Is It Linsane Not to Match?

UPDATE: The New York Times is now reporting that, as of 4 PM today, the NY Knicks have essentially decided to not match the Rockets' offer.


In one man's opinion, well not just one as there's Stephen A. Smith (wait am I about to agree with Stephen A. Smith. *Shudder* Momma. I feel so cold. What's happening? Were the Mayans riight??), it is not, in fact, linsane.


First and foremost, for a Harvard guy of (apparently) good, moral, Christian upbringing, it is hard to believe that Lin was stupid enough to take Jim Dolan's assurances that the Knicks would match back to the Rockets in hopes of getting more money. I mean, don't get me wrong, in general this is a smart business move to leverage whatever information you have in order to further solidify your position and get more money. ShaoLin, however, was dealing with Jimmy Dolan. So go ahead and throw "general situations" out the window. OF COURSE, Dolan was going to take that personally as a breach of trust. He's a selfish, solipsistic man-child. Further, it backfired. Lin made no more money, I believe the offer actually went down from a balanced $28 million with $9 million a year, the Rockets just went the "poison pill" route and backloaded his contract in hopes that the Knicks would not match because of that monstrous $14.9 million (or whatever) third year. This would put the Knicks far over the cap in Lin's third year and cost them an additional, roughly, $35 million in luxury tax penalties under the new CBA.


Despite Bill Simmons' opinion, I don't think a ton of the actual Knicks fans care that much. Casual fans surely will be disappointed (only so many players have caused people's moms to comment on the Knicks; "How 'bout that Jeremy Lin, huh?"), but they'll also move on within a couple of days. Sure, Linsanity was an exciting run, but it was also a run primarily under Mike D'Antoni. There is no guarantee that Jeremy would be anywhere as good under Woodson's ingenius(ly repugnant) continuous Carmelo Iso, especially considering what a turnover machine Lin was. Unlike Jason Kidd, Lin doesn't have the cache to direct Melo; as any Knicks fan saw on more than one occasion last year. Simply put, the sample size was far to small to dedicate this type of money to the kid. As much as I despise everything about Dolan, and despite how much I distrust the front office to do anything that makes a semblance of sense, I cannot blame them from deciding against making what amounts to a $40 million gamble. And, yes, I hear y'all saying that worst case scenario is that Lin gets traded in the 3rd year as an expiring contract but who says that will work out. And who are the Knicks going to get in return so that the contracts work out? The league's love of expirings does little to take away from the gamble. 


If it's true that Lin is gone, I wish him all the luck in the world. He seems like a good dude and a hard worker, so I'd like him to succeed. But all the screeching from various sectors about how this is more Knicks front office ineptitude, or that Knicks fans should switch allegiance to Bk if Lin isn't resigned (ahem, pump thebreaksGrantland, ahem), needs to stop. If nothing else, you are not really a Knicks fans if you can't let front office ineptitude roll off your back like so many rain drops off a duck's and just hope for the better. And if Lin IS back. Eff it. Kidd's going to mentor him and we'll figure out year 3 later. Woot. Let's roll into '12/'13 'Bockers.


At worst, I can just continue to nourish myself on the Jimmy Dolan haterade. 

In recent days, two people briefed on the Knicks’ deliberations said it was unlikely the team would keep Lin. Yet both cautioned that the decision was not final and would ultimately be made by one person: James L. Dolan, the Madison Square Garden chairman.

Either way, win-win for me.


UPDATE: For a conflicting but still astute take on the now confirmed decision to not match the Rockets' offer to Lin, check out Jay Caspian Kang over at Grantland. We both agree though, wholeheartedly, that Jimmy Dolan, like many trust fund babies, sucks at life.


IMAGE: NBA.com

J E T S Crash and Burn

No Santonio, it is not okay. There have been numerous post-mortems (here's one from Grantland and Football Outsider's terrific Bill Barnwell citing leadership problems) but, honestly, there were probably too many problems with the team too pinpoint just a couple in an article. Clearly leadership is a problem on that that team is an issue, but this starts at the top with Rex Ryan and Brian Schottenheimer rather than with veterans like Santonio Holmes (don't get me wrong... Holmes is a schoolboy biatch). Rex Ryan has already taken the blame, as he should, but Schottenheimer has somehow remained above the fray. As a Jets fan (I know, right? Pray for me...), I hope that Schotty gets hired for a head coaching gig in Jacksonville or somewhere anywhere else. As long as he is their problem and no longer making inexplicable play calls from the Jets sideline. I know the United States in general has had a long history of children trading on their father's name, but how long can Schotty keep this con up? In my mind, he has to go. Preferably like 2 years ago. So if you have a timeline Rexy, that would be handy right about now.

The rest of the Jets' offensive problems are a bit harder to tackle. Holmes' recent contract extension (good call on that one guys... not at all premature) makes it very difficult to get rid of the erstwhile "Captain." The running game has been borderline non-existent and is not looking to get much better with the possible probable loss of LaDainian Tomlinson, and his pass catching ability, to free agency or retirement this upcoming off season. The offensive line, another leading cause of the inability to run, is another hard fix. Although some of it had to do with injuries, they just looked bad as a unit throughout the season (wasn't D'Brickashaw Ferguson supposed to be good?). After a season that started full of promise, the future looks somewhat bleak right now. This season's post-mortem, as most post-mortems are I guess, is terribly depressing (and I didn't even talk about Cromartie. PLEASE do not get me started on Cromartie...).

NBA Players- Before They Speak, Their Suit Bespoke

Grantland has an interesting article from Wesley Morris on the "rise of the NBA nerd." In his estimation, there has been a shift in black culture that has opened up possibilities for personalities such as Kevin Durant, Amare Stoudemire and LeBron James, not to mention Kanye West or Lil Wayne, throw on clothes that would get them beat up a decade ago. I think Mr. Morris tries to get too deep with it, however. It seems to me that, more so than a broad cultural shift illustrated by Jay-Z rapping "Y'all niggas acting way too tough / Throw a suit and get it tapered up" in Changes Clothes or, as above, Kanye rapping "Before he speak, his suit bespoke," in Estelle's American Boy, this represents a smaller shift amongst young and prominent black men. The lyrics themselves reveal this; there are not broad swaths representing young black culture grabbing bespoke suits after all. More representative would be "I'm not a businessman, I'm a BUSINESS, mannn." LeBron wants to be the first billionaire athlete and he has almost as many side business interests as he has endorsement deals (he's boys with Warren Buffett for the love of god). Amare seems to be actively attempting to become an NBA fashion icon (and not in the tragic D Rodman way). K Diddy is following in LeBron's footsteps. And all these guys are just going down the trail blazed by Kanye and, first and foremost, Jay-Z (aka, "the black Warren Buffett"). All of these gentlemen are still heavily invested in their image, it's just a different image that they are trying to cultivate. Street cred has ceded way to boardroom cred. To the young, black, talented and wealthy, drug dealing and getting shot at is no longer as cool as the Wizard of Omaha... who woulda thunk it?


(IMAGES: Too many to separate, but from Google Images [natch])

David Stern- Titanic Tool of a Tyrant

Things I love: the National Basketball Association and alliteration. Things I despise: hypocrites, liars and David Stern.

As I am sure most are aware, the NBA (read: David Stern) vetoed a trade the would've sent Chris Paul to the Lakers, Pau Gasol to the Houston Rockets and Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic and a 2012 First Round Draft Pick to the NoLA Hornets. NBA analysts and commenters found, universally, that this was an eminently fair trade with many saying that Dell Demps, GM of the Hornets, did a fantastic job of getting a respectable haul back for Paul. Despite this, Stern and the NBA owners, with Dan Gilbert of the Cleveland Cavs being the most vocal, decided to kill the trade for "basketball reasons" thinking that the Hornets were better served by retaining CP3 in a Hornets jersey.

There have been a lot of articles (some much better than this post) covering this, but the basic gist of all of them is that this is a load of horse shit. Other owners who have spoken out get closer to the truth; after the lockout recently ending, the NBA didn't want another NBA star to force his way out of a small market team to a team like the Lakers. Whiny school boy biatches like Gilbert threw a fit (again) and Stern, in his determined effort to destroy any legacy he might have, caved to their whims. This has created problems for every team involved with the trade and led to disgruntled players. The problem is that there is really nothing the NBA can do about preventing players from trying to dictate where they liked to play. Chris Paul has made it perfectly clear that there is absolutely no chance that he re-signs with the Hornets. Therefore, the teams options are they trade Paul for the best mix of established players and you building blocks for the future, which they accomplished in this trade, or lose him for absolutely nothing in free agency. Sure Paul's options would be limited in free agency and determined by who has enough cap room; but his options were limited in this situation. His expressed first choice, the New York Knicks, had nowhere near enough trade prospects to try and get Paul. He, therefore, was settling for the Lakers, who were taking a tremendous risk by trading a lot of size to create the best back court in the league. The trade, and the discussion regarding possible trades before it was consummated, also re-generated interest in the NBA immediately after the agony of the lockout. Just as people were forgetting about it, however, Stern reminded everyone by giving the Demps, the Lakers and the fans a giant middle finger. Additionally, he and the owners are exhibiting an epic conflict of interest as the Hornets are owned by the 29 NBA owner's collectively. I don't know about casual fans, but I'm incredibly offended by this abuse of power (and this comes from a self-avowed Laker-hater who was pissed to see them get CP3).

I do not know how Stern plans to next destroy his legacy but I'm looking forward to see what he pulls out of his ass in the way that people wait excitedly for a car accident once they hear the screeching of brakes. I fully expect, however, to see Stern walking back from this decision after some superficial changes are made to the trade. It is almost shocking to see a once prescient commish, who seemed to be 5 moves ahead at all times, become completely reactionary... but that's where we're at.

Eff you David Stern.

Image from Google Images (and probably a collection of pictures of people who look even douchier with beards. I call dibs on the rights to make that coffee table book...)

David Stern Decides to Lock Up his Legacy

There is a lot of talk today, after this past weekend's deal ending the NBA lockout, about the motivations of both the players and the owners in hashing the deal out now. Charles Pierce over at Grantland has a piece today that mirrors many of my thoughts. I absolutely agree with him that the lockout was never just about, or even primarily about, splitting up basketball related income. In the same vein, I don't think that this weekend's deal getting done was primarily about either the players or the owners. It was about that smug bastard above. As I told my buddy upon hearing the news, I'd bet dollar to donuts that Stern read/saw all of the negative coverage, heard about how big of a threat this was to his legacy, especially after the Seattle fiasco, and, after some contemplation in his office that has many leather-bound books and smells of rich mahogany, decided that the lockout needed to end now. He's the only one who could corral both sides and convince them that this was the best for everyone involved. He could tell the players the owners were robber baron dbags and the owners how much they actually won in the deal and how much they stood to lose by losing a season. And then he could convince the owners to do what they should've done in the first place anyway... make some minor concessions so the players could save face and wrap this deal up. The worst part, for me anyway, is that people will probably forget, again, that he is the Darth Vader to the owner's collective Palpatine. People think that he's power but he's, basically, a tool the owners use to get what they want. I love the NBA and I'm psyched that its back, but it makes me a little sick that Stern will get to continue on with his whole shtick without a moments pause. Ugh. Well I won't forget... eff you Stern.

(Image: one of the more condescending Stern images I came across. Though it would probably be easy enough to start a Stern condescending glare gallery.)

Speaking of Nonsensical... 'Sup NBA Lockout

As a big NBA fan, I have been toying with the idea of a lockout post for a little while. Today, however, I came across a post in Grantland, Bill Simmons' new offshoot of ESPN, that tackled the issue better than I could.

Money shot of sensibility comes from the following quote:

Labor deals, LeBron, the Zombie-Sonics, these things show us that in the subsidized world of sports, we have supported owners rather than supporting sports. Although the subsidization seems completely unnecessary, if we are going to subsidize, we need to subsidize the sport, not the owners. And like all good subsidies, if we give the money, we get to attach strings, meaning we get to set rules so that there are no work stoppages, and so that the sport is fair to the fans, since we ultimately spend the money that makes the owners and players rich (the contempt they show for fans is another subject).  (Emphasis added).

I feel like this point is not emphasized, either in the previous NFL collective bargaining agreement fiasco or now with the NBA, nearly enough. There is tons of coverage of whether the owners or the players are greedy/getting screwed/et al. and coverage about how the fans are getting the short end of the stick because the are not games, but not nearly enough on the fact that these sports are, in nearly all cases, subsidized by the tax payer. The fans should have part ownership of the direction of these leagues because, as the author of the letter notes, "[...] like all good subsidies, if we give the money, we get to attach the strings [...]." 

Well, 'cept on Wall Street. Because Wall Street needs to be internally regulated. Imagine what could happen if they had regulations...