The tandem that could have been

As I continue to watch LeBron James struggle mightily to beat the best team in the Eastern Conference (literally, I think there are no other Cavaliers on the floor save Sideshow Bob), I can't help but reminisce about what could have been.

Tonight, as he has for most of his career thus far, LeBron had a sack of turds surrounding him on the court. But, as many NBA fans know, things could be much different.

The year before LeBron James arrived in Cleveland, the Cavs had made the very astute draft choice of Carlos Boozer in the second round at the 35th overall pick.

In the summer of 2004, the Cavs had Boozer under contract for about $700,000 for the following season. They claimed to have made a verbal agreement with Boozer that if they released him as a restricted free agent, he would re-sign with the Cavs for about $40 million over six years, keeping Boozer in Cleveland for a long time and giving Boozer a very substantial raise and a lot more security for the 2004-05 season. Never mind that they verbally negotiated this inside of a moratorium period when contract talks aren't allowed, they felt they had Boozer's trust and went ahead and released him as a restricted free agent.

For those who don't know and don't want to have to decipher the jargon of the NBA's collective bargaining agreement, this is basically how it works. A player who becomes a restricted free agent can test the open market, and if another team makes an official offer to said player, the team that had him last year can match it.

So, Boozer went out as a restricted free agent, only to have Utah, who had whiffed on signing several free agents the last few years, offer him a max contract, something Cleveland didn't have the salary cap space to match. So, Boozer, being a normal red-blooded human, signed for an absurd amount of money because...well...that's what you do when it is sitting there on the table. Gordon Gund, then owner of the Cavs villainized Boozer as betraying his trust, and the Cleveland fans really let Boozer have it.

It was a hairy situation at the time, and has since settled down quite a bit. Both Boozer and LeBron are both in their respective conference finals, and are both down 0-2 in each series. Each is the best player on their respective team, and each is likely looking at a quick exit after the deepest playoff run for each team in quite some time.

So, without laying blame on anyone (OK, screw it, the Cavs were idiots) let's play some number games. Right now, this is what LeBron's team looks like (playoff averages in parentheses)

F-LeBron James (24.5 pts, 8 reb, 8.2 ast)
F-Drew Gooden (11.6 pts, 9.3 reb, 1.4 ast)
G-Larry Hughes (15.6 pts, 5.1 reb, 2.8 ast)
G-Aleksander Pavlovic (8.9 pts, 2.2 reb, 1.8 ast)
C-Zydrunas Ilgauskas (15.0 pts, 10.1 reb, .9 ast)
F-Anderson Varejao (5.2 pts, 6.2 reb, .6 ast)

I'm not going to list the Jazz stats, because for the intents of this story, Utah is peripheral. Obviously, if Boozer was still on the Cavs, the rest of the team would likely look pretty darn different. The Cavs likely would have still refused to pursue a point guard, against every bit of common sense. But, let's play the "what if" game. Let's acknowledge first off that the Cavs would have LeBron and Boozer. Let's give LeBron a 15-percent scoring increase as another scoring option would allow him to be hassled less and score more like he did during the regular season against bad teams. Since LeBron now has someone worth a crap to pass the ball to, let's give him a 5 percent boost in assists. We'll leave him alone statistically otherwise. We'll also leave Boozer's stats alone since he currently plays on a team with a point guard and other scoring options, so he could probably be expected to have about the same stats. So that this whole thing doesn't get out of hand, let's not assume anything else except that Larry Hughes wouldn't have signed with the Cavs as they would have spent all their money re-signing Boozer. This is not such a bad thing. That's a bad contract on a player who can't stay healthy.

So, then, the Cavs look more like this right now:

G-LeBron James (28.2 pts, 8 reb, 8.6 ast)
F-Carlos Boozer (24.7 pts, 12.4 reb, 3.1 ast 53% FG)
G-Aleksander Pavlovic (8.9 pts, 2.2 reb, 1.8 ast)
C-Zydrunas Ilgauskas (15.0 pts, 10.1 reb, .9 ast)
F-Anderson Varejao (5.2 pts, 6.2 reb, .6 ast)
F-Drew Gooden (11.6 pts, 9.3 reb, 1.4 ast)

Now, given, they still have virtually no guard play whatsoever, but you're telling me that a statistical tandem of Boozer and LeBron rockin' and rollin' wouldn't give them a good chance at beating the Pistons, and ultimately winning a title? With both players entering their primes, this would be a nasty tandem for years to come. Also, you could probably assume that the Cavs would have gone out and signed another guard of a lower caliber that they could have afforded (which likely would have been a better signing than Hughes), so who knows what their backcourt would look like had Boozer stayed. Everyone loves to play the "what if" game about the NBA Draft Lottery, but sometimes it's more fun and practical to look at what could have been had someone not pulled an avoidable, bone-head move.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Oklahoma City/Kansas City/Las Vegas Sonics face interesting situation

Despite the yearning desires of Celtics fans and ESPN, the franchise with the most NBA championships in league history came up very, very short in today's lottery drawing. With the second best chance to win the lottery (19.9%), Boston ended up with the fifth overall pick, the worst possible pick they could have gotten.

Two franchises in small markets came up large. My favorite is the speculation that almost always comes about concerning a fixed lottery drawing. It's always a bit refreshing when two teams that the NBA would really have no reason whatsoever to endorse end up winning the picks that matter. The Portland Trail Blazers won the first overall pick and the Seattle Supersonics won the second overall pick.

Portland is one of the smallest markets in the NBA, but have a reasonably rabid fan base when the team is competitive. But, for interest's sake, we'll focus on the Sonics. Sonics Chairman Clay Bennett has made his intentions to move the franchise out of Seattle less than subtle. Oklahoma City has shown itself to be a legitimate NBA city by its successful temporary hosting of the Hornets while New Orleans put itself back together. Some other cities, including Kansas City and Las Vegas have jumped into the fray also. Since Seattle and Washington state have basically told the Sonics that a new arena in Seattle isn't going to happen without substantial funding from the franchise, Bennett has sought to move the team elsewhere so that the team will be in a newer facility and have the potential to gain more revenue from a city that is hungry for a basketball team.

The Sonics without a GM and head coach, it seems that a completely fresh start is coming. With either Kevin Durant or Greg Oden soon to become a Sonic, the franchise really does find itself in a unique situation. They'll be in Seattle for at least the next season, so starting clean completely this coming season just won't happen. One of the most interesting subplots this coming season will be how the city of Seattle reacts to an exciting young player in a city that is preparing to have their long-time NBA team moved elsewhere. How Oden or Durant (whichever falls to them) reacts to the situation will be equally interesting. Now, if somehow a move to Vegas happens, expect me to have an aneurysm of interest in that situation. A potential post on the NBA's potential in Vegas is coming soon.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Money≠wins

This utterly fascinating graphic is just too good not to share with the five people who actually visit our blog.

Some interesting observations:

The Indians and Brewers are my current salary heroes.

10 out of the 15 teams who overpay for their wins are in the American League.

Thus far, the Astros and Phillies get exactly what they pay for: mediocrity.

The Yankees are wildly overpaying for their record (not that it's news to anyone).

The Nationals are overpaying to be really, really, really horrible.

The Cardinals aren't very good this year (also not news).

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Football Association, big spenders and shrewd decisions

A friend of mine brought up an excellent point that I thought needed to be addressed. According to the tenets listed on this site, salary caps restrict teams from fully realizing their earning potential and running their business as they wish. I still believe this to be true, but there certainly seems to be another facet to that statement in relation to what Travis discussed concerning the Football Association.

With free agency and a lack of a salary cap, the long-standing tradition of balance among English soccer teams is in jeopardy, and that is of obvious concern to the league. However, the treatment of players as permanently indentured servants is no longer that case, which is obviously positive to the rights of specific athletes. As much as owners want to pay players their market value, players want to be paid that market value. And, if owners want to be able to push for profit more than competitive balance, then they can sleep in the bed they make.

My point is, if the owners want to modernize their league and treat it more as a business than a competition where wins are the chief commodity, then they should go right ahead and do it. Whether or not it will end up paying them the dividends or happiness they desire remains to be seen. I imagine that the disparity between the lower-revenue and higher-revenue teams will balance in a similar manner that baseball does. To that effect, lower-revenue teams can find success through the development of young players and a smart approach to player signings (see Oakland Athletics, San Antonio Spurs, Minnesota Twins, Indianapolis Colts, San Diego Chargers and, until the last few years, Portland Trail Blazers).

Of course, the Yankees (everyone's favorite Salary Satan) won several championships at the turn of the century, and since winning their last championship, their players salaries have increased by 175 percent, yielding two World Series losses and plenty of other playoff disappointments. Given, they are perennial contenders and make the playoffs every year, but George Steinbrenner is known for desiring wins at the cost of revenue. By spending more, he hasn't gotten what he really wants, and has gone about trying to succeed in a stupid manner. The St. Louis Cardinals, who spent less than half of the Yankees salary last year, won the World Series. In 2005, the White Sox had about 40 percent of the Yankees salary that year and won it all. In 2004, the Red Sox actually had a dip in player spending in relation to 2003 and 2005 and won it that year. The list goes on, but the point is this: you don't have to be the No. 1 big spender or even near the top to be a champion. The game fluctuates, and big spending isn't always a guarantee of success, shrewd moves are what makes a winner.

Honestly, the system that Major League Baseball has set up is a good one at its base level. There is a large amount of development that allows for lower revenue teams to compete by making smart decisions in drafting and player advancement.The Football Association may end up reflecting the MLB model, and that may not end up being such a bad thing for the league if they play their cards right. That is obviously the biggest question mark.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Russian women's basketball toy

I came across a fascinating article about the WNBA yesterday. Admittedly, this is the first time that has ever happened, and my interest was piqued early on by a Russian women's basketball team owner named Shabtai von Kalmanovic, pictured right. He is referred to as the "Mark Cuban of Russian Basketball"... only if Cuban had ties to African diamond trafficking and spying for the former Soviet Union.

Either way, this guy is quite a character. Incredibly wealthy from a construction business in Africa, von Kalmanovic owns Spartak, a women's team in Russia and employs the likes of well-known American women's players Diana Taurasi and Sue Bird (no relation to Larry), both WNBA players. The crazy thing is, Bird makes makes four times as much in Russia as she does in the WNBA, and Taurasi makes 10 times as much in Russia as she does in the WNBA. Even with basketball easily playing a third hand in the U.S. to football and baseball, and even with women's basketball usually getting second-class citizen status among basketball fans, surely the U.S. could afford to pay more to players than a team that plays winters in Russia and all over Europe and parts of Asia, right?

Here's the catch: von Kalmanovic doesn't seem concerned with making money off the team. With loads of cash to throw around, von Kalmanovic estimates that his expenses for the season will be $5-6 million. They don't charge money for tickets to games (of which they average a measly 3,000 in attendance per game), they pay to have their games televised, and pay for travel among other expenses. He basically makes no money from owning the team. He compares it likes this:

"I have friends who go to casinos," von Kalmanovic said. "I know friends who risk on the stock exchange. I am Lithuanian — for me, basketball is everything. It is a hobby, a pleasure, a casino, whatever you want."

Completely contrary to virtually every other model of team ownership, von Kalmanovic basically holds his team as a toy. With the WNBA having a relatively short season and an incredibly restrictive salary cap based upon years of service, the opportunity for the top women's players is too great to pass up. In what adds up to no salary cap, owners such as von Kalmanovic can basically pay to have the best players in the world come play for them during the winter, often putting them up in a nice place to live and providing attractive amenities.

At the end of the article, von Kalmanovic talks about him and his fellow owners sitting down and agreeing on maximum salaries for players because "it becomes too much." We'll see how he likes it when another owner steals a player he covets because she likes the area the team plays in better than his own and he isn't able to pay more to draw her to Moscow because of the maximum salary limit.

The point to all this is that it really is quite amazing that an independently wealthy basketball fan basically just throws all the BS to the wind and strives to put together a toy that performs very, very well. Can you imagine a rich American basketball fan who didn't want to deal with the mess of purchasing an NBA team and instead opted to pay significant salaries to players who marginally miss NBA rosters and dominate through a league like the CBA or ABA? With little concern for profits, someone like that could make a lot of waves and could essentially build up their toy to win through a league full of spares as they wish. Mark Cuban, are you listening?

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us