Tag: Dan Gilbert

Dan Gilbert, Earvin Magic Johnson

Video: Magic Johnson in cheesy commercial with Dan Gilbert

1 Comment

In some kind of lockout nightmare by Sterling Cooper Draper Price, Magic Johnson has teamed up with Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert. To shoot smart phones as if they were basketballs. And sell home loans. All done with extra cheese.

It’s all part of a new Quicken Loans ad (that’s the company where Gilbert made enough money to buy the Cavaliers and the Comic Sans font) that is just cheesy and disturbing all at once. So, we bring it to you.

Hat tip to Mark Medina at the Los Angeles Times, who reminds us Magic has a long history of cheesy commercials.

Report: League fines Heat owner $500,000 for tweets

Philadelphia 76ers v Miami Heat

You knew the second you read the tweets from Heat owner Micky Arison Friday that was he going to be forking over a healthy check to the league soon.

Those tweets included his response to one fan who accused Arison of being one of the greedy owners ruining the NBA.

“Honestly u r barking at the wrong owner.”

The price tag for that and his mini twitter rant: $500,000, according to Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo. That was the fine from David Stern.

Want to know how you keep Mark Cuban and Dan Gilbert and other owners willing to speak their mind in line? That’s now. Since day one of the lockout Stern has been walking around threatening a $1 million fine for owners who broke ranks and talked, now he has used that hammer a little and it will have the desired effect.

It might have been a $1 million fine, but Arison insulted Clippers owner Donald Sterling, too, and that brought a smile to Stern’s face.

It’s all worth it to Stern for this reason — he can’t afford to have anything that does not look like a unified front. Keep the players thinking the owners will not back down and you get more, if the cracks show the players will stay more solid.

And while everyone worries about looking unified, the NBA season slips away day by day.

Can we just be honest and say this is about LeBron?

LeBron James

When “The Decision” happened, we said it would change the course of NBA history. We didn’t exactly see this coming.

Since the lockout began, there have been several storylines beneath the primary conflict. The racial component, the in-fighting between agents and union officials, the superstars’ interjecting themselves, it’s been a party of subplots. But this one has been just as talked about, even if it’s not written about as much. Dan LeBatard took it on full force Sunday.

If you think the hawkish Gilbert wouldn’t try to throw away an entire season out of pure spite for James, you didn’t read his crazy-crayon letter in a rare moment of raw, rabid public honesty from an owner — a temper tantrum unlike any in the history of an American sports ownership that includes George Steinbrenner. And you didn’t notice how small he could behave by having his Fathead company price the James poster at $17.41 — the year of Benedict Arnold’s birth. And you don’t know how petty rich people can be when playing this kind of negotiating game of ego and power, emotion trampling logic just like when a divorcing wealthy couple spends $100,000 in attorney fees arguing over a thousand dollars in china.

Think about all the ego and money in the room when those owners meet. Think about how accustomed these men with yachts are to getting their way in every walk of life. That kind of wealth isn’t usually accrued by sharing and compromise; these men tend to be rich because cutthroat is what wins in business. Given that there are so many different interests in that room, and given that these owners aren’t really in it for the money, why would Gilbert want to help Arison with urgency, exactly? Even if he is not motivated by spite, what exactly is Gilbert’s impetus to settle quickly? You think he’s in a big hurry to go 19-63 again? Better for him to lose the season, break the union, fix the system and win that way than to fight the Timberwolves for worst record again. Trying to beat the players in a negotiation is more fun than that. Letting Dwyane Wade age another year next to James without playing would be a happy bonus for Gilbert, even if it isn’t his outright goal.

via NBA lockout pits selfish owners against each other – Dan Le Batard – MiamiHerald.com.

You may be the sort to think that Gilbert is a businessman, concerned with his business, the one of making money. That he wouldn’t allow personal feelings to drive a decision-making process of this magnitude. To that I would offer you to revisit Gilbert’s personal and public jabs at James. All Gilbert had to do was release a statement about his disappointment with James and then move on, and not keep needling, and he would be considered a victim. As it stands, Gilbert has come off as someone playing a personal vendetta out, and it appears to have taken to the lockout as well.

In the bigger, non-Comic-Sans sense, though, this lockout really is about the summer of 2010. You had teams from Dan Gilbert and Robert Sarver’s teams head to East Coast teams with huge payrolls. The Heat aren’t a huge market. But Arison, as LeBatard notes, is obscenely rich, as opposed to Gilbert, who’s just ridiculously rich. Then a year and a half later, we’re in danger of losing a season because those same owners are diametrically opposed to anything short of a system that puts them into a closer bracket financially with those teams, and, oh, yeah, would cost Arison a year of his super-team.

A nasty consequence of this comes with the implication that the owners are revolting against player power. That’s what the past year has been about. James, Bosh, and Wade forming their own future. Carmelo Anthony forcing a trade, but not just anywhere, to the exact team he wanted. The hints that Chris Paul would be joining Melo and Amar’e. It all points to a redesign of the power structure in the NBA, which has always been star-lead but team-controlled, to a system where manifest destiny is the norm. The lockout seeks to end all that.

To be sure, the players will get benefits from staying put. But the lowered cap, be it through a hard cap or advanced luxury tax structures, seeks to hinder the ability of a player’s suitors from nabbing him in free agency. The elimination or redefinition of the mid-level exception is geared to keep supporting players’ salaries low and from being an albatross. In short, the team regains control of the players. That’s part of the objective. It’s not the biggest objective, that’s simply to take back lots and lots of money to stop the bleeding of losses in one move. That’s reasonable.

But the moderates and extremists among the owners are made up of owners who can afford to spend to win, who treat the team as an expensive toy, and owners who have lost their stars and are vindictive about it, or in the case of Peter Holt, know that next time they may not be so lucky as to have a reasonable, loyal superstar to re-sign.

Players play on contracts. They’re supposed to be movable commodities. But in the owners’ mind, those commodities are to be moved by the owners, not by the whims and desires of the product. At least not to the level the power play over the past year and a half has shown. Certain owners are committed to disallowing the players from determining their future. And some, it certainly seems, are committed to punishing those players who turned their backs on the teams that drafted them.