PDA

View Full Version : Larry Brown and Mark Cuban in a war of words about the Olympics



Cactus Jax
02-09-2004, 04:10 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1730692

There's some good stuff in here and some rips into each other. :devil:

This is the funniest quote by Cuban:

"If things don't work out, a player gets injured or he doesn't like the way things are going, he can do what he has done everywhere else, just leave."

I agree with both of them very much, but overall I do feel that it's the players right to support his country if they so choose, with a buyout or injury support to their contract.

Kstat
02-09-2004, 04:21 PM
I agree with Cuban. It's nice that Brown has an opinion and all, but he has very little financial stake in the players health. Sure, it reflects poorly on him if he loses his star player and his team suffers as result. But he wouldn't lose tens of millions of dollars because of it.

I think they both have valid points.

On Larry's end, if we dont send pro players to Barcelona in 1992, whos to say Mark Cuban HAS Dirk Nowitzki on his team to worry about? He benefitted more than ANY owner from international exposure to pro basketball, and now he wants to take his ball and go home? DOesn't seem fair to me.

Unclebuck
02-09-2004, 04:22 PM
I have no idea what they are arguing about, but I agree with Larry Brown

Cactus Jax
02-09-2004, 04:49 PM
I have no idea what they are arguing about, but I agree with Larry Brown

They're arguing about if NBA players should play in the olympics, with Brown saying yes and Cuban saying no.

Brown is saying that Cuban got a lot of his players from overseas which is a valid point, but Cuban is saying that players are getting injured playing international ball while they're contracted to play NBA ball, and is costing the owners money. I agree with Cuban that Brown can't totally understand the whole nature of the NBA having never been an owner, but Cuban's never been a coach either.

I'm really on the fence with this; the players ARE contracted to play NBA ball, but overall I think it's the NBA's decision to let players play, and those players chosen can accept if they want, with some sort of clause for if they get injured.

Like Cuban says at the end of the article though, it would be great for a guy like Larry Brown to build a team of players and really get them to gel and play well in the olympics. And if Cuban were to finance that sort of thing it would be great for USA basketball, even if the teams aren't as talented as the dream teams.

ABADays
02-09-2004, 05:08 PM
Actually there is a simple remedy here. If the Olympic Committee wants to have NBA players I don't think it's out of line to insure them. I support Brown's idealism but I also support any owner protecting a rather large investment. I don't think it's up to the owners to ante up for the insurance.

Mourning
02-09-2004, 05:16 PM
Hey, atleast make it fair! If the International players can't play for their countries anymore, because of the NBA, than ALSO ALL US NBA players should be prohibited from performing in the Olympics by those owners ... somehow I doubt that is what Cuban is saying though :unimpressed: .

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Roaming Gnome
02-09-2004, 06:15 PM
Actually there is a simple remedy here. If the Olympic Committee wants to have NBA players I don't think it's out of line to insure them. I support Brown's idealism but I also support any owner protecting a rather large investment. I don't think it's up to the owners to ante up for the insurance.

I agree with this point 100%. To me, it doesn't really seem like it is about the players being "allowed" but more of what if the players get hurt and their contracts. *knock on wood* Say J.O. blows out a knee in olympic competition and his career is finished... The Pacers would be stuck with his contract, and who knows about the damage to the cap. I would guess the franchise would be damaged beyond repair affecting attendance and all other areas that make the team money. The more I think about it...maybe it is a bad idea that pros play in the Olympics.

I always thought that the olympics were "amature sports" anyway, and the only reason we sent the dream team was to send a message that we are not going to watch our "amatures" get smacked around by the Euro "pros". I really don't pay much attention to the olympics, and very uneducated about them, so I guess I am asking...Are the olypics using pros in other sports like track and field, swimming, and other olympic competition?

Roy Munson
02-09-2004, 06:37 PM
I'd rather assign the NBA champs to play as the USA's representative in the Olympics, with the option of adding up to 3 or 4 "pick-up" players for re-inforcements or replacements for foreign players.

Sure, it would wear them out for the next season to some extent, but the coach could base playing time on how much he wanted to "save" his players. Along with having the disadvantage of the extra stress over the summer you'd also have the extra advantage of extra player development for younger players during the summer There would be advantages and dis-advantages.

able
02-09-2004, 06:46 PM
In european football (yeah i know you guys call it soccer, just no clue as to why :D ) salaries are not that far apart from NBA or MLB rates, yet the pro's do not play in the olympics, they do play for their country though, in the European and World championships, but for the Olympics they are prohibited and the world organization has rules that only the udner 21 or 23's are allowed to play there.

When they play for their country in the WC or EC or comparable tourney, they are insured by the national league.

As for Basketball, most EU countries (like the Netherlands) can not afford to pay the insurance rates for those players that are playing in the NBA. Thats is however a reason for some of those countries to be unable to raise the interest in Bball, as an example, Rik hardly ever played for the NL beause of that single reason, the other Dutch players currently in the NBA are not playing for the same reason (I never understood why the league did not sell this to an insurance company as a great sponsorship gimmick, but who am I :P )

The league leaving these cost to the franchise places team USA in an even further advantageous position, certainly because some EU players have contracts that simply forbid them to play anywhere but for the franchise, of course they would never be able to "sell" this to a team USA so.......

I personally like the NBA players playing for their country, but only if the best of ALL countries play which would mean that certain schedules are some adapted to the summer tournaments.

And yeah, the franchise should hold the same sword of insurance over all, if that is not possible, then simple forbid ALL NBA players to play for their country, though I believe that is going back to the dark ages.
I Agassie can partake in the tennis tournament on the Olympics, Speedskaters make a fortune, NHL players are allowed to play, athletes (T & F ) make a fortune throuhg the year and are high paid pro's who compete so we long since dropped the participating for the participation only idea, let's get the best out there, but let the Olympic movement pay the insurance, for ALL. after all they make more then enough money.

:stupid:

Unclebuck
02-09-2004, 10:00 PM
I have no idea what they are arguing about, but I agree with Larry Brown

Isn't that like saying "I don't know which one of you two shot the guy, but I'm going to put one of you in jail just for the hell of it"?


No because on 99.9% of the issues I know I will agree with Brown over Cuban

ABADays
02-09-2004, 10:06 PM
Gnome

Having worked for a governing body for 14 years I can asure you there is nothing amateur about the Olympics or even World Championships anymore. It's been that way for quite a while. Athletes are doing pretty well for themselves.

Hicks
02-09-2004, 11:01 PM
I have no idea what they are arguing about, but I agree with Larry Brown

Isn't that like saying "I don't know which one of you two shot the guy, but I'm going to put one of you in jail just for the hell of it"?


No because on 99.9% of the issues I know I will agree with Brown over Cuban

So you don't care if they're talking about killing babies as halftime entertainment? As long as Brown says it? I know, I know, 99.9%. But you should at least know the issue before coming to a fnial judgement like that.

Or perhaps watching a movie before critiquing it... :P :)

Hicks
02-09-2004, 11:08 PM
I just think that's silly, but to each his own. I generally know what's going to happen in the last Star Wars movie, but that doesn't mean I can fairly judge it until May '05. *shrugs*

Hicks
02-09-2004, 11:14 PM
[quote="btowncolt"]These are 2 completely different things, and we've done this before./quote]

How is it different? You slam Hoosiers because you know the story. Yet if I slammed EP3 right now knowing what happens you'd say that's wrong.

Arcadian
02-09-2004, 11:15 PM
So you don't care if they're talking about killing babies as halftime entertainment? As long as Brown says it? I know, I know, 99.9%. But you should at least know the issue before coming to a fnial judgement like that.

1) I read the original statement was said tongue in cheek.

2) I think that one reason UB is so readily apt to agree with Larry is because he is fairly certain Larry won't be talking about killing babies at halftime.

3) So what if UB is a blind follower of a basketball coach?

Hicks
02-09-2004, 11:20 PM
We've done this before. And you have no idea what I would do in a hypothetical situation.

I'll ask again: How is it different? What's different between you knowing the general idea of Hoosiers and using that to criticize the FILM (not the story), yet that's somehow different in my example with EP3?

Hicks
02-09-2004, 11:25 PM
How do people feel about starting some sort of permanent minor league team, that pays the equivalent of what the NBDL would, so you at least have a small core of players that get to know each other?

You know what, fine. You want to be a child and play ignore with me, have at it. But God is that pathetic and frankly very frustrating to me.

I'll just shut up. I'll go brood in my demented philosophy of being required to watch a movie before declaring it sucks. Crazy *** Hicks is going away now. I can't argue with the "pretend he doesn't exist" defense. :rolleyes:

:scream:

Unclebuck
02-10-2004, 07:53 AM
Sorry. Did not mean to cause all this.

I saw the title of the thread, but had no idea what the issue was, but I figured I would agree with Larry Brown, so I jumped the gun a little and posted more of a prediction than anything. I did not have the time to read what the issue was.

But now I know the issue and I agree with Larry Brown

skyfire
02-10-2004, 08:32 AM
If an owner doesn't want a player (of international origin or not) to represent his country at the Olympics, then they should put that in the contract that they sign the player to in the first place. I think the risks that Cuban has taken in signing international players has more than paid off for him so far. International players are more likely to make the national team for their country than an American player is, he knew this when he signed Dirk and Nash. To now complain about it is just foolish.

Mourning
02-10-2004, 01:24 PM
Quote from Able:

In european football (yeah i know you guys call it soccer, just no clue as to why ) salaries are not that far apart from NBA or MLB rates, yet the pro's do not play in the olympics, they do play for their country though, in the European and World championships, but for the Olympics they are prohibited and the world organization has rules that only the udner 21 or 23's are allowed to play there.

When they play for their country in the WC or EC or comparable tourney, they are insured by the national league.

As for Basketball, most EU countries (like the Netherlands) can not afford to pay the insurance rates for those players that are playing in the NBA. Thats is however a reason for some of those countries to be unable to raise the interest in Bball, as an example, Rik hardly ever played for the NL beause of that single reason, the other Dutch players currently in the NBA are not playing for the same reason (I never understood why the league did not sell this to an insurance company as a great sponsorship gimmick, but who am I )

The league leaving these cost to the franchise places team USA in an even further advantageous position, certainly because some EU players have contracts that simply forbid them to play anywhere but for the franchise, of course they would never be able to "sell" this to a team USA so.......

I personally like the NBA players playing for their country, but only if the best of ALL countries play which would mean that certain schedules are some adapted to the summer tournaments.

And yeah, the franchise should hold the same sword of insurance over all, if that is not possible, then simple forbid ALL NBA players to play for their country, though I believe that is going back to the dark ages.
I Agassie can partake in the tennis tournament on the Olympics, Speedskaters make a fortune, NHL players are allowed to play, athletes (T & F ) make a fortune throuhg the year and are high paid pro's who compete so we long since dropped the participating for the participation only idea, let's get the best out there, but let the Olympic movement pay the insurance, for ALL. after all they make more then enough money.

I aggree 100%! The insurance fee is absolutely one of the killers for us, together with the fact that there just isnt as much focus and promotion on basketball here. If you want to see an NBA or high European game than the channels give you one or two matches summaries, each of about 5 minutes during a friggin' week! Compare that to a "summary" of about 10 minutes for a soccer game with almost no importance and you see what I am getting at. But, promotion of basketball starts at the national team ... that is where the REAL problem is for us.

Regards,

Mourning :cool: