Ben Golliver: Paul Allen emerges as latest lockout villain

[Nikolokolus]

http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/32841752

Why, you might be asking, would the owners pick Allen, of all people, to deliver the hard-line message to the union that ultimately led to the disintegration of talks and all sorts of harsh accusations on Thursday?

Because he's so rich that he's immune to the criticism, as capable of buying silence and peace of mind for himself as anyone on the planet. A man who has been cleanly divorced from the common man for decades. A man who claims to have lost a billion dollars on the Blazers in his two decades of ownership and therefore couldn't care less about the fallout that results from a nuclear explosion in the middle of labor talks.

...

Next to him, Garnett looks like a poodle. Did either man personally derail these lockout talks, which have seemed headed for disaster for months now? No. But if you were looking for an NBA villain, you got one on Thursday.

Good times.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

he's stalling until GO is ready to play!

 

[Ed O]

What a lame column.

Paul Allen is a hard-liner, and probably because he's lost tens of millions of dollars. How much has Kevin Garnett lost since he joined the NBA?

Ed O.

 

[HailBlazers]

and Allen only responded with silence.

I would replace villain with a five letter word for a female dog

 

[RoyToy]

So basically all he did was deliver a message on behalf of the owners?

Yeah, not seeing the villain angle here, and I'm not a PA fan at all.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Paul Allen is the 1% of the 1%.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I definitely do not feel sorry for PA in terms of losing money. I appreciate him spending the money that he did, and as a fan I am grateful for his efforts, but the management of the franchise was less than steller as he let trader Bob go crazy with the checkbook. That being said, the article was absurd.

 

[barfo]

Apparently Paul ate Ben Golliver's children.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

The NBA lockout gained its first true villain when Boston Celtics forward Kevin Garnett allegedly helped hijack labor talks a week or so ago. (NBA commissioner David Stern and NBPA executive director Billy Hunter have been reviled for so long that they don't count as villains any more.)

Summary: Golliver's bias is against the players. It is unknown information to him that everyone has considered Stern by far the biggest villain for many many years.

the rest of the article...blah blah blah

Summary: Golliver's other slant in life is to hate the Blazers. He's a member of the local media. Only in Portland does the media think it's their job to hate their own team.

 

[jlprk]

For the rest of the article, I typed blah blah blah because I read only the first 10 words and it was all hatred of Allen. I already know Golliver is a dick and I don't need to read his bullshit. I wish he'd fucking jump off a cliff.

 

[Natebishop3]

You have to hate the team if you want to be accepted by the local media. I refused to get on the Oregonian's pain train and was ostracized for it.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

You have to hate the team if you want to be accepted by the local media. I refused to get on the Oregonian's pain train and was ostracized for it.

This is somewhat ironic (Ben Golliver) when you consider he called out Jason Quick and Canzano for their sensationalism in the past (and one time got into a tiff with Quick on twitter after Quick made a dig at BlazersEdge/bloggers).

Unfortunately BE has slowly deteriorated in recent years, and Golliver is a part of that. He's gotten particularly more snarky and sensational with the rise of Durant (he is afterall the draftkevindurant guy and has a
Durant blazers jersey, and Durant blazer colorway shoes) and firing of Pritchard.

You would think he would at least be a bit more respectful and dignified (and less sensational: see his comment about Allen being uninformed because he has Larry Miller attend BOG meetings) in his public articles, considering without Allen allowing bloggers access to the team it is unlikely he'd have his spot at cbssports or Blazers edge.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

Ben is the one looking like an ass on this one.

 

[PapaG]

What a lame column.

Paul Allen is a hard-liner, and probably because he's lost tens of millions of dollars. How much has Kevin Garnett lost since he joined the NBA?

Ed O.

According to Steve Patterson (I know, consider the source), Paul Allen has lost close to $1 billion on the Blazers alone during his time as Blazer owner. I think that number may be actually on the low side considering the debacle of the late '90s-early '00s in terms of salary costs.

 

[Natebishop3]

This is somewhat ironic (Ben Golliver) when you consider he called out Jason Quick and Canzano for their sensationalism in the past (and one time got into a tiff with Quick on twitter after Quick made a dig at BlazersEdge/bloggers).

Unfortunately BE has slowly deteriorated in recent years, and Golliver is a part of that. He's gotten particularly more snarky and sensational with the rise of Durant (he is afterall the draftkevindurant guy and has a
Durant blazers jersey, and Durant blazer colorway shoes) and firing of Pritchard.

You would think he would at least be a bit more respectful and dignified (and less sensational: see his comment about Allen being uninformed because he has Larry Miller attend BOG meetings) in his public articles, considering without Allen allowing bloggers access to the team it is unlikely he'd have his spot at cbssports or Blazers edge.

It is common for sports writers to become jaded and burned out after a few years on the beat. It's not the same world as it is for the fans. In a way, it would be like working at Disneyland. You would never look at the park again in the same way after having been in the tunnels under ground and witnessing how everything works. It changes your perception about sports and the people involved in it.

 

[HailBlazers]

I don't care if he's lost a Trillion dollars, you'd think a man of his stature would be able to communicate, you know, with words

 

[Rastapopoulos]

What a lame column.
Paul Allen is a hard-liner, and probably because he's lost tens of millions of dollars. How much has Kevin Garnett lost since he joined the NBA?

He's lost tens of millions so he decides to fuck it up for everyone? That's like being pissed off that your Bentley has bad mileage, so you buy the company and have it run by Lada.

If Paul Allen got into the NBA to make money then he's as big a financial idiot as... well, as he's actually appeared to be all along.

And really - asking if Kevin Garnett lost money? That's your argument Ed? Time to step up your game.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Ben is the one looking like an ass on this one.

He pretty much always does, but he's right that the owners are the ones pushing the lockout. Check out this analysis of their purported reasons for not agreeing:

The NBA is torching this season in no small part on the bet that...spending causes winning, and that if low-spending teams could spend more, they’d win more.

Think about bad NBA teams, though. The playbook is as old as the hills. If you don’t have good players, you trade away all the big contracts, hoard draft picks and cheap young players, then spend as little as possible to preserve cap space in case good players come along.

In other words, we all know that when your team is bad, you stop spending.

And the opposite is true. When the Cleveland Cavaliers had LeBron James, they spent like crazy to surround him with talent because that was their time. Small-market teams poised to win almost always pay. This is not like baseball, in which the poor teams can’t afford to keep the studs. San Antonio, Orlando, Salt Lake (Utah), New Orleans, Memphis … there is no NBA market so small it wouldn’t jump at the chance to pay a real-deal superstar.

Especially devastating to the league’s case is that it has never worked before in any major way. I have pressed the league’s leading experts on this for evidence that a hard cap has ever improved competitive balance anywhere on the globe. The NHL recently instituted a hard cap, and but for a passing comment from Peter Holt on Thursday, it’s impossible to find anyone even at NBA headquarters who thinks that serves as a strong example.

They're similarly unable to come up with a better one.

There is a widely accepted -- even by both sides of this debate -- measure of a league’s competitive balance called Noll-Scully. The NFL has always had a great Noll-Scully score -- which has not changed noticeably with changes in the NFL’s cap.

In other words, this both defies a casual observer’s sense of how the league normally works, and has never worked convincingly in any other league.

In a recent paper, researchers David Berri and Martin Schmidt review the entire history of major professional sports in America, and all of the measures any leagues have ever taken to improve competitive balance. They did not find that any “institutional changes” made leagues more competitive (what changes there have been to parity in leagues they trace to other factors).

 

[barfo]

I don't care if he's lost a Trillion dollars, you'd think a man of his stature would be able to communicate, you know, with words

It's a negotiation. Sometimes not saying anything is effective communication.

barfo

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

He's a fan who started a website. Now he thinks he's important. He knows nothing more than most of us hardcore fans, and his opinion isny anymore important.

 

[Pinwheel1]

He's lost tens of millions so he decides to fuck it up for everyone?

He has not decided anything. And if he did the other owners would care less what he wants. Paul Allen was simply the messenger, nothing else. He has no influence on anyone in that room.

 

[HailBlazers]

It's a negotiation. Sometimes not saying anything is effective communication.

Not so effective to fire two bright young GM's without addressing the biggest stakeholders of the organization (Blazer Fans) IMO.

I just think PA dropped the ball yet again, if he would have came out and made a bold statement about why the owners need help and why the system needed to be revamped then I think people would have really listened. Instead we get the same old tactics. Guess I need to stop expecting much from him.

 

[barfo]

No so effective to fire two bright young GM's without addressing the biggest stakeholders of the organization (Blazer Fans) IMO.

A reasonable point, but somewhat off topic.

I just think PA dropped the ball yet again, if he would have came out and made a bold statement about why the owners need help and why the system needed to be revamped then I think people would have really listened.

Which people would have really listened? Billy Hunter and the union reps? How do you know they didn't really listen?

Instead we get the same old tactics. Guess I need to stop expecting much from him.

Well, yes. If you expected him to swoop in and solve the lockout, you were bound to be disappointed.

barfo

 

[HailBlazers]

somewhat off topic.

Read:

Allen refused to take questions from the media after firing GM Kevin Pritchard on the night of the 2010 NBA Draft and again refused questions when he abruptly fired GM Rich Cho in May. He doesn't care about accountability and he definitely doesn't care about the notion of a "fair deal for both sides." All he cares about, in the end, is pursuing his own self-interest to the max. Allen answers to no one, ever. If he can toss aside a childhood friend, business partner and colleague like Bill Gates, why are we or the NBPA surprised in the slightest that he is only willing to negotiate on his terms? Everything is take it or leave it with him.

Which people would have really listened?

The stakeholders on the NBA. Fans, employee's, vendors. Being on the outside of the talks and then finally coming in, Paul Allen had an incredible chance to make a powerful statement that could resonate throughout the country. A state of the union so to speak of the current NBA system.

If you expected him to swoop in and solve the lockout, you were bound to be disappointed.

Indeed, wasn't expecting that at all. I was looking for a bold declaration from one of the NBA's most engaged owners. A verbal commitment to an NBA that works for all and an illustration as to what that would look like. I was expecting some leadership. Maybe that's too much to ask from Paul, but as long as he's the owner of the most passionate fan-base in the NBA I'll continue to hold him to the highest standard, no matter how many times he disappoints.

 

[barfo]

The stakeholders on the NBA. Fans, employee's, vendors.

Ok. But those weren't the people he was addressing. It seems a fair bet that those weren't the people he intended to address, or was sent there to address. I can see why you'd want him to address the fans, etc. But this is a labor negotiation, not a public speaking gig.

Being on the outside of the talks and then finally coming in, Paul Allen had an incredible chance to make a powerful statement that could resonate throughout the country. A state of the union so to speak of the current NBA system.

I suppose, but what would be his (or any owner's) motivation to do that? The owners goal here is to get the players to cave so that basketball can resume. That's what's important, not making speeches for fans. Fans won't pay money to see Paul Allen talk about the state of the NBA. They will pay to see players play, so it makes sense that that's what the owners are focused on.

Indeed, wasn't expecting that at all. I was looking for a bold declaration from one of the NBA's most engaged owners. A verbal commitment to an NBA that works for all and an illustration as to what that would look like. I was expecting some leadership. Maybe that's too much to ask from Paul, but as long as he's the owner of the most passionate fan-base in the NBA I'll continue to hold him to the highest standard, no matter how many times he disappoints.

Fair enough - but I think you are expecting something that no owner would be likely to deliver in these circumstances, unless they just wanted an excuse to hear the sound of their own voice. And that latter part is definitely not Paul.

barfo

 

[HailBlazers]

Doesn't matter who you address, as a leader you have to be responsible for who's listening.

The motivation is to get the fans behind the owners and what their trying to accomplish, last I checked the fans are the one's consuming the product.

The owners goal here is to get the players to cave so that basketball can resume. That's what's important

I thought the goal was the make a profitable, competitive, long-term system? If you look at the big picture you must take all the stakeholders into account, one-dimensional thinking isn't going to solve the NBA's problems.

 

[barfo]

Doesn't matter who you address, as a leader you have to be responsible for who's listening.

Who was listening? As far as I know Paul's remarks were not broadcast beyond the room. Do we actually even know what he said?

The motivation is to get the fans behind the owners and what their trying to accomplish, last I checked the fans are the one's consuming the product.

Yeah, but the fans have short memories and most of them aren't even paying attention. It simply doesn't matter to either the owners or the players what the fans think of the negotiations. They know most fans aren't fans of the business side of basketball.

I thought the goal was the make a profitable, competitive, long-term system? If you look at the big picture you must take all the stakeholders into account, one-dimensional thinking isn't going to solve the NBA's problems.

You and I care about the CBA negotiations, but I'm not convinced that the average fan does, other than wanting the lockout to be over. It seems to me that it doesn't matter to the average fan who wins or loses this battle - whether the BRI split is 50-50 or 53-47, the game will still look exactly the same to the fans. I could be wrong.

barfo

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

He pretty much always does, but he's right that the owners are the ones pushing the lockout.

Not major news that the owners are the ones pushing the lockout. Not many are having much fun with the current system nor would they be having much fun with a minor tweak to it. Having one of the most carefree spending owners deliver the message that they would not consider negotiations till the union accepts 50/50 speaks volumes IMO.

If I was an owner, I certainly would not be paying millions to play a game that involves the crap that went on last offseason.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

They know most fans aren't fans of the business side of basketball.





barfo

Exactly. I do not think it matters either way what the fans think. The only thing that is going to matter is the finished product once the lockout is over.

 

[Ed O]

I don't care if he's lost a Trillion dollars, you'd think a man of his stature would be able to communicate, you know, with words

He did. He said that they would not negotiate unless a condition was met.

That condition not being met, he wasn't about to negotiate.

Jewelry Seller: I won't discuss prices until I see a line of credit.
Jewely Buyer: If get a line of credit, which watch can I buy for $1000?

Silence would be a bit rude, perhaps, but entirely logical... as it appears to be in the exchange Golliver is writing about.

Ed O.