LeBron FA saga is old to say the least; He need to man up...

[trojanfan12]

Okay, I have refreshed my memory.

This article makes Dan look like a total tool...lol

Coon: Critique of Dan Gilbert's letter

Not only that, but it makes him look pretty stupid too. Pretty hilarious that Gilbert even contradicts himself in his letter.

As I've said all along, Gilberts letter was about his NBA welfare check potentially shrinking. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Mecca]

as long as he is paying the extremely punitive luxury tax that was designed to limit super teams i dont see what the issue is. Hes playing by the rules that he and the other owners instituted- never outside of them. If other ownerse are too cheap to field their own "super teams" under the new system - or conversely- if we hae super rich owners (like Dan) that show a willingness to do so then more power to them.

Dude, I honestly have zero issue with your owner.

He's doing what he has to to try and win a Championship.

As for what happened in the past, I just read something interesting...

allegedly, Gilbert didn't send that letter until AFTER the trade was nixed.

But, I'm willing to bet he made his objections known beforehand.

Also, the claims that it was universally known that the Hornets were getting flim-flamed is disputed.



Yahoo says that the timestamp indicates Gilbert sent the email after the trade had been killed. He wrote, in part:

“I cannot remember ever seeing a trade where a team got by far the best player in the trade and saved over $40 million in the process. And it doesn’t appear that they would give up any draft picks, which might allow to later make a trade for Dwight Howard. (They would also get a large trade exception that would help them improve their team and/or eventually trade for Howard.) When the Lakers got Pau Gasol (at the time considered an extremely lopsided trade) they took on tens of millions in additional salary and luxury tax and they gave up a number of prospects (one in Marc Gasol, who may become a max-salary player).

“I just don’t see how we can allow this trade to happen.”



Criticisms of David Stern and the NBA came fast and furious after news of the blocked trade broke. As Lee Friedman wrote:

You have to have certain ethical and moral lines you won’t cross to please your superiors. NBA CommissionerDavid Stern apparently makes up his lines as he goes along.

On Thursday, Stern (who as Commissioner is the de facto owner of the league-owned New Orleans Hornets) vetoed a trade that would have sent All-Star point guard Chris Paul from the Hornets to the Lakers in a three-team deal. Paul, who will be a free agent after this season, has made it clear that he had no intention of re-signing with the team. Rather than lose him for nothing next summer, Hornets GM Dell Demps pulled the trigger on a deal. The players and draft picks the Hornets would have received in return were universally considered above fair, especially in light of the fact that when Paul left at the end of the season they would have received nothing. Frankly, it could be argued that the Lakers gave up too much to get him.

 

[Mecca]

Not only that, but it makes him look pretty stupid too. Pretty hilarious that Gilbert even contradicts himself in his letter.

As I've said all along, Gilberts letter was about his NBA welfare check potentially shrinking. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah, that was the part that was crazy....lol

He was mad about potentially losing the revenue sharing which flies in the face of claims that he's not cheap.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Dude, I honestly have zero issue with your owner.

He's doing what he has to to try and win a Championship.

As for what happened in the past, I just read something interesting...

allegedly, Gilbert didn't send that letter until AFTER the trade was nixed.

But, I'm willing to bet he made his objections known beforehand.




Yahoo says that the timestamp indicates Gilbert sent the email after the trade had been killed. He wrote, in part:

“I cannot remember ever seeing a trade where a team got by far the best player in the trade and saved over $40 million in the process. And it doesn’t appear that they would give up any draft picks, which might allow to later make a trade for Dwight Howard. (They would also get a large trade exception that would help them improve their team and/or eventually trade for Howard.) When the Lakers got Pau Gasol (at the time considered an extremely lopsided trade) they took on tens of millions in additional salary and luxury tax and they gave up a number of prospects (one in Marc Gasol, who may become a max-salary player).

“I just don’t see how we can allow this trade to happen.”



Criticisms of David Stern and the NBA came fast and furious after news of the blocked trade broke. As Lee Friedman wrote:

You have to have certain ethical and moral lines you won’t cross to please your superiors. NBA CommissionerDavid Stern apparently makes up his lines as he goes along.

On Thursday, Stern (who as Commissioner is the de facto owner of the league-owned New Orleans Hornets) vetoed a trade that would have sent All-Star point guard Chris Paul from the Hornets to the Lakers in a three-team deal. Paul, who will be a free agent after this season, has made it clear that he had no intention of re-signing with the team. Rather than lose him for nothing next summer, Hornets GM Dell Demps pulled the trigger on a deal. The players and draft picks the Hornets would have received in return were universally considered above fair, especially in light of the fact that when Paul left at the end of the season they would have received nothing. Frankly, it could be argued that the Lakers gave up too much to get him.

looking back its clear that A. the Pelicans made out better B. the Clips made out better C. The Rockets made out better---- only the Lakers got screwed, lets have a pity party.

And the notion that Gilbert is motivated by an extra 2-3 million in income by lux. tax sharing in a single season is completely and totally assinine for a man with a net worth of over 4 billion. Just think of how dumb that contention is- especially considering the lux. tax spending he is paying- and having the highest payroll in the league.

As I said- the owners stepped in to protect their interest when the coach and GM of the Hornets tried to make a short-sighted trade to help protect their careers at the expense of the long-term health of the franchise. OF COURSE a GM and coach in a de-facto tryout for their positions would try and make short-sighted moves to make themselves look better in the short term. Luckily- for the league and the Pelicans- common sense reigned.

 

[Mecca]

looking back its clear that A. the Pelicans made out better B. the Clips made out better C. The Rockets made out better---- only the Lakers got screwed, lets have a pity party.

And the notion that Gilbert is motivated by an extra 2-3 million in income by lux. tax sharing in a single season is completely and totally assinine for a man with a net worth of over 4 billion. Just think of how dumb that contention is- especially considering the lux. tax spending he is paying- and having the highest payroll in the league.

As I said- the owners stepped in to protect their interest when the coach and GM of the Hornets tried to make a short-sighted trade to help protect their careers at the expense of the long-term health of the franchise. OF COURSE a GM and coach in a de-facto tryout for their positions would try and make short-sighted moves to make themselves look better in the short term. Luckily- for the league and the Pelicans- common sense reigned.

I don't claim to know the inner workings of Gilbert's mind.

But, that article paints a very different picture of his motivations.

It was written by Larry Coon. So, that makes me not so quick to dismiss it.

Agree, it turned out better for every Team, sans the Lakers.

But, that's hindsight.

At the time, Odom wasn't a crackhead.

 

[WiggyRuss]

I don't claim to know the inner workings of Gilbert's mind.

But, that article paints a very different picture of his motivations.

It was written by Larry Coon. So, that makes me not so quick to dismiss it.

Agree, it turned out better for every Team, sans the Lakers.

But, that's hindsight.

At the time, Odom wasn't a crackhead.

i mean want to talk about contradiction

Gilbert is so cheap he got a trade vetoed because of the 0.75 million it would have cost him in luxury tax sharing revenue.

Gilbert has BY FAR the highest payroll in the NBA and 2nd highest in the history of the league.

riiiiiiiight.

 

[Mecca]

i mean want to talk about contradiction

Gilbert is so cheap he got a trade vetoed because of the 0.75 million it would have cost him in luxury tax sharing revenue.

Gilbert has BY FAR the highest payroll in the NBA and 2nd highest in the history of the league.

riiiiiiiight.

Past meets present.

I totally understand your point.

But, Despicable Donald, the cheapest slum lord owner in all of Sports, maxed out Griffin, matched Deandre's deal with the Warriors, Paid Baron Davis * throws up in mouth *.. So, cheapskates do loosen the purse strings every now and then.

I don't get the cheap bastard vibe from your owner. I get more of a jilted lover feeling in regards to that deal.

He was upset about Bron and didn't want to see another big market Team get a Star.

But, he clearly wanted that revenue too.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Past meets present.

I totally understand your point.

But, Despicable Donald, the cheapest slum lord owner in all of Sports, maxed out Griffin, matched Deandre's deal with the Warriors, Paid Baron Davis * throws up in mouth *.. So, cheapskates do loosen the purse strings every now and then.

I don't get the cheap bastard vibe from your owner. I get more of a jilted lover feeling in regards to that deal.

He was upset about Bron and didn't want to see another big market Team get a Star.

But, he clearly wanted that revenue too.

do you know how much that revenue would be?

what? 20 million divided up between the non-tax paying teams? It would have LIKELY been under 1 million dollars. He can go fish underneath the couch cushions for that. Think of the total and complete stupidity of trying to make an argument that he wanted the luxury tax revenue. Its ASSININE. completely and nonsensical. Try and say otherwise- PLEASE. lol....please tell me that Gilbert was even PARTIALLY motivated by the receipt of an extra 750K in luxury tax revenue. lol

think of how stupid it sounds for him to be so concerned with the revenue. Its why that guys article is ridiculous. It has absolutely no sense of perspective what so ever.


he, along with many other owners- did not want the deal to go through becuase it hurt the long term prospects of the team they were trying to sell---- and- the team that got the best player (by far in the deal) also got the best payroll relief- which make no sense. As owners- I think the conversation probably was something like--- "How the hell do we sell a mediocre team with a bunch of expensive vets on it?"--- or "Lets try and sell a team with a cleared cap - and a couple lotto picks upcoming".....

 

[lakersrule]

looking back its clear that A. the Pelicans made out better B. the Clips made out better C. The Rockets made out better---- only the Lakers got screwed, lets have a pity party.

And the notion that Gilbert is motivated by an extra 2-3 million in income by lux. tax sharing in a single season is completely and totally assinine for a man with a net worth of over 4 billion. Just think of how dumb that contention is- especially considering the lux. tax spending he is paying- and having the highest payroll in the league.

As I said- the owners stepped in to protect their interest when the coach and GM of the Hornets tried to make a short-sighted trade to help protect their careers at the expense of the long-term health of the franchise. OF COURSE a GM and coach in a de-facto tryout for their positions would try and make short-sighted moves to make themselves look better in the short term. Luckily- for the league and the Pelicans- common sense reigned.

Short-sighted trade? Protect their interests? Give me a break. How much impact do you think this had on what the league sold them for?

 

[Mecca]

do you know how much that revenue would be?

what? 20 million divided up between the non-tax paying teams? It would have LIKELY been under 1 million dollars. He can go fish underneath the couch cushions for that.

think of how stupid it sounds for him to be so concerned with the revenue. Its why that guys article is ridiculous. It has absolutely no sense of perspective what so ever.


he, along with many other owners- did not want the deal to go through becuase it hurt the long term prospects of the team they were trying to sell---- and- the team that got the best player (by far in the deal) also got the best payroll relief- which make no sense. As owners- I think the conversation probably was something like--- "How the hell do we sell a mediocre team with a bunch of expensive vets on it?"--- or "Lets try and sell a team with a cleared cap - and a couple lotto picks upcoming".....

It may sound stupid. But, those are his words...lol

Read the letter again. Gilbert talks about how it will help the Lakers, and he talks about how it will hurt non-taxpaying teams. Not once does he suggest that it's actually a bad deal for the Hornets.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

I'm still laughing that dumbass Gilbert gave Thompson a $16m a year contract

 

[lakersrule]

do you know how much that revenue would be?

what? 20 million divided up between the non-tax paying teams? It would have LIKELY been under 1 million dollars. He can go fish underneath the couch cushions for that. Think of the total and complete stupidity of trying to make an argument that he wanted the luxury tax revenue. Its ASSININE. completely and nonsensical. Try and say otherwise- PLEASE. lol....please tell me that Gilbert was even PARTIALLY motivated by the receipt of an extra 750K in luxury tax revenue. lol

think of how stupid it sounds for him to be so concerned with the revenue. Its why that guys article is ridiculous. It has absolutely no sense of perspective what so ever.


he, along with many other owners- did not want the deal to go through becuase it hurt the long term prospects of the team they were trying to sell---- and- the team that got the best player (by far in the deal) also got the best payroll relief- which make no sense. As owners- I think the conversation probably was something like--- "How the hell do we sell a mediocre team with a bunch of expensive vets on it?"--- or "Lets try and sell a team with a cleared cap - and a couple lotto picks upcoming".....

The Lakers gave up their second and third best players. They weren't trading garbage players.

The specific make-up of the roster had little to do with the price that the league sold them for. Come on now.

 

[WiggyRuss]

A. Scola, Odom, Dragic (one year deal), Scola

B. Huge payroll relief, Eric Gordon (when he was still a young and considered a very good up and coming player), a lotto pick that was 10th overall, ancillary- being bad enough to get a high lotto pick- instead of a pick between 10 and 15.....

A bunch of mediocre, expensive vets- some on short term deals that would leave anyway-

It may sound stupid. But, those are his words...lol

Read the letter again. Gilbert talks about how it will help the Lakers, and he talks about how it will hurt non-taxpaying teams. Not once does he suggest that it's actually a bad deal for the Hornets.

Over the next three seasons this deal would save the Lakers approximately $20 million in salaries and approximately $21 million in luxury taxes. That $21 million goes to non-taxpaying teams and to fund revenue sharing.

from THAT passage- you somehow come ot the conclusion that Dan Gilbert was really upset he wasnt gonna get 750K in revenue sharing because of the deal? LOL...honestly Mecca- usually you have good stuff to say---- in this case? that is positively delusional.

 

[Mecca]

A. Scola, Odom, Dragic (one year deal), Scola

B. Huge payroll relief, Eric Gordon (when he was still a young and considered a very good up and coming player), a lotto pick that was 10th overall, ancillary- being bad enough to get a high lotto pick- instead of a pick between 10 and 15.....

A bunch of mediocre, expensive vets- some on short term deals that would leave anyway-

Over the next three seasons this deal would save the Lakers approximately $20 million in salaries and approximately $21 million in luxury taxes. That $21 million goes to non-taxpaying teams and to fund revenue sharing.

from THAT passage- you somehow come ot the conclusion that Dan Gilbert was really upset he wasnt gonna get 750K in revenue sharing because of the deal? LOL...honestly Mecca- usually you have good stuff to say---- in this case? that is positively delusional.

Not just me, Larry Coon.

You know, Mr. CBA?

 

[WiggyRuss]

Short-sighted trade? Protect their interests? Give me a break. How much impact do you think this had on what the league sold them for?

ill help educate ya here just for a minute.

When you have the league owning a team- and they are trying to SELL it- whoever they sell it to- is gonna want to bring in their own guys in all likelihood unless they just fall in love with the current guys. How do the current guys do that?

short sighted trades meant to look good in the short term that they hope will help save their jobs. You think that management team thought--- We can trade Chris Paul for young players and picks and rebuild! we have PLENTY OF TIME----- or did they think- OUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED- as soon as a new owner gets in here- we are likely through- lets try and win now!

and the other owners were like--- this is stupid- no one is buying into a team wants a crappy Western team that is likely not even to make the playoffs- with no long term assets, no good young players- and a bunch of decent vets that make a bunch of money...that has to be the worst position in the NBA- vets that make a good amount of money- hardly any good young players- a pick not good enough to get a game changer etc....

INSTEAD---- as anyone with a brain would come ot the conclusion- the better way- tear the thing down--- bottom out to get a high lotto pick (that became Anthony Davis)--- take the deal that has a young player with a lot of upside still on his rookie deal (Gordon)- and ANOTHER lotto pick (that was 10th overall)

hmmmm....if u were buying into a team

A. a team with a bunch of mediocre vets that are high priced with no chance of ACTUALLY competing- MAYBE a chance of being an 8th seed if everything goes right

or

B. A top 5 lotto pick --- Another top 10 lotto pick---- an up and coming solid young player on his rookie deal----- lots of cap space




NOT A Difficult choie for anyone with a brain. Obviously the correct decision that benefited the league as a whole was made...not ones that benefitted the short term job prospects of the interim management team of the New ORleans franchise and the La Lakers.

the ironic thing is- that by playing ball with all this aftermath stuff of the deal- the New Orleans interim GM actually got to stay on a while - which basically amounted to throwing him a bone after how this blew up.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Not just me, Larry Coon.

You know, Mr. CBA?

please show me where Mr. Coon thinks Gilbert is upset about missing out on the luxury tax payments from his article.

 

[WiggyRuss]

i dont know....

if i am a prospective NBA owner---

I PROBABLY want the team with

A. a Top 5 lotto pick, another top 10 lotto pick, Eric Gordon on his rookie deal, ample cap space

instead of

B. A bunch of mediocre vets that make a lot of money who's contracts would have to be re-upped soon- many of them already on the down side of their careers- and no chance of ever winning a playoff series with how the team is constructed.

 

[Mecca]

Not just Coon.....

Some cynics argue that this is Gilbert's way of expressing his dislike or disapproval or LeBron James and applying it to the league.

The real reason, however, has everything to do with the Cavaliers and a few other of the "small market teams" in the NBA. When a team like Miami Heat, Boston Celtics, Los Angeles Lakers, New York Knicks or New Jersey Nets create a "superteam," they provide revenue that helps to support teams that under the "luxury
tax" line.That's how it's supposed to work anyways.

The fact of the matter is, by acquiring Paul, the Lakers are getting $21 million off of their books and would be under the luxury tax line.

Teams like the Cavaliers are losing money with the rise of "superteams" in the NBA. Gilbert has a right to protect his Cavaliers and speak out against a trade that potentially hurts the profitability of small market clubs like his Cavaliers.

Does this move make players respect Gilbert less? Sure. However, Gilbert has every right to swat down the Paul-to-LA deal because he and 28 other owners all voted that it shouldn't happen.

NBA Trade Rumors: Dan Gilbert Has Every Right to Block Chris Paul Deal



Gilbert went on to complain that the trade would save the Lakers "approximately $20 million in salaries and approximately $21 million in luxury taxes." Why is this a problem? Wasn't the point of the lockout to change the system so that teams will no longer overspend? Isn't the more punitive luxury tax supposed to dissuade teams from spending above the tax line? Since when is it a bad thing when a team saves money?

Gilbert provides the answer: "That $21 million goes to non-taxpaying teams and to fund revenue sharing."

That's stunning. The system is supposed to decrease spending, yet owners like Gilbert rely on teams like the Lakers continuing to spend like they used to -- because the proceeds from the luxury tax go to teams like the Cavs. Gilbert is using his position as part-owner of the Hornets to implore Stern to exercise his power as the fiduciary of the Hornets to make a ruling on behalf of the Cavs.
This is a blatant conflict of interest.

Read the letter again. Gilbert talks about how it will help the Lakers, and he talks about how it will hurt non-taxpaying teams. Not once does he suggest that it's actually a bad deal for the Hornets.

But his logic gets worse -- his claim that the trade would save the Lakers approximately $20 million over the next three seasons is patently absurd. This would be true only if the Lakers made no subsequent moves to acquire players to replace the departing Gasol and Odom. A lineup featuring Metta World Peace starting at power forward is surely not what the Lakers had in mind.

Gilbert answers his own objection in the next paragraph, apparently without realizing that he is contradicting himself. He wrote that the Lakers "would also get a large trade exception that would help them improve their team." In other words, the trade exception would enable the Lakers to spend more money -- money that would count against the luxury tax, and therefore help line the Cavs' pockets.

Gilbert also said that by not trading draft picks and by gaining a trade exception, the Lakers were improving their chances "to eventually trade for [Dwight] Howard." Let's skip the fact that trade exception likely will be useless in a trade for Howard -- it wouldn't be big enough to fit Hedo Turkoglu's salary, and let's also ignore whether a pick or two at the end of the first round would sway the Magic's decision in a Howard trade. Instead, let's focus on Gilbert's premise -- the Lakers shouldn't be allowed to make the trade for Paul because of something they might do in the future.

Let that one roll around in your head for a while. It's like being arrested for buying a plane ticket to Las Vegas, because the police think you might commit a crime while you're there. It's a stunning abuse of power. Trades need to be evaluated on their own merits, and not because of what a team may or may not do in the future.

Coon: Critique of Dan Gilbert's letter

 

[Mecca]

please show me where Mr. Coon thinks Gilbert is upset about missing out on the luxury tax payments from his article.

Not only does he state he wants a welfare check. But, he makes it very clear that he is a walking contradiction.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Not only does he state he wants a welfare check. But, he makes it very clear that he is a walking contradiction.

where?

where does he state he "wants a welfare check"?