Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time for Stern to go?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Time for Stern to go?

    So Chris Paul is traded almost minutes after the CBA is officially signed. Chris Paul to the Lakers - Odom, Scula and Kevin Martin to the Hornets - Pau to the Rockets (couple other less important parts aswell).

    So now owners complain, so Stern suddenly stops the deal

    So is this the new standard now? Can owners complain and therefore Stern will just stop any deal from happening? A dangerous standard to set.

    But fine, lets leave the potential legal issues aside for a minute...why the hell was this not then used last offseason? Why do you stop a perfect legit deal because of 'complaints by owners', but don't even take a day to investigate the Lebron/Bosh/Wade 'conspiracy'?

    And now Chris Paul is apparently looking into 'legal options'......

    what a joke

    Impressive though. It took minutes to start abusing the new CBA.

  • #2
    The NBA owns the Hornets, they have good right to complain.
    The Double Champ is here!
    Dynasty King: RRNBADLS7
    Raptors: Larry O'Brien

    Comment


    • #3
      Mack North wrote: View Post
      The NBA owns the Hornets, they have good right to complain.
      my problem isn't with the owners complaining. They can complain out the wazoo all they like... if they didn't I'd be pretty pissed they wasted the last 6 months over nothing.

      Comment


      • #4
        This has nothing to do with the new CBA.

        This is a matter of ownership exercising their powers. If the owner doesn't like a deal he can veto it before the GM signs any contract whatsoever.

        Comment


        • #5
          GarbageTime wrote: View Post
          my problem isn't with the owners complaining. They can complain out the wazoo all they like... if they didn't I'd be pretty pissed they wasted the last 6 months over nothing.
          with the players mentioned in the deal... the hornets would hve been taking quite the cap hit... at least according to espn trade machine

          http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMa...radeId=6pn3gcr

          thats prob why it never went through.. it wouldnt even work money wise

          Comment


          • #6
            I think the owners are being shortsighted on this one. Another team of superfriends in LA would be a very positive step towards re-establishing fan interest with potential for a fantastic finals with the Heat. With or without this deal competitive balance is not coming to the NBA any time soon.

            Comment


            • #7
              DoNDaDDa wrote: View Post
              with the players mentioned in the deal... the hornets would hve been taking quite the cap hit... at least according to espn trade machine

              http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMa...radeId=6pn3gcr

              thats prob why it never went through.. it wouldnt even work money wise
              The Hornets are well under the cap. I don't know exactly what they salary space is but without Paul's salary its something like 37 mil, so they still stay under the tax.

              Trade machine is not up to date I think... still using last years salary cap figures

              Comment


              • #8
                The Owners can do whatever they want within the CBA. It's their league. Stern is not the boss, he answers to them just like anyone else who would stand in his shoes.

                Mack made an excellent point. the Hornetts aren't there to make the Lakers a contender again. They shouldn't be permitted to deal until they are sold to a neutral party. The Raptors, Knicks, whoever aren't paying to see the Lakers stacked.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Apollo wrote: View Post
                  The Owners can do whatever they want within the CBA. It's their league. Stern is not the boss, he answers to them just like anyone else who would stand in his shoes.

                  Mack made an excellent point. the Hornetts aren't there to make the Lakers a contender again. They shouldn't be permitted to deal until they are sold to a neutral party. The Raptors, Knicks, whoever aren't paying to see the Lakers stacked.
                  so I guess the deals they made last year should be null and void then to?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Charges that the league has exposed itself to a serious conflict of interest by taking over operating control of one of its franchises for the first time in NBA history

                    "You'd be surprised at how uninvolved we are [in New Orleans]. The only place we get involved is advice on ticket sales, groups, renewals, suggestions when they ask us if we have additional personnel they can hire. They set the budget, we approve it, and we've approved anything that they previously wanted to do on the player side. It's kind of interesting.
                    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=6125242

                    from Feb 15 2011

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      article from Adrian Wojnarowski

                      http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;...ets_nba_120811


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                        so I guess the deals they made last year should be null and void then to?
                        Not sure how you connected those dots. We're talking about a deal not finalized.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Apollo wrote: View Post
                          Not sure how you connected those dots. We're talking about a deal not finalized.
                          They shouldn't be permitted to deal until they are sold to a neutral party
                          If the issue is with the leauge not being a 'neutral party' then no deal should have been finalized at any point while the Hornets were owned by the league in the first place.

                          Yet they did. So what makes this any different? Only because its Chris Paul?

                          So can the Hornets make any deals at all? Are the Hornets forced only to not trade Chris Paul now? Or only to certain teams? Why was Demps permitted to talk with LA, Boston, or GS (all big market teams) in the first place? Or is it just the Lakers and another team would have been ok?
                          Last edited by GarbageTime; Fri Dec 9, 2011, 02:10 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            if the league desides to not trade paul & he walks as a FA there screwing N.O, i could understand if it was like the VC trade to NJ... but they seem to have gotten a fair deal... its very strange..if they get nothing the only wy the team gets sold is to be relocated... but maybe thats something the league quietly wants?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Don't worry, David Stern has hinted at retirement in the near future.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X