Bill Simmons: Valuing Trades More Than Friendships

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,300
These over under pods are some of my faves. Getting ready to drive home and Simmons has me looking forward to the commute. Shit like this is why I give him an infinite leash. Does the haranguing woke babies get a little old? Sure. It is a small price to pay.
 

ConigliarosPotential

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
FYI, Simmons is on the latest Zach Lowe podcast, talking for an hour-and-a-half about international basketball and other things.

Someone should create a Simmons-style bracket challenge with the best 16 or 32 projects Simmons has been involved with - each of his two books, his two websites (Grantland and The Ringer) specific 30 for 30 docs (and the Andre the Giant doc for HBO) that his fingerprints are all over, individual podcast partnerships, recurring columns (e.g., NBA Draft Diary, NBA Trade Value), and so on - and let everyone vote to determine the best work he's ever produced. It's the sort of thing Simmons himself would have wanted...anyway, I bring it up because for me, Simmons/Lowe podcasts have to be strong Final Four contenders, don't they? You could have quite a podcast bracket on its own, actually, involving the following eight contenders: The Rewatchables, Simmons/Lowe, Simmons/Cousin Sal, Simmons/House, Simmons/Russillo, Simmons/JackO, Simmons/NFL Playoff Previews (including Aaron Schatz et al. back in the day), and maybe Simmons/Jacoby or Simmons/Haralabob. Although dividing the brackets into Podcasts, Documentaries, Writing and Websites/Other - which is the sort of thing Simmons would do - is a bit like forcing the Eastern Conference and Western Conference teams to defeat each other before meeting in the final - which Simmons hates. If the best two things he's done are both podcasts, shouldn't they meet in the Championship Game, not just to go to the Final Four? Tough call...
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
10,018
In another sign of Bill's beef with ESPN now in the rear view, he is hosting PTI with Kornheiser today at 5:30.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,300
Gladwell never has details with his examples or points. He just glosses over shit to make a point. It's fascinating

He is a total bullshitter but I don’t mind a good yarn. He’s a fun guy and I like his writing. It’s brain candy more than a nourishing meal.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
10,018
Gladwell never has details with his examples or points. He just glosses over shit to make a point. It's fascinating
Gladwell is like PHD Bill. The difference is Gladwell will say something like "Here is a strategy Fortune 500 companies are doing that is similar to how NBA teams are building their rosters" and you can have Bill same the thing by swapping out "Fourtne 500 companies" with "Johnny Bananas on The Challenge."
 

allstonite

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2010
1,487
His Nigerian basketball take last time was one of the more inane things I have ever listened to. He’s like Klosterman-lite. He studies human behavior for a living but I don’t feel he has a good grasp on how the world actually works when he talks

This time his Paterno whitewashing was weird and his Kanye take was stupid. But Luckiest is right he’s still a fun listen.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
34,645
Rotten Apple
Pretty funny how they totally butchered the Kanye/Taylor Swift blowup. It had nothing to do with the Grammys, it happened at the MTV VMAs which is even a more meaningless award. None of the members of their peanut gallery chimed in to correct them either.
 

bbc23

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2009
864
I'm shocked nobody has mentioned his Pos level Joe Paterno defense "he probably doesn't even know what the word sodomy means!"
 

allstonite

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2010
1,487
Pretty funny how they totally butchered the Kanye/Taylor Swift blowup. It had nothing to do with the Grammys, it happened at the MTV VMAs which is even a more meaningless award. None of the members of their peanut gallery chimed in to correct them either.
And he butchered why people were mad. It wasn't that they disagreed about the Beyonce album. It's that he stole a 20 year old Taylor Swift's moment and made it about himself

I'm shocked nobody has mentioned his Pos level Joe Paterno defense "he probably doesn't even know what the word sodomy means!"
But he had been a coach for 50 years! All he did was football! How was he supposed to know what a non-football word means!?
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
34,645
Rotten Apple
And he butchered why people were mad. It wasn't that they disagreed about the Beyonce album. It's that he stole a 20 year old Taylor Swift's moment and made it about himself

But he had been a coach for 50 years! All he did was football! How was he supposed to know what a non-football word means!?
Yup, and in the most self-aggrandizing way possible.

And yeah, should the head coach really not be responsible for the actions of the assistant that he hired, on the grounds of the school that he's responsible for and with members of his team that he himself selected? I think most adults understand the difference between consensual horseplay in the showers and sexual assault, no matter what terms are used.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
44,827
The Guardian brilliantly summed up Gladwell in one sentence last week:

"Malcolm Gladwell, whose job it is to be puzzled by banalities and then replace them, after a great pseudo-intellectual circumambulation, with banalities. "

 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,051
The Guardian brilliantly summed up Gladwell in one sentence last week:

"Malcolm Gladwell, whose job it is to be puzzled by banalities and then replace them, after a great pseudo-intellectual circumambulation, with banalities. "

Someone on Deadspin said that Gladwell has made a living off extrapolating the cliche “Practice makes perfect” into an entire book.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
11,347
New York City
Someone on Deadspin said that Gladwell has made a living off extrapolating the cliche “Practice makes perfect” into an entire book.
One reviewer (maybe Steven Pinker?) said he relies on "straw we"--as in "why do we assume that some people are naturally great musicians when it actually takes a lot of practice" and most of us are like "nah, we think that every really good musicians practice a fuckton".
 

allstonite

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2010
1,487
I read something the other day that said if he’s theorizes about a subject you know nothing about you come away thinking “hmm that’s interesting. I can see his point ” But if he touches on something you are familiar with, you can poke holes in his arguments almost immediately. It’s the best description I’ve found for his type of “science”
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
4,000
Gladwell’s version of the idea of giving NBA players a cut the equity in their team as a way to prevent stars from leaving was also a total non-starter. He even used Cleveland as an example, as if star players, now able to receive equity, would ever take Cavs equity when they could get equity in the Lakers or Knicks. It would only increase the draw of big market teams and the desire to get out of an Orlando or New Orleans and go to LA as soon as possible to start accumulating ownership stakes in the much, much more valuable franchises.
 

johnmd20

literally like ebola
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
38,388
New York City
Gladwell’s version of the idea of giving NBA players a cut the equity in their team as a way to prevent stars from leaving was also a total non-starter. He even used Cleveland as an example, as if star players, now able to receive equity, would ever take Cavs equity when they could get equity in the Lakers or Knicks. It would only increase the draw of big market teams and the desire to get out of an Orlando or New Orleans and go to LA as soon as possible to start accumulating ownership stakes in the much, much more valuable franchises.
It's a non starter but not because NY would be more attractive than Cleveland. It's a non starter because it would be utterly insane for an owner to give up ownership to a player. How long could you do that? What if, over 2 decades you give 1% to 35 players?

But if NBA teams were giving out ownership stakes, every team would be an attractive destination. Players would jump over themselves to go anywhere for a piece of the pie and they would be right to do so.

Yeah, no, it's a laughable idea.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,051
It's a non starter but not because NY would be more attractive than Cleveland. It's a non starter because it would be utterly insane for an owner to give up ownership to a player. How long could you do that? What if, over 2 decades you give 1% to 35 players?

But if NBA teams were giving out ownership stakes, every team would be an attractive destination. Players would jump over themselves to go anywhere for a piece of the pie and they would be right to do so.

Yeah, no, it's a laughable idea.
And it's unlikely that an NBA owner would stop at just 1%. Like if LeBron James becomes a free agent, you think that the Knicks would only offer 1%? That would trickle down and if LeBron got 5% let's say, how much is Kawaii Leonard worth? Giannis? And so on. Also, like you said, I assume that the ownership stakes would be in perpetuity, so how if the super stars of the teens and twenties own40-50% of the franchise, how are you going to compensate future stars? And what if a player gets traded? Does he get ownership in his new team? Does he continue to own his former team?

This is a really dumb take by Gladwell. But it's the kind of thing that Simmons loves.
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
And it's unlikely that an NBA owner would stop at just 1%. Like if LeBron James becomes a free agent, you think that the Knicks would only offer 1%? That would trickle down and if LeBron got 5% let's say, how much is Kawaii Leonard worth? Giannis? And so on. Also, like you said, I assume that the ownership stakes would be in perpetuity, so how if the super stars of the teens and twenties own40-50% of the franchise, how are you going to compensate future stars? And what if a player gets traded? Does he get ownership in his new team? Does he continue to own his former team?

This is a really dumb take by Gladwell. But it's the kind of thing that Simmons loves.
Plus Simmons probably knows about the Bobby Orr gets 18.6% of the Bruins story, so he's even likelier than the average bear to go "Yeah, great idea!!".
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
4,000
And it's unlikely that an NBA owner would stop at just 1%. Like if LeBron James becomes a free agent, you think that the Knicks would only offer 1%? That would trickle down and if LeBron got 5% let's say, how much is Kawaii Leonard worth? Giannis? And so on. Also, like you said, I assume that the ownership stakes would be in perpetuity, so how if the super stars of the teens and twenties own40-50% of the franchise, how are you going to compensate future stars? And what if a player gets traded? Does he get ownership in his new team? Does he continue to own his former team?

This is a really dumb take by Gladwell. But it's the kind of thing that Simmons loves.
Well, Gladwell’s version was to impose some kind of hard cap on percentages; the two ideas I recall him throwing out where either a player was eligible to receive 1% ownership per year, or have some total amount (he used an absurd 25% number) between all the team’s starters. Once you’re operating with a hard cap on percentage that a team can allocate, that’s where NY and LA get their huge advantage, since Cleveland or New Orleans can’t match the value per percentage that those big market teams can.

I think he also mentioned that the players get bought out for their ownership at some point (when they left the team? when they retired? not sure), which raises a host of other questions about valuation and liquidity. It’s all such a ludicrous fantasy anyways.
 

orgoman

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2005
101
So, I love listening to Simmons’ podcasts for the most part. His latest on Ryan Russillo’s podcast is great. But then I started listening to Bill’s own podcast with Mallory Rubin, and his takes on Baseball are the worst and most archaic that I have ever heard. It’s not that he’s loud and abrasive in his takes, but he seems offended that people could think any different. And all I can think of is that Bill - at least on the topic of baseball - has turned into Shaughnessy.
 

ElUno20

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,564
You know Beto is like the Simmons of presidential candidates. Or vice versa.

And bill not being able to pronounce Beto after living in LA for over 10 years is a disgrace.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,051
Well, Gladwell’s version was to impose some kind of hard cap on percentages; the two ideas I recall him throwing out where either a player was eligible to receive 1% ownership per year, or have some total amount (he used an absurd 25% number) between all the team’s starters. Once you’re operating with a hard cap on percentage that a team can allocate, that’s where NY and LA get their huge advantage, since Cleveland or New Orleans can’t match the value per percentage that those big market teams can.

I think he also mentioned that the players get bought out for their ownership at some point (when they left the team? when they retired? not sure), which raises a host of other questions about valuation and liquidity. It’s all such a ludicrous fantasy anyways.
I didn't listen to the podcast, so I assumed that there had to be some sort of mechanism for selling ownership once you leave a franchise, but like you said, it's a bit of a ludicrous fantasy.
 

8slim

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
12,737
Unreal America
The Guardian brilliantly summed up Gladwell in one sentence last week:

"Malcolm Gladwell, whose job it is to be puzzled by banalities and then replace them, after a great pseudo-intellectual circumambulation, with banalities. "

I had a long drive last weekend and listened to the audio book of 'Talking to Strangers'. I listen to Gladwell's Revisionist History podcast, and I like him as a storyteller. Of course, the underpinnings of his stories are largely ridiculous, but if you know that going in, he can be entertaining.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
9,727
So, I love listening to Simmons’ podcasts for the most part. His latest on Ryan Russillo’s podcast is great. But then I started listening to Bill’s own podcast with Mallory Rubin, and his takes on Baseball are the worst and most archaic that I have ever heard. It’s not that he’s loud and abrasive in his takes, but he seems offended that people could think any different. And all I can think of is that Bill - at least on the topic of baseball - has turned into Shaughnessy.
His story regarding his time at the Herald was really good. I'm not sure if it was planned in advance, but it fit perfectly into the player empowerment discussion.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
34,645
Rotten Apple
It's absolute peak Simmons to roast local sports talk shithead radio on Wednesday but then turn around on Friday and copy/paste all of those shithead takes for his baseball discussion with Mallory.