MJ vs LeBron

[AZ Native]

What do you mean by that? Does anyone believe he actually retired to play baseball instead of being suspended or pushed out of the NBA because of his gambling? Your comment isn't very clear.

So you think he retired at the peak of his career in the NBA to be a marginal minor league player? His gambling was well documented. I believe it is very clear.

 

[Russ Smith]

Does anyone really believe Jordan "retired to play minor league baseball" instead of continuing in the NBA winning more titles?

Don't know if it was gambling, or his dad dying the way he did but yeah I seriously doubt he retired to try and play baseball only.

AS for the gambling stuff everyone knows he was a huge gambler, the golf bets, the story that Pacman Jones stated where he claims Jordan lost 5 million in one night playing craps, the same night Pacman ended up arreseted in the strip club for the make it rain shooting incident. But there's never been any hard evidence Jordan bet on basketball. I can't see the NBA suspending him because he was gambling in casinoes or betting on golf games but maybe they did.

I've always believed it was the murder of his dad.

 

[Phrazbit]

Yeah, I think his dad's murder, understandably, threw him through a loop.

The league was not going to suspend it's greatest star ever right after the murder of his father, especially over some non-sports related gambling, which wasn't even against the rules.

 

[AzStevenCal]

LeBron just beat the Celtics in game 7 in Boston. I don't think MJ could of taken this Cleveland team to the NBA Finals.

There isn't a team in the East (other than MAYBE Cleveland) that would have made it out of the first round in the West. Lebron deserves a lot of credit for a lot of things but beating an overachieving Boston team isn't one of them IMO. And I think MJ could HAVE taken this team to the NBA finals.

 

[AZ Native]

Don't know if it was gambling, or his dad dying the way he did but yeah I seriously doubt he retired to try and play baseball only.

AS for the gambling stuff everyone knows he was a huge gambler, the golf bets, the story that Pacman Jones stated where he claims Jordan lost 5 million in one night playing craps, the same night Pacman ended up arreseted in the strip club for the make it rain shooting incident. But there's never been any hard evidence Jordan bet on basketball. I can't see the NBA suspending him because he was gambling in casinoes or betting on golf games but maybe they did.

I've always believed it was the murder of his dad.

I believe the NBA had hard evidence against him. They just gave him another option. They did what was best for the NBA. They always do.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I believe the NBA had hard evidence against him. They just gave him another option. They did what was best for the NBA. They always do.

I think the same way although I can't say I have a good reason to believe it other than none of the other explanations make sense. I suspect the NBA will release the truth the day after UCLA goes public on John Wooden's retirement.

 

[Russ Smith]

I believe the NBA had hard evidence against him. They just gave him another option. They did what was best for the NBA. They always do.

I'm not saying you're wrong, anything is possible, but I think Occam's Razor is he was so upset by the murder of his dad. Remember lots of people, famously ex Bull Norm Van Lier, tried to blame the whole thing on Jordan. Said his dad was murdered by hitmen because of unpaid gambling debts by MJ, they had absolutely no evidence, Phil Jackson was absolutely furious, the Bulls organization told Van Lier to stop making up conspiracies on air etc. We're probably never going to know but to me the most obvious answer was his dad was murdered.

I think the general theory comes from one line after his press conference when a reporter asked him if he'd ever consider coming back if he got bored. The last part of his answer he said if in 5 years blah blah, "if David Stern will let me back in the league." Many took that as an admission he was suspended, David Stern has publicly commented on it several times he said he thinks Jordan meant that Stern had tried very hard to get him to NOT retire for the good of the league and might be mad at him for retiring. that could be part of the coverup or it could be the truth.

ANother reason I've always been a skeptic, as I've said a million times sports people are absolute fanatics about "round numbers" a 50 game hitting streak is much better than 49, a guy who already has the record hits 1000 and we throw a parade because it's a round number. the idea that Jordan was suspended for 17 months and then allowed back just doesn't pass the normalcy test. They always do those things like 90 days, a full season, 2 full seasons etc. Just can't see them doing it for 17 months.

 

[Russ Smith]

I think the same way although I can't say I have a good reason to believe it other than none of the other explanations make sense. I suspect the NBA will release the truth the day after UCLA goes public on John Wooden's retirement.

There's been a million theories on Wooden but the most common one is that the UC system actually had an age limit rule then and Wooden was 64 when he retired and would have been 65 in October of the next year. Sure it's possible UCLA could have gotten some sort of waiver for the rule but at the time he retired the rule was 65 was retirement age for UC employees.

It's also been widely written that contrary to what Bill walton says, Wooden had been telling people for months he was going to retire. Walton said it was a shock to the team, after they beat Louisville, Wooden announced he was retiring 48 hours later after the UK game, UCLA won and Wooden retired. If you've read Seth Davis' book he says Wooden actually told JD Morgan the AD, before the season started, it was his last. They even interviewed Gene Bartow, the eventual successor, in February during the last year and offered him the job which he eventually of course took. Ironically his son will be an assistant at UCLA this year.

 

[AzStevenCal]

There's been a million theories on Wooden but the most common one is that the UC system actually had an age limit rule then and Wooden was 64 when he retired and would have been 65 in October of the next year. Sure it's possible UCLA could have gotten some sort of waiver for the rule but at the time he retired the rule was 65 was retirement age for UC employees.

It's also been widely written that contrary to what Bill walton says, Wooden had been telling people for months he was going to retire. Walton said it was a shock to the team, after they beat Louisville, Wooden announced he was retiring 48 hours later after the UK game, UCLA won and Wooden retired.

I would say that's the most common theory for UCLA fans. Most non-UCLA fans that I know (from my era) lean towards a more Sam Gilbert related reason. Of course, Bill Walton's statements along with some of the comments from coaches such as Gene Bartow, Tark and Bobby Knight have helped shape the conspiracy angle.

 

[Phrazbit]

The news about Jordan's gambling habits came out in May of that year, he didn't announce he was retiring until October, right before preseason was about to begin... which seems very late for the league to be considering suspending him and the absolute time that Jordan would realize how burnt out he was.

And again, it wasn't even against the rules for Jordan to gamble blow money at poker tables and on rounds of golf.

And I think if he was gambling on basketball, which there is nothing to suggest he ever did, it is such an egregious crime against the sport that merely stepping away for a few years wouldn't have mattered. He would have gotten Pete Rose'd.

 

[GatorAZ]

The Bulls would’ve imploded had he not retired. MJ was psychotic to his teammates at that point.

 

[Sunburn]

Lol MJ is such an egomaniac, he'd never throw a game. And frankly, I don't see a problem betting on your own team to win.

 

[Phrazbit]

Lol MJ is such an egomaniac, he'd never throw a game. And frankly, I don't see a problem betting on your own team to win.

This opens up a whole other debate... but oh yeah, it's a problem. First off, it's kinda like insider trading, but I know a lot of people don't have a problem with that either.

But why it isn't sporting... using Pete Rose gambling on Reds games (to win) when he was manager; if Pete Rose is betting on his team to win a game on Tuesday night... what does it say about their games on Monday and Wednesday of that week that he isn't betting on? He's going to manage the game he wagered on like its a playoff game, most likely to the detriment of the games around it.

Similarly, a basketball player could bet on his team to win one night (perhaps because he knows something about a roster situation that no one outside the organization could) and he goes balls out to win that game, perhaps limiting his ability in the following contest.

And the REAL problem... lets say a player bets on his team to win... and they lose, and he does it again... and they lose... and this player is now in a financial pinch, as people with severe gambling problems often end up in. What is the easiest way to resolve that pinch... something that he KNOWS he can make happen? Bet on his team to lose... and make damn sure they do.

Players and coaches should never wager on games their involved in, if they do, they should be banned... forever.

And I don't think Jordan ever did.

 

[Russ Smith]

I would say that's the most common theory for UCLA fans. Most non-UCLA fans that I know (from my era) lean towards a more Sam Gilbert related reason. Of course, Bill Walton's statements along with some of the comments from coaches such as Gene Bartow, Tark and Bobby Knight have helped shape the conspiracy angle.

Yeah but Bartow said HE left because he didn't want to deal with Gilbert, he never said Wooden did. Walton said it was a surprise but again he'd told the AD months earlier and they interviewed Bartow in Feb so while Walton may not have known(he was already in the NBA) others did. If you mean the Walton stuff from Dan Wetzel's Yahoo story years ago that was the worst example of bad book report journalism in history.

Wetzel read a book written by Jack Scott, because Wetzel had just finished a book with Jerry Tarkanian and Tark told him all about Gilbert and said it was admitted in that book. Wetzel then took a series of comments made by the author, Jack Scott, and attributed them to Walton. Until a year ago I had the book, virtually every "money" quote in that story was misattributed or taken out of context. The best example I can give you is where Walton said something like when I was at UCLA I never had any need for money everything was taken care of. Wetzel made it sound like he was talking about Gilbert, if you read the book the quote is actually in the middle of Walton talking about growing up in a above middle class family in san Diego. he actualy said the exact opposite of what Wetzel said, that because he never needed money at UCLA due to his family, he didn't know what Sam may have been doing. To be clear, Walton has said Sam broke rules, but what Wetzel wrote in that story was completely misquoted or misattributed. He basically took Tark's comments about what was in the book and then wrote them, even other writers who went back and read the book castigated Wetzel for his bad reporting. But that story has taken on a life of its own, almost everytime I encounter someone online now who talks about gilbert they end up citing that story. Jack Scott was a pretty interesting guy, he himself was indicted by the FBI for his role in the Patty Hearst case, he was one of the people who helped hide her when she was a fugitive from the Feds.

Seth Davis has very publicly stated one of the reasons he wrote his book on Wooden is he wanted to go down the rabbit hole that Wetzel opened because he didn't think Wetzel had done it well. If you read his book Davis says people that read my book wanting to see Wooden proven a saint will be disappointed, and people who read it wanting Wooden to be exposed as a fraud will be equally disappointed, the truth was much more nuanced. He cited multiple sources as saying in the end Wooden retired because of his age and because he was tired of the pressure cooker he'd built. He'd won 8 titles in 10 years and all anybody wanted to talk about was the 2 he didn't win.

Gilbert's oldest son got indicted in the same scheme and cooperated with the Feds and he was actually the one who got Sam involved. He was running Sam's construction company and he said he had no idea he was handling drug money when delivering packages for his father but the Feds actually said he was likely more involved than he let on. I forget what he got in sentencing, at one point he wsa looking at like 40 years but they dropped many of the charges against him in exchange for him testifying against others in the case including his father. He said he had no idea what was going on, Sam's lawyers said it was actually the son, not Sam who came up with the money laundering scheme. I'm sure the truth was somewhere in the middle. It's clear the Feds had the son red handed and used him to catch others. Because Sam died he never was found guilty of anything, obviously he was.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Yeah but Bartow said HE left because he didn't want to deal with Gilbert, he never said Wooden did. Walton said it was a surprise but again he'd told the AD months earlier and they interviewed Bartow in Feb so while Walton may not have known(he was already in the NBA) others did. If you mean the Walton stuff from Dan Wetzel's Yahoo story years ago that was the worst example of bad book report journalism in history.

Wetzel read a book written by Jack Scott, because Wetzel had just finished a book with Jerry Tarkanian and Tark told him all about Gilbert and said it was admitted in that book. Wetzel then took a series of comments made by the author, Jack Scott, and attributed them to Walton. Until a year ago I had the book, virtually every "money" quote in that story was misattributed or taken out of context. The best example I can give you is where Walton said something like when I was at UCLA I never had any need for money everything was taken care of. Wetzel made it sound like he was talking about Gilbert, if you read the book the quote is actually in the middle of Walton talking about growing up in a above middle class family in san Diego. he actualy said the exact opposite of what Wetzel said, that because he never needed money at UCLA due to his family, he didn't know what Sam may have been doing. To be clear, Walton has said Sam broke rules, but what Wetzel wrote in that story was completely misquoted or misattributed. He basically took Tark's comments about what was in the book and then wrote them, even other writers who went back and read the book castigated Wetzel for his bad reporting. But that story has taken on a life of its own, almost everytime I encounter someone online now who talks about gilbert they end up citing that story. Jack Scott was a pretty interesting guy, he himself was indicted by the FBI for his role in the Patty Hearst case, he was one of the people who helped hide her when she was a fugitive from the Feds.

Seth Davis has very publicly stated one of the reasons he wrote his book on Wooden is he wanted to go down the rabbit hole that Wetzel opened because he didn't think Wetzel had done it well. If you read his book Davis says people that read my book wanting to see Wooden proven a saint will be disappointed, and people who read it wanting Wooden to be exposed as a fraud will be equally disappointed, the truth was much more nuanced. He cited multiple sources as saying in the end Wooden retired because of his age and because he was tired of the pressure cooker he'd built. He'd won 8 titles in 10 years and all anybody wanted to talk about was the 2 he didn't win.

Gilbert's oldest son got indicted in the same scheme and cooperated with the Feds and he was actually the one who got Sam involved. He was running Sam's construction company and he said he had no idea he was handling drug money when delivering packages for his father but the Feds actually said he was likely more involved than he let on. I forget what he got in sentencing, at one point he wsa looking at like 40 years but they dropped many of the charges against him in exchange for him testifying against others in the case including his father. He said he had no idea what was going on, Sam's lawyers said it was actually the son, not Sam who came up with the money laundering scheme. I'm sure the truth was somewhere in the middle. It's clear the Feds had the son red handed and used him to catch others. Because Sam died he never was found guilty of anything, obviously he was.

I know who Wetzel is but I haven't read anything by him and I simply have no time for Jack Scott or anything he said or did. If he wasn't already dead I'd suggest that the next time he told the truth would be the first time for him. Anyway, I can tell you that the stories, the rumors, pre-date any of the articles or books you're talking about.

To be clear, I have nothing but admiration and respect for John Wooden. I don't hold him accountable for the cheating that went on around him. It was commonplace throughout the top programs, Gilbert was just better at it than the boosters at Kentucky and North Carolina. Wooden still had to coach those kids and he did a fantastic job.

I met him once at the ASU Activity Center in 79. He was the topic of conversation for many of us home fans that game as it was his first post-retirement live appearance for most of us. As always, he was extremely cordial. But even then, the Sam Gilbert connection, while never fully defined, was the accepted cause of his surprise retirement.

Some thought he retired to get away from Gilbert. Some thought it was an NCAA deal or simply a Pac 10/UCLA agreement. But I never heard anyone back then that actually believed the suggestion it was just because he'd reached retirement age.

And that Kiki Vandeweghe, David Greenwood, Brad Holland team was pretty formidable for a program on the decline.

 

[AZ Native]

I'm not saying you're wrong, anything is possible, but I think Occam's Razor is he was so upset by the murder of his dad. Remember lots of people, famously ex Bull Norm Van Lier, tried to blame the whole thing on Jordan. Said his dad was murdered by hitmen because of unpaid gambling debts by MJ, they had absolutely no evidence, Phil Jackson was absolutely furious, the Bulls organization told Van Lier to stop making up conspiracies on air etc. We're probably never going to know but to me the most obvious answer was his dad was murdered.

I think the general theory comes from one line after his press conference when a reporter asked him if he'd ever consider coming back if he got bored. The last part of his answer he said if in 5 years blah blah, "if David Stern will let me back in the league." Many took that as an admission he was suspended, David Stern has publicly commented on it several times he said he thinks Jordan meant that Stern had tried very hard to get him to NOT retire for the good of the league and might be mad at him for retiring. that could be part of the coverup or it could be the truth.

ANother reason I've always been a skeptic, as I've said a million times sports people are absolute fanatics about "round numbers" a 50 game hitting streak is much better than 49, a guy who already has the record hits 1000 and we throw a parade because it's a round number. the idea that Jordan was suspended for 17 months and then allowed back just doesn't pass the normalcy test. They always do those things like 90 days, a full season, 2 full seasons etc. Just can't see them doing it for 17 months.

I think this falls under the Jordan Rules. I know that doesn't quite fit, but I just had to say it.

 

[AZ Native]

Lol MJ is such an egomaniac, he'd never throw a game. And frankly, I don't see a problem betting on your own team to win.

Neither did Charlie Hustle.

 

[Russ Smith]

I know who Wetzel is but I haven't read anything by him and I simply have no time for Jack Scott or anything he said or did. If he wasn't already dead I'd suggest that the next time he told the truth would be the first time for him. Anyway, I can tell you that the stories, the rumors, pre-date any of the articles or books you're talking about.

To be clear, I have nothing but admiration and respect for John Wooden. I don't hold him accountable for the cheating that went on around him. It was commonplace throughout the top programs, Gilbert was just better at it than the boosters at Kentucky and North Carolina. Wooden still had to coach those kids and he did a fantastic job.

I met him once at the ASU Activity Center in 79. He was the topic of conversation for many of us home fans that game as it was his first post-retirement live appearance for most of us. As always, he was extremely cordial. But even then, the Sam Gilbert connection, while never fully defined, was the accepted cause of his surprise retirement.

Some thought he retired to get away from Gilbert. Some thought it was an NCAA deal or simply a Pac 10/UCLA agreement. But I never heard anyone back then that actually believed the suggestion it was just because he'd reached retirement age.

And that Kiki Vandeweghe, David Greenwood, Brad Holland team was pretty formidable for a program on the decline.

Yeah I was referrig specifically to the Bill Walton stuff. most of the time when someone cites Walton as a source on Gilbert, they're talking about the Wetzel story, clearly you're not. He actually did(Bill) later on say he know some guys at UCLA that had gotten stuff but he's always been very consistent in saying he never did, the Wetzel story was written so poorly it actually implied he did. I forget which but one of Walton or Kareem had Gilbert as an agent and paid him 1 dollar, the other gave him an autographed picture. it's one of the most oft cited violations of the time, that Gilbert was helping kids at UCLA in exchange for them hiring him as an agent, like that 1 dollar he got paid was the incentive.

He broke rules, when you read about it now it's as if Sam had Bill Gates money and was buying houses and things like that for players.

 

[Russ Smith]

Neither did Charlie Hustle.

pete Rose bet on baseball, there's no evidence that I'm aware of that Jordan bet on basketball. And the thing people forget with Pete Rose, he was betting on games while he was a player manager. I just don't get why some people seem to think Pete Rose got a raw deal, I don't follow baseball at all anymore and the 2 biggest reasons, were all the steroid nonsense, and the stuff like what Pete did made me question the basic integrity of the game.

We can't control refs and umpires, bad calls etc, but we CAN stop players and coaches from getting themselves into situations where someone is going to ask them to do something to get out of a debt. That's IMO MUCH more likely when you're betting on the sport you are playing and coaching. Jordan had the money to cover his bets he apparently sometimes questioned the actual amounts he owed(like the golf ones), with rose it was much more simple, he was betting on the sport while a player manager.

 

[BC867]

...with rose it was much more simple, he was betting on the sport while a player manager.

Somewhat off topic, but I have a question about a player-manager or player-coach. Can anyone help?

Does a player-manager remain in the Players Association as a player or is he suspended because he is primarily management?

Edit: Wikipedia says that a player-coach is prohibited in the NBA, but makes no reference to that in MLB, which still leaves the question how the Players Association would react.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player-coach

 

[TJ]

I think MJ was the GOAT as he made everyone around him so much better. And without his gambling habit, he would have won 8 in a row against some mighty stiff competition.

Did he make everyone around him better? The season after MJ retired the first time, the team went from 57 to 55 wins during the season. Put that in perspective, Cleveland went from 61 wins to 19 when Lebron left for Miami

 

[AzStevenCal]

Did he make everyone around him better? The season after MJ retired the first time, the team went from 57 to 55 wins during the season. Put that in perspective, Cleveland went from 61 wins to 19 when Lebron left for Miami

I had always thought that Magic, like Nash, mostly improved the play of his teammates while they were on the court together. Jordan's work ethic and personality drove his teammates to improve through training and preparation. So a lesser dropoff without Jordan would make sense. Just as it makes sense that the Suns wilted without Nash.

 

[HeHasRosen]

Did he make everyone around him better? The season after MJ retired the first time, the team went from 57 to 55 wins during the season. Put that in perspective, Cleveland went from 61 wins to 19 when Lebron left for Miami

I think that just shows MJ had a better supporting cast. I know most of you disagree but he did. Sure he made his team better. All the greats do. He just did it to a lesser extent than Lebron. MJ didnt make it to the finals until Pippen showed up.

 

[Hoop Head]

I think that just shows MJ had a better supporting cast. I know most of you disagree but he did. Sure he made his team better. All the greats do. He just did it to a lesser extent than Lebron. MJ didnt make it to the finals until Pippen showed up.

The Cavs also got a new coach and had more turnover than just Lebron. The coaching change is big IMO. The Bulls had Phil Jackson still, the Cavs went from Mike Brown to Byron Scott.

 

[AZCrazy]

Jordan would never have let some clown like Dell Curry's kid stand in the way of him holding the championship trophy.
His force of will was greater than any player's in any sport, ever. That is his testament to greatness. Mixing it with the most raw talent ever
made him the GOAT.