<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Though it seems like two decades ago now, I remember Howard Schultz five years ago, the day he purchased the Seattle SuperSonics from Barry Ackerley. He was a different man then, happy, vivacious and endlessly optimistic as he proudly towed around his younger brother, who was there to appreciate what a poor kid from the Brooklyn projects could accomplish. He spoke eloquently of his new acquisition as a public trust and fantasized about changing the culture of a league that presents a wide chasm between its players and its fans. On Tuesday, when Schultz sold the Sonics to an investment group from Oklahoma City, for all intents and purposes ending the legacy of the city's first professional sports franchise, he could not have been further from that energetic dreamer whose power of persuasion makes you actually believe he can achieve the impossible. He had become angry, bitter and maddeningly defiant, like a petulant child who decided to take his toy and go home. Only, in this case, he quite obviously threw his toy down a drainage ditch and stalked home while boldly misrepresenting the truth, telling everybody they could still play with the toy. There is a scene in the movie "The Talented Mr. Ripley" in which the characters of Matt Damon and Gwyneth Paltrow sit on a sailboat in the Mediterranean Sea and analyze why their relationships with Jude Law's character had changed so dramatically. Paltrow explains that Law's character is the kind of person who can focus his attention solely on you, make you feel as if you are the center of the universe and nothing could be more important to him. And then he gets bored, the attention goes away and the person feels empty, vacant and confused, wondering what he or she did wrong to elicit such treatment. That, in a nutshell, is Howard Schultz, an entrepreneur whose romantic attention was focused exclusively on his basketball team for about a year. Then things didn't quite go the way he envisioned, he got bored and discouraged, and he decided that he wanted out (regardless of the impact on people's lives). How and why he became frustrated and changed irrevocably was not one thing, but a series of events that soured him on the NBA product. It started with Gary Payton, for whom Schultz felt an immediate disdain. Schultz thought Payton was selfish and self-absorbed and that the people with whom he surrounded himself were unethical. When Payton failed to show up on the first day of training camp in 2002 to make a point, it sealed his fate: Schultz was going to trade Payton. To do so, he found out, he also had to trade Desmond Mason, a player who had become like a son to Schultz, who embodied the qualities that Schultz saw in the consummate NBA player, a man Schultz said repeatedly would be a cornerstone of the franchise's future. Schultz ultimately decided he disliked Payton more than he liked Mason, and so, like Abraham, he was willing to sacrifice his son. It was the beginning of the downward spiral.</div> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/stor...rank&id=2525634 An interesting and worthwhile read from Frank Hughes.
Frank Hughes definitely went for the juggler on that one. That is a very interesting article b/c it combined some fact w/ a ton of speculation. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Frank Hughes:</div><div class="quote_post">That season, Schultz attended a Sonics game in Phoenix. As he watched courtside, Lewis had the opportunity to seal a game with free throws in the final seconds. Lewis missed both, the Sonics lost the game, and the contempt Schultz felt for Lewis then was visibly palpable. It was not difficult to decipher that Schultz was thinking, "That guy had the guts to demand more than $60 million and he can't even hit two free throws? What kind of business did I get myself into where I am forced to pay a 25-year-old kid that kind of money and then watch him fail to produce? Worse, he doesn't even seem to care."</div> How can a columnist quote what he believes Schultz was thinking? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">On that day in 2001 when Schultz purchased the team, he spoke of his memories of going to Knicks games in the Garden when he was a kid, sitting in the upper reaches of the grand old arena with his late father, a sympathetic figure throughout his life. Back then, his father would have been proud of him. I wonder what he would think of him now.</div> How can a columnist even speculate how a person deceased father would think of his son? One thing that I give Frank credit for is that he has balls. When he targets someone he makes it a point to leave the kid gloves at home. I saw how biased his articles were about Flip and now I see his disdain for Howard Schultz in print. When featured in Hoopshype Frank said that Flip was the least media friendly person in the Sonics organization and currently (March of 2006) that Howard Schultz was. He doesn't hide his feelings about his journalistic subjects and it is apparent when you read an article as to what Frank's agenda is. Is there truth to this article? Most definitely. But I will be shocked if I don't see some sort of legal action taken against Hughes for not only his speculation but also lack of credible sources when reporting his "perceived" facts. That was a hell of an article though and this has firmly confirmed the fact that columnists often have have too much protection when they choose to attack the credibility of their subjects. I personally was not a big fan of Howard Schultz myself. But before I'd trash him in a national publication I would be sure to be able to back up my points w/ facts and quotes from credible sources. It is an extremely tense time in Seattle and it doesn't help when the media uses its platform for dishonorable purposes. Stick to the facts, fam. As Casual would say when he is losing an argument, "Everything else is conjecture."
It certainly is typical Frank Hughes - has always been a very speculative journalist and is not afraid to stick the knives in.
Doesn't make it right though. People like Frank Hughes have the power to make good men (not saying that Schultz is one) seem criminal and vice versa. I was a journalism major in college and if I were to write a column w/ such biasness I would have never graduated college. It is unprofessional and at some level illegal. For now on defamation of character lawsuits should be renamed "Hughes Law." At some level there should be some punishment for irresponsible/unprofessional journalism.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Iron Shiek:</div><div class="quote_post">Doesn't make it right though.</div> Of course not. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">People like Frank Hughes have the power to make good men (not saying that Schultz is one) seem criminal and vice versa.</div> I'm not a fan of Hughes and you're right, this article does border on defamation. However, it also raises some valid points amongst the innuendo. I've read a number of articles from a number of writers that all underline the same message: Schultz has wanted to drop this franchise from the moment it become hard work. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I was a journalism major in college and if I were to write a column w/ such biasness I would have never graduated college. It is unprofessional and at some level illegal. For now on defamation of character lawsuits should be renamed "Hughes Law." At some level there should be some punishment for irresponsible/unprofessional journalism.</div> Be interesting to see if there is any response from the Schultz camp, but I have a feeling they are ignoring all press and for good reason too. Meanwhiule, here is what I think is an outstanding piece from Steve Kelley: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/spor...119_kell22.html
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Iron Shiek:</div><div class="quote_post">As Casual would say when he is losing an argument, "Everything else is conjecture."</div> oic
