Tag Archives: Boston Celtics

Am I A Bad Person?

These days, I’m wondering whether I’m a bad person. Don’t worry, this is not some weird musing about morality that has nothing to do with hoops.  You don’t come to this site for that.  It’s a hoops-related moral question.

Now that the Knicks are contending for a playoff spot, I am thinking about my NBA team loyalty. And when I think about it, the undeniable truth is that I’m not very loyal. I’m wondering whether this makes me a rational person that others should be like more often, or whether it makes me a disloyal scumbag.

The context for asking this question is that we live in a world where sports-team-loyalty is generally considered to be constant, and is sometimes treated like it’s a reflection on the fan’s character. People become fans of a team by the time they’re six or seven years old, and they remain fans of that team. If the team is bad, their fanship is a sign of loyalty; if the team is good, it’s considered a reward for the loyalty shown while the team was bad. If you become a fan of a team while it’s good, you’re a “fair-weather fan.” Even if you’re a fan of, say, the Celtics because you grew up near Boston, and you wind up moving to, say, Los Angeles as an adult, you remain a Celtics fan or you run the risk of being called a sellout, trader, or something worse. It’s basically your duty to find the bar in Santa Monica where Celtics fans gather, and root, root, root for the road team when the C’s play the Lakers. Just because you grew up near Boston.

But that’s not how I roll. I’ve abandoned my favorite team, and now I’m thinking about going back. Here’s my deal: I grew up in a suburb of New York, and can remember being a Knicks’ fan as early as I can remember being anything. One of my earliest memories is that, one night, after my parents put me to bed and went downstairs, I snuck into their room (the only TV in any of the upstairs rooms was in their room) to watch the Knicks’ game. The Knicks were awful; this was the team with Eddie Lee Wilkins, Louis Orr, Pat Cummings, Rory Sparrow, and Trent Tucker. (And those were the guys who PLAYED.) I remember watching the Knicks get destroyed, and then crying uncontrollably. I knew that my parents would hear me sobbing, and knew that, when they came upstairs to ask what was wrong, I’d either have to lie about what was wrong or admit that I snuck out of my room to watch the Knicks. I was too upset to worry about consequences — I told them that I snuck out to watch the Knicks, and was crying because it just wasn’t fair that they were as bad as they were.

Then, one day when I was a 2nd grader, the Knicks won the draft lottery and acquired the rights to draft Patrick Ewing. I was ecstatic. I had visions of championship banners, and visions of crying Celtics fans, whose parents got mad at THEM when they were crying after sneaking out of their rooms to watch a game. I remember jumping up and down in my den. I threw the couch pillows up in the air. I screamed. I shrieked. I might have even wet myself.

As we now know, Ewing never carried the Knicks to a championship. As I have blogged before, people generally don’t give him credit that other superstars get, and some people even refer to him as a disappointment.

Not me. I grew up during Patrick’s career, and enjoyed being a Knicks fan because he made it fun to be one during the prime home-team-fan-years of my life. I knew he wasn’t as good as Jordan or Olajuwon, but I didn’t begrudge him of anything. When I thought about why the Knicks never won a championship, the things that came to mind were not any shortcomings of Ewing’s, but, rather, images of Charles Smith getting multiple layups blocked against the Bulls, and of John Starks missing shot after shot against the Rockets. Whether that’s a fair assessment of Ewing or not, the point was that, as I watched him age, I felt an immense sense of gratitude. I was mindful of the pain that the Knicks caused me before they got him and of the excitement he created by making them a contender for so long. Sure, it was disappointing that the Knicks didn’t win a championship with Patrick, but he was no disappointment. Not to me.

Just as I started to acknowledge this gratitude, there started to be grumblings in the papers that the young guns on the Knicks — Camby, Sprewell, LJ, Houston — thought that they might be better without my man Patrick. They thought he clogged up the offense, or some such nonsense.

Well, I didn’t like this. Not at all. These fools who were new to my beloved franchise wanted to push my man Patrick out the door. And they wound up pushing him out (people can say what they want about Ewing requesting the trade, my memory is very clear that he only asked out after the guys on his team started talking openly about being better without him). And when they did, they pushed me away from my connection to the Knicks. The year he played in Seattle I was a Sonics fan, and the (somewhat sad) year he played in Orlando, I was a Magic fan. I have not only not rooted for the Knicks since then, but I have actively rooted against them. I’m one of the only New Yorkers who loved the Isiah Thomas era. The franchise that kicked my boy Patrick out the door deserved that, at least in my eyes.

Which brings me to the present moment, and starts to touch upon the question I raise at the top of this posting. Those clowns who pushed my man Patrick out are long gone. The franchise has suffered plenty for its decision to get rid of Ewing for Glen Rice’s horrible contract, a move that set them down a path of misery for many years. Now they’re a lousy but overachieving team with an exciting coach and some players that I don’t mind — as a group, they have many more neck tatoos than the groups of dudes I generally hang around with, but I can actually see myself rooting for this group of players if I decide that it’s ok to root for the Knicks after what the Knicks did to my man Patrick.

So, if I decide to root for these guys, am I a hypocrite? Am I already a disloyal person for hating on the Knicks as long as I have? If so, do I make it right by defending that decision and hating on them even longer? Or, has the wound healed, allowing me to go back to being a Knick fan?

If the answer is that I should have stayed “loyal” to the Knicks all along, what does that say about the essence of being the fan of a sports team? Was Jerry Seinfeld right when he joked that sports fans are just rooting for a certain type of laundry? Or is there more to it than that?

Leave a Comment:

Much is made of the potential of the free agent class of 2010. Some teams have designed their rosters to maximize their cap space this off-season, and some stars are expecting to cash in.

If you look only at the talent that will be on the market (LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Dirk, etc.), the hoopla is justified. (Get it? HOOPla.) But, if history is any guide, teams expecting to turn their fortunes around via free agency are setting themselves up for disappointment.

Championship teams are almost never built around a player who was acquired via free agency. Look at the champions of the past 20 years. The Bulls were led by Jordan and Pippen, the Spurs by Duncan and Robinson, the Bad Boy Pistons by Thomas and Dumars, and the Rockets by Olajuwon and Drexler. Each of those teams drafted or traded for each of those players.

The 05-06 Heat acquired Wade via draft and Shaq via trade (that’s why Odom is on the Lakers). The 07-08 Celtics acquired Garnett and Allen via trade (that’s why Al Jefferson is on the Wolves and Jeff Green is on the Thunder), and Pierce via draft. Last year’s Lakers were led by Kobe and Bynum, whom they drafted, and Gasol, whom they traded for. The 03-04 Pistons are kind of an anomoly, because they won without a superstar. Two of their main players – Billups and Wallace – blossomed into stars as Pistons after mediocre careers elsewhere. That team is not really a model that other teams can expect to replicate. (When the Pistons acquired Billups via free agency, he had never averaged more than 14 ppg or 6 apg at the time.)

That leaves only the three-peat Lakers of ’00, ’01, and ’02. They acquired Shaq via free agency.

So, if history is any guide, then, unless you’re signing someone as dominant as Shaq via free agency, and you already have a young Kobe Bryant on your roster, you ain’t transforming your team from mediocre to champion via free agency.

Why is this? I don’t know. Two initial thoughts come to mind: First, if your team has enough money to spend on a superstar free agent, then it’s probably a pretty lousy team, and one superstar free agent won’t be able to turn it around.

Second, the team that signs a particular free agent probably offered him more money than all of the other teams. Thus, there’s a good chance that the team that signs him has overrated him. Think about it; 1 team decides to offer the guy, say, $10 million per year. The 29 other teams in the league fall into one of two categories: either they don’t think the guy is worth more than $10 million (if they did they would have offered him more than that), or their present payroll prevents them from offering him that much. (These teams were probably already better than the team that wound up getting him, as noted in the paragraph above).

If the team that signed him is going to get significantly better, then the player has to prove himself worthy of such a high salary. There’s a chance that he does, but, remember, a bunch of teams did not think he was worth $10 million, so there’s a good chance that he doesn’t. Even if he turns out to be a star, he has to be so good that he makes the lousy team he signed with better than the teams that already had a bunch of guys making a bunch of money.

When we think of someone as talented as LeBron signing with a lousy team, it’s easy to start thinking of that team becoming an instant contender. I’m not saying it isn’t possible, I’m just saying that it’s not how teams historically improve themselves. When you hear talk about a team getting much better via free agency, be skeptical.

Leave a Comment: