Woj: Marcus Morris Reneging on Agreement with Spurs?

[Mr. Body]

Boozer lied to a blind owner, telling him to release him from his contract and then he'd re-sign to a longer term deal. Instead, the blind owner released Boozer from his contract and Boozer signed with the Jazz instead

This is bad but Boozer is still worse, tbh.

Boozer blew up as a player and the owner thought he should stay at the illegally set contract price they made. It wasn't above board to begin with. What he did wasn't great, but isn't close to this. And stop with the 'he was blind' . That's ableist bull .

[Mr. Body]

Boozer lied to a blind owner, telling him to release him from his contract and then he'd re-sign to a longer term deal. Instead, the blind owner released Boozer from his contract and Boozer signed with the Jazz instead

This is bad but Boozer is still worse, tbh.

Boozer blew up as a player and the owner thought he should stay at the illegally set contract price they made. It wasn't above board to begin with. What he did wasn't great, but isn't close to this. And stop with the 'he was blind' . That's ableist bull .

[YoungbuckMurray]

I would love for a team to sign somebody then a week later say we never signed anything and we found another option at a cheaper price. We’re sorry most of the other teams have spent their payroll, but we gotta make the most out of our salaries. This player is 20% cheaper, adios

Think about how much that team would be crucified. Yet a player does it and nobody bats an eye

[ZeusWillJudge]

Boozer lied to a blind owner, telling him to release him from his contract and then he'd re-sign to a longer term deal. Instead, the blind owner released Boozer from his contract and Boozer signed with the Jazz instead

This is bad but Boozer is still worse, tbh.

It's always hard for me to feel too sorry for the Cavs on that Boozer deal. They knew that making that deal was illegal, which is why they had to make it behind closed doors. You lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Boozer is still a s , but the Cavs owner tried to do something the rest of the owners couldn't do, and he got screwed.

[picnroll]

Unfortunately the current generation of players in particular think unethical sleaze balls like Rich Paul and Clutch sports are bad ass willing to do anything, break contracts, renege on deals, to get more money desired situations for their clients. Only hope is if a majority of owners get pissed enough to man up and address the siution which i doubt will happen. No big market team is going to complain about this BS for sure. Always been bad but getting worse.

[timvp]

Are you being disingenuous? You're saying what Klutch is doing isn't a big deal and I'm saying you're very much wrong. Because you're very much wrong.

Where did I say it wasn't a big deal? I was directing that comment at those saying the Spurs should bail on Dejounte Murray due to his connection to Klutch. Sure, Klutch is wrong but you don't take it out on Murray.

[spurraider21]

Boozer lied to a blind owner, telling him to release him from his contract and then he'd re-sign to a longer term deal. Instead, the blind owner released Boozer from his contract and Boozer signed with the Jazz instead

This is bad but Boozer is still worse, tbh.

yeah but cleveland didnt trade away a rotation player for nothing because of boozer's "commitment"

[ZeusWillJudge]

Lyles and Oubre are about it. Unless the Spurs want to try and go poaching "agreements" that haven't been finalized yet.

[Dennis the Menace]

Would be awesome if Dejounte dropped Klutch Sports. Doubt it though

[FvckMavs]

Sign him up, tbh.....

His agent is Rich Paul too.

[picnroll]

Would be awesome if Dejounte dropped Klutch Sports. Doubt it though

Make him a hero to many Spurs fans.

[Laker_1995]

Or AD forcing his way to the Lakers because Rich Paul and Magic were in his ear telling him to do it. It all goes back to Kobe on draft day.

Lets take this downstairs tough guy

[vy65]

no, klutch is just doing what their client instructs. the agreement or "promise" was between the spurs and morris. the legal theory would be "promissory estoppel" because the spurs acted to their detriment (trading bertans, adding a 3rd year to carroll's deal) based on reasonable reliance on assurances given by morris. even if those assurances/promises werent in the form of a binding contract, courts could enforce based on the spurs damages.

but yeah, this is all just a mental exercise. dallas went through the same thing with deandre. not the first time this has happened. though i dont know that dallas made any specific roster moves purely because of deandre's commitment, the way spurs did with bertans/carroll

There's an oral contract. They reached an agreement on all material terms. Only question would be if it fell into the statute of frauds or not.

[YoungbuckMurray]

Lyles and Oubre are about it. Unless the Spurs want to try and go poaching "agreements" that haven't been finalized yet.

Mine as well. What has being 100% class organization done for them lately. Oh ya Kawhi and now Morris.

[spurraider21]

There's an oral contract. They reached an agreement on all material terms. Only question would be if it fell into the statute of frauds or not.

if its more than a 1 year contract for services... then its definitely a statute of frauds issue. notwithstanding the fact that the NBA has its own rules which would supersede any common law.

i think estoppel is the way to go due to the whole detrimental reliance aspect of what the spurs suffered

[Mugen]

His agent is Rich Paul too.

[timvp]

Boozer blew up as a player and the owner thought he should stay at the illegally set contract price they made. It wasn't above board to begin with. What he did wasn't great, but isn't close to this. And stop with the 'he was blind' . That's ableist bull .

It's always hard for me to feel too sorry for the Cavs on that Boozer deal. They knew that making that deal was illegal, which is why they had to make it behind closed doors. You lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Boozer is still a s , but the Cavs owner tried to do something the rest of the owners couldn't do, and he got screwed.

IIRC, it wasn't an illegal deal. He agreed to a framework of deal, the Cavs declined the team option and then he signed a poison pill contract with the Jazz.

But whatevs ... was a long time ago under different CBA rules.

[anon]

Hi, you are a pretty stupid, new face around here. Can't wait to read more of your moronic takes!

Are you saying agents are now looking at Buford with increased respect? This is a pure and simple slapping. Seems like more and more players are starting to disrespect a franchise they know is toothless. The Spurs are a soft target now.

[Joseph Kony]

so is this official yet or what? did he back out or is there still hope?

[exstatic]

Where did I say it wasn't a big deal? I was directing that comment at those saying the Spurs should bail on Dejounte Murray due to his connection to Klutch. Sure, Klutch is wrong but you don't take it out on Murray.

Do you wait for Klutch to give you an ultimatum? A list of teams he will play with? Because I saw that show already last summer and we got pennies on the dollar...

I'm not saying "dump" him, but if he does well, and you get offers, you move on, and don't deal with Klutch any more. RP seems to have a hard on for Pop after the Demps phone call.

[Mugen]

Just play Keldon more tbh. I'm not losing a ing second of sleep over Marcus F'n Morris

[ducks]

This is something Hilary Rodman Clinton would do

[Spurs9]

Lyles and Oubre are about it. Unless the Spurs want to try and go poaching "agreements" that haven't been finalized yet.

Who can the Spurs swoop in on?

[3&D_TBH]

WOJ has a tweet up that talks about how the Knicks handled Bullock’s (spelling?) situation in such a classy way.
No mention, however, about the classless way they just shoved their nose in the middle of our verbal commitment with MM.

[cd98]

There's an oral contract. They reached an agreement on all material terms. Only question would be if it fell into the statute of frauds or not.

It's a promise for a service of more than one year, so likely must be in writing.