PDA

View Full Version : OT: Paul to the Lakers off. Stern Causing Trouble?



kessler
12-09-2011, 10:44 AM
Hey guys i know were a Duke board, but i just wanted to hear your thoughts on the trade situation last night with Chris Paul.
For those who did not see, here is a recap:
1.Espn reports Chris Paul to the lakers all but finished, Dwight Howard next.
2. It is a 3 team trade, with Paul going to the Lakers; Gasol to the Rockets; and Odom, Scola, Kevin Martin, Dragic, and a first round pick to the Hornets.
3. Espn reports deal is "off".
4. Reports say that after hearing complaints from owners, possibly spearheaded by Mark Cuban, David Stern vetoed the trade, which was possible because the NBA owns the Hornets.
5. Espn also says Paul might be forced to stay with the Hornets, until free agency, when they will lose him for no compensation.
6. Paul will possibly sue along with the Lakers, and will not report to Hornets camp.
7. Stern says trade was vetoed for "basketball reasons". Owners say they dont want big market teams "leveraging" small market teams.
--------------
Now, heres my thoughts. First of all, im kind of thinking New Orleans was winning that trade. They got rid of Paul, who they would only have for one year, then lose for no compensation. And they pretty much get a starting lineup in return. Imagine a lineup of Pg-Dragic, Sg- Martin, Sf- Ariza, Pf or C would be a mix of Scola, Odom, and David West (If Resigned). Thats not a bad lineup. Sort of reminds me of the Nuggets who were almost all traded players, and were pretty adequate.
The league is almost colluding teams at this point. I dont think its right. But the teams are appealing towards the league for the trade.
Thoughts?

SoCalDukeFan
12-09-2011, 10:52 AM
that the NBA is really messed up.
Stern needs to go.

Deal should be allowed to go forward. Hornets are really hurt without it.

Lakers gave up a lot. Somehow Miami can assemble a dream team out of thin air and money but the Lakers can not trade for one.

SoCal

sagegrouse
12-09-2011, 10:56 AM
Mike and Mike are saying that, if the Paul trade is totally dead, the NBA just decided to contract by one team. Chris Paul has only one year left on his contract and then he is free to go without the Hornets getting ANYTHING! And, believe me, he will go. So, New Orleans would be toast. -- er, make that "beignets."

Not handled very well by the Front Office, but I disagree that Stern is incompetent. He has done a good job of building the league.

sage
'I also heard that Cleveland's unfortunate owner, Dan Gilbert, suggested that the NBA could just call 25 of the 30 teams, the "Washington Generals,"' although that is not mentioned in this article' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/dan-gilbert-davis-stern-chris-paul-trade_n_1138642.html)

kessler
12-09-2011, 11:02 AM
Gilbert seems to have a knack to say some brash things.
Dont think stern is incompetent, but he should not be the basketball decision maker of the Hornets, that is the GM; who ESPN says was "Shocked".

elvis14
12-09-2011, 11:04 AM
I'm still trying to figure out the logic here. The NBA is trying to make sure big market teams can't just buy their way to championships. I get that, I hate the Yankee$ and Red$ox. But I don't see that as the case here. What I see is a good team trading quality players for a quality player. It's not like the Lakers aren't giving up quality to get quality. It's like the league is saying to the Lakers, we were looking forward to you getting old and not being good for a while. The Lakers are able to do this because they have quality players they can trade.

Oh and to the OP, if you look around you'll find that an occasional NBA post is OK around here. I'm just glad you didn't start yet another UNC@CH thread, sometimes it looks like IC around here!

Matches
12-09-2011, 11:09 AM
Gilbert is brash but he has a point. If the trade had gone through, the Lakers would have been able to acquire one of the best players in the league - and save lots of money by doing so. It's one thing for a large-market team to fleece a smaller one (e.g. Lakers acquiring Gasol for 40 cents on the dollar) when they're *spending* lots of money to do so - another thing for it to be a cost-effective move.

The deal makes sense for all involved teams only because Paul has a figurative gun to the Hornets' head. If this is the model going forward, then essentially no small market teams will be able to keep their best players OR get fair value for them in a trade. That's a huge problem for 3/4ths of the teams in the league.

Not sure what the solution is, though - having the league veto trades smells funky.

J4Kop99
12-09-2011, 11:16 AM
This gives the NBA a major black-eye.

As for the Hornets, if they do not plan on letting them make trades that raise their payroll, then how on earth do they expect the team to improve. The Hornets need to either be contracted, sold immediately, or just let their basketball operations work without any league interference.

What happened yesterday is pathetic. More like a professional wrestling storyline.

kessler
12-09-2011, 11:30 AM
What happened yesterday is pathetic. More like a professional wrestling storyline.

Never thought of it like that hahah. But id say its similar. The teams are now appealing to the NBA. Not sure how the NBA can sit there and say its reasonable.

feldspar
12-09-2011, 11:40 AM
What I see is a good team trading quality players for a quality player. It's not like the Lakers aren't giving up quality to get quality. It's like the league is saying to the Lakers, we were looking forward to you getting old and not being good for a while. The Lakers are able to do this because they have quality players they can trade.

Not only that, but a lot of analysts were saying the trade would hurt the Lakers in the end. I mean, you get rid of Odom and Gasol and you have a gimpy Andrew Bynum as the center of your frontcourt. I fail to see how this would create some sort of power shift.

delfrio
12-09-2011, 11:45 AM
Not only that, but a lot of analysts were saying the trade would hurt the Lakers in the end. I mean, you get rid of Odom and Gasol and you have a gimpy Andrew Bynum as the center of your frontcourt. I fail to see how this would create some sort of power shift.

I think the point is to free up space for a possible Bynum-for-Howard trade next year. Not that that makes the rejection of this trade less puzzling.

Duvall
12-09-2011, 11:48 AM
Gilbert seems to have a knack to say some brash things.


It really is a shame that Kyrie is going to have to spend six years working for that buffoon.

Duvall
12-09-2011, 11:49 AM
Gilbert is brash but he has a point. If the trade had gone through, the Lakers would have been able to acquire one of the best players in the league - and save lots of money by doing so. It's one thing for a large-market team to fleece a smaller one (e.g. Lakers acquiring Gasol for 40 cents on the dollar) when they're *spending* lots of money to do so - another thing for it to be a cost-effective move.

Why? It's a cost effective move because the Lakers are giving up two of their better players. Who's getting fleeced here?

Matches
12-09-2011, 11:58 AM
Why? It's a cost effective move because the Lakers are giving up two of their better players. Who's getting fleeced here?

They're giving up Gasol and Odom. Neither is a bad player. Gasol is a very good one. But any GM that called up, under normal circumstances, and offered Gasol & Odom straight up for Paul would be hung up on.

toooskies
12-09-2011, 12:22 PM
Gasol is one of the best post players in the league and a perennial all-star. He was second team all-NBA last year at Center; and the NBA has a lack of quality Cs. Andrew Bogut and Al Horford were All-NBA; he's the second-best C in the league, according to that measure. Plus, he's the best big man in the league who can hit free throws. The downside is he's starting to get old, but it hasn't shown up in his play yet.

Odom was 6th man of the year, and averaged a 16/10 when pushed into starting duty when Bynum got hurt. He can also play in the post. His downside is also age.

As opposed to Chris Paul, third team all-NBA, at a position which has an overload of quality talent (besides Paul there's Rose, Westbrook, Nash, Rondo, Kyrie, Billups, Deron Williams, Tony Parker, Jason Kidd, John Wall, and so on). He's still relatively young, although he's definitely a veteran. And he has bad knees.

This is a TERRIBLE trade talent-wise for the Lakers. The only thing they get is some financial flexibility.

And the haul of Odom, Scola, Kevin Martin, Dragic, and a first round pick is a GREAT haul for Paul, given that the Hornets will end up sign-and-trading him wherever he wants to go next year for a few low-value draft picks.

kessler
12-09-2011, 12:26 PM
This rejection almost looks good for the Lakers now, because i believe the idea was to trade Bynum for D12, but now Superman is saying he wants to go the Nets. Which would leave the Lakers frontcourt to a gimpy Bynum and possible Mcroberts? (Rumored to be a target from the Lakers).

JasonEvans
12-09-2011, 12:33 PM
I want to be clear about something -- the reason Chris Paul wants to leave the Hornets is not "market size." It is that he wants to play on a team that has a shot at winning a title. He wants to be surrounded by top-tier talent. The fault here is not the size of the city, but the ability of Hornet's management to put an attractive team around Chris Paul.

You don't see Kevin Durant asking out of Oklahoma City (among the tiniest cities in the NBA). That's because he is surrounded by other excellent players and they have a very legit shot at the title this year and into the future.

Sure, sometimes a player simply wants a bigger stage (Hello, Melo!), but most of these situations where stud players leave via free agency or demand a trade to another team it is about getting in a better place to win a ring. You can't tell me that market size is a defining part of the equation when Lebron and Wade chose Miami over Chicago.

--Jason "oh, and add me to the chorus that thinks the NBA totally botched the Paul deal... the Lakers gave up plenty of value and it was the best deal the Hornets could get... Stern may have been great, but lately he really looks like a buffoon" Evans

jafarr1
12-09-2011, 12:34 PM
They're giving up Gasol and Odom. Neither is a bad player. Gasol is a very good one. But any GM that called up, under normal circumstances, and offered Gasol & Odom straight up for Paul would be hung up on.

Given that Paul is forcing his way out, it wouldn't be a surprise to see the Hornets take less than market value for Paul, and the Hornets' side of this deal wasn't at all unreasonable.

ncexnyc
12-09-2011, 12:35 PM
So I see the NBA has turned into Fantasy Football where the other owners get to veto trades.
Does that mean we won't be seeing Howard traded to the Nets for Lopez and two draft choices.
Every analysis of the trade that I've read suggests that this was a very fair trade for the Hornets. Maybe as has already been said the league isn't really interested in keeping a team in the Big Easy and will use Paul's future departing via free agency and the resulting backlash to contract that franchise.

AZLA
12-09-2011, 12:39 PM
For Chris Paul, that trade rejection must have felt like a punch to the groin.

delfrio
12-09-2011, 01:17 PM
For Chris Paul, that trade rejection must have felt like a punch to the groin.

POTD

sagegrouse
12-09-2011, 01:30 PM
Given that Paul is forcing his way out, it wouldn't be a surprise to see the Hornets take less than market value for Paul, and the Hornets' side of this deal wasn't at all unreasonable.

I am really having trouble with some of the comments by my friends in this thread -- must be male menopause.

A. Chris Paul, whom I detest, is not the bad guy here. He has played hard for the Hornets for six frigging years. Now he wants a say in his team.

B. This is not really, in my view about the Lakers (although the owner envy is clearly the motivating force here). The trade seems a little curious to me from the Lakers perspective, but certainly not grossly unfair to the Hornets under the circumstances.

C. THIS IS ABOUT THE SURVIVAL OF THE HORNETS AS AN NBA FRANCHISE. IF PAUL PLAYS HIS 66 GAMES FOR NEW ORLEANS AND THEN LEAVES, THE HORNETS GET NOTHING, NADA, ZIP, NE RIEN!

This reminds of when the felonious Bowie Kuhn prevented his nemesis, Charles O. Finley of the Oakland A's, from trading his stars. The net effect: they all left for bigger paychecks than Charlie could afford to match, and Oakland went from World Series champs to the worst team in the league. Good move, there Bowie.

sagegrouse

g-money
12-09-2011, 01:31 PM
Somebody tell me if my Duke-colored glasses are a little too blue: Is Coach K's superb team-building effort from the 2008 Olympics a major reason why all these stars now want to play together?

Admittedly, I have never been one to understate K's influence on the basketball world.

A-Tex Devil
12-09-2011, 01:37 PM
Stern and the poor widdle small market owners are in an indefensible position here.

I would agree that this would be a first step to contracting the Hornets if it weren't for the fact that the veto was clearly a move by David Stern in reaction to Gilbert and who the hell knows who else.

The thing is that this is a PERFECTLY DEFENSIBLE TRADE. I hope Dale Demps does resign. I feel bad for the guy.

I have not heard a single good or valid reason this trade shouldn't have gone through -- and this is coming from a Rockets fan who think the Rockets gave up way too much.

moonpie23
12-09-2011, 01:38 PM
the league OWNING the hornets and nixing a trade because of the whining of the other owners that OWN the hornets might shine some anti-trust light where they don't want......legal members here,.....would it not?

is this not a huge conflict of interest? or just the nba operating as a whole empire?


even if it's not, this trade WOULD have gone through had the league not "owned" the hornets.....

A-Tex Devil
12-09-2011, 01:44 PM
the league OWNING the hornets and nixing a trade because of the whining of the other owners that OWN the hornets might shine some anti-trust light where they don't want......legal members here,.....would it not?

is this not a huge conflict of interest? or just the nba operating as a whole empire?


even if it's not, this trade WOULD have gone through had the league not "owned" the hornets.....

Probably. Chris Paul, the Rockets and the Lakers should all sue.

I think this will go through in some manner and, frankly, I think the owners would vote for the trade if Gilbert got the vote he wanted.

SilkyJ
12-09-2011, 02:02 PM
For Chris Paul, that trade rejection must have felt like a punch to the groin.


POTD

Seconded!


Somebody tell me if my Duke-colored glasses are a little too blue: Is Coach K's superb team-building effort from the 2008 Olympics a major reason why all these stars now want to play together?

Admittedly, I have never been one to understate K's influence on the basketball world.

I think that's giving too much credit, but not an absurd suggestion. Lebron/Wade/Bosh have admitted that during the Olympic run they started talking about teaming together since they would all be FAs in 2 years. So its fair to say the Olympic run was a catalyst.

But obviously when you get a bunch of studs together and they see how great they can be, it makes sense that they'd want to play together. However, in the past just throwing some all-stars together didn't work, so if you believe K had a hand in the coalescing of the team (hard to deny) then you can clearly make a case that he indirectly helped catalyze the idea for those 3...and I think its fair to say that those 3 have catalyzed others to want to form mega-teams.

I also think Danny Ainge's move to bring the Celtics trio together (KG/PP/RA) gets overlooked. The Heat even said last year that beating the Celtics was huge for them, especially for Lebron. While it was a pure front-office move and not a player instigated move to bring them together, its probably fair to say that Lebron and others took note.


the league OWNING the hornets and nixing a trade because of the whining of the other owners that OWN the hornets might shine some anti-trust light where they don't want......legal members here,.....would it not?

is this not a huge conflict of interest? or just the nba operating as a whole empire?


sure sounds like a conflict of interest to me.

I don't know enough about these things to have a truly educated guess, but my gut says this aggression will not stand, man. It just sounds illegal.

gam7
12-09-2011, 02:13 PM
I don't know enough about these things to have a truly educated guess, but my gut says this aggression will not stand, man. It just sounds illegal.

Well, I'll be curious to see what Stern does with an appeal after all of these legitimate issues have been thought through fully. But, whatever he does, he won't be doing it tonight - Shomer Shabbas dude. Stern sure as s--- doesn't roll on Shabbas.

Turk
12-09-2011, 02:15 PM
Everyone agrees the trade has merits on basketball grounds, but apparently the headline "Chris Paul to the Lakers" must have been too inflammatory.

A league just can't own one of the franchises - it's such a massive conflict of interest...

Simmons and Wilbon are must reads:

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/wilbon-111209/david-stern-nfl-owners-look-vindictive-petty-veto-chris-paul-trade

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7334835/the-sixth-day-nba-christmas

I think Mr. Stern needs to consider retirement. He was an effective commissioner who oversaw the growth of the league. However, he has lost influence, was unable to broker a new CBA that actually addressed the problems faced by the NBA, and blocking this trade was clearly a blunder. I'm not a lawyer, but I hope CP3's threat of legal action actually has merit.

Going on a tangent, Sixers fans can spend their time voting for their new mascot, which apparently will be either Ben Franklin with a Hall of Fame mullet, McGruff the Crime Dog, or Bullwinkle sporting some sort of Sixers colors. At least they have that going for them...

ChillinDuke
12-09-2011, 02:18 PM
Going on a tangent, Sixers fans can spend their time voting for their new mascot, which apparently will be either Ben Franklin with a Hall of Fame mullet, McGruff the Crime Dog, or Bullwinkle sporting some sort of Sixers colors. At least they have that going for them...

Those are hilarious options! HA!

JasonEvans
12-09-2011, 03:08 PM
Everyone seems to be killing Stern and the NBA over this but I just saw someone on ESPN offer a pretty interesting defense.

It was the former Portland Assistant GM who is now ESPN's salary cap analyst. He pointed out that Stern's primary motivation with the Hornets is to SELL THE TEAM! He said potential buyers are always looking for one of two things in a team -- 1) a star they can market and build around or 2) the salary cap flexibility to build a team going forward (because new owners always think they are smart and want to put their imprint on the team).

This deal would have robbed the Hornets of both of those things. They would lose Paul and would take on some significant new salaries. Yes, they got some nice players in the deal -- "3 starters" -- but none of those guys are the centerpiece of a championship team and the Hornets would not have flexibility to add additional pieces.

He also pointed out that as of right now, the Hornets have a big star in Paul and the cap flexibility to maybe add another one. He said it was not impossible to see the Hornets as a potential destination for Dwight Howard if the Hornets get a new owner who gives them some financial flexibility.

He makes an interesting case -- not sure I agree with it but at least it makes a little bit of sense.

-Jason "wow, EVERYONE on ESPN is just murdering Stern over this" Evans

BD80
12-09-2011, 03:16 PM
Well, I'll be curious to see what Stern does with an appeal after all of these legitimate issues have been thought through fully. But, whatever he does, he won't be doing it tonight - Shomer Shabbas dude. Stern sure as s--- doesn't roll on Shabbas.

Shomer Shabbos, is that the 7 footer out of Turkey everyone wants to sign?

I will bet Stern won't fully observe the mitzvot, as spinning is prohibited. Stern can't open his mouth without spinning. Looks like he is holding fast on that "transferring between domains" proscription though.


I think the Hornets actually made a pretty good deal. They got really good basketball players who are not all that "marketable" in the US so the small market isn't as relevant to them. They would be shoo-ins for the playoffs and would be the kind of team that nobody wanted to play in the playoffs (value each possession).

The deal will go through - there really isn't legitimate grounds to void it. The NBA will say they just delayed the deal to fully evaluate it.

A-Tex Devil
12-09-2011, 03:49 PM
This deal would have robbed the Hornets of both of those things. They would lose Paul and would take on some significant new salaries. Yes, they got some nice players in the deal -- "3 starters" -- but none of those guys are the centerpiece of a championship team and the Hornets would not have flexibility to add additional pieces.

He also pointed out that as of right now, the Hornets have a big star in Paul and the cap flexibility to maybe add another one. He said it was not impossible to see the Hornets as a potential destination for Dwight Howard if the Hornets get a new owner who gives them some financial flexibility.

He makes an interesting case -- not sure I agree with it but at least it makes a little bit of sense.



I get his argument but it ignores the basic facts: no one will buy the Hornets without clarity around the Chris Paul situation, and Chris Paul, barring an extremely positive ownership change is going to leave in the summer for another team.

It's an unavoidable chicken and egg dilemma and is why any defense of the veto along the lines of "we have to be able to sell the Hornets for some value" falls flat on its face.

Also -- the former Blazer exec's rationale flies in the face of Stern's justification that the trade was vetoed for "basketball reasons." Which is it?

Again, the veto is absolutely indefensible.

Edited to add -- the only question should be: considering Chris Paul's situation, does it make basketball and financial sense for a small market team that may be sold soon to make this trade? The answer is *almost* unequivocally "Yes." The small market owners aren't wanting to veto this because it "hurts" New Orleans, which should be the only reason to veto it. They are vetoing it because it puts the Lakers one step closer to the Three Amigos down in Miami.

_Gary
12-09-2011, 03:52 PM
The Hornets were not going to get the better end of that deal. Gasol is very up and down and so is Odom. Paul is a bona fide superstar (and I say that as a person who still hasn't forgiven him for the "punch" to the privates). I think this is ultimately about two things:

1) What Jason referenced above from the Hornets perspective.

2) The perception about the Lakers basically being the Yankees of the NBA. They've won a lot of championships with deals just like this one where it seems even but in the end only the Lakers come out smelling like a rose, and this would be another one. I just think a lot of other teams and fans are sick and tired of the Lakers being able to reload consistently by making these deals. Like it or not, many do believe they fleece smaller market teams, and I think the league felt it had to step in and stop it. I'll be honest, had it been anyone other than the Lakers I think the NBA would have let the deal go down. But too many are tired of this team in particular making these moves and loading up. Yes, Miami has done it ONCE. Boston did it ONCE. The Lakers seem to do it a heck of a lot more than anyone else though. It's just that they do it with one player at a time instead of 2 or 3 and so it doesn't seem like that big a deal. But it is, and I think the league is tired of it (although I doubt you'd ever hear anyone in an official capacity admit to this).

Just my two cents.

Duvall
12-09-2011, 03:54 PM
Did the NBA veto the deal in its capacity as the league office, or in its capacity as owners of the New Orleans Hornets?

A-Tex Devil
12-09-2011, 04:06 PM
The Hornets were not going to get the better end of that deal. Gasol is very up and down and so is Odom. Paul is a bona fide superstar (and I say that as a person who still hasn't forgiven him for the "punch" to the privates). I think this is ultimately about two things:

1) What Jason referenced above from the Hornets perspective.

2) The perception about the Lakers basically being the Yankees of the NBA. They've won a lot of championships with deals just like this one where it seems even but in the end only the Lakers come out smelling like a rose, and this would be another one. I just think a lot of other teams and fans are sick and tired of the Lakers being able to reload consistently by making these deals. Like it or not, many do believe they fleece smaller market teams, and I think the league felt it had to step in and stop it. I'll be honest, had it been anyone other than the Lakers I think the NBA would have let the deal go down. But too many are tired of this team in particular making these moves and loading up. Yes, Miami has done it ONCE. Boston did it ONCE. The Lakers seem to do it a heck of a lot more than anyone else though. It's just that they do it with one player at a time instead of 2 or 3 and so it doesn't seem like that big a deal. But it is, and I think the league is tired of it (although I doubt you'd ever hear anyone in an official capacity admit to this).

Just my two cents.

#2 is a reason but not a justification. The owners via Stern just killed the best deal the Hornets are going to get for Chris Paul because they don't want a traditionally strong franchise to get stronger? That deal was almost as good as the one the Nuggets got for Carmelo and miles better than what Minny got for Garnett and Memphis got for Gasol.

If you read most basketball experts, they see this as a fair trade and as good as the Hornets are going to get. If the owners aren't going to let Demps do his job, they need to set up an independent committee to act as ownership for the Hornets. The owners of the Hornets are 29 interested parties making a decision, and guys like Dan Gilbert are devaluing a corporation they own a small piece of (the Hornets) to protect the corporation they have control over (their own teams). This is grounds for a shareholder derivative suit if this was a corporation. I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of parallel antitrust related suit come out of this if it costs Chris Paul money.

A-Tex Devil
12-09-2011, 04:07 PM
Did the NBA veto the deal in its capacity as the league office, or in its capacity as owners of the New Orleans Hornets?

I am almost certain it was the latter. The league can veto trades that get cute with the salary cap, etc., but by all accounts, this was a fair trade.

_Gary
12-09-2011, 04:16 PM
#2 is a reason but not a justification.

I'm not saying it is a justification. Then again, I'm not saying it isn't either after the Lakers probably secured 2 more championship banners purely with the Gasol trade in the first place. But if anyone here tries to really argue that LA would N-O-T being getting the better of the deal I'd have to scoff. They clearly would be, and I just think people (outside of SoCal) are tired of it. Just saying.

Greg_Newton
12-09-2011, 04:19 PM
Did the NBA veto the deal in its capacity as the league office, or in its capacity as owners of the New Orleans Hornets?

Just to confirm, it was the latter. Made it clear it was "for basketball reasons" as the owners of the Hornets.

Also, to clarify, the Hornets would have received Lamar Odom, Kevin Martin, Goran Dragic and Luis Scola, NOT Odom and Gasol. Seems to be a misconception floating around, but this was a 3-team trade with the Rockets.

That actually almost makes it seem like a more appealing trade, to me. Kevin Martin and Goran Dragic would not be not the worst young backcourt to have, and Odom and Scola are good veteran players. I imagine the Hornets were looking for more young talent though, as they don't figure to be a contender anytime soon.

Duvall
12-09-2011, 04:23 PM
I'm not saying it is a justification. Then again, I'm not saying it isn't either after the Lakers probably secured 2 more championship banners purely with the Gasol trade in the first place. But if anyone here tries to really argue that LA would N-O-T being getting the better of the deal I'd have to scoff. They clearly would be, and I just think people (outside of SoCal) are tired of it. Just saying.

The Lakers are giving up their second and third best players to get 66 games of a point guard with a bum knee. Gasol is under contract for three years, and Odom is under contract for one year with a club option for an additional year. That's a lot for 66 games, even from a talent like Paul.

_Gary
12-09-2011, 04:27 PM
The Lakers are giving up their second and third best players to get 66 games of a point guard with a bum knee. Gasol is under contract for three years, and Odom is under contract for one year with a club option for an additional year. That's a lot for 66 games, even from a talent like Paul.

Okay, so for the record are you telling me (with a straight face) that you don't believe this deal would make LA better and more apt to contend for a championship this year?

Duvall
12-09-2011, 04:31 PM
Okay, so for the record are you telling me (with a straight face) that you don't believe this deal would make LA better and more apt to contend for a championship this year?

I don't know about this year - that clearly depends on Andrew Bynum. But I don't see how you can argue that it doesn't make LA weaker in the two years after that.

A-Tex Devil
12-09-2011, 04:33 PM
I'm not saying it is a justification. Then again, I'm not saying it isn't either after the Lakers probably secured 2 more championship banners purely with the Gasol trade in the first place. But if anyone here tries to really argue that LA would N-O-T being getting the better of the deal I'd have to scoff. They clearly would be, and I just think people (outside of SoCal) are tired of it. Just saying.

I think you can argue that the Lakers might not be better. There are lots of valid arguments:

- Ex. 1: Miami Heat. Now the Heat came around and made the finals, but nothing is a foregone conclusion, and the Heat struggled mightily at times last year, peaking just a bit too early.

- The Lakers just traded away 2 of their top 3 big men, and the one they are left with hasn't played a whole season yet at the age of 24. They suddenly going from one of the biggest teams in the league to the smallest.

- Chris Paul has a bum knee. Who knows whether he will get over it or if it will deteriorate quickly.

- It's unclear whether Paul and Kobe can coexist on an NBA team. Paul wasn't the right guy to run the Olympic team on the first string. Will he have the ball too much for Kobe's taste? I don't know.

I've read a bunch of analysts that question whether this is necessarily the best move for the Lakers unless they can flip Bynum and some others for Dwight Howard. That is going to be very tough as it's not clear they have the pieces to do it. Do I think they'll be better? Yeah, I do. But they'll have a really tough time against teams like the Rockets (assuming they got Gasol and sign Nene or Jordan) and the Grizzlies, for instance who will pretty much tower over them.

_Gary
12-09-2011, 04:38 PM
Using "ifs" one might be able to argue the trade wouldn't make the Lakers better (like, "if" Paul's knee gives out). But on it's face this trade would have immediately made L.A. better.

A-Tex Devil
12-09-2011, 04:38 PM
Just to confirm, it was the latter. Made it clear it was "for basketball reasons" as the owners of the Hornets.

Also, to clarify, the Hornets would have received Lamar Odom, Kevin Martin, Goran Dragic and Luis Scola, NOT Odom and Gasol. Seems to be a misconception floating around, but this was a 3-team trade with the Rockets.

That actually almost makes it seem like a more appealing trade, to me. Kevin Martin and Goran Dragic would not be not the worst young backcourt to have, and Odom and Scola are good veteran players. I imagine the Hornets were looking for more young talent though, as they don't figure to be a contender anytime soon.

And it's very likely that the Hornets would flip any of Scola, Martin and Odom before the end of the year for draft picks which would also let them tank for draft picks and cap space next year. The owners likely devalued their investment in the Hornets by letting Stern veto the trade. If I am the Lakers or Rockets, that makes me doubly pissed.

A-Tex Devil
12-09-2011, 04:41 PM
Using "ifs" one might be able to argue the trade wouldn't make the Lakers better (like, "if" Paul's knee gives out). But on it's face this trade would have immediately made L.A. better.

Isn't that why teams make trades, though? To get better? I think the Hornets are better after this trade, now and in the future, to have 4 solid players to add to their roster plus at least 1 draft pick, as opposed to Chris Paul and a bunch of scrubs. They will lose David West, and their next best player is Trevor Ariza.

Troublemaker
12-09-2011, 04:47 PM
Everyone seems to be killing Stern and the NBA over this but I just saw someone on ESPN offer a pretty interesting defense.

It was the former Portland Assistant GM who is now ESPN's salary cap analyst. He pointed out that Stern's primary motivation with the Hornets is to SELL THE TEAM! He said potential buyers are always looking for one of two things in a team -- 1) a star they can market and build around or 2) the salary cap flexibility to build a team going forward (because new owners always think they are smart and want to put their imprint on the team).

This deal would have robbed the Hornets of both of those things. They would lose Paul and would take on some significant new salaries. Yes, they got some nice players in the deal -- "3 starters" -- but none of those guys are the centerpiece of a championship team and the Hornets would not have flexibility to add additional pieces.

He also pointed out that as of right now, the Hornets have a big star in Paul and the cap flexibility to maybe add another one. He said it was not impossible to see the Hornets as a potential destination for Dwight Howard if the Hornets get a new owner who gives them some financial flexibility.

He makes an interesting case -- not sure I agree with it but at least it makes a little bit of sense.

-Jason "wow, EVERYONE on ESPN is just murdering Stern over this" Evans

These are good points raised by the former Portland guy. Thanks for sharing, Jason. If I'm a Hornets fan or a potential Hornets buyer, I don't think I would want the team taking on that much salary either. The players they'd be receiving are quality guys but, in the end, aren't the Hornets pretty much just locking themselves into competing for an 8 seed for a few years with those guys? Again, if I'm a fan or a potential owner, I think I would rather see the Hornets trade Paul for draft picks and cap space to bottom out this season and be in the Anthony Davis / Andre Drummond sweepstakes rather than load up on highly-paid second-tier players. The Odom+Scola+Martin package really doesn't interest me that much in the long-run. And if I'm a potential owner, it's possible I WOULD like a shot at convincing Paul to stay.

A-Tex Devil
12-09-2011, 04:58 PM
These are good points raised by the former Portland guy. Thanks for sharing, Jason. If I'm a Hornets fan or a potential Hornets buyer, I don't think I would want the team taking on that much salary either. The players they'd be receiving are quality guys but, in the end, aren't the Hornets pretty much just locking themselves into competing for an 8 seed for a few years with those guys? Again, if I'm a fan or a potential owner, I think I would rather see the Hornets trade Paul for draft picks and cap space to bottom out this season and be in the Anthony Davis / Andre Drummond sweepstakes rather than load up on highly-paid second-tier players. The Odom+Scola+Martin package really doesn't interest me that much in the long-run. And if I'm a potential owner, it's possible I WOULD like a shot at convincing Paul to stay.

The second problem with the ex-Portland guy's argument, which is really not his fault because I agree his argument is sound if the facts backed it up -- if keeping Paul is so important to the sale of the team, why the heck let Demps shop Paul around at all? What deal *WOULD* the owners accept? I get it if this is the real reason why the trade was vetoed, which, again, is understandable if anyone thought they'd find an owner before the Chris Paul situation was cleared up -- they won't. But it's also not "basketball related reasons."

More likely, Demps was going to flip those contracts of Scola, Odom, Martin into young players, expiring contracts and draft picks - more than he could even get for Paul alone. Guess what that does? Gives you more draft picks, a crappier team for lottery picks, lots of cap room, and a pretty attractive team to pitch to new ownership if draft night goes well.

I contend the owners shot themselves in the foot to hurt the Lakers. The Dan Gilbert's of the world didn't want the Lakers getting another All Star, and they had some sway in it this time, so they prevented it. It seems pretty simple to me. And I hate the Lakers.

dcdevil2009
12-09-2011, 05:08 PM
Using "ifs" one might be able to argue the trade wouldn't make the Lakers better (like, "if" Paul's knee gives out). But on it's face this trade would have immediately made L.A. better.

What about this one, "if Bynum plays 66 games for the second time in his career, giving up gasol and odom for paul would be worth it?" When a player has a history of the same recurring, it's a pretty big assumption that he'll be able to stay healthy through a condensed 66 game season.

About Gilbert's email, of course the Lakers will pay less luxury tax over the next three seasons, they're getting back a guy whose contract expires at the end of this year and giving up players with multiyear contracts. If Chris Paul signs an extension in LA, or if they get Dwight Howard and extend his contract, they'll be back over the cap/tax threshold. The only way they aren't a tax paying team next year and Gilbert and the other tax recipients don't get paid is if Paul leaves and the Lakers miss out on all of next summer's free agents, in which case Gilbert gets the competitive balance he apparently wants so badly. Sorry Dan, you can't have it both ways.

On the other hand, since the NBA is admittedly trying to sell the team, it makes sense financially to hold onto Paul for the year. They aren't going to get "nothing" if he leaves, instead they'll likely do what the Raptors and Cavs did with Bosh and Lebron, which were technically sign and trades where Miami gave up something to get the right to go over the cap with Bosh and James as well as an extra year on their contracts. If they trade him now, they're committing themselves to years of future salary with no marketable superstars. If I've got the money to buy an NBA team, I'd rather buy a terrible team with a bunch of cap space than the 8th to 10th best team in the conference with no superstar or flexibility to improve immediately. Likewise, if I'm selling the team as soon as possible, why would I care about being mediocre for the next 2-3 years if I can sell it for more without making the trade?

Turk
12-09-2011, 05:48 PM
Okay, so for the record are you telling me (with a straight face) that you don't believe this deal would make LA better and more apt to contend for a championship this year?

OK, I'll take the bait. This deal would not make LA better and more apt to contend for a championship this year, and I'm saying it with a straight face.

I'm not a Laker fan, so I'm just guessing on the lineups, but here goes:

Pre-trade: G Fisher, G Kobe, F Odom, F Gasol, C Bynum
Post-trade: G Paul, G Kobe, F ???? (Luke Walton?). F Artest, C Bynum

They need to find a few forwards, unless I'm missing someone. If they can find a starting forward with enough offense to be the #3 scoring option and another forward who can rebound and maybe back up Bynum at center, then yes, at that point LA would be better. The question is whether that happens this season with whomever's left on the market, or next year after another round of free agent signings.

A-Tex Devil
12-09-2011, 06:18 PM
About Gilbert's email, of course the Lakers will pay less luxury tax over the next three seasons, they're getting back a guy whose contract expires at the end of this year and giving up players with multiyear contracts. If Chris Paul signs an extension in LA, or if they get Dwight Howard and extend his contract, they'll be back over the cap/tax threshold. The only way they aren't a tax paying team next year and Gilbert and the other tax recipients don't get paid is if Paul leaves and the Lakers miss out on all of next summer's free agents, in which case Gilbert gets the competitive balance he apparently wants so badly. Sorry Dan, you can't have it both ways.


That's the most ridiculous thing about Gilbert's email. The Laker's are going to have to sign Paul and then they will be back over the salary cap.

A-Tex Devil
12-09-2011, 06:20 PM
OK, I'll take the bait. This deal would not make LA better and more apt to contend for a championship this year, and I'm saying it with a straight face.

I'm not a Laker fan, so I'm just guessing on the lineups, but here goes:

Pre-trade: G Fisher, G Kobe, F Odom, F Gasol, C Bynum
Post-trade: G Paul, G Kobe, F ???? (Luke Walton?). F Artest, C Bynum

They need to find a few forwards, unless I'm missing someone. If they can find a starting forward with enough offense to be the #3 scoring option and another forward who can rebound and maybe back up Bynum at center, then yes, at that point LA would be better. The question is whether that happens this season with whomever's left on the market, or next year after another round of free agent signings.

... and they are so thrilled with Metta World Peace's contract, they are considering amnestying (new verb!!) him.

Jim3k
12-09-2011, 08:13 PM
It seems that the small market owners are concerned about the loss of the luxury tax they were expecting from the Lakers. Here's a link to Gilbert's letter to Stern (http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/was-chris-paul-trade-lakers-block). The article does mention a player's claim that Paul may be being victimized for his union role during negotiations, but the guts of the issue are in the update, scroll down, which quotes Gilbert's letter to Stern.


Over the next three seasons this deal would save the Lakers approximately $20 million in salaries and approximately $21 million in luxury taxes. That $21 million goes to non-taxpaying teams and to fund revenue sharing.

I cannot remember ever seeing a trade where a team got by far the best player in the trade and saved over $40 million in the process. And it doesnít appear that they would give up any draft picks, which might allow to later make a trade for Dwight Howard. (They would also get a large trade exception that would help them improve their team and/or eventually trade for Howard.) When the Lakers got Pau Gasol (considered, at the time, an extremely lopsided trade), they took on tens of millions in additional salary and luxury tax, and they gave up a number of prospects (one in Marc Gasol who may become a max-salary player).

I just donít see how we can allow this trade to happen.

Oriole Way
12-09-2011, 09:00 PM
I think this deal will be tweaked a little bit and it will eventually be approved this weekend.

A-Tex Devil
12-09-2011, 11:23 PM
It seems that the small market owners are concerned about the loss of the luxury tax they were expecting from the Lakers. Here's a link to Gilbert's letter to Stern (http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/was-chris-paul-trade-lakers-block). The article does mention a player's claim that Paul may be being victimized for his union role during negotiations, but the guts of the issue are in the update, scroll down, which quotes Gilbert's letter to Stern.

Still doesn't fly. Aren't there tons of trades where this might happen? And even if it's a problem, is it a reason as a Hornets owner, not to make the trade? Also, when Chris Paul signs his contract with the Lakers, they'll be back over the luxury tax. Something Dan Gilbert conveniently forgot in his letter.

greybeard
12-10-2011, 01:37 AM
This is not about small markets, but rather big ones. You think Stern can be Machievellian with players. I've seen how he plays with owners. The mention of Cuben as being an outspoken leader of the opposition says to me that he is the opposition, and probably gave up quite a lot during the lockout to stay quiet. More importantly, if you wanted to make sure that there was a match for Miamiwood for the next 3-4 years, who you gonna pick? Kobe, the Diva, without the Zen Master around to keep him somewhat connected to other people on the planet, meshing with Paul and Dwight Howard, and doing so in a fashion that will keep the glue that keep stars from killing eachother and more importantly to inspire the lesser players who a team needs to step up to win championships (think Paxton, Horrey, Fisher, Ron, etc.), with Mike Brown trying to fill in not simply for Phil but also for, hello, the inventor of the most famous offense of our time, the one that features stars like MJ or Kobe at the vortex, literally the pivo, of the offense. Me, I'm not betting on that team to be all that entertaining, and certainly not all that likeable.

On the otherhand, Dallas is real likeable, Dirk is likeable, Terry is likeable, Kid is to love, but, ah, they let Chandler get away. Yeah, but the battle for Dwight has only just begun. A nickel says that Howard is playing for Mark and his established coach, and with a guy who can get him the ball without a guy like Kobe stabbing him in the Shaq. And the littles can yell all they want--they do not pay the bills and Stern's big salary and the NBA's worldwide appeal and therefore Stern's glory--great rivalries do. Cuban, who could have turned into Stern's Al Davis and probably will if he doesn't get what he wants, has a team poised to continue to present that rival to Miami for three-four years to come.

Stern steps on the littles; he makes his bones on eating principle and spitting it out. Here, it is the smart thing to do. Stern is nothing if he isn't smart. LA, without the Zen Master is ordinary, glitzy but ordinary; Kobe guarentees that. Stern will not throw good money after bad. Dallas emerges as the knight in shinning armor, lead by the heir to Larry, or the black knight lead by the white "nonathlete", and the drama goes on. Great theater. Don Caldeone and PT Barnum would be impressed. Me, I'm tired of the show, "what else can you show me." Bob Zimmerman.

moonpie23
12-10-2011, 09:45 AM
does anyone here think that if the league hadn't owned NO that this trade would NOT have happened?

Troublemaker
12-10-2011, 10:43 AM
does anyone here think that if the league hadn't owned NO that this trade would NOT have happened?

No question, the trade would have gone through. If the league ever vetoes a trade between teams they do NOT own, THEN we're really talking about something. But unfortunately for the parties involved in the trade, the league does own the Hornets and can do whatever they want with regard to approving Hornet transactions.

The league needs to sell the Hornets, bottom line.

Turk
12-10-2011, 10:52 AM
does anyone here think that if the league hadn't owned NO that this trade would NOT have happened?

Don't think so, but I can't speak for greybeard, truly he has a dizzying intellect... :D

That's exactly the point - league ownership of the team put the NBA and the owners in such an obvious conflict of interest position, and any assurances that the NO GM Demps could run the team were apparently false. He made a decent deal and got close to 80 cents on the dollar for Paul, who would just leave anyway. All the excuses made by Stern's PR flunkies were bogus. Maybe the NBA just thought that everyone would lowball the Hornets and Demps wouldn't be able to make a deal that passed the smell test...

Here's the best reason why Gilbert and the rest of the crybaby owners pitched a fit. This writer argues that NO (meaning the league) would be taking back much more in salary over the next few seasons (more than $60 million). Of course, the error there is assuming that's the endpoint of all the transactions, and maybe there were other deals / signings still to be done. I'm not a PR person, but I'm thinking both the NBA and Penn State need to find someone else to manage their media communications...

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/12005/the-chris-paul-trade-what-the-nba-did-wrong

My counter is that summing up the cost over four years makes the cost seem worse than it actually is. "Wow, that deal cost the owners $60 million!" "Wait a minute, it's about $15 million over four years - that's a medium sized contract for a decent starter..."