http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120303209.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics
Sarah Palin is wrong about John F. Kennedy, religion and politics
The following are not my words – excerpt from article linked above..
“The United States is one of the most vibrant religious countries on Earth precisely because of its religious freedom. When power and faith are entwined, faith loses. Power tends to obfuscate, corrupt and focus on temporal rather than eternal purposes.”
Friday, December 3, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Carl Paladino etc
Paladino said:
... We must stop pandering to the pornographers and the perverts who seek to target our children and destroy their lives.
I didn't march in the gay parade this year, gay pride parade this year. My opponent did. And that's not the example that we should be showing our children. Certainly not in our schools.
And don't misquote me as wanting to hurt homosexual people in any way. That would be a dastardly lie. My approach is live and let live.
I just think my children and your children would be much better off and more successful getting married and raising a family. And I don't want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option"
whether or not someone is gay does not affect your straight childrens ability to fall in love and marry and raise a family - wth!
If you are speeaking out against something and using that issue to get elected you are NOT practicing live and let live. These attitudes only continue to create a hostile environment for gay people esp. youth. There are gay people across all cultures and since the beginning of time. Get over it.
A kid doesn't wake up one day and say hmmm..what choices can I make today that will ostracize me - make me a target for bullies and potentially get me kicked out of my own home and despised by my parents.
If your church doesn't want to allow gays to marry - fine....but don't use your religion to legislate laws that affect everyone - including people of other faiths and people of no faith.
If you really want to defend marriage then you should outlaw divorce and enforce severe penalties for adultery.
Gay people are not pedophiles, perverts or otherwise creepy - they are just like you and me!!!
... We must stop pandering to the pornographers and the perverts who seek to target our children and destroy their lives.
I didn't march in the gay parade this year, gay pride parade this year. My opponent did. And that's not the example that we should be showing our children. Certainly not in our schools.
And don't misquote me as wanting to hurt homosexual people in any way. That would be a dastardly lie. My approach is live and let live.
I just think my children and your children would be much better off and more successful getting married and raising a family. And I don't want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option"
whether or not someone is gay does not affect your straight childrens ability to fall in love and marry and raise a family - wth!
If you are speeaking out against something and using that issue to get elected you are NOT practicing live and let live. These attitudes only continue to create a hostile environment for gay people esp. youth. There are gay people across all cultures and since the beginning of time. Get over it.
A kid doesn't wake up one day and say hmmm..what choices can I make today that will ostracize me - make me a target for bullies and potentially get me kicked out of my own home and despised by my parents.
If your church doesn't want to allow gays to marry - fine....but don't use your religion to legislate laws that affect everyone - including people of other faiths and people of no faith.
If you really want to defend marriage then you should outlaw divorce and enforce severe penalties for adultery.
Gay people are not pedophiles, perverts or otherwise creepy - they are just like you and me!!!
Saturday, October 9, 2010
jamie
Today is the funeral.. I know I am supposed to believe she is in a better place - I am glad she is no longer suffering but it just sucks. Someone so young and awesome with a young family? Not fair! It's hard and I hate crying in front of people. I was reading a book called The Shack and I guess it is time to pick it back up. It really made me think about things in a different way. Peace to Jamies family.....
My unlce Les died from cancer not that long ago - I have a friend who thankfully just went into remission - TJ had cancer a couple years ago - many women at my work have battled breast cancer (makes me wonder if it is the environment). WTF - all this time, money and research and still no cure.
My unlce Les died from cancer not that long ago - I have a friend who thankfully just went into remission - TJ had cancer a couple years ago - many women at my work have battled breast cancer (makes me wonder if it is the environment). WTF - all this time, money and research and still no cure.
op ed - dems strugglin but Repubs wouldn't have done better
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/opinion/07kristof.html?_r=1
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Giving a DAMN
acts of violence and intimidation committed against a person simply because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, race, religion, ethnicity or anything that someone labels another as "different." Perpetrators of hate rely on fear and intimidation to put down their victims. Sadly, these acts occur all the time here in the United States. In fact, one occurs approximately every hour of every single day. One out of six of these crimes is based on sexual orientation.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Crucial Conversations
I took a class and now I get a newsletter which often has good info and tips. Today's newsletter is good and comes just after I was treated rudely because of my feelings about off shore drilling - by someone who doesn't know me.
Dear Crucial Skills,
When I try to have crucial conversations about issues where there seems to be no middle ground (i.e., abortion, global warming, politics), people often respond with over-the-top, dismissive, and divisive statements. How can I effectively hold crucial conversations about high-stakes topics with those who engage in aggressive ways?
Signed,
Seeking Middle Ground
Dear Seeking,
Several years ago in London, I hailed a taxi for the 45-minute trip from Gatwick airport to my hotel. After I informed the driver of my destination, he turned back and said, "You have an American accent. Are you American?"
"Yes," I responded.
He then made a pretty bold generalization about the culture I came from.
It was late at night. I was a bit tired. I weighed my willingness to engage in an energetic conversation and as I considered ignoring the comment I thought, "I should be able to do this. I should be able to talk to someone with a strong opinion even if I don't fully agree."
As this challenge took shape in my mind, I found myself more interested in a dialogue. I had no intention of trying to change his mind, but I thought, "Here's a guy who wants to be heard. And if there's hope for the world it's only if people like him and me can disagree in a respectful way." With this moral mission in mind, I responded.
"Not too worried about your tip, I take it?" I said and smiled at his eyes in the mirror.
He broke into a broad grin, then continued, saying that he loved Americans, but again reiterated some strong generalizations.
His voice got louder and his face redder the more he spoke. I began to wonder if I should just nod and smile or if I should really engage. But I returned to my conviction that until we can find peaceful ways of disagreeing we have no hope of creating real peace in the world. At one point in what turned into a five-minute monologue I patted the back of his seat to interrupt him.
"Hey, my friend. May I ask you a question?"
He looked into the rear view mirror and paused. "Sure. This is your taxi at the moment."
"You know, I am from the U.S. and don't get as much contact as I'd like with people who have a whole different experience than I do. I am very interested in hearing your views. And I may agree with some of them but disagree with others. Are you interested in mine, too, or should I just hear you out?"
"Oh, no," he practically crooned. "I want a debate!"
"Okay, then how about this. You take the first five minutes and then I get the next five. At the end, I don't care if we both agree on everything or not, but I'm guessing we might both be a little smarter. How is that?"
He laughed heartily, turned to face me full on and said, "You are a strange man. But that is a deal."
I don't know that my taxi-driver friend ended up seeing the world any differently when we were done with that ride, but I did. Not that my opinions were profoundly altered, but they were tested in a way I was grateful for. Most importantly, I was encouraged to discover that dialogue was possible with someone who held strong views and who seemed initially uninterested in anything but a monologue.
This is what I've found to be helpful in such a controversial conversation:
1. Talk about how you'll talk. If you're having a one-sided conversation but would like a dialogue, and it's not going that way, stop the conversation and come to agreement about ground rules. You can do this in a very respectful way by letting the person know you are interested in their views and want to continue the conversation. Then ask for time boundaries, or lower volume, or whatever will help you engage in a healthier way.
2. Check your motives. Be sure your interest in the conversation is sincere. If you just want a chance to demonstrate the perfection of your own opinions, expect the same from the other person. Fair is fair. But if you want dialogue, be sure you are open to new information or perspectives. If you are sincerely interested in getting smarter not just looking smart, you'll behave in ways that will invite the same from the other person.
3. Encourage disagreement. We've learned a startling truth about dialogue. People are okay with you expressing even very strongly held views so long as you are equally genuine in your invitation of their disagreement. Before sharing your opinions, make a statement like, "You know, I've got a really strong opinion on this. I've thought a great deal about it and read pretty widely, and I'd like to tell you my view. But at the end, if you see holes in it, or if you have new information I don't have, I desperately hope you'll challenge me with it. I really want to learn from your view in any way I can." This sincere invitation takes the fighting wind out of others' sails. They realize they don't have to beat you over the head with their opinions because you're asking for them!
4. Never miss a chance to agree. Finally, don't go for efficiency. When we agree on 50 percent of a topic and disagree on 50 percent we tend to move quickly to the disagreements because those are what interest us most. And besides, life is short, so why not start with the fight, right? Wrong! If you want worthwhile dialogue, take the time to listen for points on which you agree. Point them out. Confirm them. Put them in the "Pool of Shared Meaning." Then—and only then—move to the areas of disagreement. When you do this you reaffirm that your goal is not to win, it's to learn.
I hope these modest ideas are useful to you as you engage with others. I truly believe the future of humanity lies in our capacity to develop mutual purpose and mutual respect across the planet—and that happens one crucial conversation at a time.
Thank you for your interest in advancing public discourse about our most crucial issues.
Warmly,
Joseph
Dear Crucial Skills,
When I try to have crucial conversations about issues where there seems to be no middle ground (i.e., abortion, global warming, politics), people often respond with over-the-top, dismissive, and divisive statements. How can I effectively hold crucial conversations about high-stakes topics with those who engage in aggressive ways?
Signed,
Seeking Middle Ground
Dear Seeking,
Several years ago in London, I hailed a taxi for the 45-minute trip from Gatwick airport to my hotel. After I informed the driver of my destination, he turned back and said, "You have an American accent. Are you American?"
"Yes," I responded.
He then made a pretty bold generalization about the culture I came from.
It was late at night. I was a bit tired. I weighed my willingness to engage in an energetic conversation and as I considered ignoring the comment I thought, "I should be able to do this. I should be able to talk to someone with a strong opinion even if I don't fully agree."
As this challenge took shape in my mind, I found myself more interested in a dialogue. I had no intention of trying to change his mind, but I thought, "Here's a guy who wants to be heard. And if there's hope for the world it's only if people like him and me can disagree in a respectful way." With this moral mission in mind, I responded.
"Not too worried about your tip, I take it?" I said and smiled at his eyes in the mirror.
He broke into a broad grin, then continued, saying that he loved Americans, but again reiterated some strong generalizations.
His voice got louder and his face redder the more he spoke. I began to wonder if I should just nod and smile or if I should really engage. But I returned to my conviction that until we can find peaceful ways of disagreeing we have no hope of creating real peace in the world. At one point in what turned into a five-minute monologue I patted the back of his seat to interrupt him.
"Hey, my friend. May I ask you a question?"
He looked into the rear view mirror and paused. "Sure. This is your taxi at the moment."
"You know, I am from the U.S. and don't get as much contact as I'd like with people who have a whole different experience than I do. I am very interested in hearing your views. And I may agree with some of them but disagree with others. Are you interested in mine, too, or should I just hear you out?"
"Oh, no," he practically crooned. "I want a debate!"
"Okay, then how about this. You take the first five minutes and then I get the next five. At the end, I don't care if we both agree on everything or not, but I'm guessing we might both be a little smarter. How is that?"
He laughed heartily, turned to face me full on and said, "You are a strange man. But that is a deal."
I don't know that my taxi-driver friend ended up seeing the world any differently when we were done with that ride, but I did. Not that my opinions were profoundly altered, but they were tested in a way I was grateful for. Most importantly, I was encouraged to discover that dialogue was possible with someone who held strong views and who seemed initially uninterested in anything but a monologue.
This is what I've found to be helpful in such a controversial conversation:
1. Talk about how you'll talk. If you're having a one-sided conversation but would like a dialogue, and it's not going that way, stop the conversation and come to agreement about ground rules. You can do this in a very respectful way by letting the person know you are interested in their views and want to continue the conversation. Then ask for time boundaries, or lower volume, or whatever will help you engage in a healthier way.
2. Check your motives. Be sure your interest in the conversation is sincere. If you just want a chance to demonstrate the perfection of your own opinions, expect the same from the other person. Fair is fair. But if you want dialogue, be sure you are open to new information or perspectives. If you are sincerely interested in getting smarter not just looking smart, you'll behave in ways that will invite the same from the other person.
3. Encourage disagreement. We've learned a startling truth about dialogue. People are okay with you expressing even very strongly held views so long as you are equally genuine in your invitation of their disagreement. Before sharing your opinions, make a statement like, "You know, I've got a really strong opinion on this. I've thought a great deal about it and read pretty widely, and I'd like to tell you my view. But at the end, if you see holes in it, or if you have new information I don't have, I desperately hope you'll challenge me with it. I really want to learn from your view in any way I can." This sincere invitation takes the fighting wind out of others' sails. They realize they don't have to beat you over the head with their opinions because you're asking for them!
4. Never miss a chance to agree. Finally, don't go for efficiency. When we agree on 50 percent of a topic and disagree on 50 percent we tend to move quickly to the disagreements because those are what interest us most. And besides, life is short, so why not start with the fight, right? Wrong! If you want worthwhile dialogue, take the time to listen for points on which you agree. Point them out. Confirm them. Put them in the "Pool of Shared Meaning." Then—and only then—move to the areas of disagreement. When you do this you reaffirm that your goal is not to win, it's to learn.
I hope these modest ideas are useful to you as you engage with others. I truly believe the future of humanity lies in our capacity to develop mutual purpose and mutual respect across the planet—and that happens one crucial conversation at a time.
Thank you for your interest in advancing public discourse about our most crucial issues.
Warmly,
Joseph
Thursday, June 17, 2010
HOOPS HOOPS HOOPS
What Every NBA Fan Needs to Know About Ricky Rubio (Plus #15 on the Community Draft Board)
by Stop-n-Pop on Jun 17, 2010 6:44 AM CDT 21 comments
With the lotto in the rear view mirror and the draft on the horizon, I figured it would be a good time to put out a little primer about the Wolves and Ricky Rubio so that excited Knicks fans have a place to go when the Daily News tells them that Donnie Walsh is really good friends with David Kahn...and you know what that means.
1- The Rubio Road to the NBA 100%, without-a-doubt goes through the Timberwolves. The Wolves own Rubio’s NBA rights and barring him completely stepping away from professional basketball for an entire year (following a 3 year period after the draft), he is Timberwolves property.
2- Rubio’s buyout from Barcalona is reported to be $1.4 million following the 2010-11 season. This is hardly unmanageable and even if it were, it is meaningless, as the NBA’s CBA clearly states that NBA franchises can only contribute $500,000 to the buyout of a foreign player. The cost associated for a buyout of any foreign player (not just Rubio) is $500k. No more, no less. This is not the case for EuroLeague teams like Barcelona, who footed the entire buyout bill for Rubio and his family during his latest transition.
3- Rubio’s buyout from Joventut was originally in the neighborhood of $8 million and was eventually lowered to $5 million. Were Rubio to have come to the Wolves, and were the Wolves able to have achieved the same $5 mil buyout, Rubio himself would have been on the hook for the additional $4.5 mil. This was simply cost prohibitive to Rubio (who was making only a couple hundred thousand Euros at the time) to come to the Wolves with the slotted 5th pick NBA rookie salary. Here is what we wrote at the time about the situation:
At first glance, the NBA’s rookie salary scale for the 5th pick seems somewhat reasonable: roughly $15.2 million over 4 years. However, this does not take into account three key items that turn $15 large into a number that doesn’t hold up well against the reported buyout number of $5.28 million. First, $8.42 million of the $15.2 million rookie scale is tied up in two years of player options. A good friend of mine works as an actuary for Mutual of Omaha and he finds it far-fetched that any loan guarantee would be written while taking into account a non-guaranteed payment option. In other words, Rubio is really only guaranteed about $6.78 million in pre-tax earnings over the course of two seasons. Secondly, at no point in any of the Rubio reporting have we ever learned anything about the payment structure of the buyout. Would it be a lump sum? Would it be over 2 years? Would it be over the length of the full 4-year rookie scale? Again, my actuary friend finds it implausible that this debt would be paid on anything other than a lump sum or a two year scale. Even if Rubio were able to secure an insurance policy that extends beyond his guaranteed years, he would face a high premium that may make it an unattractive option vis-a-vis the Barcelona contract. Third, Rubio would face a 35% federal income tax combined with state taxes in Minnesota and every state he plays in. To the best of my knowledge, his overall tax burden would be 42.85%. In other words, his pre-duty/pre-agent fee take home pay for the first two years of his rookie contract is roughly $3.87 mil. That’s $1.4 million in the hole if you add in the reported buyout. If he were able to secure a four year repayment plan, his post-tax take home pay would be roughly $8.69 million; $3.41 mil over the buyout over 4 years and $825k/year pre-agent/duty pay. The bottom line here is that it’s pretty hard to look at the non-endorsement money on the table in the NBA and have it compare favorably to what Rubio will earn in Europe over the next two years. At the end of the day, the Wolves could only contribute $500k while Barcelona ponied up over $5 million. Rubio likely chose the far safer, and more economically sound, option.
In other words, had Rubio come to the Wolves, he would have been paying to play in the NBA for the better part of his rookie contract. Paying to play for any team in the lotto, not just the 15-win Wolves, was not an attractive immediate option in 2009.
4- David Kahn and the Wolves made Ricky Rubio a ton of money. This is the point that most often gets overlooked in the Rubio discussion. By becoming a 3rd party in the Rubio sweepstakes, the Wolves effectively provided the Rubios the leverage that lowered the insanely high Joventut buyout, allowed a European League team to pick up the tab (which, as we previously mentioned, was done in whole by Barcelona), allowed Rubio to get a raise, and, most importantly, lowered his future buyout amount to a number that is completely manageable under NBA rookie salary guidelines (after the $500k Wolves buyout, Rubio is only on the hook for $900,000). He also won a championship. The kicker here is that if Rubio comes to the NBA after 3 years (and not the 2 that some fans expect, and is the first year of a possible buyout), the Wolves do not have to pay him according to the NBA rookie salary scale. They can give him an even bigger deal…at the age of 22. This angle may really come into play if there is a lockout. If Rubio had gone in the first 3 picks, he may have been able to afford the jump to the NBA. When he slid, the Wolves provided him and his family with the best possible landing spot: on a team that had an additional pick to use on a point guard to bridge the gap and who could afford to wait until a lowered buyout and, possibly, a situation where Rubio could make more than what he could under the NBA’s rookie salary scale. Imagine if the Knicks got him with the 7th pick. What would the New York media do if Rubio couldn’t afford to come over to a slotted 7th pick rookie salary? How much more leverage would the Rubio’s have lost with the buyout with Joventut if it wasn’t a closer decision to head to the NBA like the Wolves provided with the 5th pick? I cannot say it enough: The Wolves (and David Kahn) allowed the Rubios to make a lot more money and they significantly improved his financial outlook.
Ricky Rubio unexpectedly landed in the Wolves’ lap and they’re not going to give him up for anything less than a serious haul. The Wolves have allowed Rubio to improve his financial (and professional playing) situation beyond what any other team in the league could have done short of going #1 to the Clippers. At the end of the day, by going #5 to the Wolves, Rubio was able to have his buyout taken care of in full by a superior team, get a raise, continue to develop on the best team in Europe, and eventually come to the NBA at or around the age of 22 without having to worry about going in the hole for his buyout. If his agent throws a hissy fit about his client not wanting to play in Minny in 1, 2, or 3 years, all Kahn has to do is smile and say "thank you very much, we can't wait until he wants to." By showing patience now, the Wolves have significantly increased their chances of appearing credible if they need to call a bluff down the line.
Plus, for those of you who haven't been paying a lot of attention to the Wolves and how they appear to be being put together, David Kahn is all-in on the kid. They are looking to build a running team with long athletes who can get out in transition and catch all of those ally-oops. They are looking for players who can hit open 3s from the corner. They are looking for guys who can be dominant pick-and-roll players. Does it surprise you that recent rumors would leave the team with a 2011 lineup of something like Rubio, Rudy Fernandez, Rudy Gay, Anthony Randloph, and Derrick Favors? They are all in on Rubio, they have helped him and his family out, and they are not letting him go for anything other than a MAJOR haul.
by Stop-n-Pop on Jun 17, 2010 6:44 AM CDT 21 comments
With the lotto in the rear view mirror and the draft on the horizon, I figured it would be a good time to put out a little primer about the Wolves and Ricky Rubio so that excited Knicks fans have a place to go when the Daily News tells them that Donnie Walsh is really good friends with David Kahn...and you know what that means.
1- The Rubio Road to the NBA 100%, without-a-doubt goes through the Timberwolves. The Wolves own Rubio’s NBA rights and barring him completely stepping away from professional basketball for an entire year (following a 3 year period after the draft), he is Timberwolves property.
2- Rubio’s buyout from Barcalona is reported to be $1.4 million following the 2010-11 season. This is hardly unmanageable and even if it were, it is meaningless, as the NBA’s CBA clearly states that NBA franchises can only contribute $500,000 to the buyout of a foreign player. The cost associated for a buyout of any foreign player (not just Rubio) is $500k. No more, no less. This is not the case for EuroLeague teams like Barcelona, who footed the entire buyout bill for Rubio and his family during his latest transition.
3- Rubio’s buyout from Joventut was originally in the neighborhood of $8 million and was eventually lowered to $5 million. Were Rubio to have come to the Wolves, and were the Wolves able to have achieved the same $5 mil buyout, Rubio himself would have been on the hook for the additional $4.5 mil. This was simply cost prohibitive to Rubio (who was making only a couple hundred thousand Euros at the time) to come to the Wolves with the slotted 5th pick NBA rookie salary. Here is what we wrote at the time about the situation:
At first glance, the NBA’s rookie salary scale for the 5th pick seems somewhat reasonable: roughly $15.2 million over 4 years. However, this does not take into account three key items that turn $15 large into a number that doesn’t hold up well against the reported buyout number of $5.28 million. First, $8.42 million of the $15.2 million rookie scale is tied up in two years of player options. A good friend of mine works as an actuary for Mutual of Omaha and he finds it far-fetched that any loan guarantee would be written while taking into account a non-guaranteed payment option. In other words, Rubio is really only guaranteed about $6.78 million in pre-tax earnings over the course of two seasons. Secondly, at no point in any of the Rubio reporting have we ever learned anything about the payment structure of the buyout. Would it be a lump sum? Would it be over 2 years? Would it be over the length of the full 4-year rookie scale? Again, my actuary friend finds it implausible that this debt would be paid on anything other than a lump sum or a two year scale. Even if Rubio were able to secure an insurance policy that extends beyond his guaranteed years, he would face a high premium that may make it an unattractive option vis-a-vis the Barcelona contract. Third, Rubio would face a 35% federal income tax combined with state taxes in Minnesota and every state he plays in. To the best of my knowledge, his overall tax burden would be 42.85%. In other words, his pre-duty/pre-agent fee take home pay for the first two years of his rookie contract is roughly $3.87 mil. That’s $1.4 million in the hole if you add in the reported buyout. If he were able to secure a four year repayment plan, his post-tax take home pay would be roughly $8.69 million; $3.41 mil over the buyout over 4 years and $825k/year pre-agent/duty pay. The bottom line here is that it’s pretty hard to look at the non-endorsement money on the table in the NBA and have it compare favorably to what Rubio will earn in Europe over the next two years. At the end of the day, the Wolves could only contribute $500k while Barcelona ponied up over $5 million. Rubio likely chose the far safer, and more economically sound, option.
In other words, had Rubio come to the Wolves, he would have been paying to play in the NBA for the better part of his rookie contract. Paying to play for any team in the lotto, not just the 15-win Wolves, was not an attractive immediate option in 2009.
4- David Kahn and the Wolves made Ricky Rubio a ton of money. This is the point that most often gets overlooked in the Rubio discussion. By becoming a 3rd party in the Rubio sweepstakes, the Wolves effectively provided the Rubios the leverage that lowered the insanely high Joventut buyout, allowed a European League team to pick up the tab (which, as we previously mentioned, was done in whole by Barcelona), allowed Rubio to get a raise, and, most importantly, lowered his future buyout amount to a number that is completely manageable under NBA rookie salary guidelines (after the $500k Wolves buyout, Rubio is only on the hook for $900,000). He also won a championship. The kicker here is that if Rubio comes to the NBA after 3 years (and not the 2 that some fans expect, and is the first year of a possible buyout), the Wolves do not have to pay him according to the NBA rookie salary scale. They can give him an even bigger deal…at the age of 22. This angle may really come into play if there is a lockout. If Rubio had gone in the first 3 picks, he may have been able to afford the jump to the NBA. When he slid, the Wolves provided him and his family with the best possible landing spot: on a team that had an additional pick to use on a point guard to bridge the gap and who could afford to wait until a lowered buyout and, possibly, a situation where Rubio could make more than what he could under the NBA’s rookie salary scale. Imagine if the Knicks got him with the 7th pick. What would the New York media do if Rubio couldn’t afford to come over to a slotted 7th pick rookie salary? How much more leverage would the Rubio’s have lost with the buyout with Joventut if it wasn’t a closer decision to head to the NBA like the Wolves provided with the 5th pick? I cannot say it enough: The Wolves (and David Kahn) allowed the Rubios to make a lot more money and they significantly improved his financial outlook.
Ricky Rubio unexpectedly landed in the Wolves’ lap and they’re not going to give him up for anything less than a serious haul. The Wolves have allowed Rubio to improve his financial (and professional playing) situation beyond what any other team in the league could have done short of going #1 to the Clippers. At the end of the day, by going #5 to the Wolves, Rubio was able to have his buyout taken care of in full by a superior team, get a raise, continue to develop on the best team in Europe, and eventually come to the NBA at or around the age of 22 without having to worry about going in the hole for his buyout. If his agent throws a hissy fit about his client not wanting to play in Minny in 1, 2, or 3 years, all Kahn has to do is smile and say "thank you very much, we can't wait until he wants to." By showing patience now, the Wolves have significantly increased their chances of appearing credible if they need to call a bluff down the line.
Plus, for those of you who haven't been paying a lot of attention to the Wolves and how they appear to be being put together, David Kahn is all-in on the kid. They are looking to build a running team with long athletes who can get out in transition and catch all of those ally-oops. They are looking for players who can hit open 3s from the corner. They are looking for guys who can be dominant pick-and-roll players. Does it surprise you that recent rumors would leave the team with a 2011 lineup of something like Rubio, Rudy Fernandez, Rudy Gay, Anthony Randloph, and Derrick Favors? They are all in on Rubio, they have helped him and his family out, and they are not letting him go for anything other than a MAJOR haul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
