ImageImage

Cuban: GM's Pretend to have Authority.

Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25

User avatar
Buck You
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 37,555
And1: 541
Joined: Jul 24, 2006
Location: Illinois
     

Cuban: GM's Pretend to have Authority. 

Post#1 » by Buck You » Tue May 6, 2008 5:08 pm

In a blog post, Mark Cuban reflected on the Mavericks' 2007-08 season and also commented on how few GMs have the final authority to complete trades.

"GMs get on the phone and talk and talk and talk," wrote Cuban. "But rarely is the GM actually empowered to make a trade. So they play the game of "having to go back to their owners". I would tell Donnie all the time, "You have the authority to say yes, when they get to the point of commitment". When we thought things would get close, we would get the "Now I have to get my owners permission". Its almost comical how unable some GMs are to pull the trigger in the NBA. Its a game they all agree to play. They pretend they have authority, until its go time. I have never seen so much time wasted in my life. I feel sorry for Donnie having to deal with all that nonsense."

Link
What do you all think about this? He's basically calling most of the NBA gm's wussies. Maybe Larry Harris wasn't the only GM to have to go to the owner and maybe Herb Kohl wasn't the only owner to meddle. The things you learn in a day..
User avatar
jerrod
RealGM
Posts: 34,178
And1: 133
Joined: Aug 31, 2003
Location: The Berkeley of the midwest/ born with the intent/ to distress any government/ right of the left
     

 

Post#2 » by jerrod » Tue May 6, 2008 5:11 pm

i don't see how that makes them wussies. it just makes them not the highest ranking person there.
EastSideBucksFan
RealGM
Posts: 18,710
And1: 4,490
Joined: Jan 31, 2006
Contact:
 

 

Post#3 » by EastSideBucksFan » Tue May 6, 2008 5:12 pm

Anyone who thinks Harris was the only GM who had to go through the owner to approve a trade is quite shortsighted.
User avatar
MickeyDavis
Global Mod
Global Mod
Posts: 101,987
And1: 55,058
Joined: May 02, 2002
Location: The Craps Table
     

 

Post#4 » by MickeyDavis » Tue May 6, 2008 5:14 pm

When Cuban tells Donnie "you have the authority to say yes", I'm sure it's about deals that they have already discussed. I don't believe for a second that Nelson can make any deals he wants without Cuban knowing all about it first.
LISTEN2JAZZ
RealGM
Posts: 13,295
And1: 196
Joined: Feb 21, 2005
Location: Madison
 

 

Post#5 » by LISTEN2JAZZ » Tue May 6, 2008 5:15 pm

EastSideBucksFan wrote:Anyone who thinks Harris was the only GM who had to go through the owner to approve a trade is quite shortsighted.
There's nothing wrong with having to go through the owner. The problem is when you have to go through other people in addition to the owner.
User avatar
ReasonablySober
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 107,036
And1: 41,521
Joined: Dec 02, 2001
Location: Cheap dinner. Watch basketball. Bone down.
Contact:

 

Post#6 » by ReasonablySober » Tue May 6, 2008 5:16 pm

Interesting. I bet a list of vetoed deals by owners would be absolutely fascinating.
User avatar
ReasonablySober
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 107,036
And1: 41,521
Joined: Dec 02, 2001
Location: Cheap dinner. Watch basketball. Bone down.
Contact:

 

Post#7 » by ReasonablySober » Tue May 6, 2008 5:19 pm

adamcz wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

There's nothing wrong with having to go through the owner. The problem is when you have to go through other people in addition to the owner.


Well, it's also a problem if a GM brings and owner a slam dunk deal that would upgrade the talent on the team considerably, but the owner strikes it down because he doesn't want to fit the bill.
User avatar
IrishRainbow
Veteran
Posts: 2,853
And1: 928
Joined: Oct 24, 2006
Location: @ the drawing table
     

 

Post#8 » by IrishRainbow » Tue May 6, 2008 5:26 pm

DrugBust wrote:Interesting. I bet a list of vetoed deals by owners would be absolutely fascinating.


Absolutely....aren't vetoes and the such available to the public as public knowledge in the law making process? I say we start a campaign for reforendom VK (veto knowledge). At least then we as fans might have the same fan authority as in the All Star games. But still a joke

anyway,
I would love to dink around and see exactly what rosters might look like if the GM had full autonomy.
User avatar
bango_the_buck
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,429
And1: 173
Joined: May 11, 2006

 

Post#9 » by bango_the_buck » Tue May 6, 2008 5:36 pm

MickeyDavis wrote:When Cuban tells Donnie "you have the authority to say yes", I'm sure it's about deals that they have already discussed. I don't believe for a second that Nelson can make any deals he wants without Cuban knowing all about it first.


Yeah, I think the only difference is most owners are businessmen who don't want to be disturbed with trade scenarios until they're close to being final. Cuban, on the other hand, wants to be in on every aspect of his team and there's probably no trade idea that he doesn't already know about...
Scott Skiles on being compared by reporters to Hall of Fame coach Pat Riley: "If I thought you guys knew anything, I'd be flattered."
Licensed to Il
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,611
And1: 3,183
Joined: Jan 03, 2006
 

 

Post#10 » by Licensed to Il » Tue May 6, 2008 6:49 pm

There were published reports, as well as quotes by Pat Riley (Heat GM) and Steve Kerr (Suns GM) that the Shaq - Marrion trade was conceived and executed by the owners (Arrison and Sarver). Yet media, broadcasters, bloggers, keep talking about if Kerr should have made the gamble.. etc. I have also had people in the know tell me Chicago's Ben Wallce signing was conceived and executed by the Bulls owner/chairmen and superagent Arn Tellum. And what is a GM (who wants his job) supposed to do? Quit on principle?

Yet the Bucks get singled out for having a meddlesome owner (which they do).

The bottom line is that very few owners (Paul Allen in Portland comes to mind) actually hire basketball people and let them do their jobs (though SI published a blurb that Paul Allen likes to scout obscure college players and alert his scouts about random players from Butler).

We can only hope that Herb has learned from his lack of success, and moved to a point where he lets people that know more than him make the big decisions.
User avatar
raferfenix
RealGM
Posts: 24,093
And1: 4,452
Joined: Apr 05, 2003

 

Post#11 » by raferfenix » Tue May 6, 2008 6:53 pm

I think the key is an owner having a GM who is able to convince him to make the right basketball decisions. Of course there's a give and take, as otherwise a GM would certainly spend money infinitely because it's not his and signing great free agents when under the cap is hard.

Harris may have been great at a tradechecker to get marion and boozer deals on the table....but he just couldn't convince Kohl and cronies to go for it. Hopefully John Hammond can close the deal on thigns like that----his quick hiring of skiles and purge of hte front office are both very good signs in this regard.
User avatar
MickeyDavis
Global Mod
Global Mod
Posts: 101,987
And1: 55,058
Joined: May 02, 2002
Location: The Craps Table
     

 

Post#12 » by MickeyDavis » Tue May 6, 2008 7:00 pm

Virtually all owners sign off on deals that have a big financial impact on the team. I have no problem with Kohl doing it. And if Hammond had to work things out with Kohl one on one I wouldn't be worried. It's the damn "Big 3" of Walter, Burr and Steinmiller (along with other cronies like Majerus) that bother me. If Hammond can somehow supplant those guys and work only with Kohl we might have a chance.
Bucks_Revenge
Banned User
Posts: 7,978
And1: 1
Joined: Oct 13, 2004

 

Post#13 » by Bucks_Revenge » Tue May 6, 2008 7:26 pm

so this is saying that Herb Kohl was the one who decided to trade Ray Allen not Karl and Ernie G?
User avatar
MickeyDavis
Global Mod
Global Mod
Posts: 101,987
And1: 55,058
Joined: May 02, 2002
Location: The Craps Table
     

 

Post#14 » by MickeyDavis » Tue May 6, 2008 7:55 pm

Karl sold Kohl on the trade. In the weak East of that year Karl thought the Bucks could make a run at the finals. And with Peyton's expiring contract it would save Kohl a good chunk of cash. Potential playoff run plus reduced payroll made Kohl go for the deal.
old skool
General Manager
Posts: 7,981
And1: 3,727
Joined: Jul 07, 2005
Location: Chi

 

Post#15 » by old skool » Tue May 6, 2008 9:45 pm

John Paxson said that he went to Jerry Reinsdorf to get an extra $2-million to acquire the rights to Luol Deng from the Suns. The extra $2-million was not in Paxson's budget. (Reinsdorf does not own the Bulls; he is the managing partner and purportedly owns less than 10% of the team.)

The long term nature of NBA contract's and the possibility of the luxury tax almost dictate ownership involvement.

The same holds true for contract negotiations. Cuban has reportedly squashed several possible contracts, including the decision not to match the Suns free agent offer to Steve Nash a few years ago.

oLd sKool
User avatar
NotYoAvgNBAFan
Junior
Posts: 393
And1: 1
Joined: Feb 18, 2008

 

Post#16 » by NotYoAvgNBAFan » Wed May 7, 2008 12:24 am

adamcz wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

There's nothing wrong with having to go through the owner. The problem is when you have to go through other people in addition to the owner.
Exactly...I think.
craig
Senior
Posts: 728
And1: 129
Joined: Jul 26, 2005

 

Post#17 » by craig » Wed May 7, 2008 2:57 pm

MickeyDavis wrote:When Cuban tells Donnie "you have the authority to say yes", I'm sure it's about deals that they have already discussed. I don't believe for a second that Nelson can make any deals he wants without Cuban knowing all about it first.


If true, it seems very different from the way GM's in baseball or football routinely operate.

In baseball, ownership decides what a team's budget is, and tells the GM. Jim Hendry for the cubs knows what he has to work with, and then is free to use it as he deems best. Does Ted Thompson need to check in with somebody on who he should draft or whether he should sign Charles Woodson?

In MLB there is no salary cap, so the ownership always needs to decide how much the GM can spend and tells him so. Only if the GM wants to go beyond his budget should he need to appeal to ownership. In NFL, the salary cap rules are well defined. So no reason to ever need to discuss with the owner, other than as a courtesy.

Only in the NBA with it's uncapped cap and small rosters is it so difficult to make a deal without needing special money authorization from the owner.

Return to Milwaukee Bucks