Living in the past does not change the present. It's over. Let's stop talking about it.
"I'm not going to allow my putative owner to answer that question, this is an NBA related press conference. Paul Tagliabue and Roger Goodell have collectively sung their praises of Tom and if uh ESPN has a problem with that tell Mr. Skipper to call me at my office."
Also if you would have read the follwoing article, it was 500k not 2 million. Not sure where you're getting your information from. This is EXCETLY where DaThone has a point. He could have just taken off that stipulation and the deal is done.
http://www.nola.com/hornets/index.ss...dona_saga.htmlBefore the surgery, however, the Hornets attempted to sign Gordon to a contract extension, offering him a five-year contract at an average, a source said, of $13 million despite the fact that Gordon had played in only two games.
The deadline to sign was 11 p.m. central time Jan. 25.
He wanted $13.5, said the source.
Guys to watch out for (internet tough guys):
Guys that know you are personally a coward despite never meeting you or holding a real conversation with you (psychic or stalker):
The Thunder had room for the contract. They just didn't want to go that far into the luxury cap. :shrug:
Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2
Plus one could argue that the Saints should have just given Brees the money. Especially with the whole bounty scandal going on.
We don't know what was said behind closed doors last season. If the Hornets gave Gordon reason to believe they'd max him, then he likely feels lied to and that's on Demps. But we don't know that ... Gordon could have just been annoyed that he wasn't getting the red carpet treatment and if that's the case, the Hornets did nothing wrong. That's the reality of restricted free agency and Gordon just has to suck it up.
The Hornets took a shot at getting a better deal. Gordon went out and got the best one possible, and we matched.
I'm not even so sure he was that unhappy with the Hornets to begin with. Teams don't like to sign restricted free agents because it ties up all their money for days on a player usually not likely to go unmatched. The Suns might have told him, "We'll take a shot on this, but you've got to do your part to make it plausible that they'd let you go. Talk some junk."
Put it this way: It seems like a trendy tactic. Minnesota signed Nic Batum to a sheet and Batum was saying all the same stuff. His agent told the press that the Blazers should let Batum to go Minnesota, because "his dream is to play in Minnesota." (LMAO). Anyway, the Blazers matched and Batum is having a strong season.
Gordon started doing damage control via Twitter, etc, as soon as the Hornets matched, so the signs are there that the man just wanted to get paid.
I think the Batum comparison is a good one. He and his agent were begging and pleading with the Blazers not to match but they did so anyways. A couple months later, everything is smoothed over and nobody even remembers the whole ordeal anymore.
So while I agree all franchise players aren't the same ie Kevin Love vs LeBron James. Not every player who's getting a max deal is a franchise player. Teams gamble on guys like Granger, Gay, or even Gordon hoping they become franchise players.
My point is if you have a Dwight Howard or Chris Paul the max rule makes it so that you never have to worry about over paying. Plus it limits the damage of missing on a gamble.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)