Jason Whitlock is taking issue with Jim Calhoun's weekend press conference spat in connection with a question regarding his salary.
Jim Calhoun's "got to feed his family," too.
[Let the misplaced analogizing begin!]
Sprewell submarined the last few years of his NBA career when he foolishly claimed insult over a three-year, $27 million contract offer from the T-Wolves and uttered words that live in infamy: "I got to feed my family." Calhoun blabbered words equally as brainless on Saturday when a citizen journalist/activist slipped into Calhoun's postgame news conference and wondered how Calhoun felt about being the state's highest-paid employee when the state is going bankrupt and government employees are being terminated, laid off, pink-slipped and separated from their health insurance.
[These are two fairly different situations, right? (1) A guy responding to an *offered* amount of money, and (2) a guy responding to a query about an amount of money he *already* makes (as a result of a bilaterally negotiated contract). But, yeah, let's just pretend they are the same. It's easier that way.]
But Sprewell and Calhoun share a common characteristic.
[Ummm, that they were/are both prominent basketball figures?]
They deserted reality years ago and have a deep belief in their own importance.
[That was my next guess!]
Only arrogance and greed would make a man take the bait. Calhoun believes he's underpaid. That's why he ranted about his basketball program generating $12 million.
[Let the fist-shaking begin!]
Jim Calhoun is doing the entire state of Connecticut a gigantic favor funneling kids through the academic charade and winning basketball games for the entertainment of alumnus, boosters, faculty and students.
[I know Whitlock is being sarcastic here, but hasn't he kind of stumbled upon the kill-shot to his own tirade? For a state that is "going bankrupt," isn't Calhoun ACTUALLY doing said state a "gigantic favor" by generating $12 million dollars while only be paid about 10% of that amount?? Seems like the state would welcome that kind of return, no?]
No one wants Calhoun to refund any of his money.
[Then what's the point of this article? That Calhoun needs sensitivity training? Great scoop.]
Calhoun isn't Roger Goodell.... Goodell recently accepted a 20 percent pay cut from his $11 million salary. Does Roger feel your pain? Maybe. Maybe not. He's probably just negotiating with the NFLPA. Goodell's league is headed toward an economic showdown with its players. He'll soon be asking the players to take a lot less than what they're expecting, and he'll be able to say he's in the same boat.
[Again, something that Calhoun will NOT have to do. He's a state employee.]
Goodell is smart. Calhoun is arrogant and delusional.
[Why do I even bother reading this stuff? Where is Nils already? Stop making me read Whitlock.]
And I'm equally sure that Geno Auriemma, Connecticut's women's coach, and his peers were Calhoun's most frequent callers. The most passionate supporters of Title IX are the overpaid women's basketball coaches who play in front of volleyball crowds and get paid every two weeks as if they're filling Michigan's football Big House.
[We get it! You have a problem with coaches' salaries.]
I don't have a problem with the salaries of coaches....
[hjsdfnldfasnloeruihoanlkdmadsfljkmceo
Sorry. I just hurled my laptop out of the window. Surprisingly sturdy.]
I have a problem when coaches/athletes lose touch with reality, rub their ble$$ing in our faces and carry themselves like they're above being queried about the economic flaw in our democracy.
[Whitlock doesn't have a "problem" with coaches' salaries, he only thinks that they are an "economic flaw in our democracy."
(re-opening window...)]
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Note to NBA Players: C'mon, guys! Team owners are *only* billionaires! Let's be flexible here.
Interesting piece in the NY Times this week where Howard Beck discusses the NBA's future with super-agent David Falk. Hat-tip to The Guy Who Knows Things for passing this along. (And a finger-wag to Nils for going into witness protection.)
The N.B.A.’s system is broken, Falk says, and fixing it will require radical measures that almost guarantee a standoff in 2011, when the collective bargaining agreement expires.
[But LeBron can still be on the Knicks, right? In any event, I'm assuming that "radical measures" implies compromise on multiple fronts.]
Falk said he believed Stern, the commissioner, would push for a hard salary cap, shorter contracts, a higher age limit on incoming players, elimination of the midlevel cap exception and an overall reduction in the players’ percentage of revenue.
[Aaaaaand I would assume incorrectly.]
“The owners have the economic wherewithal to shut the thing down for two years, whatever it takes, to get a system that will work long term,” he said in an extensive interview to discuss his new book. “The players do not have the economic wherewithal to sit out one year.”
[*Two* years? Wouldn't a lot of NBA guys just go play overseas (where a lot of them are already wildly popular)? Although, this is assuming that the Euro leagues still have money.]
The players, he said, must recognize that the owners have the ultimate leverage. Many are billionaires for whom owning an N.B.A. team is merely a pricey hobby.
[Ugh.]
Unlike most of his peers, and the union leadership, Falk is an advocate of the age limit, which Stern won during collective bargaining negotiations in 2005. Falk said the limit, now 19 years old, should be raised to 20 or 21.
[That sounds totally impractical from a player representation standpoint.]
His reasons are purely practical.
[(shaking head)]
The influx of underclassmen to the N.B.A. has eroded fan familiarity and the quality of play, Falk said. An age limit will create more polished and prepared rookies, while the N.C.A.A. provides free advertising for future N.B.A. stars.
[Oh, ok. So that last sentence should have actually read that his reasons are purely practical FOR OWNERS. From a player's perspective, I am almost positive that "Making (potentially) millions of dollars" > "Providing free advertising for your future employer."]
Changes to the salary cap and the age limit sound like sacrifices from the player’s side.
[I would certainly see it that way.]
Falk does not see it that way.
[This is still super-agent David Falk, right? That is, super-agent to NBA players, right? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!]
“The only logical way over the next 25 years that players are going to make more money is to grow the pie,” Falk said.
[Yep. Take note, Kobe. If you want to be more richly compensated two decades from now, you are going to have to make some concessions in the present day. Wait, what's that, Kobe? You say that won't be playing in the NBA 20 years from now? Well why not? You'll be in your mid-50s? Hmmmm. Hey, what's that over there!?! (scurries away)]
It seems to me that current players aren't likely to benefit (outside of potentially avoiding a work stoppage) from making the kinds of concessions noted herein by Falk. But you know who will? Well, owners, obviously. But also...... agents like David Falk who will still be representing NBA players 25 years from now, albeit new and different players. Clever, right?
The N.B.A.’s system is broken, Falk says, and fixing it will require radical measures that almost guarantee a standoff in 2011, when the collective bargaining agreement expires.
[But LeBron can still be on the Knicks, right? In any event, I'm assuming that "radical measures" implies compromise on multiple fronts.]
Falk said he believed Stern, the commissioner, would push for a hard salary cap, shorter contracts, a higher age limit on incoming players, elimination of the midlevel cap exception and an overall reduction in the players’ percentage of revenue.
[Aaaaaand I would assume incorrectly.]
“The owners have the economic wherewithal to shut the thing down for two years, whatever it takes, to get a system that will work long term,” he said in an extensive interview to discuss his new book. “The players do not have the economic wherewithal to sit out one year.”
[*Two* years? Wouldn't a lot of NBA guys just go play overseas (where a lot of them are already wildly popular)? Although, this is assuming that the Euro leagues still have money.]
The players, he said, must recognize that the owners have the ultimate leverage. Many are billionaires for whom owning an N.B.A. team is merely a pricey hobby.
[Ugh.]
Unlike most of his peers, and the union leadership, Falk is an advocate of the age limit, which Stern won during collective bargaining negotiations in 2005. Falk said the limit, now 19 years old, should be raised to 20 or 21.
[That sounds totally impractical from a player representation standpoint.]
His reasons are purely practical.
[(shaking head)]
The influx of underclassmen to the N.B.A. has eroded fan familiarity and the quality of play, Falk said. An age limit will create more polished and prepared rookies, while the N.C.A.A. provides free advertising for future N.B.A. stars.
[Oh, ok. So that last sentence should have actually read that his reasons are purely practical FOR OWNERS. From a player's perspective, I am almost positive that "Making (potentially) millions of dollars" > "Providing free advertising for your future employer."]
Changes to the salary cap and the age limit sound like sacrifices from the player’s side.
[I would certainly see it that way.]
Falk does not see it that way.
[This is still super-agent David Falk, right? That is, super-agent to NBA players, right? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!]
“The only logical way over the next 25 years that players are going to make more money is to grow the pie,” Falk said.
[Yep. Take note, Kobe. If you want to be more richly compensated two decades from now, you are going to have to make some concessions in the present day. Wait, what's that, Kobe? You say that won't be playing in the NBA 20 years from now? Well why not? You'll be in your mid-50s? Hmmmm. Hey, what's that over there!?! (scurries away)]
It seems to me that current players aren't likely to benefit (outside of potentially avoiding a work stoppage) from making the kinds of concessions noted herein by Falk. But you know who will? Well, owners, obviously. But also...... agents like David Falk who will still be representing NBA players 25 years from now, albeit new and different players. Clever, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
