Showing posts with label Lakers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lakers. Show all posts

Monday, October 13, 2014

Are Mark Cuban’s Comments Evidence of Collusion?


Mark Cuban
“If you give up guarantees, [i]t’s a trade-off….”

“It was discussed during the lockout time among owners, but never got anywhere. So it was just one of those trial balloons. I’m not offering this as a negotiation, I’m not suggesting it, all I’m saying is that was something we discussed before, and max contracts are always big question, guarantees are always a big question. But we have two years before that’s even an issue, so no point discussing it now.”



While many of us read Cuban's comments and focused only on the impact on future labor negotiations; I could not help thinking that Cuban's words sounded a bit like the owners were discussing colluding to change the market which results in guaranteed deals (just as the NFL was accused of doing during the supposedly "uncapped year").

As I've stated many times before the only NBA contracts mandated by the CBA to be guaranteed are those belonging to 1st round picks on their rookie deals.  Any other guaranteed contract is the result of the negotiations as they exist in the current market.

With that in mind; its hard to not read Cuban's comments and feel that the owner's were discussing artificially changing the market which results in the lion's share of the workforce receiving totally guaranteed deals.

Friday, February 8, 2013

Reevaluating Commisioner Stern's Decision to Rescind CP3 Trade to Lakers

For all the criticism Stern took in the closing days of 2011 when he rescinded the original Chris Paul trade to LA hindsight has shown that the right decision was made.  For all the talk about how that trade would impact other teams very little attention was paid to the Hornets who are indisputably in a better situation based on the trade that Stern accepted as opposed to the original 3-way.

For all the talk about parity and Stern trying to flex his muscles immediately after agreeing to a new CBA with the players, all evidence suggests that none of these things were actually considered when he rejected the original deal.  At the time of the trade the NBA owned the Hornets and was actively trying to sell the club.  When pressed on why he decided to rescind the trade, Stern replied “[t]he decision was taken that Chris Paul in New Orleans was more valuable than the trade that was being discussed,” the commissioner said.

While the deal he declined would have made New Orleans better short-term than the one he accepted, but it would have made the team much less attractive to potential buyers and severely restricted the Hornets cap-space. Stern realized that owners want to make their own mark on the team and that would not have been possible had they acquired 3 vets (Lamar Odom, Luis Scola, and Kevin Martin), and a young PG (Dragic) whose contract was up last summer.  

The trade that was rescinded would have resulted in their payroll looking like this had it gone down >>>>>

 
Hornets payroll including players that would have been added in original 3-way trade that was rescinded

















Is it really worth paying Lamar Odom [2 years $17 mil], Kevin Martin [2 years $24 mil], and Luis Scola [4 years $30 mil] just to be mediocre? Plus the team would be right at the cap before re-signing Goran Dragic and without including Ryan Anderson (who was signed as a free agent and has probably been the most consistent player for the Hornets all year) or whoever the Hornets would have drafted in 2012 (which likely would have been a middle of the pack pick since the team would have been better in 2011-12). 

For comparison's lets also look at the cap figures for the players received in the trade that sent CP3 to the Clippers (including the unprotected 1st round pick from Minnesota which turned into Austin Rivers).



Hornets payroll including players added in trade with Clippers [* included Gordon's max contract in salaries received because it was always assumed EJ would require a max contract to stay in New Orleans]
















With this deal the Hornets ended up with approximately $12 mil in cap space.   This cap room turned into Ryan Anderson and Robin Lopez, who have turned into two of the best values over the summer and those moves combined with hitting lottery gold and drafting Anthony Davis has given this team a great future.

At the end of the day great job by the Commissioner.





Monday, December 12, 2011

My Reaction to Dan Gilbert's Infamous Letter

by Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

You may know that I'm not the biggest fan of some of Dan Gilbert's comments, but how can you read his letter and not believe that this is the most asinine statement ever.  If you haven't seen it I have included it here in its entirety.

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 (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.


Via Yahoo

Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/news#ixzz1g2S1bkIx

First off let me say that I am not attacking Gilbert, he is a savvy businessman and passionate owner.  I respect that and wish that most other teams had an owner who were even half as involved with their teams as he seems to be with his.  

My criticism stems only from some of the statements he makes, including his latest comments which baffle me because of what has happened to the team he owns.  You would think that if anybody should understand how bad it hurts a franchise to lose a superstar for basically nothing in free agency it would be the Cavs. But here it seems that the man who owns that team has the nerve to claim that it would be better to keep Paul for this year just to let him walk and cripple the franchise? 

Makes no sense.