The 2011 NBA Offseason---Stern says no

[Young Drachma]

Twitter

The NBA has killed the proposed deal to send Chris Paul to the Los Angeles Lakers, league sources tell Yahoo! Sports.

Owners were irate in Board of Governors meeting with Stern, livid that the league-owned Hornets were allowed to make Paul deal, sources say.

NBA owners have pushed commissioner David Stern to kill the deal sending Chris Paul to the Los Angeles Lakers, sources tell Y! Sports.

[Young Drachma]

So the truth is, someone in FOFC is David Stern.

[Tigercat]

Sounds like NBA (owners in this case) screwed over the Hornets by not OKing the deal. Hornets were all set to get a decent deal for Paul and try to move forward. Instead the NBA owners basically vetoed it, leaving the Hornets with nothing when Paul bolts at the end of the year. Thanks, NBA owners. The league better do something to make this right. A team who's transactions have to be OKed by the rest of the league's owners? What kind of fucked up system is that? This is 10x worse than the Expos. The Hornets are surprisingly selling tickets right now, and what do the fans get for it?

[Young Drachma]

@ChrisPaul WoW

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Sounds like NBA (owners in this case) screwed over the Hornets by not OKing the deal. Hornets were all set to get a decent deal for Paul and try to move forward. Instead the NBA owners basically vetoed it, leaving the Hornets with nothing when Paul bolts at the end of the year. Thanks, NBA owners. The league better do something to make this right. A team who's transactions have to be OKed by the rest of the league's owners? What kind of fucked up system is that? This is 10x worse than the Expos. The Hornets are surprisingly selling tickets right now, and what do the fans get for it?

Decent deal? What are you...a Lakers fan?

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Decent deal? What are you...a Lakers fan?

The last I heard with the Hornets supposedly getting a 1st on top of the players and dumping Okafor's contract, sounded like the best any Hornet fan could hope for while trading any player in the last year of his contract.

Even without the 1st and having to keep Okafor it was better than I thought the Hornets would get. Now, if Paul wasn't so set on who he would sign with, Hornets could get a decent bidding war going, but it obviously wasn't going to work out that way.

[RainMaker]

The 1st was New Yorks which won't be that good. They'd be better off going young and rebuilding in a trade than playing farm system for the Lakers.

[Tigercat]

The Hornets would be better off in lots of scenarios, but Demps and the Hornets front office aren't playing lets make a crappy deal for ourselves. They made the best deal they could make for their team.

But what am I thinking? Why should we expect our local team to be able to be autonomous? By vetoing the deal it is clear that the Hornets ARE a farm system only.

[MikeVic]

wtf. I think that's total bs, I'm no Lakers fan... but the league aka fucking David Stern should have come out way earlier and said Paul is untouchable or something. So he's not getting traded at all?

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The 1st was New Yorks which won't be that good. They'd be better off going young and rebuilding in a trade than playing farm system for the Lakers.

And I'm in complete agreement with that, but... the reality of the situation is, you sold 10,000 season tickets in the middle of a lockout and with everyone realizing we were going to lose our marquee player. You cannot turn around and reward those people by tanking the season. Even though it's the best long-term strategy, and this is a great year to suck. Short season, good draft.

[chadritt]

Yeah, im fairly confused now. Are they not allowed to trade anyone or is it just him? Could they trade him to the Knicks since thats where hes always said he wants to go? What happens if he refuses to play and demands a trade? I dont want him on the Lakers, id rather the Clippers frankly, but this is just weird.

[bronconick]

How is their "ownership" set up? With Phoenix in the NHL, I believe they have an internal cap and and other than that, their GM is left alone. They even extended one of their younger D-men for 5 years this summer.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by chadritt

Yeah, im fairly confused now. Are they not allowed to trade anyone or is it just him? Could they trade him to the Knicks since thats where hes always said he wants to go? What happens if he refuses to play and demands a trade? I dont want him on the Lakers, id rather the Clippers frankly, but this is just weird.

It's a clusterfuck and no one knows. What seems like happened is a bunch of owners got on the phone irate that they were going to trade him to the Lakers. It would have looked like shit had they done it and looks like shit now that they vetoed it. League should not own a team.

[Grover]

Fantastic.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by bronconick

How is their "ownership" set up? With Phoenix in the NHL, I believe they have an internal cap and and other than that, their GM is left alone. They even extended one of their younger D-men for 5 years this summer.

That's basically how it is with the Hornets. I think, in this case, the NBA just got embarrassed because two seconds after they agreed to their new CBA and trumpeted all the competitive balance stuff, the news is completely dominated by "Paul/Howard trade to xx big market" followed by a trade of yet another superstar to, lo-and-behold, the Lakers! Whaddaya know!

So now they're just pouting a bit, and since they own the Hornets they can actually do something about it. I bet they turn the trade back on eventually. It's incredibly unfair to the Hornets, or to the Lakers if Paul goes somewhere else, or to Paul himself, who stands to lose roughly $40 million if he doesn't get traded somewhere he wants to be. Fun stuff.

[Groundhog]

The NBA probably realises that the Hornets will be harder to sell if Kevin Martin is the face of their franchise.

Now, if they can just veto the Kwame-Pau trade as well...

[DeToxRox]

Tayshaun Prince's new contract is a bigger injustice. I demand it be vetoed.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by bronconick

How is their "ownership" set up?

Whatever set up makes the NBA and the owners happy at any given minute.

Autonomy up to the point where it affects the rest of the NBA, because oh no, we can't have those cute little ownerless scamps changing the NBA dynamics! The Hornets are fine as long as they know their role and play things out to their natural conclusions. (All the way to the absolute bottom of the NBA.) Where is Bryant Gumbel to make a horrible slave analogy when you need him?

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

The NBA probably realises that the Hornets will be harder to sell if Kevin Martin is the face of their franchise.

The Hornets have had an ownership group waiting in the wings for awhile. Waiting for the CBA to get done and now waiting for a new lease with the state to get finalized. I'm pretty sure they've all been well aware that Paul won't be the face of the franchise whether he leaves now or shortly after now.

[RainMaker]

I still don't think it was a good deal for the Hornets. Bynum isn't cheap, only has 2 years left, and is hurt all the time. Martin isn't cheap or a long term option either. Scola is the only good part coming out of this for them.

I liked some of the Golden State and Clippers deals thrown around. Bledsoe, Aminu

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

The Hornets have had an ownership group waiting in the wings for awhile. Waiting for the CBA to get done and now waiting for a new lease with the state to get finalized. I'm pretty sure they've all been well aware that Paul won't be the face of the franchise whether he leaves now or shortly after now.

Maybe it was a simple as the new owners phoning the NBA and saying "uhhh... did we just trade a top-3 PG for a couple of top-30 forwards and a top-20 guard?"

[MikeVic]

New owners have to know that Paul isn't staying, or they're complete idiots that don't follow the NBA even a bit.

The trade might not have been the greatest thing out there, but the fact that it seems like the owners vetoing it is the reason why it was not done does not sit well with me. Especially with the bs offseason crap.

[RainMaker]

Sorry, it was Odom, not Bynum. And I don't see what the Hornets need out of him.

[Tigercat]

Dell Demps will go on to be a good NBA GM. I'm not saying he is there now or that I have a ton of faith in him right now, but given what I've seen out of him thus far, I have a hard time believing that he settled for a hamburger while there is legit steak dinners to be had out there.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

New owners have to know that Paul isn't staying, or they're complete idiots that don't follow the NBA even a bit.

No doubt, but still, if you can't turn a top-3 PG in to a top-10 anything, you failed.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

No doubt, but still, if you can't turn a top-3 PG in to a top-10 anything, you failed.

Well, the Hornets don't have much leverage. When you have a guy who will leave and will only go to a very select few teams, you don't have much to work with as Hornets GM.

I wonder what the Hornets are supposed to do now, though. Training camp starts tomorrow. They have six guys signed. How do you make any sort of plans in terms of who you're going to sign with this going on?

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

No doubt, but still, if you can't turn a top-3 PG in to a top-10 anything, you failed.

If that's the deal the GM worked out though? What if he had other plans in place to get other stuff for the pieces he got back? Again, I'm not a Lakers fan but if this was overturned by the owners... I've just had enough of their crap.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

No doubt, but still, if you can't turn a top-3 PG in to a top-10 anything, you failed.

What? In the last year of his contract? For the Hornets' sake I wish to God the NBA really worked that way. But yea, no. At best the Hornets could get another top player with one year left on his contract, but then they would likely be in the same boat. Only trading a guy the fanbase already loves with a stranger.

[SirFozzie]

The NBA are a bunch of clowns.

This veto is because the small market teams tried their hardest to break the bnig market teams in the deal, and what happens? The Lakers announce they're going to sign Paul and Dwight Howard. Can't have that! Those Lakers need to realize they're not the boss of us!

Whatever the Hornets get back is about an infinite percent better than what they get when CP3 leaves at the end of his deal, which is zero, zilch, nada, NOTHING.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Dell Demps will go on to be a good NBA GM. I'm not saying he is there now or that I have a ton of faith in him right now, but given what I've seen out of him thus far, I have a hard time believing that he settled for a hamburger while there is legit steak dinners to be had out there.

I don't think he did either. I just think the plan is wrong for a small market team. Get some good picks (like GS and Clippers have) and a young talent and rebuild in next years deep draft. I mean if they could pull a deal off with the Clippers, they could have two top 5 picks, cap room and Eric Bledsoe to build around next offseason.

[Young Drachma]

Paul won't go to a team with assets. So that's the real problem here. Or he'll go, but he won't resign. No one is going to sell the farm to get him for one year other than Boston, who had nothing to lose. Maybe that still ends up happening. I think the end, the Lakers get their way. No way you can start the season with Chris Paul on the Hornets. At this point, he's gotta be somewhere else.

[Groundhog]

Well Martin and Odom are potentially off the books after next season, but Scola is on the books through 14/15 at over 10mil. If Paul leaves after next season they would at the very least get themselves cap space, which I’m guessing they’d like more than Scola’s contributions in 2013. High draft picks and cap space might be the best thing for them if they can’t land someone top-10 in a trade.

[Young Drachma]

"The owners half-pushed this through, and Stern took it the rest of the way," a league source said. "In the end, David didn’t like that the players were dictating where they wanted to go. He wasn't going to let Chris Paul dictate where he wanted to go."

Twitter

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think he did either. I just think the plan is wrong for a small market team. Get some good picks (like GS and Clippers have) and a young talent and rebuild in next years deep draft. I mean if they could pull a deal off with the Clippers, they could have two top 5 picks, cap room and Eric Bledsoe to build around next offseason.

I totally agree with this. They're not going to get value for Paul but at least get some young guys or some picks, that you can either use to build a team around or flip for something good. They just got a bunch of decent-ish veterans who nobody else in the league really wants. It was a shit deal for the Hornets from where I'm sitting. You turn Paul into Bledsoe, Aminu, Jordan and the Minnesota first, you've got pieces to trade and you've got some young guys with some upside.

That being said, I absolutely disagree with the decision to block it. Horrible precedent to set. If they didn't want this kind of deal to go down, they should have done something about it in the CBA. you know, the one the ink is still drying on. And yeah, in the end if the Hornets can't move Paul they're the ones who are screwed. Nobody is going to give them a better deal now. Incredibly short sighted.

[LloydLungs]

I do not understand why Stern caved on system issues to end the lockout, if that's their stance. The caving on the system issues ensured that the "small market star wants to play on NY/LA/other sexy media team" was going to be a regular NBA ritual for the foreseeable future. You should have thought of this a couple weeks ago, David.

[SirFozzie]

Lloyd: it wasn't "Do a deal with the small market star not getting to go where he wants or not".. it was "If we don't cave on the system issues, WE HAVE NO SEASON"

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Twitter

"

Look, Paul understood that he wasn't going to get to go to the Knicks.. He just said to New Orleans "Look, I'm not going to sign a new contract. Find a place, and I won't be too bad about it as long as you guys get enough back to make it worthwhile for you"


If that's the case, Stern needs to resign right now. "How DARE those players say where they want to play!"

[stevew]

Massa Stern says no! No trades.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Lloyd: it wasn't "Do a deal with the small market star not getting to go where he wants or not".. it was "If we don't cave on the system issues, WE HAVE NO SEASON"

Yeah, I know. That was the price they paid for having a season. They can't both have a season AND get all pissy about players demanding to play on NY/LA/other sexy media team. They made their choice.

[SirFozzie]

I was wondering how long it was going to take to get to the plantation owners comment etcetera, does he realize to a good portion of the NBA's fans, he's actually VALIDATING that horrible stereotype?

[DeToxRox]

New Orleans gets boned hard in all of this. How the fuck can they trade him anywhere else now? CP3 is going to walk away and the Hornets will get nothing for him

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Look, Paul understood that he wasn't going to get to go to the Knicks.. He just said to New Orleans "Look, I'm not going to sign a new contract. Find a place, and I won't be too bad about it as long as you guys get enough back to make it worthwhile for you"

We-eelll, that's not completely true -- the Hornets had a couple of better deals lined up (Gordon from the Clippers, Curry from GSW) that couldn't get done because he wouldn't commit to those teams. The Clippers in particular was tough. Yeah, you'd have to play for a racist dickwad owner, but it's still LA and you get to run the break with Blake Griffin. If you're not going to agree to that you're putting the Hornets in a spot where their choices are pretty limited. Hence this flawed deal they did today.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

New Orleans gets boned hard in all of this. How the fuck can they trade him anywhere else now? CP3 is going to walk away and the Hornets will get nothing for him

This. Let's say best case scenario the Clips come back with the offer for the young guys and the first. How can you trade him to the other LA team for a deal that includes less talent (although is a much more sensible long term plan) than the one you blocked?

I think the most likely scenario is the Lakers or Rockets sweeten it slightly and it goes through, just to save face. But if not, you just destroyed the Hornets immediate future and chance to get something for their one asset. Awesome.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

We-eelll, that's not completely true -- the Hornets had a couple of better deals lined up (Gordon from the Clippers, Curry from GSW) that couldn't get done because he wouldn't commit to those teams. The Clippers in particular was tough. Yeah, you'd have to play for a racist dickwad owner, but it's still LA and you get to run the break with Blake Griffin. If you're not going to agree to that you're putting the Hornets in a spot where their choices are pretty limited. Hence this flawed deal they did today.

Did the Clippers really offer Gordon? I thought they wouldn't offer Gordon and it never went anywhere from there.

If they did that then a) Chris Paul is a moron and b) the Clippers front office isn't particularly bright either

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Did the Clippers really offer Gordon? I thought they wouldn't offer Gordon and it never went anywhere from there.

If they did that then a) Chris Paul is a moron and b) the Clippers front office isn't particularly bright either

Not sure as I certainly wasn't in on the talks, but the impression I got was that they would have dealt Gordon with a firm long-term commitment from Paul. Without that Gordon was off the table (though personally I'd have rolled the dice anyway and gambled that Paul would love playing with Blake too much to leave).

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

We-eelll, that's not completely true -- the Hornets had a couple of better deals lined up (Gordon from the Clippers, Curry from GSW) that couldn't get done because he wouldn't commit to those teams. The Clippers in particular was tough. Yeah, you'd have to play for a racist dickwad owner, but it's still LA and you get to run the break with Blake Griffin. If you're not going to agree to that you're putting the Hornets in a spot where their choices are pretty limited. Hence this flawed deal they did today.

Did he veto the trade, or did he just say he wouldn't sign a long term deal.. big difference.

[MikeVic]

The problem with these other deals is that we aren't 100% sure they were offered, what was offered, etc. Here was a trade that gave them SOMETHING (i.e. more than the Raptors got for Bosh) and the NBA said NOPE!

[stevew]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I was wondering how long it was going to take to get to the plantation owners comment etcetera, does he realize to a good portion of the NBA's fans, he's actually VALIDATING that horrible stereotype?

I don't think he actually feels that way, but he sure plays that role on TV.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

The problem with these other deals is that we aren't 100% sure they were offered, what was offered, etc. Here was a trade that gave them SOMETHING (i.e. more than the Raptors got for Bosh) and the NFL said NOPE!

And Roger Goddell fined them, too.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by stevew

And Roger Goddell fined them, too.

lol dammit. That's what I get for watching Steelers and get riled up about the NBA at the same time.