Dan Gilbert Statement

[HMC]

Jim Brown, an arrogant, self-centered, attention whore who has beaten more women than every poster in the current conversation combined.

He may do some good work for a charity here or there, but it doesn't make him a good person by any means.

If you want to relegate a lifetime of well-documented service to his community to "some good work for a charity here or there", then there's no point to the conversation.

Without knowing the man, and without being empowered by the abstract cowardice and ignorance that it takes to label someone who can't defend himself on teh intranetz, I can assume that though he's made mistakes, he has also helped more than a few people turn their lives around.

Must be nice to be the one who dictates which matters more though. I envy you.

 

[Scholar]

Can we drop the discussion of the Mosque in NY? It certainly has little to do with Dan Gilbert's statement. The actual topic of this thread. And, I'd say, even less to do with the Cavs Talk forum. It certainly can have a nice comfy home in off topic. The best place for political topics such as this. But, it definately shouldn't be here.

 

[InBoobieWeTrust]

If you want to relegate a lifetime of well-documented service to his community to "some good work for a charity here or there", then there's no point to the conversation.

Without knowing the man, and without being empowered by the abstract cowardice and ignorance that it takes to label someone who can't defend himself on teh intranetz, I can assume that though he's made mistakes, he has also helped more than a few people turn their lives around.

Must be nice to be the one who dictates which matters more though. I envy you.

If you want to relegate years of well-documented domestic violence and abuse on (relatively) defenseless females as simply "making mistakes", there's no point to this conversation.

Jim Brown certainly didn't discriminate based on ones ability to defend themselves in his actions.

You can't defend the indefensible. The man has done great charity work,without a doubt, but it can never erase some of the despicable and cruel things he's done or the ignorance he's regularly preached(such as the nonsense about Dan Gilbert's letter, just for example), and if you're arguing my point about his ego you're also defending the indefensible.

 

[Scholar]

You can't defend the indefensible. The man has done great charity work,without a doubt, but it can never erase some of the despicable and cruel things he's done or the ignorance he's regularly preached(such as the nonsense about Dan Gilbert's letter, just for example), and if you're arguing my point about his ego you're also defending the indefensible.

It would be like coming in here and trying to argue the point that LeBron is "humble."

 

[HMC]

If you want to relegate years of well-documented domestic violence and abuse on (relatively) defenseless females as simply "making mistakes", there's no point to this conversation.

Jim Brown certainly didn't discriminate based on ones ability to defend themselves in his actions.

You can't defend the indefensible. The man has done great charity work,without a doubt, but it can never erase some of the despicable and cruel things he's done or the ignorance he's regularly preached(such as the nonsense about Dan Gilbert's letter, just for example), and if you're arguing my point about his ego you're also defending the indefensible.

I see what you did there...again. Clever.

I'm not arguing his statements or defending his ego. I don't know him. I'm simply saying that it's weak to make one-sided generalizations based on an obviously biased view on his position. If Jim Brown was slamming Lebron, I doubt you'd be calling him the names you have. Domestic abuse is terrible, no question, but it doesn't completely negate the tremendous amount of time the man puts in trying to affect change for the disadvantaged and...wait for it...vice versa.

The concept of being a "good person" or a "bad person" as being a concrete, black and white thing is childish, IMO. All I'm sayin'.

 

[Jon]

Everything someone says or does can stand on it's own. Attacking the character of the debater as a means to attack their point, is certainly easy, but ultimately cheap.

 

[QuadrupleDouble]

I think he was attacking what they said, and backing that up with arguments about character after his character was lauded

There is no defending Brown's assertion and that's why his defenders were pointing out his previous accomplishments and overall character. That's what opened up the character debate.

 

[JAY1977]

Back to the topic, I sent an email to Dan Gilbert thanking him for sticking up for Cleveland in ways that have made my efforts look trivial. I hope to hear a response shortly and I will update. Greatest proffesional sports owner ever!

 

[Simmy]

Wanted to bring back a thread on Dan Gilbert and after reading the first few pages of this thread (remarkable reading for what it's worth), I figured this might be a good place to start.

I've just gotten up to the chapter in 'The Franchise' where Dan buys the Cavs off Gund for $370 million or whatever it's worth. Some fascinating information on how it all unfolded, on where he came from and how he grew his business and how the practices he preaches in his business world was adopted by the Cavaliers organization when he came on board.

Unfortunately I wasn't apart of our Cavalier family back in 2005. I'd love to know (probably more likely to be answered from you locals) what everyone's first opinions of Dan buying the Cavs was back then? Positive? Negative? Indifferent? Learning about the history of this ball club before I became an active and avid fan (that is, a couple of years after Dan took over & when I was able to actually watch 82+ games a season and consider myself a fan) of this ball club is inspiring and intriguing to say the least.

Fast forward almost 10 years and IMO we're looking at one of the best - perhaps not always the most intelligent - but one of the most devoted NBA owners in the league.

Overall, what do we make of the Dan Gilbert tenure so far? I'd chip in my two cents, but I feel like I don't perhaps have the longevity with this franchise to make comparisons with previous owners outside of what I've forever read online and on forums. I've only ever lived through the Gilbert ownership era. I'd love to know the thoughts from older members who have lived through the Gund/Stepien eras in retrospect (although I highly doubt we'll need any justification when comparing the likes of Stepien to Dan ).

Given the events of the last few months that have involved a very heavy focus on Dan's leadership and direction as not only a creative entrepreneur but a riveting and passionate sports fan, let's ignite some chit chat on his overall performance as owner of the Cavs.

 

[NasstyNate]

Gund(s) were really hands off as far as owners go. They were more old school ownership style, the guys who were rich compared to anyone posting here, but were not the billionaires of today. They bought teams on the cheap and saw them as investment opportunities. While he wasn't the prime mover behind the Gateway project, he was at least part of it, which really revitalized downtown Cleveland. Any right-thinking Clevelander still calls it Gund Arena.

Other than being a Detroit guy, I did not really know who Gilbert was when he first bought the team. He certainly put himself out there, which should make any fan worry when you have the Jerry Joneses of the world. He replaced my beloved thesaurus thumper Michael Reghi with some Detroiter Fred McLeod and I was not happy. Over time, McLeod has shown that he is twice the announcer, so Gilbert made the right move there. He is certainly willing to spend money, which you want out of any owner. He is mega rich outside of the Cavs, so he is much more willing to deficit spend. He built an awesome new practice facility and has continually upgraded Gund arena for both the players and fans. I love that he was willing to spend on deadwood when we sucked because it landed us Kyrie.

I think he is a very smart and cunning business man. He wrote the letter, which immediately won the hearts of Clevelanders. The same Clevelanders that had voted down casino gambling in the past and then turned around and approved his Horseshoe casino. So while I always enjoy betting on black, I'm not entirely convinced that casinos are not a net negative for those less fortunate in our society. And Quicken Loans doesn't really have the best reputation in the area either.

He does seem to have a bit of the meddlesome owner syndrome, where they think business acumen equals sports knowledge. A friend of mine is a basketball writer really close with someone in the Wolves organization and he said Gilbert completely went over Griffin's head and called Glen Taylor to offer Wiggins/Bennett for Love. It is too early to tell if that was the right move, and there is no need to rehash that debate here, but it certainly shows that he can be impatient/impulsive and not trusting of those below him. Not a giant red flag, but not necessarily something that you would imagine happening with an organization like the Spurs. I also hope he does not make Lebron the de facto GM when extending our guys on rookie deals. He has to realize that he has bargaining power.

Overall, he's the best owner Cleveland has had since Modell (before the 1990s). We wouldn't be where we are today without his willingness to spend, and that is not common with ownership in sports.

 

[Simon]

Oh the letter. That was what everyone needed to hear that night.

I am surprise Gilbert didn't do another letter in comic sans when LeBron came back .

 

[MalTalm]

Wanted to bring back a thread on Dan Gilbert and after reading the first few pages of this thread (remarkable reading for what it's worth), I figured this might be a good place to start.

I've just gotten up to the chapter in 'The Franchise' where Dan buys the Cavs off Gund for $370 million or whatever it's worth. Some fascinating information on how it all unfolded, on where he came from and how he grew his business and how the practices he preaches in his business world was adopted by the Cavaliers organization when he came on board.

Unfortunately I wasn't apart of our Cavalier family back in 2005. I'd love to know (probably more likely to be answered from you locals) what everyone's first opinions of Dan buying the Cavs was back then? Positive? Negative? Indifferent? Learning about the history of this ball club before I became an active and avid fan (that is, a couple of years after Dan took over & when I was able to actually watch 82+ games a season and consider myself a fan) of this ball club is inspiring and intriguing to say the least.

Fast forward almost 10 years and IMO we're looking at one of the best - perhaps not always the most intelligent - but one of the most devoted NBA owners in the league.

Overall, what do we make of the Dan Gilbert tenure so far? I'd chip in my two cents, but I feel like I don't perhaps have the longevity with this franchise to make comparisons with previous owners outside of what I've forever read online and on forums. I've only ever lived through the Gilbert ownership era. I'd love to know the thoughts from older members who have lived through the Gund/Stepien eras in retrospect (although I highly doubt we'll need any justification when comparing the likes of Stepien to Dan ).

Given the events of the last few months that have involved a very heavy focus on Dan's leadership and direction as not only a creative entrepreneur but a riveting and passionate sports fan, let's ignite some chit chat on his overall performance as owner of the Cavs.

I'll comment first on the bolded.

The Gund's were very well liked in the city, and had a long history of philanthropy. The timing of Gilbert buying the Cavs was worrisome in many ways: We were just 10 years removed from the Browns move to Baltimore at the height of their competitiveness (and subsequently winning a championship a year later) and Dan Gilbert had no connection or loyalty to the city. He was known as a businessman first and foremost, and people were worried that a guy who worries about the bottom line might consider moving the franchise which he had by all accounts overpaid for with the sport's biggest star to a larger market. In fact, right around the time Gilbert bought the Cavs, a basketball arena was being built in Las Vegas, and there were rumors that Vegas was gearing up to have it's own NBA team. Dots were summarily connected by the local media.

Thankfully, Gilbert has proven he intends to stick around, and has dug his roots into Cleveland every bit as much as the Gunds which preceded him have. Gilbert has been a very positive influence to Cleveland (and honestly, Cleveland has done more than it's part in paying him back via the Casino) and he's very well liked by many of the fans. His "fatal flaw" may be his lack of patience and lack of willingness to stick to a long-term plan: He wanted to bring a big name to play with LeBron in his first offseason, and after striking out on multiple names, ended up paying Larry Hughes far too much money to dress up like Pippen for Halloween. Afterwards, Ferry and Gilbert did everything they could to maximize value at the moment at the expense of the long game, and it never quite worked out. But he did manage to settle down a bit for 3 years and really let Chris Grant see his vision through, and if it wasn't for that change in philosophy, we very likely wouldn't be looking at the return of the king as we are today. It is a shame Grant got fired for it though, he did far more right than wrong to put us in the opportunity we have now.

 

[Phills14]

Overall I like Gilbert and I think he's good for the Cavaliers. He's independently wealthy and more than willing to spend money. That's job number 1 for an owner in my opinion. The organization under his leadership seems to have a solid and aggressive business plan both on and off the court. I think he does a fantastic job with the fans. From upgrading the arena to make it more fan friendly to fan engagement thru season ticket holders, tv, community events, I think he's on the right track.

Where I don't like him is when he plays GM. His aggressive nature most times can be an asset but it also is used against him in player acquisition. I've heard too much stuff like NasstyNate said above where he gets in the middle of the GM's job. Let the bball Ops guys do their job, approve/deny proposal by the bball ops and delete the damn link to ESPN's trade machine!

 

[col63onel]

I find Gilbert to pretty much be the exact opposite of Dolan. Will overspend, not afraid to change the front office over, highly visible in community, will meddle in running of franchise. Since we all dislike the Dolans, we should really like Bizzaro Dolan. And I think we all do, save his meddling.

I am anxious to see how or if the public narrative changes if the Cavs become a dynasty. For as much as the national talking heads told us to "get over it" with respect to the Decision, they still have not gotten over the Letter. Will they still carry a grudge as he racks up LOB trophies?

 

[Henry Tuttle]

I remember Dan purchasing the team in January and then we traded a first-rounder for Jiri Welsch about a month later, which seemed like a ridiculously dumb "win-now" move even at the time. Something that probably came down from the new owner. Then Silas getting fired a month later really worried me. It seemed like that order came down from Gilbert and that he was involving himself in the actual management of the team a bit too much. I hated the move to McLeod as well, but now I've realized he's one of the few humans alive capable of carrying Austin Carr for a full broadcast and I do not envy that task.

Everything since then has been gravy and I'm super thankful to have Dan rep for Cleveland.