Hawkeye11en1
Well-Known Member
The problem is, I don't think this was a commissioner shutting down a trade because it was unfair. It seems it was him shutting down a trade because other owners were ****** that the "league's team" was doing this.
What The Hell??? I'm a PO'd Laker Fan Tonight...
- Thread starter HawkeyeShane
- Start date
The problem is, I don't think this was a commissioner shutting down a trade because it was unfair. It seems it was him shutting down a trade because other owners were ****** that the "league's team" was doing this.
JugadorHawk
Well-Known Member
That's fair, but if nearly every owner in the league was upset about a trade that the "league's team" made, then it probably isn't a good trade for said team.
tmurph2643
Well-Known Member
Yes their big 3 was free agency. But what I am getting at is that instead of the Hornets trying to resign him, they make a trade that is not exactly even. And nomatter what you tell me, they are not getting enough in return for Chris Paul. It is basically the Lakers bullying them so that they get something for him. Look at the greats from the 80s and 90s... they stayed with their teams through thick and thin, and trusted that they could win a title. Then you have baby bron bron who isn't good enough to help make his team better to win a title so he has to team up with dwade and still not win a title. it makes sense, just as a fan, you are pretty biased. I understand I would be ****** too if I were a Laker fan.
So instead you want Paul to walk away for nothing in the end...that is a smart owner...
thejumper5
Well-Known Member
For the doubters, read the e-mail in this story and I think you'll be convinced that the trade was squashed not because of what was best for the Hornets but because of what was best for the other 27 teams in the league not involved in the trade:
Cavs owner wanted trade blocked - NBA - Yahoo! Sports
This whole issue perfectly exemplifies why a league should never, never take control of a team and not immediately sell it to any reasonable bidder.
Cavs owner wanted trade blocked - NBA - Yahoo! Sports
This whole issue perfectly exemplifies why a league should never, never take control of a team and not immediately sell it to any reasonable bidder.
HawkeyeShane
Well-Known Member
The Lakers aren't bullying them...they put together a package that was better than anything anyone else's...it's not like the Lakers showed up in New Orleans and kicked the door in with a warrant for Chris Paul...the Hornets don't "have to" trade him.
HawkeyeShane
Well-Known Member
I think you're reading him wrong, TC...he's saying the other owners shouldn't put up with the league owning a team in the first place because it's a conflict of interest...unless I'm the one reading him wrong...which has been known to happen...
thejumper5
Well-Known Member
Seriously, collusion is a federal offense. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if someone on CP3's legal team pushes someone to open a criminal investigation into how this went down.
CPHAWK82
Well-Known Member
Seems messed up to me. Lakers are one of a few teams that have the kind of talent to trade for these guys. Its not like when they got Gasol and gave up nothing. Stern allowed the Lakers to accumulate the talent they have, therefore he should be forced to allow them to trade those players for the best value they can find on the open market. Lakers have good players to trade and Stern is basically saying that they have to take less value for those players....cause it's not fair
So now instead of getting Odom, Kevin Martin and Luis Scola for him, Paul is just going to walk away at the end of they year and the Hornets won't get anything for him. Yeah, that's a lot better for the Hornets.
thejumper5
Well-Known Member
And the 1st round pick in 2012 (originally the Knicks pick in what was set to be one of the deepest drafts of the past 10-15 years) that NOH got with the deal. I read an article on ESPN.com about the trade. 5 analysts broke it down. 2 said the Lakers won the trade; 2 said Houston won the trade; and 2 said New Orleans won the deal. When there is a pretty even consensus that any of the teams in the deal could be considered winners, I can't see a reason to call it anything besides fair.
Section136
Well-Known Member
The issue is the Lakers were getting the best player in the deal and being allowed to drop about 40 million in salary which would have saved them from paying a huge chunk of change in luxury tax.
That luxury tax money gets distributed as part of the revenue sharing agreement. That is why so many teams, especially small market teams, are ticked off. Im glad Stern did it and not just because I am a Celtics fan. Kind of makes up for the joke of a trade that they acquired Pau Gasol in.
On a related note- One of the major complaints from most owners was that players are going to form their own "dream teams" and only 5 or 6 teams are going to have realistic shots at acquiring big name free agents. The new labor deal does nothing to address this and Im not sure how you can address it. You cant force trades to small market teams because the star player involved just wont sign an extension with that team and still be a free agent. This is just the new NBA....buddies want to play together and the Bulls, Lakers, Knicks, Heat, Celtics are going to benefit.
That luxury tax money gets distributed as part of the revenue sharing agreement. That is why so many teams, especially small market teams, are ticked off. Im glad Stern did it and not just because I am a Celtics fan. Kind of makes up for the joke of a trade that they acquired Pau Gasol in.
On a related note- One of the major complaints from most owners was that players are going to form their own "dream teams" and only 5 or 6 teams are going to have realistic shots at acquiring big name free agents. The new labor deal does nothing to address this and Im not sure how you can address it. You cant force trades to small market teams because the star player involved just wont sign an extension with that team and still be a free agent. This is just the new NBA....buddies want to play together and the Bulls, Lakers, Knicks, Heat, Celtics are going to benefit.
And the nets now because espn just said that Howard is asking to be traded to the nets and cp3 would stay.
This is why the league should have just let the Hornets die. No way the league can effectively run a franchise. Too many other people are affected by what that team does.
I know everyone feels sorry for New Orleans, but it is about time that everyone stopped just doing silly things with respect to that city. Fix the freaking levies and stop the other silliness.
I know everyone feels sorry for New Orleans, but it is about time that everyone stopped just doing silly things with respect to that city. Fix the freaking levies and stop the other silliness.
They should have never moved them back after Katrina. They should have kept them in OKC and kept the Sonics in Seattle. The NBA would be much better off if that had happened.
bcl20
Well-Known Member
It'd probably be the same actually.
It certainly wouldn't. There was another group lined up to my the Sonics and Clay Bennett could have bought the Hornets instead and kept them in OKC and there wouldn't be this massive conflict of interest that comes from the NBA owning a team.
