andrewww wrote:FrontOfficeEye wrote:As acting owner, Stern had the right to veto the trade.
He did, though I would say the league should have told the mgmt team to get approval first instead of saying they had full authority to act and announce the details of the trade...it set the Lakers back for years in hindsight, though getting Nash/Howard seemed like yet another win for the purple and gold.
The problem with the trade was that it took the Lakers from a luxury tax team, to under the tax. It took New Orleans from under the tax to over. Normally that's not a reason to veto a trade by itself, but when the 29 owners were paying for New Orleans salaries, it became problematic, as they had to foot the luxury tax bill for a team that no one owns. It also made the team less desirable to a new potential owner, as he'd take over a team with luxury tax problems before he made a single decision.
So the richest team saved money, and the poorest team (no owner) has to pay luxury tax. Yea, that was getting vetoed. Maybe if the Lakers weren't greedy and took on salary, then it could've gone through.