A Private Audience with the King

The WWOD? Interview with King Kaufman, sportswriter and leader of the new school.

Having majored in English, it was probably Laura Miller's literary criticism that first caused me to bookmark Salon.com while I was in college. Then it was probably the (mostly) liberal content that kept me sporadically coming back while my United Students Against Sweatshops phase was in full bloom. Ultimately, though, it was discovering the sports content that made a daily visitor to that space for a decade.

The author of most Salon's sportswriting was a columnist with the regal sobriquet King Kaufman. He was articulate, well-read, versatile and progressive. And his caricature had tattoo. Once it became apparent that he was willing, and able, to cover international soccer without the condescension that was de rigueur for virtually every other domestic columnist, well, then I was hooked. His "Sports Daily" became as much a part of my routine as tooth brushing.

While print columnists were still reading tobacco spit Rorschachs and writing paeans to the brave men lining their pockets with our ticket money, Kaufman embraced sabermetrics and demanded that sports fans consumers be given the best product available, even if that meant breaking tradition. Like another Internet sports columnist gaining popularity at the same time, Kaufman provided a fan's eye view of sports. The King, perhaps appropriately, lacked the common touch that became the Sports Guy's oeuvre, but this ultimately was his strength. King wasn't merely the everyfan, rather he represented the best– or, at least, better-case fan, one who was sober, intellectually curious and possessing a sense of fair play that superseded his desire to see his team win. Most important, his insights were actually insightful in all of the ways that most of us aspire to be when we are pontificating to half-listening friends in a crowded bar while watching the NCAA Tournament or while waiting on line for the men's room at our tax-dollar built local stadium. He didn't necessarily write as the everyfan, but he advocated on behalf of the everyfan, and in the years before Fire Joe Morgan, Awful Announcing and Deadspin he was really the only one.

Not that long ago, I learned that the King had been brought aboard at upstart open-source network Bleacher Report as the manager of writer development. To put it mildly, I was surprised and intrigued by the news, as BR's reputation was more or less antithetical to everything that King had accomplished at Salon. I assumed that he must be bringing some sort of missionary zeal to a place that is largely viewed as a leper colony by other writers on the Interwebs. Rather than just assume, I sent him an email and asked. Exceedingly gracious and gregarious, the King was kind enough to talk about his recent career move and various other sporting topics.

WWOD: Your resume sort of reads like a Modern History of Sportswriting in America, how did you go from print boxing writer to columnist at pioneering online liberal political affairs magazine?

King Kaufman: You make it sound so sprawling. It wasn't exactly Jack London going straight from covering the “Great White Hope” fight to a gig at Deadspin. The leap wasn't as big as it might sound. Salon was founded by David Talbot, who left his job as the arts/style editor of the San Francisco Examiner to do it. I was a copy editor on the arts/style desk, the last in a long series of jobs I had at the paper, some in sports, some not. Talbot took some Examiner people with him, not including me.

But we stayed in touch. I left the paper shortly after he did, at the start of 1996, for a job at a different dot-com, now long forgotten and with good reason. That dot-com eventually moved into the same building as Salon, the China Basin Building, that skyscraper on its side that's across Third Street from AT&T Park, though AT&T Park wasn't there yet. I used to park my car roughly where home plate is — for three bucks a day! Run, kids! Grandpa's tellin' stories of the old days!

Anyway, David and my former Examiner mates and I — Gary Kamiya, Mignon Khargie, Scott Rosenberg and Andrew Ross — still talked. We'd run into each other on campus, as it were, and when layoffs were on the horizon at the dot-com where I worked, I literally walked about a quarter mile down that enormous hallway to Salon and asked David for a job. He hired me as Salon's first copy editor. I was the copy chief. The chief of me.

WWOD: Once you began your daily column, did you have any marching orders from your editors at Salon? Any guiding principle that you established for yourself?

King: I had no marching orders. For the first few years at Salon I was an editor, though everyone wrote sometimes, including me. I wrote about sports and other things. For a while in 1999 or so I tried a daily sports column but it wasn't very good because I didn't have enough time to devote to it. I became a full-time writer in 2000 or '01, writing about all sorts of things, including sports.

During the 2002 Winter Olympics I wrote just about that, and it got a great response, including a fan letter from Berkeley Breathed, the great cartoonist, which I thought was really cool. So David called me up and said, "How about writing about sports all the time." I actually hesitated at first, for some reason, but when David said, "You don't have to write about golf," I went for it.

That was the extent of my marching orders. I didn't have to write about golf. I think I wrote about golf four times in seven years. Once defending Tiger Woods when someone criticized him for not speaking up about social issues, once about the controversy over letting women in to Augusta — though those two might have been one piece — and I think I might have written something about Annika Sorenstam playing with men and Michelle Wie being so young.

I had complete freedom. The guiding principle I established for myself after a while was that this was a conversation. Blogs existed in 2002 but they weren't nearly so dominant as a format and, while it seems hard to believe now, Salon did not have comments at the end of its stories. We had an old-fashioned, curated, letters to the editor column.

But I got e-mails. Lots of them. And I answered every single one. I used to say that the conversation in my in box was way better than my columns. I began lobbying then at Salon for us to print every letter that came in, which we finally did in the form of comments years later. But I quickly realized that what I was doing was not a one-way street, or a pronouncement from on high. It was a conversation with my readers. That's now a mainstream blogging point of view, but it wasn't then.

I also came to think of the over-arching theme of my column as "what it's like to be a sports fan." I was writing from the point of view of a fan, or a better way to put it would be the point of view of a sports consumer, because fandom for any one team was not the view. An informed consumer who sometimes — though often not — had more access than the average, but still a consumer, a fan. My joking tagline for the column was: "Like talking to the guy on the next barstool, if the guy on the next barstool were pretty smart and not drunk." It was a joke but I meant it.

Sometimes what it's like to be a sports fan is all about "Did you see last night's game?" Sometimes it's wrestling with the ethical issues around watching college sports given that massive corruption is not just present, but a necessary component of the system.

That fan point of view is why I wrote a lot of what is essentially media criticism. Because most sports fans consume most sports not by attending live events, but by watching, listening, reading and — I was deficient in covering this — playing video games.

WWOD: What's the most dramatic sporting event that you've covered in person?

King: I'll tell you the first thing that popped into my mind. I was covering baseball for my college newspaper, the Daily Californian. It was a mid-week non-conference game between Cal and Cal State San Luis Obispo. The game didn't mean much of anything, but it was just one of those epic games. High-scoring, see-saw, extra innings, and all of this on a nasty, cold, stormy day — outlined against a blue gray October sky, if you will, only there was no blue. There were intermittent, pretty severe hail storms, which is pretty unusual in the Bay Area.

So SLO wins in extra innings on a double by some guy, and I'll never forget his postgame quote. I asked him what was going through his mind in the key at-bat. He said, "It's cold, it's dark, I'm tired, there's snow on the field, I got a midterm tomorrow. I just wanted to get a hit and get us outta here."

It was an early lesson in narrative and story line and drama. How we're interpreting all of that is not necessarily how it's happening on the field. And that's not a bad thing. It really was a dramatic game, for me, and my story reflected that. Being young and all, I may have referenced the Toccata and Fugue in D minor. But to the players on the field, it was all about, dang, it's cold out here.

WWOD: In your opinion, what's the most inspired analysis you've delivered from afar?

King: I'm not sure how much inspired analysis I've ever delivered. Common sense, which is not so common, well thought out and well written. I aspire to that and I'm happy when I achieve it.

The two things that I think resonated most with readers in the years I had the column at Salon were my insight, illustrated through the “Panel o' Experts,” that experts are not necessarily any smarter about sports than average fans, and my pleas, my cris de couer, to the television networks to, for the love of everything decent and kind in the universe, show us the damn ball, or wherever the action is, rather than indulging their artistic side with creative camera angles that make other TV people go ooh and ah and leave the rest of us going, "Where's the damn ball?!"

WWOD: Did you ever have to explain the Neifi Index to Neifi?

King: No. I tried to reach him for a chapter I wrote about him in the book Top of the Order, but his career was over by that time and I failed.

WWOD: At Salon you wrote a blog called “The Future of Journalism.” Well?

King: I co-wrote it for most of the time it existed with Katharine Mieszkowski, who's twice the journalist I am on my best day. She's at the Bay Citizen now.

I got interested in the subject when Salon dropped my column and offered me a job as an editor, which, in the midst of the crash, I was happy to take. I'd had my nose in my own work for about eight years, so when I looked around me for the first time in a long time, I was amazed at the revolution that was going on. I'd been vaguely aware, but hadn't really paid attention.

It was kind of like when I was first introduced to sabermetrics. I couldn't get enough. I was, and am still, fascinated by the possibilities, by the pace of change, by the problems and issues that have arisen and the various ideas people have to deal with them. And, frankly, as with sabermetrics, I became fascinated by the willful ignorance and inflated self-regard of the old guard as it raged against clear reality with increasingly unhinged arguments.

If by "Well?" you mean what's the future of journalism, I get to paraphrase my favorite line from Mark Twain: I'm gratified to be able to answer promptly. I don't know.

These are chaotic, revolutionary times and I don't think too many people are able to see too far into the future. Naught will change but mutability for a while. That's like the fourth high-falutin' reference in this interview. I ate my Wheaties today.

But I will say I remain, as I was when I was working on that blog in the summer of 2009, an optimist. I believe that society has certain needs — information, watchdogs on our institutions, analysis of yesterday's game and so on — and that our society is pretty good at finding ways to fill needs like those. The ignorant, uneducated, bigoted people who were running around two centuries ago figured it out. I think we can too.

One thing that will help is to be clear about what we're talking about. Whenever you hear someone talking about how we need to save journalism, chances are you can replace the word "journalism" with "my paying job." And while I feel for anyone who loses any job, I'd feel a lot worse about losing the important watchdog role that newspapers and other old-guard media play if they actually did a little of it once in a while.

WWOD: Why Bleacher Report?

King: Bleacher Report recruited me. They approached me about this job, we talked about it, I liked what they had to say, liked the people I met, and we were able to strike a deal.

What I like about Bleacher Report is it's a startup, so it has that startup energy, though I've come on a couple of years into the process. So it's not brand-new startup energy, but it's still got a new, fresh, exciting vibe to it. I really enjoyed that about the early days of Salon, and had come to miss it there as it inevitably dissipated over the years.

I also like that it's doing something new, and it's smart and nimble and willing to experiment. I can't emphasize enough how smart the people at Bleacher Report are, and how smart I think it is as a company. It's not known for real smart content. That's one of the things I was brought in to change. But it's a really smart company, and obviously I think that someday soon it will be known as the home of smart content as at least part of what it offers.

I feel like I'm on the front lines of what I used to call, in the blog, Future of Journalism world. Not that Bleacher Report is the Future of Journalism. I don't think that. But I think the model it's using is one small piece in that puzzle.

WWOD: How has the reception been at BR? From the writers that you are attempting to mentor? And from your friends and peers?

The reception has been great, and kind of surprising in some ways. When we first announced that I was hiring on, I thought I was going to get roasted as, I don't know, a sellout or something, sacrificing my standards to go to work at this horrible evil content farm that strangles puppies or whatever. Because that seemed to be the attitude toward Bleacher Report of a lot of people I knew — or "knew," in that online, virtual-only sense.

But it wasn't like that. It caused a little ripple in the circles I move in, but it wasn't negative at all. It was raised eyebrows, certainly, but the reaction was more like: "This is interesting. I'm eager to see how this plays out." Several people said, or tweeted, that they were going to have to give Bleacher Report another look, which is great. All we can ever ask of people is to judge us based on what we're doing now, not based on what you saw in the past.

Within Bleacher Report, of course my co-workers in the office were very welcoming, which I expected. But I didn't know what the reaction from the writer community would be. I was coming in under the banner of "This guy's going to improve the quality of the writing." And right away I set to work on a couple of tasks, creating educational materials and directly critiquing some of Bleacher Report's top writers. I thought I might get a reaction like "Who's this guy to tell me? I've got a million page views. I'm doing just fine, thank you very much."

I haven't gotten a whiff of that. The writers mostly seem to be interested in what I have to say and grateful to have the feedback. A lot of them are eager, hungry to improve their writing. They say things like "Fire away, I can take it. I just want to get better at this and make my living at it."

Now, some people don't say anything, and for all I know every one of them is thinking, "Who's this guy to tell me? I've got a million page views. I'm doing just fine, thank you very much." But nobody has said that.

WWOD: Who is your top upset pick in the NCAA tournament?

King: Northern Colorado, my new favorite 15-seed. Coach B.J. Hill wrote a Guest Column for Bleacher Report — our first — about life as a potential Cinderella, which is to say life as an underdog. It was really good. My California Golden Bears aren't in the tournament, again, so I'm hoping to bandwagon on to the Northern Colorado Bears all the way to the Final Four.

Now, being a realist, and knowing that that game is tipping off mere hours after I send this to you, I'll tell you that in my bracket, the lowest seeds I have going the farthest are St. Johns and Georgetown, both No. 6's that I have going to the Sweet 16 — and that that is based on absolutely nothing. My NCAA Tournament brackets are always based on a pretty solid foundation of ignorance, but this year more than ever.

The WWOD? Interview: Alan Hahn

Also Known As, Part 1 of the WWOD? Second-Half Preview Spectacular

The concept of the "interview" is most commonly thought of as it pertains to job applications. In those cases, the person being interviewed is looking to prove something to the questioner. Going way back to way-back times in history that we've mostly learned about in school books and in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, there is the Socratic manner of questioning. Which isn't really interviewing at all. It's more like asking a series of questions in order to get someone to agree with you. It's equal parts educational and manipulative. This is a large part of my strategy when playing Risk. A more recent formulation of the interview was postulated by Andy Warhol's Interview magazine, which was a celebrity-obsessed mag that focused on fashion and art. And, occasionally, Burt Reynolds.

The WWOD? Interview is like none of these things. Perhaps it's best described as an inversion of the job interview, in which the questioner worked for Warhol and was interviewing Socrates. By posing questions to someone more knowledgeable and better credentialed than me, I hope to learn things that I do not know and gain insight into those things that remain murky to my lesser intellect.

In the first installment of The WWOD? Interview (which is also the first installment of the multi-part preview of the second half the Knicks 2008-2009 season which will be rolling out through the next few days), I've been lucky enough to have one of the NBA's top beat writers agree to read through a terribly overwrought line of questioning and provide a few insightful answers. Alan Hahn covers the New York Knickerbockers beat for Newsday and has been one of the best at wedding beat reporting and blogging. His blog, The Knicks Fix, is a daily stop for any die-hard Knicks fan with a desk job. Hahn formerly covered the Islanders and took over the Knicks beat in 2006. Aside from having the X's and the O's down cold and being un-beholden to any particular players (and not overly concerned with which of his colleagues/competitors is beholden to particular players), Hahn has really set himself apart from the pack with his level-headed and mathematically sound understanding of all the ins and outs facing the Knicks as 2010 looms. He takes his work deadly serious but also seems to keep his topic in perspective, mixing in humor and going easy on the fire and brimstone that characterizes much of the coverage that we've grown accustomed to in and around New York City. He probably is also kind to the elderly and a good tipper.

So, I sent Mr. Hahn (left) ten rambling questions over the weekend. He sent back ten cogent answers. If it were up to me I'd have kept at him until he our exchanges were less cordial. I'd have kept picking his brain about hoops until a restraining order was at least mentioned casually. But, I didn't. Because Hahn seems to be a genuinely nice guy and someone who I would love to keep on friendly terms with.

When James Lipton and the fine folks at The Actors Studio wanted to begin an interview series in 1994 they aimed high when booking their first guess. They brought in Paul Newman, since the man who played the titular role in Cool Hand Luke and breathed life into Butch Cassidy and Reg Dunlop represented the height of the acting craft. Well, Alan Hahn is WWOD?'s Paul Newman. Please give him your undivided attention.

WWOD?: Before we open up the playbook and get into the first half (and then some) of the Knicks 2008-2009 season, I'd like to get to know a bit more about our guest. So far, we've figured out that you're quite tall by layperson standards, that you previously covered the Strong Islanders of the NHL before landing the Knicks beat and that you (perhaps along with Peter Abraham of The Journal News) have best grasped the relationship between beat reporting and blogging. How did you end up on the Knicks beat? Was this a destination you had in mind when you embarked on your career as a journalist?

Alan Hahn: Thanks for pointing out my freakishly abnormality, though I feel so normal at 6'6" when I'm in an NBA locker room. Then again, I'm 6'6" with a college basketball background and yet I'm holding a tape recorder instead of a ball or a clipboard. Which is kind of depressing. So, again, thanks for pointing that out....Turning more serious, I have to say from the perspective of what I expected out of life as a 12 year old, I've accomplished two dreams I had, which was to cover the Islanders and Knicks, which were my two favorite teams growing up as a sports fan. I was quite happy covering the Isles and could have stayed there for another 10 years (unless the franchise moved to Kansas City...then forget it). I had always followed the Knicks with some interest and the NHL lockout allowed me some time around the team as a backup and sidebar writer. My editor approached me in 2006 about making a change and said he wouldn't take no for an answer. It was a tough transition, but also fun for me because I already had so much of the team in my blood from a historical point of view. I still miss hockey, but I also felt a little bit like coming home when I got back to basketball.

WWOD?: Your employer is Newsday, which from afar seems to offer both advantages and disadvantages when it comes to covering the Knicks. It must be mentioned that both your paper and the team you cover fall under the purview of a certain member of a band called JD & the Straight Shot. I'm going to guess that you'd inform me that both Dolan-helmed companies are a pleasure to be around if I were to ask. So, I'm not even going to ask that question. Moving on, has the fact that Newsday has a smaller print presence in the Big Apple and its non-LI environs been an impetus in building up (and being permitted to do so by your editors) such a robust web presence? Or was The Knicks Fix blog something that just came to you naturally?

AH: Please refer to him as "Mr. Dolan" henceforth. And to be very honest, I have not experienced anything -- anything -- that would suggest I have any reason to benefit or be concerned about being owned by the same parent company as the team I cover. I know on the surface it is natural to wonder or speculate so I understand the question. Anyway...I think we do a great job with our web content, arguably the best among the NY-based newspapers. I don't think our location on Long Island was the motivation to go big on the web...it is the direction we believe our business is headed and we, I like to think, are at the forefront. We set a precedent that you might notice the other NY tabs have followed. All of the beats have a blog. The Knicks Fix evolved from there and continues to evolve as I try to provide what I think the Fixers want and what the blog should be. It's fun and, sometimes, a great release.

WWOD?: Between the various distractions under the previous management junta and the incessant discussion of the Summer of 2010 since Donnie Walsh took the reins of the franchise it seems as if at least half the story with these Knicks has been off the court in the past few seasons (probably going back to that stillborn run at the playoffs in 2006—07). Has this been a hindrance to covering the club or has it actually helped, insofar as there is endless fodder for discussion even when the play is uninspiring? After all, greatness and disrepute move more papers than mediocrity.

AH: I think what you're asking me in all those words is does the fact that there is a lot of off-the-court stuff to discuss make it easier to cover a team that is otherwise uninteresting right now? The answer is this: I think all teams are covered the same. If the Mets were out of it in August, the beat writers -- good ones -- would find angles to keep the reader engaged and interested. You have to keep a relevant topic going . . . not necessarily make up something or blow up a minor story. . . I mean find the relevant story. For the Knicks its the 2010 plan, its how things happening now are impacted by that plan (i.e.: not making a major move at the trade deadline because you don't want to compromise your cap space in 2010 by adding salary now). It's what to do with David Lee and Nate Robinson. Etc. To write about what happened at practice for a team that has been essentially eliminated (not that the Knicks have yet, but if and when they do), is irrelevant. I can't imagine fans want to know about a lineup change, at least not as the main story, when the game that night really doesn't mean anything. To me, if and when the Knicks are inching toward elimination, we should be focusing on the development of Danilo Gallinari and Wilson Chandler and what could happen with David Lee and Nate Robinson, etc. Our job is to find the stories that are most relevant to the team. I actually think it's harder to cover a losing team than it is to cover a winning one. Winning teams are easy. The angles come every day. The games always matter. Matchups matter. Strategy matters. But for losing teams, March and April can feel like an eternity, especially if the coach isn't on the hot seat.

WWOD?:.Now, that we've gotten to know you and have a better understanding of how it is that you do that thing you do so well it's time to turn out attention to the court. What do you see as the best-case scenario for the second half of the Knickerbockers season? What did you see as the best-case scenario coming into the campaign?

AH: I still see it the same way: if the Knicks can show the league (and the fans) that they are no longer a circus act, it's a start. If they can hang in the playoff race for most of the season, it's a good sign. A nice playoff push, whether they achieve it or not, is a major step. If they somehow can make the playoffs, all well and good. But deep down I think it's more valuable for the franchise to get one more lottery pick. They don't have one in 2010 and you certainly don't expect to be in the lottery in 2011. So here's the chance to land one more quality young player (cheap contract for a while) before you make a run at the big-name players in 2010 (via trades or free agency). So right now the best-case scenario in my mind is that Gallinari continues to emerge and maybe starts to show his potential and the Knicks stay in the playoff race up into April instead of having meaningless games before the Final Four.

WWOD?: Looking back at the season thus far, the player who has exceeded my expectations by the greatest measure is Chris Duhon. I was underwhelmed by his signing during the offseason and uninspired by his play very early in the season. But, he seemed to find his way during a November game at Washington and really come into his own. How much credit can be given to Coach D'Antoni's system? The abundance of minutes? And to the player himself? I'm inclined to think that he won't be here for the long haul in spite of his fine play thus far this season, but what are your thoughts on Duhon's future in a Knicks uniform?

AH: I think even Chris Duhon would admit his success this season is a direct result of the system. Look at Steve Nash's season in Phoenix right now. His game has suffered tremendously in D'Antoni's absence. For the right point guard, this system can really make you look good (statistically speaking). That's why D'Antoni was so convinced that Duhon was a good fit. His game was right for the demands of that position. But you also have to credit Duhonfor having the cubes to handle the Stephon Marbury situation during training camp. Chris has really raised his profile after turning into a backup guard in Chicago. I think they'll look to extend him after next season, but the cost will be interesting. My only curiosity is his durability. The minutes are very demanding, especially without a backup PG on the roster. But the guy is tough and, I believe, is a winner.

WWOD?: Moving on from Duhon's future to that of his teammates, have you gotten a feel for how the lack of certainty surrounding virtually everyone on the roster (save Danilo Gallinari, probably) has affected these guys on a nightly basis? It would seem to me that it must make it difficult for anyone to assume a leadership role or to demand accountability when there is really no one with much solid ground under foot.

AH: I think you said a lot there about where the Knicks are as a team and what this season is all about and why the 2010 plan is so important. This is a team with players, probably mostly role players and some who could be key pieces to a great team, but the biggest thing they are missing - aside from a two guard or a backup point guard or a shot-blocking big man -- is a true leader. A superstar who can be the main man. The Knicks haven't had this element since Patrick Ewing. Period. And they just won't have that accountability and standard until they get someone like that again. The guy who just won't accept losing and who makes everyone else raise their game to his level. Those are special players who don't come along in salary-dump trades. And that's what makes 2010 so critical to this franchise's future, in my opinion.

WWOD?: The two (important) players whose futures are most unclear are Nate Robinson and David Lee? Lee (with the help of yeoman's minutes) has played his way into a borderline All-Star and lock for 10/10 whereas Nate has been both The Great (aside from his HUGE game against LAC, that 19-point second quarter he had against Charlotte was out of this world) and The Goat. Both are fan favorites that may be casualties of the rebuilding process. Do you think either player would be inclined to re-sign at a discount to stay in New York? Do you think the club has designs on keeping either (or both)? And, if the Knicks are actually able to lure Lebron James and Chris Bosh here in 2010 then do either current Knicks even crack a championship-caliber starting lineup?

AH: I'm not sure it makes sense for anyone in their situation, at their age, to sign for a "discount". It's idealistic, but ridiculous to expect from players so early in their careers. Now saying that....either or both could re-sign backloaded deals that take some pressure off the 2010 cap situation. That is something I can see. But will they be able to sign both players and not compromise 2010? Doubtful, at least not unless they can move Eddy Curry's $11.2M salary off the books for 2010. As for signing LeBron or Bosh or whomever . . . I think any team becomes a championship contender if they can bring in two legit all-star players. Look at the Celtics. They brought in Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. They added him to Paul Pierce and the worst team in the NBA won the title. It can be done.

WWOD?: In my discussion with other NBA bloggers I am frequently asked how I feel about the Knicks "throwing away" two seasons in a most-likely doomed, all-in gamble for Lebron James. I always turn the question around and ask what exactly the club threw away. Yes, we dumped Jamal and Z-Bo but we also are on track to win more games this season than we did last season. I'll contend that the club is aiming to rebuild through free agency and that even without Lebron (or Wade) the club will be better off in two years than it was last year. Do you see Walsh's strategy as overly dependent on signing Lebron (or Wade)? Do you think the team actually threw away two seasons? Or that the regime is trying to navigate the straightest-line course from the purgatory they found the club in?
AH: I don't think fans can get so fixated on one guy. Even if the media have given no indication to the contrary so far. Do I believe he'll stay in Cleveland? Yes. But so many things can happen between now and then so you always have to leave the door open. However, regardless of LeBron, the Knicks are doing the right thing by getting under the cap in time for a summer where so many of the league's top players are expected to be available. And even if they aren't free agents, the Knicks could acquire players in a trade. So it's a good strategy...better than anything we've seen over the past decade, I would argue.

WWOD?: As much as it has become a topic as tiresome and eye-roll inducing as bank bailouts, we would be negligent to neglect it altogether. What should be the denouement of the Marbury saga? Forgetting how we got to this point, what do you see as the most sensible – and fair – conclusion to this course of events that has sullied the reputations of all parties? Is there any chance that Duhon's current injury provides one last chance for reconciliation?

AH: I believe the best approach is what we're seeing now: pay him to stay away. Let the contract melt off the payroll and let him be a free agent this summer. Wish him well and move forward. It makes no sense to pay him to be a free agent and then allow another team to benefit from your generosity. He is under contract and your obligation is to pay him. Period. So you pay him. Period. In the state of our current economy, I don't know how anyone can feel empathy for someone who will be handed $20.8M to stay home. It's almost like a severance pay, which many bank executives can relate to. The rest of us can only dream about it. And, quite frankly, if Stephon really really wanted to play and had a team that desperately wanted him...don't you think he would accept the Knicks buyout offer and move on, knowing he could make that money back in free agency this summer? Don't you think he'd have far more value this summer as a free agent if he finished the season playing great for a playoff team and had a great run in the post-season? But right now, if he winds up not playing this entire year, he goes into the summer not playing in an NBA game for 18 months and a year older and with teams wondering if he is worth the risk. Just bloggin.

WWOD?: In the kiddie-pool shallow view of many fans, you have a great gig because you get tickets to Knicks games, get to meet the players and travel the country. And while those things are true, I know there's a lot more to it. There's the airplane smell that you can't get out of nostrils, the being away from family and friends, the exhaustion of getting in to a strange city in the middle of the night and then getting up early to attend a morning shootaround before a Sunday afternoon game where players won't give you a straight answer about the location of a fire extinguisher even after you've burst into flames. We now it's not all courtsides and high fives. But, what has been the best I-can't-believe-I'm-actually-here-right-now moment that you've had while covering the Knickerbockers?

AH: Whoa. Who gets tickets to Knicks games? I don't. I have a season credential. It's only for me and, I mean, I'm not there with a beer and my buddies kicking back. I'm sitting with a laptop keeping notes, following stories and writing like mad to make deadline. The travel can make you forget what day it is, never mind the city. Like you said, it's crazy. I tell my family and friends...I'm around in the summer. But from October to April I'm a ghost. I loved it when I was single, but once you get married and have kids, it can really rip your heart out sometimes. But it's also a great adrenaline rush. So no complaints. Just lots of cell minutes and web cam conversations with the kids. It's funny, some fans don't even realize we actually travel. They think we watch the games on TV and write about it off that. Hilarious. I love the reaction I get from people when they go, "You mean you get to go in the locker room?" Yeah! Sweaty towels and everything! But the I-can't-believe-this-is-happening-to-me moment hasn't happened yet. I imagine it would come if I ever covered the Islanders in the Stanley Cup Finals or the Knicks in the NBA Finals. It would have to be something surreal. Something I enver thought I'd ever get to see. Something magical. Maybe that's my new dream. I want to grow up and cover a championship team.

And, that's all we wrote. Please go check out Hahn's fine work over at The Knicks Fix and pick up a copy of Newsday at a newstand near you to read all about the latest Knickerbockers news from a guy covering the game with a diligence, honesty and fealty to his readers that is increasingly rare these days.