I personally think Barkley would have done this, since he essentially did with the Rockets when he joined Hakeem Olajuwon and Scottie Pippen in Houston. Though all of them were past their prime at that point, I think Barkley would have joined up with other great basketball players to win a title based on him doing this later in his career when he played for the Rockets. Magic Johnson never needed to team up with any other Hall of Fame players because he already played with a few on the Lakers team. He really had no need to go find quality teammates because he always had quality teammates on his team. So that leaves Michael Jordan. I don't think he would have teamed up with other players to win a title because of his competitive spirit and how we wanted to be "the man" on a team. Scoop Jackson disagrees.
Before any more of us jump on the Michael Jordan bandwagon and use his statement about the new-look Miami Heat as a knock against LeBron James for the next decade or so -- before the LeBron-will-never-be-Michael conversations continue -- there are a couple of variables that need to be addressed.
There aren't even a couple of variables that Scoop wants to address here. There is only one major variable. So Scoop's entire point is based on the fact that Michael Jordan had few friends in the NBA so he wouldn't have a chance to team up with other players...and that's why he never would pull a "LeBron" and team up with other great players. Scoop's entire argument is based on assuming Jordan had few friends in the NBA and then assuming he would have joined forced with these friends if he had any.
Fact is, for Jordan to have been in the position -- this is with hindsight, mind you -- to make a move with Larry Bird and Magic Johnson like James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh just did, he would have had to be tight friends with Bird and Magic from the minute they all entered the league. If not before.
This is incorrect. Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh and LeBron James weren't tight friends before they came into the NBA. They became tight friends after being drafted in 2003 and playing together on the USA Basketball team. So Jordan wouldn't have had to be friends with Bird and Johnson before he came into the league to meet the standard Scoop is holding him to in order to have friends in the NBA.
Also, Magic and Bird were older than Jordan so it isn't even a fair comparison to say Jordan would have teamed up with them. Jordan was the new superstar in the NBA after Bird and Magic had competed for NBA titles against each other. So I think in the example given where Jordan mentioned he would not have teamed up with Bird and Magic, it isn't a comparable example to what Wade, Bosh, and James did.
I don't think Jordan would have teamed up with Bird or Magic because they were further apart in age, so Scoop has the wrong players to match up with Jordan in the very beginning if he wants a fair comparison. I think a comparable example would be if Jordan teamed up with Charles Barkley and Hakeem Olajuwon, but this isn't even a good comparison because neither Barkley nor Olajuwon had a similar skill set to Jordan. Both Wade and James have a similar skill set in that they can handle the ball as a taller point guard and like to drive to the basket to score.
So my final answer is that this would be like if Clyde Drexler, Barkley, and Jordan teamed up together. Using any of these examples, I just don't see Jordan teaming up with these guys to win a championship, whether they were friends or not.
The deal with James, Bosh and Wade is as rooted in friendship as the arrangement Kevin McHale and Danny Ainge made that sent Kevin Garnett to Boston. McHale and Ainge were teammates for nine years in Boston and won three rings together. They maintained a friendly relationship as general managers of different franchises in their post-playing careers.
Those three players may have been friends, but that isn't the point. The point is that simply because Michael Jordan didn't have close friends in the NBA (which is a lie because he did have close friends) doesn't mean he would have teamed up with these friends if given the opportunity.
Actually, since Wade, Bosh, and James are all friends I would prefer they be on the same team because I would rather they be on the same team trying to get their team to the playoffs rather than fucking laughing it up on the court together while competing against each other in the playoffs. I am one of those people who doesn't like to see the superstars being great friends on the court in the playoffs.
Michael Jordan had friends in the NBA, like Charles Barkley, and he didn't team up with him to win a title.
C'mon, son.
Be real, yo.
To ignore the friendship facet of the Heat situation is disingenuous.
To ignore the fact Michael Jordan did have friends in the NBA is disingenuous when just assuming that false premise is the reason why Jordan never teamed up with each other.
And to not consider it in making the comparative analysis Jordan did is unfair to Wade, Bosh and James.
Michael Jordan didn't make a comparative analysis, he just said he would not have teamed up with other great players on the same team like LeBron James did. As I have said, I have no problem with what LeBron did, I just don't think it was the right move. Few players want to end up like Kevin Garnett and get stuck on a team with absolutely no help for most of ten years. It is even stupid to try and compare the situation Michael Jordan was in during his playing career with the situation that LeBron James was in this summer. Jordan just said he wouldn't have done what James did, and since Jordan never did what James did and his massive go wouldn't have let him share the spotlight, we have to assume it is the truth.
Especially James, the one at the center of it all.
If anything, I want to make sure we are fair to LeBron James. I am sure he really cares if we are being fair to him.
What is really unfair are any comparisons of James to Jordan. James is a much more willing passer than Jordan was at this stage in his career. Jordan had to learn to play with his teammates while James is great at playing with his teammates, he just needed better teammates. The whole Jordan-James comparison probably shouldn't even be made and I am sure I have made it at some point as well. LeBron James and Michael Jordan are completely different players and that is why LeBron would even think of joining forces with two other great NBA players. For me, Wade is more like Jordan than James is like Jordan.
Magic, Bird and Jordan, although they liked and respected one another, did not get down like that in their playing days. They weren't friends. Weren't fam. And because of that, it's almost impossible to take what Jordan is saying as an admissible assessment.
It hurts my feelings to defend Michael Jordan. It goes against everything I like or want to do. He went to UNC-CH, played for the Bulls, and was an asshole to my fiance one time at a golf course because she tried to give him Powerade. I don't like the guy.
It is easy to take what Jordan is saying as an admissible assessment because he never did join another team with two other great players like James did. Isiah Thomas and Magic Johnson were friends and they never played together.
I am sure some people would say the entire problem with the NBA is that Wade, Bosh, and James are friends and "fam." The buddy-buddy routine seems to take away a bit from the competition between two teams. That's how some people see it and those who don't like James' move to Miami also probably believe the NBA is a better league when the players aren't friends or "fam" with each other.
It's definitely hard to accept it as something we can hold against LeBron for leaving Cleveland to go to Miami.
Not really. Jordan played in the "golden age" of the NBA when the superstars where fairly well separated on different teams and when superstars team up this dilutes the NBA because you don't have the separation of superstars on different teams. When Jordan played in the Eastern Conference there was Jordan on the Bulls, Bird on the Celtics, Dominique Wilkins on the Hawks, Isiah Thomas on the Pistons, Patrick Ewing on the Knicks, Reggie Miller on the Pacers...etc.
When superstars team up, this separation goes away. So those who think the team of Wade, Bosh, and James isn't good for the Eastern Conference or the NBA may have a point. Separating superstars like this could possibly dilute the Eastern Conference.
A more accurate and applicable analogy might have been possible if Jordan had set up a scenario in which he'd played for Charlotte -- near his hometown, the same way Cleveland is near LeBron's Akron -- for the first seven years of his career, during which he'd won no rings and didn't have Scottie Pippen as a teammate or Phil Jackson as a coach. And if he'd imagined further that his contract was up at the same time that, say, Patrick Ewing and Charles Barkley were becoming free agents and Ewing -- already with the Knicks -- pitched the concept of those three friends playing together in New York … if Jordan had set it up that way and still said he would have turned down the opportunity so he could prove he was "the Man," then his comments might be easier to accept and appreciate.
I hate this bullshit point of view. This is the same thing as people who always justify their actions because "you don't know how it feels to be in my shoes." Scoop wants us to believe that because Michael Jordan didn't face THE EXACT SAME SITUATION as LeBron James, he isn't in a position to judge what James did. I say this is bullshit. Jordan doesn't have to be in the exact same position as LeBron to have his comments easier to accept and appreciate. The fact Jordan won 6 NBA titles while being "the man" and sticking it out on a Bulls team that for a while in the late 1980's seemed to be going nowhere is evidence of what he would have done.
Also, we can't just assume that Phil Jackson and Scottie Pippen never played or coached for the Bulls because they did. The fact is that Michael Jordan didn't attempt to get "his coach" for the Bulls nor did he make it clear he needed to see changes in the team or he would jump ship. So the fact the Bulls got the right players around Jordan, eventually, is evidence that perhaps LeBron should have stuck it out longer. That's what Jordan was trying to say.
His reality right now is that he's the majority owner of the Bobcats. So more important than him saying that he'd never have orchestrated an MJ-Bird-Magic collaboration as a player is whether he'd resist a James-Wade-Bosh-like alliance as an owner.
These are two completely and utterly different things. Choosing to go with two other great players to a different team as a player is COMPLETELY different from being an owner and choosing to sign three great players. Simply because as a player Jordan didn't think forming an alliance with two other players was a good idea, doesn't mean as an owner he wouldn't think it may be smart to sign three players who want to form an alliance together.
If we take Michael at his word about wanting "to beat those guys," then he should have the same mentality as an owner as he did as a player. Shouldn't he?
No. Absolutely not. Because Jordan would want to sign these players as a player doesn't mean he would have been a part of a team that had two other great players. Owners or GMs who are ex-players don't necessarily build a team based on how they liked to play the game of basketball. In fact, it would be stupid to do this.
As a player, Jordan wanted to compete against the other superstar players in the NBA, but as an owner if three superstars want to be on his team then it isn't hypocritical to sign all three players. He couldn't assume every player has the same type of competitive drive or preferences for teammates that he had as a player.
So to follow this logic through from his comments about what he wouldn't do, Jordan would rather try to win a championship with Gerald Wallace and Stephen Jackson on his roster than sign three of the league's 10 best players for his squad.
Jordan said he wouldn't have met up with two other superstars as a PLAYER. This has nothing to do with him doing this as an owner. He runs his team differently from how he played basketball himself.
The Heat did not sign three of the league's 10 best players. Chris Bosh isn't one of the best 10 players in the NBA. He is the second best player on a good team. There are easily 10 better players to be found in the NBA. Bosh has been the best player on a shitty team. He's not even a superstar.
And if one of Jordan's "superstar" players suggested that scenario to him -- as Wade did to the ownership of the Heat -- he'd turn it down!
Absolutely not true. Scoop Jackson is making a terrible comparison. Michael Jordan as an owner and Michael Jordan as a player are two completely different things.
It's hard to believe that he'd stay true to what he said he'd never have done as a player if the same opportunity fell into his owner's lap the way the James-Wade-Bosh deal did for Micky Arison in Miami.
That's entire point that Scoop Jackson seems to miss. Michael Jordan wouldn't pass up the opportunity as an owner to add James, Bosh, and Wade. As a player, Jordan did not and claims he would not have tried to get two other superstars together with him on the same team. I don't get why Scoop Jackson can't get that Michael Jordan as a player had different motivations from Michael Jordan as an owner.
And that is what, deep down, makes it hard to believe that even Jordan believes it.
Simply put, this is why it would be wrong to take his comments and apply them directly to the situation at hand, why it would be wrong to suggest that Jordan believes the Miami situation is an admission of surrender by LeBron, implying that LBJ is really not a "king" because kings don't join forces with other kings, or that there is room for only one "king" per team.
Scoop Jackson is an idiot. Why the hell would Michael Jordan as an owner give a shit if LeBron wants to join the Bobcats and potentially undermine his role as the "king" of a team? Jordan doesn't care as an owner what James does, but as a player Jordan thinks that LeBron is passing up a chance to be considered in the upper echelon of NBA players.
I know the idea of a person having two different points of view on a situation depending on his role in the situation is WAY over Scoop's head, but this isn't a hard concept. Jordan was making a quote as an ex-player who assumes that LeBron James wants to win a title as the best player on a team because Jordan wanted to win a title as the best player on a team. Knowing this, you can appreciate Jordan's quote as his actual opinion.
Jordan is saying, as a superstar player, he wouldn't have joined forces with any other players. As an owner, I am assuming he doesn't care if other players want to do this, he will be willing to sign all three players. Jordan isn't saying teaming up with Wade and Bosh is a bad idea, he is saying that he (Jordan) would not have done this as a superstar player. That's all. This opinion in no way reflects on whether he would want these players on his team as an owner.
Outside of the many verifiable truths that are being overlooked here (such as, fundamentally there is no difference between this and the assembling of the original Dream Team),
The Dream Team was a team put together for exhibition games, specifically the Olympics. The Dream Team was together for a limited time and if the United States could allow pros to play basketball in the Summer Olympics, then inherently within this idea is the realization the best players in the NBA would have to play together. Michael Jordan didn't seek out to play with the best players in the NBA on the same team. In fact, I bet Jordan wouldn't have minded the Dream Team being him and 11 other college basketball players.
Wade, Bosh, and James are playing professional games and have signed contracts to be together for five years...or 4 years and many months longer than the Dream Team was ever together. Fundamentally there is a difference in "this" and the Dream Team, because "this" was done on a micro-scale of competing against teams in the NBA, while the Dream Team was on a more macro-scale of competing against teams from other countries.
it's hard to believe that Michael Jordan, if given the exact same situation LeBron was in, would have done something differently.
I don't find this hard to believe at all. Michael Jordan wanted to be the absolute best player on his team and he didn't want to share the spotlight with anyone. It was always clear that Pippen was the Robin to Jordan's Batman. Jordan could probably never have long-term co-existed with another superstar player.
And it's virtually inconceivable to believe that he will carry that same mentality and philosophy with him as an owner.
He's too smart for that.
It is inconceivable he carries this mentality and philosophy with him as an owner because he doesn't. He is smart enough to realize what was good for him as a player may not be good for all NBA players.So when he says "there's no way" he would have done what LeBron just did, it contradicts almost everything we hold dear when we honor Jordan's legacy.
¿Qué demonios significa esto?
I am going to start typing in Spanish because I feel like I am reading a different language anyway, so I may as well show off the Spanish I learned (threw into a English-Spanish translator online) in 10th-12th grade.
Because the way I see it, LeBron's decision -- right or wrong, agree or disagree -- was about basketball. It was about trying to win championships, not win hearts. It was about an opportunity to make history, not prove a point.
If there is anything we know about Michael Jordan it is that he wanted to make history WHILE proving a point. He wanted to prove he was the best player in the NBA, he wanted to prove he could beat the Pistons and the Lakers, he wanted to prove he could play baseball while serving his suspension for gambling, he wanted to prove he could come back whenever the hell he wanted and win more NBA titles, and he wanted to prove he could return to the NBA and play into his 40's. He succeeded on most of these attempts to prove a point. Jordan made history while proving the point that he was the best NBA player of all-time.
So this decision really has nothing to do with Jordan's legacy.
To us, Michael Jordan personifies, defines and embodies winning in the context of team sports.
But as the best individual player on those teams. This is a point that Scoop Jackson just can't seem to understand. Michael Jordan won championships in the NBA while being the best player in the NBA and the clear best player on his own team.
No one did it better. But his comments wreak of something different. It's a fragrance called "For The Love Of Self," not "For The Love Of The Game."
Obviously Jordan is very self-involved, but his comments on LeBron reveal the difference in he and LeBron James. It isn't a difference that reflects poorly on either of them. Jordan wanted to win championships on his terms and show that he could win a title as the undisputed best player on a team at all times, while LeBron wants to win championships by any means necessary even if it means he has to reduce his star status or be relegated to a co-headliner. Jordan wasn't willing to reduce his star status and wanted to win on his own terms.
Jordan's comments just reflect the surprise that a person who calls himself "King" James is willing to be a co-headliner and doesn't want to win a championship on his terms as the undisputed best player on a championship team. Scoop Jackson completely misses the point by even trying to compare Jordan's attitude towards superstars playing together on his team as an owner of the Bobcats and Jordan's attitude towards himself playing with fellow superstars as a player.
7 comments:
I distinctly remember a certain Houston Rockets team winning two championships during Jordan's retirement. I also remember those teams being based on Hakeem being an incredible badass. I also remember Drexler and Barkley joining those teams (in 1995 and 1996 respectively I believe).
When Jordan came out of retirement, he spurned the Bulls and went played with Hakeem (number 1 overall in 83) and his friend Barkley (5th overall in 83). I remember that Rockets team being awesome.
Wait, Jordan didn't go and play with two other superstars? He went back to the Bulls? Oh, guess Jordan had a chance to do what LeBron did and didn't... Silly Scoop.
As someone who lived in the suburbs of Chicago during the Jordan era, let me say this: Jordan made Pippen and Jackson. Jordan didn't win until his seventh season. Up until that time no one thought Pippen was any better than say Antwan Jamison. It was only during/after the Bulls championships that Pippen became the awesome player everyone thinks of him today.
As for Jackson, without Jordan, he probably never wins a ring in Chicago, never gets hired in LA and never wins 11 championships.
Jordan allowed players to develop, made his teammates better and his coaches look good (the triangle offense was viewed as a joke). So LeBron and Jordan did have similar situations; Jordan made the best of his situation, LeBron got swallowed up by his ego and didn't.
It bothers me that Scoop is simply trying to take a contrarian point of view, just for the sake of it. As both of you have already pointed out sufficiently, Scoop's points are simply wrong. Michael never would have done what Jordan did. Scoop should just agree with 99% of the population and move on.
Rich, I think Jordan would have had the chance to team up with other stars and he didn't b/c his ego wouldn't let him. Scoop misses this.
Pippen was a great player, but Jordan definitely made him better, just like he made everyone else around him better. Phil Jackson is a good psychologist and a HoF coach, but I will agree if Jordan stomps his feet and refuses to play in the triangle then history will be changed b/c I don't know if it would be seen as such a viable offense like it is seen. I don't know, I could be wrong.
Dylan, you know I like to hammer my point home continuously. That's what Scoop is taking here, you are right, the contrarian point of view. Jordan the player and Jordan the owner are two separate people who serve two different interests. No way Jordan joins a team of superstars. He would let the other team join together and try to beat them.
Nice dissection of the argument. And props for actually reading through an entire Scoop Jackson article.
The entire ESPN crew is actively trying to support Lebron's decision (except for Simmons, who's too much of an indie renegade folk hero to fall into lock step, and Magic). The reasoning is clear: since they aired The Decision in the first place, it would be hypocritical to later criticize the decision. And EVERYONE there is now acting the part of the good soldier. Why any of these clowns have the slightest bit of credibility is beyond me. Their opinions have all been bought and paid for.
Anon, thanks I worked really hard to get through the whole thing. Scoop has no point.
I like that Simmons isn't supporting the decision, but I also think he has stronger feelings on it that haven't come to light yet. I don't know if there is a directive to support the decision of LeBron, but I would bet no one wants to piss LeBron off and be publicly critical of the decision. That would cost them interviews.
Then there's this dork Henry Abbott who runs the TrueHoop blog at ESPN.com. He (or more accurately, a reader of his with whom he agrees) quotes Magic Johnson: "I wouldn't have played here [Chicago]. The only reason I came out [early for the draft] was to play with Kareem and the Lakers." He cites this as evidence that Magic was just as bad as LeBron. The only thing is, Magic said that on the eve of fucking Game 2 of the Finals against the Bulls! What the hell was he supposed to say? "Boy, I wish Chicago had won the coin flip so I could've taken my talents to the Windy City!" It's exactly this type of loyalty to a franchise people were hoping to see in LeBron James.
Yeah, TrueHoop is waving the flag for the "LeBron to Miami" movement or at least agree with it. I read an entire article talking about how MJ would have done the what LeBron did and it was better than Scoop's, but still very wrong.
The difference in that quote by Magic actually meaning something and just being a normal quote is that Magic didn't CHOOSE Lakers. They chose him. So he really didn't have a choice as to which team he could go to. There is a difference in being drafted by a team with stars and choosing a team with stars as a FA. The difference being Magic wasn't an NBA star when he was drafted by the Lakers and there certainly wasn't this (what I see in the case of LeBron) as a conspiracy or pact to go to the same team b/c neither LeBron nor Wade felt like they were close to a championship w/o playing on the same team.
You are right that getting FA is the sign of a good owner or team because it means they are attractive to other players. I don't see any contradiction in MJ the player wanting to play w/o great players and wanting great players on his team as an owner.
Post a Comment