NBA trying to screw Z, Cavaliers?
You knew it had to happen, right? Boston has done it with Gary Payton. Detroit has don it with Antonio McDyess. Dallas really did it with Jerry Stackhouse. What is IT? Take advantage of a loophole that allows teams to trade a player and resign him 30 days later.
The Cavaliers traded Zydrunas Ilgauskas to the Washington Wizards for Antawn Jamison. IT was widely reported that Z would get a buy-out from the cash-strapped team and return to the Cavaliers. While it is allowed, a pre-arraigned deal saying as much is NOT ALLOWED. Dallas had a deal in place involving Stackhouse in which he would return and the NBA nixed the deal because of it.
Fast-forward to now, where the Wizards are expected to have a buy-out in place for Z by early this week. That's expected. What Adrian Wojnarowski is reporting is not -
The Los Angeles Times reported the NBA has told teams the center won't be allowed to return to the Cavaliers, based on evidence there was a prearranged deal. The Cavs traded Ilgauskas and a No. 1 draft pick for Antawn Jamison(notes) on Thursday, and many in the NBA - including Lakers coach Phil Jackson and Boston Celtics coach Doc Rivers - insisted they believed Ilgauskas was always destined to return to Cleveland.
" ‘Z' does not want to go to Washington and knows that there are plenty of good teams that want to sign him," Rudoy said. "He's going to take his time."
Players have to wait 30 days before re-signing with the team that just traded them.
Rudoy insists the NBA hasn't contacted him about any evidence of a prearranged deal, and vehemently denied anything had been arranged among the Wizards, Cavs and Ilgauskas to get the center back to Cleveland for the playoffs.
"I signed off on the document that there are no other deals in place on this, and I'm not going to put my practice of representing players in jeopardy if that wasn't true," Rudoy said.
Danny Ferry, Ilgauskas and his agent Herb Rudoy have impeccable reputations. I believe them 100% if they said no deal was in place. The NBA should too. It seems, however, that the NBA is trying to close a loophole, in the middle of a CBA, based on what people are speculating is going to happen.
Could you imagine the NBA stopping the Lakers? Or the Celtics? Of course not. Gary Payton was outspoken about his intention to return to the Celtics. McDyess, while entertaining offers from the Cavs and others, said early on he felt the Pistons were his best chance at a NBA title and he would return.
Ilgauskas has said nothing. His agent has said they will do what is best for Z and his family. They have been as low-key as possible. What is the NBA reportedly doing to reward them? Perhaps keeping Z from doing what he is allowed to do via terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement by making up some BS violation because Phil Jackson and Doc Ricers don't like the rules that Rivers himself has taken advantage of.
For the record, Brian Windhorst seems to think there is nothing to the report, calling the reputations of those involved "beyond reproach", which just goes to show where the "legitimate media" is fallen to. He went on to give some insight as well -
On Sunday, the Los Angeles Times quoted an unnamed source saying the NBA had intentions of blocking Ilgauskas' potential return to the Cavs. The league could only do this if it could prove there was a pre-arranged deal with Ilgauskas before the trade was made. The paper referenced a situation two years ago when the league blocked the Mavericks from trading and then getting Jerry Stackhouse back in a buyout-and-return.
In that instance, Stackhouse was quoted as saying he would take a buyout before the trade took place. The NBA then blocked that trade. The NBA approved the Cavs-Wizards trade with Ilgauskas last week.
Recently, Ilgauskas told the Plain Dealer that the team had never discussed what would happen if he was traded.
"To be honest, I don't even know how a buyout works," Ilgauskas said before he was traded.
Several teams have used the buyout-and-return loophole in recent years. The Detroit Pistons traded Antonio McDyess and then re-signed him last season. The Boston Celtics traded Gary Payton and then re-signed him in 2008. The NBA, which will probably attempt to close the loophole in the next collective bargaining agreement, approved both moves.
"I have a problem with [Ilgauskas returning]," Celtics coach Doc Rivers said told reporters last week. "I loved it three years ago when we did it with Gary Payton if you remember, but now I think it sucks. I think it's a terrible deal."
In short, that is the general feeling in the league. It isn't liked but it is legal and teams have been using the option for years.
Stay tuned!
77 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
broken link? doesn’t even work if I copy/paste it
by cavslandrocks on Feb 21, 2010 6:32 PM CST up reply actions
I was joking
I was parodying the website’s name. The website I just wrote doesn’t exist. I’m just saying, the present sucks right now.
It’s Wojnarowski, what do you expect?…the guy is trash…he’s biased against the Cavs and will do anything to make them look bad…
I have followed NCAA and NBA hoops for over 30 years and never heard of the guy before I started reading the blogs on Yahoo…Maybe it’s an oversight on my part, but I read all the major newspaper’s web sports sections regularly…
SMH
Of course Doc Rivers liked it when he did it, now he doesn’t because it’s not him. He beat himself up in the comment.
Visit Inside The Shoe
by Ian_InsideTheShoe on Feb 21, 2010 6:51 PM CST reply actions
“I have a problem with [Ilgauskas returning],” Celtics coach Doc Rivers said told reporters last week. “I loved it three years ago when we did it with Gary Payton if you remember, but now I think it sucks. I think it’s a terrible deal.”
Oh alright, Doc. So, it’s fine when it benefits your team but not when it benefits others?
that is what he said….he’s a whiner anyway…just like Woodson
by cavslandrocks on Feb 21, 2010 6:59 PM CST up reply actions
That statement
I can’t stop laughing about it. Doc can’t possibly be unaware of how much of a flip-flop he sounds like.
Rivers doesn’t even bother hiding his hypocrisy. He literally says he liked it when they did it but is against it now. Does he realize how hypocritical he sounds? No way theres anything to this because i don’t think any of the people involved would be stupid enough to spell it out for the NBA, and if theres no evidence they cant do anything about it. Z will be back in a few weeks.
Hell yeah
This has been his home for 14 years. He’s lonely in Washington right now. They have no use for him.
He’s spent basically his entire adult life here. And i think him caring for the Cavs really started when we stuck with him through his injuries. He also wants to win a ring, and he has a great chance to win with us
by CavsLebronFan on Feb 21, 2010 9:04 PM CST up reply actions
I don’t think Rivers is being hypocritical here. He said he doesn’t like the idea of Z returning, but he didn’t say that it shouldn’t be allowed. And anyway, referencing his past use of the rule reminds us that his opinion is based on his position. It’s a pretty honest comment.
by WestCoastCavsFan on Feb 22, 2010 12:49 AM CST up reply actions
A rule is a rule but,,,,,
Funny how cav fans always complain about the Yankees and Steinbrenner for spending money but when Dan Gilbert does the same thing in the NBA, it is OK because it is their team.
The Cavs already have an outrageous payroll without bringing Z back. They should be able to win without him.
by Luigi from little Italy on Feb 21, 2010 8:37 PM CST reply actions
Actually, the New Yorker most Indian’s fans complain about is the cheapskate who owns the team…And it’s because he won’t even try to outbid the Yankees, Red Sox, (insert name of team here)..for the players the Tribe develops..Hell he usually gives them away without letting them become free agents
by cavslandrocks on Feb 21, 2010 8:44 PM CST up reply actions
You obviously know nothing about baseball, so please stop talking about it. You’re embarassing the rest of us Indians fans.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 21, 2010 9:20 PM CST up reply actions
Both of you are telling me that Dolan hasn’t LITERALLY given away almost every player who becomes a star for the Tribe in his tenure as owner?..what did they get in return for Sabathia?(Matt LaPorta, pitchers Zach Jackson, Rob Bryson, and Michael Brantley-big names huh?)..Lee (Carlos Carrasco, Jason Donald, Lou Marson, and Jason Knapp….more household names)…Victor Martinez? (Justin Masterson, Nick Hagadone, and Bryan Price..WOW!)….I could keep going….Sure it’s Shapiro’s name that comes up on the trades since he IS the GM, but it’s not his money…I’ve forgotten more about the Indian’s than you will ever know…And don’t ask anyone to stop commenting since all you ever do is bash other people….GROW UP!!
by cavslandrocks on Feb 21, 2010 10:16 PM CST up reply actions
Hmm… Where will Hafner, Sizemore, Westbrook, and (inevitably) Branyan go to this year? Nobody knows! But we do know that contract relief is what Mr. Dolan really wants!
Yes, it’s frustrating isn’t it. Makes me so happy we have LGT where we can talk to people who know baseball instead of listening to the cleveland.com whiners.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 22, 2010 7:17 AM CST up reply actions
Wow. Seriously, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You don’t know how the finances of baseball work. The Indians don’t have the money of the Yankees and the Red Sox so they can’t spend like them. Please stop commenting on a subject you know nothing about.
Remember that Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee, Brandon Phillips, Travis Hafner, Shin-Soo Choo, and Asdrubal Cabrera weren’t “household names” when the Indians traded for them and they’ve all turned out to be very good or great players. That’s your problem — you only want to get guys you’ve heard of before, but the Indians aren’t going to win with a bunch of washed-up veterans. They need young talent and that’s what they’re acquiring.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 22, 2010 7:16 AM CST up reply actions
You’re right. We should have kept Colon. And please keep going.
by rockemsockem on Feb 22, 2010 2:28 PM CST up reply actions
How many of the current Tribe players have you seen play on a weekly basis since the AA affiliate- The Aeros have been in Akron?…until two years ago I was there at least once a week since their inaugural season…usually saved the trek to Cleveland for the playoffs (When they made it) or the ?Yankees since my son is a Yankees fan…I’m not interested your alpha dog BS…I’m NOT intimidated by internet bullies…Next time you see a post from me just keep moving OK?? thanks
by cavslandrocks on Feb 21, 2010 10:28 PM CST up reply actions
I don’t care how many times Akron Aeros games you’ve been to. From you comment it’s obvious that you don’t know anything about the financial system in baseball because you want the Indians to spend like the Yankees and the Red Sox when that’s just not possible. That’s not Dolan’s fault.
I’m not a bully, I’m just letting you know that you’re out of your element so you should probably stop making comments like that until you learn more about baseball’s economic system. Don’t act like those idiots on cleveland.com who whine about Dolan all the time but have no idea what they’re talking about.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 22, 2010 7:20 AM CST up reply actions
Your son is a Yankees fan? Seriously? How could you let that happen and raise a little front runner?
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Feb 22, 2010 7:43 AM CST up reply actions
Yeah, I think that tells us all we need to know about what kind of baseball “fan” he is.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 22, 2010 8:11 AM CST up reply actions
That has to be one of the most ignorant/classless statements you have made on here and that is saying something..because you make some pretty ignorant/classless ones…ANYONE who would equate sports loyalty or knowledge with personal or family matters clearly is of the single celled organism variety in terms of mental ability…You truly are completely bereft of anything resembling intelligence..Of course you think(?) that seeing the future Tribe players in Akron is of no matter (even though you trumpet their acquisition as good moves)..IF you did think(?) it mattered, you would be forced to admit that I am a BASEBALL fan..Hiding behind the anonymity of the internet to make this kind of clueless/classless statement more than qualifies you as an “internet bully”…You just don’t see it that way because your real life actions are most likely very similar.That or you are thoroughly emasculated and impotent as a human being and are using these forums as a form of compensation for those shortcomings..As I previously requested, don’t give in to the urgings of your primal mind and show everyone how truly senseless and classless you are (Laker or Celtic fan boy comes to mind) with crude statements like the one you just posted…Just keep on moving…GOT IT?…thanks..
One more thing..I know you are aware of the comment guidelines..I suggest that you follow them from here on out…They do apply to you, too..In short LEAVE OTHER PEOPLES FAMILY MEMBER OUT OF YOUR BASHING
by cavslandrocks on Feb 22, 2010 1:58 PM CST up reply actions
I didn’t say anything about your son; I was referring to you letting your son be a Yankees fan.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 22, 2010 4:29 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
same thing…his mother and I raised a well rounded adult capable of thinking for himself..the fact that you think he should need approval for something as trivial as which sports teams to like speaks volumes about you…now please just let it go
by cavslandrocks on Feb 22, 2010 8:35 PM CST up reply actions
I think I see the issue here. You don’t hate the Yankees. I think that says something fundemental about the level of your allegiance to the Cleveland Indians. Not being as allegiant, it makes sense to not really invest the time in understanding the eight-ball that a small-market organization is behind in today’s game of major league baseball.
I think we can end the back and forth at this point.
Indians fan since before I realized that the Yankees existed as “rivals” (I was too young ) and believe me I don’t like that they win as much as they do because of the “inequity” of the finances….yeah, the Yankees are the Evil Empire…still, I respect that their owner is willing to shell out the cash to win…even though that hurts the team I grew up watching…I guess going to the franchise’s minor league games means I don’t show “allegiance”…you also conveniently left out that I made many concessions to your points…oh well to each his own…at least you didn’t whine that I insulted you like someone else did
by cavslandrocks on Feb 23, 2010 3:32 PM CST up reply actions
You “respect” that he’s willing to shell out the cash to win? Are you kidding me?? He’s only willing to shell out that cash because he has plenty of it to spend. Dolan can’t spend that amount because he doesn’t have that much. It’s not that Steinbrenner wants to win more than anyone else, he’s just able to spend more.
If Bill Gates buys his son a new Porche for his birthday does that mean he loves his son more than you love your son because you can’t afford to buy him a Porsche? Does that make him a better dad because he’s willing to shell out the cash for his son?
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 23, 2010 7:53 PM CST up reply actions
The owner of the Yankees starts with a local TV contract that is several times the Indians’ entire payroll.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Feb 24, 2010 7:45 AM CST up reply actions
see below reply to “Buckeye Brad” It applies to you too…you’re crossing a line that no person crosses with me when you make insulting remarks and starts with the name calling on family members
by cavslandrocks on Feb 22, 2010 2:00 PM CST up reply actions
why? because I choose not to comment on the Indians blog…
by cavslandrocks on Feb 21, 2010 10:18 PM CST up reply actions
Actually, the New Yorker most Indian’s fans complain about is the cheapskate who owns the team…
Payroll in millions / year / rank
$81.5 / 2009 / 15th
$78.9 / 2008 / 16th
$61.6 / 2007 / 23rd
As you may recall the 2007 Indians made it to the league championship series (which kind of drives a large hole into any assumption you may have on believing a large payroll guarantees success right?). As you can see ownership increased payroll 28.5% in 2008 which was a .500 club. At this point they are middle of the pack in the league and considering market size of Cleveland vs. the rest of the league’s cities, we see that ownership has “ante’d” it up as it may, and basically playing at the mid market level, despite the small market level the city of Cleveland is.
Dolan also had the team in the top 10 in terms of payroll his first year owning the team and amazingly in the top 5 his second year owning the team. These facts tend to be ignored within the local Cleveland media, at least what you hear on the radio (WKNR) or read in the Plain Dealer.
Is Dolan a good owner? I don’t know. Depends on what you consider a good owner to be. Is he a “cheapskate”? No. He’s not a cheapskate no matter how many times you may hear it through the lazy local media.
And it’s because he won’t even try to outbid the Yankees, Red Sox, (insert name of team here)..for the players the Tribe develops.
Its amazing that other teams don’t try and outbid the Yankees for players isn’t it? If you take a look at the list of 2009 payrolls linked here You’ll notice similarities between the top teams, they are all from extremely large (NY/LA/Chicago) to large markets. Almost down the line. These teams have an unfair advantage because their revenue pool is excessively larger than that of the majority of the league. Its impossible for any owner of a small market or mid-market team to outbid the Yankees, Red Sox, or any large market team.
.Hell he usually gives them away without letting them become free agents
I’m assuming you wrote this in the heat of the moment and if given the chance would recant it because it is for 1.) factually incorrect, as players become free agents because of major league service time, not because of playing on the same team (i.e. once a players service time has reached six years he will be a free agent following that year, despite where he accrued those days in the majors). 2.) I’m assuming you are talking about trades his GM has made, and aren’t fully grasping that losing a player in free agency nets the team very little (draft picks with little chance of panning out) or possibly nothing. So you damned well better get some value in return for a player that will more than likely not be within a team’s afford-ability due to the unfair system that exists in MLB.
by hans on Feb 22, 2010 12:14 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
15th…16th…23rd??…that about tells you why they finish out of contention more often than not since 2000 (playoffs TWICE)…Yes, they’re at times a very competitive team for what they have to work with..Your assumption that there was ever anything but a fleeting commitment to winning because Larry Dolan kept the payroll he inherited from Dick Jacobs and his brother for a couple of years was disproved the first time he had Shapiro trade a star quality player for “prospects” to avoid paying the player his value as determined by the “system” MLB works under..Yes, the “system” is unfair and favors “large market” teams but the Jacobs brothers found a way to operate successfully in that system…Explain to me how taking some other team’s (mostly) mediocre to failed draft picks a few years after they were drafted is “getting value” as opposed to using the draft pick(s) that are given in compensation for a departing FA other than that you get 3-4 or 5 players for your minor league teams as opposed to a draft pick or two. Quantity over quality?
How many players, during the Jacobs/Hart/Hargrove era (actually it goes back to Hank Peters), were allowed to walk or were traded away for “prospects” that never panned out unless they were clearly in the twilight of their careers, had failed utterly at the task they were charged with, or were distractions(on or off field) to the goal of a World Series victory
I’ll give you that Dolan did purchase a declining team in need of fresh talent, but he had to have been aware of that and that the “system” was stacked against him. His creation of STO as the only outlet for Indians television is, at best disingenuous and self defeating, if he isn’t using a large portion of that revenue stream to improve his team (if that is allowed…that part I’ll admit to being unclear on).I remember when the edict came down to all the cable suppliers (who are mostly “small market” also) that they would pay X amt of dollars to STO from now on to broadcast Indians games over their service…I also remember those smaller cable suppliers upping the monthly fee or cutting other channels to be able to broadcast Indians games. I guess what comes around goes around.
The bottom line is this: He says he’s not making money because the fans don’t support the team. (I wonder why-see above) The way to change that is to put a contending team on the field. In order to do that, money will need to be spent WISELY for more players with star quality promise, by keeping those the organization develops or trades for, and by cutting loose the players who are past their prime or who rarely make it through half a season uninjured. It may take 3-4 years to fill Progressive Field again even if this formula is adhered to.. Do aggressive promotions on season/package ticket deals, lower prices in line with lowering payroll…. The mid nineties “overnight conversion” of the Tribe was about 3-5 years in the making…I attended a number of games that last year they played in Municipal Stadium and it was amazing to see how many people came to some of those games for nostalgic reasons but became the “true believers” of the ensuing “championship run” years, because the team was entertaining to watch and the ticket prices were “reasonable” The team I see playing in Cleveland now closely resembles the teams of the 70’s and 80’s whose major function was to serve as the Farm Team for the rest of MLB.
About cleveland.com..I’ve never commented on there and some of the posts on there are are as classless as the two made above by “Buckeye Brad” and “Woodsmeister” about my son…Posts like theirs make me wonder if they are some of the numbskulls who comment there on a regular basis.
by cavslandrocks on Feb 22, 2010 2:06 PM CST up reply actions
So the Dolans should build a new stadium and ask the Browns to leave again.
by rockemsockem on Feb 22, 2010 2:15 PM CST up reply actions
No
Please re-read it..
The ages old adage “To make money, you have to spend money” applies here…They have the venue, now put a competitive/contending team in it..And make sure they stay a contender more often than once every five years
by cavslandrocks on Feb 22, 2010 2:21 PM CST up reply actions
It was competitive in ’05 and in ’07. No one showed.
by rockemsockem on Feb 22, 2010 2:25 PM CST up reply actions
This.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Feb 22, 2010 2:34 PM CST up reply actions
yep. when you are spending money and not making money, what do you do?
By the way, I looked up. the indians and they are 18th in revenue, 18th in team value, and 15th in player salaries…so are they really spending more than they have?
the notion that dolan never spent money is completely false. when he bought the club the player salaries were about 70 million. he bought it in 2000. by 2002, he had raised the payroll to over 100 million making them one of the larger spenders at the time. however the team did not achieve the success they had hoped for. the dolan teams just weren’t successful. it was during his first year or two that The Streak ended. He was spending money but he wasn’t making money the franchise was in the red for consecutive years in 2002 and 2003…they were spending money but were not succeeding.
He had to cut costs to save the franchise. the fan base was dying.
I think the problem was that it was too good to last. people have to consider the time period. The streak was from 1995 to 2001. yes the indians were extremely successful during that time but think about what else wasn’t in cleveland during that time…the BROWNS. cleveland is first and foremost a browns town. has been since the 50s. The indians were keeping the streak alive when the new browns were awful and they were still good. however, when they were not as successful and the browns became more successful, then comes the end of the streak. the streak in fact ended near the end of the year. People were excited about the hiring of butch davis. cleveland became a browns town again.
Also, the cavs were very popular in the early 90s. we had players like Hot Rod, Daugherty, and Price. by 1995 not only were the browns gone but the core of those highly popular cavs teams.
the same thing is happening with the browns right now. a couple games this season they were in danger of not selling out. while this is a browns town it is also Lebron-Town. Lebron has the cavs competing every year while the browns stink.
The Indians financial success under dolan was somewhat of an aberration and will not happen with the indians again. the fall of the indians salary and revenue mirrors the rise of lebron and the rise (or just creation and not complete suckiness) of the new browns.
It is hard for the indians to compete now financially. not only are the browns back but lebron is a hometown hero of sorts.
The Indians of the 90’s was a once-in-a-lifetime occurance — the economy was good, the Browns were gone, the Cavs were terrible, they had a new stadium and an exciting team — which will never happen again for many reasons. If you really are expecting the Indians to return to that form then you’re going to very, very disappointed. That is not reality.
This is what I mean about you not understanding the economics of baseball. You’re getting all upset and accusing me of many things I’ve never done, but your comment above just demonstrates this. The Indians simply cannot compete financially with the teams from New York, LA, and Chicago. That’s true in many other cities, as well. Dolan selling the team to someone else isn’t going to fix the problem. Until you understand this then you’re going to continue to be upset with your unrealistic expectations.
The Indians were great in ‘05 and ’07 but the fans still didn’t come. This isn’t the 90’s any more, and there is nothing the owners of the Indians can do about it. So you can continue to whine about it like the idiots at cleveland.com or you can stop and think for a few minutes about the logic we’re telling you and do some research about the economics of baseball and realize that the Indians will never, ever be able to spend like the Yankees and Red Sox until baseball changes their system.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 22, 2010 4:38 PM CST up reply actions
This is what I mean about you not understanding the economics of baseball. You’re getting all upset and accusing me of many things I’ve never done, but your comment above just demonstrates this. The Indians simply cannot compete financially with the teams from New York, LA, and Chicago. That’s true in many other cities, as well. Dolan selling the team to someone else isn’t going to fix the problem. Until you understand this then you’re going to continue to be upset with your unrealistic expectations.
the Indians will never, ever be able to spend like the Yankees and Red Sox until baseball changes their system.
Cavslandrocks, he’s right. When I first joined DBN (Browns’s blog), I made comments similar to yours because I thought I knew what I was talking about based on what I’d read on other sites (not cleveland.com).
But yeah… what BB is saying is exactly right. I know it’s frustrating to see our favorites (Victor, Cliff Lee, CC, etc.) go. (I’m praying that we can keep Grady but I have a feeling Boston or Philly etc. will get him eventually.) But sadly that’s how the system in the MLB is now.
Thanks for the support, emily. Unfortunately most people in the Cleveland media do a terrible job of objectively analyzing the nature of the game so many fans are ignorant to the reality of the situation and blame Dolan for no reason. And the 90’s created unrealistic expectations for many fans; they should remember what Indians baseball was like for the three decades previous to that era.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 22, 2010 5:55 PM CST up reply actions
I totally agree. I just noticed this too.
They had the new stadium and the exciting young team. also they were really the only team in the city. there was the cavs but by 1995, Hot Rod, Daugherty, and Price were all gone. those were the guys that got people to cavs games. the browns also left.
Also notice that the revenue for the indians starts dipping a bit when the browns came back. in fact, the year that the sellout streak ended coincided with the first training camp of butch davis. I hate to say it, but people were actually excited about him. he had energized the city again.
They just can’t spend like those cities…that is completely true. Dolan attempted to do this in 2002 and 2003 after the streak ended to regain the fan base. they were spending about 100 million dollars a year. in fact, even though teams are spending more than they did back then, we would have been spending top 10 in baseball…up there with the dodgers and astros. also, during those years, dolan was operating in the red. you cannot support that kind of payroll that we had back then.
OK…last time I’m saying anything on this subject since it is completely off topic here….my “expectations” are not unrealistic..If a business is failing financially, you sell it or close it…the last thing you do is devalue your product or cut your services…THIS is why customers (fans) stay away…IF the team was sold to someone who had the money to burn (too bad Vern Stouffer didn’t sell it to The Boss back in the 70’s) there would be no question about the quality of the product given Shapiro’s track record of making do with what he has to work with..I know he got bumped up but I trust his judgment…He’s done what he had to do…he followed his employer’s orders..He was given a budget and lived with it…It all comes back to If you don’t have the cards, fold, and clearly Dolan isn’t willing to up the ante…and in this economy, it would be a real gamble..I’ll say it one more time…IT WILL TAKE 3-4 CONSECUTIVE YEARS OF FIELDING A CONTENDER-not just a good/competitive/entertaining team-TO GET PEOPLE TO SUPPORT THE INDIANS AGAIN…Once every four or five years or even a good run (2005) once in a while won’t cut it…If the current ownership doesn’t have the money or desire to do that, starting with this season, then the team needs to be sold to someone who will…just like when the Jacobs brothers bought it…Just like when Stouffer sold it because he couldn’t afford it any more…The Cavs are a perfect example of ownership willing to do what it takes to try and win….no ifs, ands, or buts about it…
It would help teams like the Indians and other mid to small market teams if MLB would institute some form of spending limit and a floor amount…
by cavslandrocks on Feb 22, 2010 9:22 PM CST up reply actions
Writing words in capital letters doesn’t make your point correct.
Once again, it doesn’t matter if Dolan sells the Indians to someone else — unless that person is willing to run his team with a massive deficeit, which is highly unlikely, the Indians aren’t going to spend money like a big market team unless baseball changes its revenue structure. That’s just not possible. You can wish all you want but it’s not going to make it come true. So, yes, your expectations are unrealistic.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 22, 2010 10:10 PM CST up reply actions
Explain to me how taking some other team’s (mostly) mediocre to failed draft picks a few years after they were drafted is "getting value" as opposed to using the draft pick(s) that are given in compensation for a departing FA other than that you get 3-4 or 5 players for your minor league teams as opposed to a draft pick or two. Quantity over quality?
Lets break this down into two parts. I’ll take the second part first. First here’s an article regarding valuing the draft in relation to a general performance metric (WAR). Here’s the important take away:
Focusing on the First Round
Here is the WAR/year based on draft position within the first round:
1-10— 1.417 WAR/year
11-20— 1.115 WAR/year
21-30— .353 WAR/year
There is a drastic drop in performance between picks 11-20 and 21-30. The difference between the top 10 and 11-20 is not nearly as large. What does this mean? There is likely a general consensus of the top 20 or so prospects each year. After this however, the talent quickly becomes more diluted and it becomes increasingly tougher to find players who might contribute in the major leagues.
The draft picks recieved by a team that loses a Type A free agent will be one supplemental (somewhere between pick 31-45) and the other team’s first round pick unless that pick is between 1-15. So unless the pick is between 16 and 20, it becomes a crap shoot of sorts where there are too many “misses” in the draft where you are more likely to get a player that fails to develop, is injured and never makes it, or simply mis-judged talent wise.
Now bump up a prospect a few more years after he has been drafted, and you’ve already improved the odds that this player will be good enough and healthy enough to make it to the majors. This is why you look to trade a player before they jet through free agency. As noted above, trading Bartolo Colon netted more value than holding him for free agency, trading CC Sabathia netted two players currently set for the major league roster (Brantley and Laporta), trading Casey Blake netted a AA player (will be in AAA this year) who is widely considered the top catching prospect across the minors. The Lee and Martinez trades netted numerous high-level (read: AA/AAA) prospects and high-upside (A) prospects that you can’t possibly suggest keeping them for a few draft picks would have been better.
Now the first part of your quote is your evaluation, not the evaluation of people who know a damn more about prospect evaluation than you. Those people tend to support the acquisitian of players such as Matt Laporta, Micheal Brantley, Carlos Santana, Nick Hagadone, Jason Knapp, Carlos Carrasco, Justin Masterson. I’d tend to believe them over you.
so it was a fluke that the Hart-Shapiro tandem was able to build the team they did with mostly draft picks (mostly made 3-5 years before the Indians contended which would include Hank Peters) and development in the 90’s?
Sandy and Carlos for Carter was a good move in retrospect, even though I hated it at the time..
but as I said earlier, I’ve seen some of these guys at AA and they are not the same type of player that was there when Skins was the manager…some of those guys were ready for AAA or the dance but were stuck behind the log jam of talent that used to be the Indians
AND PLEASE get it through your head that I DON’T read the PD..and don’t care for Livingston
by cavslandrocks on Feb 22, 2010 8:50 PM CST up reply actions
Sandy and Carlos for Carter was a good move in retrospect, even though I hated it at the time.
Couple of no names, huh? Want to make a bet you’ll be saying this about the recent trades in a few years?
by rockemsockem on Feb 22, 2010 9:22 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah. It’s so funny that he admits he didn’t like the trades at the time — because it was for some “no name” prospects — but it turns out they were great trades for the Indians. And then Shapiro did the same thing many times in getting Sizemore, Lee, Phillips, Hafner, Choo, and Cabrera. You’d think he’d learn after all this time. But, no, he still whining about trading expensive, soon-to-be-free-agent veterans for young, cheap, prospects who will be part of our next great team. Maybe one of these years he’ll learn that’s how baseball works.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 22, 2010 10:13 PM CST up reply actions
I like how you only find the negative…guess that makes you the ultimate troll…bickering just to bicker with people who have the same goal for a team just a different method of getting there.. It’s happened numerous times before with them and will happen again, whether the method fits your pre-conceived notions or not…Just because you’re too young to remember it doesn’t make it not so…you really need to find some happiness somewhere…most of your posts are contentious and denigrating…and that my man IS a troll…And before you go there, this is about your demeanor not the off topic posts above..Really, seriously, if you can’t be civil just ignore my posts…ok?…thank you
by cavslandrocks on Feb 22, 2010 10:32 PM CST up reply actions
What am I too young to remember? How do you know my age?
Also, I’m not a troll. I’ve been on this site much longer than you have. Just because I’m telling you that you’re ideas are wrong — and so are many other people here, by the way — doesn’t make me a troll. Maybe you need to stop getting so defensive when people disagree with you and actually listen to what they’re saying. I, and many others, have tried to explain to you why you aren’t understanding the financial realities of baseball’s economic system, but you just ignore us and complain that we’re not being nice.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 22, 2010 10:51 PM CST up reply actions
If you think I’m ignoring you then just what do you think is going on here when you cherry pick only the parts of my comments you have strong negative opinions about? It works both ways; which leads us to this…I call you a troll because you act like the people you call trolls..your position generally seems to be that you are right no matter what the subject or topic..even in regard to people with the same desired outcome for a team that both people support…try being polite instead of being so contentious…that alone says you are young-that and the fact that you just gloss over things that are real but you apparently have no knowledge of..presenting your opinions in a non-invested way on a forum where nothing any of us says means squat to the parties we comment about, usually makes for a more civil discussion..If that is too difficult for you to understand, then please-for the fourth time-don’t direct any comments at me…Again…thank you…
by cavslandrocks on Feb 22, 2010 11:44 PM CST up reply actions
so it was a fluke that the Hart-Shapiro tandem was able to build the team they did with mostly draft picks (mostly made 3-5 years before the Indians contended which would include Hank Peters) and development in the 90’s?
Yes. To the extent that it is a fluke to have not only drafted (but also signed through international markets) the players they did at that time. That’s not typical of most major league teams, right?
at the same time, from a financial success it was a fluke. The player acquiring was not.
consider what happened in 1995. the browns left. cleveland fans didn’t have the browns anymore. they could try to turn to the cavs…but no, the cavs got rid of price, Daugerty retired, and Hot Rod and nance were gone too (nance retired). the whole core of those great 90s cavs teams were gone. the cavs stunk and no one went anymore. the financial success will never again be repeated. the decline of the cavs and browns was mirrored by the rise of the indians. the town got behind the indians in a way they had not for a long time. the indians continued their financial success until about 2001. by that point, the cavs still sucked, but the browns were back and getting a little better.
also, in around 2003, Larry dolan was operating significantly in the red and he was losing money b/c of payroll. why was this? because not only were the browns actually competative at times, but the cavs got lebron.
The on the field success CAN be repeated but the financial success cannot. the situation that they were in will not happen again.
good enough…though having been through owning both failed and successful businesses, I still maintain that excess cash can cure a lot of ills in a business
by cavslandrocks on Feb 23, 2010 3:20 PM CST up reply actions
If you want to tell me that about the “Browns”, I’ll agree…haven’t followed them closely since the REAL Browns moved to Baltimore
by cavslandrocks on Feb 21, 2010 10:34 PM CST up reply actions
and yes I know Dolan was born in Cleveland..he’s a poor imitation of his brother Charles
by cavslandrocks on Feb 21, 2010 11:19 PM CST up reply actions
Charles Dolan, now there’s a guy that knows how to spend money.
by rockemsockem on Feb 22, 2010 10:50 PM CST up reply actions
A little over generalization don’t you think? I for one have no problem with the Yankees spending as much as they want. And i have no problem with Gilbert spending as much as he can within the cap. Remember there is a limit to what you can do with your money in the NBA as an owner, as long as he’s within that limit there is no problem.
by CavsLebronFan on Feb 21, 2010 9:07 PM CST up reply actions
No, Steinbrenner isn’t doing anything wrong, but baseball’s system is definitely screwed up. The Yankees should not be allowed to spend as much money as they want because it’s clearly unfair to the rest of the league. MLB needs to do something about this or it will just continue to get worse. At least the NBA has a salary cap and a luxury tax if you exceed it.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 21, 2010 9:22 PM CST up reply actions
The george steinbrenner comparasion doesn't work
Yeah we complain about the competitive balance of major league baseball, The players union in baseball is too powerful. Thankfully the NBA has salary cap rules and such that maintain more parity between big and small markets.
I’m really glad dan gilbert is willing to spend money but that isn’t the only reason why the cavaliers are good.
The Z situation is interesting, because if he is bought out the most any competitive team could offer him this season is the whole bi-annual exception (about $2m) including the cavs. However, it would be better to sign Z for the remainder of the year for veteran minimum salary and then save the bi-annual exception for next year, since it could be our only asset we can use to sign players (other than resigning our own or minimum pay players). Since we traded his bird rights away, if z wants a new contract next year the most we could offer him is the whole mid-level exception (about half what he makes this year)
Best case senario: z comes back for nba minimum for the remainder of the year, and the cavs resign all of their current players and use the mid-level exception to sign Z, leaving the cavs with the bi-annual exception to have some financial flexability. (in case they find a free agent who will come here next year for the bi-annual exception amount.)
"My signature is only one line. You're welcome."
Bottom line
Is it is legal right now. It may hurt the rest of the league’s chances at beating the Cavs but you can’t and shouldn’t try to change the rules mid season for something that has been going on for years. Especially for a guy like Z, he is a Cav, he should be a Cav, and there was no pre-arranged deal as everyone knew how this would work out. That is why Jamison is a Cav and not Amare. The Cavs knew they would give up nothing for him.
Although
I disagree with this rule in general, if a guy is traded he should not be allowed to return to his previous team for a year, but I don’t think the NBA has the right to decide that now, nor do I think that they really will. I think by the first you will see a well rested Z suiting up for the Cavs again.
Maybe when the NBA has a new CBA, things will be different. Right now, Danny Ferry is smart to take advantage of any quirk or “edge case” in the nba rules to gain a competitive advantage. That is what sports are about, doing whatever you can within the rules to win. Its the league’s job to make up the rules, and the Cavs job to follow them. It isn’t a loophole or anything like that, just an unusual case in the rules where it is possible to resign a player you have traded away that season, so long as they are bought out by march 1 and wait 30 days before signing a new contract for your team.
There is nothing unfair about knowing the details of the rules and then taking advantage of any situation you can. Doc Rivers saying he ’doesn’t like’ that Z will be able to return to the cavs is just gamesmanship. Someone like him realizes that saying that is like saying that he ’doesn’t like’ that players on the opposing team are allowed to move while in possession of the ball, using a ‘loophole’ like dribbling.
"My signature is only one line. You're welcome."
LOL The NBA trying to screw its Golden Boy and his Team?
This is a joke post or something?
"Regular season domination means a lot, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's guaranteed to continue in April, May or June."
Isn't the buyout based on prorated games left?
So how much are we talking hear?
3 million dollars
The Buckeye Battle Cry
SB Nation's official Ohio State blog
by Jeff at the BBC on Feb 22, 2010 8:24 PM CST up reply actions

by 


















