dk7th wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

dk7th wrote:
more like barney fife.

by the way, david west is a free man-- he took much less money because that was his choice. jordan is also a free man-- he was free to change his mind, free to be persuaded to remain by doc rivers and even chris paul. people may not like the way jordan handled his business but that should not be confused with being a dirtbag. a "man's word" is not quite the same thing as a "verbal agreement."

melo? he is not a free man because it is clear he is a slave to money....

Ahhhh...yeah, it is the same. Sorry, but you are very wrong on this one- and I'm surprised you cannot see this. Other teams made million dollar decisions based on the Jordan/Dallas agreement. Do you really think certain players would have been signed by certain teams if they did not think Jordan's agreement with Dallas might fall through??

the nba in so many respects is not like the real, regular world. etiquette and social conventions often do not apply... which is why san antonio is so great. anyway, we have seen this non- realworld phenomenon demonstrated time and time again. this assertion doesn't exonerate jordan, but in a context of

1)boozer in 2004 (perhaps the closest precedent for jordan),
2)ainge and mchale back in 2008,
3)lbj/wade/bosh in 2010,
4)teams like the mavs willing to pay 10s of millions in luxury tax to perhaps buy a title...

you see what i mean?

Does not make it right...and Boozer was an a-hole for doing what he did.

WaltLongmire wrote:

dk7th wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

dk7th wrote:
more like barney fife.

by the way, david west is a free man-- he took much less money because that was his choice. jordan is also a free man-- he was free to change his mind, free to be persuaded to remain by doc rivers and even chris paul. people may not like the way jordan handled his business but that should not be confused with being a dirtbag. a "man's word" is not quite the same thing as a "verbal agreement."

melo? he is not a free man because it is clear he is a slave to money....

Ahhhh...yeah, it is the same. Sorry, but you are very wrong on this one- and I'm surprised you cannot see this. Other teams made million dollar decisions based on the Jordan/Dallas agreement. Do you really think certain players would have been signed by certain teams if they did not think Jordan's agreement with Dallas might fall through??

the nba in so many respects is not like the real, regular world. etiquette and social conventions often do not apply... which is why san antonio is so great. anyway, we have seen this non- realworld phenomenon demonstrated time and time again. this assertion doesn't exonerate jordan, but in a context of

1)boozer in 2004 (perhaps the closest precedent for jordan),
2)ainge and mchale back in 2008,
3)lbj/wade/bosh in 2010,
4)teams like the mavs willing to pay 10s of millions in luxury tax to perhaps buy a title...

you see what i mean?

Does not make it right...and Boozer was an a-hole for doing what he did.

yes as i said this does not exonerate jordan. araton in his piece implies that there's a difference between broken etiquette (how you conduct yourself and manners) and broken rules and laws. bad etiquette but no rules or laws were broken.

meanwhile there are backroom shenanigans that we have witnessed for years now. while jordan is not exonerated or excused for his actions, there are also double-standards to be avoided here.