Soxbadger

Yes but it shouldnt take this fiasco for people to question why the NBA owns the Hornets with no conceivable plan for getting rid of them.

I care about knowing the facts before I go and say that something is the worst thing thats ever happened in the world. The worst thing that ever happened is the idea that a sport can own a franchise. It doesnt make any sense and it cant be run properly. That being said, since the NBA decided to go that route, the next best thing is to run the franchise for as little as possible, to sell the team as quickly as possible and during the ownership do as little as possible to hurt the value. The NBA owning the Hornets is a major problem, thats what should really be questioned.

Steve, If KW agrees to a trade and Reinsdorf says no, do you think the trade still happens?

Correct. And if they were going to own a team they basically should have appointed some sort of trustee to protect the asset who would have a duty to the team.

Steve, How can you say its bad without knowing the facts? For all we know the GM's had an agreement subject to the approval of the owners. The Hornets owner didnt approve. I just cant find any real information on what happened.

The truth is its entirely unclear where in the process the trade was.

What is something youd rather have sex with?

Fathom, There is no way the Hornets are better off trading a young superstar for those guys. Paul is a superstar, if you want a new owner you are going to have to move Paul for another superstar that you can sell to the new owner to build the franchise around. If I was thinking of buying the Hornets, Id want to at least try and resign Paul and sell him on the idea that Im going to make the Hornets great.

Fathom, The NBA is the crappy owner here. See the problem, if the Hornets lose everyone really has lost. Thats why its very odd that Hornets are even involved in any trade discussions. The #1 priority for the NBA should be to find a new owner for Hornets and let the new owner do what he wants.

Also the NBA has to try and retain the value of the Hornets franchise for when they want to sell it. They cant just trade everyone for nothing. Its surprising they are entertaining any trade offers when the team is not owned.

On what grounds, i can make up a million but my guess is something like: Hornets are owned by NBA as such the deal was "preliminary" and not "official" in that it had to be approved by XYZ. When presented to XYZ the deal was not approved and thus there never was any deal to kill.

The NBA owns the Hornets is the exact reason he may kill the deal. He isnt going to have an owners civil war that results in his ouster over trading Paul to the Lakers. He works for the owners, he will appease the majority.

bmags, Thats what Im getting at. If you want Howard or a superstar, you can trade for him if he isnt agreeing to resign. And you can spend the entire year trying to convince him to stay. If you are a team that isnt one of the "haves" you gotta take a risk. You just cant sit and say I wont offer because the guy wont sign with me. Otherwise youll always be playing for scraps.

The Bulls can trade more value without the promise of Howard resigning. The question is how bad do you want to win. Do you take the risk? If the Bulls can get Howard at a reasonable rate, I wouldnt be completely opposed to taking the risk that over a season he decides he wants to sign with Chicago.

Yeah ive been suspect on Purdue but people seem to like them so I was waiting for conference play to really rate them.

Its sad to lose Mark. But this is the natural end. The Sox signing Mark would have been nothing more than an attempt to appease the fan base while they sucked. Who does that really help? I personally believe picking the Marlins was a questionable move but thats mainly because I dont see what the long term model is there. It seems like they are just throwing money around and they already play in a good division. Who knows, I think the Marlins had to significantly overpay to get him.

Im sure that is part of it, but once again bond money is to ensure that the person doesnt flee. Sandusky didnt flee. Its fact specific, which is why bond amounts can drastically vary.

Good luck, been a good ride.

It just seems the Marlins are a crash and burn waiting to happen.

Unions can exert influence, but I guarantee the person who is most influencing the decision is his agent. 1% of $350k is considerable less than 1% of $35mil

Oney is going on down there.

Unless you can point to a specific rule in the Union Agreement, I really believe Mark can sign for any amount of money, provided that there is no collusion or Mark is not getting some sort of non-salary benefit that makes up for his lack of salary. If I refuse to play in NY the Union cant make me play there, even if NY offers 100x more than Chicago. I think you are referring to the fact that a player who is being traded cant renegotiate his salary lower after being traded. And that is because the contract has already been signed and the Union wants to make sure that there is no precedent for players being traded and then giving discounts. I believe this was A-Rod to the Red Sox.

If the Sox are selling its not about targeting certain spects, its about getting whatever you can for the players. If you are going to slash and burn, you cant necessarily worry about maximizing value. Part of the value is getting rid of the contracts and having a fresh start.

Bail is dependent on multiple factors, one of them being flight risk. The bond for Sandusky was obviously good enough because he didnt run, which is the purpose of a bond.

Mark can sign a deal for the league minimum if he wants. The Union would really have no argument. You cant put a price on playing close to home, you could argue its worth more than any contract.