Chris Paul Trade Rumors: The final deal (#133)

[mcHAPPY]

Yeah, it's all a conspiracy.

Exactly. This is no different than what Jordan did to the Raptors.... of course, MJ didn't get a better deal but that is semantics at this point.

[slaw]

Exactly. This is no different than what Jordan did to the Raptors.... of course, MJ didn't get a better deal but that is semantics at this point.

It's very different. I'm shocked that people can't appreciate the difference in negotiating a deal with a GM and negotiating a deal with the NBA head office. Woj was on the Fan yesterday and laid out the case against the NBA on this point quite well.

It's got nothing to do with a "conspiracy". Not sure where that strawman came from.

[jimmie]

It's very different. I'm shocked that people can't appreciate the difference in negotiating a deal with a GM and negotiating a deal with the NBA head office. Woj was on the Fan yesterday and laid out the case against the NBA on this point quite well.

The media has generally fallen on their asses with this non-story, Woj included.

The veto was the owner saying no to the GM on a deal the GM thought was good but the owner didn't. Simple as that. And the owner was right. Look, the league owns the Hornets right now, and they're trying to sell them. No smart owner trying to sell a franchise would have taken that LAL deal. Full stop.

The media blew up about this because of the context it happened it -- right after the CBA was signed, etc. And it was shifty business by the league. But it wasn't that big of a deal, and it doesn't have any of these "world-changing" ripple effects that the media were crying about, nor has it resulted in a huge integrity challenge for the league. It's already pretty much forgotten now that a new, better deal has gone through.

[Soft Euro]

I agree with Jimmie. Also, I don't think a potential buyer would be fooled by a semi-competitive mediocrity treadmill team, but might be salivating at the thought of Gordon and potentially two lottery picks in a strong draft which could make them really competitive within 2-3 years (after the draft).

[mcHAPPY]

It's very different. I'm shocked that people can't appreciate the difference in negotiating a deal with a GM and negotiating a deal with the NBA head office. Woj was on the Fan yesterday and laid out the case against the NBA on this point quite well.

It's got nothing to do with a "conspiracy". Not sure where that strawman came from.

See jimmie and Soft Euro.

EDIT: And I like Woj a lot. He is solid with his reporting. But do not ever forget his sources are agents and he is their mouthpiece. You want to know what the power agents are thinking, read Woj. Needless to say, agents have an issue with Stern because Stern's actions are not in their best interests (by their I am not talking the players, the agents).

[yertu damkule]

this story isn't going away. from what i've read, there was at least a conflict of interest - if not an outright abuse of power - by stern & the Co's office. more than likely, the full story will never come out, but this whole saga will linger with a lot of people for a long time. this may well be what stern is remembered most for...

[Apollo]

Of course there was a conflict of interest. The Hornets are owned by the 29 other owners and those 29 people/entities are Stern's boss. He answers to them. He wouldn't be where he is today it he didn't understand chain of command and respect it. I really don't have a problem with it because it stops the smaller markets from once again restocking the Lakers and more importantly it makes the Hornets more marketable in a sale than compared to what Demps got from the Lakers. It's the league's asset, they looked out for the best interest of the asset and scored big. My only problem is the lack of respect shown to Demps. They should have been straight with him from the start. That part is ridiculous. Anyway, the Hornets get some great assets, Paul gets banished to the Clippers(I kid) and the Lakers don't feed upon the weak once more. Seems fair to me.

[planetmars]

Of course there was a conflict of interest. The Hornets are owned by the 29 other owners and those 29 people/entities are Stern's boss. He answers to them. He wouldn't be where he is today it he didn't understand chain of command and respect it. I really don't have a problem with it because it stops the smaller markets from once again restocking the Lakers and more importantly it makes the Hornets more marketable in a sale than compared to what Demps got from the Lakers. It's the league's asset, they looked out for the best interest of the asset and scored big. My only problem is the lack of respect shown to Demps. They should have been straight with him from the start. That part is ridiculous. Anyway, the Hornets get some great assets, Paul gets banished to the Clippers(I kid) and the Lakers don't feed upon the weak once more. Seems fair to me.

I do agree that there was no respect shown to Demps.. Stern's legacy has taken a serious beating the past few years. The whole Donaghy scandal, the ultimatums during the lock out, and now the trade. If I was him, I'd be seriously considering retiring.

I do agree that the Hornets got the better deal in the end, but I wonder if it would now be exponentially harder for the Hornets to make other deals. I know if I was a GM I'd hesitate to make a deal with the Hornets.

The thing that is really nice about this deal is that the Clippers can actually end up with a better record than the Lakers. They kicked their ass in their first preseason game.

[Maleko]

Of course there was a conflict of interest. The Hornets are owned by the 29 other owners and those 29 people/entities are Stern's boss. He answers to them. He wouldn't be where he is today it he didn't understand chain of command and respect it. I really don't have a problem with it because it stops the smaller markets from once again restocking the Lakers and more importantly it makes the Hornets more marketable in a sale than compared to what Demps got from the Lakers. It's the league's asset, they looked out for the best interest of the asset and scored big. My only problem is the lack of respect shown to Demps. They should have been straight with him from the start. That part is ridiculous. Anyway, the Hornets get some great assets, Paul gets banished to the Clippers(I kid) and the Lakers don't feed upon the weak once more. Seems fair to me.

And yet with this and the rumoured favourability of Howard to the Nets it is looking more like a LALA land and NYNY league, as much as Stern is 'protecting' the little markets, they gained NOTHING in this and the big ones are gaining.

[Maleko]

I do agree that there was no respect shown to Demps.. Stern's legacy has taken a serious beating the past few years. The whole Donaghy scandal, the ultimatums during the lock out, and now the trade. If I was him, I'd be seriously considering retiring.

I do agree that the Hornets got the better deal in the end, but I wonder if it would now be exponentially harder for the Hornets to make other deals. I know if I was a GM I'd hesitate to make a deal with the Hornets.

...and one of the complaints was that the Lakers would shed payroll moving forward. I guess the league might not want that since if they are not big-spenders, then the smaller markets won't get as much in revenue sharing and tax dispersals and may actually have to figure out HOW TO RUN A BUSINESS!

[Joey]

...and one of the complaints was that the Lakers would shed payroll moving forward. I guess the league might not want that since if they are not big-spenders, then the smaller markets won't get as much in revenue sharing and tax dispersals and may actually have to figure out HOW TO RUN A BUSINESS!

This was actually Dan Gilbert's main argument in his letter to the commish. It's pathetic if you ask me.

[planetmars]

...and one of the complaints was that the Lakers would shed payroll moving forward. I guess the league might not want that since if they are not big-spenders, then the smaller markets won't get as much in revenue sharing and tax dispersals and may actually have to figure out HOW TO RUN A BUSINESS!

That's what I was thinking too when they got rid of Odom for nothing. It's a way to stick it to the league. But the Lakers have always been about winning. If they get stubborn over this then they lose sight about what made them successful in the first place. The Lakers are all about winning, and in the league the easiest way to become successful was to spend money. If they wanted to really stick it to the league then they should have amnestied Kobe.

[Maleko]

That's what I was thinking too when they got rid of Odom for nothing. It's a way to stick it to the league. But the Lakers have always been about winning. If they get stubborn over this then they lose sight about what made them successful in the first place. The Lakers are all about winning, and in the league the easiest way to become successful was to spend money. If they wanted to really stick it to the league then they should have amnestied Kobe.

Of course it does depend upon how that money is spent. See NY for the most recent, but by far not the only example of stupid spending. (Honourable mention to Atlanta.)

[yertu damkule]

Of course there was a conflict of interest. The Hornets are owned by the 29 other owners and those 29 people/entities are Stern's boss. He answers to them. He wouldn't be where he is today it he didn't understand chain of command and respect it. I really don't have a problem with it because it stops the smaller markets from once again restocking the Lakers and more importantly it makes the Hornets more marketable in a sale than compared to what Demps got from the Lakers. It's the league's asset, they looked out for the best interest of the asset and scored big. My only problem is the lack of respect shown to Demps. They should have been straight with him from the start. That part is ridiculous. Anyway, the Hornets get some great assets, Paul gets banished to the Clippers(I kid) and the Lakers don't feed upon the weak once more. Seems fair to me.

my issue is simply that stern used his power as commissioner to influence the deal, while at the same time, acting as the de facto 'owner' of the team in question. once LAC pulled out of the trade negotiations, word is that stern (using his influence as commissioner), pulled LAL back (or started the rumours that that is what was happening) in order to lure the clippers back to the table. it worked out for NO in the end, but at the time the LAL/HOU/NOH deal was squashed, there was no certainty that that would be the case. the reality is that most teams in NO's position would be dealing from a standpoint of weakness, since they aren't working with the backing of every other team in the L as well as the commissioner's office.

at the end of the day, like i said, it worked out. how it got there stinks, and the reasons for how the deals were consumated stink. and there's no denying that multiple teams were hurt in this process, to the benefit of the most despised owner in professional sports. so...who wins, again?

and FWIW - how often have the lakers 'feasted upon the weak,' aside from the Gasol-for-Gasol deal? one could argue that they've gone about things 'the right way' - retaining stars, acquiring role players, making bold (and sometimes bad) moves, and putting millions into the coffers of low-spending teams. considering they've not been able to build/tweak via the draft (since they're usually picking in the 20's), how else are they supposed to continue to grow their team?

[Apollo]

I do agree that the Hornets got the better deal in the end, but I wonder if it would now be exponentially harder for the Hornets to make other deals. I know if I was a GM I'd hesitate to make a deal with the Hornets.

The league won't own them much longer.

my issue is simply that stern used his power as commissioner to influence the deal, while at the same time, acting as the de facto 'owner' of the team in question. once LAC pulled out of the trade negotiations, word is that stern (using his influence as commissioner), pulled LAL back (or started the rumours that that is what was happening) in order to lure the clippers back to the table. it worked out for NO in the end, but at the time the LAL/HOU/NOH deal was squashed, there was no certainty that that would be the case. the reality is that most teams in NO's position would be dealing from a standpoint of weakness, since they aren't working with the backing of every other team in the L as well as the commissioner's office.

I know it's easy to believe hearsay when it's that juicy but at the end of the day it's just hearsay. I know what actually happened that can be confirmed and I don't really care about the sensational stuff that comes out which can't be confirmed. You have to consider that guys writing this stuff are trying to increase their reader base and many have been known to run with stuff that was proven not true later. They have a choice of being first or making sure they're right. I think in these days, 9 out of 10 times, they want to be first. They call it "rumors" so they cover their ass if it comes back not true. Most rumors I read never actually are found to be true.

I do agree that there was no respect shown to Demps.. Stern's legacy has taken a serious beating the past few years. The whole Donaghy scandal, the ultimatums during the lock out, and now the trade. If I was him, I'd be seriously considering retiring.

Not sure why he would retire. He's led the league to gigantic growth. It wasn't his fault a ref was betting on games, it could/would have happened on anyone's watch. I agree with most of what he did in negotiations. Labour disputes aren't about holding hands and singing kumbaya around the camp fire. The Hornets deal was misplayed to some degree but he served his bosses well be producing something that pleased them, as in getting excellent value for Chris Paul. I mean that rivaled the Nuggets/Knicks trade. I think you're assuming that he cares what we think. I personally think he does not. A man in that position would go crazy if he cared what we think. We as fans we are all over the spectrum.