11/21/24
January 21, 2003
In an article for ESPN SportsNation, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban explains how he turned a moribund franchise into one of the most well-supported teams in any sport. "I spend every day thinking about the Mavericks," he writes. "That includes time dreaming about the Mavs while sleeping, often waking up in the middle of the night multiple times to e-mail someone about a problem I solved with my eyes closed." (Via An Experiment in Scotch)
posted by rcade to basketball at 10:36 AM - 6 comments
This was a good read. Thanks, rcade. Some thoughts: Throughout the year, I've seen various Mavericks gush about the fact that they now have better facilities for training, travelling, and hotels. Many of them attribute their recent success (minus the past week, ouch!) in part to the upgrades that Cuban has done. As jasonspaceman pointed out, it helps to have a young, billionaire, fanboy for an owner. Cuban's kind of like your crazy uncle who is secretly cool to hang out with but embarassed the hell out of you in front of your friends. He is an impressive businessman, however. If the statement about only four employees leaving MicroSolutions in seven years is true, then wow. Oh. I will say that for some reason I really can't stand the Maverick Football Jerseys that he talks about (although it is, admittedly, a good idea for school kids).
posted by Ufez Jones at 11:05 AM on January 21, 2003
Hey thanks for the link! What I really find interesting about Dallas sports owners is that Cuban came in and almost immediately made an impact with his money. Tom Hicks has thrown tons of money at the Rangers and they are perennial losers, as of right now. Are basketball players that different from baseball players? What makes the two owners different? And how can Hicks have such success with the Stars but fail so miserably with the Rangers? And let's not even talk about Jones and the 'Boys. I think we all know why they don't have any success. . .
posted by osiris at 02:00 PM on January 21, 2003
The more players you have on a team, and on a field of play, the less impact each individual player will have. So having one superstar (ARod) makes less of a difference in MLB than in the NBA (say, Dirk N.). Basketball: 5 on the field, 7 on the bench (or so) Hockey: 6 on the field, 14 on the bench Baseball: 9 on the field, 16 on the "bench" Football: 11 on the field, god-knows-how-many on the bench As well, drafting in the NBA produces more of an immediate impact than in MLB. A star NBA player will be a starter within 2 years. In MLB, the minor league system is set up to have a player come out the other side for the majors in about 4 years. Finally, the Mavericks were pretty much a bottom-rung team when Cuban took over. That gave him a good chance to turn the franchise around by "cleaning house". The Rangers were NOT a bottom-rung team when Hicks took over. He had to play with what he was given for a couple of years and never realized they weren't a top-rung team. He figured adding ARod would be enough to "put them over the top". It wasn't (for why, see above). If the Rangers management would simply accept the fact that they need to rebuild, they can probably do so in a decent amount of time. But they'll continue to apply weak band-aids to the team and never truly get better. As for the Cowboys: if Jones doesn't bother Parcells, I think they might recover.
posted by grum@work at 03:40 PM on January 21, 2003
grum, I agree in principle with your assertion that the more players on the field the less any one has an impact. But you have to take into account positions as well. A star pitcher can directly impact 20 to 25 wins a year, and a star quarterback can directly impact 3 or 4 or 5 a year. In basketball the position argument doesn't hold as much water. The problem with the Rangers is that Hicks spent money on a shortstop, who even with unbelieveably gaudy numbers like A-Rod is not enough to overcome poor pitching. The thing Cuban did right is he drafted and put together guys based in part on chemistry, and stayed away from bad seeds. But also he either had some luck or the foresight to see things that others didn't, like who knew how good Steve Nash was going to be? For the record, Don Nelson always maintained Nowitzki would be a star, and he was right.
posted by vito90 at 03:52 PM on January 21, 2003
As a Dallas-ite, it's been amazing to watch how Cuban has turned the team around. Now that he's got a (relatively) set lineup, he is allowing them to grow together.
His willingness to let this group of players mature at their own pace is impressive. When he was tinkering early, the grumbling doubt in Dallas was that he'd never be satisfied. He seems to be relatively calm this year, which is a great sign.
You also must give him praise for surrounding his stars with capable role players. If LA was as willing as Cuban is to pay the luxury tax, how many championships do you think they would have if they were to surround Shaq and Kobe with a handful of decent players?
posted by jmevius at 09:05 AM on January 22, 2003
The link you posted doesn't seem to be working. Here it is. I think what makes him a great owner is that he is a true fan. He has so much enthusiasm towards his team, I am surprised he hasn't suited up in a jersey yet.