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

[Mecca]

where?

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

2 posts above, read the article.

 

[WiggyRuss]

2 posts above, read the article.

..if you could quote me the ACTUAL passage where he says that in his letter it would be appreciated.

I have copied and pasted the letter below in its ENTIRETY.



Commissioner,

It would be a travesty to allow the Lakers to acquire Chris Paul in the apparent trade being discussed.

This trade should go to a vote of the 29 owners of 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.

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.

I know the vast majority of owners feel the same way that I do.

When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals?

Please advise...

Dan G.


(if the witness could please point to the passage- instead of putting their own personal spin on it- it would be appreciated )

 

[WiggyRuss]

it just seems ODD to me that Dan Gilbert and a "vast majority of other owners" would be SO upset about 750k a piece. lol....


What happened is very very simple to discern for anyone that is paying attention.

A. the Owners were trying to sell the franchise. The purported deal was a disaster for the long term prospects of the franchise- both talent wise, and economically. The interim GM and coach were trying to "win now" to save their jobs.

B. A deal where a team both gives up its best player-- does not even get the 2nd best player in the deal- and adds tens of millions in salary commitments- all for a team unlikely to make the playoffs and without a doubt not even close to contending- just makes zero sense.

 

[Mecca]

Dude, it clearly states in both articles that Gilbert did it for the revenue money.

You can try to be obtuse about it all you want.

But, the owner that you brag about for having deep pockets, was nickel and diming the NBA for pennies because he was butthurt that another Big Market Team was taking a Star from one in a small market.

Them be the facts, whether you admit it or not .

 

[Mecca]

it just seems ODD to me that Dan Gilbert and a "vast majority of other owners" would be SO upset about 750k a piece. lol....


What happened is very very simple to discern for anyone that is paying attention.

A. the Owners were trying to sell the franchise. The purported deal was a disaster for the long term prospects of the franchise- both talent wise, and economically. The interim GM and coach were trying to "win now" to save their jobs.

B. A deal where a team both gives up its best player-- does not even get the 2nd best player in the deal- and adds tens of millions in salary commitments- all for a team unlikely to make the playoffs and without a doubt not even close to contending- just makes zero sense.

It's not odd for the jilted.

They often come off as petty.

 

[lakersrule]

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.

All of what you typed is meaningless. If a rich dude wants to buy a NBA team, they are going to buy it regardless of the roster/salary cap construction. It's not like you can go to the NBA Franchise Store and buy one whenever you want. It's a rare situation.

Look at Sacramento. A shit franchise. They were sold in May 2013 following another losing season. They still managed to attract multiple bidders and sold for a then-record price. You think the Maloofs made some extra cash on that deal because of the roster/salary cap situation?

The valuation of a NBA franchise is significantly tied to its location. Look at the Clippers. A shit franchise that, even being run by a shit owner, was making money. Why? Because they are in Los Angeles. Multiple groups wanted to purchase the Clippers. The Clippers sold for a record price. Was the sale price that high because of CP3 and Blake, or because of where the franchise is located? If it was about the roster, why hasn't Balmer moved the Clippers to Seattle?

New Orleans would have sold for what it did whether the Lakers trade happened or not. Quit fooling yourself.

 

[lakersrule]

Dude, it clearly states in both articles that Gilbert did it for the revenue money.

You can try to be obtuse about it all you want.

But, the owner that you brag about for having deep pockets, was nickel and diming the NBA for pennies because he was butthurt that another Big Market Team was taking a Star from one in a small market.

Them be the facts, whether you admit it or not .

He was butthurt because it was the Lakers. Same with Cuban. It had nothing to do with big market/small market dynamics. CP3 was still traded to a big market team.

 

[WiggyRuss]

He was butthurt because it was the Lakers. Same with Cuban. It had nothing to do with big market/small market dynamics. CP3 was still traded to a big market team.

he was being dealt in a trade where one team A. gota future hall of famer AND B. saved a ton of money

you dont have to look very far past those 2 facts to figure out why what happened ended up happening--- not only that- but a "vast majority" of other owners felt the same way.

unless you think Dan Gilbert is a powerful enough owner to be out on his own on this and got Stern to change his mind...lol.....

 

[lakersrule]

Commissioner,

It would be a travesty to allow the Lakers to acquire Chris Paul in the apparent trade being discussed.

This trade should go to a vote of the 29 owners of 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.

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.

I know the vast majority of owners feel the same way that I do.

When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals?

Please advise...

Dan G.




if someone else wants to help Mecca and quote the passage from this email that shows how upset Dan is that the cavs arent getting 750K in revenue sharing- i am sure she would appreciate the help. lol.

I thought you said that it had to do with franchise valuation? Can you quote that passage? And why would billionaire Gilbert care if New Orleans sold for a few million more because of roster/salary cap construction? It doesn't work out to much more profit for him.

 

[lakersrule]

he was being dealt in a trade where one team A. gota future hall of famer AND B. saved a ton of money

you dont have to look very far past those 2 facts to figure out why what happened ended up happening--- not only that- but a "vast majority" of other owners felt the same way.

unless you think Dan Gilbert is a powerful enough owner to be out on his own on this and got Stern to change his mind...lol.....

Generally one team benefits more than the other in a trade. You rarely see a wash. Gilbert and Cuban were butthurt that it was Lakers. Plain and simple. Please provide proof of the "vast majority" of owners. There was never an owner's vote on this.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Generally one team benefits more than the other in a trade. You rarely see a wash. Gilbert and Cuban were butthurt that it was Lakers. Plain and simple. Please provide proof of the "vast majority" of owners. There was never an owner's vote on this.

so your saying that Gilbert and Cuban alone were enough to get Stern to supposedly veto a deal after it was already made? lol.....do you realize how dumb that sounds.

when Dan Gilbert in his letter says "a vast majority of owners"- you dont believe him is what you are saying? So what you are saying is you get to pick and choose which parts you believe- and not only that- but put your own spin on it to advance your argument irrespective of what it ACTUALLY means.


you your prob right---Gilbert and Cuban hold such sway over the league if they dont like a deal they can call STern and STern will just do whatever they say, LOL...Dan and Mark woke up that morning thinking- "Lets screw the Lakers"-- called up Stern- and Stern said- "GREAT IDEA- none of the other owners care except you guys- but you are my 2 favorites! screw Buss"

 

[lakersrule]

so your saying that Gilbert and Cuban alone were enough to get Stern to supposedly veto a deal after it was already made? lol.....do you realize how dumb that sounds.

when Dan Gilbert in his letter says "a vast majority of owners"- you dont believe him is what you are saying? So what you are saying is you get to pick and choose which parts you believe- and not only that- but put your own spin on it to advance your argument irrespective of what it ACTUALLY means.


you your prob right---Gilbert and Cuban hold such sway over the league if they dont like a deal they can call STern and STern will just do whatever they say, LOL...Dan and Mark woke up that morning thinking- "Lets screw the Lakers"-- called up Stern- and Stern said- "GREAT IDEA- none of the other owners care except you guys- but you are my 2 favorites! screw Buss"

So, you believe, in the extremely short time frame between the announcing of the trade and Stern announcing that he is vetoing the trade, that Gilbert spoke with the vast majority of owners to get their opinion?

 

[WiggyRuss]

I thought you said that it had to do with franchise valuation? Can you quote that passage? And why would billionaire Gilbert care if New Orleans sold for a few million more because of roster/salary cap construction? It doesn't work out to much more profit for him.

cmon...use the ole brain there....

do you think a Cavs team would sell for MORE if they had LeBron James than not having LeBron James?



which team do you think sells for me? The one with Anthony DAvis tied to it for AT LEAST 7-8 years (at a minimum) with very little payroll obligations----- OR---- an expensive veteran laded team with no high end talent that cant make the playoffs?

the difference is AT LEAST tens of millions, if not 9 digits.

 

[WiggyRuss]

So, you believe, in the extremely short time frame between the announcing of the trade and Stern announcing that he is vetoing the trade, that Gilbert spoke with the vast majority of owners to get their opinion?

Yes absolutely. In fact- the article i quoted above states how all this went on DURING OWNERS MEETINGS IN NEW YORK. lol....so yah...u care to dispute that?

NBA nixes trade of Hornets G Paul to Lakers

"on the same day those owners had gathered in New York to ratify a new labor pact"

 

[WiggyRuss]

LBJ off tomorrow vs. Rockets- resting up.....good call by Lue- BY FAR the most important thing is getting to the post season healthy.

Truly the best news is how great LeBron has been feeling though- to quote him- this is the best he has felt in YEARS- going all the way back to Miami. I cannot WAIT to see the FORCE OF NATURE he unleashes come the start of the postseason.

 

[lakersrule]

Yes absolutely. In fact- the article i quoted above states how all this went on DURING OWNERS MEETINGS IN NEW YORK. lol....so yah...u care to dispute that?

NBA nixes trade of Hornets G Paul to Lakers

"on the same day those owners had gathered in New York to ratify a new labor pact"

"It's not true that the owners killed the deal," NBA spokesman Mike Bass said. "The deal was never discussed at the Board of Governors meeting and the league office declined to make the trade for basketball reasons."


So, the owners didn't discuss the trade. Says it in the article you linked.

 

[WiggyRuss]

"It's not true that the owners killed the deal," NBA spokesman Mike Bass said. "The deal was never discussed at the Board of Governors meeting and the league office declined to make the trade for basketball reasons."


So, the owners didn't discuss the trade. Says it in the article you linked.

hey if thats how you want to believe it that just cuts the argument TOTALLY my way and 100% TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY absolves Gilbert and Cuban of any influence. Thats cool by me if you want to put it 100% on Stern....

I just didnt think anyone would actually believe that because i sure dont--- but if u think that Stern acted 100% on his own more power to you! That would just show how the GM of the Hornets TRULY didnt have the authority to make the deal in the first place...which is entirely possible and how the NBA sold it to the public.

I was HOPINg youd quote that passage.

 

[WiggyRuss]

"It's not true that the owners killed the deal," NBA spokesman Mike Bass said. "The deal was never discussed at the Board of Governors meeting and the league office declined to make the trade for basketball reasons."


So, the owners didn't discuss the trade. Says it in the article you linked.

so is that your argument now Lakersrule? that "The deal was never discussed at the Board of Governors meeting and the league office declined to make the trade for basketball reasons."

if thats the case- what have you been crying about the last few pages if what you believe is that the deal was not made solely because of BASKETBALL REASONS??


so what is it? basketball reasons? or Cuban and Gilbert leading the charge of a "vast majority of owners"? lol.....feel free to take your time on answering this- id hate for you to change your mind again--- allthough- i do have to say- after supplying you with the ACTUAL real info- if you were to change your mind and come to a place of reason id give you some major credit!


lol..u sure walked right into that one... I GOT YOU TO QUOTE A POST SAYING THAT THE TRADE WAS VETOED FOR PURE BASKETBALL REASONS! lol......thanks man!

 

[WiggyRuss]

do the rest of you lakers fans agree with Lakersrule?

that none of the owners weighed in- that Stern acted on his own for pure basketball reasons when vetoing the deal?

 

[lakersrule]

Do you even know what the basketball reason were? Does anyone?

Stern vetoed it because of the timing and bitchiness of a couple owners. It had nothing to do with the players involved or the perceived resell value of the franchise. I haven't changed my mind. There was no owner's meeting, or vote, like you contend.