< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 389 OF 389 ·
|Aug-28-15|| ||unferth: to be charitable, maybe they meant the first in the NBA draft.|
actually, the Nets offered Kareem twice what the Bucks did, if I remember right, but he thought it was better to go with the established league.
|Aug-28-15|| ||HeMateMe: oh, your right. It was the NBA specifically they were talking about.|
In his auto bio Giant Steps Jabber said that he wanted to avoid a protracted bidding war between the NBA and ABA. He told them to each put forth their best number, a one time shot, and he would go with the highest bidder.
He said that the Bucks bid higher, but a short time later the ABA was able to go a little higher, but Alcindor had already decided to honor his agreement and chose the NBA. He implied the difference was small. Quite frankly, did the ABA ever have that much money to spend? I'm assuming Lew Alcindor would immediately be the highest paid player in the league. Maybe Wilt and Bill Russell were still getting more, but it had to be a high price tag to get the UCLA phenom. I can't believe the ABA could double the NBA offer. If they had, I think Alcindor would have taken it.
|Aug-28-15|| ||unferth: Looks like we were both right. From Wikipedia:
The Nets believed that they had the upper hand in securing Alcindor's services because he was from New York; however, when Alcindor told both the Bucks and the Nets that he would accept one offer only from each team, the Nets bid too low. Sam Gilbert negotiated the contract along with Los Angeles businessman Ralph Shapiro at no charge. After Alcindor chose the Milwaukee Bucks offer of $1.4 million, the Nets offered a guaranteed $3.25 million. He declined the offer, saying, "A bidding war degrades the people involved. It would make me feel like a flesh peddler, and I don't want to think like that."
my memory was that the Bucks had offered $1 million and the Nets $2 million, but that probably came from this:
perhaps not the most authoritative source ...
|Aug-28-15|| ||Jim Bartle: Bill Simmons recounts a story that ABA officials met with Alcindor, and that the owners had a million dollar check to give him right then.|
But Commissioner George Mikan forgot to give it to him. Simmons tells the story, but doesn't claim it has to be true.
Hindsight is easy, but I just don't see Alcindor going to the ABA to play against second-level competition. If he had, the merger would certainly have occurred a few years earlier, the NBA absorbing the ABA in order to get Kareem, rather than in 1976 when they more or less added four teams just to get Erving into the league.
|Aug-28-15|| ||HeMateMe: <the Nets offered a guaranteed $3.25 million.>|
are you sure Alcindor would not have played in the ABA for that much money? I question that such an offer was even legitimate. If Dr. J wasn't already making something close to that, he would have demanded a huge raise, to get parity with the high priced rookie.
Where does this money come from? The ABA had almost nothing in television revenue. I think their playoffs were televised on ABC in the '70s, but not the regular season games. You can't pay a guy $3.25M, and have doctor J demand the same, by selling out a 12,000 seat arena on Long Island along with a few hot dogs and T-shirts. The numbers just don't add up, IMO.
|Aug-28-15|| ||Jim Bartle: Erving was a sophomore at UMass when Alcindor turned pro.|
|Aug-28-15|| ||unferth: that money would have been over the life of the contract, too. I doubt he'd have been making more than about $200K a year back then.|
|Aug-29-15|| ||HeMateMe: <I doubt he'd have been making more than about $200K a year back then.>|
By your math that would have resulted in a 17 year contract. That seems a bit odd, to me. The longest NBA contract I've heard of is the ten year deal that Patrick Ewing signed with the Knicks when he was drafted, before there was a salary cap. He got $32M over ten years.
I don't count the Magic Johnson contract--a 25 year 'personal services' contract he signed with Jerry Buss, early in his Laker days. The prescient Buss knew that NBA revenues would explode with each seceding television contract, so he offered Magic long term security and signed him for life. That deal was of course torn up when players were getting a lot more than the $1M a year Johnson was getting paid in that deal.
|Aug-29-15|| ||keypusher: I remember from <Loose Balls> (great book) that the ABA signed crazy long-term contracts.|
|Aug-29-15|| ||Jim Bartle: The most amazing long-term deal the ABA ever signed was when the owners of the chaotic and nutty Spirits of St. Louis refused a lump-sum payment for being shut down in the NBA merger, and instead got a modest share of NBA TV money--forever.|
They had received $300,000,000 up to a couple of years ago, and from what I've read negotiated a $500,000,000 payment to end that deal.
|Aug-29-15|| ||perfidious: <Jim> A pact which doubtless seemed innocuous to the Spirits' owners at the time.|
If Bird and Magic do not come along to rescue the NBA from TV oblivion, followed by Jordan and his immense contribution to its legacy, but little may have come of all that.
|Aug-29-15|| ||Jim Bartle: They took a big chance, and the NBA decided to "save" $3 million by agreeing to the TV money deal.|
I guess the NBA was in fact losing popularity in the late 70s when Seattle and Washington were the best teams, but adding the ABA players had brought Erving, Gervin and David Thompson into the league. That had already made it a lot more exciting.
|Aug-29-15|| ||HeMateMe: I was still watching NBA games on TV in the late 70s, and never felt that Seattle or the Bullets were boring. I think the drug usage in the league was hurting people's perception of the sport, which might have hurt some of the marketing and endorsement opportunities. If Bill Walton had stayed healthy his whole career the big fuss over Bird/Magic might have been muted, because the Blazers were an excellent team to watch when big Bill was healthy. They might have won several NBA championships.|
First time I heard of the strange St. Louis deal was in the 80s when the Jersey Nets were being sold (again), and the price had to be adjusted because of the fact that a chunk of TV revenues would disappear each year. SI reported a couple of years ago that "this deal is still taught in law school classes, the dangers of signing a 'forever,' open ended contract."
|Aug-29-15|| ||unferth: here's some data from 1972:
I'm guessing Kareem must've been the $400,000 man.
|Aug-29-15|| ||Jim Bartle: Erving was taken #12 in the 1972 NBA draft, and David Thompson #1 in 1975. Obviously Atlanta thought they could sign Thompson, though they really didn't pass on any other greats in that draft. I don't remember Erving as a big star in college, but maybe he was still expected to go to the ABA at the time of the NBA draft.|
|Aug-30-15|| ||HeMateMe: Erving was a mediocre outside shooter. Perhaps he felt that going lower in the NBA draft would result in his getting paid less than working for the ABA?|
|Aug-31-15|| ||HeMateMe: the Tom Brady ruling will take place this week, by a judge. I wonder if Rodger Goodell will be brought down yet another peg, more bad publicity?|
Reports are out that the NFL was willing to cut the suspension to two games, this week, if Brady admitted guilt. No can do. I think Brady is confident that the NFL didn't follow procedure that is required by the NFL players' union, and think that the suspension will be reduced or overturned.
|Sep-01-15|| ||plang: Don't think the judge can reduce it - it is all or nothing (4 or 0) - that is why he has been pushing parties to reach a compromise|
|Sep-01-15|| ||Jim Bartle: I still wonder about the fundamental issue: Why does the NFL allow the teams to supply its own footballs?|
|Sep-01-15|| ||keypusher: <Jim Bartle: I still wonder about the fundamental issue: Why does the NFL allow the teams to supply its own footballs?>|
I can think of a few reasons, at least pre-Deflateghazi.
-There is a range of permissible air pressures, and different teams have different preferences within that range. It's not like baseball, where every ball has to be exactly the same.
-It hadn't really occurred to anyone (except maybe Belichick) that you could get a competitive advantage by underinflating the ball.
-The refs still got the balls before the game, so if a team was doing something blatant, like coating the balls with stickum, the refs would catch it (so to speak).
-The refs are handling the balls between every play (pretty solid evidence that what Brady was apparently having done wasn't noticeable and probably didn't matter very much).
-The NFL <did> supply the balls used for kicking, where cheating seemed more of a risk.
|Sep-01-15|| ||Jim Bartle: It seems very odd to me, an invitation to cheating. And I suspect there's more to preparing the balls than adjusting the inflation, such as rubbing the shine off to make them less slippery.|
The only other sport I can think of where the player supplies the balls is golf, and the manufacturers are in theory held to strict standards. (I have read they sell balls to the public which are not permitted in PGA tournaments, though.) I wonder if they really check the balls players use.
|Sep-01-15|| ||keypusher: <Jim Bartle: It seems very odd to me, an invitation to cheating. And I suspect there's more to preparing the balls than adjusting the inflation, such as rubbing the shine off to make them less slippery.>|
Yes, you're right. If you're interested, the Wells Report has a description of everything the Pats do to break the balls in before use. Rubbing the balls down is a big part of the process. But again, that's perfectly legal.
|Sep-01-15|| ||Jim Bartle: I am not bored enough to read the Wells Report. (Not being a lawyer.)|
|Sep-01-15|| ||HeMateMe: <-It hadn't really occurred to anyone (except maybe Belichick) that you could get a competitive advantage by underinflating the ball.>|
I'm pretty sure other teams were under- or over-inflating balls over the years, to please their starting QBs, but the Pats are the ones who got caught. Bill Belichik didn't invent videotaping the other team's practices, but he is the one who got caught.
If the Patriots did nothing wrong, why did they fire (it was called an open-ended suspension) two locker room attendants, in charge of handling the footballs. Whatever those two guys said in confidence to league officials is what got NE fined $250K and got Brady suspended. They were sent away forever, so that a) their presence wouldn't poison the locker room this year and b) whatever they told the league wouldn't be repeated, to keep the wound open.
I think the judge will consider whether or not the process used conformed to the labor agreement between players and owners. If it did, Brady sits for four games.
If this sort of investigation and action is not clearly defined in the labor agreement, then the NFL is considered a private club, with their own methods of discipline, and Brady sits for 4 games.
If the action clearly breaks the tenets of the labor agreement, the whole suspension is overturned, but not the fine or loss of draft picks.
|Sep-01-15|| ||Jim Bartle: <If the Patriots did nothing wrong, why did they fire (it was called an open-ended suspension) two locker room attendants, in charge of handling the footballs.>|
I thought there was no question the balls were underinflated and that the locker room guys did it. Isn't the question whether Brady knew about it, or told them to do it?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 389 OF 389 ·