Donald Sterling's racist comments

I guess you heard Silver's statement today. In a sense, he really had no choice, even if this is "unfair" to Sterling (and Silver more or less works for Sterling and the other owners). I wonder if he will sue or fight this?

If they kept Sterling on, who would want to play/work for him? He would be a distraction and source of tension at every Clippers game (a "black eye" on the league as Magic Johnson said). That's not good anyone, and maybe even Sterling wouldn't want that for himself and family.

But on the other hand, you have guys working in the league now who are known domestic abusers, drug addicts, and had various weapons/drunk driving/criminal charges. Sterling made a statement in private, was kind of entrapped, and broke no laws that we know of. Of course his opinion was outrageous and totally unacceptable (especially since the league has 70% black players, and is an important part of African American culture). The expectations are higher on an authority figure.

Maybe it's similar to the Mozilla CEO who was forced to step down by his board/staff because of his anti-gay-marriage views. People have the right to their opinions, but holding those opinions may bar you from certain professional positions. The difficult part here is Sterling owns the Clippers. So in a sense, the other owners (as part of the monopolistic club that is the NBA) are forcing him to sell his asset (assuming they get the necessary votes to boot him, which Silver is confident of).

The Dodgers fiasco also comes to mind, ironically in the same city, and Magic Johnson may end up having a stake in both franchises now.

-----

This whole thing is a giant circle-jerk.  The dude settled out of court for racial discrimination in his housing projects, no one's opinion should have

changed based on this tape.  And the statement I kept hearing on the news "i hope all the bigots see that if Sterling can fall, so can you".  Who fell?  Dude will wake up tomorrow a billionaire.  Social prestige loss but i don't think the company he keeps gives a hoot.

As for the players/team/whatever.  At the end of the day the NBA players have no real power.  Their skills are simply not worth very much outside the context of the NBA.  So if Sterling says he isn't going to sell will they all boycott?  You are telling me you can't find 10 guys who will play for the clippers at a million a year?  They all quit the team and go free agent, you are telling when no one picks them up they don't have bills?  Kids?  A lifestyle to maintain?  I'll believe it when i see it.

A nice op-ed by kareem also.  http://time.com/79590/donald-sterling-kareem-abdul-jabbar-racism/

-----

That was a pretty well written article by Kareem.  Shows the importance of getting a college degree before playing pro ball.  The NBA as an enterprise is ultimately powerless in this situation.  At the end of the day, I don't think sexual discrimination, racial discrimination or religious discrimination will be the entity that brings down a business empire.  After all, Chick-Fil-A is still thriving after their religious fiasco.  It'll just create more frivolous lawsuits earning settlement money for the accuser and their lawyer(s).  Businesses will keep booming regardless of the insensitive actions of their leaders, so what will make anyone think this incident will be an exception to the rule?

------

Thanks, guys. I disagree that NBA players don't have power - as their lockouts and relatively high salaries indicate. NBA players would have 90% of the power if sport was a free market instead of a monopoly (or "new slavery" as some people have commented, albeit quite inaccurately). Guys like Sterling think they ARE the league, but that is BS. Like most of stale corporate America, these fossils are only relevant because they engage in anti-competitive activities to make them appear more valuable than they are. At the end of the day, what is Sterling but a guy who signs checks? Not exactly a rare skill set. And remember that he was voted the worst owner in ALL major pro US sports for decades while the Clippers were a laughingstock. The GM, coach, and players determine success, and of course the fans/media provide the revenue. "Owners" are just leeches who take a disproportionate cut of profits, because they wrote the rules to enable that. Imagine if franchises were publicly traded companies - then the Clippers could have 1,000 different small, non-racist owners and still achieve the same level of performance. Heck the GB Packers have been a public nonprofit since 1923.

Sterling is now bad for business, and that is why the owners are getting rid of him. They can't risk their image and perceptions of racism when their talent base is majority black, as are many of their fans/customers (and they need to have a "good image" in the community, always). Yes, of course Sterling could find guys to fill his roster next season, but would they be the best players available? Would they feel motivated to play at a high level, amidst distractions and negativity (you can imagine their friends/peers/family would keep asking, "Why do you play for that guy?")?

It's true that probably old/rich/white America is more racist below the surface than they would reveal, though the Obama presidency is likely bringing some of that to the surface. That is another more complex issue; it's pretty hard to eliminate all bigotry from a society, especially private bigotry. But at least our public policy should not be prejudiced.

Maybe what Kareem failed to comment on is the tremendous injustice (disproportionately) for young blacks in college and pro sport. He is the exception, but many athletes:

(a lot of good sports links below if you have time; obviously I am interested in this stuff :)

- Don't get a degree or semblance of education

- Are obviously underpaid and under-represented during their short time on campus

- Do not make really big money in pro sports unless they are stars who stay healthy

- Have few years of real earning power, and often end up broke and physically hobbled (more of a problem with the NFL of course, who may have criminally misrepresented the concussion risk for decades, and recently settled for chump change)

- And of course consider the 99.9% of aspiring athletes who chase the hoop dream (sold a scam?), never make it, and find themselves fairly unemployable for the rest of their lives

But mainstream society puts up with this wicked system because we want to be entertained, and there is a lot of money at stake.

-------

Just throwing my two cents in here.

I've seen the first amendment and the legality of the recording get tossed around but those two issues are irrelevant. The NBA is a private association and has no obligation to care about those things in this context. Sterling isn't going to jail for his comments (obviously), and even if the recording is illegal having Sterling around as an owner after it's been released would be very bad for business, which is all the NBA cares about. On a side note, he probably knew and agreed to being recorded: http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-donald-sterling-tapes-20140429%2C0%2C7072200.story#ixzz30JHOzKXK

M: "This whole thing is a giant circle-jerk.  The dude settled out of court for racial discrimination in his housing projects, no one's opinion should have changed based on this tape.  And the statement I kept hearing on the news "i hope all the bigots see that if Sterling can fall, so can you".  Who fell?  Dude will wake up tomorrow a billionaire.  Social prestige loss but i don't think the company he keeps gives a hoot."

I agree to a certain extent about it being a giant circle-jerk but that's only true for people who are aware of Sterling's history. The racial discrimination lawsuit isn't necessarily widely known. People inside NBA circles certainly knew about him but the average person probably wouldn't know or even be able to name him as the Clipper's owner previously. Making some awful comments are of course, not the worst thing he's done but it's the most public thing he's done, hence circle jerk. If you want to accuse the other NBA owners of jerking themselves off in a circular fashion, I wouldn't disagree. They must have known about his shit for a while. Of course this isn't some grand blow against racism everywhere, although I hadn't heard that sentiment in my online travels today, but it's still a victory in that an obvious asshole gets a little comeuppance.

To your other paragraph/point it turns out the NBA can actually force him to sell. Sterling doesn't have a choice if 3/4 of the other owners vote to force him to sell. Sterling is called the owner but in reality the NBA does have the power to force him to sell, which is apparently a very real possibility. http://deadspin.com/nba-owners-are-lining-up-to-vote-donald-sterling-out-1569445125

The analogy I've seen thrown around is that being an owner of an NBA team is like owning a franchise from McDonald's. You have a lot of control over what happens there, you can call yourself the owner but the powers that be can still take away that franchise from you.

Although maybe Sterling can try to fight it and go to court, dragging it out for a few years the NBA could simply lock the Clippers out and declare all of their players free agents. As long as most of the other owners agree to it, Sterling has no real options. And yeah, he's still going to die a rich man. Hell, selling the Clippers will probably get him a 5000% return on his investment. I still think it's impressive the NBA is doing this to him nonetheless.

In fact I'm even more surprised about the lack of surprise surrounding his punishment. If this was the NFL Goodell would absolutely not force any real punishment on an owner like that. A lifetime ban, 2.5 million fine, and most likely being forced to sell is way beyond what I expected. Commissioners are almost always stooges for the owners, so I was absolutely shocked that the NBA was willing to go this far. I'm glad they were willing though, better late than never.  

As for your latest comments, I largely agree and wanted to write more about college athlete issues but I've run out of steam. Maybe next time.

-----

Thanks, D. It's true that the NBA commish works for the owners, and I think that's what Silver was doing by firing Sterling. He was looking after the interests of the other owners. So I am almost sure they will get the 3/4 votes to force the sale of the franchise, otherwise Silver would not risk looking like a fool by proclaiming something without having the votes to back it up (that would be Obama and gun control).

I agree that what Kareem and others said about "shame on us for not knowing Sterling's past" is unfair. As you said, most people can't name an NBA owner besides Mark Cuban. And if Sterling was so notorious prior to this incident, then why didn't Kareem and others in the know do something about it (and tell the world about it)? It's not the common fan's job to investigate everyone's dirty laundry. But I do think that the league mgmt. ignored the problem for too long.

Hypothetically, what do you think the league and society would have done if Sterling acted differently? Say immediately when the tape was released, what if he made a sincere public apology, offered to meet with black leaders, enrolled himself in sensitivity therapy, and pledged to donate a good portion of his wealth to anti-racism programs and initiatives to help black communities? Would they have still taken the Clippers from him? It would be a tough call, IMO.

I think this is a pretty sad over-reaction. UCLA Nephrology is rejecting Sterling's $3M donation. Just because you don't want to be associated with a racist, you are hurting patients and research? Who cares where the money came from - if it can accomplish good, why refuse it? Taking a racist's money doesn't make UCLA racist. And if Al Sharpton vilifies them for it, well you can't please everyone. Heck, right wing radio personalities say almost as nasty stuff on a daily basis, and they get rich for it.

Maybe this is a small "victory" against overt, antiquated racism. But unfortunately, more subtle socioeconomic racism is far from beaten. 

Linsanity

Hahaha! http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/kobe-bryant-fires-few-hilarious-salvos-jeremy-lin-174131018.html




Reporter: Would you consider guarding [Lin] if he’s having [a good game]?



Kobe: Jesus Christ! Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
 
--------
 
Just to play devil's advocate (did you expect anything less?), when you play the Nets, Wiz, and then have Old Man Fisher guard you - any mediocre player can look like Wilt Freaking Chamberlain. :)




He is pretty fearless, or maybe he's riding high and the logic center of his brain hasn't yet realized, "Hey, I'm in MSG outplaying Kobe!" I didn't think he could step up and hit the clutch shots, but he proved it tonight. Once again, an ex-Warrior shines AFTER he leaves the Bay! The ESPN announcers were saying they should try to get Lin in the rookie-soph All-Star game.



The W's currently have a PG Charles Jenkins, 2nd round pick out of Hofstra, averaging 2-1-1. WTF they kept that dude over Lin? I really don't think Lin is a legit difference maker (there is obviously a reason he was cut by 2 mediocre teams), but heck, keep him on the roster to sell jerseys and tickets at least (especially in the Chinese-heavy Bay Area). Well, we got clowns for mgmt for all the Oakland franchises.



How are you guys doing?
 
--------
 
Whats wrong with a religious comment or two? Kobe Bryant talks about


Jesus Christ in his interviews.



From what I've seen, it seems like Lin has a lot of tools to work

with. The scouting report obviously was that he couldnt shoot so the

Lakers gave him more room on jump shots. We'll see how he does when

defenses adjust to slow him down.



Its just interesting to me how scouts and teams can overlook talent

and how players can develop in ways that defy expectations. Rondo was

a #21 pick. Kevin Johnson was stuck behind Mark Price in Cleveland.

The Blazers took Sam Bowie over MJ. But Lin's story is amazing in

that even colleges didn't seriously recruit him.
 
---------
 
obe was just giving ups to Jesus, and actually comparing Lin to him - so it was a compliment!




Yeah I think Lin is another example of the "Moneyball" effect. Sports are so irrational - the "talent scouts" have their subjective biased notions of what a top prospect should look like, and if you don't fit the mold, then they pass on you no matter your intangibles or hidden assets. I guess the principle applies to some non-athletic workplaces too. Top hoops players don't look like Lin, and they are more athletic, so why should UNC or Kansas bother to recruit him (not that Lin was at that level at age 18, but just making the argument)?



You need real metrics to gauge talent (sorry I'm starting to sound like Mark Cuban). If you keep picking the same type of guys, you'll never get an advantage cuz the other teams are doing the same. Then you're just hoping for luck, cheating, or "great coaching" to get an edge. Some impact players don't look that great from a stats perspective: Shane Battier, Nnamdi Asumugua (I know I'm spelling that wrong!). But most people just look at scoring and size, so they want Durant types.



I guess most hoopsters under 21 have at least a couple deficiencies in their games. I am sure NBA teams were concerned with Rondo's size and shooting. But they don't take the next step and look at the kid's potential, or how they can adjust the team's system to minimize the player's weaknesses and enhance his strengths. Look how Denver and Florida's systems made Tebow more successful. It's easy to just look at individual stats or physical features, but these are complex team sports. You have to measure the player's overall contribution to making the team win (like Billy Beane did). And if Lin or Rondo's ratings are higher than say hyped prospects like Wall or Walker, then you pick Lin first. It may not work out every time, but with enough tries you will win in the long term.
 
------
 
So are we saying that the whole scouting profession needs to be re-evaluated because Jeremy Lin has had five good games, one of which included 8-24 shooting? Moneyball was based on using certain statistics to build a team on a limited budget. If the A's had more financial resources, there's no way they would pick the same players. It's easy to sit here and talk about the successful guys that don't "fit the mold", but if you were building a team I'm pretty sure you'd take your chances with five John Walls instead of five Jeremy Lins. John Wall is going to work out more often. Unless you're claiming that you would pick Jeremy Lin with the first pick in the draft. College football fans do the same thing. They have a couple of scrappy, low-rated players that play well, and then they say they need to build their team with those guys. Then they'll turn around and complain about the low star ratings of their recruiting class or the overall lack of talent on the team.




By the way Lin was cut by the Warriors to free up money to get DeAndre Jordan, and they actually tried to get him back.
 
---------
 
To be totally honest, I don't really like watching Lin play and I wouldn't want him if I was a GM. I am rooting for him and I like his story of course. I just used Lin as an example to show that deviating from the status quo can be beneficial at times. If the objective data say that Wall is better than Lin in terms of bang for buck, then I go with Wall. I'm just saying that conventional scouting can miss some of the intangibles, or favor some less relevant metrics over more important ones.




Look at the Yankees, BoSox, or Real Madrid soccer - money definitely helps get a decent number of wins, but you usually can't buy a championship. You have to innovate or perish. The rich teams can get away with "stupid" scouting because talent/production is generally correlated with salary, and they can absorb some bad contracts. But the cool thing about taking a chance on a dark horse is it's not that costly. If the Lin experiment doesn't work out, no biggie. But he has upside. Going all-in on a Greg Oden or Eddy Curry is a bigger sacrifice if you're wrong, and could set you back for years. UNLV hoops and Miami football rose to prominence because they took a chance and started recruiting urban kids who were overlooked by the big programs. Unless you're rolling in cash, you have to look for hidden talent and untapped supply. The greenest pastures are already crowded.



As you said, it's easy to Monday evening quarterback this type of stuff. All the signs pointed to Sam Bowie having a great career and Kurt Warner never amounting to anything. They're outliers. In general, making the "safe pick" works out. But the competition in pro sports is getting so tight and unforgiving, that any sort of edge that your rivals aren't exploiting is probably worth looking into.
 
---------
 
Obviously every team has to individually evaluate each player. Outside of team-specific systems or preferences, most teams converge on a similar hierarchy of player ratings. Even if a team really likes Jeremy Lin, it makes no sense to draft him high because you can just get him later. You don't choose Jeremy Lin over John Wall, because John Wall's ceiling is much higher. You just pick up Jeremy Lin late in the draft or as an undrafted free agent, which has basically no downside. Then you get both. You don't attempt to fund your whole retirement with money market funds or bonds. If you pick the player that everyone think is a can't miss prospect, and he doesn't pan out, they will say you were unlucky. If you pick the guy nobody else likes, the supposed diamond in the rough, then they will say you were dumb. Using guys who struggled with injuries as examples is not really fair, as no one has a crystal ball to foresee that. Very rarely do teams win championships with rosters full of average or above average players. The 2004 Pistons come to mind, but that was aided by the dysfunction of the Lakers. When you have the opportunity to try to get superstar players you have to take it, especially in the NBA draft, where the rookie salaries are predetermined and not exorbitant. Miami had basically no football history prior to 1980. Sure they took chances on some local talent that they may have overlooked before, but they weren't rejecting highly decorated recruits in order to do it. They didn't really have much of a choice.




The question is not whether you should ever take a chance on an "off the radar" guy but whether, when all players are available, you're going to choose the "off the radar" guy over the "can't miss" guy. You're a Raiders fan. How do you feel about the drafting of Mike Mitchell in the first round (about 3 rounds earlier than his projection) versus the drafting of Mike Huff in the first round? They've both been unspectacular, but one pick looks way worse than the other.
 
--------
 
I never said that you should draft longshots over safer bets. But at least look at the longshots when appropriate - and not every team does. Lin may be a relative "steal" at his $300K one-year contract or whatnot (esp. if NY is paying luxury tax, but I'm not sure their situation), but probably most teams would prefer to save up and pay a superstar like Durant $16M/year. You can only have 5 guys on the floor at a time, and 12 total, so of course you want to pack in as many stars as you can afford, instead of 12 under-rated value players. But for MIA that spent a lot for 3 stars and 2 more veterans, they could really benefit from penny pinching at the back end to find enough value to get them to the promised land. Of course you have to pay the right stars the right amount of money. The NBA probably overpays for size, and the NFL sometime overpays for speed and QBs. Bottom line, get the most bang for your buck - wins, jersey sales, TV contracts, whatever you measure success by. Don't just pick a player because he looks good or fits some arbitrary profile.




With the Yankees' financial advantages, I actually consider them bigger losers than the Rockies, who at half the payroll give it a good playoff run each year. Of course they have a weaker division and all that, but you get my point. The Yankees are supposed to win each year, so if they don't, they have fewer excuses than the A's. The equation is different if you are the deep pocket Goliath, or the reigning champ. But 90% of the teams in the league are not in that situation. That's why they have to be different to get an edge. If a poor team does exactly what a rich team does, they will lose 99% of the time, and at best they will achieve parity (with amazing luck). "Fight fair but avoid a fair fight." Don't play on Goliath's terms. Most franchises have more in common with U-of-Miami than the Yankees. I guess the draft helps weaker teams get a fighting chance next season, but clearly it's not a guarantee. So that puts even more pressure on struggling teams to get drafts and trades right.



The Raiders are kind of a bizarre example because their recent drafting history has been so atrocious. For the prospects that Davis "over-paid" for (i.e. drafted too highly) like Huff and Bey, there was an equal number of "sure thing" college stars who underperformed (Russell, Gallery, and probably McFadden too considering his health). So no formula is 100% safe. Maybe Seabass and Lechler were their best picks, but we'd probably need a more sophisticated analysis to measure their incremental benefits to the team vs. alternatives.
 
---------
 
Well I guess I'm not sure what we're arguing about then. It could be argued that three teams have looked at Jeremy Lin "when appropriate", because three teams have had him in on their rosters. All of them got him without having to draft him instead of another player, and they are paying him about as little as he can be paid. That seems like bang for your buck. And again, it's not like no one has given him a chance. He's been on three teams and up until 10 days ago hadn't played well enough to warrant being given more playing time. Obviously teams want to get superstars. No team goes into free agency with "under the radar" guys as its first choice, unless that's all they can afford. As for using arbitrary profiles, I think if you look through the entire draft you will see people of all shapes, sizes, and skill sets. I'd say the one thing that is common is that they usually have one standout, or at least above average trait. They are either big, strong, quick, long, great ballhandlers, great shooters or something. Jeremy Lin doesn't have any of those traits and generally played against a low level of competition. He's arguably average at best in all those areas, so it's hard to justify picking him any earlier than late in the draft or as a free agent. I would be curious to know what qualities you would look at in a guy who is doesn't have good athleticism, is not a good shooter, and plays against weak competition that would make you comfortable in projecting them to be successful in the NBA. Come to think of it, I think both your teams (Kings and Warriors) have drafted players high in the draft (Stephen Curry and Jimmer Fredette) that were both pretty highly rated prospects despite not having prototypical traits. So in that regard I would say the scouting is not as rigid as you make it out to be.




As for your paragraph about baseball, that's consistent with what I said. The teams that are penny pinching are doing it because they have to. They don't have a choice. The teams that have more resources aren't penny pinching because they don't have to. It seemed like you were saying before that teams should be targeting "under the radar" guys over highly rated guys even when they have the opportunity and means to get either one. I thought this because the frequent examples of John Wall and other NBA draft choices. But you're saying that you didn't mean that. So, just like in your example of the University of Miami football program, the choice of under the radar guys is made out of necessity. The only reason I brought up the Raiders (Huff and Mike Mitchell) was to make a point about drafting under the radar guys high versus picking guys where they are projected to go. Mike Huff may not have turned out to be great, but he was a consensus first round pick and someone would have picked him in the next handful of picks. I don't think anyone faulted the Raiders for picking him at the time. At most they could have traded down a few picks and gotten him, but they couldn't have waited another round to get him. Mike Mitchell was projected in the 3rd or 4th round, and they took him in the first round. That means they could have waited and gotten him for much less money. This was meant as an example of why it would be acceptable to pick John Wall first overall and dumb to pick Jeremy Lin overall, even if you like him a lot. But you said that you didn't mean that, so it doesn't really matter anyway.
 
--------
 
Scouting is not as rigid as a 2x4, but it could be more open-minded and data-driven, that's all. I wouldn't say that players like Jimmer and Curry don't have prototypical traits. They were dead-eye shooters who could also drive, and had some success in clutch situations leading their teams against bigger programs in the NCAA tourney. They aren't physical, but not every scorer has to be (Reggie, Mullin). They were also "high character" guys and likely fan favorites. I am not sure if those traits are worth drafting high for vs. pure athleticism, but they have them at least. I also think that the NBA draft is the lowest-risk draft compared to MLB and NFL (I think the data bear that out too). NBA rookies can contribute immediately, top picks are less likely to bust, and they have relatively fewer problems adapting to the pros. HS players are more risky of course.




Your comment about the level of competition a prospect faced is a good one. That's probably why many soccer players on the US national team don't get recruited by the top Euro clubs, either justified or not (they don't care if Donovan scored 3 goals vs. Honduras). OTOH, Duke players who come from an elite system and face top competition each season usually aren't top NBA prospects, probably due to lack of great physical skills and superstar potential.



I didn't know anything about Lin's history and looked on Wiki. He led his previously unknown HS team to a CA Div II title against a top Catholic school hoops powerhouse, and won a lot of individual honors. Stf and UCLA now "regret" not offering him a scholarship. Lin basically broke all the Ivy League hoops records, but I guess that isn't saying much. He did perform well in non-conf. games and put up 27 and 30 vs. BC and UConn. Not sure how critical those games were, and probably Lin's lack of hype and scouting made it easier for him to surprise big programs. Despite not facing much competition, some ESPN guy put him on a short list with Hayward, Vasquez, Singler, and Turner. BTW - he only got a 3.1 GPA at Harvard... pfffff.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Lin



I previously said I wouldn't consider Lin if I was an NBA GM. But now I'm tempted, not because of the typical assets, but somehow he has that intangible factor that allows him to defy his critics and surprise people. It may be just a face he puts on, but the kid acts fearless and like he belongs, despite our conventional wisdom thinking WTF is he doing being a starting PG? I can't believe how well he is handling himself. Confidence without attitude is an important trait for a star, and I think some highly touted draft picks lack it (Kwame and Darko come to mind). But we'll see how he responds when he hits the rookie wall or a prolonged slump. He thinks team first, but of course his decision making and passing need improvement. That may come with experience. Defensively he could be a liability, but D'Antoni's system doesn't really depend on that, and NY has Chandler and Amare to try to erase mistakes. Lin's game is also disruptive, which is useful. For some reason, other teams don't look comfortable when he is on the floor and hitting shots.



And then of course there is his story and cult fan following. Tonight in TOR, the fans were cheering for him as he hit the GW shot. I know it's TOR, but still. A team is still a business, so the buzz he generates is valuable. Plus other teams may be resenting Linsanity and are gunning to shut him down, so he could be a useful decoy to allow other Knicks to excel. My conspiracy theory is that Stern wants to create the NBA Tebow story, so he is throwing the games to allow Lin to succeed. The kid isn't even getting hard fouls, which is definitely what I would do to cool him off. All of this is very bizarre. NY won't make a deep playoff run even with Melo and Amare, but the Lin story should at least get scouts, GMs, and analysts to reconsider their assumptions. Coaches seem to be lumping real praise on Lin.



To be honest, I had no idea that Oakland even drafted a Mike Mitchell guy. :) I guess that shows how much the franchise wants to bury its mistake, or how much of a fan I am. Sorry that my previous emails let you to believe I held different opinions than I actually do. I have to work on my communication clarity.
 
--------
 
Just to clarify, of course in hindsight it's easy to say that teams should have shown more interest in Lin now that he has had some sustained high performance. But I think based on his college record and his bio, it shouldn't have been a mystery that Lin would have had some pro potential - at the minimum from the "first Asian American in the NBA" angle. But from his workouts (in one case he showed up Wall, right?) and interviews and such, a smart coach/GM could have seen Lin's disruption/intangibles potential. I just don't think they took the time, or maybe they let their biases get the better of them, or maybe they had justifiably more important personnel issues to worry about.




As you said though, it's too bad that Lin left the Warriors over money issues for a transaction that never even happened. But maybe this was the best thing for him and the league, because Lin would have never had the chance to shine on GS as he is doing with NY. The path to fame is rarely straight and predictable. Notice how I didn't say "path to greatness" though, which I doubt will apply to this guy - but you never know.
 
Sorry a slight correction, Lin isn't the first Asian-American in the NBA, not by a long shot. A Japanese-American played for NY as well... in 1947 (same year Jackie R joined the Dodgers)! That is a great show of post-war reconciliation (not that the guy did anything bad to the US during WWII, but you know how the prevailing racism was at the time). He was even shorter than me!




http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/02/15/146888834/pro-basketballs-first-asian-american-player-looks-at-lin-and-applauds

The interesting tale of the Nets' move to Brooklyn, and what is says about the lockout

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7021031/the-nets-nba-economics

Does Jay-Z have to look cool all the time, even with a tilted hardhat? What Ratner did will definitely be studied at Harvard Business School for years.

The silly owners-vs-players argument seems to be the same for NBA and NFL. The players' assets are their special sports talents. The owners' assets are the real estate and team name, under the protective umbrellas of the NBA/NFL monopolies. But say the Jerry Joneses and Mark Cubans of the world decided to retire and donate the franchises to charity. The players wouldn't be screwed. A new bunch of billionaires would build new arenas, pay the athletes probably higher salaries, and the only difference would be the New York Knights (TM) instead of the Brooklyn Nets (TM). Say Lebron and Brady decided to retire as well - their presence would be missed much more.

Profits (economic rent) should go to the scarcest, more demanded resources - in this case the players. People don't watch the games because of who owns the teams. The only reason the owners have such bargaining leverage is the anti-competitive nature of pro sports, so that other interested billionaires can't make better offers. Some thought it was ridiculous that NFL stars complained that they were treated like "slaves," but there are some undeniable similarities (and obviously some notable differences, like their still-enormous salaries, which should be bigger at market rates though). The AFL, USFL, and ABA tried to offer legit alternatives (in some cases paying players better and offering a more entertaining brand of sport), but the NFL/NBA used their legal-political-financial muscle to absorb or ruin them. Check out the ESPN "30 for 30" documentary on the USFL if you have time. They actually won an anti-trust case against the NFL, but they foolishly sought only $1 in symbolic damages, so the legal fees from that fight ruined them (and so did Donald Trump, seriously).

http://30for30.espn.com/film/small-potatoes-who-killed-the-usfl.html

So for the owners to piss and moan that they're going broke is a joke. If they don't like the business, then quit and start a hedge fund. There will be a line a block long to buy their franchise - since for a rich guy, it's such a rare feather to have in your cap, like a Picasso. It's not meant to make money (even though it does, plenty), it's a hobby to them. It's like the rich CEOs going to DC to beg for bailouts in their private jets and $10,000 suits.

"The rich have gone from being grateful for what they have to pushing for everything they can get. They have mastered the arts of whining and predation, without regard to logic or shame. In the end, this is the lesson of the NBA lockout. A man buys a basketball team as insurance on a real estate project, flips the franchise to a Russian billionaire when he wins the deal, and then — as both parties happily count their winnings — what lesson are we asked to draw? The players are greedy."

Emphasis was mine.

Tim Donaghy book on NBA corruption

http://deadspin.com/5392067/excerpts-from-the-book-the-nba-doesnt-want-you-to-read

Disgraced and incarcerated former NBA referee Tim Donaghy just finished a tell-all book about NBA corruption that was supposed to be published by Random House, but strangely the company changed their mind after investing thousands of dollars on the venture (maybe Stern made a few calls). So it was taken off Amazon pre-order, but this website managed to transcribe some excerpts, and maybe a smaller publishing house will give it a try. Of course we have to consider the source and his motives, like Canseco's tell-all about steroids in baseball. But we should also remember that Canseco turned out to be right with several of his allegations.

We all know that refs influence (deliberately or not) NBA games probably more than officials in all the other pro sports, maybe apart from the goof-riddled MLB playoffs this year. But it's just the nature of the big-money, big-media modern NBA and ref culture that controversies are likely, especially due to the subjective, inconsistent, and vague nature of personal foul rules and enforcement in basketball. Literally millions of dollars are at stake from a whistle at a critical moment. NFL and soccer refs believe that they do a great job if no one notices they're even there. But NBA refs have big egos and want to be noticed. They're a sideshow like the cheerleaders, even at the expense of fairness and correctness.

So Donaghy says what we all suspect: the NBA front office wants to promote big stars, keep games close and interesting, extend playoff series, help the home teams win, and maybe have more interesting/profitable teams succeed. This will make the NBA and its sponsors richer. And officiating can help that. Stars walk all over and rarely get in foul trouble (except clumsy big men), yet defensive specialists get whistles just for breathing on a star. Often home teams or teams down in a game get more calls and go to the foul line more (give the people what they want!). But fans have all the data available for foul calls and which teams/ref crews were participating, so someone should crunch the numbers and see if there is measurable bias (if all else fails, I will take a week off work and try). That doesn't prove intent, but at least could expose a problem.

Donaghy talks crap about several refs, but alleges that Dick Bavetta is the league's "cleaner". He makes sure the proper result plays out in critical games, and even brags about how good he is at it. Coincidentally, he was on the floor during several controversial playoff games, such as game 6 between LAL-SAC in 2002 with SAC up 3-2 against the Juggernaut Lakers (yeah, I'm still bitter). It's also strange that the NBA picks the officiating crew a few days before the game. Why wouldn't they have ref schedules randomized and pre-set even before the playoffs began, in order to reduce the chance of tampering?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0KJvlSUB-w

Well some might say that the NBA already is very popular and makes a ton of loot, so why would they risk it all to squeeze a few more millions out? An exposed scandal would ruin everything. Pete Rose was rich, successful, and still broke the rules; same with A-Rod. Success can't stop greed and corruption. In fact in may be a strong motivator; enough is never enough and Stern has to keep growing the NBA's success or he'll be fired. And maybe scandals won't deep-six a pro sport anyway, so it's worth the risk. Although MLB attendance was severely down this year (probably due to the recession), fans still keep coming after the unpopular players' strike and steroids scandals.

But what about ugly, small-market teams doing well in recent times, like SA, DET, NO, and SAC? There are a lot of series sweeps in the playoffs too. And Bron/Nash still haven't won rings. Shouldn't Stern have pulled enough strings so those things didn't happen? Well the NBA can't be blatantly obvious. Some teams are way better than others and should get a sweep. And SA, DET, and SAC did have good, championship-worthy squads for a while. Even with tampering, they still could have overcame and won. It's not like Stern could hire a sniper to take out Duncan with a rifle during a time out. They are clever and they pick their spots, like the DAL-MIA Finals or the LAL-SAC 2002 series. I wish the refs did strike this season so we could see what a properly-officiated pro game looks like.