NBA Offseason Thread.

[thrill]

Did anyone else hear the rumors a out James, Wade and Bosh and others meeting to discuss their futures?

Kinda like bringing the five families together.

I've heard bits and pieces, but nothing concrete.

Wouldn't this constitute collusion?

How would 3 free agents having lunch constitute collusion? They're free agents, they're allowed to meet, recruit, etc.

But if 3 owners meet for lunch to decide what their plan will be, then it's collusion?

No. Collusion is only when one party communicates with a second party who is under contract with a third party without the third party's permission.

[Socnorb11]

Did anyone else hear the rumors a out James, Wade and Bosh and others meeting to discuss their futures?

Kinda like bringing the five families together.

I've heard bits and pieces, but nothing concrete.

Wouldn't this constitute collusion?

How would 3 free agents having lunch constitute collusion? They're free agents, they're allowed to meet, recruit, etc.

But if 3 owners meet for lunch to decide what their plan will be, then it's collusion?

No. Collusion is only when one party communicates with a second party who is under contract with a third party without the third party's permission.

That's "tampering", isn't it?

[thrill]

That sounds right. Lawyers?

Either way, if you're not under contract you can talk to whoever you want about whatever you want.

[Socnorb11]

That sounds right. Lawyers?

Either way, if you're not under contract you can talk to whoever you want about whatever you want.

I understand that, and don't necessarily disagree, but why doesn't the same hold true for owners? They've been found guilty of "collusion" before, because they all got together and agreed to keep market prices down.

[thrill]

That sounds right. Lawyers?

Either way, if you're not under contract you can talk to whoever you want about whatever you want.

I understand that, and don't necessarily disagree, but why doesn't the same hold true for owners? They've been found guilty of "collusion" before, because they all got together and agreed to keep market prices down.

Is that true? I think that depends on how they do it. It's not collusion if every owner decides a player isn't worth what they're asking.

[Socnorb11]

That sounds right. Lawyers?

Either way, if you're not under contract you can talk to whoever you want about whatever you want.

I understand that, and don't necessarily disagree, but why doesn't the same hold true for owners? They've been found guilty of "collusion" before, because they all got together and agreed to keep market prices down.

Is that true? I think that depends on how they do it. It's not collusion if every owner decides a player isn't worth what they're asking.

I'm pretty sure MLB owners were found guilty in the late 80's, and have been accused several other times.

Edit: Here are a few details:

The owners did not go down easily though. Losing their complete control of the players did not sit well and in 1985, 31 free agents suddenly found themselves with no offers. Not one, from any of the teams. In the 1986 off season, the same thing happened. Hall of Famer Andre Dawson had to take a pay cut to sign with a new team and star players ended up signing with their old teams because no new teams made offers to these free agents. Player salaries declined 16%.

In 1987, after being found to be in collusion, the owners tried a different approach. They secretly shared information among themselves regarding which offers were being made to the various free agents. Ultimately, the owners were found guilty of collusion in violation of their binding agreement and were forced to pay almost $300 million dollars to the players. There have been more accusations of collusion in the last few years by the MLB Players Association, fueling the continued distrust of ownership by the players.

http://howjoeseesit.net/2010/03/25/mlb- ... ary-cap-2/

[MrSaigon]

I don't doubt the greatness Lebron and Wade could achieve, but would Joe Johnson be a better fit with LeBron?

[Maclowery]

I'm firmly in the Joe Johnson-aint-that-good camp. The guy has flashes of greatness, but he should be the second or third best guy if you want him to play for a championship. He just doesn't bring all his game enough.

I'm officially sick of this LeBron-can't-go-to-Chicago garbage. So the Bulls are never allowed to have another HOF quality player because of Jordan? What the biz? Are we 'allowed' to have a quality big man like Bosh, then?

[MrSaigon]

I'm firmly in the Joe Johnson-aint-that-good camp. The guy has flashes of greatness, but he should be the second or third best guy if you want him to play for a championship. He just doesn't bring all his game enough.

I'm officially sick of this LeBron-can't-go-to-Chicago garbage. So the Bulls are never allowed to have another HOF quality player because of Jordan? What the biz? Are we 'allowed' to have a quality big man like Bosh, then?

If LeBron doesn't go to the Bulls, it's because Bulls fans didn't get caught up enough in their hope, and didn't deny the 'LeBron won't want to play in Jordan's shadow' theory vehemently enough.

[cardsfansince82]

That sounds right. Lawyers?

Either way, if you're not under contract you can talk to whoever you want about whatever you want.

Except those guys are under contract until July 1. They could be fined for talking to each other about where they want to go. It's impossible to police since these guys are friends and hang out in the offseason, but I guarantee they've been told by the league to stfu about this stuff to the press going forward.