PDA

View Full Version : Chris Paul to Clippers



Steagles
12-12-2011, 07:11 AM
I saw on ESPN just now that he's going for Chris Kaman, AlFaruq Aminu, Eric Bledsoe, and a first round pick in 2012.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7342778/if-no-new-york-knicks-los-angeles-lakers-chris-paul-wants-los-angeles-clippers

This link doesn't confirm but ESPN says it is close to being a done deal.
Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

imbtyler
12-12-2011, 07:36 AM
Great trade, imo. CP3 with EJ, Butler, Griffin, and DJ will be one helluva starting lineup, at least down the road. And if EJ gets shipped to NOH due to the deal, you can almost definitely expect to see him with the Pacers by 2013. I can't imagine him wanting to stay with his team, if it's not the Clippers.

Shade
12-12-2011, 07:46 AM
Will the Clippers have enough cap space to re-sign both Paul and Gordon?

Steagles
12-12-2011, 07:51 AM
Will the Clippers have enough cap space to re-sign both Paul and Gordon?

What about Blake Griffin as well?


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

Anthem
12-12-2011, 08:01 AM
That's Minny's pick, right?

idioteque
12-12-2011, 08:03 AM
Clips are going to be fun to watch next year.

sheppie33
12-12-2011, 08:12 AM
@Chris_Broussard Chris Broussard
Clips offering Gordon, Aminu, Kaman, Minny's unprotected 1st round pick for CP. League/NO wants Bledsoe put in deal. Clips mulling...

http://twitter.com/#!/Chris_Broussard

Gordon too?

Shade
12-12-2011, 08:15 AM
@Chris_Broussard Chris Broussard
Clips offering Gordon, Aminu, Kaman, Minny's unprotected 1st round pick for CP. League/NO wants Bledsoe put in deal. Clips mulling...

http://twitter.com/#!/Chris_Broussard (http://twitter.com/#%21/Chris_Broussard)

Gordon too?

That's a good enough deal for the Hornets. Gordon + #1 unprotected is close to equal value for Paul by itself, IMO. Add in the rest and there's really no need to include Bledsoe.

Marlin
12-12-2011, 08:22 AM
You guys sure Broussard hasn't made a mistake? With Bledsoe being shipped and NOLA wanting Gordon?
Because that's what was being reported earlier, with the Clips unwilling to deal Gordon as they consider him a top 5 SG..

Shade
12-12-2011, 08:23 AM
What about Blake Griffin as well?


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

That's definitely a long-term concern, but I'm thinking more in the short term at the moment, since both Paul and Gordon are FAs next season.

If the Clips max out Paul, would they have the money to match a max offer sheet to EJ?

cordobes
12-12-2011, 08:31 AM
Will the Clippers have enough cap space to re-sign both Paul and Gordon?

Teams don't need cap space to re-sign their own free-agents.


You guys sure Broussard hasn't made a mistake? With Bledsoe being shipped and NOLA wanting Gordon?
Because that's what was being reported earlier, with the Clips unwilling to deal Gordon as they consider him a top 5 SG..

Yeah, I think he made a mistake. Eric Gordon isn't included in the deal.

It's still a good haul for the Hornets.

BPump33
12-12-2011, 08:43 AM
Zach Lowe @ZachLowe_SI 4 mins Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
ESPN story, time-stamped 3 mins ago, says LAC deal is submitted to league and includes Gordon, not Bledsoe: tinyurl.com/clo9zxs

Maybe EJ is involved in the deal.

BRushWithDeath
12-12-2011, 09:08 AM
This whole situation has been so maliciously mismanaged from the beginning that I don't know what to think.

Surely, the Clippers wouldn't give up Eric Gordon, the unprotected top of the lottery pick from Minnesota, Eric Bledsoe, Al-Farouq Aminu, and Chris Kaman right? Obviously, they didn't offer anything close to that originally when the head of the Hornets basketball decisions chose to send him to the other team in LA.

I guess the silver lining in this whole thing is that the best point guard in a generation is going to be working for a likeable owner.

Can even the most adamant Lakers hater not think that they (along with the Rockets) have been royally screwed? I'm sure Jerry Buss is thrilled that the player he offered his second and third best players for (who also happen to be a top 5 big man and the reigning 6th man of the year, who in turn became so disgruntled he had to trade him for absolutely nothing) will be playing in the building he built for another team.

Strummer
12-12-2011, 09:09 AM
Zach Lowe @ZachLowe_SI 4 mins Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
ESPN story, time-stamped 3 mins ago, says LAC deal is submitted to league and includes Gordon, not Bledsoe: tinyurl.com/clo9zxs

Maybe EJ is involved in the deal.

They're running this version in the crawl on ESPN2 on tv. Attributing it to Broussard.

Sollozzo
12-12-2011, 09:12 AM
Can even the most adamant Lakers hater not think that they (along with the Rockets) have been royally screwed? I'm sure Jerry Buss is thrilled that the player he offered his second and third best players for (who also happen to be a top 5 big man and the reigning 6th man of the year, who in turn became so disgruntled he had to trade him for absolutely nothing) will be playing in the building he built for another team.


I think every Lakers hater can admit that all of those teams got a raw deal. No one hates the Lakers as much as Simmons and he had a great column about how big of BS it was.

This won't be forgotten anytime soon.

LoneGranger33
12-12-2011, 09:12 AM
So the Clippers are trading what could be an entire starting line-up away to the Hornets for Chris Paul?

naptownmenace
12-12-2011, 09:14 AM
That's a much better deal for NOH, although Gordon is a RFA next summer. They can still match any offer if he doesn't take the 1-year qualifying offer and the Minny pick has the potential to be a good lottery pick.

That's a slightly better deal for the Hornets because the players involved are younger and cheaper than who they were rumored to be getting in that 3-way Lakers deal.

Trader Joe
12-12-2011, 09:30 AM
Am I the only one that thinks giving up Gordon and Minny's pick is a pretty big ransom for Paul? I mean Gordon is perhaps the best young two way player in the entire NBA. He can guard the one and the two...Minny's pick is likely top 5...I dunno, seems like a lot.

I feel bad for EJ if it's true.

BRushWithDeath
12-12-2011, 09:35 AM
Am I the only one that thinks giving up Gordon and Minny's pick is a pretty big ransom for Paul? I mean Gordon is perhaps the best young two way player in the entire NBA. He can guard the one and the two...Minny's pick is likely top 5...I dunno, seems like a lot.

I feel bad for EJ if it's true.

It's giving up a ton for Paul. But he's worth it.

I think Eric Gordon is fantastic. I would have done everything in my power to not include him but if that is what it takes to get Paul, you still have to do it.

And yes, it really sucks for EJ. It also sucks for NBA fans. Paul, EJ, and Griffin would have been a joy to watch.

If there was one player that was a lock to be a star in this coming draft, I think they could have gotten away without including EJ. But I don't see that player in college basketball right now. There's plenty of depth in this draft but I don't see the top of it being as good as year's past.

pacer4ever
12-12-2011, 09:36 AM
Am I the only one that thinks giving up Gordon and Minny's pick is a pretty big ransom for Paul? I mean Gordon is perhaps the best young two way player in the entire NBA. He can guard the one and the two...Minny's pick is likely top 5...I dunno, seems like a lot.

I feel bad for EJ if it's true.
EJ is not in the deal. They aren't trading EJ.


I am so happy for EJ he deserves a pg who can pass after years of Baron Davis. This will really help EJ's game IMO and he and the Clippers will be a lot more fun to watch this year than the past 3 was.

kudos to the Clippers GM they arent giving up much besides the Minney pick IMO. Aminu is a lost puppy on the court and Bledsoe doesn't have a position yet he is a few years away.

cgg
12-12-2011, 09:37 AM
I guess the silver lining in this whole thing is that the best point guard in a generation is going to be working for a likeable owner.


A likeable owner? :wtf:

Shade
12-12-2011, 09:38 AM
If EJ is included, I no longer like the deal for the Clips.

BRushWithDeath
12-12-2011, 09:39 AM
A likeable owner? :wtf:

Did I say likeable? That's a typo. I meant devil incarnate.

BPump33
12-12-2011, 09:46 AM
Adrian Wojnarowski @WojYahooNBA 1 min Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Eric Gordon isn't included in a revised Clippers-New Orleans deal for Chris Paul, league source tells Y! Sports.

croz24
12-12-2011, 09:48 AM
EJ is not in the deal. They aren't trading EJ.


I am so happy for EJ he deserves a pg who can pass after years of Baron Davis. This will really help EJ's game IMO and he and the Clippers will be a lot more fun to watch this year than the past 3 was.

kudos to the Clippers GM they arent giving up much besides the Minney pick IMO. Aminu is a lost puppy on the court and Bledsoe doesn't have a position yet he is a few years away.

ESPN is reporting EJ IS involved

pacer4ever
12-12-2011, 09:48 AM
ESPN is reporting EJ IS involved...



Brussard is saying the Clippers are offering Gordon but I dont buy that. If he was a deal would already be done. Chris B is full of **** in with his sources IMO at least in this trade.

EJ isnt going anywhere.

He says the Hornets wont accept unless they add Blesose in addition to Gordon Aminu Minney #1 and Kaman I just find this hard to believe. They are really overpaying if they put EJ in this deal the Minney pick along with Bledsoe and Amniu should be enough IMO.

Trader Joe
12-12-2011, 09:49 AM
It's giving up a ton for Paul. But he's worth it.

I think Eric Gordon is fantastic. I would have done everything in my power to not include him but if that is what it takes to get Paul, you still have to do it.

And yes, it really sucks for EJ. It also sucks for NBA fans. Paul, EJ, and Griffin would have been a joy to watch.

If there was one player that was a lock to be a star in this coming draft, I think they could have gotten away without including EJ. But I don't see that player in college basketball right now. There's plenty of depth in this draft but I don't see the top of it being as good as year's past.

I agree. No one has emerged as a true star. The guy with perhaps the most ability (Terrence Jones) is a basketcase it looks like.

Shade
12-12-2011, 10:03 AM
If there's a conflict of reports between Woj and ESPN, I'm more inclined to believe Woj.

BPump33
12-12-2011, 10:09 AM
Hmm...

Chris Broussard @Chris_Broussard 1 min Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Source insists LAC offering Gordon, Kaman, Aminu & Minny's pick for CP. LAC dont want Gordon's name reported in deal in case it don't happen

Chris Broussard @Chris_Broussard 1 min Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
LAC don't want a LOdom situation on hands. Wants to extend Gordon if CP deal don't happen. NBA running deal for NO & wants Bledsoe added

Steagles
12-12-2011, 10:11 AM
I would love to see EJ traded ot of LA. New Orleans can't possibly retain him at a matched (Pacers) max deal.

Shade
12-12-2011, 10:14 AM
I would love to see EJ traded ot of LA. New Orleans can't possibly retain him at a matched (Pacers) max deal.

I don't think NO would do the trade unless EJ agrees to an extension beforehand.

pizza guy
12-12-2011, 10:59 AM
I don't think NO would do the trade unless EJ agrees to an extension beforehand.

Then it'll never happen. Nobody wants to be in NOLA right now with their terrible ownership situation. One of the articles about the Pacers signing West quoted him saying he didn't want to go back to NOLA because of that. And obviously, CP3 wants out because of it.

If EJ is shipped to NOLA without an extension, he will be a Pacer next season. I can live with that.

Mackey_Rose
12-12-2011, 11:00 AM
If you are Jerry Buss, how do you not go totally nuclear on the NBA if this happens?

What a joke.

Since86
12-12-2011, 11:08 AM
If you are Jerry Buss, how do you not go totally nuclear on the NBA if this happens?

What a joke.

He can go nuclear all he wants, but the fact of the matter is the the NBA owns the Hornets and has total control over anything and everything they do.

Jerry can go cry in his gold plated hankie for all I care.

Kstat
12-12-2011, 11:12 AM
If you are Jerry Buss, how do you not go totally nuclear on the NBA if this happens?

What a joke.

...the CLippers offer is a hundred times better, even without Gordon.

MnvrChvy
12-12-2011, 11:15 AM
Seriously! Lakers fans don't get everything they want for ONCE in a generation, and everyone and their brother comes to coddle them. I never understood why NO would be satisfied with the Laker deal. I think they basically thought they were limited to only dealing with the Lakers or Knicks and were going to take whatever they could get at that point. I think it was good for Stern (as an owner representative) to call Paul's bluff and allow his GM to look for better options elsewhere. If this deal goes down, it will be a million times better than the Laker deal especially if they get Gordon to extend.

Mackey_Rose
12-12-2011, 11:16 AM
...the CLippers offer is a hundred times better, even without Gordon.

I don't disagree, of course the Clips offer is a better deal, but that isn't the point.

They had a deal. It was a fair deal, and was considered a fair deal by all parties involved.

The NBA changed the rules in the middle of the game.

Will Galen
12-12-2011, 11:17 AM
This whole situation has been so maliciously mismanaged from the beginning that I don't know what to think.

Surely, the Clippers wouldn't give up Eric Gordon, the unprotected top of the lottery pick from Minnesota, Eric Bledsoe, Al-Farouq Aminu, and Chris Kaman right? Obviously, they didn't offer anything close to that originally when the head of the Hornets basketball decisions chose to send him to the other team in LA.

I guess the silver lining in this whole thing is that the best point guard in a generation is going to be working for a likeable owner.

Can even the most adamant Lakers hater not think that they (along with the Rockets) have been royally screwed? I'm sure Jerry Buss is thrilled that the player he offered his second and third best players for (who also happen to be a top 5 big man and the reigning 6th man of the year, who in turn became so disgruntled he had to trade him for absolutely nothing) will be playing in the building he built for another team.

Jerry Buss is in the hospital. His son Jimmy is running things now, and has been for the last couple years.

Peck
12-12-2011, 11:17 AM
Am I really supposed to feel sorry for Jerry Buss & the L.A. Lakers? Sorry ain't gonna happen.

While many want to burn Stern in effigy I on the other hand would like to build a golden statue to him for this.

Sollozzo
12-12-2011, 11:19 AM
...the CLippers offer is a hundred times better, even without Gordon.


That's completely irrelevant.

The Lakers trade should have never been nixed. They gave up plenty to get Chris Paul (they arguably would have been worse afterword) and the Hornets got plenty in return. This Clippers trade should have never been possible because Paul should have been a Laker last week.

BPump33
12-12-2011, 11:20 AM
FWIW, Hollinger is on 1070 saying that Gordon IS in the deal. They are haggling over Bledsoe.

Mackey_Rose
12-12-2011, 11:23 AM
Jerry Buss is in the hospital. His son Jimmy is running things now, and has been for the last couple years.

Even the Buss Family dog should be rabid to get a piece of Stern for this.

CableKC
12-12-2011, 11:24 AM
The important question to answer is whether CP3 is going to sign an extension....

Also....you have to wonder if Sterling is finally going to open up the purse strings. New Revenue is going to come in....but with CP3....you HAVE TO start spending BIG $$$$ to start building around him...Sterling can't be cheap like the way that he was before.

CooperManning
12-12-2011, 11:26 AM
If the Hornets get EJ + Minny pick + Kaman + Aminu + Bledsoe, they could be rebuilt within two years. Sick deal. I can't believe the league is making a big stink about Bledsoe if they're already getting everyone else in that package. Then again, how much PT is Bledsoe really going to get on the Clips behind CP3 and Mo.

BPump33
12-12-2011, 11:27 AM
David Aldridge @daldridgetnt 50 sec Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Per a source who has been briefed on NO-LAC negotiations, the Hornets have to choose between the Minnesota pick and Gordon. Can't have both.

This seems right.

McKeyFan
12-12-2011, 11:28 AM
That's completely irrelevant.

The Lakers trade should have never been nixed.

Except for the small fact that the other team's owner didn't want to make the trade.

PacerGuy
12-12-2011, 11:29 AM
The important question to answer is whether CP3 is going to sign an extension....


I think it is also a big question as to what EJ does.
Have not heard NO requiring EJ to sign an extention, & if I'm him & I look @ NO's roster & IN's roster & I know IN will offer me the max... Now had EJ NOT been in this deal, & was in LA w/ CP3 & Griffen, then he is never a Pacer, but NOW?.....

BRushWithDeath
12-12-2011, 11:32 AM
David Aldridge @daldridgetnt 50 sec Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Per a source who has been briefed on NO-LAC negotiations, the Hornets have to choose between the Minnesota pick and Gordon. Can't have both.

This seems right.

That makes sense.

I don't see how you could possibly take the pick over the best young SG in the league.

Mackey_Rose
12-12-2011, 11:35 AM
Except for the small fact that the other team's owner didn't want to make the trade.

That's not right. New Orleans' FO was given full autonomy to do what they felt was in the best interest of the team. They had the power to finish the trade, until the very end when Stern stepped in under pressure from his bosses because they were jealous that Buss was getting CP3 and they weren't.

Trader Joe
12-12-2011, 11:36 AM
If you are Jerry Buss, how do you not go totally nuclear on the NBA if this happens?

What a joke.

Buss hasn't even been that upset about it publicly.

Shade
12-12-2011, 11:38 AM
Tough call for the Clips. On the surface, keeping EJ and sending the #1 seems like a no-brainer...until you factor in having to afford Paul, Gordon, AND Griffin in a couple years.

Personally, I hope they ship out EJ so we can try to swipe him away next season.

Trader Joe
12-12-2011, 11:38 AM
That makes sense.

I don't see how you could possibly take the pick over the best young SG in the league.

Agreed, even though the pick is very valuable, the list of players I like in the NBA over Eric Gordon is very small.

SycamoreKen
12-12-2011, 11:41 AM
Any way to move the Lakers/Paul argument back into the thread it belongs in? As for this trade, I'm not sure why the league is reaching for so much here. They really should be happy with the pick or Gordan and move on, mission accomplished.

CooperManning
12-12-2011, 11:43 AM
I don't see how you could possibly take the pick over the best young SG in the league.

I can. If NO doesn't get Gordon back, they will likely be terrible next year, making their own pick that much better. They could have two picks in the top 5 or top 10 if they also had Minny's pick. They could get two potentially elite players on rookie contracts for 4 years.

Gordon, on the other hand, has to be maxed out soon and might not even want to return to New Orleans.

The team would also be easier to sell with the rookies, compared to a max contract on board.

Sollozzo
12-12-2011, 11:43 AM
Except for the small fact that the other team's owner didn't want to make the trade.


But the league had given Demps the power to make trades without interference. Hence why the rest of the league was submitting trades to Demps and not David Stern.

Had any other team traded the equivalent of Gasol and Odom (a TON) for CP3, no one would have whined. No one. This was nixed purely because of jealousy toward the Lakers. That is the only reason, and it's not a rational one.

This isn't comparable to say Herb Simon telling Bird he can't do x trade. We're talking about a team owned by the NBA here. We're talking about the commissioner of the NBA abusing his power and screwing over the Lakers because jealous owners had a fit. It's not as simple as saying "well, Stern owns the team so he can do whatever he wants." While that's technically true, it's a horrible policy and precedent to set. Other owners interfering with trades because of spite is OK? How?

And like Stern knew that the Hornets were going to get a sweet officer from the Clippers a weak later? For all he knew, CP3 could have walked this year and left the team nothing.

Let's just all admit that the only reason this was nixed is because of jealousy toward the Lakers. People might not like the Lakers, but that doesn't make such a blatant abuse of power condonable.

Trader Joe
12-12-2011, 11:43 AM
I'm guessing the reason the pick might be more valuable is that it's pretty hard to see Gordon re-signing in New Orleans.

Steagles
12-12-2011, 11:46 AM
I think they might understand the real trouble in resigning 3 close to max deals, and see the pick as a chance to grab a Harrison Barnes type player for cheap instead. Tough call, but I hope they ship out EJ.

Pacer Fan
12-12-2011, 11:50 AM
David Aldridge on NBA TV is saying that Hornets should take the Minny pick instead of EJ becuase the draft pick could be a top ten pick, yet he says if Clippers can keep EJ somehow it would be a game changer. hmmm

Since86
12-12-2011, 11:50 AM
But the league had given Demps the power to make trades without interference. Hence why the rest of the league was submitting trades to Demps and not David Stern.

Had any other team traded the equivalent of Gasol and Odom (a TON) for CP3, no one would have whined. No one. This was nixed purely because of jealousy toward the Lakers. That is the only reason, and it's not a rational one.

This isn't comparable to say Herb Simon telling Bird he can't do x trade. We're talking about a team owned by the NBA here. We're talking about the commissioner of the NBA abusing his power and screwing over the Lakers because jealous owners had a fit. It's not as simple as saying "well, Stern owns the team so he can do whatever he wants." While that's technically true, it's a horrible policy and precedent to set. Other owners interfering with trades because of spite is OK? How?

And like Stern knew that the Hornets were going to get a sweet officer from the Clippers a weak later? For all he knew, CP3 could have walked this year and left the team nothing.

Let's just all admit that the only reason this was nixed is because of jealousy toward the Lakers. People might not like the Lakers, but that doesn't make such a blatant abuse of power condonable.

They don't sign away that power when the told Demps he had free reign. They still hold the veto power, regardless of what they told him.

People change their minds all the time. This isn't any different.

And it's not "other owners" interferring, because they aren't "other owners." They are THE owners. A big, big, big, BIG difference.

We can agree that it was handled poorly, but that doesn't mean they handled it in away that's against the rules, or even setting a new trend.

Kstat
12-12-2011, 11:50 AM
the minnesota pick is best for both teams.

A potential buyer might not have as good a star player with that pick, but he also won't have to pay him 10+ million a year to start.

CableKC
12-12-2011, 11:52 AM
I think it is also a big question as to what EJ does.
Have not heard NO requiring EJ to sign an extention, & if I'm him & I look @ NO's roster & IN's roster & I know IN will offer me the max... Now had EJ NOT been in this deal, & was in LA w/ CP3 & Griffen, then he is never a Pacer, but NOW?.....
I don't see why he wouldn't sign an extension with the Hornets. For one, don't assume that the Hornets Ownership situation won't change over the next season.

I don't see why the Hornets won't keep him for the long-term by matching any MAX contract. Given this whole debacle with CP3 and the concern about how trades are handled with an NBA-Owned Team, I don't see how the NBA won't do their best to find an Owner before the end of the season.

If a new Owner is in place, we have no clue if they are going to match any MAX contract offer that the Pacers ( much less any Team ) throws at EJ.

Mackey_Rose
12-12-2011, 11:53 AM
They don't sign away that power when the told Demps he had free reign. They still hold the veto power, regardless of what they told him.

People change their minds all the time. This isn't any different.

And it's not "other owners" interferring, because they aren't "other owners." They are THE owners. A big, big, big, BIG difference.

We can agree that it was handled poorly, but that doesn't mean they handled it in away that's against the rules, or even setting a new trend.

Why is that virtually every neutral NBA analyst disagrees with you?

Because you're also jealous of the Lakers.

Skaut_Ech
12-12-2011, 11:53 AM
per twitter: David Aldridge
Hornets now insisting that they get Eli Manning and Jason Pierre-Paul in addition to Eric Gordon & Timberwolves' unprocteted first for CP3.

shags
12-12-2011, 11:55 AM
I can. If NO doesn't get Gordon back, they will likely be terrible next year, making their own pick that much better. They could have two picks in the top 5 or top 10 if they also had Minny's pick. They could get two potentially elite players on rookie contracts for 4 years.

Gordon, on the other hand, has to be maxed out soon and might not even want to return to New Orleans.

The team would also be easier to sell with the rookies, compared to a max contract on board.

That's why I'd choose the pick too. With the way the rules are in the NBA, if you hit on a first round draft pick, you basically are guaranteed to have them for 7 to 8 years. Look at the Pacers with Hibbert, Hansbrough, and George.

In fact, if I'm the Hornets, I'd try to get another first rounder out of the Clippers as well.

Sollozzo
12-12-2011, 11:59 AM
They don't sign away that power when the told Demps he had free reign. They still hold the veto power, regardless of what they told him.

People change their minds all the time. This isn't any different.

And it's not "other owners" interferring, because they aren't "other owners." They are THE owners. A big, big, big, BIG difference.

We can agree that it was handled poorly, but that doesn't mean they handled it in away that's against the rules, or even setting a new trend.



They are "THE owners" in a technical sense, but practically speaking they are "the other owners."

Saying they are "THE owners" implies that they actually legitimately care about the New Orleans Hornets basketball club, and that's not true. None of the other 29 owners give a damn about the Hornets or who is on their roster. I don't think Mickey Arison, James Dolan, Herb Simon, or Mark Cuban sit in bed at night fretting about how good the Hornets will be this season. Whether they are 50-32 or 32-50, it makes no difference to them. They care about their own team individually and the Hornets are just a team that they all were forced to own collectively and something they could care less about. Because of that, they are "the other owners".

Read Gilberts letter again. He doesn't give a rats*** about the freaking Hornets. His letter is 100% driven by spite against the marquee franchise in the league getting a new toy. That's not right. Sure they had the power and right to do it, but it was still a horrible move and dangerous precedent. A fair trade was cancelled for no other reason besides jealousy. Such an embarrassment for the league.

A nutty owner like Gilbert going off his rocker is one thing. But the commissioner of the league going along with it is quite another.

In fact, isn't it against the owners' interest if the Hornets field a great team? If you're the owner of a Western Conference team fighting for a playoff spot, do you want the Hornets to be good? Not really. You'd just assume they get out of the way so the team you own and actually care about has a better shot of getting in. That is a massive conflict of interest right there and that alone is why no owner should have any input as to what the Hornets do from a basketball standpoint.

Sookie
12-12-2011, 12:01 PM
This whole situation has been so maliciously mismanaged from the beginning that I don't know what to think.

Surely, the Clippers wouldn't give up Eric Gordon, the unprotected top of the lottery pick from Minnesota, Eric Bledsoe, Al-Farouq Aminu, and Chris Kaman right? Obviously, they didn't offer anything close to that originally when the head of the Hornets basketball decisions chose to send him to the other team in LA.

I guess the silver lining in this whole thing is that the best point guard in a generation is going to be working for a likeable owner.

Can even the most adamant Lakers hater not think that they (along with the Rockets) have been royally screwed? I'm sure Jerry Buss is thrilled that the player he offered his second and third best players for (who also happen to be a top 5 big man and the reigning 6th man of the year, who in turn became so disgruntled he had to trade him for absolutely nothing) will be playing in the building he built for another team.

I've heard that the reason the Paul trade was rejected by the other owners was because Dwight to LA was coming next.

BRushWithDeath
12-12-2011, 12:05 PM
I guess from a sale of franchise stand point it makes sense to take the pick over EJ.

From a basketball stand point, it makes no sense. EJ would be the top pick in this draft.

But I guess there's no precedent for the NBA owned Hornets making decisions for "basketball reasons".

BRushWithDeath
12-12-2011, 12:07 PM
I've heard that the reason the Paul trade was rejected by the other owners was because Dwight to LA was coming next.

That may be true. Hell, it probalby is true. If I'm the Lakers, I want Dwight. If I'm the Magic, I can't see a better deal than getting back Bynum.

The fact that the Lakers had the assets to get back two players of Paul and Howard's caliber should not be reason to say they can't have them.

Peck
12-12-2011, 12:15 PM
Why is that virtually every neutral NBA analyst disagrees with you?
Because you're also jealous of the Lakers.

I dispute the neutrality of several of these analyst. Many of them were pro player during the lockout and this is just an extension of that. Let's be honest here, most of them get a LOT of their information that they put out on twitter and online from player agents or representatives of player agents so there is the idea that you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

So while certainly not all of them are biased I would dispute that several of them are not.

Since86
12-12-2011, 12:16 PM
Why is that virtually every neutral NBA analyst disagrees with you?

Because you're also jealous of the Lakers.

You totally tripped on your point when you included the word "neutral."

Since86
12-12-2011, 12:19 PM
They are "THE owners" in a technical sense, but practically speaking they are "the other owners."

Saying they are "THE owners" implies that they actually legitimately care about the New Orleans Hornets basketball club, and that's not true. None of the other 29 owners give a damn about the Hornets or who is on their roster. I don't think Mickey Arison, James Dolan, Herb Simon, or Mark Cuban sit in bed at night fretting about how good the Hornets will be this season. Whether they are 50-32 or 32-50, it makes no difference to them. They care about their own team individually and the Hornets are just a team that they all were forced to own collectively and something they could care less about. Because of that, they are "the other owners".

Read Gilberts letter again. He doesn't give a rats*** about the freaking Hornets. His letter is 100% driven by spite against the marquee franchise in the league getting a new toy. That's not right. Sure they had the power and right to do it, but it was still a horrible move and dangerous precedent. A fair trade was cancelled for no other reason besides jealousy. Such an embarrassment for the league.

A nutty owner like Gilbert going off his rocker is one thing. But the commissioner of the league going along with it is quite another.

In fact, isn't it against the owners' interest if the Hornets field a great team? If you're the owner of a Western Conference team fighting for a playoff spot, do you want the Hornets to be good? Not really. You'd just assume they get out of the way so the team you own and actually care about has a better shot of getting in. That is a massive conflict of interest right there and that alone is why no owner should have any input as to what the Hornets do from a basketball standpoint.

The Hornets took on an additional 19M dollars in contracts. Who do you think pays the Hornets salaries? The other NBA owners.

When they're on the hook for money owed to Hornets players, until a new owner buys them out, any deal that makes the Hornets less attractive to a new owner is going to be vetoed.

Kstat
12-12-2011, 12:22 PM
Yeah. The last trade wasn't vetoed because it was the Lakers, it was vetoed because it made the team HARDER TO SELL.

No star+higher payroll+lower draft pick next summer=HARDER TO SELL

How are people not seeing this?

cordobes
12-12-2011, 12:23 PM
That may be true. Hell, it probalby is true. If I'm the Lakers, I want Dwight. If I'm the Magic, I can't see a better deal than getting back Bynum.

The fact that the Lakers had the assets to get back two players of Paul and Howard's caliber should not be reason to say they can't have them.

Agreed. But that was only possible with the Hornets' care-taking GM agreeing to a completely disastrous deal for the future of his franchise.

You can call Odom 3rd best player, but in the end, he was worth a late first round pick. And Gasol was worth Martin (whose last trade value was Carl Landry), Scola and Dragic.

The idea of taking in $50 millions in salaries to get a bunch of role-players is bad enough. Dumping a top-10 player to achieve that is flat out insane.

There was nothing deal about that offer for New Orleans. Nothing. That wasn't a good enough reason for Stern to veto the deal, but let's not pretend the offer was anything more than ruinous for the Hornets. What Stern should be doing is investigating what led Demps to accept that offer when he could have got offers like the Clippers one.

Shade
12-12-2011, 12:25 PM
Has any player been rumored in more trades in such a short time span as Chris Paul?

Chris Paul is now a Knick...er, a Celtic...no, no, wait, he's a Laker...um...a Clipper?

Sookie
12-12-2011, 12:28 PM
That may be true. Hell, it probalby is true. If I'm the Lakers, I want Dwight. If I'm the Magic, I can't see a better deal than getting back Bynum.

The fact that the Lakers had the assets to get back two players of Paul and Howard's caliber should not be reason to say they can't have them.

Oh I agree, it was pathetic. But, it doesn't seem as bad if the reason that the owners got so hostile and rejected the Paul trade was because they didn't want the Lakers to have Dwight, Paul and Kobe. (And I think the Lakers still get Dwight.)

Kstat
12-12-2011, 12:28 PM
well, he was never a knick.

CableKC
12-12-2011, 12:29 PM
per twitter: David Aldridge
Hornets now insisting that they get Eli Manning and Jason Pierre-Paul in addition to Eric Gordon & Timberwolves' unprocteted first for CP3.
Geez......the NBA Owners are trying everything in the book to try to block any CP3 trade. Can Eli Manning even play the point?

Mackey_Rose
12-12-2011, 12:31 PM
I dispute the neutrality of several of these analyst. Many of them were pro player during the lockout and this is just an extension of that. Let's be honest here, most of them get a LOT of their information that they put out on twitter and online from player agents or representatives of player agents so there is the idea that you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

So while certainly not all of them are biased I would dispute that several of them are not.

If you were pro-owner during the lockout, how have these past couple weeks not made you rethink that standpoint?

Since86
12-12-2011, 12:34 PM
If you were pro-owner during the lockout, how have these past couple weeks not made you rethink that standpoint?

To be on the side of overpaid babies that think they can get paid as much as they want, along with playing whereever they want?

Yeah, just a great position to be a fan of.

EDIT: I think the real question, considering how things are playing out, is if you're a Pacer fan or a fan of McRoberts? The answer really doesn't matter, because you're free to have whatever opinion you want, but it would atleast clarify your positions.

Kstat
12-12-2011, 12:35 PM
....because the second the lockout ended, players went right back to strong-arming their way to bigger markets?

I'm not pro-anything. I just want what's best for the NBA. Paul getting rejected from the Lakers was not at all bad for the NBA. The Lakers need to be mortal every now and then.

the middle of the decade when the Lakers were just the Kobe show was a breath of fresh air for the league, and when they came back to contention in 2008, people were ready to see it. It might be time for them to take a step down again.

The NBA needs the Lakers. Nobody is blind to that, but they can't be constantly re-loading with hall of famers. Even they need to suck once in a while.

Hicks
12-12-2011, 12:35 PM
Yeah. The last trade wasn't vetoed because it was the Lakers, it was vetoed because it made the team HARDER TO SELL.

No star+higher payroll+lower draft pick next summer=HARDER TO SELL

How are people not seeing this?

Yep. It surprises me how many don't want to acknowledge this point. I disagreed with Stern's decision, but I see the logic for sure.

CableKC
12-12-2011, 12:39 PM
the middle of the decade when the Lakers were just the Kobe show was a breath of fresh air for the league, and when they came back to contention in 2008, people were ready to see it. It might be time for them to take a step down again.
Yeah...Karma's a b*tch sometimes.

Who wants to take a bet on which Team gets the #1 pick in the next year or two?

If I was a betting man, I'd put some $$$ on the Lakers getting it.

Kstat
12-12-2011, 12:40 PM
the Lakers aren't bad enough yet to be fishing for the top pick. As it stands, they are probably a 5-8 seed out west behind the Mavs, Thunder, Clippers and Grizzlies.

It's the same silly conspiracy theory that had the Knicks getting the #1 pick every year, when they have had zero lottery success in the last quarter-century.

BillS
12-12-2011, 12:41 PM
If you were pro-owner during the lockout, how have these past couple weeks not made you rethink that standpoint?

I can be pro-owner and not be pro-every-individual-owner.

I can definitely be pro-owner and NOT pro-David Stern


The survey the Pacers sent out this year was very detailed, and the question about "whose side were you on" differentiated between the Owners and the League, which I thought was a great subtle difference.

RLeWorm
12-12-2011, 12:49 PM
Stern blocked the trade because it was best for the Hornets. If the league didn't own the Hornets, and the trade happened the trade wouldn't have been blocked.

Pacer Fan
12-12-2011, 01:11 PM
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Clippers are refusing New Orleans-NBA steep asking price for Chris Paul, league sources tell Y! Sports. "Deal could be dying," source says

PaceBalls
12-12-2011, 01:12 PM
Rajon Rondo to the Pacers? Part XVI?

Trader Joe
12-12-2011, 01:18 PM
Rajon Rondo to the Pacers? Part XVI?

Screw that, we might as well make a run at Paul at this point.

Aw Heck
12-12-2011, 01:20 PM
Screw that, we might as well make a run at Paul at this point.
If the NBA is demanding Eric Gordon and Minny's #1 pick, there's pretty much nothing the Pacers could (or at least would want to) give NO that would satisfy the league.

You have to figure the league is going to relent on both Gordon and the pick at some point. This is just getting ridiculous. It's gone on too long.

PaceBalls
12-12-2011, 01:21 PM
Screw that, we might as well make a run at Paul at this point.

That sure would be something... sellouts every night. Bandwagon fans from Chicago jumping ship to us :laugh:

JB24
12-12-2011, 01:22 PM
The Lakers and Rockets send them talented, experienced vets to keep the Hornets competitive and their fanbase from completely dying out. The NBA turns it down.

The Clippers send them youth and a pick that might net them another potential franchise player immediately. The NBA turns it down.

What the hell does the NBA expect in return?

Doddage
12-12-2011, 01:23 PM
Screw that, we might as well make a run at Paul at this point.
With what Stern's asking for, we'd probably have to give up Hibbert + George + Collison + 2 1sts.

Trader Joe
12-12-2011, 01:24 PM
Maybe the NBA doesn't want Chris Paul in the western conference?

Lance George
12-12-2011, 01:26 PM
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Clippers are refusing New Orleans-NBA steep asking price for Chris Paul, league sources tell Y! Sports. "Deal could be dying," source says

Jesus... this is making last season's Melo Drama look tame by comparison.

As for the Gordon vs. Wolves' unprotected 1st round pick talk... tough decision.

Gordon's the safer choice, obviously, but the Wolves' pick give you a pretty good shot at a stud big man in the upcoming draft (Davis, Drummond, Sullinger, or Jones). I like Eric Gordon as much as anyone, but no way is he a better prospect than the first two names on that list.

Minnesota's finished with the worst and second-worse record in the leaguer the past two seasons. If I think they'd be as bad this upcoming season, I'd take the pick. If I think they've improved to at least the middle-of-the-lottery, I'd go with Gordon.

Sollozzo
12-12-2011, 01:27 PM
This whole charade is hilarious.

Aw Heck
12-12-2011, 01:27 PM
With what Stern's asking for, we'd probably have to give up Hibbert + George + Collison + 2 1sts.
Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if Stern demanded Granger too.

Trader Joe
12-12-2011, 01:32 PM
You guys think it is possible that Paul looked at what would be left on the Clippers after this trade saw it would basically be just him and Blake Griffin and said screw this I'm not going there?

Since86
12-12-2011, 01:35 PM
You guys think it is possible that Paul looked at what would be left on the Clippers after this trade saw it would basically be just him and Blake Griffin and said screw this I'm not going there?

No. The reports were saying that he wasn't willing to sign an extension, but he was willing to opt into his remaining year on the contract, giving him two years in LA before FA.

I think the Clips walked away because they weren't going to give up a proven player in EJ, a player with huge potentional in Aminu. Minny's #1 which is going to be a great pick, if you use it correctly, AND Bledsoe.

I think it hinged on Bledsoe, and the Clips just met their breaking point.

Aw Heck
12-12-2011, 01:36 PM
You guys think it is possible that Paul looked at what would be left on the Clippers after this trade saw it would basically be just him and Blake Griffin and said screw this I'm not going there?
Possibly, but I don't think it really matters what he thinks anymore.

It seems like Stern is trying to punish him for demanding a trade. "I'm going to gut whatever team you go to."

Sollozzo
12-12-2011, 01:39 PM
Yeah. The last trade wasn't vetoed because it was the Lakers, it was vetoed because it made the team HARDER TO SELL.

No star+higher payroll+lower draft pick next summer=HARDER TO SELL

How are people not seeing this?



Well, I guess their payroll will be plenty low next year when Paul just walks away. Of course, the team will be complete crap too. Good luck finding a bunch of owners in line waiting to buy a crappy team in a pitiful market. At least the Lakers trade would have left them with a competitive squad. What are they going to be left with if this Clippers deal falls through and CP3 leaves on his own?

This is being justified over 19 million?! 19 million distributed amongst 29 billionaires? If that 19 million was going to be so crippling to a prospective billionaire buyer then they could just not exercise the team option due on Odom for 12-13. That would have sliced 8 million off and takes it down to 11 million. Also, Martin is a FA after 2013, so by the time they found a buyer he'd be a soon expiring contract anyway. The 19 million isn't that big of a deal.

Read Dan Gilbert's email to Stern. He didn't even mention 19 million. He probably wasn't even aware of it. His ranting is completely focused on jealousy toward the Lakers and doesn't even mention the Hornets specifically. 19 million has just been a convenient post hoc excuse to justify a move that was inspired 100% by pure jealousy.

Since86
12-12-2011, 01:46 PM
Until the NBA sells the Hornets, they can have whatever excuse they want to veto the trade. I seriously doubt they were mad at the simple fact that the Lakers were getting him, or they wouldn't have spent even more time trying to make a better deal.

At the end of the day, the Lakers offer wasn't good enough for Stern, and he was willing to trade him to the Lakers.


Just because it's Gilbert's reasoning, doesn't mean it was Stern's.

Trader Joe
12-12-2011, 01:46 PM
If your Stern, and you're trying to prove to the players that you "won" the lockout, what better way than shipping Paul to a small market team like us? Stern honestly doesn't give a **** anymore what anyone thinks.

Sollozzo
12-12-2011, 01:58 PM
Until the NBA sells the Hornets, they can have whatever excuse they want to veto the trade. I seriously doubt they were mad at the simple fact that the Lakers were getting him, or they wouldn't have spent even more time trying to make a better deal.

At the end of the day, the Lakers offer wasn't good enough for Stern, and he was willing to trade him to the Lakers.


Just because it's Gilbert's reasoning, doesn't mean it was Stern's.



It wasn't until Thursday that a team knew an offer had to be good enough for Stern, hence why they were dealing with the GM of the Hornets.

If the league had been honest from the beginning and let people know that Stern had ultimate veto power then this wouldn't have been quite as big an issue. But instead, the league said that they would stay out of the FO decisions. That's why everyone was broadsided by this.

Letting other owners influence what goes on in the front office presents so many ridiculous conflicts of interest issues that it's not even funny. You have the issue of spite as was the case here, as well as the fact that some owners (particular WC ones) might want to do a deal that screws the Hornets so it helps their own teams. These owners have no business whatsoever influencing the front office decisions of this team.

Aw Heck
12-12-2011, 01:58 PM
Wojo says the trade is DEAD:


The Hornets-Clippers deal for Chris Paul has died, league source tells Y! Sports.

Sollozzo was right. This whole thing is HILARIOUS.

Sandman21
12-12-2011, 02:00 PM
Wow, what does the league want sent to NOLA for CP3? I'd taken the LAC offer and run to the bank!

Mackey_Rose
12-12-2011, 02:01 PM
Zach Lowe @ZachLowe_SI

Thirteen days until the season starts, the Hornets don't even have half an NBA roster. #basketballreasons

No deal is good enough, because the league screwed up by not letting the first deal go through.

If the NBA has any interest in maintaining some kind of fairness... HE. CAN'T. BE. TRADED.

Heisenberg
12-12-2011, 02:01 PM
If I'm Dell Demps I just quit right now.

Slick Pinkham
12-12-2011, 02:01 PM
Read Dan Gilbert's email to Stern. He didn't even mention 19 million. He probably wasn't even aware of it. His ranting is completely focused on jealousy toward the Lakers.

Try reading the 3rd sentence of the e-mail. It was the first reason he gave!

To me, 19 million seems to be approximately 20 million.


It would be a travesty to allow the Lakers to acquire Chris Paul in the apparent trade being discussed.

This trade should go to a vote of the 29 owners of the Hornets.

Over the next three seasons this deal would save the Lakers approximately $20 million in salaries and approximately $21 million in luxury taxes. That $21 million goes to non-taxpaying teams and to fund revenue sharing.

I cannot remember ever seeing a trade where a team got by far the best player in the trade and saved over $40 million in the process. And it doesn't appear that they would give up any draft picks, which might allow to later make a trade for Dwight Howard. (They would also get a large trade exception that would help them improve their team and/or eventually trade for Howard.) When the Lakers got Pau Gasol (at the time considered an extremely lopsided trade) they took on tens of millions in additional salary and luxury tax and they gave up a number of prospects (one in Marc Gasol who may become a max-salary player).

I just don't see how we can allow this trade to happen.

I know the vast majority of owners feel the same way that I do.

When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals?

Please advise...

Dan G.

Granted, it doesn't mention New Orleans paying more money, but it sure does mention LA paying less, and LA dumping salary obligations meant that NO was picking them up, since the proposed deal was nearly cost-neutral to Houston.

Aw Heck
12-12-2011, 02:02 PM
Well, it's looking more like it's on life support. Wojo goes on to say...


Deal is dead, "for now, anyway," source tells Y!.Could still be restructured again, but Clippers resisting steep asking price for Paul.

If David Stern is actually negotiating in good faith, he will relent on demanding both Gordon and the pick and this gets done.

Kstat
12-12-2011, 02:05 PM
Yeah, if I'm Demps, I quit.

It could be that the Clippers were the ones that killed the deal, in which case I don't necessarily mind it. Demps could then come back and accept the previous terms.

Aw Heck
12-12-2011, 02:06 PM
No deal is good enough, because the league screwed up by not letting the first deal go through.

If the NBA has any interest in maintaining some kind of fairness... HE. CAN'T. BE. TRADED.
If the league really wants the Hornets to get a top-3 pick, one of the best things it can do is prevent the team from having any training camp together whatsoever.

Slick Pinkham
12-12-2011, 02:06 PM
dead as in totally dead, or dead as in "mostly dead"??

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xbE8E1ez97M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

cordobes
12-12-2011, 02:06 PM
It wasn't until Thursday that a team knew an offer had to be good enough for Stern, hence why they were dealing with the GM of the Hornets.

If the league had been honest from the beginning and let people know that Stern had ultimate veto power then this wouldn't have been quite as big an issue. But instead, the league said that they would stay out of the FO decisions. That's why everyone was broadsided by this.

Letting other owners influence what goes on in the front office presents so many ridiculous conflicts of interest issues that it's not even funny. You have the issue of spite as was the case here, as well as the fact that some owners (particular WC ones) might want to do a deal that screws the Hornets so it helps their own teams. These owners have no business whatsoever influencing the front office decisions of this team.

I agree, but the first deal was flat out ruinous for the Hornets. They were taking in millions in salary to get some highly paid veterans who aren't worth much. Odom was worth a late first rounder (and the team sending the pick gets to pick the draft); how much do you think Kevin Martin or Scola are worth? It was a bizarre deal for a rebuilding franchise to make.

Have you ever wondered why Demps agreed to that deal? I'm honestly curious. I find it hard to believe he actually believe that was the best deal he had on the table - from the Hornets perspective.

What Stern needs to do is to fire Demps, hire a GM with a modicum of basketball sense and instruct him about the strategy he wants - then stay out of it.

Since86
12-12-2011, 02:07 PM
It wasn't until Thursday that a team knew an offer had to be good enough for Stern, hence why they were dealing with the GM of the Hornets.

If the league had been honest from the beginning and let people know that Stern had ultimate veto power then this wouldn't have been quite as big an issue. But instead, the league said that they would stay out of the FO decisions. That's why everyone was broadsided by this.

Letting other owners influence what goes on in the front office presents so many ridiculous conflicts of interest issues that it's not even funny. You have the issue of spite as was the case here, as well as the fact that some owners (particular WC ones) might want to do a deal that screws the Hornets so it helps their own teams. These owners have no business whatsoever influencing the front office decisions of this team.

I agree it was handled poorly, but you're trying to say that the reason they vetoed it, was because the Lakers were the one's ending up with CP3. If that was the case, then they would have simply killed the trade and moved on to the next one, instead of going back and taking yet another entire day to try and make the trade happen.

So it really wasn't about him going to the Lakers, but rather, the fact that it was a horrible deal for NOH, when you look at the entire context of the deal.

And yes, it was handled horribly, but the other 28 owners own the Hornets and because they own it, they should get a say.

Do you remember how screwy dealing with Atlanta used to be, when they had 7 different owners who all got to voice their opinion? This situation is no different.

I just don't think Stern realized that Demps was a complete moron. There's no way you lose the best player in the deal, don't even get a first round pick, and take on an $20mil and that be considered a "good" deal for a franchise that needs a new owner and a complete roster overhaul.

I bet Demps lost all the control he thought he had. You can clearly see the difference in how NOH handled the Clippers deal that fell through and the Lakers deal they tried taking. I don't think Demps is the one pulling the strings now.

Kstat
12-12-2011, 02:08 PM
Read Dan Gilbert's email to Stern. He didn't even mention 19 million. He probably wasn't even aware of it. His ranting is completely focused on jealousy toward the Lakers and doesn't even mention the Hornets specifically. 19 million has just been a convenient post hoc excuse to justify a move that was inspired 100% by pure jealousy.

Gilbert's letter was mailed AFTER the trade was vetoed. It had nothing to do with it.

Gilbert is not the one that vetoed the deal. I wish people would recognize that.

The 19 million wasn't a factor to the current owners. It was a factor in stern trying to sell the team.

cordobes
12-12-2011, 02:11 PM
Yeah, the idea that the deal was vetoed because of Gilbert or the owners being jealous is bogus.

Stern vetoed the deal because it'd destroy the little value the Hornets may have. Burying the team in salaries and mediocrity without any positive assets. Not that I agree with his decision, he should have paid the price for his poor picking of a care-taking GM. The rest are the usual conspiracy theories.

Kraft
12-12-2011, 02:14 PM
If the NBA has any interest in maintaining some kind of fairness... HE. CAN'T. BE. TRADED.

I think this should've been the decision from the beginning.

oz_pacer
12-12-2011, 02:16 PM
Rondo to indiana part IV??

Slick Pinkham
12-12-2011, 02:18 PM
Demps was never going to be GM for long. Hence in my opinion he was looking to acquire players for this season, without regard to the long-term interests. The Lakers-Rockets-Hornets deal satified his criteria completely. Odom and Scola are older, but produce.

Stern had a very different perspective- the need to sell the team, convincing potential owners of contained costs and future potential.

The Clips deal would seem to be a lot closer to Stern's objective, and the demand to also include E Gordon seems to fill both short and long-term issues.

I think the deal may have a heartbeat again soon, if the E Gordon component is dropped.

CableKC
12-12-2011, 02:21 PM
Could someone tell me what the "proposed" deal that ultimately fell through?

Did it involve Bledsoe or Gordon?

Also...I assume the "filler" was all Expiring contracts...and how many 1st round draft picks?

Was it something like Bledsoe+Minny's 1st+LAC 1st+Aminu+Expiring?

Aw Heck
12-12-2011, 02:22 PM
If this Paul-to-Clippers trade doesn't go down, nothing will. Paul will stay a Hornet for this season.

Nothing is beating Gordon and/or Minny's #1 pick + Aminu +Bledsoe + Kaman.

xBulletproof
12-12-2011, 02:26 PM
Could someone tell me what the "proposed" deal that ultimately fell through?

Kaman - Bledoe - Aminu - Minnesota's unprotected 1st round pick

Another report was Aminu - Kaman - Eric Gordon

.... I don't get it.

Mackey_Rose
12-12-2011, 02:27 PM
Yeah, the idea that the deal was vetoed because of Gilbert or the owners being jealous is bogus.

Stern vetoed the deal because it'd destroy the little value the Hornets may have. Burying the team in salaries and mediocrity without any positive assets. Not that I agree with his decision, he should have paid the price for his poor picking of a care-taking GM. The rest are the usual conspiracy theories.

I don't know how letting the only marketable player on their roster just walk away without any compensation is going to help the value of that franchise and further a potential sale.

Sollozzo
12-12-2011, 02:31 PM
Yeah, the idea that the deal was vetoed because of Gilbert or the owners being jealous is bogus.

Stern vetoed the deal because it'd destroy the little value the Hornets may have. Burying the team in salaries and mediocrity without any positive assets. Not that I agree with his decision, he should have paid the price for his poor picking of a care-taking GM. The rest are the usual conspiracy theories.


I don't think the deal would have been near as crippling as you make it out to be.

First, Odom has a team option for 12-13 so they could have just decided to not pick that up if they so pleased. Second, Kevin Martin is a FA after 2013 so in a year from now he is an expiring contract. Scola is the only long term contract and it is indeed a long and pricey deal. But Odom and Kevin Martin's deals aren't that bad at all. And they would have at least had a competitive team.

bigbluefan24
12-12-2011, 02:32 PM
Collison + Granger + (any guard) maybe D.Jones for Chris Paul (draft picks)
the hornets would be getting young good players in return and getting a pure shooter in granger..

OR

Roy + Granger + (any Guard) + Any Draft pick for Dwight Howard
The magic starters would be, nelson (ourguard)/richardson granger big baby davis and roy.. thats overall a young and good lineup...

Since86
12-12-2011, 02:39 PM
I don't know how letting the only marketable player on their roster just walk away without any compensation is going to help the value of that franchise and further a potential sale.

Either way, CP3 isn't in NOH. When the compensation makes your team less attractive in the eyes of a potential buyer, you veto the deal.

vnzla81
12-12-2011, 02:39 PM
The only way for us to beat what the Clippers were sending is to send DC+PG+Roy+Hans+picks and I don't even think we get close to that.

Since86
12-12-2011, 02:40 PM
I don't think the deal would have been near as crippling as you make it out to be.

First, Odom has a team option for 12-13 so they could have just decided to not pick that up if they so pleased. Second, Kevin Martin is a FA after 2013 so in a year from now he is an expiring contract. Scola is the only long term contract and it is indeed a long and pricey deal. But Odom and Kevin Martin's deals aren't that bad at all. And they would have at least had a competitive team.

Why would they take on an extra 20mil or so just to let them walk away? It would be smarter to just let CP3 walk away, and that way you don't have to pay them, even if it is for just a year.

avoidingtheclowns
12-12-2011, 02:41 PM
8pts9secs
Hope Stern tells Demps he needs at least 8 guys suited up for that preseason game and Dell is like "My team is on the floor."
2 minutes ago (http://twitter.com/#!/8pts9secs/status/146312949408083968)

Sollozzo
12-12-2011, 02:43 PM
Why would they take on an extra 20mil or so just to let them walk away? It would be smarter to just let CP3 walk away, and that way you don't have to pay them, even if it is for just a year.


You don't have to just let them walk away. Say you pick up the team option on Odom for 12-13. Then both Odom and Kevin Martin are expiring contracts at the same time. They could try to make a move with those assets.

The deal would have made them competitive in the present and at least given them some flexibility during the 12-13 season.

cordobes
12-12-2011, 02:43 PM
I don't know how letting the only marketable player on their roster just walk away without any compensation is going to help the value of that franchise and further a potential sale.

The point is that he can get a better deal than a ruinous one. Not trading Paul doesn't imply losing him, but the point is that not taking that deal doesn't imply not trading Paul for a better one.


I don't think the deal would have been near as crippling as you make it out to me.

First, Odom has a team option for 12-13 so they could have just decided to not pick that up if they so pleased. Second, Kevin Martin is a FA after 2013 so in a year from now he is an expiring contract. Scola is the only long term contract and it is indeed a long and pricey deal. But Odom and Kevin Martin's deals aren't that bad at all. And they would have at least had a competitive team.

If they want to stay competitive for this season, don't trade Paul, who gets more wins that those guys together and is cheaper.

Sure, those deals aren't "that bad". But since when you trade a superstar, even in Paul's situation, for that? Odom isn't that bad - he's worth a late first rounder. Martin isn't that bad - he was worth Carl Landry months ago. Scola is probably worth more or less the same of those guys. So, they're trading Paul for the right to be "competitive", as in trying to make the #7 or the #8 seed - I doubt that team would even win 30 games, btw - for a season or two OR for a bunch of late first rounders/low level prospects.

This is the definition of a terrible deal if I ever saw one. If I owned a franchise and my GM brought this to my approval, I'd fire him on the spot and I'm fairly sure any of the 29 NBA owners, including Buss and Alexander, would do the same.

Mackey_Rose
12-12-2011, 02:43 PM
Why would they take on an extra 20mil or so just to let them walk away? It would be smarter to just let CP3 walk away, and that way you don't have to pay them, even if it is for just a year.

I'd love to see you try to spin this if the Pacers' were the ones who had traded for him in the first place.

Kstat
12-12-2011, 02:45 PM
...except the Pacers have an owner....

Since86
12-12-2011, 02:45 PM
You don't have to just let them walk away. Say you pick up the team option on Odom for 12-13. Then both Odom and Kevin Martin are expiring contracts at the same time. They could try to make a move with those assets.

The deal would have made them competitive in the present and at least given them some flexibility during the 12-13 season.

Why would they need to flip those guys into assets, when they can simply flip CP3 for assets? There's no need to make it a two step process, when you can do it in one.

Slick Pinkham
12-12-2011, 02:46 PM
confirmation that the deal was for BOTH the pick and EJ:

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7345461/new-orleans-hornets-chris-paul-los-angeles-clippers-trade-dies-price-too-high-sources-say


At the NBA's direction, sources said, New Orleans was insisting upon the inclusion of both shooting guard Eric Gordon and Minnesota's unprotected 2012 first-round draft choice in addition to former All-Star center Chris Kaman and prospects Al-Farouq Aminu and Eric Bledsoe.





If the league backs off to either instead of both, I think it gets done.

I also don't expect anyone else to come close to that offer, in terms of affordable talent and the addition of players to at least somewhat compete this year.

Since86
12-12-2011, 02:47 PM
I'd love to see you try to spin this if the Pacers' were the ones who had traded for him in the first place.

This.


...except the Pacers have an owner....

How do you not understand this point? This is the ONLY reason why the trade was vetoed, because the league was in a position where they could veto.

If the trade was just as lopsided, but NOH had an actual owner, then the NBA doesn't veto the trade.

Kstat
12-12-2011, 02:48 PM
They don't have to include both. No other team in the league can offer anything as good as one...

Aw Heck
12-12-2011, 02:56 PM
Chad Ford:

If I'm one of 29 other GMs interested in CP3, I'm now demanding to only negotiate w/ league, not Demps. League's made him a stooge.

Marc Stein:

Sources: Clippers were asked to part w/top five trade assets for CP3: Gordon, Minnesota pick, Kaman's expiring contract, Aminu and Bledsoe

You get the sense that the league has no real interest in trading Paul. I'm surprised they didn't demand Griffin.

Heisenberg
12-12-2011, 02:58 PM
You can call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but it's almost like they're trying to find an excuse to contract the Hornets.

FrenchConnection
12-12-2011, 03:02 PM
I think that what is happening is that someone in the league office is playing GM for the Hornets and has unrealistic expectations of what Chris Paul should bring in a trade. I doubt its Stern himself but rather one of his advisers. The Lakers, and now the Clippers, got hosed in this process. The story will be written on this in the coming years and I hope for the league's sake that its not some intern or recent college grad that's the puppet master pulling these strings.

Doddage
12-12-2011, 03:14 PM
http://nbcprobasketballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/screen-shot-2011-12-12-at-1-29-11-pm.png

Sandman21
12-12-2011, 03:26 PM
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
Clippers won't do Gordon and Minnesota's first; have told NO to pick one or the other. Hornets say they need both for their franchise player
57 seconds ago

FrenchConnection
12-12-2011, 03:30 PM
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
Clippers won't do Gordon and Minnesota's first; have told NO to pick one or the other. Hornets say they need both for their franchise player
57 seconds ago

So this is just standard negotiating, but its being done in public because the league office is like Swiss cheese with the leaks?

CableKC
12-12-2011, 03:45 PM
confirmation that the deal was for BOTH the pick and EJ:


Originally Posted by broussard
At the NBA's direction, sources said, New Orleans was insisting upon the inclusion of both shooting guard Eric Gordon and Minnesota's unprotected 2012 first-round draft choice in addition to former All-Star center Chris Kaman and prospects Al-Farouq Aminu and Eric Bledsoe.


If the league backs off to either instead of both, I think it gets done.

I also don't expect anyone else to come close to that offer, in terms of affordable talent and the addition of players to at least somewhat compete this year.
Wow...so the NBA/Hornets want:

Gordon
1st Minny
Kaman ( Expiring )
Aminu
Bledsoe

for CP3?

I'd consider that a fair deal IF CP3 would sign an extension WITHOUT Gordon on the Team.....but will he want to stay if it's just him, Caron, the Blake-Show alongside DeAndre Jordan ( and therefore sign an extension in the first place )?

I understand that there is a financial aspect to this ( such as not taking back long-term huge contracts so that the Hornet's Franchise is easier to sell )...but this would then go back to whether this would be a fair price if CP3 was just a rental....which IMHO is way too much JUST FOR A RENTAL of CP3. Gordon being included SHOULDN'T be included....otherwise CP3 won't sign an extension and this becomes a "rental" deal....thus making the overall trade unfair for the Clips.

IMHO....assuming that CP3 would sign an extension....the Clips should swap out Gordon and whittle it down to:

1st Round Pick ( from the Clips )
1st Round Pick ( from the TWolves )
Aminu
Bledsoe
Kaman ( Expiring )

It's not great....but a minimal amount of Salary is sent back and the Hornets have multiple draft picks to start the rebuilding process.

BRushWithDeath
12-12-2011, 03:55 PM
...except the Pacers have an owner....

The Pacers have an owner.

So do the Lakers. (And Rockets who also get screwed)

What's your point?

Kstat
12-12-2011, 03:59 PM
The Hornets don't.

Pacersalltheway10
12-12-2011, 04:03 PM
So this is just standard negotiating, but its being done in public because the league office is like Swiss cheese with the leaks?

EJ and Minny pick should both be included, if it's just those 2 or 1 other player.

Since86
12-12-2011, 04:29 PM
I'm surprised this hasn't been added to this thread yet.

@jmikeNBAusat

Im told by a person w/direct knowledge of #Hornets situation that resignations could follow latest #CP3 trade failure #Clippers

bballpacen
12-12-2011, 04:35 PM
I'm surprised this hasn't been added to this thread yet.

@jmikeNBAusat
I am suprised that there hasn't been already...

BRushWithDeath
12-12-2011, 04:45 PM
The Hornets don't.

That doesn't correlate to the proposed hypothetical.

If the garbage deal that many on here proposed which would have sent Rondo to the Pacers was agreed to then rescinded by a ridiculous commissioner veto, people would be throwing tantrums. But since it's the Lakers, well, screw 'em.

Pacer Fan
12-12-2011, 04:45 PM
ESPNSteinLine Marc Stein
One source close to process tells ESPN that NBA does not see talks w/Clippers as over. NBA still "hopeful" CP3 fate will be "resolved soon"

Kstat
12-12-2011, 04:48 PM
There is no way the NBA is walking away from this deal, and there is no way the Clippers would take it off the table.

The NBA will not keep Chris Paul in NOLA. They can't let him leave for nothing, but the Clippers are just fine without CP3, so they have little leverage there.

Just make the damn thing happen so we can all move on.

bballpacen
12-12-2011, 04:53 PM
That doesn't correlate to the proposed hypothetical.

If the garbage deal that many on here proposed which would have sent Rondo to the Pacers was agreed to then rescinded by a ridiculous commissioner veto, people would be throwing tantrums. But since it's the Lakers, well, screw 'em.
Possibly b/c we are all Pacer fans here...:cool:

Slick Pinkham
12-12-2011, 04:59 PM
That doesn't correlate to the proposed hypothetical.

If the garbage deal that many on here proposed which would have sent Rondo to the Pacers was agreed to then rescinded by a ridiculous commissioner veto, people would be throwing tantrums. But since it's the Lakers, well, screw 'em.

This isn't complicated.

Any owner has final say on vetoing any trade.

When a team is in limbo/financial ruin and the league takes over the operations of a team, appointing the collective of 29 other owners as the "acting owners" with all of the financial obligations that such a position entails, then the league has final say on vetoing any trade, whether based upon the overriding financial issues or even by polling that group of acting owners (which didn't even happen here).

Laker fans think the world revolves around them and the league is out to get them. What a load of crap.

Sookie
12-12-2011, 05:04 PM
This isn't complicated.

Any owner has final say on vetoing any trade.

When a team is in limbo/financial ruin and the league takes over the operations of a team, appointing the collective of 29 other owners as the "acting owners" with all of the financial obligations that such a position entails, then the league has final say on vetoing any trade, whether based upon the overriding financial issues or even by polling that group of acting owners (which didn't even happen here).

Laker fans think the world revolves around them and the league is out to get them. What a load of crap.

When the team's owner is the 29 other owners, there's a conflict of interest.

The GM was told anything he does will get passed by the league, and that essentially, he has free reign.

The owners vetoed it because they don't want the Lakers to get Paul. And now they have to continue to vetoing deals, because unless the Hornets get a superstar +, it'll be a worse deal for the Lakers, and it'll look really bad.

Dumb really, Kobe was pretty much the only super star that had Stern's back, at least public ally. But yea, go ahead and screw his team over.

Kstat
12-12-2011, 05:09 PM
No, the team's owner is the league office, named David Stern. The other 29 owners do not make decisions concerning new orleans, though technically they do employ the guy that does.

The NBA owners DID NOT VETO THE TRADE. David Stern, acting as de facto owner of the Hornets, did.

As far as it looking "really bad" if they don't get a superstar for Paul, they didn't get one from the Lakers, either. They got good players, but old and expensive, which makes it harder to sell them quickly.

The LAC offer with just the minny pick is much more value long term for NOLA than anything the Lakers offered. It's clearly a better offer.

Slick Pinkham
12-12-2011, 05:17 PM
When the team's owner is the 29 other owners, there's a conflict of interest.
maybe that's why the owners were never polled. Stern decided on their behalf.


The GM was told anything he does will get passed by the league, and that essentially, he has free reign.

Link? That sounds like spin, not truth. He was hired as acting GM. That does not make him acting owner as well.


The owners vetoed it because they don't want the Lakers to get Paul.

purple and gold tinfoil hats


And now they have to continue to vetoing deals, because unless the Hornets get a superstar +, it'll be a worse deal for the Lakers, and it'll look really bad.

more purple and gold tinfoil hats



The league vetoed a trade that would commit the future owner of the Hornets to be obligated to pay $19M more salary, and only for only short-term gain.

Kstat
12-12-2011, 05:19 PM
...not to mention stern had already vetoed the trade by the time dan gilbert and mark cuban started sending him hate mail....

Kstat
12-12-2011, 05:21 PM
The league vetoed a trade that would commit the future owner of the Hornets to be obligated to pay $19M more salary, and only for only short-term gain.

This.

The Hornets need a trade they can sell a prospective owner on. They don't need more money added to the payroll, and no stars on the horizon.

Heisenberg
12-12-2011, 05:36 PM
Apologies if it's been posted

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-hornets_clippers_paul_trade_121211&expire=1

While there’s been no official transition of power, general manager Dell Demps has been completely pushed to the side in deal-making decisions for the Hornets, multiple league sources told Y! Sports

“He’s basically a spectator now,” one official said.

Stern has two of his top executives – Joel Litvin and Stu Jackson – making calls and conducting negotiations with teams interested in Paul. Demps is still making calls, but rival front offices and agents involved in possible deals with New Orleans say he’s no longer authorized to decide on any transaction.

Teams interested in Paul have to send formal “bids” to the league office, sources said.
STU JACKSON! My biggest problem is that they originally told Demps he'd have full autonomy. That original deal sucked for them long term, but it was legal and he set it up. What a colossal clusterf...

cordobes
12-12-2011, 05:39 PM
Apologies if it's been posted

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-hornets_clippers_paul_trade_121211&expire=1

STU JACKSON!

Should have done this from the beginning. Allowing Demps to stay in place was always a mistake. No incentives for him to consider the Hornets long-term interests.

Kstat
12-12-2011, 05:41 PM
Yeah, I have no problem with them telling Demps to step down for this, but they needed to have done this weeks ago.

D0NT SH0OT ME
12-12-2011, 05:49 PM
That doesn't correlate to the proposed hypothetical.

If the garbage deal that many on here proposed which would have sent Rondo to the Pacers was agreed to then rescinded by a ridiculous commissioner veto, people would be throwing tantrums. But since it's the Lakers, well, screw 'em.

If your hypothetical situation had actually taken place, I would be upset that the OWNERS of the Hornets declined the trade, but I would not be throwing a tantrum nor proposing wild conspiracy theories. The owners of a franchise have every right to exert control over anything that franchise does.


When the team's owner is the 29 other owners, there's a conflict of interest.

Correct.


The owners vetoed it because they don't want the Lakers to get Paul. And now they have to continue to vetoing deals, because unless the Hornets get a superstar +, it'll be a worse deal for the Lakers, and it'll look really bad.

Incorrect. The owners declined the trade because in their opinion it made the team harder to sell. Just because one neurotic and clearly delusional owner (http://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index.ssf/2010/07/gilberts_letter_to_fans_james.html) seemed to be objecting to the trade purely out of spite does not mean that the rest of the league shared his thought process. The owners will trade Paul when they are in a situation where it makes sense for them financially.


The GM was told anything he does will get passed by the league, and that essentially, he has free reign.

That is hearsay. The media likes to sensationalize headlines, so any quote that is indirectly reported should be taken with a grain of salt.


No, the team's owner is the league office, named David Stern. The other 29 owners do not make decisions concerning new orleans, though technically they do employ the guy that does.

The NBA owners DID NOT VETO THE TRADE. David Stern, acting as de facto owner of the Hornets, did.

Technically correct. While David Stern is the only person in position to decline the trade, he did so only because that is what his employers wished. Had he not declined the trade he would most likely be looking for a new job right now. If you want someone to blame for this whole situation, blame George Shinn and Gary Chouest (the previous owners of the Hornets) for putting the league into this conflict of interest.

Slick Pinkham
12-12-2011, 06:00 PM
According to Ken Berger's sources, while the NBA/Hornets still hope to move Chris Paul to the Clippers and re-engage the deal, the Clippers have moved on and are saying "it's over".

This is more in line with the original story that broke this morning, but the NBA was apparently just trying to keep hope alive. The Hornets/NBA were asking for just too many pieces in return for Paul, and it appears the Clippers are done negotiating.

Dec 12 - 5:41 PM
Source: Ken Berger on Twitter

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nba/1115/chris-paul

wintermute
12-12-2011, 06:15 PM
Should have done this from the beginning. Allowing Demps to stay in place was always a mistake. No incentives for him to consider the Hornets long-term interests.


Yeah, I have no problem with them telling Demps to step down for this, but they needed to have done this weeks ago.

Demps is a professional GM who learned his trade in the Spurs' front office. Now he is set aside by 2 executives from the NBA office. From their bios, it looks like Litvin has never been a GM. Stu Jackson apparently has, but it must have been some time ago. Yet Stern saw fit to let these 2 executives make basketball decisions rather than his professional GM.

It would have made far more sense for them to give parameters for an acceptable trade to Demps, and let him negotiate a deal. We know Demps is good at this - the original LA-Hou-NOH deal was pretty good value, all things considered. It's just that the overall direction was wrong.

It's just very amateurish handling. This mess was never going away easily, but the clumsy handling by the league ensures that it's going to linger on for a while.

Pacemaker
12-12-2011, 06:17 PM
The Clips just claimed Billups so I guess that ends this thread !:o

Heisenberg
12-12-2011, 06:18 PM
Stu Jackson ran the Grizzlies when they were in Vancouver. Yeah, that guy's deciding where Chris Paul goes.

1984
12-12-2011, 06:25 PM
When the team's owner is the 29 other owners, there's a conflict of interest.

The GM was told anything he does will get passed by the league, and that essentially, he has free reign.

The owners vetoed it because they don't want the Lakers to get Paul. And now they have to continue to vetoing deals, because unless the Hornets get a superstar +, it'll be a worse deal for the Lakers, and it'll look really bad.

Dumb really, Kobe was pretty much the only super star that had Stern's back, at least public ally. But yea, go ahead and screw his team over.

It's not a conflict of interest. When the Lakers or Clippers provide players suitable for the New Orleans Hornets, the deal will be passed. The mere fact that multiple teams have proposed trades that have been rejected demonstrate that David Stern is operating fairly.

BlueNGold
12-12-2011, 06:27 PM
It is almost by definition a conflict of interest. However, I think it was malpractice handing by far the best player on your team to another team in the same conference...and getting older and less talented players in return.

We don't have a superstar like CP3, but it would be like giving Danny Granger to the Celtics for say, Keyon Dooling and Marquis Daniels.

BTW, it was a conflict of interest because owners of other teams that had an interest in whether CP3 went to the Lakers nixed the deal. I would need definitive proof to believe this was solely coming from David Stern.

owl
12-12-2011, 06:34 PM
The GM was told anything he does will get passed by the league, and that essentially, he has free reign.



There is no way that is true or at best HIGHLY unlikely.

cordobes
12-12-2011, 06:40 PM
Demps is a professional GM who learned his trade in the Spurs' front office. Now he is set aside by 2 executives from the NBA office. From their bios, it looks like Litvin has never been a GM. Stu Jackson apparently has, but it must have been some time ago. Yet Stern saw fit to let these 2 executives make basketball decisions rather than his professional GM.

It would have made far more sense for them to give parameters for an acceptable trade to Demps, and let him negotiate a deal. We know Demps is good at this - the original LA-Hou-NOH deal was pretty good value, all things considered. It's just that the overall direction was wrong.

It's just very amateurish handling. This mess was never going away easily, but the clumsy handling by the league ensures that it's going to linger on for a while.

I disagree; in my view that the original deal was nothing more than disastrous for the Hornets. Weren't you surprised that Odom was only worth a late 1st round pick that basically has no value on a salary dump? That's the kind of value the other guys would net too. I don't think getting that value - multiple late 1sts and low level prospects - back for Chris Paul is acceptable. It's not worth the trouble; it's the kind of assets you can get very easily in the NBA. If I were the owner of the Hornets and Demps had brought that deal for my approval, I'd have fired him immediately. I wouldn't have even given him the chance to "restructure" it with Ebanks and Character or whatever he tried to do afterwards. The fact that the league said they wanted young players, picks and less salary and he thought that including those two guys was getting it done is kind of amusing.

More to the point, the issue here are the incentives. Dell Demps knows he'll very probably be out of a job as soon as the Hornets have a new owner. So, why should he prioritize the Hornets long-term future?

Stern should have appointed guys with no desire or prospect of having careers in NBA front-offices to manage the Hornets right after the acquisition.

Pacer Fan
12-12-2011, 06:53 PM
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Y! Sources: Clippers claim an unhappy Chauncey Billups off amnesty waivers

BRushWithDeath
12-12-2011, 06:55 PM
There is no way that is true or at best HIGHLY unlikely.

Again since this whole issue seems lost on everybody:

To quote David Stern from December of 2010 when asked how the league would handle transactions by Demps:


"If they recommend it, then we're going to be approving it."

Pacer Fan
12-12-2011, 08:17 PM
ESPNSteinLine Marc Stein
Just filed w/@Chris_Broussard: Sources close to talks tell ESPN there is renewed momentum to seal @CP3 trade to Clippers as soon as Tueday

Kstat
12-12-2011, 08:20 PM
I knew it...

Doddage
12-12-2011, 08:24 PM
So CP3, Billups, and Mo Williams? Okay...

Kstat
12-12-2011, 08:26 PM
I don't see why they wouldn't amnesty Mo. He's the highest paid guy on the team after Kaman (or Paul).

vnzla81
12-12-2011, 08:55 PM
I don't see why they wouldn't amnesty Mo. He's the highest paid guy on the team after Kaman (or Paul).

I think they will.

Slick Pinkham
12-12-2011, 10:39 PM
ESPN's Broussard says the league is pushing to talk to the Clips some more

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7345461/sources-nba-officials-renew-chris-paul-los-angeles-clippers-push

Since86
12-13-2011, 09:45 AM
Again since this whole issue seems lost on everybody:

To quote David Stern from December of 2010 when asked how the league would handle transactions by Demps:

So you've never taken back anything you've ever said? Maybe common sense tells us that Stern had more confidence in Demps than he should have, and didn't think he would bring him a pile of crap to approve. Demps fired himself for all practical purposes by trying to make such a horrible deal for NOH.

And notice the quote. "we're going to be approving it." It clearly indicates that Demps had to bring every trade to their attention, and get their approval first. If he didn't need their approval, then he would have just said, he can do whatever he wants.

And I like I've already pointed out, this isn't some LA conspiracy, or the Hornets and Lakers wouldn't have wasted yet another day trying to get the deal done. If Stern vetoed the trade, because it was the Lakers, they wouldn't have continued negotiating.

Sollozzo
12-13-2011, 09:47 AM
Gilbert's letter was mailed AFTER the trade was vetoed. It had nothing to do with it.



Are you sure about that? Why would he send an email like that if the trade had already been vetoed? His email sounds like someone who is upset about a trade that is going to happen, not someone who is writing about something that has already been cancelled.

It was leaked to the media after the trade was cancelled, but did he send it to Stern before Stern vetoed it? I thought he did.

Since86
12-13-2011, 09:51 AM
However, the Yahoo! Sports Staff obtained an email (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ys-nba_dan_gilbert_email_lakers_hornets_trade_120811) sent from Gilbert to Stern in which he explicitly urged the Commissioner stop the trade. Initially it was believed that Gilbert's lobbying against the trade (http://twitter.com/#!/basketballtalk/status/145054331194966016) may have factored into Stern's decision, however, Wojnarowski, later tweeted that a timestamp on the email indicated it was sent after 10 p.m. (http://twitter.com/#!/WojYahooNBA/status/145141790146699265) when the trade had already been vetoed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/dan-gilbert-emails-david-_n_1138642.html

BillS
12-13-2011, 09:56 AM
So CP3, Billups, and Mo Williams? Okay...

The Clippers wanna be successful like Minnesota.

It's a Kahn-spiracy.

:khan:

Lance George
12-13-2011, 10:14 AM
Using what the Jazz acquired for Deron Williams as the standard, I don't think Chris Paul's current price tag is unreasonable.

Derrick Favors
Devin Harris
2011 1st Round Draft Pick
2012 1st Round Draft Pick

Favors was, at that point, the current #2 overall pick in the draft, and the Nets had a 17-40 record at the time of the deal (the pick ended up #3 [Enes Kanter]). Throw in a point guard two-years removed from the All-Star Game, Harris, and an additional 1st round pick, and I'd say that compares to what New Orleans' management is demanding for Paul.

Sollozzo
12-13-2011, 10:57 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/dan-gilbert-emails-david-_n_1138642.html



Thanks, didn't know that. That does change my perspective.

Larry Staverman
12-13-2011, 12:16 PM
http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-am-will-the-dominoes-drop-in-the-nba/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nba-am-will-the-dominoes-drop-in-the-nba&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


The Hornets and David Stern: NBA fans really do not like the situation that is playing out in New Orleans involving Chris Paul. It stinks of collusion, it stinks of bad management – it just stinks.

Before you pass too much judgment on this brutally botched process, consider how we got here.

Last year George Shinn was trying to sell the Hornets to minority owner Gary Chouest. Sources say Shinn was refusing to put any more money into the Hornets and when the BP oil spill hit the Gulf Coast, Chouest’s Edison Chouest Offshore took a major hit from suspended oil drilling, which combined with a hefty asking price killed a potential deal.

Sources say Shinn was going to default on loan payments, which would have caused a ripple effect impacting every NBA team that owed money – either in risk-related rate increases or outright debt calls from investors fearful for their money.

Sources at the time pointed to the cost of the domino effect one team defaulting would have on all of the team as being more expensive than buying the team. So the NBA and its 29 owners agreed to buy the team.

Since owning the team the NBA has treated the franchise like a “fixer up” house. They have pumped tons of resources into the Hornets on every front turning around the business outlook of the team.

Sources say there is a “ready-for-signature” sweetheart arena lease that would keep the team in New Orleans through 2025. The Hornets have 10,000 season tickets sold for this season. There are plans to renovate and improve the building. There are tax inducements and benefits in place and even a new TV deal that could swell the broadcast revenue maybe even three fold.

To put it bluntly – the Hornets are now positioned and priced to sell.

Enter the Chris Paul saga.

No one expects that Chris Paul will stay in New Orleans beyond this season. However if Chris is going to be traded, he has to return a future for the franchise.

The NBA has spent hundreds of man-hours working on the business side to make this team attractive to would-be buyers, they cannot afford – literally – to allow a deal on the basketball side that ties the team to long-term contract money and no future.

No offense to Luis Scola, Kevin Martin and Lamar Odom – who would have landed in New Orleans as part of the now-dead Lakers deal – but those players are at or past their prime, and on high dollar contracts.

None of them draw a national TV audience, and none of them are marquee enough to sell a season ticket around. They might win basketball games, but this isn’t about winning basketball games yet.

The L.A. Clippers deal is almost there in terms of what the NBA wants in return for Chris Paul – a deal built around young guys on their rookie deals and an unprotected first round pick.

Fans want to believe this is about David Stern wanting to steer players… and at some level maybe that’s true.

But what all of this is really about is ultimately selling the Hornets.

The NBA wants the Hornets to look like a can’t-miss investment for an owner… the NBA has put the paint on the house, installed new appliances and added new carpet… they cannot allow the basketball operation side to park a used car in the driveway just as they are trying to sell it.

Young guys, draft picks and a promising future will be the “bow on the top” that gets this sold, and that’s why the NBA is being aggressive about what the Hornets get back for Paul.

A clean slate full of young guys and draft picks is a lot more attractive to a would-be owner who can then mold the team his way, rather than a roster full of guys that have two or three years left that handcuff the owner to high dollar salaries with no flexibility.

Chris Paul is going to be traded. That is going to happen soon, but the deal that gets it done will be a lot more about enhancing the sale value of then Hornets and a lot less about anything else.

You may not like how this is playing out, but this is about business first and the NBA’s desire to flip the Hornets in a sale as quickly as they can.



This is the rest of the story.

cordobes
12-13-2011, 12:19 PM
I don't think that Clippers offer - the one in which the Hornets get to choose Eric Gordon or the Minny pick - is going anywhere in the next couple of months, so no need for New Orleans to rush to a deal.

Will Galen
12-13-2011, 08:19 PM
Possibly b/c we are all Pacer fans here...:cool:

Not True. There's a lot of fans from other teams that post here.

Kstat
12-13-2011, 08:22 PM
I don't think that Clippers offer - the one in which the Hornets get to choose Eric Gordon or the Minny pick - is going anywhere in the next couple of months, so no need for New Orleans to rush to a deal.
LAC is working on a long-term extension with Gordon, so that deal is actually gone.

NOLA can have the minnesota pick, or nothing. The clippers have all the leverage here.

Infinite MAN_force
12-13-2011, 08:45 PM
LAC is working on a long-term extension with Gordon, so that deal is actually gone.

NOLA can have the minnesota pick, or nothing. The clippers have all the leverage here.


So Aminu, Bledsoe, and Minny's unprotected pick is basically the offer?

How does that stack up with the IND/BOS three team deal?

Hansbrough, Collison, Rush, Green, Bradley, Clipper's 1st (from Boston), Indy's 1st?

I still want Rondo!