NBA lowers the boom on Cuban for tampering comments about LeBron James

22 Comments

Mark Cuban can’t be surprised he was fined today, but nonetheless, he’ll be feeling a frown on his face when he gets the bill.

Less than two days after word broke that Mark Cuban had told CNN Money that the Mavericks would be interested in James if he were to opt-out and enter free agency (which, you know, he will), the league has responded. Players and league personnel are prohibited from talking about players under contract, and as of now, James is still a Cavalier. And so the league has lowered the hammer, delivering a $100,000 fine to the Mavericks owner for his comments.

$100,000. Dollars. It’s not the $200,000 he received for rushing onto the court against the Spurs or the $250,000 he received for his comments about the 2006 Finals, but it’s not far behind.

In comparison, Suns GM Steve Kerr was fined $10,000 for his comments on radio earlier this week.

The $100,000 comes on the heels of a lawsuit against Cuban’s Dallas Basketball LLC by a minority owner for insolvency. It also comes on the heels of news that Dirk Nowitzki plans to opt-out of the final year of his contract and become an unrestricted free agent.

Not the best week for the man, even if he is a billionaire.

It’s understandable why the league took the action, given their strict adherence to the rules, and the importance of respect for teams who are vulnerable to departing free agents. At the same time… come on. Everyone knows James will be on the open market. Cuban didn’t say “If LeBron becomes a free agent, I’ll make him a king like a pharaoh and do anything he wants. Literally anything.” He simply stated that the Mavericks would be in a position to offer a sign and trade, which they would be.

Kind of a lot for an owner being honest.

Vlade Divac: Kings would have drafted De’Aaron Fox No. 1

AP Photo/Frank Franklin II
1 Comment

I sense a pattern.

Like Celtics president Danny Ainge saying Boston would’ve drafted No. 3 pick Jayson Tatum No. 1 if it kept the top pick, Kings president Vlade Divac said Sacramento would’ve taken No. 5 pick De'Aaron Fox No. 1 if it had the top pick.

Divac, via James Ham of NBC Sports California:

“Screaming,” Divac said about the reaction in the room to Fox falling in their lap. “It was a guy that we all loved and in some way, if we had the number 1 pick, he would’ve been our guy.”
“De’Aaron is our future,” Divac added.

The Kings are getting a lot of credit for drafting well. Maybe it’s a good thing they didn’t get the No. 1 pick, because it would have been foolish to pass on Markelle Fultz and Lonzo Ball (and others) for Fox. (The real punchline: Sacramento couldn’t have won the lottery due to Divac’s dumb salary dump with the 76ers giving Philadelphia the ability to swap picks.)

I don’t believe the Kings would’ve actually taken Fox No. 1. This sounds like Divac embellishing, which can be no big deal. It also puts outsized expectations on Fox, for better or worse.

Danny Ainge: Celtics would have drafted Jayson Tatum No. 1

1 Comment

After trading down from No. 1 to No. 3 in the draft, Celtics president Danny Ainge said Boston would probably still get the player it would’ve picked No. 1.

The Celtics selected Jayson Tatum No. 3. Would they have taken him if they held the No. 1 pick?

Ainge, via CSN New England:

Yes, we would have picked him with the first pick. But the draft was very even, we felt, at the top all the way through maybe five or six. And it was very difficult. There was a lot of players we liked in this draft.

I believe that the Celtics saw the top several picks as similar. I also believe, but don’t know, that they would’ve drafted Markelle Fultz if they kept the top pick.

I’m also curious, considering how the process unfolded, whether Ainge had Tatum or Josh Jackson in mind when making his initial statement. Regardless of whether he was thinking Jackson, Tatum or both, Ainge couldn’t reasonably back out of his claim now.

For what it’s worth, I would have seen Jackson (No. 3 on my board) as a reach at No. 1. I see Taytum (No. 9 on my board) as a reach at No. 3, let alone No. 1.

Warriors break record by paying $3.5 million for draft rights to Jordan Bell

Ronald Martinez/Getty Images
Leave a comment

The Thunder paid the Hawks $3 million for the draft rights to No. 31 pick Tibor Pleiss in 2010. Last year, the Nets paid $3 million just to move up 13 spots in the second round to get Isaiah Whitehead.

The Warriors surpassed that amount, previously the record for spending on a draft pick, to buy the No. 38 pick from the Bulls and get Jordan Bell last night.

Marcus Thompson of The Mercury News:

Golden State also bought the No. 38 pick last year to get a player I rated as first-round caliber, Patrick McCaw, whose rights cost “just” $2.4 million. McCaw had a promising rookie year and even contributed in the NBA Finals.

Bell – whose draft rights drew the maximum-allowable $3.5 million – could achieve similar success. I rated him No. 31 but in the same tier as other first-round-caliber prospects. He’s a versatile defender, capable of protecting the rim and switching onto guards. He’s obviously not nearly the same level, but Bell is in the Draymond Green mold defensively. Bell’s offense doesn’t come close to Green’s, though. Bell could fill a role sooner than later when Golden State needs a defensive-minded sub.

The Warriors have generated massive revenue during their dominant run the last few years. Now, they’re putting some of that money back into the on-court product. Success breeds success – especially when the owners don’t just pocket the profits.

Markelle Fultz was ‘"Excited to head to (City) and join the (team name)’

AP Photo/Frank Franklin II
Leave a comment

The 76ers drafted Markelle Fultz No. 1 overall, placing a ton of attention on the point guard.

He parlayed that attention into a sponsored Instagram post, but he – or whomever posted on his behalf – never changed the stock text the company sent.

Rodger Sherman of The Ringer:

Fultz deleted and reposted, but this was probably a blessing in disguise. If it weren’t for the funny initial oversight, the advertisement never would have gotten so much traction.