Spurs notebook: Cuban: guardian of S.A. River?

[sariver]

Mark Cuban has thrown up a virtual jumpball between an autographed San Antonio Spurs championship basketball and a signed Dallas Maverick basketball. No matter the outcome, the San Antonio River Foundation wins.

As of 4:42 p.m. on Saturday, November 25, the Dallas ball had been viewed on eBay by 107 fans with a high bid of $405.00. (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...8773&rd=1&rd=1)

The Spurs ball had been viewed on eBay by 155 fans with a high auction bid of $610.00.
(http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...2917&rd=1&rd=1)

No matter the outcome, the San Antonio River Foundation wins on Tuesday night when the auction closes.

[ata]

he is a billionare why would he try to match cuban unless he is one

I wrote "relative or absolute". 1 cent would be enough.

And why wouldn't he? How can he call Cuban cheap? Because Cuban donated $1000 and he nothing? Great logic!

[mikeanthony21]

I really can't take this "donation" of Cuban's seriously. He claims to want to help clean up the river but at the same time he's taking potshots at Duncan and Bowen for NOT donating money to the river cleanup? This guy is a perfect example of how money cannot buy someone class.

[EJFischer]

If he cared he'd do a lot more than $1000. What a cheap guy. Most people here could do that and they have a fraction of Cuban's massive wealth.

How much is Cuban worth? According to Forbes, $1.8 billion. Him donating $1,000 is the equivalent of someone worth $1.8 million donating $1.

This is a bit silly. Money has objective value. That is kind of the point of money. How much a donation is worth isn't dependant on what percentage of the donor's net wealth it represents. To the San Antonio River Foundation, $1000 is $1000, regardless of who it was donated by. By this token, saying "[someone very wealthy] donating $1000 is equivalent to [someone wealthy] donating $1" is simply false. Being able to easily afford the donation doesn't reduce its value, and not being able to afford it wouldn't make it more valuable.

It does seem likely that he was motivated by more than just concern for the river, but it isn't the fact that he "only" contributed $1000 which makes it seem that way. It isn't as though he made a donation of negligible utility (as the $0.01 "proportional" donation some were suggesting--probably in jest--would be). I don't think being guilty of capricious acts of charity makes a person worthy of scorn. The charity trumps the capriciousness.

As to donating more than $1000: presumably he donated an amount he felt was reasonable given the importance of the cause and given his means. Yes, he could have afforded to donate more, or even subsidize the whole project. But since he doesn't have personal ties to the community it would be strange it he did. And, frankly, if he did donate a vast sum to clean a tourist attraction, I would be critical of him for not picking a more important cause.

[Ariel]

This is a bit silly. Money has objective value. That is kind of the point of money. How much a donation is worth isn't dependant on what percentage of the donor's net wealth it represents. To the San Antonio River Foundation, $1000 is $1000, regardless of who it was donated by. By this token, saying "[someone very wealthy] donating $1000 is equivalent to [someone wealthy] donating $1" is simply false. Being able to easily afford the donation doesn't reduce its value, and not being able to afford it wouldn't make it more valuable.

It does seem likely that he was motivated by more than just concern for the river, but it isn't the fact that he "only" contributed $1000 which makes it seem that way. It isn't as though he made a donation of negligible utility (as the $0.01 "proportional" donation some were suggesting--probably in jest--would be). I don't think being guilty of capricious acts of charity makes a person worthy of scorn. The charity trumps the capriciousness.

As to donating more than $1000: presumably he donated an amount he felt was reasonable given the importance of the cause and given his means. Yes, he could have afforded to donate more, or even subsidize the whole project. But since he doesn't have personal ties to the community it would be strange it he did. And, frankly, if he did donate a vast sum to clean a tourist attraction, I would be critical of him for not picking a more important cause.

This is a bit silly indeed. The value of the donation can be looked at from more than one perspective. You are only analyzing one end, and it happens to be that which is irrelevant to the point being made.

Money, as an asset, has an objective value; a given sum of money can accomplish the same whether it comes from a dying man’s life earnings, from an organization's tax-deductible PR operation, or from a murderous dictator's desperate attempt to wash the blood off his hands. This isn't any kind of breakthrough.

However, a given asset also has a subjective value depending on the perspective you're looking at it from. The cost for the donor is therefore related to what you deprive yourself of by making the donation. For a homeless man, 10 bucks represent the difference between eating and starving. For me, it represents the difference between going to the movies with my friends and boring alone at home. For a billionaire, it represents a little piece of dirty green paper. Either one of us giving them $10 gets done the same, but the level of commitment shown differs radically, as our deed would cost us a primary need, a good moment, or... nothing.

Since those posts you quote go to the motive behind his donation, it's the latter perspective that's interesting to analyze. And, in that sense, we have someone who has previously belittled the object of the donation, giving what cons utes an insignificantly low sum of money for him, while using the opportunity to take yet another shot at outstanding people publicly recognized for their community work.

If we're to judge the donation through Mark Cuban’s eyes, you'll have to forgive me if I don't regard him quite as highly as Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

[Sam]

You gotta hand it to Cuban, he's a marketing genious. I'm being completely serious here.

Totally agree

[EJFischer]

Since those posts you quote go to the motive behind his donation, it's the latter perspective that's interesting to analyze.

They did address his motive. As did your post previous to the one I quoted. And I think the questions you and other are raising about his motive are perfectly valid.

The posts I quoted also addressed whether the amount of money itself was insulting. You and other seem to be arguing that it is, because it is such a small percentage of his net worth. In other words, a donation is insulting if it is not very valuable to the donor. I am proposing the alternative view that a donation is only insulting if it is of little value to the recipient.

Whether or not the things he said were insulting is a different matter, and one I more or less agree with you on.

[Ariel]

They did address his motive. As did your post previous to the one I quoted. And I think the questions you and other are raising about his motive are perfectly valid.

The posts I quoted also addressed whether the amount of money itself was insulting. You and other seem to be arguing that it is, because it is such a small percentage of his net worth. In other words, a donation is insulting if it is not very valuable to the donor. I am proposing the alternative view that a donation is only insulting if it is of little value to the recipient.

Whether or not the things he said were insulting is a different matter, and one I more or less agree with you on.

I never said that the money itself was insulting; if it helps the cause, then it's more than welcome. But when it comes to recognizing the action per se, then I am of the opinion that the admittedly subjective context comes before the cold figures.

A donation is more than a contribution of money, it's a gesture of goodwill that goes beyond it. Even if the money itself is not significant, I think the gesture conveys great meaning, so if someone with little means offers in genuine solidarity what is within their reach, then I'm deeply appreciative of it. It's precisely because of this higher standard I hold it to that I'm particularly skeptic of his case. I think his true intentions go against the intended nature of a donation.

In such a context and with his history, I am much more inclined to believe his ulterior motive is taking another shot at SA and have the pleasure of being thanked for it. Just like he's done before by pouting about the league and the officials, he has a habit of resorting to money to put off the fires ignited by his mouth. As if enough money to throw around people could buy your way into respectability.

To make it short, while I think we can agree the money is welcome, the action per se as judged by my standards have no positive effect in my perception of Mark Cuban as an individual. This is what my previous posts addressed, and it's in this context that the sentence you quoted is meant to be interpreted.

[sariver]

Auction Update with 3 hours to go:

The Dallas Mavs ball has had 191 viewers and is at $455.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...8773&rd=1&rd=1

While the Spurs Championship Ball has had 275 visitors and is at $1,325!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...8773&rd=1&rd=1

[Drive Like Jehu]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...4;&version=76;

Mark 12:41-44 (New International Reader's Version)
New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
Copyright © 1996, 1998 by International Bible Society



The Widow's Offering
41 Jesus sat down across from the place where people put their temple offerings. He watched the crowd putting their money into the offering boxes. Many rich people threw large amounts into them.
42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins. They were worth much less than a penny.

43 Jesus asked his disciples to come to him. He said, "What I'm about to tell you is true. That poor widow has put more into the offering box than all the others. 44 They all gave a lot because they are rich. But she gave even though she is poor. She put in everything she had. She gave all she had to live on."

[Kermit]

for 's sake. did someone just post bible smack? that's goddamn hilarious.

[Trainwreck2100]

Have you already matched Cuban's donation? (relative or absolute)

I threw in a penny which i think is just about the same % in revenue

[nkdlunch]

$1000!!!???

that's like me donating 1 cent. I think he is just trying to insult San Antonio some more. ing piece of . he probably wiped his ass on the $ bills before donating them

[Drive Like Jehu]

for 's sake. did someone just post bible smack? that's goddamn hilarious.

There is a lot of bible smack about giving...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...2;&version=76;

Matthew 6:2 (New International Reader's Version)
New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
Copyright © 1996, 1998 by International Bible Society



2 "When you give to needy people, do not announce it by having trumpets blown. Do not be like those who only pretend to be holy. They announce what they do in the synagogues and on the streets. They want to be honored by others. What I'm about to tell you is true. They have received their complete reward.

[Kermit]

what does the bible say about having sex with swine? just curious.

[ChumpDumper]

^

Has never been to San Antonio