Is there anything more fun than sitting around, growing your hair, drinking a Bud while listening to Jethro Tull and pondering how to change the balance of power in the search world and unseat Google ?
Better search ? Too subjective. Better monetization ? After the fact. Better User Interface ? Will we know it when we see it ? A new and different search ? Semantic ? Human powered ? We won't know till we know.
But what about the Google Index, all the websites that are indexed by Google ? What is it worth to be in the Google Index ? What would you, as a website owner require in order to remove your site from the Google Index and no longer be available when someone does a google search ?
It should just be a matter of dollars and cents and sense, shouldn't it ?
How many websites would have to recuse themselves from the Google Index before Google Search was negatively impacted ?
Mahalo.com thinks it needs to support the 25k most common search terms in order to be successful. What would happen if MicroSoft or Yahoo or a MicroHoo went to the 5 top results for the top 25k searches and paid them to leave the Google Index ?
A theoretical maximum of 125k sites, but with overlap, probably closer to 100k or less, times how much per site on average ?
The math starts to get interesting. At $1,000 per site average times 100k sites, thats only $ 1 Billion Dollars. The distribution would obviously favor the larger sites, so of that billion dollars, would the top 1k sites take 500k each and the remaining 99k split the rest ?
Given the stakes, why stop at $ 1 Billion Dollars ? Would the top 1k most visited sites take a cool $1mm each, plus a committment from MicroSoft or Yahoo to drive traffic through their search engines to more than make up for the lost Google Traffic. After all, once consumers realized that Google no longer had valid search results for the top 25k searchs, that traffic would most likely go to MicroSoft and Yahoo.
And why we are at it, why not require that these 100k sites switch from Googles Publisher Network to Yahoo's or MicroSofts ? It would start to earn back the $1 Billion paid out very quickly.
On top of that, in order to grease the skids even further, why not issue advertising credits to the sites that switched off Google ? Its soft dollars, that would sweeten the pot and drive more traffic.
IN essence, its no different that any other content aggregation play. Its paying for content . But, It would take some big ones to go for it and see if it worked. However, without question, every search engine has some number of core sites, that when removed from its index , destabilizes the value of its search.
The question is how many ? What would it cost to get that number of sites to turn Google off and stay off, and would the traffic created as users switch from Google more than compensate for the cost ?
Or would Google recognize the risk and jump in and offer more to websites to stay ?
Sure would be interesting to find out.
Permalink |
Email this |
Linking Blogs |
Comments
Written by Mark Cuban on May 14th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized.
One of our Mozilla Campus Reps came up with the idea last year, and we recently launched the Mozilla “On the Street” interviews project!
With the Firefox 3 release just around the corner, I thought now would be the perfect time to get our Campus Reps out there to: A.) find out what people have to say about Firefox in general, and B.) spread the word about Firefox 3.
It’s a busy time for a lot of our Campus Reps, but we hope to get some great video footage before they take off for the summer. We have students from over 30 countries representing Mozilla at their colleges and universities, so it will be great to see their interviews from cities and campuses around the world!
I think this is a project that we can eventually open up to the entire Mozilla community and provide everyone with the opportunity to be a broadcast reporter for a day. :-) But first, let’s see what our Mozilla Campus Reps can come up with…
Share This
Written by jay on May 14th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized.
Join members of the Internet Explorer team for an Expert Zone chat this Thursday, May 15th at 10.00 PDT/17.00 UTC. These chats are a great opportunity to have your questions answered by members of the IE product team.
If you can’t join us online, all chat transcripts are published here. Allow approximately 7-10 days following a chat for the transcript to go live.
Hope you can join us on Thursday!
Kristen Kibble
Program Manager
Written by ieblog on May 13th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized.
Hi all,
Last week, I blogged about installing Windows XP SP3 and how it affects different versions of Internet Explorer (See my earlier blog post here). Today I will be discussing installing branded/custom versions of IE7 on machines with Windows XP SP3 installed. This post is primarily aimed towards folks who use the Internet Explorer Administration Kit 7 (IEAK7) to create custom IE7 packages, like Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and web developers. If you ever installed the IEAK7, built a custom version of IE7 or distributed a version of IE7 to others, this post is for you.
When installing a branded version of IE7 (like the one you get on a Comcast or Qwest CD when you sign up for their services) on Windows XP SP3 machine for the first time, the IE7 install might fail with the following error:
“Process 'xmllitesetup.exe /quiet /norestart /er /log:C:\WINDOWS' exited with exit code 61681”
The reason is that the IE7 package you are trying to install uses old IE7 files. As you may recall, in October of 2007 we released an IE7 update, which in addition to turning on the menu bar by default and removing WGA validation also addresses the XMLLite issue above.
XMLLite.dll is one of the components that ships with IE7. This DLL is necessary to run IE7, and IE Setup installs this component as part of IE7 installation. XPSP3 contains an updated version of XMLLite.dll, so when you try to install an older version of IE7 on XPSP3 machines, IE Setup fails to install XMLLite since it’s already on your system; hence, you get the error. In the IE7 update, we modified the install logic to only install XMLLite if it’s not already present on the system.
Call To Action
If you produce custom IE7 packages, you need to ensure that those packages will install successfully on Windows XP SP3. You can either try installing IE7 on a Windows XP SP3 system, or for a quick test, you can verify the cache of the IE7 files that were downloaded when generating custom IE7 packages. To verify the cache, on the machine that has the IEAK7 installed, go to C:\Program Files\Microsoft IEAK 7\Download\Win32\<Language>\iebin and search for IESetup.msi or IEBrand.msi.
If those files are not present, then you need to perform the following:
- Download the new IEAK7 available at TechNet.
- Run the new IEAK7 wizard.
- Open the INS file you generated for custom IE7 packages. (You can re-use an existing ins file or create a new one, in which case this step is optional.)
- On the Automatic Version Synchronization screen, click on the Synchronize button. This step downloads the latest IE7 setup files that it will use to generate a new branded package.
- Complete the rest of the wizard, and click Finish.
The new packages will be created in the directory you specified during the beginning of the IEAK Wizard. These new packages will work on XPSP3, so you are ready to distribute them to all your customers.
Thanks,
Jane Maliouta
Program Manager
Written by ieblog on May 12th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized.
Hi, I’m Matt Crowley, Program Manager for Extensibility with Internet Explorer. The team was very excited to be at the RSA security conference last month discussing the security features of Internet Explorer 8 Beta 1. In this, the second part of the IE8 Security blog series, I describe the ActiveX improvements in IE8 and summarize the existing ActiveX-related security features carried over from earlier browser versions.
Per-User (Non-Admin) ActiveX
Running IE8 in Windows Vista, a standard user may install ActiveX controls in their own user profile without requiring administrative privileges. This improvement makes it easier for an organization to realize the full benefit of User Account Control by enabling standard users to install ActiveX controls used in their day-to-day browsing.
If a user happens to install a malicious ActiveX control, the overall system will be unaffected, as the control was installed only under the user’s account. Since installations can be restricted to a user profile, the risk and cost of compromise (and, in turn, the total cost of administering users on a machine) will be lowered significantly.
Per-User ActiveX was designed with compatibility in mind—most existing ActiveX controls will not have to be rewritten to benefit from this feature; the only change will be repackaging. As in Internet Explorer 7, when a webpage attempts to install a control, an Information Bar is displayed to the user.
By clicking on the information bar, users can choose to either install the control machine-wide, or install it only for their own user account. The options in this menu will vary depending on the packaging of the control and the rights of the user.
The available options depend on Group Policy settings for per-user ActiveX installations and whether or not the control has been packaged to allow per-user installation.
While this feature offers the possibility of lowering total cost of ownership, IT Administrators running managed environments may elect to disable this feature via Group Policy. For more information regarding Per-User ActiveX, please refer to the Non-Admin ActiveX Controls article in MSDN’s IE8 Beta 1 Whitepapers.
ActiveX Opt-In
Recognizing that any binary extensibility mechanism increases attack surface, ActiveX Opt-In was introduced with Internet Explorer 7.
By default, ActiveX Opt-In disables most controls on a user's machine. When the user encounters a Web page with a disabled ActiveX control, they will see an Information bar with the following text: "This website wants to run the following add-on "ABC Control" from "XYZ Publisher". If you trust the website and the add-on and want to allow it to run, click here …" The user can then choose to enable the ActiveX control from this Information bar.
ActiveX Opt-In allows some controls to run by default:
- A small list of common controls intended for use in the browser.
- Controls which were used in IE on a user’s machine before upgrading to IE8.
- Controls which are installed through IE.
For more information on ActiveX Opt-In, please refer to the MSDN Article Best Practices for ActiveX.
Per-Site ActiveX
When a user navigates to a Web site containing an ActiveX control, IE8 performs a number of checks, including a determination of where a control is permitted to run. This check is referred to as Per-Site ActiveX, a defense mechanism to help prevent malicious repurposing of controls. If a control is installed, but is not permitted to run on a specific website, an Information Bar appears asking the user whether or not the control should be permitted to run on the current website.
Users can use the Information bar to allow the control for a specific Web site or allow the control for all Web sites.
IT Professionals administering a system of computers running Internet Explorer 8 may choose to preset allowed controls and their associated domains. Such settings can be configured using Group Policy.
For more information regarding Per-Site ActiveX, please refer to the Per-Site ActiveX article in MSDN’s IE8 Beta 1 Whitepapers.
Enforcing Per-Site with ATL SiteLock Technology
If your ActiveX control is designed for use only on your web site, then locking it to the domain of that Web site will make it harder for other sites to repurpose the control in a malicious manner. See Developing Safer ActiveX Controls Using the Sitelock Template for more information.
Reducing Exploit Risk with DEP/NX, “Killbits,” and Servicing
Working with your processor and Windows, IE8 helps reduce the exploitation of vulnerable controls through Data Execution Prevention. See the previous post in this series, IE8 Security Part I: DEP/NX Memory Protection, for more information on how to ensure that your ActiveX controls are DEP/NX compatible, as well as information on how to opt-in to other available protections.
If a vulnerable control has been exploited, IE has included a poison-pill option—the “killbit”— to block usage of specific controls within the browser. Vendors who are aware of a vulnerability in their control should contact Microsoft to setup a killbit for a future software update package. For more information, please refer to Knowledge Base article 240797, How to stop an ActiveX control from running in Internet Explorer.
As with standard desktop software, it is important to keep controls up-to-date to ensure compatibility with newer systems and lower the risk of compromise through evolving security threats. For more information on updating ActiveX controls, please refer to the IE Blog entry Good Practices for ActiveX Updates.
Working with Users through Manage Add-Ons
While most end users aren’t aware of the inner-workings of ActiveX controls or their enterprise policy on them (if applicable), users are able to find out information about the controls installed for use in Internet Explorer through Manage Add-Ons. It is important for developers to ensure that their controls are not only performant and secure, but also open in the information they provide.
Controls are identified by Name, Publisher, Version, and Class ID within the Manage Add-Ons interface. Given this, control developers are encouraged to include this metadata in release builds of their controls.
For more information on making sure that your ActiveX control properly conveys information about itself to users, please refer to Christopher Vaughan’s post Add-on Management Improvements in Internet Explorer 8 as well as the MSDN Article Best Practices for ActiveX.
Thanks for your help in ensuring your ActiveX controls are secure!
Matthew David Crowley
Program Manager
Internet Explorer Extensibility
Written by ieblog on May 7th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized.
Hi.
My name is Jane Maliouta and I am the Deployment PM for IE8. You might remember my recent blog on Installing IE8. Today I am here to tell you about Windows XP SP3 (XPSP3) and how it’ll work with the various released versions of Internet Explorer.
Windows XP SP3 contains some new updates, and a number of bug fixes and security improvements. You can learn more about XPSP3 features by reading the white paper located here. We expect XPSP3 will be publicly available shortly and want you to have this information prior to its final release to the web.
Internet Explorer 6 Users
XPSP3 will continue to ship with IE6 and contains a roll-up of the latest security updates for IE6. If you are still running Internet Explorer 6, then XPSP3 will be offered to you via Windows Update as a high priority update. You can safely install XPSP3 and will have an updated version of IE6 with all your personal preferences, such as home pages and favorites, still intact.
If you are currently running IE7 or IE8 on Windows XP SP2 (XPSP2) and you are thinking of upgrading to XPSP3, read on.
Internet Explorer 7 Users
If you are currently running IE7 on XPSP2, Windows Update will offer you XPSP3 as a high priority update. If you choose to install XPSP3, Internet Explorer 7 will remain on your system after the install is complete. Your preferences will be retained. However, you will no longer be able to uninstall IE7. If you go to Control Panel->Add/Remove Programs, the Remove option will be grayed out.
This behavior is by design and here is why. When we install IE7 on Windows XP SP2, we backup the existing IE6 files in an uninstall directory. Those IE6 files are the ones that shipped on XPSP2 plus all the security updates you’ve installed while using IE6. Windows XP SP3 contains a newer version of the Internet Explorer 6 files. If you have XPSP3 on your system and uninstall IE7, your system would revert to the backed up (older) version of the IE6 files rather than the newer XPSP3 version. You would end up in a mixed file state in Windows where most files would be the upgraded XPSP3, except for the IE6 files restored when uninstalling IE7. This state is not supported and is very bug prone. To ensure a reliable user experience, we prevent this broken state by disabling the ability to uninstall Internet Explorer 7.
If you must uninstall IE7 after you have upgraded to XPSP3, then you have to first uninstall XPSP3, and then uninstall IE7. After this series of uninstalls, you will be reverted back to a XPSP2, and a stable version of IE6, so feel free to upgrade to XPSP3 again.
If you install IE7 after you install XPSP3, then you will be able to uninstall IE7 at any point and be reverted to the newer IE6 version that ships in XPSP3. The restriction on uninstalling only applies to when you install a Windows Service Pack release on top of a standalone IE release.
Keeping this in mind, you might want to uninstall IE7, upgrade to XPSP3 and then install IE7 again so you can uninstall IE7 in the future if need be.
Internet Explorer 8 Beta 1 Users
Installing IE8 Beta1 on Windows XP SP3 is fully supported, so go ahead and upgrade your computers to XPSP3 and then install IE8 Beta 1 to try out our new features. You will be able to uninstall IE8 Beta 1 at any point to revert back to either IE7 or IE6 depending on what you were using before.
However, if you already have IE8 Beta 1 installed on XPSP2, Windows XP SP3 will not be offered to you via Windows Update. This is because after you update your system to XPSP3, you will no longer be able to uninstall IE8 Beta 1 and the Remove option will be grayed out under the Add/Remove programs in Control Panel. The reason is the same as in IE7 case described above. Since people are more likely to uninstall beta software, we strongly recommend uninstalling IE8 Beta 1 prior to upgrading to Windows XP SP3 to eliminate any deployment issues and install IE8 Beta 1 after XPSP3 is on your machine.
Thanks,
Jane Maliouta
Program Manager
Written by ieblog on May 6th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized.
Craig Moffett of Bernstein Research wrote an amazing report entitled And Now for the News...The Emperor Has No Clothes". If you can get a copy, read it. Starting with the disappointing but expected news that journalism is no longer a service consumers desire to pay for, he moves on to the problems facing Internet video. He does a far better job than I ever did explaining the failings of Internet video and the expectation of free content. This is the report I wish I had blogged.
From the report:
Ironically, we are headed down the same self-destructive road for other kinds of traditional media,as well. Five years into the video-over-the-Internet revolution, we have learned two things. First; consumers won't pay for content on the web, so it will have to be ad supported. And second; it won't be ad supported.
In the cable TV network world, half of all revenues come from affiliate (carriage) fees paid by the Comcasts and
DirecTVs of the world. The other half comes from advertising. But in the TV world, a typical half hour show supports an ad load of about 8 minutes.
On the web, early evidence suggests that consumers will tune out - click away - if they are forced to watch more than 30 seconds or so of advertising up front, and maybe another 90 seconds of advertising over the next thirty minutes. Hulu.com, for example, which has already been lionized by many as the future of TV, serves two minutes of advertising for every 22 minutes of programming(i.e. the programming duration of a typical half hour show from television). Assuming identical CPMs for web video and TV, and after accounting for lost affiliate fees, a 30 minute program on the web with two minutes of advertising yields approximately 1/8th as much revenue per viewer.
Are content producers prepared to reduce production costs...by 88%? In fact, the actual economics of web-based video are far, far worse than this. Our 88% decline ignores the corrosive impact of à la carte on traditional video economics. In the public debate in Washington, the phrase à la carte refers to the idea that a few strong networks demand the carriage of a host of weaker ones, effectively subsidizing a much larger family of channels.(From MC: This is something HDNet vehemently opposes and is working towards ending) But there's a much more important aspect of web-based àla carte that is rarely mentioned-that is, the "à la carting" of the few best shows from the rest of the day's schedule. Or even worse, of the best few moments (news stories?) from the rest of the show. On the web, watching SportsCenter not only robs ESPN of its ability to pull through carriage fees for ESPN Classic and ESPN U (and SoapNet and Toon Disney), it also, and much more importantly, robs ESPN of its ability to use SportsCenter to support the economics of the rest of the 24-hour ESPN schedule. And watching just the best 30 seconds of SportsCenter robs ESPN of its ability to support the economics of... well, you get the idea.
Expecting a few ad supported shortclips on the web to substitute for the affiliate fee revenues lost by multiple networks 24 hours a day is lunacy. "
Great job Craig.
The concept he defines as the "ala carting" of the best from the rest is the web video consumers favorite feature, but it's also the biggest risk to professional video content producers everywhere. On the Internet, the producers of the most popular content don't have the promotional platforms that traditional media does. There are no lead ins for Internet shows. So there is 100 pct uncertainty as to how many people will watch any given video. For those videos that do become popular, much of the popularity is viral, limiting the producers ability to monetize the escalation in popularity.
The Darwinian response to this problem has been to serialize shows. The hope is that if a viewer liked a show, they will come back for more. Which of course means they are copying traditional TV's approach to content presentation and absorbing all of the same problems. The constant need to refresh a show is not only difficult, its expensive. The constant need to promote the show to stand out in an ala carte universe of an unlimited number of shows is even more difficult than it is expensive.
So where does this leave independent video content on the Internet ? Right in the hands of Google and Youtube and black and white hat SEOs.
The ala carting of video on the net will benefit those who enable the search for content and can monetize that search.
The economics of supporting content will force independently produced Internet content to be dumbed down to levels that create a perfect match for Youtube. There will be SEOs that come up with arbitrage solutions that will drive traffic to parked videos. Content creators will partner with SEOs and create budgets that reflect the CPMs they can earn in and around the video hosted on Youtube against the costs of the SEO driving traffic to the video. SEO support will be the only even marginally effective way to create baseline traffic to a video/show. Who could have guessed that creating financially succesful video on the net would require the same marketing skills as driving traffic to parked domains ?
Content created by and for TV networks will have to make some important decisions. Why wouldn't advertisers want to be one of only 2 minutes of ads in a 30 minute TV show rather than one of 8 mins of ads on traditional TV ? Will they pay correspondingly larger CPMs to be online ?
Are TV networks making a huge mistake by putting their current TV schedules online for free ? If a streamed TV show only has 2 mins of commercials, will that drive some viewers to prefer watching online ? Will it force networks to reduce their TV show ad load ? If so, by how much ? Particularly if and when over the top video enables Internet video to be presented right on TVs. Will shows be forced to introduce different versions of shows, say with different ratings as a means of differentiating TV from streamed shows ? The R rated version of Friday Night Lights online and the PG version on TV ?
Bottom line is that something has got to give. Business as usual is not going to cut it. The question is whether the dollars the big TV and media companies are creating online from the streaming of their current TV lineups are sustainable incremental dollars ?
Or is streaming the video a collateralized video obligation ? The video equivalent of the collateralized debt behind the sub prime mess. Money that looks good while its coming in, but could lead to far, far bigger problems ?Permalink |
Email this |
Linking Blogs |
Comments
Written by Mark Cuban on May 5th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized.
There is no worse feeling in sports than being eliminated in the playoffs. It's an exclamation point on a disappointing season. Like everyone else, I try to look back and see what we did right and wrong and look forward to see where we stand for the upcoming and future seasons.
We made mistakes, no question. We took the start of the regular season for granted. The entire staff wanted to avoid another meltdown like we had against Golden State, so we started off the season with a willingness to experiment. We wanted to try different combinations of players to see what worked and didn't work, thinking we would still win games, but that we could evaluate players and let them try new things. Unfortunately, we didn't win as many games as we thought we should. To make matters worse, we lost games we thought we should have won easily, particularly on the road.
When we didn't win those games, we put more pressure on ourselves and tried even more lineups. We just couldn't find the right combination of players that allowed us to click. We used 556 lineup combinations. (by comparison, the Lakers used 313, the Suns 231).
One of my favorite history books from High School was
Why Men Rebel, its point is that the further a person's reality diverges from their expectations, the more likely there are to be cultural problems. Which is exactly what started to happen to the Mavs. Everyone had their own solution to the problems. Some were voiced, some were internalized. Some were ignored. All made it harder for everyone to get on the same page.
You could see how these issues manifested themselves in games as well. We track pct of possessions that were stopped on both sides of the ball. In the 1st quarter, the Mavs were the most unstoppable team in the league. We scored on 55pct of our possessions. By the 3rd quarter, we were 16Th, dropping to 50pct, before improving some in the 4Th. On defense ,it was the same kind of thing. We got stops 51pct of the time in the 1st quarter,(4Th in league) dropping down to 47pct of the time in the 4Th (24Th in league).
We thought we would get on a roll at some point, but that point never came. The disparity between our home and road record really drove home the point that we needed some level of change. That without it, things could possibly get better, or they could get worse. But there was no denying the amount of pressure and tension that was being felt by players, coaches, management and fans. We all stayed optimistic, but we all had an element of doubt as well.
When we got to the trade deadline, the entire organization realized that we weren't "just going to turn it around". We needed a spark.
In discussing trades, Avery and Donnie take the role of determining which trades can help the team. Its my job to manage the financial and long term impact. No trade is done unless we all agree we should do it. We all have veto power.
We had the opportunity to make a trade with the Clippers, but contrary to reports, we turned that down immediately. There were a lot of preliminary discussions with different teams, but nothing really seemed to take hold. Even the discussions with New Jersey didn't get very far initially.
One thing about making trades, as Nelly told me early on, 99pct of them that you think might happen, never happen. Here is what does happen. GMs get on the phone and talk and talk and talk. But rarely is the GM actually empowered to make a trade. So they play the game of "having to go back to their owners". I would tell Donnie all the time, "You have the authority to say yes, when they get to the point of commitment". When we thought things would get close, we would get the "Now I have to get my owners permission". Its almost comical how unable some GMs are to pull the trigger in the NBA. Its a game they all agree to play. They pretend they have authority, until its go time. I have never seen so much time wasted in my life. i feel sorry for Donnie having to deal with all that nonsense.
So back to the trade deadline. We went back and forth about whether or not we should trade Devin. We knew he was a good point guard, with the potential to be amazing. What we didn't know was how long that would take. On one hand, we didn't have enough confidence in him to let him call his own plays, but on the other, he is a one man fast break, his shooting was improving by the minute, he is a good defender and his potential was undeniable. In Jason Kidd, we felt we would get a player that would make ti easier for Dirk, Josh, Jet to get open shots. That Avery would no longer have to scream to push the ball, that JK was the best in the business at pushing the ball in the open court. Plus, our rebounding had suffered this year vs last, JKidd is a great rebounder and the presses that had caused us problems, would no longer be a problem.
None of the other guys in the initial versions of trade were playing much at the time, other than Stack.
It wasn't an easy call. Between AJ, Donnie and I, we would change our minds by the minute. I don't think there is any doubt that the pressure and closeness of the Western Conference race had something to do with our decision making process. In my mind, this season was becoming analogous to the most agonizing season I had been through, the 04-05 season. We were having the same home vs road record delta, multiple players asking to be traded and even more internal tension about our lack of consistent performance than we had in 04-05.
But the current year wasn't really my personal deciding factor. Looking at our future cap structure was. In doing a deal for JKidd, we created a situation where Devin, Mo Ager, Hass and what we would have paid Ghana would no longer be on our cap. Which put us in a position for the future that I looked at as follows:
2008-9 We have a full training camp with a very motivated JKidd, the rest of our starters back, an improving Nasty Bassty (had to get that in there :), plus anyone we can add. We all thought (and still do), we would have a very strong nucleus to build around. We would also have a 1st round pick.
2009-10 Depending on how the previous season went, we would have several last year contracts available, the option of potentially having some cap room, and other options to improve the team. With the much lower potential salaries, not only could we use cap room if we went that direction to enable roster flexibility, we could also buy a pick. (there are almost always teams willing to sell a pick in the 20s for 3mm dollars)
2010-11 In this year we only have 2 fully guaranteed contracts and in 2011-12 We dint have any fully guaranteed contracts. So the options are endless in both years. Plus , its in one of these years that the new CBA comes up. With so little committed, depending on how hard a line the owners take, things could get very, very inter sting. Having so little contractually committed could be a great place to be when other teams look to dump salaries to avoid the risks of a lockout.
So with the changes, while we lost a great player in Devin, we felt like we were picking up someone who could spark the team and add energy on the court. At best, we re energized, at worst, it doesn't help, but we have improved the roster flexibility for the future and improved our opportunity to re invent ourselves, just as we had after the 04 05 season. And as far as the draft picks, there is no question there is risk there, but in the NBA, there is always the option to buy low first round draft picks, so we weren't as concerned there.
So from my my viewpoint, we accelerated salaries, which wasn't cheap, and in exchange, got a player that our basketball people thought could energize and help us.
The only thing remaining to be done was to actually execute the trade. About this time, the theme song to the Benny Hill Show comes to mind. I can't go into all the details, but there should be a rule in the NBA that any trade that is offered is considered a binding contract and the team is required to stick to it. This thing went from 2 teams to 3 teams to maybe 4, back to 3, back to 2 with players changing, players talking, players that wanted to be traded being told by their agents not to approve the trade, players who wanted to be traded excited to be part of the deal, then being worried that they we rent in the deal. it was crazy. There were many times I thought it was dead. But it finally got done.
Do I think we might the right deal, you never know till you know, but I know I would make the same deal again. i also know what I learned from Nash leaving. As great an offensive coach as Nellie is, Nash wasn't playing at MVP levels with us. A change of scenery and coaches and system, some payback motivation and he became a very, very deserving 2 time MVP.
My hope, is that with the changes that have taken place with our Mavs, we will see the same effect with JKidd this coming year, and that will lead to another great year and another and a Mavs championship along the way. If it doesn't work, we hopefully have limited our downside
And one last word on something. I have never, ever raised my voice to any coach or player on this team. Ever. I've been screamed at. which I have no problem with. I have no problem with someone venting at me or to me, even about me. In fact, if its necessary, I prefer it be to me. Its a sign of passion. In fact
i wrote a blog post about it 4 years agoIts going to be a fun summer, Go Mavs !
And BTW, here is hoping for a Stars vs Pens Stanley Cup !
Permalink |
Email this |
Linking Blogs |
Comments
Written by Mark Cuban on May 2nd, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized.
As promised, we’ll continue to highlight some of the incredibly cool and useful Firefox 3 features you can expect to see. Today’s installment on Firefox 3’s new bookmarking system is brought to you once again by Deb Richardson, the author of the about:mozilla newsletter. Deb provides a clear explanation of the many improvements you’ll see, including:
- bookmark stars which allow for one-click bookmarking
- tags that allow you to add extra relevant information to a bookmark so it’s easier to find and organize
- smart bookmark folders or “saved searches” that automatically update when you add new items matching that search to your bookmarks
Firefox 3’s bookmark dialog box
Take a look at her post for more details, as well as a great how-to. I’ve found that I am using Firefox 3’s bookmarking with renewed gusto thanks to the little star and intuitive organization and search!
Share This
Written by mary on April 29th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized.
For all of you who missed it, which is pretty much everyone, FIBA, the international basketball body modified many of their rules to parallel those of the NBA. Here is an overview:
"BEIJING - International basketball is going to look more like the NBA after two major rule changes take effect.
The three-point line will move back and the three-second area will change shape starting in 2010, the sport's world governing body announced Saturday.
After Oct. 1, 2010, FIBA will begin using the new rules for major events such as the Olympics and world and continental championships.
The three-point line will move from 20 feet, 6.1 inches to 22 feet, 1.7 inches. The NBA line is 23-9.
FIBA general secretary Patrick Baumann said it was likely FIBA would move toward the NBA distance in the next 10 years.
FIBA also will reconfigure the three-second area to match the NBA shape, going from a trapezoid to a rectangle. "
The only major disparity that won't change is that there will be no "cylinder" above the rim as there is in the NBA. The current FIBA rules will stay in place.
This is important news for several reasons:
1. Maybe with American kids growing up playing and practicing by rules that closely mirror NBA and college rules, we can use younger, amateur players rather than having NBA owners pay for the salaries of players so that GE can make millions of dollars and show a couple games on CNBC at midnight. Do I sound bitter here ? I of course am. Nothing dumber. The Olympics is not about national pride, its about billions of dollars. Ok, off that soap box.
2. If the rules are close enough, it creates the remote, but still possible opportunity for international officials to become NBA officials. That would expand the talent pool by thousands , which is a good thing.
3. What I am guessing is the real reason behind the change is that it makes it easier to franchise the NBA brand of basketball internationally and for American basketball fans to get understand it and get behind it. That is a good idea. (I'm all for international use of NBA players when we get paid for our players to participate. It's that old American capitalistic concept of I Pay, You Pay)
4. It creates an additional development league for the NBA. If players who are too young for the NBA want to earn a living playing basketball, they can go to Europe, prove themselves, get paid and learn the game in an environment comparable to the NBA. That again is a good thing.
4.
Permalink |
Email this |
Linking Blogs |
Comments
Written by Mark Cuban on April 27th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized.
« Older articles
No newer articles
