Reply With Quote
Spurs didn't have a first round pick this year.
I know it's hoopsworld- but this article made me think of Holt- even though it wasn't him because they had no first round pick.
Dishonest GMs: The names of the teams and players are being deliberately withheld… Every year there are examples of shady actions by NBA teams and their management, especially as it relates to the draft… This year’s case was shockingly bad… there was a prominent player from a notable school who was told by one of the most recognized names in the GM business, that his club was taking him with their first round pick, that player was told by his agent that the same GM called him and told him that they were taking him with their first round pick. Come draft night the cards aligned so that the player was there when the team picks – and lo and behold the team did not select the player, and in fact selected a terrible player in his place. After the draft the agent called the GM to ask why they promised the player they would take him, and did not – The GM’s response: Our owner is terribly cheap and will not let us spend in free agency so the only way we could address our needs is to draft the player we did. The situation worked out for the player, who had likely shut down workouts early after getting a commitment, he landed in a decent situation in the 2nd round, but the story goes to show that no one can trust what a GM is saying on draft night. While the team has an obligation to draft the players they want to draft, tearing out the heart of a young player with shady and empty promises is exactly why players show no loyalty to teams. The GM’s lie cost the player about $800,000 in salary and guarantees.
http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_17930.shtml
Spurs didn't have a first round pick this year.
I don't see how teams are able to break verbal contracts?
maybe it is a Texas thng but here your word is your word, your honor
Someone has sand in their vaginaI know it's hoopsworld- but this article made me think of Holt- even though it wasn't him because they had no first round pick.
Sincerely,I don't see how teams are able to break verbal contracts?
Carlos Boozer
Because it's no a legal verbal contract.
Not to mention, in the business world, your word is just that, your word.
It's not even a contract -- for it to be a contract, both sides have to give something. If Team A promises Player B that it will draft him, Player B hasn't given up anything to receive that promise, so there is no contract. Promises aren't enforcable in law until they become contracts. These aren't contracts, so there's nothing to enforce.
A hunch -- the article is catigating Seattle.
Though they are super cheap, I don't think so. They worked out Sene three times and were targeting Sene, Gay and Foye. They tried to trade up for Gay/Foye and tried to trade down to take Sene. Then Utah said they were going to take Sene at 14 -- so the Sonics just took him at 10.
Color me owned.
Given the $800,000 figure, I thought they meant around pick 23-26 ... Memphis??
owner gives up chance to draft somone else
implied the money involved will be the price of that draft slot garuenteed contract
player gives up the chance to work out with other teams
basicly the gM said we will pick you here where you will automaticly earn soemthing around X, if you aren't taken by a team above us
in exchange DON'T work out with anyother teams
so player gives up workouts as mentioned in article
this is valuable and both parts have givin up soemthing and their is compensation of a X amount involved.
Now if gm says we might draft you then that is just a comment but when a GM says WE will draft you and don't work out with other teams then they need to upload their word and next time just say we might draft and nto say we will and don't work out with other teams
Then take on his represenation and file a lawsuit.
Good luck.
Lowry isn't a terrible player, the article said they ended up with a terrible player. The only terrible players in the first round were drafted by the knicks, i doubt that's who they're talking about.
I was just looking for a possibly cheap owner with a well-known GM around that part of the draft.
Maybe Portland? Steve Patterson isn't exactly one of the most recognized GMs, but I can't imagine the Blazers' ownership is willing to spend too much right now. The only other team I can imagine is Phoenix, but they didn't actually end up with anyone. It sounds a lot like San Antonio or Detroit, but they didn't have first-round picks.
What about Philadelphia? Billy King's been around for awhile, and although they didn't keep Sefolosha, maybe the promise was to Brewer?
from, does the NBA make people sign anythign when they inroll in raft saying teams cannot promise or soemthing?
anyways maybe he can sue his agent for allowing him to cancel workouts. but just canceling doesn't mean other teams would have liked him
I am not a lawyer so i cannot act as repersentation in america.
Yeah I'm trying to figure it out in the proper range. 24-28 actually make in the 800K range. But the players taken in that range, I don't consider poor picks. It might be Joel Freeland who was taken by Portland at 30. He was a project mid-second round pick, but it's still not that bad.
Maybe hoopsworld just made the whole thing up
I thought everyone i the first round made over a million a year?
WASHINGTON. They drafted Oleksiy Pecherov, and have just that history of incompetent ownership and management.
Or NEW JERSEY - they drafted Josh Boone, who's pretty awful, in exactly that price range, and Rod Thorn is both famous and sleazy.
The article is without a doubt about the New York Knicks. They promised to take Josh Boone in the first round and took Balkman instead, who else would they consider a terrible player. It's "hidden" terribly a re could figure that out imo.
No.
http://www.nbpa.com/cba_exhibits/exhibitB.php
Scroll down to 2006-07 NBA Rookie Scale.
Josh Boone still got taken in the first round and it says the player didn't get taken until the second round.
Oh
Obviously, there is nothing signed by the player precluding a promise by a team -- that happens all the time.
Every contract requires that both sides provide consideration. Here, the team's consideration is (in some normative sense) the willingness to pass on other players in order to draft player x. That might be consideration on the part of the team. The player, though, hasn't given up anything -- he can't work out for other teams, perhaps, but that doesn't mean that those teams can't draft him -- particularly teams for which he might have already worked out.
I also suspect that when these promises are made, there's some sort of condition -- the team says "unless a player that we don't expect to be there happens to be available, we intend to draft you and would like for you to not work out for any more teams." If they've done that, the team's promise is conditional and the player decides to stop working out for teams knowing that the condition might not be satisfied.
More importanly, even if you could argue that the kid's willingness to give up other workouts is consideration, I'd think it's not an enforceable contract because it could only be enforced by one side -- if the team that made the promise didn't draft the kid, under your argument, the kid could sue the team; if the kid was drafted by another team, though, the team wouldn't be able to sue the kid. Unilateral contracts do exist and are occasionally enforced, but this would be an exceptional case.
The Knicks can't ever be considered "cheap." Foolish, crazy, insane, stupid, asinine -- sure. But not cheap.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
