Has Free Agents Signings Become Taboo (racial) In Boston-Mike Wilbon

[bringthetruth]

http://celtics.bostonherald.com/celt...format=&page=2
Doc won’t play race card
By Steve Bulpett
Boston Herald Sports Reporter

Friday, July 13, 2007 - Updated: 01:18 AM EST

LAS VEGAS - Doc Rivers does not believe racial issues are a factor in getting players to the Celtics [team stats]. The Celtics coach offered a rebuttal yesterday to comments made by Washington Post columnist Michael Wilbon, comments that came in the wake of declarations by Kevin Garnett and others that they didn’t want to be traded to Boston.

According to Wilbon, the region’s poor racial climate is to blame. And while the veracity of those claims are between Wilbon and his sources, Rivers insists the perception is based on a faulty premise.

“Well, I think that’s the old opinion of Boston,” he said. “You know, it was in Bill Russell’s book years ago, but that’s changed obviously - and it’s good that it’s changing. But sometimes change happens first and the perception (changing) happens second.”

Rivers took exception to the notion that it’s difficult to get players to sign with the club, saying the Celtics, “Haven’t really been in the market of trying to sign free agents, when you think about it. In their glory years they didn’t have to. They already had good players on their team.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion there are two cities in the NBA where Racial Tenions can be a factor with Black NBA Stars not wanting to go there. Those cities are Indiana and Boston.

Reggie Miller for all he did in Indiana , angry fans burned down his Mansion while he was away. Even his sister Cheryl Miller told him to leave after that ordeal.

[Put Back Dunk]

I find it odd that people outside of Boston bring up 'racial tensions' and racism, but the black athletes (and coaches) that actually play here say the exact opposite. I think there's a stigma that Boston is a racist city based on extremely old stereotypes and the actions of previous generations, but today Boston is NOTHING like the picture that Michael Wilbon painted.

Oh, and has anybody stopped to think that maybe poeple don't want to sign with the Celtics because we've sucked? Look at the Red Sox and Patriots; they don't seem to have any problems signing black atheltes because they actually win games.

[Rockets(T-mac)]

Originally Posted by Put Back Dunk

I find it odd that people outside of Boston bring up 'racial tensions' and racism, but the black athletes (and coaches) that actually play here say the exact opposite. I think there's a stigma that Boston is a racist city based on extremely old stereotypes and the actions of previous generations, but today Boston is NOTHING like the picture that Michael Wilbon painted.

Oh, and has anybody stopped to think that maybe poeple don't want to sign with the Celtics because we've sucked? Look at the Red Sox and Patriots; they don't seem to have any problems signing black atheltes because they actually win games.

Great post I agree completely.

Sometimes Wilbon can be big mouth that doesn't think before he speaks, and other times he can actually be knowledgeable.

[Phenith]

I'd like to see Utah try to sign a free agent black superstar...

[bringthetruth]

I am not sure if you guys read the "True Hoop" articles but they seem to always do good stories about these types of subjects.
Harvey Araton on Racial Pandering in the NBA, Then and Now

January 5, 2007 7:39 PM

In the latest SportsMediaGuide interview with a sports columnist, Harvey Araton of The New York Times has fascinating points to make about how the press corps can affect a team's performance on the court, how paranoid the Knicks are these days, and a whole bunch of other stuff that I intended to quote... until I read this take on race pandering in the NBA that I found well worth sharing:

...Red [Auerbach] obviously was instrumental in positive things that happened in the 50s and 60s, with integrating the NBA and naming Bill Russell the first black coach -- and Red never let festering racial issues of the day enter his thinking and never let them affect what he did with his team. I quoted Bob Cousy saying, "Arnold was no civil rights leader -- he was about winning" and pointed out that in his desire to win he would do whatever needed to be done including integrating the team, and that was admirable. So Red had that reputation in the 60s as someone who opened up the league and he deserves all that credit.

Our book also contended that in the 80s the Celtics came to represent something different. What changed was the economics of the sport. When the Celtics never drew at home there wasn't a heckuva lot at stake. But in the 70s when the courts granted free agency to players in baseball and basketball you had to compete financially for players. Suddenly in the 80s the Celtics had to be financially competitive to maintain a level of success in the NBA. The case we made in the book and that I repeated in the column is that the Celtics became the white team in a black sport because of the financial benefits -- it helped them maintain their status and ability to win championships. We had players quoted saying they understood that bench players had to be white -- at the same time the Celtics were not very popular in Boston's black neighborhoods. So in effect we're saying Red wasn't doing it because he harbored racist feelings but that he understood the economics of the sport, and by positioning himself that way it gave him a better chance.

Q. But if Red was pandering to racist attitudes isn't that a racist attitude?

My definition of racist is someone who has contempt -- someone who hates or wants to deprive. I think I pointed out in that column that even Larry Bird was quoted a few years ago saying the NBA would be better off if it had another white superstar like himself. I don't think he meant more by it other than that there is part of the fan base that would prefer to watch white players � somebody they could identify with. I don't think that way myself.

A lot of what you see in the NBA is somewhat pandering to that mentality -- the objections to the image the black players create -- whether it's tattoos or the way they wear their hair. You could accuse David Stern of pandering the last two years with his rules, which come out of his business strategy. That's also part of the Auerbach legacy -- the 80s existed as much as the 60s. The point I was making was that Red gets credit for what he did in the 60s but that pandering should be part of his record as well.

Basketball History, Boston Celtics, League-Wide Issues

[Mr_Basketball#1]

Originally Posted by Rockets(T-mac)

Great post I agree completely.

Sometimes Wilbon can be big mouth that doesn't think before he speaks, and other times he can actually be knowledgeable.

I agree...Wilbon runs off at the mouth similar to Stephen A Smith..