Time for Stern to go?

[jimmie]

so the league should cancel deals based on what COULD happen? What about all the things that already did happen or didn't happen because of that deal? The effect it has on the teams and players that were involved in that deal?

There is a much bigger issue here than CP3 on the Lakers or a Kobe/Paul/Howard trio.

Stuff like this is just the stepping stone to much larger problems. After the venom of the last 6 months do you think a strike is out of the realm of possibility? Lawsuits which would completely change the face of how the NBA operates? Breach of trust over an agreement that was just made between the owners and the players? Setting a new precedent in regards to the league's influence over teams and their ability to make their own decisions (within the rules of the CBA ofcourse)? The conflict of interest over league ownership of a team?

Chris Paul going to the Lakers is a minor issue compared to everything else this can start.

Stern messed this up.

We'll see about all the "fallout" from this, but I expect there won't be much (outside of whiners in New Orleans and LA, possibly) once the games start at Xmas. As I said -- it's an anomaly -- the league office wouldn't have been able to veto this if New Orleans wasn't owned by the other teams. The circumstances just allowed them to make a statement about what they had been fighting against during the lockout.

I do think it was a petty move by Stern and the small market owners, but I don't think it was illegal or in any other way underhanded. Completely allowable under the circumstances at hand.

Look, we all knew exactly what was coming once the owners decided to let go of the hardline components of the new CBA. We argued back and forth ojn this forum about "owners will always find a way to do stupid things under any CBA, or do things that benefit themselves in the short term at the expense of the health of the league as a whole" vs. "a harder system would inhibit the stupidity/greed/self-centredness of the owners". If the owners had got what they wanted in the CBA, this scenario would never have come up.

As it is, we'll continue to have players extorting franchises so they can play where they want for the price they want, and we'll continue to have the competition dominated by 4-5 teams year-in and year-out. This small blip in the players/agents dictating which franchises will get the top players is just that -- a hiccup that will only be felt by Chris Paul in the long term.

The thing we can agree on is that it's a terrible outcome for fans, and we're seeing it already, only one day into the new CBA.

[Joey]

Precisely my thoughts.
Stern just opened a whole can of worms.

The killed trade had ripple effects everywhere in free agency and potential trades, and literally pushed the market into paralysis on the eve of training camps opening up.

“We were all told by the league he was a trade-able player, and now they’re saying that Dell doesn’t have the authority to make the trade?” said an NBA executive who had periodic talks with New Orleans throughout the process. “Now, they’re saying that Dell is an idiot, that he can’t do it his job. [Expletive] this whole thing. David’s drunk on power, and he doesn’t give a [expletive] about the players, and he doesn’t give a [expletive] about the hundreds of hours the teams put in to make that deal.

Hang Time Blog

[GarbageTime]

We'll see about all the "fallout" from this, but I expect there won't be much (outside of whiners in New Orleans and LA, possibly) once the games start at Xmas. As I said -- it's an anomaly -- the league office wouldn't have been able to veto this if New Orleans wasn't owned by the other teams. The circumstances just allowed them to make a statement about what they had been fighting against during the lockout.

I do think it was a petty move by Stern and the small market owners, but I don't think it was illegal or in any other way underhanded. Completely allowable under the circumstances at hand.

Look, we all knew exactly what was coming once the owners decided to let go of the hardline components of the new CBA. We argued back and forth ojn this forum about "owners will always find a way to do stupid things under any CBA, or do things that benefit themselves in the short term at the expense of the health of the league as a whole" vs. "a harder system would inhibit the stupidity/greed/self-centredness of the owners". If the owners had got what they wanted in the CBA, this scenario would never have come up.

As it is, we'll continue to have players extorting franchises so they can play where they want for the price they want, and we'll continue to have the competition dominated by 4-5 teams year-in and year-out. This small blip in the players/agents dictating which franchises will get the top players is just that -- a hiccup that will only be felt by Chris Paul in the long term.

The thing we can agree on is that it's a terrible outcome for fans, and we're seeing it already, only one day into the new CBA.

This won't be hiccup felt by Chris Paul long term. He's just going to sign for a ton of money next year with whoever he likes and NOH will be back to starting over.

But stuff like this easily starts a new precedent. One day its cancelling a deal for "basketball reasons", next the big market teams are using their economic leverage to manipulate the league through a commish. I know you may think thats conspiracy theory talk.... but once you squeeze the toothpaste out of the tube there is no putting it back. Sometimes it never ends up where you expect it either. By changing a few simple rules so the star players have more freedom on the court, the league made a single player immensely more valuable to a team (both financially and on the court) and led to those same players being able to 'dictate' (as you put it) the direction of their team.

As soon as the lockout ended Stern should have turned back to his job as commisioner of the league... not New Orleans snake oil salesman, conviently timed team owner or Dan Gilbert babysitter. If that deal didn't fit into the rules of the CBA, or there was some questionable occurence with the deal, by all means investigate... get to the bottom of it. Make sure no rules were breached. At the very least find a reasonable excuse and take some time to figure out an effective approach... not use your already existing conflict of interest as an excuse for abusing your power.

[Apollo]

We'll see about all the "fallout" from this, but I expect there won't be much (outside of whiners in New Orleans and LA, possibly) once the games start at Xmas.

I agree.

[jimmie]

"...but once you squeeze the toothpaste out of the tube there is no putting it back. Sometimes it never ends up where you expect it either."

I agree 100%, which is why I advocated during the lockout for stricter rules that would prevent some dumbass or greedy sumbitch from taking a steel-toe boot to his Crest, and in the process squirting minty-fresh goo all over the rest of the league (sorry for that visual).

That's essentially what happened in Miami, in Dallas, in LA, and in all the other big markets that are currently controlling where the top players play, and by extension, creating the much-shallower talent pool the smaller markets have access to. The toothpaste has been out of the tube for years now. This move by Stern (+ Gilbert and associated other small market owners) is a weak attempt at stomping their feet and saying, "Fine, you screwed us on the new CBA, so eat THIS, big markets and high-priced agents!"

They're fully within their rights to do it THIS time, because they DO own one of the teams involved, but you won't see it happening on a regular basis, because they don't control the corporate decisions of the rest of the teams. This was basically a case of one small market owner saying "no" to a proposed trade of one of its players. I'm sure many, many deals are arranged in principle by GMs every season, only to be vetoed by team owners for whatever reason. This one was only different in that the entire negotiation played out in the media rather than in backrooms, and in that the 'small market owner" is actually 29 guys who agreed to keep the team alive and viable for a future buyer. Demps had all the power in the world to negotiate trades; he doesn't have the power to complete them -- and that's the same for any GM in the league.

[grindhouse]

I would have veto it too, lakers get a another star and sac gets a star center but NO gets avg players none of which can play defense and a 1st round draft pick that will be in the 20's. No player should be able to force their way off a team Chris Paul can go f himself. I wish they had of not had a season so shit like this doesn't happen

[RaptorDan]

NOH ends up with a bunch of almost-washed-up talent from LA and a huge cap hit.
LAL ends up with CP3 and tons of financial flexibility to try too get Dwight and filler, much like Miami did.
Houston ends up with... Pau? That's it, for being the broker in this whole thing?

Smells fishy, a bit, no?

I was quite surprised by this trade too. Everyone is talking about either New Orleans or about LA but no one is mentioning how Houston was giving up a lot of talent plus a 1st round pick for Pau?! I was quite shocked by this. What were they thinking? If I were a Houston fan I would be very happy this trade got axed.

[jimmie]

I was quite surprised by this trade too. Everyone is talking about either New Orleans or about LA but no one is mentioning how Houston was giving up a lot of talent plus a 1st round pick for Pau?! I was quite shocked by this. What were they thinking? If I were a Houston fan I would be very happy this trade got axed.

Word has it they were aiming to get Nene to pair with Pau. Still, that's a dicey proposition after giving up everything they had on the table in that deal.

[Bendit]

I was quite surprised by this trade too. Everyone is talking about either New Orleans or about LA but no one is mentioning how Houston was giving up a lot of talent plus a 1st round pick for Pau?! I was quite shocked by this. What were they thinking? If I were a Houston fan I would be very happy this trade got axed.

Houston cleared a lot of cap space giving up all those pieces but I agree with the premise of your post. Pau is not a franchise guy and even paired with Nene without supporting pieces is very iffy. They gave up too much. I think one can see what is happening ...a team can collect a couple of expensive pieces but at the cost of the rest of your team. Two years from now when the actual screws start tightening its going to be next to impossible to arrange these setups of multiple max players because of the cap and tax rules. This is the easy way out for the big market teams. They are going to have to make choices like what NY had to do signing Chandler and giving up on CP...or trading Amare for CP!! I am personally ok if teams can have 2 max type players and then you go from there...where more teams have a chance to compete for talent. Spread it around and may the best evaluators/managers win.

This was the L's fault for signing off on an agreement that would allow this to happen. And they knew that CP and Howard were looking to go to LA all along. This is not so much about CP I think but about Howard going to LA as well.

Prediction: the CP deal will go thru but at more of a cost to LA which makes it near impossible to get Howard without him and the Lakers taking a severe financial hit.

[RaptorDan]

This was the L's fault for signing off on an agreement that would allow this to happen. And they knew that CP and Howard were looking to go to LA all along. This is not so much about CP I think but about Howard going to LA as well.

Prediction: the CP deal will go thru but at more of a cost to LA which makes it near impossible to get Howard without him and the Lakers taking a severe financial hit.

So much drama, it is like a Mexican soap opera! LA always seems to pull off blockbuster trades, so I'm sure they'll do something interesting this time as well. I can't believe the NBA nixed this trade, but did nothing with the Pau trade from a few years ago. That was a lop-sided travesty. (Looking back it worked out OK as Marc Gasol turned out to be awesome, but at the time it was stupidly one-sided).

I like your comments on Houston.