PDA

View Full Version : NO/OK owner & GM deny Peja TE deal with Pacers was shady



Slick Pinkham
07-31-2006, 07:57 PM
Al's agent chimes in too.


http://www.newsok.com/article/2823244/

By Darnell Mayberry
The Oklahoman


The first smell of something fishy arose when they pushed back a noon press conference to 3 p.m.

Then it became clear on July 12 that the Hornets were about to acquire free-agent forward Peja Stojakovic through a sign-and-trade with the Indiana Pacers rather than signing him to an outright contract, leading to only more head scratching. And the terms of the deal - Andrew Betts to the Pacers in exchange for Stojakovic and cash considerations - didn’t exactly help anyone sort out the team’s reasoning.

“It helps us in a number of ways,” said an evasive Hornets general manager Jeff Bower, when asked why his team agreed to a last-minute sign-and-trade for Stojakovic after originally planning to sign him.

The cash considerations, believed to be about $250,000, that the Pacers gave the Hornets didn’t seem to be enough to warrant going through with the deal. Especially since the cash doesn’t count toward the salary cap.

By the Hornets agreeing to the deal, they sent the Pacers a $7.5 million trade exception, which can be used toward the salary cap when signing free agents or making trades. The move helped pave the way for Atlanta Hawks free-agent forward Al Harrington’s upcoming sign-and-trade with to Indiana. The Pacers and Golden State Warriors were the biggest suitors for Harrington, and the Hornets likely wanted to keep Harrington out of the Western Conference so the Warriors wouldn’t add to the already complicated task of making the playoffs next year.

Hornets owner George Shinn perhaps wanted to help out good friend and Pacers co-owner Herb Simon. The Pacers traded Ron Artest to Sacramento in mid-season in exchange for Stojakovic. Indiana was on the verge of losing Artest and Stojakovic with nothing to show for in return.

That last nugget is where things get complicated. Typically, certain NBA owners and general managers have a comfort level with dealing with one another. It’s not uncommon to see friendships between teams’ top executives often lead to them doing favors for one other.

But Simon has been a member of the league’s past expansion/relocation committees, leading to rumors about whether Shinn mandated the move in an attempt to seek Simon’s help in a permanent move out of New Orleans.

“I can’t even comment on that,” Shinn said. “I feel like I’m friends with all the owners. And Herb is a friend of mine, but that’s absurd.”

Andy Miller, the agent for Harrington, said he and Harrington were still considering other offers when the Hornets and Pacers agreed to the trade. He added that he didn’t think the Pacers “under any or every circumstance were going to get Al Harrington.”

“I have no idea about the relationship between the two owners,” Miller said. “Being actively involved in the whole process, I can tell you that when it was announced that (the Pacers) received a trade exception, we hadn’t made a decision whether we were going to Indiana or any other team that was pursuing us.

“So from a conspiracy theory perspective, it doesn’t have any weight, because we’re not a part of that theory and we hadn’t made a decision yet.”



not sure why when I edited it, it created a new thread.

:confused:

Will Galen
07-31-2006, 09:55 PM
I really don't see a problem. So owners do each other favors? Nothing new about that.

Naptown_Seth
07-31-2006, 10:26 PM
I really don't see a problem. So owners do each other favors? Nothing new about that.
I disagree. I like it for the Pacers of course, and :censored: the rest of the NBA if they don't like it. But I do see the reason why it should call attention from other teams. This is a bribe as presented, not a "favor". If this was politics people could be in trouble for it.

Imagine a committee voting for some new land zoning and a contractor in town does some building work for a few of the members for a discounted price as a "favor"....and then the zoning vote goes the way the contractor wanted it to.

If this was going for the Bulls or Cavs, we'd be :swear:

Bball
07-31-2006, 10:29 PM
Ahhh... they denied any wrongdoing. Well, that settles that.
:mib:
Nothing to see here.... everyone move along.

-Bball

Naptown_Seth
07-31-2006, 11:37 PM
Ahhh... they denied any wrongdoing. Well, that settles that.
:mib:
Nothing to see here.... everyone move along.

-Bball
They'll need to flash the crowd a 2nd time if the vote goes through to let the Hornets move to OKC.

rexnom
07-31-2006, 11:40 PM
I disagree. I like it for the Pacers of course, and :censored: the rest of the NBA if they don't like it. But I do see the reason why it should call attention from other teams. This is a bribe as presented, not a "favor". If this was politics people could be in trouble for it.

Imagine a committee voting for some new land zoning and a contractor in town does some building work for a few of the members for a discounted price as a "favor"....and then the zoning vote goes the way the contractor wanted it to.

If this was going for the Bulls or Cavs, we'd be :swear:
What I can't believe is how little we paid them. Why didn't they ask for something closer to 3 million?

Anthem
08-01-2006, 12:00 AM
The cash considerations, believed to be about $250,000, that the Pacers gave the Hornets didnít seem to be enough to warrant going through with the deal. Especially since the cash doesnít count toward the salary cap.
A quarter million dollars for free. I still fail to see why that's a hard decision.

Naptown_Seth
08-01-2006, 12:10 AM
A quarter million dollars for free. I still fail to see why that's a hard decision.
Hey, I found a Monet in the dumpster. I'll sell it for $20 and consider it free cash. Of course it was worth millions, but my $20 didn't cost me anything.

That's the view, that while it cost them nothing originally it had more than 250K value to the Pacers, so why settle for so little? It looks fishy, it looks like they should have asked for more because it would be such a big help to the Pacers (ie, it had higher "market value" than they accepted).

Mac_Daddy
08-01-2006, 12:37 AM
The Pacers and Golden State Warriors were the biggest suitors for Harrington, and the Hornets likely wanted to keep Harrington out of the Western Conference so the Warriors wouldn’t add to the already complicated task of making the playoffs next year.

Didn't someone say something just like this a while back in a thread about the TE? Good call. I remember someone else chiding this thought.

Anthem
08-01-2006, 01:05 AM
Hey, I found a Monet in the dumpster. I'll sell it for $20 and consider it free cash. Of course it was worth millions, but my $20 didn't cost me anything.
Hey, I found an old Monet in the dumster. I went to give it to the local art museum, since I don't like Monet. Even though I said it was a donation, they gave me a free pass to visit the museum whenever I want.

In other words, your analogy is wrong. NA didn't sell the painting for less than it was worth; they sold it for more than they expected.

Since86
08-01-2006, 09:42 AM
They'll need to flash the crowd a 2nd time if the vote goes through to let the Hornets move to OKC.

How many members are on the relocation board?

I doubt a 1-0 vote goes very far, outside of the commish's office.

Naptown_Seth
08-01-2006, 09:51 AM
Hey, I found an old Monet in the dumster. I went to give it to the local art museum, since I don't like Monet. Even though I said it was a donation, they gave me a free pass to visit the museum whenever I want.

In other words, your analogy is wrong. NA didn't sell the painting for less than it was worth; they sold it for more than they expected.
No its not because yours leaves out a few MAJOR points.

1) Donation to charity is not the same unless you are considering the Pacers so pathetic that they are a charity.

2) Getting a free pass in return is their attempt to try to support your own support of charity and the community.

3) You might get a big tax deduction for the donation.

4) Museums often pay for great artworks anyway and might very well insist on giving you more than just the free pass, due to the value of the donation being made.

5) You don't like Monet, but you know its worth $1m. Are you saying you don't like $1m??? You SELL IT because you don't like Monet and don't want to keep it. You DONATE it because you are very charitable and want to support the art community...and in fact that lends itself to liking the Monet or at least art in general.

6) If you have a $1m Monet and think it wasn't even worth a free pass to the museum, thus the "more than you EXPECTED", then you are ignorant in the art market. So this means you are saying that Shinn is just so stupid (conveniently so in this case) that he sold a TE worth perhaps $1m for only $250K. Hey, why not $50K then, that is "more than expected" too if you think its worth zero.

Giving to a charity is done for the benefit of society. No one gives a $1m Monet away if they know the value and understand how to get the money for it....unless there are special SELFISH reasons for doing so. Perhaps they fear what that money would do to their life. They suspect it was stolen and want to clear their mind of guilty feelings. Or like I said they want to help support the arts and let the rest of the community enjoy the benefits of their find.

But let's say your neighbor finds this Monet and just gives it to a local official because he's dislikes you. Suddenly your property line is redrawn so that your pool and garage are on his property.

Yeah, that's charity, right? That's the same as giving it to a museum? Of course not. That is BUSINESS, not charity, and the NBA is a business.

They didn't give the TE to the freaking Basketball Hall of Fame here.



How many members are on the relocation board?

I doubt a 1-0 vote goes very far, outside of the commish's office.
Swing votes ARE bribed all the time. Plus, this is just one bribe that cost Shinn nothing and he made some money on the side (if that deal was anything more than a cover for the real price being paid). It doesn't matter now because if it is found out that the Simons did vote for Shinn or help push his relocation vote through, its going to look bad all over again, which is why I made the comment.

I'm happy it helped the Pacers, but just try and be fair for a second and have some empathy. If this was a deal that went against Indy, if it was going the other way and the Simons were trying to get out of Indy, for example, or it was Golden State getting the deal instead of Indy, or it was being done on a level more personal to you, you would be bothered by the circumstances.


The defense here feels very much like you guys just want this to be for the Pacers (which it is anyway so it doesn't matter) and want to justify being on the good end of a deal that is questionable enough to be brought up nationally. This isn't us saying it, this is outsiders saying WTF?

Since86
08-01-2006, 10:13 AM
Shady things happen all the time, especially in businesses. It's part of the package.

I didn't complain when ATL sent the Pistons Sheed for a bag of chips, and I'm not going to complain this time around either.

Stryder
08-01-2006, 10:20 AM
I honestly don't care. They can do business any way they see fit, IMO.

Putnam
08-01-2006, 10:33 AM
First of all, if there is no crime, there is no crime. No one has alleged that either New Orleans or Indy did anything that isn't allowed. The rules allow both sides to make the agreement that they did.

I doubt that there was anything wrong because I don't believe that "buying a vote on a relocation committee" is necessary. When/if there is a decision, it will be carefully made and fully discussed ahead of time, and the vote will probably be unanimous. If there is one dissenting vote, it will come from the next nearest city, that is fearful of losing some fans (as ndy would be if a NBA team moved into Columbus or Cincinnati.) It is not as if without Simon's "dirty" vote, the rest of the committee is going to relocate the Hornets to Idaho.

As Anthem says, a "cool kwatta milyun dalla" is plenty of reason, especially when New Orleans' Shinn was being paid to do what he was going to do anyway.

And keeping Harrington away from the West was a meaningful motive, too, for a team that might seriously be vying for a playoff spot against Golden State next spring.

Anthem
08-01-2006, 10:39 AM
No its not because yours leaves out a few MAJOR points.
Oy. Are you serious about this, or are you just looking for an argument?

Look, they were signing Peja whether we S&T'd him or not. They didn't give anything away.... they didn't trade a million-dollar asset (Monet) for nothing (Money). They aquired an asset, got their asking price, and recieved a quarter mil back in cash.

There's no downside for them.

Putnam
08-01-2006, 12:02 PM
This thread bugs me, and here is the problem. Naptown_Seth is right to scrutinize this. But he's using the wrong standard:


Swing votes ARE bribed all the time.

No they're not. Bribery is a specific crime, and it is pretty rare. What happens all the time in public affairs, international diplomacy and in every organized society including the NBA is 'dealmaking" or "logrolling" or "compromise." Not bribery. There is a great gap between these and bribery.

This is not even a case of logrolling, and it is clearly far removed from bribery. There is no crime or wrongdoing until and unless the relocation vote is taken and Simon votes the way Shinn wants him to AND it is proven ex post facto that the vote was influenced by the trade exception. It is not enough simply that Simon may vote the way Shinn wants him to. Simon has every right to say, "I'm voting this way because I like the Hornets owner."

What happened was a positive sum situation. New Orleans was going to get Peja. One way, New Orleans gets Peja and the Pacers get nothing. The other way, New Orleans gets Peja plus $250,000 and the Pacers get the trade exception. Voila, a positive sum.
Faced with that choice, Shinn would have to have a definite enmity for the Pacers to refuse it.

Probably there are a few teams in the league that Shinn would decline to help even in a positive sum situation, and Golden state is probably one of them. There's one more reason why the deal makes sense from a pure, fair business standpoint, without bringing in allegations of dirty dealing.

Donnie Walsh pulled off a really astute deal. But there's nothing dirty about it, and it certainly wasn't a "bribe."

Anthem
08-01-2006, 12:19 PM
No they're not. Bribery is a specific crime, and it is pretty rare. What happens all the time in public affairs, international diplomacy and in every organized society including the NBA is 'dealmaking" or "logrolling" or "compromise." Not bribery. There is a great gap between these and bribery.

This is not even a case of logrolling, and it is clearly far removed from bribery. There is no crime or wrongdoing until and unless the relocation vote is taken and Simon votes the way Shinn wants him to AND it is proven ex post facto that the vote was influenced by the trade exception. It is not enough simply that Simon may vote the way Shinn wants him to. Simon has every right to say, "I'm voting this way because I like the Hornets owner."

What happened was a positive sum situation. New Orleans was going to get Peja. One way, New Orleans gets Peja and the Pacers get nothing. The other way, New Orleans gets Peja plus $250,000 and the Pacers get the trade exception. Voila, a positive sum.
Faced with that choice, Shinn would have to have a definite enmity for the Pacers to refuse it.

Probably there are a few teams in the league that Shinn would decline to help even in a positive sum situation, and Golden state is probably one of them. There's one more reason why the deal makes sense from a pure, fair business standpoint, without bringing in allegations of dirty dealing.

Donnie Walsh pulled off a really astute deal. But there's nothing dirty about it, and it certainly wasn't a "bribe."
Great explanation.

JayRedd
08-01-2006, 12:51 PM
What happened was a positive sum situation. New Orleans was going to get Peja. One way, New Orleans gets Peja and the Pacers get nothing. The other way, New Orleans gets Peja plus $250,000 and the Pacers get the trade exception. Voila, a positive sum. Faced with that choice, Shinn would have to have a definite enmity for the Pacers to refuse it.

More than anything, I think this was a shrewd move by Walsh. It could have gone the other way, but my guess is that it was Donnie that initiated the S&T to the Hornet's GM, not Shinn proposing it to Simon.

Whether or not he did it knowing that Shinn was trying to remain in good graces of Simon or not, it was still a great move for him to call up the Hornets GM and say "I hear you're signing Peja? I'll pay you $250,000 to do it." That GM would tell Shinn and he would be stupid to turn down the money, especially from a GM whose boss had influence over his future.

I think the idea that Simon/Shinn made this deal is a little ridiculous. That's what they hire the GMs for.

blanket
08-01-2006, 12:55 PM
Look, they were signing Peja whether we S&T'd him or not. They didn't give anything away.... they didn't trade a million-dollar asset (Monet) for nothing (Money). They aquired an asset, got their asking price, and recieved a quarter mil back in cash.

There's no downside for them.

What do you mean?!

They had to give up the draft rights of Andrew Betts!!!!!!

He's the next Nowitski!!!

;)

Putnam
08-01-2006, 01:24 PM
I think the idea that Simon/Shinn made this deal is a little ridiculous. That's what they hire the GMs for.


Good point, I left that aspect out of my post. There's no reason to suppose the owners were involved at all in the deal.

I'm wondering why bulletproof hasn't weighed in on this thread. He's usually a stout defender of Donnie Walsh, and doesn't like it when anyone tries to minimize a Walsh accomplishment.

In this case, Walsh has pulled a rabbit out of the hat and deserves credit.

SycamoreKen
08-01-2006, 02:11 PM
I don't think the Simons are the ones Shin needs to kiss up to to let him out of New Orleans anyway. I doubt Stern will let them leave in the next couple of years, especially since the NFL has done all it can to keep the Saints there. Bad publicity. Plus, they already let Shin bail on Charlotte, so they may amke him wait. Finally, the Sonics are using O.C. as their leverage right now.

Gyron
08-01-2006, 02:21 PM
And the NBA in Charlotte is still paying for the way they let Shinn leave Charlotte. The publicity damn near ruined the NBA market in this city.

It will take many years for the Bobcats to recover what was lost when the hornets were allowed to leave town with all the bad publicity they created when they left.

Naptown_Seth
08-01-2006, 04:09 PM
This is my last rant on this, just because I want to clarify it. Its more than I wanted to say perhaps, but I'd rather post it than delete it.


Anthem, I am serious, and you will note that I started with a disclaimer of "tough :censored: for the rest of the NBA" because I know that other teams pull this stuff.

But to dismiss the "deal" as harmless and totally above board is naive or just justification to feel good about getting something you want the Pacers to have.

Stop defending Indy in this, and turn it around so that Golden State just took Al from us with this deal or whatever player you want them to get, say Ray Allen was chosing and Seattle helped him go to Chicago instead of Indy because they would likely have a strong say in the OKC owners bid to move the team.

I'm sure everyone in this thread would say "yep, good clean ball there, nothing to complain about".

Using a position of power to get deals that you otherwise wouldn't be able to is not legal unless it is so diluted that nothing can be proven. And this idea that the lack of proof makes things okay could justify Al Capone, let alone something far more harmless like this.

A BRIBE IS (Webster online)
1 : money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust
2 : something that serves to induce or influence

Wikipedia

Bribery is a crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime) implying a sum or gift given alters the behaviour of the person in ways not consistent with the duties of that person.

A relocation committee is supposed to decide if a team should/could move based on ONLY those things related to running that franchise in the current and/or future city. It shouldn't be based on friendship, past favors, etc, and taking favors (like a insanely great price for a high dollar TE) for votes IS bribery.

Legally enforceable bribery, of course not. But don't play semantics with me about logjamming and back-room favoritism because those are the same thing with a little spin on them. It means that when people vote on issues they are not doing so for the reasons they were given their voting power in the first place. They are supposed to be deciding on the merits of that issue, not on what vote their buddy promised them someplace else.


Compromise is NOT the same as what happened in this case at all. This isn't 2 sides meeting halfway to get an agreement where both had leverage (within the deal made). There was no other side, as you yourself said Putnam.



Again, I'm not PO'd nor do I think the Pacers shouldn't give a big :finger:
to the rest of the NBA. Tough, we didn't get Ewing, Jordan got some iffy calls, we got screwed in how the brawl was handled, so my sympathy runs low for others whining about unfair play.

But I think its silly to play this as :innocent: "who me?"


It is not as if without Simon's "dirty" vote, the rest of the committee is going to relocate the Hornets to IdahoBut this isn't what is up for vote. This is "OKC or NO". Period, and it will be close due to the NO situation and Shinn's already recent move, combined with what will certainly be some pressure from the OKC group to get the Sonics in town instead. Many people feel that Shinn WON'T get to go to OKC, which is hardly the same as some likely unanimous vote saying he will.

Say 5 votes, with a chair vote that might have greater privledge, including controlling what is and isn't discussed or presented, perhaps the ability to influence the rest of the group, maybe even which owners are APPOINTED to the committee (as in those likely to vote in a favorable manner). That's a very powerful position, not some afterthought.

Certainly Tom Delay had a lot more influence with his peers than a rookie from Montana. Or Ted Kennedy, whatever. You whisper in the ear of the person that can do the most for you, and that person taking favors in exchange for their appointed power is a bribe.


If you don't know that this is bribery then you haven't taken a college ethics course. IEEE (electrical engineers) say that you aren't allowed to take more than $25 in total from anyone, so when a vendor gets to know you and offers to take you out to Morton's and a ball game AS A FRIEND WITH NO SPOKEN PROMISE even, that is still unethical by their professional standards...and this is true even if you DO NOT choose to go with that vendor.

Not doing what they wanted is never a valid proof that bribery didn't exist because it could just as well be that the other side PAID MORE. That's not "no bribes", that's "only bribes". That is corruption, not just business as usual, even if it is business as usual.


And using the GM position to suggest that there is a total disconnect between what DW does and what the Simons have to say about things is just insane. We were told that one reason they stuck out with Ron was because the SIMONS LIKE HIM. We have been told that DW won't go above the salary cap because the SIMONS don't want to pay it.

DW didn't buy Reggie the Bentley, okay. DW knows who the Hornets owner is, knows the situation and knows where the Simons are in terms of relocation. I would actually consider him identifying this possible leverage point to be very SHREWD. Not totally ethical, but very saavy politically speaking.

So he thinks of it and calls the Simons, or they call him with the suggestion, or Shinn or his GM think of how they can work the situation to their advantage. Any of these angles that we know about, they know about.

The barrier between owner and GM is far thinner than it would take for a deal like this to be "ridiculous". You might as well say it was between 2 Congressmen's aides and not the Congressmen themselves. Come on, we know better than that. That's just called deniability.

SycamoreKen
08-01-2006, 04:30 PM
I see your point Nap and agree it could look that way. I hope they don't let him out of N.O. He should have sold the team and left it where it was in the first place.

Naptown_Seth
08-01-2006, 04:31 PM
Sidebar on Shinn.

Some of my family is from Charlotte and they didn't do him wrong, he screwed up and got himself run out of town because they didn't care for some of his behavior. IIRC it may have included some social behavior issue (like making a pass at a underage girl or something), or perhaps it was just some really iffy business deals.

The point is that the city (people, not gov't) wanted him out and refused to support him anymore in any regards, not just the Hornets. The people of Charlotte refused to play ball with him because of who he was, not because they couldn't support the NBA.

Shinn's rep in Charlotte was a huge stain long before the team was effectively run out of town.


Here's one story on it - sexual assault, though he got off (no pun intended...but its a good one :D ).
http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/articles%201999/Shinn.htm
http://www.courttv.com/archive/trials/shinn/120799_pm_ctv.html
and
http://www.bottomlinecom.com/pitch_arena.htm

A February 2002 Orlando Sentinel story headlined "The Rise and Fall of George Shinn and the Hornets" chronicles Shinn's fall from grace and bitter breakup with his home state of North Carolina and the city of Charlotte. Shinn's Charlotte Hornets led the league in attendance for eight consecutive seasons (1988-96), but attendance plunged when Shinn's 1997 sexual assault trial aired for two highly rated weeks on Court TV. Shinn was vindicated, but his admission of infidelity soured fans.

Shinn's sins didn't stop with extramarital affairs. The Sentinel reported that his popularity plummeted in Charlotte after a number of foolish front-office moves: He fired coach Dick Harter the day Harter's brother died of cancer; traded star center Alonzo Mourning; threatened to move the team to Fort Mill, South Carolina; refused to front $13 million for a new arena in 1997, when public money would cover most of the cost; and declined to sell a piece of the team to Michael Jordan.

Shinn was so unpopular that NBA Commissioner David Stern encouraged him to sell the team rather than relocate. Instead, Shinn moved the Hornets to the Big Easy. It didn't take long before he was blundering there. In May 2003, after the Hornets' first season in New Orleans, Shinn fired his coach and next-door neighbor Paul Silas, who had led the Hornets to the playoffs for four consecutive seasons. This year alone, the Hornets are facing several lawsuits alleging that team executives withheld commissions from sales staff, failed to pay employees overtime and intimidated employees.

And when he screwed them by refusing to sell to Jordan so they could stay in town
http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/stein/1449120.html


He offended nearly the entire city, and he paid for it with a severe cold shoulder from the fans. And while the Simons might not be associated with dirty deals, there is plenty to suggest that Shinn would be 100% for it. Yet he only asked the Simons for $250K in this deal.

That's a first for him, giving someone even the slightest break. I think some people don't realize just how dirty this guy is.




I see your point Nap and agree it could look that way. I hope they don't let him out of N.O. He should have sold the team and left it where it was in the first place.
I appreciate that Ken.

And I do see Anthem and Putnum's angle, but my point is that it still doesn't make this an up and up deal IF that's what happened, and even if it didn't it does LOOK fishy. It certainly will NEVER BE PROVEN, so this discussion is mostly a moot point...but good summer filler while we wait on BK. :)

Gyron
08-01-2006, 04:48 PM
Everyone in this city hated Shinn.

Everyone. I live in Charlotte and moved here in the hieght of his dirtyness in 1997.

He was just a pompass arrogant *******. The city HATED the hornets because of him by the time they left the city.

If I remember right(I get my years confused) one of those years towards the end the hornets made it to the 2nd or 3rd round of the playoffs and could even fill 1/3 of the small arena. Shinn's plan was to build a smaller arena so that he wouldn't have to cover the seats with Tarps. How's that for an operating plan. They couldn't give seats away to the games by the time they finally left town.

Putnam
08-01-2006, 05:03 PM
Coupla things:

1. Your details about the specific issues of this relocation decision may be right. Perhaps the vote will be close, and perhaps the Hornets need friends to get the vote to go their way. I don't have any special knowledge about that.


2. Ditto your insights about the Hornets' owner. I don't know the guy. But his being a scumbag doesn't make what the Pacers did scummy.

3. What makes an act bribery is a law prohibiting it. You gave a useful example concerning electrical engineers. That society, and many others have rules or by-laws. Some are very loose and some are very rigid. Visit the home of a medical doctor and you'll see lots of pens, note pads, golf tees and other crap with the names of medicines and medical supply companies on it. Those things were given to the doctor to INFLUENCE his choice of treatment methods. Bribery? Nope.

Bribery is what violates the written rules, not anything a person might do that results in influence.


Using a position of power to get deals that you otherwise wouldn't is not legal unless it is so diluted that nothing can be proven.

This statement is demonstrably false. I imagine most posters here on Pacers digest could refute it. Your point is a fair one, but you are reaching too hard to make it.

What Walsh and the Hornets GM agreed to is allowed according to NBA rules. The league evidently isn't even concerned about it. If the league cared, they'd have made a rule prohibiting any owner from sitting on the relocation committee that has traded with the Hornets in the past X years, and would prohibit members of the relocation committee from leading with the Hornets for X years into the future.

The bottom line, Seth, is that bribery is not what you say it is. Unless there is a law, then no law is broken. People are allowed to influence other people and they're allowed to make deals.

I woukld agree with you that influence peddling goes too far, but let's find a real case of it.

4. The term is "logrolling" not "logjamming."

5. Everyone please understand that online dictionaries and encyclopedia are not authoritative. Citing Wikipedia or mydictionary.com does not strengthen your point. On questions of usage, Webster's Seventh Collegiate or the Oxford English Dictionary are the authorities.

I'm not saying that everyone should spell every word correctly and use approved style. I just mean to suggest that citing a non-authoritative, popular source doesn't prove what you are saying or make it right.

It is like saying, "This is true, I read it on RealGM."