What is the value of spite? A short musing on LeBron James, Cleveland, and this Girl I Used To Love Irrationally, by Ryan Braun:

The following LeBron James, “it girl,” spite musing was first published on Cavs: the Blog back in February. Here it is again, reformatted for CFAAP.com whilst maintaining the integrity of the original post. I hope you enjoy it/hire me for lots of money.

………………..

In “honor” of LeBron’s coming to town this week:

Now here we have an interesting dilemma, and I’d urge you to think it through before arriving at any, let’s say, decisions…

You know what? Let’s not even start with LeBron. Let’s start with a conveniently analogous anecdote.

****

When I was 22 (a year older than CTB’s own C.S. McGowan), the first girl I’d ever dated broke up with me. I’d made mistakes along the way — mixtapes are cute, but you better be a real lumberjack if you want to bookend one with Aladdin — still, the dumping seemed irrational. I was caring, attentive and I put out reasonably well for a nebbish, sexually-terrified faux-adult whose romantic repertoire prior to that relationship consisted of saying “I’m going to kiss you in 10 seconds,” and then counting down the remaining :09.

In spite of all that, she left me for a disinterested 28-year-old physical therapist.

It was brutal.

It was why, for months afterward, I refused to rehab anything professionally.

And it’s kind of related to the debate at hand.

*****

Two weeks ago, I stumbled on Sam Amico’s now semi-dated article re: the prospects of LeBron returning to Cleveland, and it was that which got me thinking about this again (both the LeBron situation and my beautiful ex — the latter pictured below in a visual approximation).

I’m sure you’ve all read the story.

There is talk, Amico writes, that LeBron is discontent in Miami — “less-than-thrilled with certain aspects of the Heat organization.” It’s not Wade and Bosh, SA continues, it’s “the heavy-handed and disciplined style of Pat Riley.”

None of this is particularly substantive or surprising. That Brian Windhorst corroborated kept me from writing off the return possibility without first giving it some thought…but I did give it some thought and came to the conclusion that we’ll see Obama as governor of Mississippi before we see LeBron, as Windhorst speculates, back in Cleveland and honored with a statue.

To even get us to the precipice of a return would require not only Dan Gilbert’s acceptance of a LeBron reconciliation, but an apology from LeBron himself, plus a general admission of wrongdoing. In other words, LeBron would have to publicly take some responsibility for the split with Cleveland and at least in some capacity, publicly admit he may have done a thing or two to draw Gilbert’s ire.

None of the above is going to happen, and perhaps because of that, the likelihood of the above happening is not really what I’m interested in.

I’m interested in us.

I’m interested in what we might do if the situation presented itself.

*****

When that girl broke up with me, I sulked pretty bad.

I didn’t leave the house for a week. My mom gave me a bell I could ring for ice cream and I just stayed in bed for the whole seven days. It wasn’t a good look for a 22-year-old, and about the only thing I gained from the wallowing was an abject certainty that Night Court was underrated.

I also made possible the taking of this picture:

Dark, dark days.

But then, as if forced to by my mother, the next Monday I got up and moved on with my life. I got a job as the production office intern for a movie filming locally and made such an impression delivering lunches that I was offered a job in Los Angeles, also delivering lunches.

My mom spent a week in bed with the ice cream bell, and then I left.

I won’t say my motivation was to become a famous actor solely to spite the girl who’d left me… but I will write it.

My motivation for moving was to become a famous actor solely to spite this girl who’d dumped me.

I’d never acted.

I’d never been to Los Angeles.

It was a healthy and financially pragmatic move.

But it did do one thing; it allowed me the time and the space to recover. It allowed me to move on with my life. It allowed me to start anew (and/or metaphorically draft Kyrie Irving depending on where you are in the analogy.).

Within three years, I was shopping at Whole Foods and driving a Prius. I was still delivering lunches, but now they were fancy.

I didn’t see that girl again for three years, and I really wasn’t planning on initiating anything ever again until she emailed me one day totally out of the blue…to see how I was doing, to see “how life was treating me,” and to see if I’d be attending the wedding of one of our college friends in a couple of months.

And so we started talking, and reminiscing, and telling each other that there were no hard feelings.

I said I’d be going to the wedding and staying in the recommended hotel.

She asked me what floor I was staying on.

*****

My biggest issue with the sports fan of the 21st century is the following: With very few exceptions, the 21st century sports fan is f’ing fickle! I haven’t been alive long enough to definitively state that things haven’t always been this way…but I’m pretty sure that things haven’t always been this way.

Sports have become a mixed bag of opportunism and sentimentality, admittedly for me as much as anyone. I mourned the departure of Big Z, but in no way did I take issue with his trade. I’ve despised the high-profile player movement of the past few years, but I’m the same guy who was pitching Dwight Howard to Cleveland last week.

And now, in analyzing the tenets of immediate gratification (something that, again, I seek as much as anyone)…I’m starting to wonder at what point will opportunism snuff out the sentimentality that gives sports its heart in the first place? And if that’s a possibility, how far gone are we already?

From the booing of home teams in even the most hallowed of locales (its happening from Cleveland to Green Bay), to the relatively crass pursuit of big-time free-agents in every major sport (again, Dwight Howard), I feel like the opportunism is taking over. This is probably a positive in the NFL-ian way that it keeps everything interesting for everyone always…but it’s not so good in the crafting of true loyalty, of true fans, and ultimately, of the lovable “throwback” players we keep pining for.

There’s a romantic (if idealistic) group of sports fans craving a better kind of athlete.

I think in order to facilitate that, we may need a better kind of fan.

Someone for whom opportunism is not the priority.

*****

That said, I totally get why it is.

We’re back at the reception now and I’ve had four glasses of wine plus I really can’t hold my liquor (At all. That “I’m drunk” picture came after a lone White Russian.) and the/that/my girl is looking more pretty than is probably appropriate at a wedding with a bride.

I asked her how her grad school was going and she told me about her residency.

She asked me how my acting was going and I told her about my appearance in a Swedish life insurance commercial.

And then we just stared at each other for a moment…after which time she asked me if I wanted to see some of the things she’d learned in medical school.

I’ve never been hit on in my life…except for potentially that.

“What floor are you on?”

My floor.

Jim Gray walks in and he sets up the camera.

I am not a role model.

*****

What would you say to LeBron James if he asked to come back (and/or asked you up to room 304)?

First remove the backdrop of improbability, and then, with as much hypothetical honesty as you can muster, ask yourself what would you do if the only thing standing between a 29-year-old LeBron returning to Cleveland, returning to a team featuring an abundance of young talent, a blooming superstar in Kyrie Irving, and potentially another in Harrison Kidd-Davis, was you…

What would you do if the only thing standing between a Cleveland team and a 3-4 year championship run was the return of LeBron James?

In that very specific case (coincidentally, an amplified version of so many other cases)… what is the value of spite, and in how much of that spite lies your credibility as a sports fan (or in my case, as a man in general)? In how much of it lies your ability/right to enjoy a championship?

When LeBron James left for Miami, he was most roundly criticized for copping out.

We’d hoped he’d be the greatest player of the past twenty years, and instead he ended up choosing to play with his only real rival in the league while complaining about “the pressure of going out, scoring 30 every night.”

“Championships are championships,” LeBron ultimately said. The ends justify the means, because presumably, no one remembers the means.

If history proves him right (and while I sincerely hope that won’t be the case, I do realize it might be), would you be willing to sacrifice championship ends for a means that ultimately may not be remembered?

I think the obvious answer is, “Yes, of course. Pride over title any day of the week.”

And I think that’s what I’d want to say… I just hope I’d say it.

I spent my fourth year in Los Angeles listening to way too much Aladdin.

 
AWARDS WATCH (39.4% of the way through the season):

NBA MVP – LeBron James, SF, Miami Heat (27.9 ppg, 8.2 reb, 6.9 ast). The real purpose of this article was to compare LeBron James to a girl (WIN)…unfortunately, that girl is playing about three levels higher than anyone else is this season. I don’t know if he’s recovered enough good will to actually win MVP, but he clearly should if Miami ends up anywhere near the top of the league. Along those lines, the Heat are a game back of the Bulls and Thunder right now and while he’s tailed off a bit lately, LeBron has been dominant in keeping the Heat afloat despite inconsistent assistance from Dwyane Wade.

CAVALIER MVP – Andy Varejao, PF/C (10.8 ppg, 11.5 reb, 1.7 ast). I’m in the camp that wants a better draft pick and I still thought the Varejao injury was devastating. Andy’s been playing at an All-Star level all year, and to see that momentum interrupted by such a fluky play is immensely frustrating. Silver lining: There’ll be a lot less pressure on him when we land Anthony Davis.

NBA COY– Doug Collins, Philadelphia 76ers. I don’t think the Sixers are a threat in the East, but boy are they are fun to watch. They’re young, they’re well-rounded and they share the ball. I fear they’ll end up a well-constructed team held back by lack of star power…  but in the meantime, much of the credit for their resurgence should go to Collins.

CAVALIER COY – Byron Scott. I’ve made jokes every week about Byron’s lack of competition for this spot, but in truth I’m really impressed with the job he’s done this year. The games we’ve not competed have been few and far between, and the development of our youth (by far the season’s most important facet) seems to be going remarkably well. Tristan Thompson may have plateaued, but Kyrie Irving and Alonzo Gee get better with each passing week.

CO-NBA ROY – Ricky Rubio, Minnesota Timberwolves (10.9 ppg, 4.5 reb, 8.7 ast) & Kyrie Irving, Cleveland Cavaliers (18.0 ppg, 3.5 reb, 5.1 ast). I still think Kyrie’s the better player, but with KI missing a few games courtesy of Dwyane Wade’s knee I think it’s fair that Rubio be acknowledged as well. Ricky’s shooting is a substantial limitation, but it’s one some other stars share. It’s striking how much of his game resembles Rondo’s. Rubio is such a good set-up man and he’s far more active defensively than I initially gave him credit for. Ultimately, I don’t know if I see the athleticism to make up for his inability to shoot comfortably from the perimeter…but if he carves out a niche as a poor man’s Jason Kidd/Rondo, I think Minnesota will deal.

CAVALIER ROY – Kyrie Irving, PG. Since I last did this, Kyrie’s started winning games down the stretch single-handedly. It’s been kind of astonishing to watch. I don’t know if he can make the type of jump LeBron did from Year One to Year Two, but he also might not have as much distance to travel. If he can condition himself to the point where he can run (really run) 36 minutes a game… we’ll all have to reassess what his ceiling might be.

…………………..

Ryan Braun writes at CFAAP.com, but he also posts a picture with an article to Cavs: the Blog once every two Sundays (which he often does barely and by PST technicality). He appreciates your reading, and also you in general.

Occupy Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

We better Occupy Wall Street, because if “Money Never Sleeps,” it’s probably making some unreasonable decisions.

At current, I am not sitting out on the street with a sign, nor am I boycotting Wall Street products – which are what, again? – so I’m kind of a weenie for jumping on the bandwagon.

But that said, all bandwagons need weenies, and I like this particular bandwagon.

I hope that Occupy Wall Street becomes the great political movement of my lifetime. I realize it’s not nearly there yet (more people need to get on the street! Lazy motherf*ckers…), but it’s already exceeded my expectations—let’s keep driving in the direction we’re going.

Now, clarification time:

Do I want Wall Street overrun with dissenters? Of course not. I don’t think anybody wants that, except for maybe this guy:

Hey, a man’s gotta eat...

With complete sincerity though, I think that these people are on to something. At least in sentiment.

The Tea Party – whose 2009 emergence is the one most immediately used in drawing OWS parallels – was/is angry at the state of the country (parallel), and tried to/is trying to strike back at the perceived regulatory bodies they felt/feel responsible (perpendicular).

The Tea Party’s biggest problem? (Besides issues of gay rights and religion creeping into their agenda and soiling what was originally a semi-earnest brand…)

I think they’re angry at the wrong people.

Occupy Wall Street, at its most focused, I believe is more in tune with the country’s issues.

The income divide – by definition, really – is the greatest threat to mass “American exceptionalism” since, let's say, the eighties. The reason our economy is faltering seems to be, to borrow a percentage from the OWS movement, that 99% of us don’t have any money to spend on anyone else’s products. Thus, the multi-nationals grow (because they can sell to a wider base), while everything local continues to fade (thus, exacerbating the problem).

So how do you fix that?

Tailoring the tax code (or even less drastically, tailoring the regulatory bodies that watch over multi-national businesses) to favor/aid the lower-tied consumers has been accused of being socialistic (which in my view isn’t the worst thing in the world) and wealth redistributive.

It is.

But should we really be fighting that?

Consider this: With the income divide as severe as it currently is, isn't not layering the economic system in such a way also wealth redistribution?

Isn't it redistributive even more so?

If everybody keeps 80% of their annual pay, but executive compensation continues to soar while the compensation of the middle and lower classes continues to stagnate...won't the income divide just continue to grow with each passing year?

So, I think then very practically, a (the?) solution to stimulating the economy is quite likely the alternative not acting...which would be to more radically tier the tax code/corporate regulations to favor the consumer, and to favor those suffering the stagnation.

We shift money from the very wealthy to the government, and then from the government to the very poor/middle-class. In theory then, the poor would immediately spend the money (they have no other recourse – if you had to choose between buying dinner or opening an offshore investment account, you settle on dinner…) on local businesses, thus increasing the quality of life for the poor and middle-class (the latter of which hopefully still own the local businesses), while bolstering the economy around them. It’s “trickle up,” economics, and it seems to me that with TUE there’s far less to go wrong than there is with the TDE.

And while I think that Occupy Wall Street’s centrifugal message (or at least what I hope it to eventually be) is “Get Money Out of Politics,” and not TUE... I actually believe that getting money out of politics will represent the most significant step possible toward the enacting of my latter economic musings.

You’d have a hard time convincing me that what I wrote above doesn’t make sense, and for that reason, I’ve got to think the only reason it hasn’t happened yet is the lack of cause-associated political capital. Political capital costs money, and the money would rather see opposite agendas go down. If we're able to take money out of the equation, the most obvious fix becomes more likely to step to the forefront. (Truth be told, even if we ended up with more conservative action post-the years of ridiculously hefty clandestine political investment, I’d feel better knowing that the policies enacted were at least enacted with the purest of intentions.)

And there you have it. Occupy Wall Street through the eyes of a layman.

It’s a step in the right direction, and I hope it continues to build.

Take it from me – I’m an English major.

By Ryan, for the Center for American Progress Illustrated. (Guilty little secret: It’s just a link to this site.)

CFAAP: Cavalier Thoughts on the NBA Draft, starting with the second pick...

I’m re-upping the Cavalier Thoughts of an Overreative Realist blog…because I’m admittedly about to go way overboard.

(The Cavs let Jonas slip away... I now hope he sucks.)

Thoughts on the NBA Draft, starting with the second pick.

What I think happened:

I think that Chris Grant wanted to add both Jonas and Tristan, and I think he picked the wrong one first. Toronto was universally considered a lock to pick a point guard by the high-profile NBA punditry…and I have no idea why. (Of greater concern is that Chris Grant may have been listening to them.) Toronto desperately needed a big, and they just hired the preeminent defensive assistant in the league to be their coach. Not every team can be counted on to make the shortsighted, asinine pick…and I suspect that’s what we were counting on. Either that or we got scared of Jonas’ buyout, which would be perhaps even more asinine. Why? Because we are not winning the championship next year! We are not winning it the year after! Lay the f’ing foundation!!!

We may have liked Tristan (I even like Tristan), but there’s no way we should’ve liked him more than Jonas. Because you can sign Tristans, you cannot (the Tyson Chandler-fleecing aside) sign Jonas-es.

Making the best of a bad situation:

If Tristan can move his feet and contest at the rim (he can), I’d like him to learn the intricacies of the league—more specifically, of pick and roll defense—from Andy. Thus, AV must stay another year for the development of our number 4 pick. Of course, many of us want him to stay anyway, but this new wrinkle makes it in my mind now essential. We drafted a guy to play defense, now let’s teach him how.

Offensively… Jesus, I don’t know. Tristan Thompson is minimally talented outside the lane, and doesn’t appear to be on the cusp of harnessing a shooting touch. I don’t mind having a defensive oriented four, but it means we’ll need to hit an interior threat in a subsequent draft and that isn’t going to be easy. (Note to Andre Drummond: College is overrated.)

Where we now are in the rebuilding process:

Absolutely step one.

I haven’t lost faith in the front office or anything...but I will say this: Today marked the first day that I’ve questioned ever questioned it. There are more incomprehensible decisions made in the NBA than in every other sports league combined (take, for instance, the Sacramento, Milwaukee, Charlotte trade—Good work guys. Now you’re set!), and I felt helpless today waiting for David Stern to announce that fourth pick. Helpless because as my excitement dissipated that Jonas didn’t go number three to Utah (something I was legitimately concerned about), I realized that I was anything but certain the Cavs wouldn’t look elsewhere as well.

I’ll go further with this: The Cavs shouldn’t have needed to think about Kyrie vs. Derrick either! The answer was obvious and the answer will become increasingly obvious every game they play after, say, the first 82. (I bet Derrick puts up numbers early, but ceases to develop starting early in his second year.) Maybe even earlier. There's no comparison to be made between the two.

Re: the current roster, I now think J.J. has to play out this year (and hopefully play it out well—as in 18 and 10)...and then he has to get moved. There’s not room for both Tristan and J.J. in the starting five, and thus, there’s not room for both of them.

(Let me parenthetically walk this back just a tad — I can imagine a situation where J.J. stays and provides his mercurial brand of scoring, and then Tristan settles into an early-Varejao-esque defensive role off the bench…and truthfully, my initial reaction aside, that would be great. It would be a luxury to have that type of athletic, aggressive, energy-off-the-bench 4, and it would be promising to have such a strong rotation of guys. But you can sign someone to do that! You pick the guys for such a rotation at approximately the point in the draft that gave us J.J.! The teens! The late-lottery! Not with the fourth pick in the draft. And so ends my retroactively positive statement.)

We may well struggle again next year, although I suspect with Andy back and Baron aboard for a full 82, we’ll need a bit more luck to end up in the top-tier of the lottery — and that's where we’ll need to be. We’ve added Kyrie Irving and a really nice energy player, now we need another elite guy. Harrison Barnes, Anthony Davis, Quincy Miller, Perry Jones, or Michael Gilchrist.

If we’re in the top-5, we’re alright. If we’re not, at least we have someone waiting overseas.

Sasha Kaun.