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

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

 

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.

 

Great article.

 

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.

 

What's an "extravert?"

 

The opposite of an intro-vert?

 

Outgoing, proactive, intentional.

 

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.

 

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

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

Thanks.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I would, if I weren't so lazy.

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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? 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.

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.

 

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.