Skip to content

Maybe Jordan is driving a hard bargain because his partners want out

Nov 4, 2011, 8:38 PM EST

Utah Jazz v Chicago Bulls Getty Images

There are a couple possible reasons that Michael Jordan is the guy out in front of the hardline owners leading the charge to crush the players.

The most likely explanation — he’s Michael Jordan and he has to demolish the opposition in any competition. Jordan can be an unforgiving jerk — did you see his Hall of Fame acceptance speech? — but that drive served him well on the court. Now, even though he was a player, he has to win and show no mercy as an owner. There is no empathy, no mercy.

But another possible explanation is that Jordan needs to turn this team around to attract other owners into his Bobcats group. The New York Daily News explains (via Eye on Basketball).

A minority stake in the Bobcats has recently been put up for sale, the Daily News has learned.

How much of the team is on the market and which partner is looking to get out isn’t known, according to sources, although one potential buyer has told business associates that he had been approached about buying “50% of the team…”

“Michael isn’t going anywhere, but there are other people in his group that want to get out,” said a source. “There’s a big piece for sale.”

Jordan will remain the front man for the franchise, but he needs to make a team that has lost about $7 million a year to look attractive to investors. That could be a part of his motivation.

But mostly, he just has to win.

  1. trbowman - Nov 4, 2011 at 9:20 PM

    The “hardline” owners. Or as I call them, the sensible owners.

    • ghelton03 - Nov 4, 2011 at 11:51 PM

      How can you call the owners that are losing money and pulling the league down, the sensible one’s? Jordan started at 37% not 47%. That’s a 20% pay cut. You probably like that right? Plus no guaranteed contracts and a hard cap. You probably also like that, right? Well the other owners didn’t and they dropped all of Jordan’s ideas. Jordan was a great player, but he is a horrible executive and the reason that Charlotte has no chance of ever becoming a contendor. The NBA should dump Charlotte/Jordan and 5 other small market teams. Stop trying to reduce the NBA to it’s lowest common denominator. The NBA is much better than Charlotte.

  2. bernie19kosar - Nov 4, 2011 at 10:44 PM

    “but he needs to make a team that has lost about $7 million a year to look attractive to investors.”

    How can you type this, yet somehow the owners are the bad guys? This is the exact reason why the old CBA was a complete joke.

  3. Fred - Nov 4, 2011 at 11:00 PM

    If I open an ice cream parlor and make and market urine flavored ice cream, I should lose money. If I buy a basketball team and hang my franchise’s fortunes on Adam Morrison and DJ Augustin, I should lose money. If you can’t figure a way to get enough of a $4 billion pie to make some money, you should go into plastics, or something, and get the hell out of the NBA.

    • ghelton03 - Nov 5, 2011 at 12:20 AM

      He should defintely get out and take of few of the small market owners with him. Who really wants to watch Charlotte? The last time Milwakee had a decent team was when Bob Lanier played, 30 years ago. Can anybody name 3 players on Sac or Toronto, does anybody care? Is there any player that will want to play for Dan Gilbert when this is over? There are a couple other teams to fill one more spot on a list of teams that should be dumped.

  4. vision2040 - Nov 5, 2011 at 12:25 PM

    I think someone is missing the point. The facts speak for themselves. A federal mediator has validated the losses that these teams are suffering under the current agreement. This is a market correction. The beauty of “at will” employment means the players do not have to accept what that roster spot (job)pays. There is no such law that says the must play(work) for money they think is unfair. In America they are allowed to decide that is not worth it and seek other employment. The Owners, as bad as some people think they may be, are allowed to run a profitable business. The #1 controllable expense in any business is payroll. The owners are permitted to say,” here is what the job pays” and The Employee(player) must decide if that is compensation enough to do the job. PERIOD!
    To answer a question from another post, if my boss came to me and said,” we lost XX Million dollars last year and we must cut your salary by 20%.” I would not be happy about it, to be sure, but I would have to make a choice between if I thought what they were offering was adequate or I must resign and seek other employment elsewhere that I thought was fair. This concept of entitlement that the NBA players have developed is ridiculous. I think some people forget at the end of the day it is still a For Profit business be it basketball, be it Ice Cream parlors.

    • rreducla1 - Nov 6, 2011 at 3:25 AM

      Like most of the fake tough guys/ownerbobos, you fail, as borderline1988 does, on the analogy thing. With the exception of other pro sports leagues, playing in the NBA is not like other jobs, and the NBA is not set up like other industries. So all the comparisons people make–like the dumbass one below about lawyers and law firms–don’t work.

      What you are saying, essentially, is “I want the owners to have more money, and the players to have less.” Nothing more.

  5. eaglessuperfan - Nov 5, 2011 at 12:42 PM

    The own the freaking teams why in the heck should they not make money. It is Insane that they players ever got 57% I think 40% sounds more like it. The players need to take a trip back to reality.

  6. rreducla1 - Nov 5, 2011 at 3:44 PM

    It is Insane that they players ever got 57%

    ____

    Sure. After all, people come to the arenas to see the owners. You go to a Cavs game to watch Dan Gilbert sit in his seat, and maybe they show 2 or 3 jumbotron shots of the players as a courtesy. Fans don’t buy players’ jerseys; instead, they buy ties suits and and dress shirts based on how owners dress. NBA League Pass Broadband shows streaming video of owners doing their thing: making deals, running meetings, cutting checks, greasing politicians. Most of the endorsements feature owners–they are are the ones selling shoes and fast food. The HOF has many more owners than players. This is also why, of course, the NBA season started right on time without the players, using all the replacement players everyone is enjoying watching.

    Again: the players need the league, and the league needs the players.

    • borderline1988 - Nov 5, 2011 at 8:57 PM

      Who the f*** cares if the players are the product?

      A law firms’ products are its lawyers and their knowledge. That doesn’t give a law firm’s employees the right to dictate their wages or share in the profits. Unless the lawyers are partners in the firm – except then they take on the risk of the firm as well. If the firm goes bankrupt, the individual lawyers can be responsible as well.

      If you apply this reasoning to the NBA, things come into perspective.
      If the players were so upset with the owners, why wouldn’t the union just band together and create their own teams and league?
      The answer is that the players would never, ever consider doing that, because then they’d actually be responsible for the risks of running a business as well. If Charlotte’s team stinks, instead of the owner upstairs taking actual financial losses, it would be the players who would LOSE money for the year.

      And we all know that NBA players are entitled, self centred douchebags, so they wouldn’t accept such a scenario.

      • rreducla1 - Nov 6, 2011 at 3:35 AM

        Dumbass analogy, for simple reasons: the NBA isn’t structured like law firms, and playing a pro sport is nothing like being a lawyer.

        If there were only 30 law firms in the United States, employing only the best 450 lawyers in the country, and people paid $50-$1000 to watch trials live in huge arenas, and paid $65-70 to stream trials on their laptops, and big trials were televised nationally in primetime, and people bought t-shirts and jackets with the logos of their favorite law firms and the names of their favorite lawyers on them, then you might have be on to something.

        There has been one trial in the last twenty years that was a huge, national media spectacle, of course: the one in which a very famous athlete was tried for murder.

      • Kurt Helin - Nov 7, 2011 at 2:31 AM

        The economic model of a team is much closer to a law firm or most other businesses. It’s not about the size here, we are talking system.

  7. jaypace - Nov 5, 2011 at 7:18 PM

    Are some of you too dumb to realize there is no league without players. They are the draw. They put their body at risk for your enjoyment. They are the ones who sell jerseys. Without them the owners have no product. 52/48 sounds fair to me.

  8. jaypace - Nov 5, 2011 at 7:20 PM

    And good points made by Fred. The nba is watered down that every owner thinks they can draw a crowd even if they are in polookaville.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Could Sixers be worst team in NBA history?
Top 10 NBA Player Searches
  1. D. Rose (8058)
  2. D. Wade (6674)
  3. K. Durant (6383)
  4. D. Howard (6326)
  5. T. Jones (5146)
  1. T. Harris (4988)
  2. R. Westbrook (4916)
  3. P. Gasol (4898)
  4. T. Gibson (4876)
  5. K. Martin (4855)