Another GM Says It's No Biggie With KP - Business As Usual

[ABM]

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=11196

 

[Natebishop3]

That's more along the lines of what I figured. People had a kneejerk reaction, but eventually what it will boil down to is that we have talent and desirable contracts. GM's will listen when KP calls.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Great article.

 

[craigehlo]

Good read. These are organizations worth hundreds of millions of dollars, I don't think that personality comes into play that much when teams look to make deals.

 

[Natebishop3]

Good read. These are organizations worth hundreds of millions of dollars, I don't think that personality comes into play that much when teams look to make deals.

Really I think it only has to do with division rivalries and things like that. We wouldn't go out of our way to help the Nuggets at this point, and I can't ever think of a time when we traded with the Lakers.

 

[illmatic99]

What's an "extravert?"

 

[Natebishop3]

The opposite of an intro-vert?

 

[ABM]

What's an "extravert?"

Outgoing, proactive, intentional.

 

[mgb]

I wonder if that executive was a Blazer?

Seriously, what it said near the end is true. We most likely won't even make a deal during the season this year just like last year.

 

[Masbee]

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=11196

I am too damn lazy to click links most of the time.

If you want to share, I would like the money quote.

Thanks.

 

[oldmangrouch]

If your priority is to have a GM who is popular with other GMs - bring back Nash. I'm sure everybody loved him, since he made their jobs so much easier.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Wendell Maxey is a good writer, his blog is a really good read too: http://beyondthebeat.wordpress.com/ -- blazers centric, but since he's employed by Hoopsworld to cover the team, he's pretty objective.

 

[ABM]

I am too damn lazy to click links most of the time.

If you want to share, I would like the money quote.

Thanks.

I would, if I weren't so lazy.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Is it too early for "I told you so's" to the doom-and-gloomers? The ones who said we'll be sued by Miles, the NBAPA, and everyone else b/c we dared to send an email that said "don't maliciously eff with us"? AFTER 6 months of tacitly letting it go by, which Wallace didn't feel the need to listen to our phone calls saying "you really don't want to be blackmailing us..."

IMO, this actually shows how dumb Wallace and Ainge can be. All Wallace had to do was keep him 4 games (which, iirc, would have let them ditch Miles before the guarantee deadline), then have the word come out that "oh, btw the preseason counted, too". Ainge could've said "man, we didn't know...we were just trying him out". Wallace could've said "I had no intention of playing him just to mess with Portland...we were testing him out for 4 games, and we had no idea the preseason stuff counted". We would've been up a creek with the "malicious" argument.

Instead, MEM tries to get greedy. If their intention was to milk money out of Portland, then why help another team get under the lux tax mark? That cuts their check at the end of the year by another portion, and makes the pool of money to be split up smaller.

I keep coming back to this: Wallace is not as smart as he thinks he is, he's not that good at subterfuge, and he's the type that accepts challenges into pissing contests. Where I come from, those guys are dangerous, but only if you're close to them. They do stuff that gets you killed. Being an NBAGM isn't the same as being military, but those types of guys aren't generally the type that logic applies to.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Highlight:

Are teams around the league now more hesitant to negotiate with Portland based on their forceful e-mail stance regarding Miles?

According to one NBA league executive who spoke to HOOPSWORLD on the condition of anonymity, there remains "no long term repercussion", despite some front offices harboring negative feelings towards Portland.

"I don't think it matters too much," the league executive said when asked if teams would refrain from negotiating with the Blazers with the trade deadline looming.

"When you are an executive of another team, you are looking at Portland's roster and you are trying to figure out how you can get better. And I think on the margins there are going to be situations where people are going to be less proactive in dealing with Portland because of that, but on the whole, people are interested in their own deals they can put together.

"If they can find a way to make it beneficial they are going to do that."



The questsion is are posters willing to disregard this writer's quotes from the GM becuase of the condition of anonymity . . . like with Canzano.

I think it is that "condition of anonymity" that allows the press to get stories. So these comments are probalbly true, just like Canzano's quotes, IMO.

Getting a mixed bag of responses with more negaitive than positive . . . but to be expected with a controversial email.

 

[Ed O]

Is it too early for "I told you so's" to the doom-and-gloomers? The ones who said we'll be sued by Miles, the NBAPA, and everyone else b/c we dared to send an email that said "don't maliciously eff with us"? AFTER 6 months of tacitly letting it go by, which Wallace didn't feel the need to listen to our phone calls saying "you really don't want to be blackmailing us..."

It seems you're making a lot of stuff up there, man. Maybe you know more than I do, but I doubt that Wallace would be willing to blackmail the Blazers like that, given the capability of 28 other teams to do exactly what the Grizzlies have done.

IMO, this actually shows how dumb Wallace and Ainge can be. All Wallace had to do was keep him 4 games (which, iirc, would have let them ditch Miles before the guarantee deadline), then have the word come out that "oh, btw the preseason counted, too". Ainge could've said "man, we didn't know...we were just trying him out". Wallace could've said "I had no intention of playing him just to mess with Portland...we were testing him out for 4 games, and we had no idea the preseason stuff counted". We would've been up a creek with the "malicious" argument.

The Blazers still don't have a leg to stand on. Why should the other teams bother to do that?

Instead, MEM tries to get greedy. If their intention was to milk money out of Portland, then why help another team get under the lux tax mark? That cuts their check at the end of the year by another portion, and makes the pool of money to be split up smaller.

The math is pretty easy here.

It's perfectly reasonable for the Heat to pay Memphis enough to make up for the reduced luxury tax payment share that they were going to receive as a result of helping them.

The burden of the Heat's gain is spread across all of the teams that will receive luxury tax benefits, while the benefit for helping the Heat is split only between the Heat and the Grizzlies.

I keep coming back to this: Wallace is not as smart as he thinks he is, he's not that good at subterfuge, and he's the type that accepts challenges into pissing contests. Where I come from, those guys are dangerous, but only if you're close to them. They do stuff that gets you killed. Being an NBAGM isn't the same as being military, but those types of guys aren't generally the type that logic applies to.

Wallace hasn't built a good team yet, so he's clearly not demonstrated he's good at his job. The rest just seems to be interpersonal speculation and misunderstanding of arithmetic on your part.

Ed O.

 

[illmatic99]

Outgoing, proactive, intentional.

huh. I never knew you could spell it with an 'a.' http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extravert

 

[Masbee]

And in a business predicated on "relationships", how will this bode for Portland's immediate dealings around the league, particularly with the NBA trade deadline just over a month away.
Are teams around the league now more hesitant to negotiate with Portland based on their forceful e-mail stance regarding Miles?

So this writer worries that the relationships based deal making may suffer for Portland because of this e-mail.

It is a topic worth pondering, that of relationships. Have seen similar thoughts in the media and on the boards before.

Yet every single time, the worries expressed are that Portland has been the one to damage whatever relationships existed or could have existed.

Relationships are not one-sided. So why are the comments about damaging relationships one-sided?

Where is the concern for those teams that may have gleefully conspired to game the system mostly or solely to reduce Portland's ability to make free agent offers next summer, and force them to pay millions of dollars in luxury tax?

Haven't those team already damaged their "relationships" - certainly with Portland, and possibly with other team's that are sympathetic to Portland's situation (ie Cuban)?

I think a more nuanced question would be "to what extent may Portland have FURTHER damaged its already strained relationships by sending this e-mail".

If Portland bites their tounge - sends no e-mail: Does anybody really think that after their stunts that Boston and Memphis were going to be making deals with Portland any time soon? What has changed? Were aren't trading for LeBron now because Dan Gilbert is offended by an e-mail?

 

[Nikolokolus]

So this writer worries that the relationships based deal making may suffer for Portland because of this e-mail.

It is a topic worth pondering, that of relationships. Have seen similar thoughts in the media and on the boards before.

Yet every single time, the worries expressed are that Portland has been the one to damage whatever relationships existed or could have existed.

Relationships are not one-sided. So why are the comments about damaging relationships one-sided?

The team's decision to send a threatening letter to every team in the league is world's different than one or another team deciding to sign a player which has the potential to financially damage a single entity. This is the equivalent of a 1 vs. 1 altercation being expanded to include everyone in the room -- the equivalent of carpet bombing a village to get one target.

Where is the concern for those teams that may have gleefully conspired to game the system mostly or solely to reduce Portland's ability to make free agent offers next summer, and force them to pay millions of dollars in luxury tax?

Haven't those team already damaged their "relationships" - certainly with Portland, and possibly with other team's that are sympathetic to Portland's situation (ie Cuban)?

Where is the concern? There is none, because there's no rule that explicitly prohibits it. It's certainly classless, and maybe a little ruthless, but there was no unlawful act committed here, because there is no way to prove that the motives of Memphis/Boston were/are impure. If you take away the name Miles, this behavior is not uncommon; waiving guys before guaranteed contracts kick in only to turn around and sign that player to a ten day deal happens all the time -- this time it just has the added bonus of damaging a rival's ability to compete.

I think a more nuanced question would be "to what extent may Portland have FURTHER damaged its already strained relationships by sending this e-mail".

If Portland bites their tounge - sends no e-mail: Does anybody really think that after their stunts that Boston and Memphis were going to be making deals with Portland any time soon? What has changed? Were aren't trading for LeBron now because Dan Gilbert is offended by an e-mail?

Fair enough, neither team was a likely trading partner although I have little doubt that Memphis as a trading partner is off the table for years. I tend to think that if Portland is smart and doesn't try to pursue this to its ultimate stupidity in the courts then the long term ramifications of the e-mail are pretty close to no appreciable negative effect.

The key here is, how much are the Vulcans and PA behind this and how far are they willing to go.

 

[Masbee]

The team's decision to send a threatening letter to every team in the league is world's different than one or another team deciding to sign a player which has the potential to financially damage a single entity. This is the equivalent of a 1 vs. 1 altercation being expanded to include everyone in the room -- the equivalent of carpet bombing a village to get one target.

Sports writers (and internet posters and bloggers) in general, are FAR FAR FAR FAR more excited by a mass e-mail legal warning then the majority of big-time execs for NBA teams.

The fact of the matter was the e-mail didn't apply to nearly all the teams. It was a CYA, prep the ground warning note, that is common in business.

Trust me, most of the NBA had a collective yawn. A few reacted. The extreme reactions don't define the issue or nail down its impact.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Sports writers (and internet posters and bloggers) in general, are FAR FAR FAR FAR more excited by a mass e-mail legal warning then the majority of big-time execs for NBA teams.

The fact of the matter was the e-mail didn't apply to nearly all the teams. It was a CYA, prep the ground warning note, that is common in business.

Trust me, most of the NBA had a collective yawn. A few reacted. The extreme reactions don't define the issue or nail down its impact.

If most of the NBA had a collective yawn . . . wouldn't some (besides Cuban) come to the defense of the Blazers when they get blasted by a owner and the player's association.

I don't see the collective yawn happening behind close doors. I see a lot of "who does that son of bitch think he is" with no comment to the press. And although this type of email might be common in business, it is not common among big ego NBA owners.

But does it hurt Blazers future negotaitions . . . I don't think the Blazers are blackballed or anything. I think many GMs will want to make sure they are gettin a good deal and might be less likely to engage in a flyer type trade with the Blazers, but I agree a GMs job is to improve their team and taht is what they will focus on.

The whole thing just sounds like sour grapes from the Blazers with very few feeling sorry for the Blazers and some upset with the Blazers.

(also, I would hate to enter into negotiations with anopther business partner that I know is sue happy or threatens lawsuits . . . no thank you)

 

[Minstrel]

If most of the NBA had a collective yawn . . . wouldn't some (besides Cuban) come to the defense of the Blazers when they get blasted by a owner and the player's association.

Why? Isn't "coming to the defense" pretty much the opposite of "yawning?"

I don't see why, if most of the NBA didn't care, anyone would bother trying to defend the Blazers. They'd just ignore it.

 

[Masbee]

If most of the NBA had a collective yawn . . . wouldn't some (besides Cuban) come to the defense of the Blazers when they get blasted by a owner and the player's association.

Why would they? They are not that interested one way or the other. That is what collective yawn means. Best to stay out of it really.

I don't see the collective yawn happening behind close doors. I see a lot of "who does that son of bitch think he is" with no comment to the press. And although this type of email might be common in business, it is not common among big ego NBA owners.

But does it hurt Blazers future negotaitions . . . I don't think the Blazers are blackballed or anything. I think many GMs will want to make sure they are gettin a good deal and might be less likely to engage in a flyer type trade with the Blazers, but I agree a GMs job is to improve their team and taht is what they will focus on.

The whole thing just sounds like sour grapes from the Blazers with very few feeling sorry for the Blazers and some upset with the Blazers.

(also, I would hate to enter into negotiations with anopther business partner that I know is sue happy or threatens lawsuits . . . no thank you)

Am I missing something?

We have two attributed quotes from owners. One pro Blazer's, one anti.

Then we have a bunch of unnamed quotes floating in the media, many as part of articles by known loose-with-the-facts douche's like Canzano, others as part of articles that contain glaring errors or known misquoting of the e-mail.

I am not really sure how much stock we should put in such muckracking.

Maybe it is a true reflection of the state of affairs.

Just as likely it is complete horseshit.
A couple of the quotes are not really believable.

I think my guess as to the state of affairs is at least as likely as that painted by the hysterical media.

Prove otherwise. You know, with facts.

And based on the actions of Ainge and Wallace we can confidently guess that any "relationship" between those teams was LONG AGO damaged. You think this e-mail made any difference with those guys? They had already declared war on the Blazers. You think not sending the e-mail would have made them call a truce? Fat chance.

So, any true quotes that may come out of those two organizations are to be discounted.

 

[BrianFromWA]

It seems you're making a lot of stuff up there, man. Maybe you know more than I do, but I doubt that Wallace would be willing to blackmail the Blazers like that, given the capability of 28 other teams to do exactly what the Grizzlies have done.

Of course I'm speculating. But I'm not the only one. Blog writers such as Canzano, on-air radio and TV, people supposedly "in the know" have brought this up since August. But 28 other teams didn't do what the Grizzlies did. Even if you accept the Celtics pre-season tryout as legit (even though Boston journalists and beat writers wrote that at the time that there was no way one of the guaranteed contracts was getting waived, so Miles wouldn't have a reason to be trying out), no one felt the need to sign Miles over the next 6 months. Until multiple offers to get Outlaw were shot down by the Blazers.

My question was, "is it too early to say 'I told you so?'" I would submit that there is more than one poster on here who claimed that the Blazers would be sued. They haven't. For Billy Hunter's bluster and the hundreds of articles saying "we'll file a grievance"...to my short google search I still haven't heard that they've heard the grievance about Marbury's suspension in Nov., and that was actually was filed, unlike in this situation.

The Blazers still don't have a leg to stand on. Why should the other teams bother to do that?

I don't know, maybe because it opens the others up to litigation now, and they don't have the "we didn't know" excuse. (I'm not a lawyer, so I'll stop there) You are willing to say that perhaps I know more about you on the blackmail thing, but not willing to say that Miller potentially does? How do you know what leg the Blazers have to stand on? I sure don't. But we (the collective posting population) have gone from IKPIT to "the guy's an idiot who'll get us sued" in less than a week.

The math is pretty easy here.

It's perfectly reasonable for the Heat to pay Memphis enough to make up for the reduced luxury tax payment share that they were going to receive as a result of helping them.

The burden of the Heat's gain is spread across all of the teams that will receive luxury tax benefits, while the benefit for helping the Heat is split only between the Heat and the Grizzlies.

The report I originally read (since confirmed as false) did not have "cash considerations" in it. It said it was Livingston for a conditional 2nd. I agree, if MIA paid Livingston's salary, gave MEM their chunk of tax payment, and the diff b/w 1/23rd and 1/24th, it's fine. Going under the assumption I was, that they take Livingston's contract, lower the tax pool, and increase the # of teams divvying up that pool, it seemed to be a net loss.

Wallace hasn't built a good team yet, so he's clearly not demonstrated he's good at his job. The rest just seems to be interpersonal speculation and misunderstanding of arithmetic on your part.

Ed O.

Of all my faults, I'd say "misunderstanding of arithmetic" would be one of the least. Change to "misunderstanding of what Wallace is trying to do", and "misguided ability to trust in what you read from the media", and I have no problems with it.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I din't know where to put this so I will put it here . . . was thinking in the car (I can do that every once iun a while):

If a team decides to take a chance on Miles because they figure they got nothig to lose . . . either Miles works out and contributes to the team, or he is garbage and no use. If he is garbage and no use, no big deal because you recop the $$ from the luxury tax.

Would that be wrong for a team to sign Miles under that consideration? Because that is the reality of the sitaution, you can take a chance on Miles without it costing a thing . . . why not?

 

[BrianFromWA]

I don't personally see a problem with it, but here's where I think Miller may have been smart...

They didn't send this email to Boston in August, or in October while everyone was filling their rosters. They didn't even send it after MEM picked him up the first time. NO ONE in 4 months (other than MEM now) even hinted they might be signing him. Some others that were signed (just in DEC):

Juwan Howard
Malik Hairston
Dee Brown
Fred Jones
Dikembe Mutombo
Jeremy Richardson

Not exactly a murderer's row of talent. If someone was looking for a cheap, low-risk high-reward SF project, I don't understand the logic that brings Miles as your answer. Boston, IMO, actually gave him a decent chance with a few decent minutes in preseason, and showed everyone the level Miles could play at. No one wanted to take a chance on him, even with a 10-day, until MEM. I think that the email just put into the minds of people that they'll have to either play him legitimately (which Miles and his agent should like) or be really prepared to defend why you didn't play him more than 1 minute in 2 games.

So now, he's either radioactive to those on the up-and-up (who didn't want him before, anyway) or a big "eff you, sue me" from those who would sign him. Since Wallace is the only one in the latter category, maybe the email paid off.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Personally, I hope the Blazers hire the meanest pitbull of an attorney that they can find and push this as hard as they can.

The whole "preseason games count" ruling strikes me as one hell of a smoking gun.

Would sitting out a preseason game have counted towards Miles' suspension? Would it count toward his pension rights? Do "T's" or fragrant fouls called during preseason count toward possible suspensions? NO. This is the first time in history that the NBA has recognized preseason games as more than glorified pick-up games or workouts. They are going against their own established business practice.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I don't personally see a problem with it, but here's where I think Miller may have been smart...

They didn't send this email to Boston in August, or in October while everyone was filling their rosters. They didn't even send it after MEM picked him up the first time. NO ONE in 4 months (other than MEM now) even hinted they might be signing him. Some others that were signed (just in DEC):

Juwan Howard
Malik Hairston
Dee Brown
Fred Jones
Dikembe Mutombo
Jeremy Richardson

Not exactly a murderer's row of talent. If someone was looking for a cheap, low-risk high-reward SF project, I don't understand the logic that brings Miles as your answer. Boston, IMO, actually gave him a decent chance with a few decent minutes in preseason, and showed everyone the level Miles could play at. No one wanted to take a chance on him, even with a 10-day, until MEM. I think that the email just put into the minds of people that they'll have to either play him legitimately (which Miles and his agent should like) or be really prepared to defend why you didn't play him more than 1 minute in 2 games.

So now, he's either radioactive to those on the up-and-up (who didn't want him before, anyway) or a big "eff you, sue me" from those who would sign him. Since Wallace is the only one in the latter category, maybe the email paid off.

Because Miles is going to cost the organization literally zero. The other vets mentioned you still have to pay the vet's minimum. With Miles you pay the minimum and Allen cuts you a check right back . . . kind of like 100% rebate or 300% rebate.

 

[drexlersdad]

Personally, I hope the Blazers hire the meanest pitbull of an attorney that they can find and push this as hard as they can.

The whole "preseason games count" ruling strikes me as one hell of a smoking gun.

Would sitting out a preseason game have counted towards Miles' suspension? Would it count toward his pension rights? Do "T's" or fragrant fouls called during preseason count toward possible suspensions? NO. This is the first time in history that the NBA has recognized preseason games as more than glorified pick-up games or workouts. They are going against their own established business practice.

i was hoping PA's lawyers could argue that, especially if mem doesnt play him for 10 games by themselves, and maybe they would wipe those 6 out.