RealGM

We're a small market team so I'm sure a lot of people wont agree with me (/not care)
But it feels wrong for the League to do that. I'm not a lakers fan by any means, but the deal had gone through all 3 teams found it agreeable and they vetoed it.
It feels like the owners want some perfect system where everything's balanced all the time. That's not competitive sports and that's never been the NBA

It's not wrong, it's a very unique situation.

If the other owners weren't paying for the Hornets (since the NBA owns them) I would agree with you. If I'm an owner of a team other than the Lakers, I'm not letting a super team be built, starting with a trade from a team that I've been helping pay for, even though it's not totally mine.

It's a conflict of interest, and if it did go through it would look as if the NBA is helping create a super team, which kills parody.

but at the same time this wasn't even conceptualized as an issue of "return on investment" (which would be a hard case to argue since you want to get SOME value from CP3 before he leaves in 4 months in free agency) and consensus seems to be that NOH got a pretty good deal all things considered.

I'm very distressed that the discussion seemed to center around Stern not wanting Chris Paul to dictate where he could go. That's categorically ridiculous. I support the new CBA that helps teams retain talent (by being able to offer more money and years than other teams, it's a great way to give small market teams more appealing) but players should always be able to dictate where they go. If they want to leave that money behind, more power to them.

Of course this is a different situation, involving Chris being in the drivers seat because he could dictate where he signed an extension. Again, the league shouldn't have any say in where Chris Paul would like to sign an extension, that is his choice to make. Chris Paul didn't suggest he would refuse to suit up if he was traded to say the Celtics, he just said he wouldn't sign an extension with them, a decision very much his to make.

Furthermore, the vetoing of this trade after it had gone through just makes things even more despicable. It's one thing if the Hornets felt the trade wasn't good enough (but they clearly did, and I'd argue it was pretty good), but it just made the whole situation that much worse.

In regards to making the Lakers a juggernaut, I disagree. They gave up Pau in the trade AND odom, all of sudden the Lakers are quite weak in the post (and have to lean on Bynums brittle bones for 82 games??? never mind Chris Pauls injury plagued past) Kobe's racking up mileage pretty quick and while he's still a great player his pairing with Paul doesn't carry the same long term apocalyptic implications a Dwade- LBJ pairing does.

The final thing is I just am generally annoyed at Gilberts attitude. What kind of system does he want?

EDIT:
the final thing is, they did this to Chris Paul. CHRIS PAUL! the guy who was a good soldier all those years in New Orleans, and very supportive of the team. This wasn't a Melo situation (from what I know) where he wanted to get to New York before the CBA. This was Chris Paul leaving when his contract was up, and New Orleans wanting to get something out of him.

It's right to block that trade, IMO.

Can't justify that the team that is in possibly the worst economic situation of all teams take on a lot of 3rd tier players for much more money than they're sending out.

This deal is not horrible but very bad for the Hornets.
They need to either get a high pick, great prospect or both in return for Paul. Scola, Martin, Dragic and Odom won't be flipped for more than a lot mediocre prospects and picks.
This is also why the Celtics offer of Rondo and the Clippers pick would help them rebuilding much easier, IMO.
That way they get a great young PG and are assured their own high lottery pick as well as a late lottery or mid 1st pick from the Clippers.
With the Lakers deal they would overachieve until Martin, Odom and Scola are traded, their own pick becomes less valuable and they would have no top tier prospects on the team thus delaying their rebuild further.

Glad that the trade was blocked. They should sell the hornets to someone even if it means that the team moves though. It's really gimpy to have a team in the league that can't make any moves without the threat of a veto.

Foye wrote:It's right to block that trade, IMO.

Can't justify that the team that is in possibly the worst economic situation of all teams take on a lot of 3rd tier players for much more money than they're sending out.

This deal is not horrible but very bad for the Hornets.
They need to either get a high pick, great prospect or both in return for Paul. Scola, Martin, Dragic and Odom won't be flipped for more than a lot mediocre prospects and picks.
This is also why the Celtics offer of Rondo and the Clippers pick would help them rebuilding much easier, IMO.
That way they get a great young PG and are assured their own high lottery pick as well as a late lottery or mid 1st pick from the Clippers.
With the Lakers deal they would overachieve until Martin, Odom and Scola are traded, their own pick becomes less valuable and they would have no top tier prospects on the team thus delaying their rebuild further.

I respectfully disagree. The value of the trade is subjective granted, but I still find it hard to believe this had anything to do with contracts. Gilberts email, was bitter that the Lakers were getting far too good a deal not, the Hornets are taking on more contracts.
His final line about the other teams being the Generals sums up his feelings this trade "wasn't fair".
It's a weak line of reasoning.

The GM of the Hornets signed off on this trade.
The Rondo shopping was rumor (and they may have pulled out since Paul doesn't sign an extension there)
GMs make terrible trades yearly, (it's practically tradition) if you can read my above post it's longer ^

teven_1 wrote:

Foye wrote:It's right to block that trade, IMO.

Can't justify that the team that is in possibly the worst economic situation of all teams take on a lot of 3rd tier players for much more money than they're sending out.

This deal is not horrible but very bad for the Hornets.
They need to either get a high pick, great prospect or both in return for Paul. Scola, Martin, Dragic and Odom won't be flipped for more than a lot mediocre prospects and picks.
This is also why the Celtics offer of Rondo and the Clippers pick would help them rebuilding much easier, IMO.
That way they get a great young PG and are assured their own high lottery pick as well as a late lottery or mid 1st pick from the Clippers.
With the Lakers deal they would overachieve until Martin, Odom and Scola are traded, their own pick becomes less valuable and they would have no top tier prospects on the team thus delaying their rebuild further.

I respectfully disagree. The value of the trade is subjective granted, but I still find it hard to believe this had anything to do with contracts. Gilberts email, was bitter that the Lakers were getting far too good a deal not, the Hornets are taking on more contracts.
His final line about the other teams being the Generals sums up his feelings this trade "wasn't fair".
It's a weak line of reasoning.

The GM of the Hornets signed off on this trade.
The Rondo shopping was rumor (and they may have pulled out since Paul doesn't sign an extension there)
GMs make terrible trades yearly, (it's practically tradition) if you can read my above post it's longer ^

I agree with Teven. I think stopping this trade is bull. If the Hornets can't trade CP3 to the Lakers, who can they trade him to? Who decides this? What is the right price? What if there is no NBA-approved deal before the trade deadline and Paul just walks. Is that fair value for NO?
The problem of course is that the league owns the team. Complicates the situation. In my opinion if the GM of the Hornets believes it is a fair trade, that is his call.
Free Agency makes this situation a necessary evil.

teven_1 wrote:
The GM of the Hornets signed off on this trade.

David Kahn doesn't have authority to make a trade without Glen Taylor signing off on it.

The NBA couldn't be telling everyone out of one side of their mouth "the new cba is improving the competitive balance of the league, come buy tickets, Its FANtastic" and at the same time making any sort of deal that looks otherwise.

Teven, you're assuming that Gilbert's email is the crux of why this deal got stopped. That's one owner's email. One owner's feelings. The crux of the matter is, there are 29 other owners of the Hornets right now. They have the impossible task of managing the Hornets in an unbiased way.

It was the right thing to do to stop the trade; they way that they did it was wrong. No GM has complete autonomy to make any deal he wants. The number one priority for the management of the Hornets needs to make it viable for a future owner. This trade did not do that.

This is why the NBA shouldn't own a team. Was this trade vetoed because it was bad for the Hornets, or because it was bad for the teams trying to compete with the Lakers? It's a complete conflict of interest.

Biff Cooper wrote:

teven_1 wrote:
The GM of the Hornets signed off on this trade.

David Kahn doesn't have authority to make a trade without Glen Taylor signing off on it.

The NBA couldn't be telling everyone out of one side of their mouth "the new cba is improving the competitive balance of the league, come buy tickets, Its FANtastic" and at the same time making any sort of deal that looks otherwise.

that's true, but I would hope Glen Taylor would reserve his veto power for trades that he think don't benefit Minny, not "**** the lakers"

Again I'm more disturbed the narrative. It's one thing to say "this deal wasn't good enough" (although again as I mentioned in my 2nd post, the lakers gave up Pau, and Odom and now only have Bynums weak knee, CP3 is injury prone and Kobes getting old.)

but this was a flat out veto "because it's not fair" because LA can afford better toys than everyone else.

the CBA has new clauses to help small market teams retain players. But at the end of the day it's a free country, CP3 can sign an extension wherever he pleases and he can also chose to leave behind New Orleans (who can offer him more money and years than any other team), it's his prerogative.

If this is an attempt by owners to try to call all the shots, that leaves me feeling a little sick.

teven_1 wrote:

Foye wrote:It's right to block that trade, IMO.

Can't justify that the team that is in possibly the worst economic situation of all teams take on a lot of 3rd tier players for much more money than they're sending out.

This deal is not horrible but very bad for the Hornets.
They need to either get a high pick, great prospect or both in return for Paul. Scola, Martin, Dragic and Odom won't be flipped for more than a lot mediocre prospects and picks.
This is also why the Celtics offer of Rondo and the Clippers pick would help them rebuilding much easier, IMO.
That way they get a great young PG and are assured their own high lottery pick as well as a late lottery or mid 1st pick from the Clippers.
With the Lakers deal they would overachieve until Martin, Odom and Scola are traded, their own pick becomes less valuable and they would have no top tier prospects on the team thus delaying their rebuild further.

I respectfully disagree. The value of the trade is subjective granted, but I still find it hard to believe this had anything to do with contracts. Gilberts email, was bitter that the Lakers were getting far too good a deal not, the Hornets are taking on more contracts.
His final line about the other teams being the Generals sums up his feelings this trade "wasn't fair".
It's a weak line of reasoning.

The GM of the Hornets signed off on this trade.
The Rondo shopping was rumor (and they may have pulled out since Paul doesn't sign an extension there)
GMs make terrible trades yearly, (it's practically tradition) if you can read my above post it's longer ^

The Lakers where trading Gasol and Odom for Paul.
They got the best player in the deal and 21 mil. $ savings. I can't say that I wouldn't feel f*cked if I was a GM of another team in the league.

PeeDee wrote:Teven, you're assuming that Gilbert's email is the crux of why this deal got stopped. That's one owner's email. One owner's feelings. The crux of the matter is, there are 29 other owners of the Hornets right now. They have the impossible task of managing the Hornets in an unbiased way.

It was the right thing to do to stop the trade; they way that they did it was wrong. No GM has complete autonomy to make any deal he wants. The number one priority for the management of the Hornets needs to make it viable for a future owner. This trade did not do that.

A lot of things indicate to me that this was not a simple Xs and Os trade.
http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/21 ... r_For_Paul
and Reports that Stern didn't want Paul to dictate where he could go.

Again this feels wrong. It's not a matter of value, the trade could be amended, and I have seen no indications that this trade was vetoed for any justifiable reason.

teven_1 wrote: .. but players should always be able to dictate where they go.

Why is that? Why even have a draft?

BTW - excellent thread teven, and you're making strong points.

Foye wrote:
The Lakers where trading Gasol and Odom for Paul.
They got the best player in the deal and 21 mil. $ savings. I can't say that I wouldn't feel f*cked if I was a GM of another team in the league.

Cause Gasol and Odom didn't do anything for the Lakers? That's a significant talent loss.

Foye wrote:

teven_1 wrote:

Foye wrote:It's right to block that trade, IMO.

Can't justify that the team that is in possibly the worst economic situation of all teams take on a lot of 3rd tier players for much more money than they're sending out.

This deal is not horrible but very bad for the Hornets.
They need to either get a high pick, great prospect or both in return for Paul. Scola, Martin, Dragic and Odom won't be flipped for more than a lot mediocre prospects and picks.
This is also why the Celtics offer of Rondo and the Clippers pick would help them rebuilding much easier, IMO.
That way they get a great young PG and are assured their own high lottery pick as well as a late lottery or mid 1st pick from the Clippers.
With the Lakers deal they would overachieve until Martin, Odom and Scola are traded, their own pick becomes less valuable and they would have no top tier prospects on the team thus delaying their rebuild further.

I respectfully disagree. The value of the trade is subjective granted, but I still find it hard to believe this had anything to do with contracts. Gilberts email, was bitter that the Lakers were getting far too good a deal not, the Hornets are taking on more contracts.
His final line about the other teams being the Generals sums up his feelings this trade "wasn't fair".
It's a weak line of reasoning.

The GM of the Hornets signed off on this trade.
The Rondo shopping was rumor (and they may have pulled out since Paul doesn't sign an extension there)
GMs make terrible trades yearly, (it's practically tradition) if you can read my above post it's longer ^

The Lakers where trading Gasol and Odom for Paul.
They got the best player in the deal and 21 mil. $ savings. I can't say that I wouldn't feel f*cked if I was a GM of another team in the league.

who's the arbiter of a fair trade though? the 29 owners who are all supporting NOH, really doesn't give them the right to keep other teams down, just the way the Lakers would be completely unjustified to say "we own part of New Orleans ATM give us Paul for Shannon Brown straight up"

The owners over stepped and be extension are hindering New Orleans from getting anything of value for Paul.

I wouldn't consider giving up Odom and Pau simply "contracts" I have a hard time fathoming that the Lakers are any better with CP3 (save any future trades) than they were last year. Literally no post depth (which will dwindle to 0 when Bynum gets injured)

Again these are all value judgements, and this is why it's so messy. If the owners wanted to save money on any NOH deal fine, but I'm hard pressed to believe that.

teven_1 wrote:the CBA has new clauses to help small market teams retain players. But at the end of the day it's a free country, CP3 can sign an extension wherever he pleases and he can also chose to leave behind New Orleans (who can offer him more money and years than any other team), it's his prerogative.

If he wants to take a small salary, he can sign anywhere. If he wants a near max salary and N.O. isn't going to be willing to S&T him, he is going to be limited to a handful of teams that have or are able to get cap space.

shrink wrote:

teven_1 wrote: .. but players should always be able to dictate where they go.

Why is that? Why should we even have them play on specific teams at all out of the draft?

BTW - excellent thread teven!

As long as there's free agency, players will be able to dictate where they will go at some point in their career. And there's always going to be free agency, so we might as well learn to deal with it.

If you believe "Players should always be able to dictate where they want to go" then I want someone to clarify the benefits to the NBA of having a draft.

Conversely, why should there be free agency? What changes for the league?

Either one is a superior system, or it isn't.

shrink wrote:

teven_1 wrote: .. but players should always be able to dictate where they go.

Why is that? Why should we even have them play on specific teams at all out of the draft?

BTW - excellent thread teven!

Thank! (I'm loving the responses great perspectives)

Like I said, I'm all in favor of making it so the team that drafted the player can give them the best offer (espec for small market teams like us). It makes it so the team has leverage, and the player has to make sacrifices if he wants to leave.
Again if Chris Paul forced his way to LA by (for example) refusing to suit up for any other team that traded for him, I would be 100% against him.
I just feel his choice of where he would like to sign an extension (or a new contract) is completely up to him, if he's comfortable with the pros and cons of that decision.