WOW, Stern and Owner's Kill CP3 to Lakers Deal!

TR1LL10N

Hannibal Lecter
This is just crazy and I dont know what this means for our chances:

Keep in mind, this is the same NBA that was willing to kill the entire season and trash interest in its product to get the financial deal it wanted. So it only make senses that, with that logic as a backdrop, the league would nix a trade that represented a pretty good solution to a bad situation for the team it owns.

They just made the unappealing Chris Paul-in-New Orleans situation even worse. There's still an extension offer that Paul hasn't touched, and now one of the few viable destinations the Hornets had for him is off the table. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson at the end of the courtroom scene in "A Few Good Men," all you did was weaken a team's trade prospects today.

The New Orleans Hornets have less leverage. The Los Angeles Lakers were one of a select few teams that Paul would entertain staying for the long term, and the Hornets were just told they can't deal with them. Teams don't need to top the offer the Lakers put together with the help of the Houston Rockets. And I'm not sure anyone could.

The Hornets would have received Lamar Odom, Luis Scola, Kevin Martin, and Goran Dragic. That's one of the most versatile players in the league, a guy who averages 18 and 10, a proven 20-a-night scorer, and a point guard who, if nothing else, has shown he can have a 23-point fourth quarter in a playoff game against the Spurs. You can compete for the playoffs with that team. You're going to tell me that's worse than the package of Wilson Chandler, Raymond Felton, Danilo Gallinari, Timofey Mozgov and draft picks that the Nuggets received for Carmelo Anthony?

Perhaps the league would like it better if the Hornets got a package from the Los Angeles Clippers that included Eric Gordon, DeAndre Jordan and Minnesota's unprotected first-round pick. Except the Clippers never offered that. Now there's no pressure on them to do so without their in-house rival driving up the bid.

So many people wondered why the lockout was held in the first place if on the day it officially ended a glamour team added one of the most coveted players. They missed the point. To say the lockout was enacted for the sake of competitive balance would be as inaccurate as saying the Civil War was fought to end slavery. The purpose of the Civil War was to restore the Union, and the purpose of the lockout was for the owners to make more money.

Securing $3 billion in economic concessions from the players was enough for the owners to call it off without enacting more restrictive rules on player movement. And as I've said before, there's nothing that can stop a player from going somewhere if he's willing to take less money.

Meanwhile, the league needs to stop being so short-sighted when it comes to assembling superteams. LeBron James leaving Cleveland didn't kill the NBA, it enhanced it. As for the outward flow of players to big markets hurting the small markets ... um, have you noticed that no potential owner had stepped up to meet the asking price on the Hornets with Chris Paul? So how much worse off would they be without him?

Competitive balance is something that will be achieved in pro sports the day after world peace is declared. The NFL has the ideal system of revenue sharing and schedule-assisted parity, and yet in Week 13 the Indianapolis Colts, Minnesota Vikings, St. Louis Rams and Jacksonville Jaguars have a total of seven wins. There's no magic language in any collective bargaining agreement that could transform the Minnesota Timberwolves into instant contenders.

They had a chance when they grabbed Kevin Garnett in the draft, before skipping college to enter the pros became commonplace. They couldn't cash in, doing no better than a trip to the Western Conference finals in Garnett's MVP season. Oh well, maybe they can find their next Garnett in next year's draft. Whoops, they traded the pick to the Clippers, along with Sam Cassell, for Marko Jaric. Now there's a trade the NBA should have blown up.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/cp3dealhold-111208/quashing-cp3-deal-shows-nba-least-bright
 

quiggle

Starter
Commissioner,

It would be a travesty to allow the Lakers to acquire Chris Paul in the apparent trade being discussed.

This trade should go to a vote of the 29 owners of the Hornets.

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 doesn?t 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 (at the time considered 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 don?t see how we can allow this trade to happen.
I know the vast majority of owners feel the same way that I do.

When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals?

Please advise?.

Dan G.


 

TR1LL10N

Hannibal Lecter
Gilbert is hater! :peace: Good for him though and I partially agree. Had they been stoping a trade to the KNicks though it would be a different story! Yea, Im a selfish hypocrite when it comes to the Knicks! :cool:
 

quiggle

Starter
well if this is the same turd who vowed Cavs would win title before LeBron does, so why doesnt he support the trade then? D12, Paul and Kobe will pretty much make it not possible for Miami to win title for years to come
 

nyk_nyk

All Star
Commissioner,


It would be a travesty to allow the Lakers to acquire Chris Paul in the apparent trade being discussed.

This trade should go to a vote of the 29 owners of the Hornets.

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 doesn?t 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 (at the time considered 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 don?t see how we can allow this trade to happen.
I know the vast majority of owners feel the same way that I do.

When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals?

Please advise?.

Dan G.

What Gilbert, apparently not a smart dude, didn't factor in was how the Lakers would have to resign CP3 to a new 5-year $100 mil contract and they'd still have depth to fill at the PF and C position.
 

Oldtimer

Rotation player
Sstern and CP3

This was an interesting and unexpected move by the League. The Lakers were one of the two or three teams with whom Paul would likely agree to extend. The compensation to New Orleans was not unreasonable. However, to the extent Gilbert's letter was factually accurate, it appears that in addition to Paul the Lakers were put in a position to make a real play for Dwight Howard.

It is clear, however, that Stern and the League would certainly not have approved any trade to the Knicks and as a practical matter could not approve a trade of Paul to the Knicks or perhaps any other "big market" franchise going forward without demonstrably better compensation to New Orleans.

This is harsh on Paul who could be forced either to re-sign with New Orleans, accept a trade to less of a franchise monster, or take substantially less money in free agency next year. I wonder what this will do to any deal for Chandler?

It also appears to be risky for New Orleans and the League which owns the team. If Paul is willing to wait for free agency despite a substantial reduction in future income, New Orleans will hardly be a valuable franchise.

I assume that the decision to stop the deal was made by the League, through Stern, as owners of the franchise and not simply by the League or the Commissioner's office. To what extent might the League have nixed the deal if it did not own the New Orlean's franchise? For example, suppose the Lakers turn their attention to Dwight Howard and work out a deal with the Magic. What say would Stern and the League have in that case?
 

Kiyaman

Legend
Real Talk....the NBA was not suppose to buyout the New Orleans Hornets,
the Katrina-Hurrican was suppose to let the Hornets relocate for 3 years
while New Orleans was being renovated.

Owners like James Dolan knew the NBA being the owner of the Hornets have
no-rights to trade "Okafor, West, and CP3" to the next team for better or
worse players b/c of a "Conflict of Interest" towards all 30 teams in the NBA.
This is why owner Dolan put in his bid for CP3 by announcing he is only given
out one-year contracts the offseason before CP3 become an UFA.
:thumbsup:

Stern just showed everyone how much of a SNAKE in the grass he is as the
commissioner of the NBA.
:barf:
 

Weissenberg

Grid or Riot
cp-got-stern_d_medium_1323444773.gif
 

Kiyaman

Legend
This was an interesting and unexpected move by the League. The Lakers were one of the two or three teams with whom Paul would likely agree to extend. The compensation to New Orleans was not unreasonable. However, to the extent Gilbert's letter was factually accurate, it appears that in addition to Paul the Lakers were put in a position to make a real play for Dwight Howard.

It is clear, however, that Stern and the League would certainly not have approved any trade to the Knicks and as a practical matter could not approve a trade of Paul to the Knicks or perhaps any other "big market" franchise going forward without demonstrably better compensation to New Orleans.

This is harsh on Paul who could be forced either to re-sign with New Orleans, accept a trade to less of a franchise monster, or take substantially less money in free agency next year. I wonder what this will do to any deal for Chandler?

It also appears to be risky for New Orleans and the League which owns the team. If Paul is willing to wait for free agency despite a substantial reduction in future income, New Orleans will hardly be a valuable franchise.

I assume that the decision to stop the deal was made by the League, through Stern, as owners of the franchise and not simply by the League or the Commissioner's office. To what extent might the League have nixed the deal if it did not own the New Orlean's franchise? For example, suppose the Lakers turn their attention to Dwight Howard and work out a deal with the Magic. What say would Stern and the League have in that case?


The so-call "LEAGUE" job was to use any means neccessary to find a "BUYER" for the New Orleans Hornets throughout the 2011 offseason and 2011-12 regular season while CP3 is still under contract...
 

quiggle

Starter
its really poetic justice and karma's a mutha if you think about it, to have Fisher, a Laker, one of the major culprits on the side of the players for prolonging the strike and now the owners get to stick it to, you guessed it, the Lakers. thanks Derek Fisher!
 
Top