The Fix Is In, page 26
Then came, “The biggest gratification, the biggest positive thing that I can take out of my father not being here with me today is that he saw my last basketball game, and that means a lot.” James Jordan’s murder in July of 1993 surely weighed heavily on Michael’s mind at the time. Although some have speculated that his father’s death had something to do with MJ’s gambling, that seems improbable. James Jordan wasn’t a saint, truth be told. He was found guilty and sentenced to three years in prison (which was suspended) for being a cog in a larger embezzlement scheme in 1985, and at the time of his death, he was the subject of several lawsuits concerning the unpaid bills of his clothing company, JVL Enterprises, Inc.42 Even though there are some odd facts surrounding his murder, there is no real evidence to support a conspiracy.
Finally Jordan stated, “Now that I’m here, it’s time to be a little bit unselfish in terms of spending more time with my family, my wife, my kids, and just get back to a normal life, as close to it as I can.” When asked what will he do now, Jordan replied, “In retirement, you do whatever comes to mind. Relax. Enjoy the time you’ve been deprived of for many years.” What came to Michael’s mind was playing baseball. Not spending time with the wife and kids, unless of course they were on the bus with him and the rest of the Birmingham Barons while traveling from small town to smaller town across the southern U.S.
This brings up an interesting point. The only reason Jordan was even given an opportunity to play baseball was because Chicago Bulls’ owner Jerry Reinsdorf also owned the Chicago White Sox. The Barons were an affiliate of the White Sox, so MJ could easily pass through the filters that would’ve normally kept him off the team. Reinsdorf stood to lose as much as anyone with MJ’s retirement (just compare Bulls tickets sales before and after MJ’s days with the team). Yet he was one of the first people Jordan contacted regarding a potential retirement. How did Reinsdorf respond? By paying Jordan $4 million and leaving a contractual window open for him to return43, even though after being asked would he ever return, Jordan replied, “No. If so, I’d still be playing.”
Jordan was a horrible baseball player. In his one full season in Birmingham, he hit .202 even with opposing teams’ catchers telling him which pitch was coming next. White Sox general manager Ron Schueler was quoted at the time as saying that Jordan’s chance of making the majors was “a million-to-one shot.” So was he truly living a childhood dream of his to play baseball, or was it something else? I believe the NBA came to Jordan and laid it out for him. They didn’t want to see him go down for gambling, but at the same time, they couldn’t seem to control him. So they cut a deal. The NBA asked him to retire and seek some help. If he allowed the media to cool down, the public would forget all about the potential scandal. Jordan could play baseball to keep in shape while remaining somewhat in that coveted media spotlight. Then, when the time was right, Jordan would be allowed to return to the NBA as the mighty king he once was.
He made a very interesting comment during his retirement press conference. When asked, “will you miss the sport?” he replied: “I’m pretty sure I’ll miss the sport. To come back is a different thought—I can’t answer that. I’m not making this a ‘never’ issue. I’m saying right now I don’t have the mental drive to come out and push myself to play with a certain focus. Five years down the line, if the urge comes back, if the Bulls will have me, if David Stern lets me back in the league, I may come back” [emphasis added]. No reporter there bothered to ask him, why wouldn’t the commissioner let you back in, Michael? It’s a very interesting choice of words that lends itself to a very different interpretation of the situation.
Even during his second and more formal retirement, Jordan had to again tip his cap to Stern. In thanking a few people that came before him, Jordan said, “And Mr. Stern and what he’s done for the league and gave me the opportunity to play the game of basketball.” How exactly did Stern give him an opportunity to play basketball? By drafting him? By offering him a contract? By putting him in the starting lineup? No. By, as MJ said at his first retirement press conference, letting him back in the league.
Having seen the financial dip the league took post-Jordan retirement, the league wanted him to return. They needed him to return. There was no replacement for Michael Jordan. Following his two-word press release in the middle of the 1994-1995 season, in which he simply stated, “I’m back,” Jordan was. Presumably having put the gambling behind him, Jordan played another three full seasons with the Bulls, winning the championship in all three.
At a certain point in time, Michael Jordan stopped playing by the NBA’s rules and began playing by his own. The NBA, not wanting to upset its greatest cash cow, bent as far as it could to accommodate him. Be it with the lack of foul calls, or limited media access, or getting away with a crime, the NBA was always willing to do it for Michael. Before any serious questions were raised or in-depth investigations conducted regarding Jordan’s gambling, MJ retired and the NBA closed its books on the matter, never to look back or re-open them, even when Jordan stopped playing for good and stepped into the ownership role he holds today.
Something like Walt Disney, the NBA preferred to promote the fairy tale starring Jordan than reality. Just take a look at Jordan’s final game in a Bulls uniform, the 1997-1998 NBA Championship game against the Utah Jazz. With 5.2 seconds left to go and the Bulls in possession of the ball, to whom do you think they’d look? Michael Jordan, of course. But no one on the Jazz could make that determination. So there was MJ, wide open and basically unguarded for that last, game-winning shot. He not only shot, but posed there for the cameras, so that image could be placed on every piece of merchandise the NBA could sell. The NBA allowed the man who made the league rich beyond even its greediest expectations to go out on top, in style, and without a hint of controversy.
During his second, ill-fated comeback as part owner, part player with the Washington Wizards, Jordan’s star no longer shone as brightly. Other younger, hipper stars came along who needed to be coddled. Most notable among these new players was Kobe Bryant. Like several other young up-and-coming players, Bryant was deemed “the next Michael Jordan” before ever stepping foot on a NBA court. Kobe had the looks, the marketability, and most importantly, the talent that no one else possessed, to actually live up to those lofty standards. Was it any wonder that the next NBA dynasty team immediately after Jordan’s Bulls faded into the past was the Los Angeles Lakers, led by the new Jordan in Bryant and the NBA’s other biggest star, Shaquille O’Neal? This fit perfectly in the NBA’s marketing scheme. Two of the league’s biggest heroes, both of whom took over the marketing reins MJ once held, dominated the league by winning three straight championships in the same style (and with the same coach) as Jordan and the Bulls. What a lucky turn of events for the NBA. As soon as it lost its biggest attraction, a new tag-team partnership emerged to fill the gaping hole.
Then Kobe Bryant ran afoul of the law in 2003. Charged with rape in Colorado during the off-season, Kobe Bryant’s star plummeted. Though he was later found innocent of the charges against him, the ensuing melodrama surrounding his court proceedings tore the wheels off the Lakers dynasty. Fans no longer looked at Bryant in the same way, and the league backed off its promotion of the star. He was no longer a safe bet in the league’s eyes. New heroes had to be created.
The obvious choice was the once highly sought-after number one draft choice Tim Duncan. His San Antonio Spurs became an on-again-off-again dynasty, winning four NBA titles in nine seasons. Yet for the NBA, Duncan lacked the charisma that both Jordan and Bryant possessed. He was a safe alternative to be sure, but safe to the point of being bland. Duncan was arguably the best player in the NBA, but his lack of panache made him unmarketable in many eyes. He didn’t perform wildly acrobatic dunks. He didn’t fake opposing players out of their jocks. He simply played hard and won. Because this wasn’t what the NBA could readily market, Duncan couldn’t become the face of the NBA.
Luckily for everyone tied to the NBA, yet another “next Michael Jordan” was looming on the horizon. LeBron James, a high school kid who like Bryant skipped college to join ranks of the NBA, was the type of player the league had been salivating for since Bryant’s fall from grace. James did all the things Duncan didn’t. He was flashy, media-savvy, and despite never having played anyone outside of high school, was made the new face of the NBA. But while James’ star immediately shone as the NBA’s new “It” kid, his team the Cleveland Cavaliers initially faltered.
While waiting for James to lead the Cavs from the perennial draft-lottery pool, the NBA leaned not on Duncan, but on another newly christened star, Miami Heat’s Dwayne Wade. Just three years into his career, Wade was teamed up with Bryant’s old partner Shaquille O’Neal. The pair led the Heat to the NBA championship in 2006. While injuries stunted Shaq and Wade’s defense of the Heat’s title in the following season, James and the forever floundering Cleveland Cavaliers suddenly hit their stride. The Cavs made the instant jump from basement dwellers to NBA finalists; however, James’ Cavs couldn’t steal the championship from Duncan and the Spurs.
Remarkably, from the 1990-1991 season through the 2008-2009 season the group of Jordan, Duncan, and Bryant was responsible for winning 14 of 19 NBA championships. Of the five NBA Finals not won by any of those three players, Bryant still appeared in two finals (against Detroit in 2003-2004 and Boston in 2007-2008) which resulted in defeat, and meant that 16 of 19 NBA Finals featured either Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan, or Kobe Bryant as the prime attraction. That seems ridiculous, but it is the truth. In those five seasons during which the championship was not won by the NBA’s holy trinity, a strong case could be made that NBA stars still featured prominently in the NBA Finals. During the two years between Michael Jordan’s first retirement and his return, Hall of Famer Hakeem Olajuwon (assisted one season by fellow Hall of Fame member Clyde Drexler) led the Houston Rockets to a pair of titles. Later, the tandem of Dwayne Wade and Shaquille O’Neal won it all for the Miami Heat. In 2008-2009, the triumvirate of All-Stars in Boston—Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce—brought a championship back to the Celtics. Perhaps it was only in 2003-2004, when the Detroit Pistons won the NBA Championship, that a team in the past 20 years has won a title without featuring a prominent superstar in its lineup.
This points to one of two conclusions. Either NBA basketball isn’t a team sport but one easily dominated by a single great player, or something else is occurring within the league. Is it merely a coincidence that the NBA’s marketing plan of choice is to promote their heroes above all else, while at the same time these handful of heroes consistently lead their teams to championship after championship? Other modern-day players deemed exceptional—Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Vince Carter, Allen Iverson, Chris Webber and the previously highlighted Patrick Ewing to name a few—have seen some limited success, but never achieved the pinnacle of winning a championship. At the same time, they were never given the level of promotion that Jordan and Bryant received, or the amount of hype which currently surrounds James.
The question then remains: Does the NBA grant these hero players extra leeway on the court to ensure they reach the levels of success the NBA itself needs to be profitable? As the authors wrote in Money Players, “[NBA commissioner] Stern refused to admit it, but the NBA lived year to year, crossing its fingers for the right rating matchups. It seemed the whole world had grown accustomed to the NBA’s being able to deliver new episodes of Star Wars every season.”44
It can be amazing how that sort of luck runs the NBA’s way. The 2006- 2007 NBA Finals saw what appeared to be a solid matchup between Duncan’s Spurs and LeBron James’ Cavaliers. Yet this star power fizzled. The Spurs swept the Cavs in four games while the Finals garnered some of the worst ratings in recent league history. In fact, the ratings for the 2006-2007 NBA Finals were the lowest since Duncan and the Spurs beat the New Jersey Nets in 2003, which, in turn, had been the lowest the NBA had seen since 1981. Simply put, while Duncan and the Spurs seemed to be a safe bet for the NBA, they did not draw people to their televisions. On top of that, ratings for the Finals since 2003 have been awful when compared to their heyday during the Jordan era. Kobe Bryant and the Lakers’ presence in the 2003-2004 Finals against the Detroit Pistons did cause an uptick in the NBA’s numbers, but that was an exception rather than the rule. Despite this steady downturn in ratings, and against any recognizable logic, the 2006-2007 off-season witnessed the league sign its most lucrative contract with the TV networks, bringing in nearly $1 billion a year beginning in 2007-2008.
Prior to the start of the 2007-2008 NBA season, the Timberwolves traded away their marquee player Kevin Garnett to the Boston Celtics for five other players and two draft picks. Despite the lopsidedness of the seven-for-one trade, most NBA pundits felt it was the Timberwolves who were shorted in the deal. Garnett was considered a future Hall of Famer; the seven players the floundering Timberwolves received in return were mere fillers needed to round out a roster. Not to be outdone, midway through the season Kobe Bryant’s Los Angeles Lakers acquired Pau Gasol from the Memphis Grizzlies in another shockingly lopsided trade. The Lakers received in Gasol a former rookie of the year and a constant All-Star while the Grizzlies picked up two bench players and a pair of draft picks. As the season wore on, it seemed as if the two franchises, bolstered by their genius trade-making abilities, were destined for greatness. Amazingly for the league, that was exactly what happened.
The NBA was blessed with the dream matchup of the Boston Celtics against the Los Angeles Lakers in the 2007-2008 NBA Finals. Both teams’ march to the Finals brought in massive ratings as ESPN’s numbers were up some 35 percent and ABC’s were up 28 percent according to Broadcasting & Cable magazine, which cited Nielsen Media Research. Upon reaching the Conference Finals, the matchups of the Lakers vs. the Spurs and the Celtics against the Pistons kicked ratings up 40 percent over the year before. Then, when both the Lakers and Celtics triumphed, the NBA had its perfect matchup with its two most honored franchises meeting face-to-face. Not only did the league benefit from having both the East and West Coasts covered with each team, they had the two teams with the biggest fan bases in the NBA playing each other. Top that off with the hype of the storied rivalry between these two legendary teams and what resulted? The 2007-2008 Finals saw a ratings boost of nearly 45 percent from just the year before. What better way to make good on that $1 billion-a-year TV revenue contract than by bringing your broadcasting partners the highest ratings in recent memory? Was that luck, coincidence, or something else?
As the NBA likely patted itself on the back for a job well done in 2008, they had to consider a way to keep those ratings climbing. During the 2008- 2009 NBA Playoffs, the league looked to be heading toward yet another dream matchup, this time again featuring the Lakers and Kobe Bryant but with the new wrinkle in the Cleveland Cavaliers fronted by LeBron James. Both teams were the number one seed in their respective conferences, with the Cavs having one more regular season win than the Lakers. As the playoffs began, the talk on all of the sports shows was about who was better: Kobe or LeBron? This hype led to another ratings spike for the NBA. The ratings for the playoffs on TNT and ESPN were up 19 percent and 12 percent respectively from the year before. By the time the Conference Finals aired, with both Kobe and LeBron still in the mix, ratings were again up from 2008 for both networks by 30 percent and 32 percent.
Yet something happened on the way to the NBA’s latest perfect matchup in the Finals. The Cavaliers lost. LeBron James wound up watching Dwight Howard and the Orlando Magic take his spot against Kobe and the Lakers in the Finals. Without LeBron facing Kobe, ratings for the Finals dipped 10 percent overall from the year before. How’d this happen if the NBA was scripting its own results? Perhaps the Kobe vs. LeBron matchup would’ve been too obvious (even for the NBA) to allow to happen. Prior to the Magic and Lakers Finals being set, both Vitamin Water and Nike were attempting to cash in by airing commercials featuring the raging NBA debate of who was better: Kobe or LeBron? While the NBA likely would have loved to see LeBron and Kobe square off to settle this question, perhaps too many other questions would have been raised at the same time.
Perhaps there was a good reason why the NBA might have wanted to leave LeBron James out of the Finals at this point. While James’ ability on the court cannot be questioned, it is perhaps James’ own ego that was getting in the way of his success. He has stated in the past, “I’m just trying to be a global icon.” A lofty goal, no doubt, but such a statement never needed to be made by the likes of Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant. It simply happened for them. James, in stark contrast, seems to be more concerned with hyping himself—even to the point of wearing a T-shirt reading “LBJ MVP”—than anything else. After losing the Conference Finals to the Magic, James walked off the court, refusing to follow the tradition of shaking any of the Magic players’ hands after the series concluded. He even ran away from reporters after losing that last game, refusing to answer any of the media’s questions. Global icon, huh? The NBA fined James for his actions, but perhaps it explains why James hasn’t reached the pinnacle of winning a championship yet. Maybe the NBA needs to teach “the King” some manners before he’s given a ring. Of course, with superstar Shaquille O’Neal being added to the Cavaliers roster for the 2009-2010 season—a player whose media drawing power cannot be overlooked—perhaps LeBron’s ring is just a year away.
