They look like this:
Also, they have an alternate logo that looks like this:
Showing posts with label NBA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NBA. Show all posts
Monday, March 4, 2013
Pelicans: a Follow Up
Apparently, about a week after I posted about the New Orleans Hornets proposed name change, the New Orleans franchise released this press release showing their new logo and colors.
They look like this:
Nicely done, New Orleans. Nicely done.
Also, they have an alternate logo that looks like this:
They look like this:
Also, they have an alternate logo that looks like this:
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
What's in a Name Change?
If I was going to change the name of the New Orleans franchise, and the Utah Jazz was too stingy to part with the name that ought to be in the Big Easy, I'd have a few good ideas. The Brass was a name that was thrown around as a possibility. Not only does it allude to the horn section of the jazz bands that make the city famous, but allows the team to take advantage of brass balls jokes. Also on the short list are the Bull Sharks (not bad, but hybrid names like Mud Hens, Jethawks, Mighty Ducks, or River Monsters just make me think of minor league teams and their cartoon logos), Rougarou (it's a cajun word for werewolf...), Swamp Dogs (also a good name for a minor league baseball team... and also makes me think of body odor, for some reason).
The favorite name, and the one most likely to be chosen (nothing "official" has been submitted yet) is the Pelicans. Speaking of minor league baseball, the Pelicans is also the name of a long defunct New Orleans minor league franchise. Apparently the brown pelican is the Louisiana state bird. I'm sure Louisianans all know this and are very proud. I don't know the state bird of the state I live in, so... I'm assuming people in Louisiana who like sports don't know or care either.
I was pretty doubtful that this name would be able to capture what the new ownership is hoping for, a new stronger connection to the community of New Orleans. Like many other commentators and reporters in the sports community, my first thought was choosing the pelican as a mascot for a professional sports team in one of the biggest leagues in the world is a huge laughable mistake.
Then I saw these fan generated logos and designs and decided this may actually work out. One can only hope the official design team takes some pointers from these, and also from Jay-Z 's successful redesign of the Nets franchise logo and colors.
This circular design makes me think of university. It also makes the bird far less goofy. The color scheme doesn't match up, however. There are rumors that red/navy/gold are proposed instead of the blue/purple used now. Also, mardi gras colors (yellow/green/purple) are used by the Hornets now as alternate colors.
The XFL called. They say this one is awesome. It is a pretty badass design, but seems more suited for lacrosse or roller derby than the NBA. Also, I'm not sure how well a jesters hat will go over if you're trying to be taken seriously.
Simplicity. This reminds me of the new Nets look. Not overly complicated, but still clever, incorporating the mascot, and the importance of music to the city. It does look like a logo for an automobile company though.
This one also makes the pelican seem less goofy. Incorporating the NOLA logo used as an alternate now is a good idea to bridge the new with the old identities. The top hat is pretty cool too. Once again, the color scheme would change...
This one seems more appropriate for the minor leagues. The bird looks smushed. However, I do like circular designs.
Note how it incorporates the fleur di lis design seen in the old Hornets patch. the color scheme is able to be changed easily. It's simple, easily recognizable, and not silly.
I've used the term minor league a lot in this post. This one fits into that category too. The floating bird head looks stupid. I'm betting the real logo, when revealed, will look more like this than any of the others. Because I'm a pessimist.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Repairing the NBA
I love basketball. I like the pace of the game, I like the team oriented aspect, the athleticism, the strategies used. However, the business aspect of the professional sport has changed basketball. Expansion has diluted talent. The talent is spread out over 30 teams with plenty of subpar players gaining contracts to fill out rosters. How does Brian Scalabrine still have a contract? Free Agency has made it nearly impossible to keep a team together long enough to gel, putting money over team loyalty, and competition.
If you look back at the 1980s, largely called the best decade for the NBA, there were only 23 teams until 1988 when Miami, Orlando, Charlotte, and Minnesota entered the league. Only one of those expansion teams has won a title, basically being useless franchises that drained talent away from the others. The only reason to have franchises in these cities would be to make money in these markets. Wouldn't it be easier to promote an already existing franchise close to these cities, rather than cannibalize the nearest existing market, dilute the talent pool, and then piss off all your new fans in the new market when this new team is perpetually terrible? Instead of having an awful Charlotte team in Charlotte, why not market the already existing Wizards and Hawks who are close by, and already have a history and identity?
Any way, this post is much like this post I already wrote. And also I read Bill Simmons, who has been saying stuff about how the NBA could help itself for quite some time, most obviously in his The Book of Basketball. Steve Kerr recently wrote an article too about changing the draft age requirement, and how much this ought to solve several issues with younger players. I also have a few ideas, some stolen from Simmons.
1. Collapse bad franchises.
The NBA will never do this. They are so concerned with keeping markets in every viable city possible that they would rather leave poorly managed franchises where they are and open brand new ones in new cities. Sometimes teams move cities. Like when Seattle lost their franchise and Oklahoma City received the Zombie Sonics in the shadiest business deal in sports since the Celtics stole Larry Bird. The reason the '80s were so successful, with Magic and Bird and young Jordan, and Isiah Thomas was due to fewer teams with a higher concentration of talent, and superstars being happy where they were.
Why would well paid athletes want to leave the cities where they made names for themselves and have a huge fanbase during their prime? This is a huge trend recently with Lebron James, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Paul, and soon Dwight Howard leaving teams in their prime to go to another city to play with other superstars. The stars of the '80s would never do that. However, there are now 7 more teams in the league to compete for star players, so instead of having two or three star players on a team, some franchises are lucky to have one.
Some fans can't understand why the Celtics of the '50s and 60's can be considered special, since they competed against other teams with 6 hall of famers. Doesn't seem fair, until you consider that the NBA in the 50's and 60's fluctuated between 14 and 8 teams for that 20 year span. Every team had multiple star players. and the Celtics hardly had a monopoly on the best talent in the league. Imagine what current rosters would look like with only roster spots for 100 players instead of 450. Lebron would have never left Cleveland, the odds of him already playing with three or four other stars would have been very high.
I thought about what sorts of moves the league could make in order to collapse things for the good of competition. I decided that if a team has ever won a championship, the franchise deserves to be allowed to stick around, no matter how long it's been. The team at one point earned a spot in League history by winning a title. Therefore, the Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, Hawks (in St Louis), 76ers, Knicks, Kings (as Royals in Rochester), Warriors, Bucks, Wizards (as Bullets), Trailblazers, Thunder (as Sonics in Seatle), Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, Heat, and Mavericks are all protected. In addition, the other 3 ABA teams ought to be protected also, if for any other reason than they represent the merger, and were already saved once from being folded (unlike the unlucky Kentucky Colonels and Spirits of St Louis). That brings the league to 20 teams. A good league size would be an even 24, 12 teams per conference. So, the league would have to look to close 6 teams.
With this said, Charlotte should be folded. They already had a chance with the Hornets franchise, and now the Bobcats are looking to be the worst team in league history. They have no significant history for fans to be proud of and loyal to. The last expansion team ought to be the first to close.
Minnesota should be folded, along with the Toronto Raptors. Both these teams can't entice good players to come play there, and quickly lose the good players they get in drafts to free agency. They are small markets with cold weather and no history of winning. Boston has trouble selling itself to free agents and it's the most winningest franchise ever. Fold both these teams and market the regions to closer franchises, like Milwaukee and Detroit.
The Utah Jazz had the best chance to win titles in the '90s and could not get past Jordan and the Bulls, understandably. But before and since the Malone/Stockton era, the Jazz have been non contenders. When the Utah franchise folds, the Jazz name needs to go back to New Orleans where it belongs.
Florida is a pretty big place with many lucrative sports markets including Miami, Tampa, Tampa Bay, Orlando, etc. However, I've noticed the fan bases for sports not named Football are not very reliable. Heat fans, for instance, arrive late to games and leave early; and that team is successful. The Orlando Magic ought to be folded. They went to the finals twice since their inception, and both times failed to win a title. They possessed two of the biggest (literally) stars in the game since Wilt Chamberlain and were unable to keep them from leaving for other teams (Shaq went to the Lakers, and although he hasn't left yet, I'm predicting Dwight Howard is on another team next season). Florida seems to be barely capable of handling one franchise in each sport (aside from football), and the Heat market should be extended to all of Florida. Plus, Atlanta is pretty close by.
The Clippers need to be closed, sacrificed for the betterment of the league. I know they have significant history in the league, but aside from longevity, this franchise has done nothing but move three times (Buffalo, San Diego, Los Angeles) and the franchise mismanagement is legendary.
2. Do something to make pre-season more interesting.
Pre seasons are super fun, if you're the sports equivalent of a nerd. For everyone else, it's boring. Especially in basketball, where the fanbase is pretty sure who the starting lineup will be during the real season, and although it is like a mini tryout for fringe players to try and get a roster spot, most of the spots are already guaranteed. The competition is light, most of the stars don't play more than half their normal minutes, and wins and losses are meaningless. The only good use of the pre season is giving rookies and young talent time to play and develop, and letting fantasy nerds get a look at things.
That all being said, I have a few ideas to make things more interesting, develop young talent, and bring in more revenue (which is really what the NBA is excited about).
A: play pre-season games in other places.
When the NBA collapses those franchises, they're going to need to start promoting another team from another city in its place in order to keep the market. The NBA already knows how good exhibition games are at selling the game. There is a reason there are so many Celtics fans in Eastern Europe. Cultivating larger fanbases is easy when you showcase your games in other neighborhoods.
Some teams already do this. The Celtics, for example, play games in Hartford, CT, and Manchester, NH. I propose doing this more and in other cities. Expand the NBA market to other places, play for the small town fans who can't travel to the big cities or afford regular season tickets along with travel expenses, etc. The NBA talks often of giving back to the communities. This is a very public way to show that commitment.
B: Tournament.
I borrowed this idea from Bill Simmons. The teams can play their pre-season games in those neighboring cities, showcasing their stars, and developing new talent and building team chemistry. However, pre-season is still pretty boring. So... at the end, one city will host a pre-season NCAA style tournament. Host cities should be cities without an NBA franchise (like St Lious, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Kansas City, etc) in order to showcase the NBA in those markets.
Single elimination means one win moves a team on, and the losing team is done. This will go by pretty quickly. The NCAA tournament lasts a few weeks and includes 64 teams. The NBA only will have 24 teams, so it could last a few days. 24 teams is a weird number for a single elimination tournament, but I'm sure NBA people could figure out how to make it work, maybe give byes to last season's Finals contenders or something. This is a good way to end a pre-season and gear up for opening day. Stars don't have to play, and the young players get exposed to a play-off style atmosphere.
The problem with this is how to get teams interested and eager to play well enough to make the tournament not a joke. The All-Star Game has the same problem. My solution: the winner will actually win something.
The team that wins the tournament would secure the All-Star Game for their city and will host the weekend in the upcoming February. Right now, cities have to lobby to get the All-Star Game, which brings business and tourism to the host city. That's a pretty good incentive without making the tournament super competitive. And since cities like Las Vegas, without a franchise, will be allowed to host the pre-season tournament, they won't be attempting to take the All-Star hosting duties away from an NBA franchise.
3. Expand the NBDL
Right now, there are two other professional leagues that use extensive, successful farm system minor leagues and one other professional sport that uses the NCAA as their farm system. The NBA has been having issues with young players not living up to potential and ending their careers prematurely, having not developed in ways the league had hoped. A lot of this has to do with poor development early on. There isn't much incentive to stay in college when there can be so much money to be made as a pro.
The NBDL was a step in the right direction, but cannot seem to be profitable or create quality fanbases with strong, sound label recognition. There are some players recently who have come out of the NBDL, developed enough to be quality players in the NBA, but not enough.
More money needs to be funneled into the NBDL in order to advertise, expand, and attract television deals. The NBDL should expand while the NBA itself collapses, in order to give each franchise its own minor league system. Currently, the Lakers are the only NBA franchise that owns its own NBDL franchise, more teams need to invest to give the minor league permanency. Not only is a minor league franchise a good way to develop new talent, like baseball, it also gives a place to rehab injuries, and it puts the NBA in smaller markets. Those 6 cities that lost their franchises several paragraphs ago would all be good places for NBDL franchises. Once again, expanding the NBA market without diluting the NBA talent.
If you look back at the 1980s, largely called the best decade for the NBA, there were only 23 teams until 1988 when Miami, Orlando, Charlotte, and Minnesota entered the league. Only one of those expansion teams has won a title, basically being useless franchises that drained talent away from the others. The only reason to have franchises in these cities would be to make money in these markets. Wouldn't it be easier to promote an already existing franchise close to these cities, rather than cannibalize the nearest existing market, dilute the talent pool, and then piss off all your new fans in the new market when this new team is perpetually terrible? Instead of having an awful Charlotte team in Charlotte, why not market the already existing Wizards and Hawks who are close by, and already have a history and identity?
Any way, this post is much like this post I already wrote. And also I read Bill Simmons, who has been saying stuff about how the NBA could help itself for quite some time, most obviously in his The Book of Basketball. Steve Kerr recently wrote an article too about changing the draft age requirement, and how much this ought to solve several issues with younger players. I also have a few ideas, some stolen from Simmons.
1. Collapse bad franchises.
The NBA will never do this. They are so concerned with keeping markets in every viable city possible that they would rather leave poorly managed franchises where they are and open brand new ones in new cities. Sometimes teams move cities. Like when Seattle lost their franchise and Oklahoma City received the Zombie Sonics in the shadiest business deal in sports since the Celtics stole Larry Bird. The reason the '80s were so successful, with Magic and Bird and young Jordan, and Isiah Thomas was due to fewer teams with a higher concentration of talent, and superstars being happy where they were.
Why would well paid athletes want to leave the cities where they made names for themselves and have a huge fanbase during their prime? This is a huge trend recently with Lebron James, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Paul, and soon Dwight Howard leaving teams in their prime to go to another city to play with other superstars. The stars of the '80s would never do that. However, there are now 7 more teams in the league to compete for star players, so instead of having two or three star players on a team, some franchises are lucky to have one.
Some fans can't understand why the Celtics of the '50s and 60's can be considered special, since they competed against other teams with 6 hall of famers. Doesn't seem fair, until you consider that the NBA in the 50's and 60's fluctuated between 14 and 8 teams for that 20 year span. Every team had multiple star players. and the Celtics hardly had a monopoly on the best talent in the league. Imagine what current rosters would look like with only roster spots for 100 players instead of 450. Lebron would have never left Cleveland, the odds of him already playing with three or four other stars would have been very high.
 |
| This could be the Lakers vs the Bulls |
With this said, Charlotte should be folded. They already had a chance with the Hornets franchise, and now the Bobcats are looking to be the worst team in league history. They have no significant history for fans to be proud of and loyal to. The last expansion team ought to be the first to close.
Minnesota should be folded, along with the Toronto Raptors. Both these teams can't entice good players to come play there, and quickly lose the good players they get in drafts to free agency. They are small markets with cold weather and no history of winning. Boston has trouble selling itself to free agents and it's the most winningest franchise ever. Fold both these teams and market the regions to closer franchises, like Milwaukee and Detroit.
The Utah Jazz had the best chance to win titles in the '90s and could not get past Jordan and the Bulls, understandably. But before and since the Malone/Stockton era, the Jazz have been non contenders. When the Utah franchise folds, the Jazz name needs to go back to New Orleans where it belongs.
Florida is a pretty big place with many lucrative sports markets including Miami, Tampa, Tampa Bay, Orlando, etc. However, I've noticed the fan bases for sports not named Football are not very reliable. Heat fans, for instance, arrive late to games and leave early; and that team is successful. The Orlando Magic ought to be folded. They went to the finals twice since their inception, and both times failed to win a title. They possessed two of the biggest (literally) stars in the game since Wilt Chamberlain and were unable to keep them from leaving for other teams (Shaq went to the Lakers, and although he hasn't left yet, I'm predicting Dwight Howard is on another team next season). Florida seems to be barely capable of handling one franchise in each sport (aside from football), and the Heat market should be extended to all of Florida. Plus, Atlanta is pretty close by.
The Clippers need to be closed, sacrificed for the betterment of the league. I know they have significant history in the league, but aside from longevity, this franchise has done nothing but move three times (Buffalo, San Diego, Los Angeles) and the franchise mismanagement is legendary.
2. Do something to make pre-season more interesting.
Pre seasons are super fun, if you're the sports equivalent of a nerd. For everyone else, it's boring. Especially in basketball, where the fanbase is pretty sure who the starting lineup will be during the real season, and although it is like a mini tryout for fringe players to try and get a roster spot, most of the spots are already guaranteed. The competition is light, most of the stars don't play more than half their normal minutes, and wins and losses are meaningless. The only good use of the pre season is giving rookies and young talent time to play and develop, and letting fantasy nerds get a look at things.
That all being said, I have a few ideas to make things more interesting, develop young talent, and bring in more revenue (which is really what the NBA is excited about).
A: play pre-season games in other places.
 |
| there are plenty of local schools with gyms |
Some teams already do this. The Celtics, for example, play games in Hartford, CT, and Manchester, NH. I propose doing this more and in other cities. Expand the NBA market to other places, play for the small town fans who can't travel to the big cities or afford regular season tickets along with travel expenses, etc. The NBA talks often of giving back to the communities. This is a very public way to show that commitment.
B: Tournament.
I borrowed this idea from Bill Simmons. The teams can play their pre-season games in those neighboring cities, showcasing their stars, and developing new talent and building team chemistry. However, pre-season is still pretty boring. So... at the end, one city will host a pre-season NCAA style tournament. Host cities should be cities without an NBA franchise (like St Lious, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Kansas City, etc) in order to showcase the NBA in those markets.
Single elimination means one win moves a team on, and the losing team is done. This will go by pretty quickly. The NCAA tournament lasts a few weeks and includes 64 teams. The NBA only will have 24 teams, so it could last a few days. 24 teams is a weird number for a single elimination tournament, but I'm sure NBA people could figure out how to make it work, maybe give byes to last season's Finals contenders or something. This is a good way to end a pre-season and gear up for opening day. Stars don't have to play, and the young players get exposed to a play-off style atmosphere.
The problem with this is how to get teams interested and eager to play well enough to make the tournament not a joke. The All-Star Game has the same problem. My solution: the winner will actually win something.
The team that wins the tournament would secure the All-Star Game for their city and will host the weekend in the upcoming February. Right now, cities have to lobby to get the All-Star Game, which brings business and tourism to the host city. That's a pretty good incentive without making the tournament super competitive. And since cities like Las Vegas, without a franchise, will be allowed to host the pre-season tournament, they won't be attempting to take the All-Star hosting duties away from an NBA franchise.
3. Expand the NBDL
Right now, there are two other professional leagues that use extensive, successful farm system minor leagues and one other professional sport that uses the NCAA as their farm system. The NBA has been having issues with young players not living up to potential and ending their careers prematurely, having not developed in ways the league had hoped. A lot of this has to do with poor development early on. There isn't much incentive to stay in college when there can be so much money to be made as a pro. The NBDL was a step in the right direction, but cannot seem to be profitable or create quality fanbases with strong, sound label recognition. There are some players recently who have come out of the NBDL, developed enough to be quality players in the NBA, but not enough.
More money needs to be funneled into the NBDL in order to advertise, expand, and attract television deals. The NBDL should expand while the NBA itself collapses, in order to give each franchise its own minor league system. Currently, the Lakers are the only NBA franchise that owns its own NBDL franchise, more teams need to invest to give the minor league permanency. Not only is a minor league franchise a good way to develop new talent, like baseball, it also gives a place to rehab injuries, and it puts the NBA in smaller markets. Those 6 cities that lost their franchises several paragraphs ago would all be good places for NBDL franchises. Once again, expanding the NBA market without diluting the NBA talent.
Monday, April 2, 2012
They Call Me Mr. Tibbs!
I watched ESPN Sportscenter this morning, basically for highlights from the Celtics/Heat game from last night. I saw the game, but sometimes I like to watch reactions to good games from commentators, and see which highlights they show. Anyway, I realized, as I watched, that more often than not, superstars were referred to by shortened versions of their names or initials, instead of their last names (normal) or clever nicknames (cool). This made me wonder what happened to modern sports writing. Can no one coin a good nickname anymore?
What happened to clever nicknames for sports icons? This isn't just basketball stars being shortchanged cool monikers. Robert Griffin III, the newest Heisman winner, is referred to as RG3. No one could come up with something clever for the Baylor athlete famous for the socks he wears? RG3 is uninspired.
The NBA is notorious lately for branding their superstars by their initials and shortened versions of their actual name. KG, KD, DWade, JKidd, CP3, AI, TMac, VC are all good examples. The only player that has been nicknamed with his initials that is in anyway clever is Andre Kirilenko. He is Russian an wears number 47. So calling him AK47 is awesome. Other than that... come up with something better. Even Jordan, one of the top 3 best players in the game's history, is often referred to as MJ, even when Air Jordan and His Airness have been used before.
One may argue that Jeremy Lin started some clever branding. But Linsanity sounds an awful lot like Vinsanity... Vince Carter was a sensation in the '90s. Once again, modern broadcasting can't be original.
What happened to the days of broadcasting nicknames like Chocolate Thunder, the Hick from French Lick, The Houdini of the Hardwood, Black Magic? I like that Walt Frazier's nickname was Clyde. I like that Wilt Chamberlain was called the Big Dipper, because he had to duck to get through doors. I like that Magic Johnson is still referred to as Magic Johnson, long after he has retired and become an analyst. No one calls him Ervin. No one talks about Julius Erving either, but everyone knows Dr. J.
Currently there are a few NBA stars that have clever, well coined nicknames. Like Kobe Bryant is the Black Mamba, and Paul Pierce is the Truth. I think a first step would be for players to embrace the clever nicknames. Maybe not as enthusiastically as the Shaqtus/Big Aristotle/Big Diesel/Superman/Big Shamrock, who gave himself most of those nicknames.
There is a similar post and project here on Both Teams Played Hard. It has a list of current and former nicknames for players, all better than the cheap initials used primarily for players that have slightly less well known tags.
 |
| KD goes around CP3... sounds lame |
The NBA is notorious lately for branding their superstars by their initials and shortened versions of their actual name. KG, KD, DWade, JKidd, CP3, AI, TMac, VC are all good examples. The only player that has been nicknamed with his initials that is in anyway clever is Andre Kirilenko. He is Russian an wears number 47. So calling him AK47 is awesome. Other than that... come up with something better. Even Jordan, one of the top 3 best players in the game's history, is often referred to as MJ, even when Air Jordan and His Airness have been used before.
One may argue that Jeremy Lin started some clever branding. But Linsanity sounds an awful lot like Vinsanity... Vince Carter was a sensation in the '90s. Once again, modern broadcasting can't be original.
 |
| Chocolate Thunder and Dr J Have a Word... now THATS a caption! |
Currently there are a few NBA stars that have clever, well coined nicknames. Like Kobe Bryant is the Black Mamba, and Paul Pierce is the Truth. I think a first step would be for players to embrace the clever nicknames. Maybe not as enthusiastically as the Shaqtus/Big Aristotle/Big Diesel/Superman/Big Shamrock, who gave himself most of those nicknames.
There is a similar post and project here on Both Teams Played Hard. It has a list of current and former nicknames for players, all better than the cheap initials used primarily for players that have slightly less well known tags.
 |
| Pierce wears his nickname with pride |
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Celtics All-Time Greats: an addendum
Paul Pierce passed Larry Bird on the Celtics all time scoring list recently. In response to that, ESPN asked Bill Simmons to list his top ten all time Celtics greats. ESPN put up a video with Simmons explaining his choices, but the video no longer exists. You'll remember, I wrote something about this before, when Prince Charles left Pierce off his own list of the greatest Celtics a few years ago.
10: Robert Parish
9: Bill Sharman
8: Paul Pierce
7: Kevin McHale
6: Sam Jones
5: Dave Cowens
4: Bob Cousy
3: John Havlicek
2: Larry Bird
1: Bill Russel
The other day, Simmons interviewed Bob Ryan from the Boston Globe on the BS Report, and they talked about the same thing. Bob Ryan gave his top 5, and also mentioned McHale, Sam Jones, and Dave Cowens. His list is below.
5: Paul Pierce4: Bob Cousy
3: John Havlicek
2: Larry Bird
1: Bill Russel
Later in the interview, Ryan confirms that he will hang up his shoes after the London Olympics after a 42 year career in Boston. Not many writers understand the game like he does. He will be missed.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
If I Made Millions, I'd Dress Any Way You Want
So they NBA lockout is into it's 146th day. There are rumors that the two sides are meeting for the first time since the player's union decertified a few weeks ago. However, I'm not very hopeful. Mostly because I read Bill Simmons. The man that brought us all the Book of Basketball is a well known sports columnist for ESPN and has recently started his own blog/site Grantland, where he is the chief editor.
Simmons has recently published an article about the NBA lockout and has had some pretty interesting ideas about how the NBA ought to restructure itself. Mostly, I agree with Simmons. What I don't understand is his and others ideas and complaints about how owners deal with and treat players. According to Simmons, the commissioner of the NBA and the owners of the individual franchises have gone after players "like an overbearing principal". Now, I understand how people don't like being told what to do, however, Simmons gives a laundry list of things that David Stern has mandated in the last decade. These things include a dress code, showing up to work functions on time, taunting, and physical altercations (on the court, and in the stands). Apparently, players balk at these sorts of the things, and are basically defended by sports writers like Simmons, Mike Wise, and Bryant Gumbel. Gumbel even goes as far as to call these sorts of things racially motivated (which even Simmons has decided went too far).
The thing that I don't understand, and what most people who work for a living in real jobs probably don't understand either, is this... The owners employ the players to work for their franchise/organization. If the players are seen as employees, then they are so out of touch with how employee/employer relationships actually work. Even employees that have unions need to play by the employer's rules to a certain point. These unions help prevent unfair employment practices and gross misconduct by employers, but dress code, not allowing violence/harrassment, and being punctual don't seem to be issues for other unions.
NBA players have whined about the fines levied for showing up late for NBA functions like All-Star Weekend and NBA Cares events. Normal people with jobs are all expected to be on time for work. Dress Code was an issue that players didn't agree with either. Again, most jobs require employees to dress a certain way, including those sports broadcasters. Most have a uniform, others require certain types of dress so their employees look professional when representing their company/agency/organization.
Normal employers in normal occupations take "disciplinary action" if their employees show up late for work, don't dress appropriately, and conduct themselves unprofessionally on the job. Disciplinary action means consequences like docked pay, probationary employment status, and termination. NBA players get fined or get suspended, or banned from playing in a number of games.
The fact that NBA players are union members, contracted professionals, and/or free lance employees shouldn't make a difference. Other professions with unions who work on a contract play by similar rules like teachers, the police, and truckers. Each of these professions are required to dress appropriately, act appropriately, and come to work on time.
I have never heard of an NBA player getting fired. I don't think it's possible, and the thought of it actually being possible is a pretty interesting concept. However, that would probably turn into a strategy used to dump a bad investment, free up cap space, get out of a contract, or force a trade. On second thought, nevermind.
What is my point? Final summation? I think the overall attitude of the players is so out of touch with reality that even if this lockout ends in time to save a partial season, it will take a long time to bring back disillusioned fans who live on Earth and not planet Professional Athlete.
Simmons has recently published an article about the NBA lockout and has had some pretty interesting ideas about how the NBA ought to restructure itself. Mostly, I agree with Simmons. What I don't understand is his and others ideas and complaints about how owners deal with and treat players. According to Simmons, the commissioner of the NBA and the owners of the individual franchises have gone after players "like an overbearing principal". Now, I understand how people don't like being told what to do, however, Simmons gives a laundry list of things that David Stern has mandated in the last decade. These things include a dress code, showing up to work functions on time, taunting, and physical altercations (on the court, and in the stands). Apparently, players balk at these sorts of the things, and are basically defended by sports writers like Simmons, Mike Wise, and Bryant Gumbel. Gumbel even goes as far as to call these sorts of things racially motivated (which even Simmons has decided went too far).
The thing that I don't understand, and what most people who work for a living in real jobs probably don't understand either, is this... The owners employ the players to work for their franchise/organization. If the players are seen as employees, then they are so out of touch with how employee/employer relationships actually work. Even employees that have unions need to play by the employer's rules to a certain point. These unions help prevent unfair employment practices and gross misconduct by employers, but dress code, not allowing violence/harrassment, and being punctual don't seem to be issues for other unions.
NBA players have whined about the fines levied for showing up late for NBA functions like All-Star Weekend and NBA Cares events. Normal people with jobs are all expected to be on time for work. Dress Code was an issue that players didn't agree with either. Again, most jobs require employees to dress a certain way, including those sports broadcasters. Most have a uniform, others require certain types of dress so their employees look professional when representing their company/agency/organization.
Normal employers in normal occupations take "disciplinary action" if their employees show up late for work, don't dress appropriately, and conduct themselves unprofessionally on the job. Disciplinary action means consequences like docked pay, probationary employment status, and termination. NBA players get fined or get suspended, or banned from playing in a number of games.
The fact that NBA players are union members, contracted professionals, and/or free lance employees shouldn't make a difference. Other professions with unions who work on a contract play by similar rules like teachers, the police, and truckers. Each of these professions are required to dress appropriately, act appropriately, and come to work on time.
I have never heard of an NBA player getting fired. I don't think it's possible, and the thought of it actually being possible is a pretty interesting concept. However, that would probably turn into a strategy used to dump a bad investment, free up cap space, get out of a contract, or force a trade. On second thought, nevermind.
What is my point? Final summation? I think the overall attitude of the players is so out of touch with reality that even if this lockout ends in time to save a partial season, it will take a long time to bring back disillusioned fans who live on Earth and not planet Professional Athlete.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Celtics All-Time Greats?
Charles Barkley, the great pundit that he is, came to the defense of Celtics greatness by leaving Paul Pierce off of his list of top ten Celtics. Which begs the question: where does Pierce fit in among the pantheon of hall of famers that is the Celtics legacy and mystique?
Mattrob23 posed this question on the CelticsBlog recently.
Barkley's list is as follows:
6. Bill Russel
33. Larry Bird (they call him the Legend)
00. Robert Parish (the Chief)
17. John Havlicek ("he stole the ball!")
32. Kevin McHale
3. DJ Johnson (not in the Hall. But has 3 titles, Finals MVP, and 5x All Star)
24. Sam Jones (Good choice. My favorite C.)
31. Cedric Maxwell (Cornbread? Really?)
18. Dave Cowens (the taxi driver. What a weirdo)
10. Jo Jo White (I watched Glory Road the other day)
Sir Charles also mentions Walter Brown and Red Auerbach, which I dont understand. Because, while both Brown and Auerbach did much for the Celtics and the game of basketball, they are not players, and therefore, arent really part of the discussion.
He also brings up Reggie Lewis, and Len Bias, and states that they could have been better than Pierce also, if they had lived. First of all, that same argument could be said of anything. Tim Duncan could have been a Celtic Great too, but he was drafted by San Antonio because they got the first pick that year. Second, Len Bias should never be mentioned in the same sentence as the phrase "Celtics Legends" due to the fact that A: he never played a game in a Celtics jersey, and B: his death after the draft completely screwed over the entire franchise for a solid decade and a half. "Could have beens", and "ifs" dont count in this discussion.
Also out of contention for this list are: Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Chauncy Billups, Gary Payton, Bill Walton, Ed McAuley, and Nate Archibald. Although these players are all great, and all played for the Cs, and some of them helped win titles, they did the majority of their great works in other cities. Everyone on Barkley's list (with the exception of Parish, Johnson, and Cowens) were Celtics lifers. True, Johnson won a title with Seattle, and Parish won one in Chicago, but they were in their prime when they played for the Cs, and they also played in Boston for a majority of their careers. When you say Robert Parish and Dennis Johnson, everyone thinks Celtics Legend. When someone says Kevin Garnet or Ray Allen, sure the Celtics are mentioned, but the Timberwolves, Sonics, and Bucks will be also.
Kevin Garnett won a title in Boston, and a Defensive Player of the Year award, and is a 3x All Star. However, with Minnesota, he was a season MVP, and a 10x All Star, and holds their records for points, assists, steals, blocked shots, and rebounds, and as a Timberwolf, holds the NBA record for averaging 20 points, 10 rebounds and 5 assists 6 consecutive times, and is only one of 4 NBA players EVER to lead their team in all 5 statistical categories, but that team isnt the Celtics (Dave Cowens is one of the other 3, and his team was the Celtics).
Another thing that gets me is the fact that Cousy isnt on the list at all, one of the best point guards of all time. And what about Tommy Heinsohn? Rookie of the Year, 8 NBA titles, 6 All Star appearances, Coach of the Year, and he won 2 titles as a coach.
Paul Pierce, in comparison to the members on the list, plus Cousy and Heinsohn, stacks up numbers wise:
Pierce is the third all Celtic leading scorer behind Larry Bird and John Havlicek.
He has 1 NBA title, 8 All Star Appearances, NBA Finals MVP, a scoring title (only Celtic to ever do that), and he won the 3 point contest recently, the first Celtic to do that since Larry Bird won it 3 times.
In addition to the numbers... he has a pretty kick-ass nickname which also stacks up with other Celtics Greats. The Chief, the Houdini of the Hardwood, Cornbread, Tommy Guns, The Hick from French Lick, Satch, Loscy, the Cooz, The Black Hole, Hondo, The Jones Boys, and Big Red are all nicknames used for the Celtics Greats. The Truth is definitely just as good, if not better.
I think Paul Pierce has cemented his legacy in Boston. He is poised to finish his career with the team that drafted him. This is a pretty huge deal. There are not too many veteran players in the NBA still on the team that drafted them. I can think of two off the top of my head: Tim Duncan, and Dirk Nowitski (Kobe has played for the Lakers his entire career, but was drafted by the Hornets). Pierce has a resume of awards that matches many other Celtics Greats, and has done much to overcome character flaws, injuries, and personal issues in order to continue to be good at what he does. When Pierce retires, I would be shocked to not see number 34 raised to the rafters in the Boston TD Garden. I mean... if they retired Cedric Maxwell, Ed McAuley, Jim Loscutoff, Satch Sanders, KC Jones and Don Nelson, they'd be nuts not to retire Pierce, right?
in conclusion: my list
6. Bill Russel
33. Larry Bird
17. John Havlicek
18. Dave Cowens
32. Kevin McHale
34. Paul Pierce
24. Sam Jones
24. Sam Jones
15. Tommy Hiensohn
00. Robert Parish
14. Bob Cousy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)