Glad the deal was stopped. Did not want CP3 with Kobe.
Printable View
Glad the deal was stopped. Did not want CP3 with Kobe.
As an unbiased nonparticipant, I don't see why the league should protest the trade. The teams are free to trade whatever and whoever they want. Monix was traded for a washing machine for shit's sake.
But even if this particular trade doesn't go through, Paul will be traded sometime soon. So let's keep at the Chris Paul trade talks in this thread. The mods will try and keep the title updated as much as possible.
Back to not caring anymore
League Owners are just jealous that the Hornets NBA appointed GM, Dell Demps; is better than their GM.
So this is when Chris Paul sues the NBA for a GaZillion dollars.
Might be the first case to find for the plaintiff during preliminary hearings.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I don't think the trade would have improved the Lakers, at least as it was. In my mind, you're not going to the promised land if Andrew Bynum is your only legitimate big man. Paul (and Bynum and Kobe to some extent) has health issues and I'm not sure how well he and Kobe would work together. Lakers were giving up a lot of length and flexibility, two of their biggest strengths.
I don't think the league should have intervened, but I guess since they own the team, it's their own prerogative. Owners have made many personnel decisions regarding players in the past, that's one of the benefits you get from assuming the risk and shelling out the bucks. But I feel it's a bad mood for a couple of reasons: 1. pissed off a lot of the players 2. looked bad in the press (and their lie about it afterwards didn't help) 3. NO was getting legitimate assets, we've seen stars leave for less, and if Paul simply leaves NO then the league seriously hurt the team 4. ratings jackpot with paul on the lakers
owners overreacted
Jerry Buss was stingy when it came to the issue of Revenue Sharing between the owners. This is just the small market owners telling him to screw himself. It's OK. Paul will be a Laker next year as a FA.
What would his case be? A player can't sue his owner for not trading him. The league owns the Hormets, they can do this. Could Boris Diaw demand a trade then sue MJ if he says no? Hell no, just because the league owns the team doesn't make it different. Now it's a huge PR mistake and a conflict of interest for the league to own a team, but they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keetch
Now I think it's ridiculous, and I would be really pissed if I was still a Hornets fan, because I think they got absolutely hosed by the league here. I think that trade makes them a better team this year, nets them a pick, and they lose 66 games of cp3. Also I hate the Lakers and don't really think this makes them better. It makes their only legitimate big man Andrew Bynum, who is overrated and always injured. Adding the fact they don't really have any other tradable assets, and will still be over the luxury tax, I don't see them being able to add much this offseason. So trading a stacked six deep line with the biggest and most skilled front court in the league to team up two guards who are best with the ball (and somewhat injury prone in their own way) doesn't make too much sense to me.
Now that this is done, though, I don't see him being traded elsewhere. It would look too bad for the league if they said no to a great deal from LA and then said Ok to a deal with any other team. CP3 will have to go somewhere in FA, and it wouldn't shock me if they don't facilitate it with a sign and trade next summer either, which would be a travesty for Hornets fans.
When it was going through? I was kind of like "ehh, who cares... Great. More stars to a big market..." Of course I wished there was a way for it to not go through but if it happens anyway I'd only care if they won the chip.
Then I remembered the Hornets were NBA-owned. I promise you, I texted my friend about 1 minute after the trade was reported and told him it was unfair and should be investigated if the NBA sent a superstar to the Lakers for Odom and filler.
Within an hour or so after I sent that, I get on twitter and hear it got nixed.
I don't understand all of these people crying foul when this got nixed, especially fans of small-markets? What is so hard to understand about the Hornets being NBA-owned? That presents a conflict of interest no matter how you slice it. Whether the deal went through or it didn't... Problem #1 is that the NBA "owns" the Hornets. They are suffering for letting the Hornets leave Charlotte to go to a shitty market and now they're stuck with that.
Until their ownership situation is resolved, deals should be minimal, and if they are completed, they shouldn't be nearly as one-sided as the almost deal to the Lakers was.
From what I've read (and I'll readily admit I've not given it that much time) the Hornets would be taking on about 40 million in that deal. If that's so I think the owners had every right to say hell no to that trade. I'm sure NOLA loses money and that gets taken out of each owners' pocket.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWedd523
They also have to sell that franchise. Scola for 4 years, Martin & Mek...that's 8th-9th seed territory right there. What they really need to do is get a young prospect, capspace &/or picks. Try and outdo us for the worst record.
What brought me in this thread to begin with:
Union Gives NBA Monday Deadline To Trade Paul
Really? The guy's under a freaking contract! How in the hell can he demand to be traded and sue when it doesn't happen?
I made this post over on RGMQuote:
Originally Posted by spectre
The NBA owners of the Hornets axed the trade. The league owns the Hornets, they have every right to veto trades, just like MJ vetoed the Trade that would've sent Chandler to Toronto. The owners split the cost of the Hornets and with that, they have that power.
Another issue is the payroll. Remember when Cuban was pissed the Hornets were trading Thornton for Landry because it raised their payroll? This trade would have significantly raised the Hornets payroll. A payroll that guys like MJ would have to pay.
And another issue is the eventual selling of the franchise. If you trade CP3 for a bunch of high salaried non-stars, then selling that franchise is going to be much more difficult. Why would a prospective owners want to buy into a team with a bunch of 30+ year olds and ancillary pieces? This effectively means the league will continue to have to provide for them for the foreseeable future.