Sports Media Watch had a chance to speak with TNT, NBA TV and NBA.com reporter David Aldridge on Monday. Topics of conversation included the reporting of NBA free agency, his reaction LeBron James‘ one-hour special and writing about racial issues.
SMW: There were a lot of reports of free agency summits that may or may not have happened, ESPN had [Dwyane] Wade leaning to Chicago, the New York Times had LeBron as a done deal to Chicago, there was even that New York Daily News report that LeBron was going to have his special at Allan Houston?s house in Greenwich (CT). Did it seem to you like there was a lot more speculation and rumor in the reporting of NBA free agency than usual?
David: No. I would say that obviously, LeBron?s unique situation clearly forced some reporting to be done more in real time than normal. Normally you make your calls, you talk to people and you get something in real time and then you report it. In LeBron?s situation, with everyone being very aggressive about trying to get the story, you have to take more chances and there were some mistakes made.
I don?t think it?s any different than what you see in politics all the time. I think you had the New York Post making Richard Gephardt the running mate for John Kerry in 2004 and that turned out not to be true. You?re trying to be first and you talk to people, and sometimes they give you the wrong information. In this case, with everyone trying so hard to be in front on the LeBron story, you had more people probably taking more chances than they normally would.
SMW: You spent many years at ESPN, and ESPN has been such a lightning rod for criticism after airing LeBron?s one-hour special. What did you think of their decision to air The Decision? Do you think it jeopardized their credibility?
David: I don?t like being in a position to talk about what ESPN does, because I don?t work for ESPN anymore. And no matter what I say, it can be misconstrued one way or another. I think if they had it to do over again, they probably would rethink it. But I certainly understand from a competitive standpoint, if you think you?re going to get the word from LeBron James before anybody else, you would try to do that. I?m sure that if we could have gotten LeBron James on TNT or NBA TV, we might have thought about it too. So I?m not going to sit here and criticize the decision.
I thought that the agreements they had to make with LeBron?s people in order to put the show on probably were not things they would have done if they had another choice. So I?m sure that probably gave them some pause. I think you?ve seen what Don Ohlmeyer had to say, and he did not hold back in his criticisms of what they did. It probably wasn?t the best use of that hour, but again, we?re in a competitive business. I understand why they did it, I understand the reasoning. The execution probably left something to be desired.
SMW: You were critical of LeBron, like many have been. You wrote, I think the week after, that the ?only conclusion is that the special was the grand conclusion of three years of believing that a simple decision on where to play basketball had to be raised to the level of national emergency.? But to play devil?s advocate, is that really LeBron?s fault? Much of the media, and not just ESPN, created the atmosphere where a one-hour special would have been possible in the first place. If there’s not that kind of interest in where LeBron was going, would there even be a special?
David: I?ll just say this. When Michael Jordan came back, he put out a press release that said ?I?m back?. It wasn?t a one-hour special. And Michael Jordan, I believe, pretty important, pretty big guy. Pretty big star in the NBA and sports in general. So I don?t think you have to have an hour special to announce your intentions. You could have a press conference, you could have a photo op, you could do a hundred different things. To have a special which is only devoted to that subject seems to be a bit of hubris. I don?t think it?s something that LeBron had to do.
And again, my criticism of him was that he really owed it to the Cavaliers to get in touch with them before the special. From my understanding, it happened as the special was beginning. I think he owed them more than that after seven years of them doing everything he had asked them to do as an organization. I think it would have taken two minutes to call Dan Gilbert and say, ?I don?t know where I?m going, but I?m not coming back to Cleveland. And I thought you should know that, so you could start preparing and planning accordingly.? And you could still have had the show because you still don?t know if he was going to Miami or Chicago or New York. But to lead Cleveland on and let them think they were still in it when they obviously weren?t, I think was something LeBron shouldn?t have done.
SMW: There is the argument that owners may not necessarily tell the people they?re letting go or trading that they?re not going to be with the organization anymore. Did LeBron essentially just act like the owners in a way? One thing I noticed Kelly Dwyer wrote the other day was that the players were beginning to rise to the level of hubris of the league itself. What do you think of that argument?
David: Well, I think we?re talking about two different things. If you?re saying that the players have a right to go wherever they want to go and join up with each other, sure they do. Of course they do. I never have been critical of LeBron for going to Miami, if that?s what he wants to do and he wants to play with Dwyane Wade and live on South Beach and not pay state income tax, how could I argue that?s a bad thing and a wrong decision? And I wouldn?t make that argument.
My criticism of LeBron was the way he did it, not what he did. So I don?t have a problem with players empowering themselves by deciding that we?re all going to sign three-year deals so we?re all free agents in a particular offseason. I don?t have any problem with that. That?s their right. They all gave that money at the front end because they didn?t sign a six-year deal that they could?ve signed where they were, and at the back end because they took less money to sign with Miami than they could have. So they?ve given up money. That?s not an argument to me. My concern was the way he went about his decision, not the decision itself.
SMW: Speaking of that Kelly Dwyer article I mentioned a second ago, I was surprised to read him basically argue that the ego of NBA players is the next major crisis for the league. He actually said that the league?s credibility has sunk and that it?s at a crisis point. Do you think that?s legitimate, or do you think that?s a case of judging all NBA players on the actions of a few?
David: I think the owners are going to try to break the players in the next collection bargaining agreement. And the egos of the players I don?t think have anything to do with it. The players have always had egos. Michael Jordan had a big ego, Magic Johnson had a big ego, Larry Bird had a big ego. All these players have had big egos. That?s not the issue to me. What the owners are going to argue, the argument they?re going to make is an economic argument. Not an argument about the deportment of the players.
It?s always, to me, used more to rile public perception against the players. I mean, you saw the last time [1998] when the [New York] Times did the story on Kenny Anderson and his eight cars, and kind of used that to say ?look at these players, they?re so ridiculous with their money, they have no sense of what working people have to go through and they talk about how hard it is to give up eight cars.’ That?s a tangential argument. The main argument is an economic one, where the owners think they?re paying the players too much money. And that?s the argument that they?re going to make, and that?s why they?re going to lock the players out ? unless there?s some kind of dramatic, 11th hour capitulation by one side or the other.
SMW: That?s a guarantee to you, that they?re going to end up having a lockout?
David: I never say never and I never say always. I put it somewhere in the mid-to-high 90s that we will have a lockout next year. Of some length. I can?t tell you how long, but of some length.
SMW: Will there be a 2012 NBA Finals, after a shortened season like in ?99? Or is this an NHL situation?
David: I don?t know. Because once you get into the negotiations, you don?t know what the tipping point is. I would have thought, for example, after the league lost 30 games in ?99, that there wouldn?t have been a season. But they managed to pull one out. So I don?t know what their endgame is, what the point of no return is for the owners, past which they can?t realistically have a season. I don?t know if that?s 50 games, 40 games, 35 games, if you have basically a college season ? I don?t know. It?s really up to the owners and how much they?re going to lose of the season. I know there are some owners who would have no problem losing an entire season. I don?t know that that is all owners, so I can?t answer that question right now.
SMW: It seems like the NBA is always at a crisis point. Whether it?s this ego issue or the image problem, the referee scandal ? it always seems like the league?s problems are magnified. Every year, it seems like Bill Simmons has an article about some major problem the league needs to urgently fix. Do you think this is a case of people thinking the sky is falling while everything?s fine, or is the league really as fragile as it?s portrayed to be?
David: I don?t think it?s as bad as it was a few years ago. I think, post-lockout, those next two or three years were about as low as it could get from the NBA?s perspective. I think there was a feeling that the players weren?t as good compared to the generation that had just come before, and there may have been some truth to that. But I think now when you talk about, whether it?s LeBron, Kevin Durant or Dwyane Wade, Dwight Howard ? I think most fair-minded people would say the on-court product is pretty good in the NBA. The games are pretty good. There?s a lot of good teams, there?s really good competition.
There?s always going to be a loud minority of people who think the league is fixed and the referees cheat and all that?s going on. There?s always going to be a loud minority of people who think that there?s too many tattoos and too much jewelry, which is bad code for black players. But I don?t think it?s as big a problem as it was a few years ago. I think the league is heading back up. Now, I don?t think it?s where it was in Jordan?s heyday, and it?s not where it was when Magic and Bird were playing. But I think it is picking back up, it?s trending back up. Which is why I think a lockout would be so damaging.
It?s taken this whole decade for this league to come back and reestablish itself. If the ratings are any indication, I think they had a pretty good year last year. Considering that we?re at the end of a double-dip recession, the fact that the revenues went up to the point where the cap went up ? and the ratings were outstanding in the finals ? shows me that things are going pretty well. I think all of that can be lost if there?s a protracted lockout next year.
SMW: Earlier this year, you wrote an article discussing race and the Boston Celtics. I was wondering what kind of reception you received for that. Was it generally positive?
David: Whenever you write about race, you have to be ready for it to go about fifty-fifty. I can?t remember specifically whether it was fifty-fifty or not, but it usually is. This was not different, in the sense that there were a lot of people who agreed with me and said ?that was spot on?, and of course there were people who go ?why are you bringing race into sports, nobody cares about race, leave it alone, you?re just trying to stir things up.? Whenever you write about race, there?s lots of people who just don?t want to talk about race at all, and certainly don?t want to talk about in a sports context. They?re going to take exception with you bringing it up. So you have to accept that and understand that, and I got positive feedback and negative feedback. I wasn’t surprised by that, because race is a polarizing topic, and people are always very strongly moved in one direction or another when you write about it.
SMW: Because of how polarizing it is, do you ever feel discouraged to write about race? Do you ever feel like just saying, there?s a racial issue that?s going on, but instead of writing about this and incurring the inevitable wrath that comes, just not bothering with it?
David: No, not at all. I feel the exact opposite, as a matter of fact. Because I don?t think we talk enough about race in this country. It?s something that?s always beneath the surface. Despite the great strides and improvements we?ve made both in racial and gender issues the last forty to fifty years, there?s still an undercurrent that?s right below the surface. So no, I don?t feel discouraged at all in writing about race. Because I have always felt that it was more important to talk about it than not talk to about it. I don?t mind having a debate or a discussion or a disagreement with somebody about a racial issue ? at all ? because I don?t expect everyone to agree with me.
I don?t ever mind writing about race when I think it?s appropriate. I don?t think you have to write about race every day, nor should you. But I wanted to write about it in that particular case, because I was shocked by the difference in the racial makeup at the TD Garden, which I had seen in the ?08 final and wanted to write about it then. I thought it was very interesting that that had really changed in Boston in the past twenty years. And my thought was that it was something the Celtics should be commended for.
