McLean, Va.: Mr. Leahy,

An excellent article. If one of Jordan's major goals had really been to instill a winning attitude on the team, it appears he would have conducted himself differently.

Some of Jordan's friends, along with Carolina alums, naturally take the position he was used or otherwise mistreated. but is that a league-wide sentiment? Or are there a lot of crocodile tears being shed?

Michael Leahy: We have a lot of questions, so I'll skip the long hello and get to it. There is no out-of-bounds line today, so let's go.

Aside from Larry Brown and a few other intense Jordan loyalists, most people in or close to the league seem at once to feel somewhat sad for Michael Jordan, but at the same time understand why this happened in significant part: that he had gotten on the wrong side of Abe Pollin, that he had completely misunderstood office politics and the need to convey, if not exude, respect and loyalty. No, I don't think there are many crocodile tears being shed. I think, even in the last days leading up to Pollin's decision, that people who sensed that Jordan would be essentially dismissed still felt a tad shaken by it, the way you do with a big storm that you know is coming. It hits and you sensed it was going to hit, but it still leaves you feeling like your world has been strangely altered.

________________________________________________

Maui, Hawaii: I thought the story was so revealing about the true Jordan. I never read anything else this season in your newspaper or anywhere else as revealing about Jordan. I was surprised at how bluntly Jordan would dis people and how the words "being a caring person" would never be associated with Jordan. Anyway my question: Was there anything about Jordan's dismissal that struck you as evidence that he received a raw deal from Abe Pollin? Your article made clear that Jordan seemed to have no idea about how poor interpersonal relationships in an office setting could jeopardize his job as an executive. Was he just out-to-lunch? Deluded?

Michael Leahy: You're asking in part for an opinion here. Instead of an opinion, let me provide you with some perspective about the obligations all of us face in a workplace. We need to show respect to our colleagues and, in the real world, especially to superiors. A 16-year-old working at a fast food restaurant could tell you that, as well as a prestigious partner in a law firm who still must take an occasional marching order from a managing partner. Who DOESN'T understand that? When Michael Jordan, while still an executive, would dream aloud about a scenario that would put him at the helm of the Chicago Bulls and talk about how he would break the news to his Washington partners by saying: "I would sit down with Ted, all my guys... and Abe, IF HE STILL PART OF THE SITUATION..." -- When you're talking about the owner as if he might be out the door before you make a big move that raises questions about your office judgment, if nothing else. It was that kind of lack of sensitivity to office politics that raised questions about Jordan's tin ear long before the 2003 controversy. It didn't help that people close to Jordan made clear their frustration that Pollin had impeded them from making big moves. The reason Jordan never learned office politics in the past was that he never had been required to learn them. People paid fealty to him, not vice versa. He never learned what that kid at 16 learns.

________________________________________________

Corpus Christi, Tex.: Just a comment: This piece may be one of the best written this year in The Washington Post. It is up there with some of the best magazine pieces written during the year in The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Atlantic Monthly, Esquire and Harpers. A fine bit of writing, detailed yet readable. It deserves the best phrase one can say about journalistic writing, "It seems eloquent, fair and foremost -- it rings true."

David D. Robbins
Sports copy-editor
The Corpus Christi Caller-Times

Michael Leahy: Many thanks for the kind comment. And Texas newspapers must be busy today, waiting for word from Jeff Van Gundy on whether he'll get the Houston job or look toward the Wizards. You can see I've been thinking basketball too much this morning.

________________________________________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: Congratulations, Michael, on a stunning story. Just for starters, your description of the Jordan-Collins relationship was so human and eye-popping and kind of heartbreaking -- it explained so so much. I voraciously read your Jordan stories last year and waited to see something else from you on the subject this season -- and waited and waited. I'd given up altogether when I read this treasure in the magazine. I feel like I understandter what it all meant now, all the nonsense, the craziness. Your wonderful writing and your eye and your analysis are as good as sportswriting gets. Three questions -- What does it say about Jordan's chances for the future as an executive in somebody's organization if he only hires coaches he can play like a puppet? Could you also say what your next sports story will be about, and if you ever think about doing a book on basketball or Jordan? Thanks again, it was an amazing story.

Michael Leahy: Your comment and questions get at a critical point. Jordan did enjoy extraordinary leverage in his relationship with Collins. No NBA player in history has held more sway over a coach than Jordan held over Collins. It affected everything -- strategy, personnel decisions, the decision to set up rather than fast break more, Jordan's minutes, etc. At the time Collins was hired in 2001, nobody was banging down the doors to get his services. Jordan chose him in significant part because Jordan understood he could work with Collins -- "work with" meaning that Collins would forever be deferential in their relationship. I think you raise a great question when you allude to people's concerns about Michael Jordan playing any potential coach like a "puppet." You did hear criticism, on background, from other executives and officials around the league about Jordan's willingness ever to consent to the hiring of a coach who wouldn't be a yes-man to him. It does sound like a potential stumbling block, and certainly a question that other owners, perhaps looking to hire him, would naturally pose given what happened in Washington.

Regarding a next sports story. I'm a writer for the Magazine who does articles, I suppose, about everything from politics to a disease. Somewhere in between, I had the good fortune to be able to do this story, to step back a little and take a broader look at Jordan and the basketball culture that sprung him.

________________________________________________

Arlington, Va.: Great Article.
It seems that journbalists who write about Jordan fall into two camps - those who adore him and protect him, and those that report honestly. Jordan seems to broker access based on this. Thoughts?

Michael Leahy: What can I say other than that I believe you are exactly right, and that you win the day's prize for precision of thought.

________________________________________________

Virginia: Great article! It seemed balanced and fair and had a great deal of point of views (probably not Jordan's but I suspect he would not participate directly). But why just pick on Rashad? I mean, if anyone was any tighter with MJ, it would have to be Michael Wilbon (hear no evil and see no evil re: Jordan). Sometimes it seems that Jordan communicates through others very much like the Wizard of Oz (as in "The Great God Oz has Spoken!). Did Wilbon participate with your article?

Michael Leahy: Thank you very much for the nice comment. Let me address your questions, which have been posed in roughly the same manner by at least a dozen other readers in this chat (My apologies in advance for not being able to address every question today; there are a lot of them on a variety of subjects).

Now to your questions which I think are good ones and entirely appropriate. No, neither Michael Wilbon nor anyone else in the Sports department had a thing to do with any of my articles about Michael Jordan. I think its fair to say that, from the beginning of Jordan's comeback, Michael Wilbon and I have had strikingly different attitudes about Jordan and his performance off-the-court as well as on-the-court. That's probably enough said about our differences.

But on the subject of conflicting viewpoints at a newspaper: I think it's extraordinarily healthy that a newspaper has an array of perspectives, voices, styles. I feel lucky to be a part of a publication so receptive to healthy conflict.

________________________________________________

Atlanta, Ga.: Great story. Michael's image is to me a cross between "everyday good guy/basketball god." In your article he seems very removed from "everyday folks." Why, in your opinion, has the marketing of this aspect of him been so sucessful? He is after all a proven philanderer and gambler. Why does he get a pass when so many others who have done as much if not less don't get a pass?

Michael Leahy: Re: your question about why people have generally looked past his missteps...

The Why probably lies in an understanding of professional basketball, particularly the NBA's symbiotic relationship both with the media honchos entrusted to scrutinize it, and the many corporations for whom professional sports serve as a conduit for advertising and therefore an economic life line. Inside that business, Jordan long ago became a cottage industry off whom quite a few people made too much money to report about with candor. He was routinely marketed as the personification of an ethic, a strategy that has yielded billions in aggregate for a shoe company and assorted media companies, and produced stories and books that too often have read like Valentines. I did not want to be a part of the homagefest.

________________________________________________

Alexandria, Va.: I loved your article. As far as the situation between MJ and Abe Pollin goes...
I see where MJ engaged in some behaviors Pollin didn't like, and which were made known to you and others.

But....Pollin knew whom HE was hiring, and what I didn't read was any attempt on his or Susan O'Malley's part to make the relationship work. It seems like Pollin did indeed treat MJ as a commodity to be used to fill seats and then be thrown away. And it's sounding to me like these negatives are a PR excuse, told people outside the organization, with a view to what media stories might eventually be written.

I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist, but it sure smells to me like something close to a no-win situation for MJ from the start, unless he could be miraculously expected to act the way Pollin expected him to.

Michael Leahy: This is a fascinating question, one for which we don't yet have an answer and likely won't until Abe Pollin is more open about the reasons behind his move. But a fabulous point to raise...

________________________________________________

Baltimore, Md.: I'm not a big follower of basketball or Michael Jordan. Just wanted to let you know I loved your story, read it start to finish almost in spite of myself, pulled along by the magnitude of the tale and the writer's skill. Your name on the story got me, it was probably the only reason I started reading. I read your story about Alzheimers and your mother and father and was blown away by the power and beauty of it. My best to your mom and my prayers. Did you do any of this new story, the researching, when you were doing the story on your mom? If so, how difficult was it to divide your attention? Did writing about Alzheimers change your view of things like sports?

Michael Leahy: Thanks for the incredibly kind thoughts, which I'll pass along to my father and the rest of my family. No, it was not hard to divide my attention. It was kind of a blessing.

________________________________________________

Arlington, Va.: Mr. Leahy: Wanted to send along my admiration for your superb, elegantly written story in the magazine on Michael Jordan. I am not a basketball fan, nor someone who worships athletes, but I do savor history well told. I don't think I've read a better treatment in an American newspaper of sports history or a more fascinating portrait of an athlete than your Sunday article. Beautifully told. I appreciated the fairness with which, amid his many flaws, you told of Jordan's occasional beauty on the court. Could you discuss what you think Jordan's rise and fall harbingers for athletic gods of the future? Will we be more leery? Why does the culture avoid the examination that you've delivered here?

Michael Leahy: Thanks Mr. Non-Basketball Fan for your exceedingly kind words. Your question about leeriness is a great one. Yes, I think that's a real possibility -- that in this new century we will take a more realistic look at athletic heroes and that such a changing perspective will be for the good.

________________________________________________

Palo Alto, Calif.: Your story rocked. Glad someone wrote about things as they really were. Could you venture a guess as to where Jordan will end up? What's next for Collins, do you think? Thanks.

Michael Leahy: There are all the rumors -- a possible move to acquire ownership of the Milwaukee Bucks; the possibility of a club presidency and a slice of ownership in Charlotte; rumors, rumors, rumors... Sometimes people don't ACQUIRE something so much as they LAND somewhere. I think he'll land somewhere eventually. I think he needs to land somewhere eventually. People who know him well can't see him playing golf or hitting a casino for too long. So yes, I think we'll see him back.

As for Doug Collins, who was a terrific television basketball analyst, I wouldn't be surprised to see him on some network down the road.

I think our time is over, unfortunately. I'm sorry I couldn't get to the scores of other questions, so many of which made great points. Thanks to everyone for so carefully reading the story and I look forward to more chats in the future.

________________________________________________

Automatically Update Page    |   Get New Responses   |   Submit Question