Michael Jordan Documentary.

[Stakesarehigh]

Converse and Adidas both told him that they didn't have the budget to give him his own shoe line. He had gone to them first.

Converse said they already had all of these other stars (Bird, etc.)

Nike also said they hoped to sell $3 M in shoes over 4 years.

They sold $126 M in the first year.

Nike underestimated Jordan too.

I'll rewatch the segment to confirm what the reasons were for Converse and Adidas declining him.

So I'm not sure if Adidas and Converse would have been the alternate Nike, because they didn't want to give Jordan his own shoe line. They only wanted to promote him in groups, and have regular basketball shoes.

Adidas had done well giving other non basketball stars their own shoe line. But again, they decided they didn't have room for Michael.

I am not sure that basketball was more popular than tennis in 1984. The NBA Playoffs were on tape delay through 1986.

Meanwhile, John McEnroe was big in the 1980s, as was Chris Evert. American tennis was successful in the 80s through some point in the 90s.

There were also less TV options available than now, and tennis wasn't competing with so many choices now.

I don't know how to tell what sports were popular for a particular year or decade in the 80s.

I just don't know if basketball was as popular until after Jordan's first few years in the league.

Jordan is not the reason the NBA gained in popularity

That was Bird/Magic and it's not even a debate.

 

[PhoenixEagles1]

I remember people used to say Jordan was so good you couldn’t have a team with him.
I remember buying Jordan 1’s and it wasn’t about winning it was about how he dunked.

 

[nuraman00]

I remember people used to say Jordan was so good you couldn’t have a team with him.
I remember buying Jordan 1’s and it wasn’t about winning it was about how he dunked.

I never said that though.

 

[PhoenixEagles1]

I never said that though.

I wasn’t accusing you of saying it brother.

 

[nuraman00]

Jud Buechler was on the radio.

* He said after episode 3, he texted Kerr and asked "Kukoc was on our team, right?"

He was surprised at how little he had been mentioned so far.

He was then disappointed that the only context in which they mentioned him, was through the 1992 Olympics.

He said Pippen and Jordan weren't playing against Kukoc, they were really playing against Krause.

He talked about what a great player Kukoc was, and how skilled he was.

He also talked about how Kukoc would later say that Pippen made him an even better player, by going hard at him.

He said that shows how much better Kukoc had even gotten, because for him to say that about Pippen, someone who didn't initially embrace him, was big.

Kukoc says here he wishes Krause could have told his side, for the documentary:

https://www.essentiallysports.com/nba-news-toni-kukoc-urges-fans-not-to-read-too-much-into-the-portrayal-of-the-chicago-bulls-gm-in-the-last-dance/

* Buechler also talked about how Rodman might have invented load management. Buechler gives credit to Jackson, who knew what Rodman needed at that time.

* Buechler also mentions that by the end of 1993, some of the fame and celebrity was wearing on Jordan.

* Buechler also mentions that after 1998, only 3 players were under contract. So they knew it would be hard to bring everyone back, going into that last season.

 

[nuraman00]

I watched the 30 for 30 on Sonny Vaccaro, called "Sole Man".

As well as the 30 for 30 on Jordan playing baseball, called "Jordan Rides The Bus".

I'll add my comments about those, in here.

* Nike wanted to get into the NBA in 1984. Their idea was to endorse 3 members from the 1984 draft class: Olajuwon, Barkley, and Stockton.

Sonny Vaccaro said that Nike should combine the budget for those 3 players, and put it all in Jordan.

Vaccaro was also the one that pitched the idea of Jordan having his own shoe line. I had thought that Jordan was seeking his own shoe line. But it wasn't like that. Nike, with Vaccaro, were the ones that pitched the shoe line idea, and that's what made the difference in getting Jordan.

Also in that documentary, after Nike fired Vaccaro, he joined Adidas. He got Kobe Bryant, and then McGrady.

He used a trick he had seen Jerry West use, when scouting Bryant (before others knew about Bryant). After seeing Bryant work out for 10 minutes, he called off the workout so no one else could evaluate him anymore. He knew Bryant was the guy.

Vaccaro also helped spread a rumor that if the Nets selected Bryant, then that Bryant would play in Italy. The rumor was that he didn't want to play geographically close to home in Philadelphia.

So the Nets passed.

I've always known that other teams wanted Bryant too, but were manipulated into not drafting him. Either through rumors like this, or Bryant's camp saying that he wouldn't sign with them.

That's why I don't give West as much credit, because other teams wanted him too. They were just scared off that he would hold out or sign elsewhere overseas in Italy. It's not like today, where contracts are set via a rookie scale, and there is only minor negotiating. Players don't hold out anymore. Even players that were rumored to be reluctant (whether it was true or not), such as when Yi Jianlian was drafted by Milwaukee, or when Ricky Rubio was drafted by Minnesota, they came over right away.

Vaccaro then pursued LeBron James in 2003. He promised him a $100M contract with Adidas. However, the actual contract that was sent over was for $10M, with $7M guaranteed. Nike offered $90M. So Adidas lost. They didn't believe in James enough.

* Michael Jordan's father, James Jordan, had stopped his car during a 3.5 hour drive.

The autopsy report said he was "groggy, legally drunk".

Why isn't there more info about this? This changes the whole perception about the murder.

How did he get drunk? What was his Blood Alcohol Level? What did he take? Beer, wine, spirits?

Was it possible he was forced alcohol by his murderers, as a part of a coverup?

I'm surprised the media didn't follow up on this. And attend the trial. There are so many questions about why and how he was murdered. There should be more theories, or evidence, that helps clear this up. Or at least provides some information, that can be open to interpretation.

If this were an athlete, and not an athlete's father, there would have been a lot more investigation on this.

* Jordan was tired of the negative media attention on his gambling, from the 1993 playoffs.

* IMO, he needed a break. And he wanted to reconnect with his father in a way. So playing baseball made sense. His dad had wanted him to play baseball, and had mentioned it after the 1991 championship.

As we would see later, he again took a break in 1998, and then came back in 2001. So it kind of makes sense, that at certain points in his life, he's tired of either the fame, or the grind, or the Bulls management, or all of it, and just wants a break.

* Terry Francona managed Jordan??? That is pretty cool, given what we would later see Francona do as a manager in the MLB.

* His hitting coach makes a point, in kind of a throwaway line, that I've been making all along.

His hitting coach said that they had to work on a whole new stance, "because Jordan had never really hit before. He was a pitcher in high school".

That's exactly the point/question I've been asking. Why did Jordan want to be a hitter, when he was a pitcher in high school? And he was a better pitcher in high school than hitter. He threw 45 consecutive innings in high school. He also had a shutout in another big game.

So either he should have been a pitcher for the Barons, or been a two-way player that included pitching.

It's like no one asks this question, but it's the most obvious unanswered question to ask. How can people write these books and documentaries about his baseball career, and not have a further investigation into this?

* Jordan struggled with breaking pitches early on. Eventually, he figured out which ones to swing at, and which ones to lay off.

* As the season progressed, he looked much better.

* A Sports Illustrated writer wrote an article during spring training. It was then edited to make it sound like Jordan should quit during spring training.

That writer later saw Jordan over summer, and said he looked like a completely different player. He said he looked like a real baseball player now. He could use different parts of the field, a little bit.

The writer then wrote an article on how he was wrong, and that Jordan looked good, and that something special was happening. SI didn't want to print the article, and stayed with the stance from spring training, that Jordan should quit.

That was disappointing, that the media narrative was controlled.

* The hitters didn't resent Jordan, because they didn't think he was taking the spot of someone who deserved to be there.

They also liked all of the attention Jordan brought, because if more scouts came to see him, then those same scouts could watch them too.

* The pitchers resented Jordan, and went after him.

* Francona says that if Jordan had another 1000 ABs, based on how much improvement he had made mid-season, then he would have liked to see where he could have gone. Both Francona, and the hitting coach, said his work ethic on improving is what helped him make so many strides.

The hitting coach said he would go in the batting cage 5 times a day, including after games.

* Jordan did like that aspect of being able to really work at something, and get better. He hadn't been in this situation since high school.

* I also think that the media attention was at the right level for him. None of that negative stuff from his last 1993 NBA season, and this was more about a curiosity about how he was doing, on a day by day basis, with this sport.

* Jordan stopped baseball because he felt too much pressure to get involved in the MLB strike. And to get involved politically, with the sport.

That kind of makes sense, because he returned to the NBA several weeks before the MLB strike ended in 1995. So he probably saw that this strike was still going on, and even though it didn't affect minor leaguers directly, because he was Michael Jordan, more was expected of him as a face, politically. Minor leaguers wanted him to be a replacement player in the MLB, and he didn't want to do that.

* Back to the topic of James Jordan's death, maybe the murder happened because of Michael's gambling issue. As a threat to him.

However, I don't think Stern was involved. The NBA either doesn't get involved in issues where there isn't an official legal case. Or, if there is an actual verdict against a player, they suspend that player.

Also, you can't keep a secret in the NBA for this long. If Stern had "suspended" Jordan, then it would be known. Think of all the other stuff that we know about some players. There's always a leak.

Sometimes I hear comments that a player says, and it annoys me not what they said, but the fact that it got out. There are some things that even if they're not great comments, they should just stay private. The public doesn't need to know everything these athletes say. But stuff gets out.

Plus, one of Jordan's teammates would have talked by now. Especially the ones that didn't like him, such as perhaps Longely.

Also, with all of the media attention surrounding Jordan, someone would have found official proof. Either they would have seen a meeting with Stern, or something. There's always a trail.

Think about all of the books that talk about the Bulls, such as Rodman or Phil Jackson's books. Nothing mentioned there.

Or, Jordan would have come out by now. I don't think he's the type to have hidden something, for this long.

Tim Duncan or Kawhi Leonard, more likely they can hide some things. Jordan, with all of the attention on him, combined with his desire for the spotlight? No.

So, in summary, I think Jordan needed a break. He wanted to play baseball as a way of reconnecting with his father, as well as taking on a new challenge. The spotlight was more favorable on a day to day basis, even if he was also made fun of at first. It wasn't as negative as it was the prior few years. It was just a different spotlight. Making fun of him at a sport isn't as bad as attacking his personal life, with gambling.

He did like that feeling of going back to his roots and working at something to get better.

He improved over summer and fall. He might have kept playing, but the political pressure from his minor league peers about the strike, and taking a stand, was something he didn't want to deal with. He's never been much of an ambassador type for his sport, not like some stars in some sports.

So he went back to basketball.

Open questions are more about the circumstances surrounding his father's death. Was it an organized crime type of murder? Or did James Jordan get drunk on his own?

His murderers were teenagers, so it's less likely they had a lot of power, being so young.

Also, if they were hired from gambling related criminals, they would probably want someone more reliable and proven and someone that could make clean work.

http://graphics.chicagotribune.com/james-jordan-murder/index.html

So did they just see a stopped car, and think it was an opportunity?

One of the murderers, Demery, admitted he's a drug mule.

And both murderers, Demery and Green, had done armed robbery together prior to this.

So did two people that are normally involved with drug crimes, just get involved in mistaken identity? Did they see a stopped car and think they could steal it?

People that are more involved with drugs like this, seem less likely to also be gambling hitmen.

And why did Jordan not pitch?

 

[nuraman00]

@MHSL82, for the info associating with Stockton, above. (Not David, but John).

 

[MHSL82]

@MHSL82, for the info associating with Stockton, above. (Not David, but John).

If they thought one of the three players from 1984 should be Stockton, Nike really didn’t know what they were doing. Stockton is not big on advertising, he’s an athlete, but not someone who will brag about athletic skills being better from a shoe, etc.

 

[nuraman00]

If they thought one of the three players from 1984 should be Stockton, Nike really didn’t know what they were doing. Stockton is not big on advertising, he’s an athlete, but not someone who will brag about athletic skills being better from a shoe, etc.

It wasn't really about personality. As you can see with their decision to initially pick Hakeem too.

Barkley would have fulfilled the "personality" requirement. They liked Barkley because he was "fun".

Olajuwon and Stockton, IMO, more for the skills.

There has to be a reason why they were going to target Stockton, and it was probably just for being a good player.

 

[nuraman00]

"Legalize Kemp".

I just got that one!

 

[MHSL82]

It wasn't really about personality. As you can see with their decision to initially pick Hakeem too.

Barkley would have fulfilled the "personality" requirement. They liked Barkley because he was "fun".

Olajuwon and Stockton, IMO, more for the skills.

There has to be a reason why they were going to target Stockton, and it was probably just for being a good player.

Well, there’s always a price. If you could sign Stockton to a dollar contract, obviously that would be great. If you had to sign Stockton up for 100 million, it wouldn’t, so there’s always a price. So finding somewhere in the middle would be a breaking point. But you wouldn’t get the return of a superstar. Skills wise, you know what I think about Stockton, and I do think that some people out there know, but it’s not a market thing.

 

[nuraman00]

The $90-$100M that was given to Jordan, would have been split between Olajuwon, Barkley, and Stockton.

That's what the original plan was, before Sonny Vaccaro said to combine the budget for all 3 and put it for Jordan.

So they probably would have been happy at the return they got for $33.3 M on Stockton.

They weren't going to give him his own shoe line either.

Jordan was the only one they did that for.

So with reduced promotions, and reduced costs, among the 3 players, they would have had reduced expectations.

This was their first venture into the NBA, so it made sense to target rookies, and players that could grow with them.

In a way, it would have shown a greater presence in the NBA, by having 3 players represent and promote Nike. More opportunities, in a way. (Before taking into account the difference in popularity which would arise with Jordan).

Wow, Stockton apparently wore the tennis shoe Andre Agassi Air Zoom Challenge, during his playing career:

10 Great Athletes Who Never Were Given Their Own Signature Line of Kicks

In 1995, he was wearing the Nike Air Up Mid:

Today in Performance Sneaker History: John Stockton Sets NBA Assists Record

In 1998, Jacque Vaughn wore the Converse React 12, and Stockton wore the Nike Air Props 12.5.

I know you don't want to know what that reigning MVP guy wore.

Sole men

 

[nuraman00]

Skills wise, you know what I think about Stockton, and I do think that some people out there know,

It's not just you, or an amount equivalent to "some people".

 

[MHSL82]

The $90-$100M that was given to Jordan, would have been split between Olajuwon, Barkley, and Stockton.

That's what the original plan was, before Sonny Vaccaro said to combine the budget for all 3 and put it for Jordan.

So they probably would have been happy at the return they got for $33.3 M on Stockton.

They weren't going to give him his own shoe line either.

Jordan was the only one they did that for.

So with reduced promotions, and reduced costs, among the 3 players, they would have had reduced expectations.

This was their first venture into the NBA, so it made sense to target rookies, and players that could grow with them.

In a way, it would have shown a greater presence in the NBA, by having 3 players represent and promote Nike. More opportunities, in a way. (Before taking into account the difference in popularity which would arise with Jordan).

Wow, Stockton apparently wore the tennis shoe Andre Agassi Air Zoom Challenge, during his playing career:

10 Great Athletes Who Never Were Given Their Own Signature Line of Kicks

In 1995, he was wearing the Nike Air Up Mid:

Today in Performance Sneaker History: John Stockton Sets NBA Assists Record

In 1998, Jacque Vaughn wore the Converse React 12, and Stockton wore the Nike Air Props 12.5.

I know you don't want to know what that reigning MVP guy wore.

Sole men

I almost specifically said that my hundred million was a random number for illustration purposes. I know it wouldn’t have been his line of shoes, I just thought that there could be somebody else that would further their line that was 33.3 million or whatever, I can see them getting over that, just not more than another player. Choosing rookies is good. Olajuwon, Barkley, and Jordan? That’s when the agent would come in.

I’m looking over the 84 class, the only other person with the same Bowie. Kevin Willis played for 20 something years but I wouldn’t choose him either. They are ready have one center in Olajuwon.

 

[nuraman00]

I almost specifically said that my hundred million was a random number for illustration purposes. I know it wouldn’t have been his line of shoes, I just thought that there could be somebody else that would further their line that was 33.3 million or whatever, I can see them getting over that, just not more than another player.

Oh. I thought you said $100M, because that's what Jordan got.

Oh, looking at it closely, it was actually $500M PER YEAR. I thought it was $500M total over 5 years.

Michael Jordan Still Boasts The Richest Shoe Deal In The NBA, Earning $193M This Year


So I guess that would be $166.667M if they split it between 3 players instead of giving it to Jordan.

Choosing rookies is good. Olajuwon, Barkley, and Jordan? That’s when the agent would come in.

I’m looking over the 84 class, the only other person with the same Bowie. Kevin Willis played for 20 something years but I wouldn’t choose him either. They are ready have one center in Olajuwon.

Maybe they could have done Olajuwon, Barkley, and Bowie instead of Olajwon, Barkley, and Stockton. Big men were more important at that time anyways.

But looking back at it, I think diversifying and having one guard, as well as the hindsight of how Bowie vs. Stockton's careers would go, I think going with Stockton was the better choice.

Plus, part of the appeal of anyone that follows rookies is watching them grow and get better. So not coming out strong out of the gates wouldn't be a detriment.

I'm just thinking that if someone is just getting into the NBA, and sees Nike promoting 3 rookies, then it will create some interest in the draft class. And as the season progresses, people would want to track their progress.

I could definitely see all 3 of them featured on some magazine print ads, or commercials. So I just think that rookie draft class bond is pretty cool.

I remember following several rookies together both in 1996, and 2004. In 2004, it was Josh Childress, Josh Smith, and Andre Iguodala that interested me the most, as the season progressed.

So if this had been 1984, I would have seen 3 different players, from different backgrounds, and that would have been pretty cool.

Hey look, Stockton had 4 steals, 11 assists, in 33 minutes in his first two games combined! What a great start to his career!

I also remember when TJ Ford had a triple double in his first game of his career. That peaked my interest.

Steve Nash was one of those rookies for me in 1996. I kept thinking that he should be starting soon, because he looked so good off the bench.

The personalities aren't as important. I just like the idea of picking a few rookies and following them.

So Nike could have influenced me in 1984 and told me which 3 rookies to track, and I would have done it.

 

[nuraman00]

So Stockton would have been what Steve Nash was in 1996. Except that Stockton also played for the Jazz, so it would have been even more fun.

Hey, this sports clothing company is picking a Jazz rookie to feature!

 

[MHSL82]

Oh. I thought you said $100M, because that's what Jordan got.

Oh, looking at it closely, it was actually $500M PER YEAR. I thought it was $500M total over 5 years.

Michael Jordan Still Boasts The Richest Shoe Deal In The NBA, Earning $193M This Year


So I guess that would be $166.667M if they split it between 3 players instead of giving it to Jordan.



Maybe they could have done Olajuwon, Barkley, and Bowie instead of Olajwon, Barkley, and Stockton. Big men were more important at that time anyways.

But looking back at it, I think diversifying and having one guard, as well as the hindsight of how Bowie vs. Stockton's careers would go, I think going with Stockton was the better choice.

Plus, part of the appeal of anyone that follows rookies is watching them grow and get better. So not coming out strong out of the gates wouldn't be a detriment.

I'm just thinking that if someone is just getting into the NBA, and sees Nike promoting 3 rookies, then it will create some interest in the draft class. And as the season progresses, people would want to track their progress.

I could definitely see all 3 of them featured on some magazine print ads, or commercials. So I just think that rookie draft class bond is pretty cool.

I remember following several rookies together both in 1996, and 2004. In 2004, it was Josh Childress, Josh Smith, and Andre Iguodala that interested me the most, as the season progressed.

So if this had been 1984, I would have seen 3 different players, from different backgrounds, and that would have been pretty cool.

Hey look, Stockton had 4 steals, 11 assists, in 33 minutes in his first two games combined! What a great start to his career!

I also remember when TJ Ford had a triple double in his first game of his career. That peaked my interest.

Steve Nash was one of those rookies for me in 1996. I kept thinking that he should be starting soon, because he looked so good off the bench.

The personalities aren't as important. I just like the idea of picking a few rookies and following them.

So Nike could have influenced me in 1984 and told me which 3 rookies to track, and I would have done it.

I feel that if they picked Bowie, they would have to go with Jordan over Stockton. Not just because of basketball only but by taking the first two and then someone later seems like you are intentionally snubbing Jordan. I can’t imagine choosing Olajuwon, Bowie, and Stockton. Jordan uses everything I think he maxed out anyway, but it would seem real stupid to let converse or Adidas have Jordan, at least in hindsight.

It’s different if his agent makes him refuse to be one of three. I’m just talking about choosing two of the first three draft picks and not Jordan.

 

[nuraman00]

Ok, I see what you mean about snubbing Jordan.

They just didn't think they had the budget for other players, if they wanted Jordan.

That's why their initial list didn't include him.

So it was either 1 player vs. 3.

So $500M for 1 player or $500M for 3.

Actually, I don't even think they were as convinced about Jordan in the first place. It was only until after Sonny Vacarro told them that Jordan was going to be really good, that they decided to pursue him. When they showed footage of the meetings, Jordan was just another player to them, they didn't see him as being much better than anyone else.

Converse and Adidas had already passed. Converse, because they already had a lot of other stars. Johnson and Bird.

Adidas passed because he wasn't a center. They were happy with how things were going with Abdul-Jabbar, so they wanted to pursue the strategy of going after centers.

He had already tried with meetings with Converse and Adidas. So it was time to move on.

After that, either Nike was an option for Jordan, or Jordan would have tried other brands.

Seeing as how big men were more valued at the time, it wouldn't have surprised me if they had gone with 3 bigs, substituting Bowie for Stockton. Or, maybe that was just Adidas, and Nike wasn't as opposed to a guard.

We don't know what their selection criteria was for selecting Olajuwon, Barkley, and Stockton. Well actually, there was a clip which explained why they liked Barkley. They said he was "fun".

And I do remember that they said they liked how Stockton came from a good program in Gonzaga. So I think that helped them pick Stockton.

Back to your comment about how if they picked Bowie, it would seem like they were intentionally snubbing Jordan. I think they would have been fine with that. The prevailing notion at the time was that bigs were better. Same reasoning Portland used when they drafted Bowie.

The only thing guards had going for them, was that shorter players were more relatable to consumers than taller players.

But in terms of winning, the best players were still bigs. So if Nike also thought the same way Adidas thought, and Portland thought, then going with 3 bigs would have seemed "smart", as bigs were more valuable at the time.

 

[nuraman00]

Jordan uses everything I think he maxed out anyway

I wasn't sure what this part of your sentence meant.

 

[nuraman00]

When I was following the 1996 draft class, Iverson and Nash were the players I quickly tracked.

Iverson, because it was rare for a guard to be drafted # 1.

Nash, because he seemed good and under the radar.

In much the same way, if I had taken the same approach with 1984, and Nike was pitching Olajuwon, Barkley, and Stockton, I would have had my one more known player, in Olajuwon, and one lesser known player that seemed intriguing, with Stockton.

When I was picking people to follow in 2004, I picked Josh Smith as a lesser known high school player; Iguodala because he was a two-way player and could pass; and Childress as someone that came from a more well known school.

So when I pick rookies to follow, I try to pick guys from different backgrounds, with different amounts of attention.