CP3 Trade Veto-Revisited

[poido123]

Thoughts?


I thought it was a disgraceful decision by the NBA and Stern. It screwed over the Lakers in a big way. We could be talking about a Laker dynasty and not the current Heat one.

[alec613]

You're bringing back bad memories

Both Rockets and Pelicans are in a good place now : Stern helped the Pelicans get Davis ; Rockets got Harden and Dwight instead of Pau and Nene

[Meticode]

Thoughts?


I thought it was a disgraceful decision by the NBA and Stern. It screwed over the Lakers in a big way. We could be talking about a Laker dynasty and not the current Heat one.
Yes, because all we need is another Lakers dynasty.

I guess the Lakers having Howard, Gasol, World Peace, Kobe and Nash just wasn't enough. They needed MORE!

[Fiasco]

As a neutral, third-party observer I'd have to say the veto was justified.

[Droid101]

As a neutral, third-party observer I'd have to say the veto was justified.
:roll:

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Hornets were owned by the NBA at the time so i was 100% fine with it.

[poido123]

Yes, because all we need is another Lakers dynasty.

I guess the Lakers having Howard, Gasol, World Peace, Kobe and Nash just wasn't enough. They needed MORE!

:lol

With our personal bias aside, the Lakers got jobbed on this one.

No two ways about it.

[Xiao Yao You]

Paul and Kobe weren't a good fit anyway. Poor, poor Lakers! :violin:

[moe94]

Funny how the Gasol trade was perfectly fine and legit.

[longtime lurker]

Thoughts?


I thought it was a disgraceful decision by the NBA and Stern. It screwed over the Lakers in a big way. We could be talking about a Laker dynasty and not the current Heat one.

Bullshit veto it ruined the Lakers future. And what's funny is that owners were complaining about big market teams and so the Hornets trade Paul to Los Angeles! That's the NBA in a nutshell.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

:lol

With our personal bias aside, the Lakers got jobbed on this one.

No two ways about it.
That's ironic because I get the sense that you're just upset that the Heat are winning titles and that's why your upset about the veto.

[outbreak]

hornets were owned by the NBA and the trade would lower the value of the team when it came time to sell. The veto was fine, there is no conspiracy, it was annoying the acting GM should not have confirmed any deals without talking to the league, get over it.

[poido123]

Funny how the Gasol trade was perfectly fine and legit.

It was legit.

Which is why the trade went through? :confusedshrug:

[poido123]

hornets were owned by the NBA and the trade would lower the value of the team when it came time to sell. The veto was fine, there is no conspiracy, it was annoying the acting GM should not have confirmed any deals without talking to the league, get over it.


I'm not a Lakers fan. But I do sympathise with them on this one.

[gts]

Yes, because all we need is another Lakers dynasty.

I guess the Lakers having Howard, Gasol, World Peace, Kobe and Nash just wasn't enough. They needed MORE!

If the trade had gone through they wouldn't have had Howard Gasol or Nash


Anyways it is what it is, Lakers have moved on and have other fish to fry.

[moe94]

It was legit.

Which is why the trade went through? :confusedshrug:

Gasol trade was considered an absolute joke until the emergence of Marc.

[DuMa]

It was epic.

[ballup]

It helped the Hornets get a new owner.

[poido123]

Gasol trade was considered an absolute joke until the emergence of Marc.

It was perceived as lopsided by many, sure. But was it legal and within the rules? Yes.

[kamil]

That's ironic because I get the sense that you're just upset that the Heat are winning titles and that's why your upset about the veto.

I dont think anyone would have issues with the Heat winning championships if only they had gone about it differently. You know.... without collusion.

Nice to see the Lakers spiral down into complete irrelevance, seeing them constantly either with a championship or in the finals was enough. Time for a change :)

[Droid101]

Gasol trade was considered an absolute joke until the emergence of Marc.
Uh, no.

The Grizz got exactly what they were after... young players, draft picks, and cap space.

They used the cap space for Z-Bo.

Draft pick for Marc.

And young player was Crittendon which I believe they flipped for assets.

[moe94]

I dont think anyone would have issues with the Heat winning championships if only they had gone about it differently.

I don't understand the issue here. Are you mad at the players controlling their destiny instead of GMs playing them like chess pieces?

[russwest0]

I thought it was total bullshit.

Though Lakers still wouldn't have gotten past OKC. Durant shutdown Kobe in the 4th past two times they've met in the playoffs, holding him to 3-21 shooting.

And Westbrook owns CP3

[Fiasco]

I thought it was total bullshit.

Though Lakers still wouldn't have gotten past OKC. Durant shutdown Kobe in the 4th past two times they've met in the playoffs, holding him to 3-21 shooting.

And Westbrook owns CP3

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=paulch01&p2=westbru01

huhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Meticode]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=paulch01&p2=westbru01

huhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
You're replying to a gimmick FYI. He's jabbing for replies.

[Fiasco]

You're replying to a gimmick FYI. He's jabbing for replies.

Oh.

#postpad

[poido123]

That's ironic because I get the sense that you're just upset that the Heat are winning titles and that's why your upset about the veto.

Get all the senses you want, but that isn't why I started this thread.

My topic was based on the injustice of the veto, not how many titles Lakers would of won.

[All Net]

Bynum would likely still be here if the trade went through. Dwight trade never would of happened.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Get all the senses you want, but that isn't why I started this thread.

My topic was based on the injustice of the veto, not how many titles Lakers would of won.
How exactly is it wrong for the owner of a team to veto a trade? Clippers owner almost vetoed the Reddick trade this summer. Not exactly a big deal.

[alec613]

If the trade had gone through they wouldn't have had Howard Gasol or Nash


.

Those 4 draft picks :banghead:

[poido123]

Bynum would likely still be here if the trade went through. Dwight trade never would of happened.

Which in the end would of been a who knows what would of happened as far as Lakers success goes...

[CelticBaller]

Loved it, I rather have the Heat having a dynasty than a Laker superteam

[chazzy]

Bynum would likely still be here if the trade went through. Dwight trade never would of happened.
Why not? This would've increased Dwight's desire to come to/stay in LA. The Lakers only traded Bynum for Dwight and he wasn't involved in the CP3 deal.

[ballup]

Get all the senses you want, but that isn't why I started this thread.

My topic was based on the injustice of the veto, not how many titles Lakers would of won.
So what's the injustice?

[poido123]

How exactly is it wrong for the owner of a team to veto a trade? Clippers owner almost vetoed the Reddick trade this summer. Not exactly a big deal.


David Stern's veto of the Chris Paul trade contains so much kaleidoscoping bullshit that it seems more than worth it to lay out just some of the bullshit:

1.) David Stern had to veto the deal because he spent months selling a bullshit lockout on the bullshit grounds that the league needed competitive balance, and that taking players' money and restricting their movement would help achieve it. This was (and remains) bullshit for all the reasons Henry Abbott explained again and again, but it was (and remains) effective bullshit. It was so effective that small-market owners apparently began shrieking the moment they heard that Chris Paul could be going to the Lakers, panicked by their bullshit concern that the rich were about to get richer anyway. Even though that, too, was bullshit (as we'll explain). Stern has sold his competitive-balance bullshit for a long time, and at some point I guess he began smoking his own supply.

2.) Stern further had to veto the deal because some NBA owners are still inflamed by their bullshit fear of "superteams," i.e. the Miami Heat (a team that Stern once said was good for the NBA, which wasn't bullshit). The owners' bullshit fear was further stoked by the bullshit specter of Chris Paul strong-arming his way to a perennially successful franchise of his choosing. This is bullshit because the NBA owners created their own bogeyman. Their bullshit lockout of 1998-99 was about controlling maximum salaries, which kept star players from getting paid their full value. Once bullshit max contracts were the rule, the less appealing franchises couldn't spend extra to attract or retain players, leaving Cleveland to compete with Miami head to head, as a destination. This encouraged stars to make decisions for more than money. If LeBron James or Chris Paul is going to get roughly the same deal wherever he goes, why not go to a city he likes where he can play basketball with talented friends and win a lot of games? Maybe you think that's bullshit, but that's exactly what stars are incentivized to do under the max-contract regime, which, as I say, is the real bullshit here.

3.) The Paul trade was a bad deal for the Lakers and a good one for the Hornets, the small-market team whose bullshit interests all those angry owners—and Stern, too, as Hornets owner in loco parentis—were supposedly defending. I'm with John Hollinger: The Hornets weren't going to find a better return on Paul than what they would've gotten in the deal (Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic, plus the Knicks' first-round pick), and what little leverage they had in the trade market for Paul has now been shot to hell and gone. The Lakers would've had a great pick-and-roll point guard with no one left to pick and roll with him. Superteam? Bullshit.

4.) "When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals?" obstreperous bullshitter Dan Gilbert said in a message to Stern, apparently written in the sort of pleading, self-pitying prose one finds in prison letters. Here's the bullshit thing about that: You are the Washington Generals. You have always been the Washington Generals, and until the NBA goes commie and starts arming the peasantry and redistributing the land—a la the NFL—you will go on being the Washington Generals. All sports are rigged to one degree or another. The NFL is rigged so that everyone is the Washington Generals. MLB is rigged so that the Washington Generals, upon receiving their annual bribe, are mostly content to remain the Washington Generals. And, yes, the NBA is rigged so that a handful of teams—the teams the general public actually likes to watch on TV—get to enjoy their native blessings, and everyone else is the Washington Generals.

5.) So here's what we have: caterwauling small-market owners, having swallowed the competitive-balance bullshit, having just won a bullshit labor war to Make the World Safe for NBA Owners without actually doing anything to address their bullshit casus belli, prevailing upon the main purveyor of bullshit in the NBA to spike a good deal for their fellow franchise in New Orleans almost entirely out of bullshit concerns over the bullshit possibility of another superteam. It's really perfect, in a way: David Stern just sacrificed the Hornets at the altar of his own bullshit.



I would like to add, if it was just a regular GM decision then nobody would have a problem with it. The fact that Stern was in control of NO and made this decision was fishy to say the least and the above reasons that I found from an article explains it in more detail.

[CelticBaller]

So what's the injustice?
The Lakers not forming a super team to stop LeBron :cry:

[poido123]

The Lakers not forming a super team to stop LeBron :cry:

:(

I'd appreciate if you didn't derail the thread by mentioning Lebron. This is to do with the injustice of the Veto.

[longtime lurker]

[QUOTE=poido123]David Stern's veto of the Chris Paul trade contains so much kaleidoscoping bullshit that it seems more than worth it to lay out just some of the bullshit:

1.) David Stern had to veto the deal because he spent months selling a bullshit lockout on the bullshit grounds that the league needed competitive balance, and that taking players' money and restricting their movement would help achieve it. This was (and remains) bullshit for all the reasons Henry Abbott explained again and again, but it was (and remains) effective bullshit. It was so effective that small-market owners apparently began shrieking the moment they heard that Chris Paul could be going to the Lakers, panicked by their bullshit concern that the rich were about to get richer anyway. Even though that, too, was bullshit (as we'll explain). Stern has sold his competitive-balance bullshit for a long time, and at some point I guess he began smoking his own supply.

2.) Stern further had to veto the deal because some NBA owners are still inflamed by their bullshit fear of "superteams," i.e. the Miami Heat (a team that Stern once said was good for the NBA, which wasn't bullshit). The owners' bullshit fear was further stoked by the bullshit specter of Chris Paul strong-arming his way to a perennially successful franchise of his choosing. This is bullshit because the NBA owners created their own bogeyman. Their bullshit lockout of 1998-99 was about controlling maximum salaries, which kept star players from getting paid their full value. Once bullshit max contracts were the rule, the less appealing franchises couldn't spend extra to attract or retain players, leaving Cleveland to compete with Miami head to head, as a destination. This encouraged stars to make decisions for more than money. If LeBron James or Chris Paul is going to get roughly the same deal wherever he goes, why not go to a city he likes where he can play basketball with talented friends and win a lot of games? Maybe you think that's bullshit, but that's exactly what stars are incentivized to do under the max-contract regime, which, as I say, is the real bullshit here.

3.) The Paul trade was a bad deal for the Lakers and a good one for the Hornets, the small-market team whose bullshit interests all those angry owners

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I would like to add, if it was just a regular GM decision then nobody would have a problem with it. The fact that Stern was in control of NO and made this decision was fishy to say the least and the above reasons that I found from an article explains it in more detail.
Whoever owns the team is irrelevant. Hornets were getting an absolutely crappy deal from a basketball POV. The Clippers deal was much better at the time.

[Fiasco]

Come on guys, Chris Paul isn't even that good.

[longtime lurker]

Whoever owns the team is irrelevant. Hornets were getting an absolutely crappy deal from a basketball POV. The Clippers deal was much better at the time.

Actually it's very relevant. It's a huge conflict of interest for the NBA own a team. Either you give your GM full autonomy to make moves or you hold a moratorium on any moves until the team is sold.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Actually it's very relevant. It's a huge conflict of interest for the NBA own a team. Either you give your GM full autonomy to make moves or you hold a moratorium on any moves until the team is sold.
That is a separate issue. They had owned that team before the trade went down. It's not like the trade was going to happen and then the NBA decided to just take them over to block the trade.

My point is: Considering the League owned the team, they have every right to interfere with personnel moves.

I'm not debating whether the league should "own" a team or not.

[poido123]

So what's the injustice?

The injustice is that Stern was able to make a decision based on "competitive balance" while running a basketball team as GM. That is NOT the role of a GM to make such a decision with higher level matters affecting his decision. Conflict of interest.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

The injustice is that Stern was able to make a decision based on "competitive balance" while running a basketball team as GM. That is NOT the role of a GM to make such a decision with higher level matters affecting his decision. Conflict of interest.
There is no proof that he made the decision based on "competitive balance". Likely he like most sane people realized the return they were getting was awful.

[ispin69]

League owned the team. Stop crying, get over it.
You're mad you didn't get away with robbery.
All trades must be accepted by the league anyways.

[longtime lurker]

That is a separate issue. They had owned that team before the trade went down. It's not like the trade was going to happen and then the NBA decided to just take them over to block the trade.

My point is: Considering the League owned the team, they have every right to interfere with personnel moves.

I'm not debating whether the league should "own" a team or not.

But you're not getting that it's a conflict of interest to begin with. The only reason the trade was even blocked was because pansy ass owners like Dan Gilbert and Mark Cuban started complaining. It had nothing to do with the actual pieces and everything to do with the team getting Chris Paul. If it had been a small market team trading the exact same pieces no one would make a peep. The Lakers aren't playing under a different set of rules than everyone else. 28 other teams could have made an offer for Chris Paul, the owners were just salty that they were caught sleeping.

[poido123]

That is a separate issue. They had owned that team before the trade went down. It's not like the trade was going to happen and then the NBA decided to just take them over to block the trade.

My point is: Considering the League owned the team, they have every right to interfere with personnel moves.

I'm not debating whether the league should "own" a team or not.


I see what you're getting at, but this is the commisioner of the NBA running a basketball team. There is a huge difference between Stern making a decision on the trade and just some other regular GM with no other external influences or interests.

The issue here is, Stern should never of had the right to control the team as GM for this very reason...

[RoundMoundOfReb]

But you're not getting that it's a conflict of interest to begin with. The only reason the trade was even blocked was because pansy ass owners like Dan Gilbert and Mark Cuban started complaining. It had nothing to do with the actual pieces and everything to do with the team getting Chris Paul. If it had been a small market team trading the exact same pieces no one would make a peep. The Lakers aren't playing under a different set of rules than everyone else. 28 other teams could have made an offer for Chris Paul, the owners were just salty that they were caught sleeping.
Proof? He said it was for "basketball reasons" iirc. Which implies that he didn't like the return.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I see what you're getting at, but this is the commisioner of the NBA running a basketball team. There is a huge difference between Stern making a decision on the trade and just some other regular GM with no other external influences or interests.

The issue here is, Stern should never of had the right to control the team as GM for this very reason...
The Nba had a right as any owner does to tell his GM what to do or fire him.

[poido123]

The Nba had a right as any owner does to tell his GM what to do or fire him.

Well if you take this line of thinking, we will have to agree to disagree. You either see the injustice or you don't. :cheers:

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Honestly, if I was the Hornets' owner i would've vetoed the Lakers/Rockets deal as well.

[longtime lurker]

Proof? He said it was for "basketball reasons" iirc. Which implies that he didn't like the return.

come on you can't be that dense. Read between the lines. And basketball reasons is the flimsiest excuse to veto the trade. Stern knows he was wrong for vetoing the trade and undermining his GM. Do you honestly believe that the Hornets GM at the time either 1)wasn't in contact with the NBA about the trade or 2) wasn't under the impression that he could run the team autonomously? If he didn't like the return trade wouldn't have been accepted. More than half the teams in the NBA could have offered a better package than the Clippers

[ballup]

The injustice is that Stern was able to make a decision based on "competitive balance" while running a basketball team as GM. That is NOT the role of a GM to make such a decision with higher level matters affecting his decision. Conflict of interest.
You believe Stern made the decision based on competitive balance? :oldlol: Anyone who follows the NBA close enough knows that he made the decision based on marketing the team for sale.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

come on you can't be that dense. Read between the lines. And basketball reasons is the flimsiest excuse to veto the trade. Stern knows he was wrong for vetoing the trade and undermining his GM. Do you honestly believe that the Hornets GM at the time either 1)wasn't in contact with the NBA about the trade or 2) wasn't under the impression that he could run the team autonomously? If he didn't like the return trade wouldn't have been accepted. More than half the teams in the NBA could have offered a better package than the Clippers

So, once again there is no proof that Stern blocked the trade for competitive balance?

Clippers offer was a good one btw. I don't know what else was out there but I would've taken it in a vacuum. EG at the time was a young promising player and the trade put them in prime position to tank and get their next star which they did.

[poido123]

You believe Stern made the decision based on competitive balance? :oldlol: Anyone who follows the NBA close enough knows that he made the decision based on marketing the team for sale.

The "competitive balance" was bullshit. No, I didn't believe that. He hasn't had a problem with competitive balance the entire time he's been in control of the league, so why would he suddenly do so at that time? :oldlol:

It was a smokescreen for something much more complex than that, but what I do know is it wasn't something a normal GM would be thinking, but more along the lines of his own vision he has for the league's future.

[ballup]

The "competitive balance" was bullshit. No, I didn't believe that. He hasn't had a problem with competitive balance the entire time he's been in control of the league, so why would he suddenly do so at that time? :oldlol:

It was a smokescreen for something much more complex than that, but what I do know is it wasn't something a normal GM would be thinking, but more along the lines of his own vision he has for the league's future.
Complex? Stern did it so that he could more easily sell that team. That's a pretty simple reason. He didn't do it for the league. He did it to get the Hornets out of the league's hands.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Complex? Stern did it so that he could more easily sell that team. That's a pretty simple reason. He didn't do it for the league. He did it to get the Hornets out of the league's hands.
Which, if the case, is a completely valid/legitimate reason for an owner to make a decision.

[KyrieTheFuture]

When are people going to realize he was acting on behalf of the other owners? Why would stern want his greatest cash cow in the league to be bad? Lakers fans and people who hate Stern just pretend that Stern did it solely to ruin the Lakers dreams. I'm sure David Stern just hates all the money and publicity the Lakers bring to his league.

[longtime lurker]

The "competitive balance" was bullshit. No, I didn't believe that. He hasn't had a problem with competitive balance the entire time he's been in control of the league, so why would he suddenly do so at that time? :oldlol:

It was a smokescreen for something much more complex than that, but what I do know is it wasn't something a normal GM would be thinking, but more along the lines of his own vision he has for the league's future.

I'll give you a hint. It had something to do with raising the status of the 2nd team in the 2nd biggest market in the US.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I'll give you a hint. It had something to do with raising the status of the 2nd team in the 2nd biggest market in the US.
The Knicks?? Explain.

[poido123]

Complex? Stern did it so that he could more easily sell that team. That's a pretty simple reason. He didn't do it for the league. He did it to get the Hornets out of the league's hands.


Again, I just don't see it that way.

Unless you believe that Stern has a history of corruption and deception it is going to be hard to convince you of my line of thinking...

When it comes to the guys who run the show, the obvious answer is usually far from the truth, but only serves as a smokescreen...

Not everyone believe's this, so it will just remain as my opinion.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Again, I just don't see it that way.

Unless you believe that Stern has a history of corruption and deception it is going to be hard to convince you of my line of thinking...

When it comes to the guys who run the show, the obvious answer is usually far from the truth, but only serves as a smokescreen...

Not everyone believe's this, so it will just remain as my opinion.

If you believe that, then why do you watch the NBA? If you believe everything is rigged by the league office what's the point of watching. It's just like pro-wrestling then.

[ballup]

Again, I just don't see it that way.

Unless you believe that Stern has a history of corruption and deception it is going to be hard to convince you of my line of thinking...

When it comes to the guys who run the show, the obvious answer is usually far from the truth, but only serves as a smokescreen...

Not everyone believe's this, so it will just remain as my opinion.
Your line of thinking? You mean paranoia and searching for an answer that suits your cause? You aren't thinking about this situation in the eyes of a commissioner who needed to rid a low interest team from the association. You are thinking about it like a butt hurt fan who wishes things happened a different way.

[russwest0]

If you believe that, then why do you watch the NBA? If you believe everything is rigged by the league office what's the point of watching. It's just like pro-wrestling then.

Not everything is rigged but plenty of instances are highly questionable. Plus just the way the NBA goes about shit. Blaming Donaghy for the 2002 WCF when he wasn't even an official for that series, not punishing any official in that series or 2006. Dan Crawford of 2006 still routinely officiates in the Finals.

Doing the lottery behind closed doors, leading to shit like 1.7% chance Bulls winning lottery to get Chicago native D. Rose.... The newly sold Pelicans instantly winning lottery to get Anthony Davis... just do the lottery live...

[poido123]

Your line of thinking? You mean paranoia and searching for an answer that suits your cause? You aren't thinking about this situation in the eyes of a commissioner who needed to rid a low interest team from the association. You are thinking about it like a butt hurt fan who wishes things happened a different way.

Ok, like I said this is my opinion...

I believe corruption and deception exists in the NBA, whether you believe that is your own opinion. Fact is, there has been some rather fishy things go on over the years, 2002 was not paranoia but an actual event that ended with a guy going to jail.

Why should that stop me from enjoying watching basketball? It exists, but it doesn't completely ruin the game, just makes you a little suspicious.

Russwest just posted a few examples like Davis going to the Pelicans and Rose ending up with the Bulls...

[poido123]

If you believe that, then why do you watch the NBA? If you believe everything is rigged by the league office what's the point of watching. It's just like pro-wrestling then.

I don't beleive it's as obvious as pro-wrestling :lol . But there are small instances of it smattered accross the NBA IMO...

[BlazerRed]

It was legit.

Which is why the trade went through? :confusedshrug:

So you mean like Stern owning the Hornets, thus having the ability to veto the trade was legit? I agree.

[russwest0]

So you mean like Stern owning the Hornets, thus having the ability to veto the trade was legit? I agree.

Problem is Stern didn't own the Hornets, the other 31 NBA owners did

[MMM]

The Hornets were owned by the other owners and were going to take on a lot of $$$. Of course in that situation the owners would be pissed off at the deal.

[flipogb]

the Hornets should have been banned from making trades without an owner in the first place.

Stern's mistake is not laying out rules on how to deal with the strange situation the Hornets were in. he should have told the GMs how it will be to deal with them. and on the other end maybe the Lakers and Hornets GM should have done their homework also. Neither of them should have assumed that he had the autonomy to make a big trade like that

[KingBeasley08]

the Hornets should have been banned from making trades without an owner in the first place.

Stern's mistake is not laying out rules on how to deal with the strange situation the Hornets were in. he should have told the GMs how it will be to deal with them. and on the other end maybe the Lakers and Hornets GM should have done their homework also. Neither of them should have assumed that he had the autonomy to make a big trade like that
This makes sense.

Stern did what he had to do which was increase the marketability of the Hornets so someone else would buy the team. They got fleeced in the trade with the Lakers and would have made selling the team harder. Not rocket science

[flipogb]

going back to my point, it was a great deal Mitch orchestrated and I still think hes a good GM but i can't believe he thought this would go down easy with the NBA owners owning the Hornets

[longtime lurker]

going back to my point, it was a great deal Mitch orchestrated and I still think hes a good GM but i can't believe he thought this would go down easy with the NBA owners owning the Hornets

You're assuming both GMs weren't under the impression that the NBA was fine with the trade.

[andgar923]

Paul and Kobe weren't a good fit anyway. Poor, poor Lakers! :violin:

Basically

CP3's role would've been muted by Kobe being ball dominant.

[BlazerRed]

http://i.minus.com/ihmvkdbtaXiBc.gif

[rock la familia]

Move on with your lives! geez ****ing emo as kids these days.

These little bitches want a cry party. smh

[reppy]

Public perception matters a whole lot. If the best player on a team from one of the league's least popular franchises gets traded for a washed up PF on the league's most popular franchise, while that team is owned by the NBA, it would reflect very poorly on the NBA.

Am I wrong in believing that the other NBA owners were paying for the New Orleans Hornets during the period where they were attempting to sell it. Why shouldn't they have a say in what happens?

[Eric Cartman]

Pelicans would look good with Dragic and Martin no lie.

[talkingconch]

Lets look at some potential major effects of what this veto caused.

Had CP3 trade NOT been vetoed

- Less minutes for kobe/carrying a team to playoffs = less chance of injury
- Phil Jackson or Mike Brown as coach instead of D'Antoni
- Lakers acquire Howard before trade deadline
- Lakers accomplish potential new dynasty around Kobe, CP3, Howard
- Odom does not lose 100lbs and become Lindsay Lohan wannabe
- Heat / Lakers $$$ for the NBA

[Bigsmoke]

I don't want CP3 to go through that shit anyway

[Bigsmoke]

Lets look at some potential major effects of what this veto caused.

Had CP3 trade NOT been vetoed

- Less minutes for kobe/carrying a team to playoffs = less chance of injury
- Phil Jackson or Mike Brown as coach instead of D'Antoni
- Lakers acquire Howard before trade deadline
- Lakers accomplish potential new dynasty around Kobe, CP3, Howard
- Odom does not lose 100lbs and become Lindsay Lohan wannabe
- Heat / Lakers $$$ for the NBA

Before all that happened, I'm sure u was more excited with Gasol, Dwight, Kobe, and Nash.

The Lakers with Dwight was going to have a shitty year in general.

[Pacquiao]

CP3 is overrated. He wouldn't lead any team deeper in the playoffs.

[andgar923]

Lets look at some potential major effects of what this veto caused.

Had CP3 trade NOT been vetoed

- Less minutes for kobe/carrying a team to playoffs = less chance of injury
- Phil Jackson or Mike Brown as coach instead of D'Antoni
- Lakers acquire Howard before trade deadline
- Lakers accomplish potential new dynasty around Kobe, CP3, Howard
- Odom does not lose 100lbs and become Lindsay Lohan wannabe
- Heat / Lakers $$$ for the NBA

Or.....

- CP3 and Kobe come at odds on how the offense should be ran
- CP3 is an 'Alpha' dog in the truest sense of the word
- CP3 and Bean have issues
- Pau gets a hug from Kobe
- Rumors of internal beefing hit the world
- Rumors are squashed "There's nothing going on, just the media misreporting that's all" Kobe/CP3/coach
- Lakers struggle to stay above .500
- Lakers sneak into playoffs
- Lakers lose in playoffs as they have no team identity (who's team is it? Bean's or CP3'S?)

- Off season, CP3 demands out "Everything is fine, just doing what's best for my family" CP3
- CP3 signs with Heat
- CP3, Bron and Wade fit in well together as they share the ball and every play is literally a lob (yes every single play, from the inbounds to free throws)
- CP3 helps Heat win 6 titles in a row cementing Bron's spot as the GOAT
- Kobe calls Smush Parker a bum

[MVBallin2K]

I love how people say that people need to let it go and stop crying when various other topics are revisited the same way. Yes it was recent but considering that it's been a couple of years now, you can look at all facets of the trade and know how it panned out.

It was the equivalent to NBA 2K online associations where anyone can veto a trade no matter it's value, good or bad. It came at the worst possible time too being around the Lockout time and when a fight between owners and players was going on. Whether people agree that it was the right decision or wrong decision, the fact that no one can argue is that the trade was agreed to in principle and the players themselves were shell shocked when it didn't go through.

Truth is that a lot of hard work and time was wasted along with player's emotions played with because Dan Gilbert threw a hissy fit that the trade was lopsided and that it was going to cost them. If they knew Paul was asking for a trade, then why didn't an e mail get sent sooner to the offices telling them that they wanted a vote on the trade then? Why did it take the trade being agreed to, to bring it out?

There are a lot of what ifs to come of this and a lot of hindsight is 20/20 but no one knows for sure what would have happened. Everyone who says that Paul and Kobe wouldn't get along, are purely speculating. At the same time, those who say they would have, are as well. There are many variables, especially if Dwight still came to the team. We'll never know and there's no changing what happened but it's a valuable lesson to be learned by the NBA as to how handle teams without an owner in the future. How to avoid catching heat for a poorly communicated decision. Essentially when you're only excuse is "basketball reasons", you know that you screwed up and didn't begin to handle the situation right from any angle.

[Rose'sACL]

It was perceived as lopsided by many, sure. But was it legal and within the rules? Yes.
and so was the veto by stern. how was it not legal?

[Pursuer]

Hornets were owned by the NBA at the time so i was 100% fine with it.

You know what a conflict of interest is?

[VIntageNOvel]

nah brah, the problem is: they vetoed it not because it's good for hornet but because they want to stop lakers from another legacy,
other owner like cuban was very vocal about how its so fukin unfair for lakers to get best PG in the league while unloading/saving mills from gasol/odom salary, so they were not really concerning about hornet future there, they already accepted it

[Blue&Orange]

The "competitive balance" was bullshit. No, I didn't believe that. He hasn't had a problem with competitive balance the entire time he's been in control of the league, so why would he suddenly do so at that time? :oldlol:

It was a smokescreen for something much more complex than that, but what I do know is it wasn't something a normal GM would be thinking, but more along the lines of his own vision he has for the league's future.
Yes you are right, much more complex, it was a horrible trade for the Hornets so like any other horrible trade is was shutdown. Incredibly complex!! I can only imagine how shitty pelicans would be right now if that trade happened.


:roll: :lol :roll:


Knicks just offered Shumpert for Kobe, it was vetoed by Lakers team president... CONSPIRACY!!! Knicks got JOBBED!


:roll: :lol :roll:


6 pages of retard.

[ballup]

Ok, like I said this is my opinion...

I believe corruption and deception exists in the NBA, whether you believe that is your own opinion. Fact is, there has been some rather fishy things go on over the years, 2002 was not paranoia but an actual event that ended with a guy going to jail.

Why should that stop me from enjoying watching basketball? It exists, but it doesn't completely ruin the game, just makes you a little suspicious.

Russwest just posted a few examples like Davis going to the Pelicans and Rose ending up with the Bulls...
So some odd and sketchy events have occurred in the history of the NBA. I think he did the best thing for the now Pelicans and the rest of the league.