. Immediacy is king. LeBron is nothing if he can't win an NBA title every single season. All his past accomplishments are null and void if he goes 2-3 in the NBA Finals.
I like how Jay starts off a column where he states LeBron is flawed by stating that LeBron really isn't flawed. Of course a column about how LeBron isn't flawed won't get Jay the attention he so desperately requires to become relevant again, so he has to write that LeBron is flawed in some way.
Never in a dozen years has he been scandalized, bimboized or TMZized. If LeBron’s image is fake, he has guarded his secrets well enough that Edward Snowden couldn’t expose them.
So keep that in mind when I say James, as the preeminent American athlete of the moment, has stumbled more than once professionally and dearly needs to win a third straight NBA championship to remove some lingering tarnish.
Keep this in mind as Jay writes this column so that you can be aware Jay (a) knows this column is a piece of crap and he doesn't believe a word he writes, (b) Jay knows he is wrong and doesn't give a shit because he wants attention, (c) is going to completely pretend this column doesn't exist in two years.
And you know what happened a year later — after James had made his daunting “not two, not three, not four, not five, not six …’’ declaration — when he disappeared in the clutch and generally flat-lined in an abysmal loss to Dallas in the Finals. Even if we give James a pass for his previous washout against the Spurs in the 2007 Finals — are we absolutely certain the Cavaliers ever laced up sneakers for that series? — it means he has failed more than once in history-defining arenas.
Oh, so there were more "history-defining arenas" for LeBron James during the NBA Finals. It almost seems like the "history-defining arenas" are intentionally chosen to be during the NBA Finals that LeBron has lost and not during those he has won. He took a very undermanned Cavs team to the Finals in 2007 and learned lessons from the 2011 Finals that have resulted in the Heat winning back-to-back NBA Finals.
LeBron is more Peyton Manning than Michael Jordan, OK?
I don't know what that means since LeBron has won as many NBA Finals series as he has lost, but I do know LeBron has two NBA titles at the age of 29 years old, Peyton Manning has won a single Super Bowl and Michael Jordan had three NBA titles at the age of 29. Most of the reason LeBron is more Manning than Jordan is because he is 29 years old and hasn't had a chance to win as many titles as Jordan won.
Therefore, he has more at stake than Tim Duncan and the Spurs in what should be a memorable seven-game series.
"Who has more at stake in this series? It has to be someone! There is a right answer to this unanswerable question!"
Ah yes, another lazy, tired narrative that ESPN loves to debate on their many day time sports argument shows. For a guy who claims to not like ESPN, Jay sure does think like many of the talking heads there.
If San Antonio wins a fifth title since 1999, sure, it further validates Gregg Popovich’s methodology as championship-sustainable into a third decade, which should be an impossibility amid the opt-outs, tax restrictions and dizzying business structure of the 21st century. But whether the Spurs win or fall short doesn’t impact their place in basketball lore.
So to recap:
The team who lost to the Heat in the NBA Finals last year, has their title window closing very rapidly because they are built around three 30+ stars, and has won four titles in the last 14 years have nothing to prove. The team who beat the Spurs last year in the NBA Finals, still has a very wide title window and has won the last two NBA titles (including one over the Spurs) is the team whose failure will impact their place in basketball lore?
Popovich, Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker and a recently cultivated cast of snap-on parts — international in scope — really have nothing to prove except revenge for an uncharacteristically botched Finals opportunity last June against the Heat. Another loss will make them ache, but we won’t think less of them.
Well...first off, don't "we" me. Let's look at what "we" think of the Spurs based on their NBA Finals experience.
1999: They beat the #8 seed Knicks in a strike-shortened season.
2003: They beat the #2 seed Nets.
2005: They beat the #2 seed and defending champion Pistons.
2007: They beat a pathetically undermatched (I meant "overmatched" as mentioned in the comments) Cavs teams.
2013: Lost to the Miami Heat.
So, and this is just my opinion, it has been almost 10 years since the Spurs have met a quality NBA Finals Eastern Conference opponent and beaten that opponent to win the NBA title. I'm not taking the Spurs title away from them, but while I found the 2007 Cavs team exciting they weren't exactly a strong team. So the Spurs do seem to have something to prove. They need to prove they can still compete against and defeat a great Eastern Conference team in the NBA Finals. Because it's been a while since they have done that.
If James loses? That will be three Finals losses, and while his supporters will find fault with his unreliable supporting cast, the all-time greats find ways of overcoming such weaknesses — particularly when the Spurs have their own issues with age and injuries.
That's the thing though. If the Heat lose, it may not reflect on James at all. I know, it's shocking this could be possible, but perhaps if James loses another NBA Finals it just means the Spurs outplayed the Heat and deserved to win the NBA title. Why does there have to be a narrative that follows and points to a separate narrative outside of the Heat simply losing? Why does another Finals loss for LeBron HAVE to mean something?
If James is the Michael Jordan of his era and the Heat are the Jordan Bulls of their era, as Indiana coach Frank Vogel blathered in trying to justify another failure by his knuckleheads in the Eastern Conference finals, then they will find a way to win another title as they did last year.
Okay, sure. If this comparison has to be made, then a direct comparison to Jordan's Bulls would be applicable because the Heat won't win three titles in a row. But otherwise, these NBA Finals are not the fulcrum for LeBron's legacy. Stop moving the goalposts on him. It used to be that his legacy meant nothing if he didn't win an NBA title, so he won a title. Then it was, "Well he has to win back-to-back titles or his legacy is shit," so he won another title. Now it's, "He has to be like Michael Jordan and win three straight titles or his legacy is shit." It's silly. Just enjoy him for his accomplishments and stop acting like every NBA Finals is the very end-all be-all for James' legacy.
His legacy will pivot on what happens these next two weeks.
This is written every single time James' team appears in the NBA Finals. It's boring and tired.
The three-peat would set him apart. On Finals eve, James isn’t shying from the Jordan comparisons, but deep down, he knows such thoughts will end without another South Beach partner. You can’t say “not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, not seven …’’ and stop at two.
Is Jay Mariotti under the impression LeBron James is retiring after the season is over? If not, then LeBron still may not be stopping at two titles. There is a next year, another season, another chance for the 2015 NBA Finals to be THE FINALS where James' cements his legacy until the next season's NBA Finals.
I wish this type of stuff translated to other professions.
"This column is the column which defines Jay Mariotti's legacy. It's his Super Bowl column. If he wants to be considered one of the greats, he will nail this Super Bowl column. If he doesn't nail it, then he's never going to be a great writer."
"I have to turn in this TPS report and it be the best thing I ever written. If this TPS report isn't the best report I have ever turned in, my career will mean nothing."
James said. “Me and (Dwyane Wade) grew up watching the great Chicago Bulls team and the great Michael Jordan and the rest of those guys. To be able to play the game that we love at a high level for one another, for our teammates, it’s the ultimate. When you hear the comparisons, you respect it. You’re humbled by it. You just feel like while you’re in the moment hopefully, while you’re playing the game, that you can make an impact enough to where you move on and people will start comparing you to ones that’s in the game at the present time.”
What this means to Jay Mariotti:
"I'm being compared to Michael Jordan, so I have to do everything Michael Jordan did except do it better than he did and if I don't do that then I'm a complete failure and my career will be nothing but a shameful 'what could have been' when I look back on it."
Two titles don’t distinguish a team in history, despite this from Wade: “Whenever it’s all said and done, the legacy of this team, it’s going to be a great team. It’s going to go down in history as an unbelievable team not only in South Florida but in NBA history.” Winning three straight titles qualifies as greatness. Going 2 for 4 does not.
I was under the impression this column was about LeBron James' legacy, not the legacy of the Miami Heat team as a whole. Funny how Jay just mixes those two together for the hell of it. The legacy of the Heat team doesn't necessarily define the legacy of LeBron James as an individual player.
We’ve never thought of Duncan, the most private superstar of sport’s self-indulgent era, as someone who spends time on personal legacies. But he did hint at how much he has ached since last year’s Finals with his shocking, refreshing proclamation that the Spurs will win. “It’s unbelievable to regain that focus after that devastating loss that we had last year. But we’re back here. We’re excited about it. We’ve got four more to win. We’ll do it this time. We’re happy it’s the Heat again. We’ve got that bad taste in our mouths still,’’ he said, on live television no less.
I think I have figured out Jay Mariotti's problem. He is illiterate, or at the very least, remarkably stupid. I read this quote 3-4 times and at no point was it Tim Duncan spending time on his personal legacy. The entire quote is about the legacy of the Spurs as a team and how they want to beat the Heat this year, which they were not able to do last year. It in no way is Duncan commenting on his personal legacy.
James did care. “They don’t like us, they don’t. I can sense it from Timmy’s comments over the last couple of days,” he said. “They wanted this, they wanted us and we’ll be ready for the challenge.”
With a four-day lead up to the Finals, you knew someone would run those comments past Popovich. “Personally? People can say whatever they want. I like everybody,’’ he said, his annoyed shtick in full bloom. “You’re really gonna ask me that? So somebody will say, `I don’t like him.’ And then they’ll go, `So and so said they don’t like you.’ `Well, I don’t like you, either.’
Okay, great. What does this have to do with James' legacy again? Absolutely nothing? Great.
The reason James cares about Duncan’s comments is that he needs to be at his supreme best as a leader and a performer, from the first minute of Game 1 to the final buzzer of Game 7.
This is unlike Tim Duncan? Why didn't Duncan need to be at his best last year in the NBA Finals from the first minute of Game 1 to the final buzzer of Game 7? His legacy is magically cemented already, even though he didn't beat "Mr. Shaky Legacy" LeBron James and the Heat in last year's NBA Finals?
At times, he has mysteriously faded in big moments, subjecting himself to criticism for not wanting the last shot on occasion. He can’t afford fadeouts like his no-show in Game 5 against the Pacers, when he found instant foul trouble and had his worst-ever postseason game.
Even when James succeeds his failures are brought up for all of the world to contemplate and submit their own hot sports takes. LeBron has won two straight NBA titles but that's never going to be enough. He is going to have to win more titles than Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant or his legacy will be shameful and incomplete. These writers have to keep raising the bar and their expectations in order to justify their writing about LeBron NEEDING to win another title, and not just another title, but the NBA title this year.
We must see the best of LeBron James for two weeks, no respites or dinner breaks allowed.
And if the Heat win, but LeBron has one bad game, then he has to prove he can play well in every NBA Finals game or else is legacy is incomplete. You would think LeBron was on the losing side of this NBA Finals rematch from last year the way Jay Mariotti is talking about him.
The Spurs want it.
But you know, they won't be defined by whether they can beat the Heat or not. That would be silly for Jay to say a team that has established itself as a consistently great team would need to win an NBA title to justify their presence as a great team. Jay would never do that. The Spurs have made six NBA Finals appearances since 1999. The Heat have made four NBA Finals appearances in the last four years. Obviously the Heat (and by extension apparently, LeBron James) are the team whose legacy should be questioned.
LeBron needs it.
Says every lazy sportswriter who writes this same type of re-treaded column every year the NBA Finals roll around with a LeBron-led team represented in those NBA Finals. Every single time LeBron appears in the NBA Finals, his legacy will be defined by those very NBA Finals...until the next year's NBA Finals when THAT NBA Finals are really what defines LeBron's legacy.
Jay Mariotti's sportswriting legacy is already defined and complete. He's not very good at writing and desperately wants as much attention as possible.
1. He won't ever be Michael Jordan.
2. He won't be the best player in NBA history.
3. The gathering of the Big 3 in Miami was a failure and they should all kill themselves.
4. This proves he's a choker who can't win the big game.
5. All of the above and more.
Unfortunately for the idiots who wrote columns like this about a 27-year old LeBron James it turns out he has won back-to-back NBA Championships...but only because Ray Allen bailed him out of course. Michael Jordan never had help from anyone like John Paxson when he won an NBA title. Never. So what to do now? LeBron has two NBA titles. How to criticize LeBron and make it seem like he won't ever be what "we" wanted him to be? By moving the goalposts every single time he accomplishes something of course. He and the Heat won the NBA title last year? Well this year it means MORE that they win the NBA title, so LeBron has to win the NBA title again this year or his two previous titles mean absolutely nothing. That's the Mariotti-esque point of view that Jay Mariotti has. THIS YEAR is the most important NBA Finals of LeBron's career. Just like next year will be the most important NBA Finals of his career.
In the most meaningful ways, the human ways, LeBron James has more than passed the flaw test. Since that week in 2002, when Sports Illustrated propped him on its cover as “The Chosen One,’’ not once has he failed himself or his legacy in the searing public eye.
But you know, it all goes away if he doesn't win the NBA title this year. Immediacy is king. LeBron is nothing if he can't win an NBA title every single season. All his past accomplishments are null and void if he goes 2-3 in the NBA Finals.
I like how Jay starts off a column where he states LeBron is flawed by stating that LeBron really isn't flawed. Of course a column about how LeBron isn't flawed won't get Jay the attention he so desperately requires to become relevant again, so he has to write that LeBron is flawed in some way.
Never in a dozen years has he been scandalized, bimboized or TMZized. If LeBron’s image is fake, he has guarded his secrets well enough that Edward Snowden couldn’t expose them.
So keep that in mind when I say James, as the preeminent American athlete of the moment, has stumbled more than once professionally and dearly needs to win a third straight NBA championship to remove some lingering tarnish.
Keep this in mind as Jay writes this column so that you can be aware Jay (a) knows this column is a piece of crap and he doesn't believe a word he writes, (b) Jay knows he is wrong and doesn't give a shit because he wants attention, (c) is going to completely pretend this column doesn't exist in two years.
And you know what happened a year later — after James had made his daunting “not two, not three, not four, not five, not six …’’ declaration — when he disappeared in the clutch and generally flat-lined in an abysmal loss to Dallas in the Finals. Even if we give James a pass for his previous washout against the Spurs in the 2007 Finals — are we absolutely certain the Cavaliers ever laced up sneakers for that series? — it means he has failed more than once in history-defining arenas.
Oh, so there were more "history-defining arenas" for LeBron James during the NBA Finals. It almost seems like the "history-defining arenas" are intentionally chosen to be during the NBA Finals that LeBron has lost and not during those he has won. He took a very undermanned Cavs team to the Finals in 2007 and learned lessons from the 2011 Finals that have resulted in the Heat winning back-to-back NBA Finals.
LeBron is more Peyton Manning than Michael Jordan, OK?
I don't know what that means since LeBron has won as many NBA Finals series as he has lost, but I do know LeBron has two NBA titles at the age of 29 years old, Peyton Manning has won a single Super Bowl and Michael Jordan had three NBA titles at the age of 29. Most of the reason LeBron is more Manning than Jordan is because he is 29 years old and hasn't had a chance to win as many titles as Jordan won.
Therefore, he has more at stake than Tim Duncan and the Spurs in what should be a memorable seven-game series.
"Who has more at stake in this series? It has to be someone! There is a right answer to this unanswerable question!"
Ah yes, another lazy, tired narrative that ESPN loves to debate on their many day time sports argument shows. For a guy who claims to not like ESPN, Jay sure does think like many of the talking heads there.
If San Antonio wins a fifth title since 1999, sure, it further validates Gregg Popovich’s methodology as championship-sustainable into a third decade, which should be an impossibility amid the opt-outs, tax restrictions and dizzying business structure of the 21st century. But whether the Spurs win or fall short doesn’t impact their place in basketball lore.
So to recap:
The team who lost to the Heat in the NBA Finals last year, has their title window closing very rapidly because they are built around three 30+ stars, and has won four titles in the last 14 years have nothing to prove. The team who beat the Spurs last year in the NBA Finals, still has a very wide title window and has won the last two NBA titles (including one over the Spurs) is the team whose failure will impact their place in basketball lore?
Popovich, Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker and a recently cultivated cast of snap-on parts — international in scope — really have nothing to prove except revenge for an uncharacteristically botched Finals opportunity last June against the Heat. Another loss will make them ache, but we won’t think less of them.
Well...first off, don't "we" me. Let's look at what "we" think of the Spurs based on their NBA Finals experience.
1999: They beat the #8 seed Knicks in a strike-shortened season.
2003: They beat the #2 seed Nets.
2005: They beat the #2 seed and defending champion Pistons.
2007: They beat a pathetically undermatched (I meant "overmatched" as mentioned in the comments) Cavs teams.
2013: Lost to the Miami Heat.
So, and this is just my opinion, it has been almost 10 years since the Spurs have met a quality NBA Finals Eastern Conference opponent and beaten that opponent to win the NBA title. I'm not taking the Spurs title away from them, but while I found the 2007 Cavs team exciting they weren't exactly a strong team. So the Spurs do seem to have something to prove. They need to prove they can still compete against and defeat a great Eastern Conference team in the NBA Finals. Because it's been a while since they have done that.
If James loses? That will be three Finals losses, and while his supporters will find fault with his unreliable supporting cast, the all-time greats find ways of overcoming such weaknesses — particularly when the Spurs have their own issues with age and injuries.
That's the thing though. If the Heat lose, it may not reflect on James at all. I know, it's shocking this could be possible, but perhaps if James loses another NBA Finals it just means the Spurs outplayed the Heat and deserved to win the NBA title. Why does there have to be a narrative that follows and points to a separate narrative outside of the Heat simply losing? Why does another Finals loss for LeBron HAVE to mean something?
If James is the Michael Jordan of his era and the Heat are the Jordan Bulls of their era, as Indiana coach Frank Vogel blathered in trying to justify another failure by his knuckleheads in the Eastern Conference finals, then they will find a way to win another title as they did last year.
Okay, sure. If this comparison has to be made, then a direct comparison to Jordan's Bulls would be applicable because the Heat won't win three titles in a row. But otherwise, these NBA Finals are not the fulcrum for LeBron's legacy. Stop moving the goalposts on him. It used to be that his legacy meant nothing if he didn't win an NBA title, so he won a title. Then it was, "Well he has to win back-to-back titles or his legacy is shit," so he won another title. Now it's, "He has to be like Michael Jordan and win three straight titles or his legacy is shit." It's silly. Just enjoy him for his accomplishments and stop acting like every NBA Finals is the very end-all be-all for James' legacy.
His legacy will pivot on what happens these next two weeks.
This is written every single time James' team appears in the NBA Finals. It's boring and tired.
The three-peat would set him apart. On Finals eve, James isn’t shying from the Jordan comparisons, but deep down, he knows such thoughts will end without another South Beach partner. You can’t say “not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, not seven …’’ and stop at two.
Is Jay Mariotti under the impression LeBron James is retiring after the season is over? If not, then LeBron still may not be stopping at two titles. There is a next year, another season, another chance for the 2015 NBA Finals to be THE FINALS where James' cements his legacy until the next season's NBA Finals.
I wish this type of stuff translated to other professions.
"This column is the column which defines Jay Mariotti's legacy. It's his Super Bowl column. If he wants to be considered one of the greats, he will nail this Super Bowl column. If he doesn't nail it, then he's never going to be a great writer."
"I have to turn in this TPS report and it be the best thing I ever written. If this TPS report isn't the best report I have ever turned in, my career will mean nothing."
James said. “Me and (Dwyane Wade) grew up watching the great Chicago Bulls team and the great Michael Jordan and the rest of those guys. To be able to play the game that we love at a high level for one another, for our teammates, it’s the ultimate. When you hear the comparisons, you respect it. You’re humbled by it. You just feel like while you’re in the moment hopefully, while you’re playing the game, that you can make an impact enough to where you move on and people will start comparing you to ones that’s in the game at the present time.”
What this means to Jay Mariotti:
"I'm being compared to Michael Jordan, so I have to do everything Michael Jordan did except do it better than he did and if I don't do that then I'm a complete failure and my career will be nothing but a shameful 'what could have been' when I look back on it."
Two titles don’t distinguish a team in history, despite this from Wade: “Whenever it’s all said and done, the legacy of this team, it’s going to be a great team. It’s going to go down in history as an unbelievable team not only in South Florida but in NBA history.” Winning three straight titles qualifies as greatness. Going 2 for 4 does not.
I was under the impression this column was about LeBron James' legacy, not the legacy of the Miami Heat team as a whole. Funny how Jay just mixes those two together for the hell of it. The legacy of the Heat team doesn't necessarily define the legacy of LeBron James as an individual player.
We’ve never thought of Duncan, the most private superstar of sport’s self-indulgent era, as someone who spends time on personal legacies. But he did hint at how much he has ached since last year’s Finals with his shocking, refreshing proclamation that the Spurs will win. “It’s unbelievable to regain that focus after that devastating loss that we had last year. But we’re back here. We’re excited about it. We’ve got four more to win. We’ll do it this time. We’re happy it’s the Heat again. We’ve got that bad taste in our mouths still,’’ he said, on live television no less.
I think I have figured out Jay Mariotti's problem. He is illiterate, or at the very least, remarkably stupid. I read this quote 3-4 times and at no point was it Tim Duncan spending time on his personal legacy. The entire quote is about the legacy of the Spurs as a team and how they want to beat the Heat this year, which they were not able to do last year. It in no way is Duncan commenting on his personal legacy.
James did care. “They don’t like us, they don’t. I can sense it from Timmy’s comments over the last couple of days,” he said. “They wanted this, they wanted us and we’ll be ready for the challenge.”
With a four-day lead up to the Finals, you knew someone would run those comments past Popovich. “Personally? People can say whatever they want. I like everybody,’’ he said, his annoyed shtick in full bloom. “You’re really gonna ask me that? So somebody will say, `I don’t like him.’ And then they’ll go, `So and so said they don’t like you.’ `Well, I don’t like you, either.’
Okay, great. What does this have to do with James' legacy again? Absolutely nothing? Great.
The reason James cares about Duncan’s comments is that he needs to be at his supreme best as a leader and a performer, from the first minute of Game 1 to the final buzzer of Game 7.
This is unlike Tim Duncan? Why didn't Duncan need to be at his best last year in the NBA Finals from the first minute of Game 1 to the final buzzer of Game 7? His legacy is magically cemented already, even though he didn't beat "Mr. Shaky Legacy" LeBron James and the Heat in last year's NBA Finals?
At times, he has mysteriously faded in big moments, subjecting himself to criticism for not wanting the last shot on occasion. He can’t afford fadeouts like his no-show in Game 5 against the Pacers, when he found instant foul trouble and had his worst-ever postseason game.
Even when James succeeds his failures are brought up for all of the world to contemplate and submit their own hot sports takes. LeBron has won two straight NBA titles but that's never going to be enough. He is going to have to win more titles than Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant or his legacy will be shameful and incomplete. These writers have to keep raising the bar and their expectations in order to justify their writing about LeBron NEEDING to win another title, and not just another title, but the NBA title this year.
We must see the best of LeBron James for two weeks, no respites or dinner breaks allowed.
And if the Heat win, but LeBron has one bad game, then he has to prove he can play well in every NBA Finals game or else is legacy is incomplete. You would think LeBron was on the losing side of this NBA Finals rematch from last year the way Jay Mariotti is talking about him.
The Spurs want it.
But you know, they won't be defined by whether they can beat the Heat or not. That would be silly for Jay to say a team that has established itself as a consistently great team would need to win an NBA title to justify their presence as a great team. Jay would never do that. The Spurs have made six NBA Finals appearances since 1999. The Heat have made four NBA Finals appearances in the last four years. Obviously the Heat (and by extension apparently, LeBron James) are the team whose legacy should be questioned.
LeBron needs it.
Says every lazy sportswriter who writes this same type of re-treaded column every year the NBA Finals roll around with a LeBron-led team represented in those NBA Finals. Every single time LeBron appears in the NBA Finals, his legacy will be defined by those very NBA Finals...until the next year's NBA Finals when THAT NBA Finals are really what defines LeBron's legacy.
Jay Mariotti's sportswriting legacy is already defined and complete. He's not very good at writing and desperately wants as much attention as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)