Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    As a Pacers fan I'm happy that this trade didn't go through, now we still have a chance to get Nene and maybe Rondo, and by the way the Lakers.
    If Paul can't be sent to LA, there's no chance he gets sent to Boston unless the trade is absolutely ridiculous in favor of NO.

    Granger, Collison, Green, and draft picks are not going to get it done. PG has to been thrown into the mix now and theres no way I would do that trade.

    Comment


    • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

      If I owned the Hornets, I'd veto that trade too. They have to renounce David West who is the 2nd or 3rd best player involved. They lose the 1st and 2nd/3rd best player involved, and gain players that don't help them in their situation.
      "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

      Comment


      • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

        Originally posted by 31andonly View Post
        This is stupid. Teams should be allowed to make the trades they've agreed to. It's the GM's job, it's their business and the league has nothing to do with it.

        The league owns the Hornets, they have everything to do with it.

        Comment


        • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

          http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/73...ris-paul-trade

          Friday, December 9, 2011
          Dissecting the CP3 trade that wasn't
          ESPN.com and the TrueHoop Network

          The Chris Paul era in Los Angeles ended before it even began. Literally.

          Soon after it was reported that CP3 was being shipped to the L.A. Lakers in a three-team deal that would have landed Pau Gasol in Houston and Lamar Odom, Kevin Martin and others in New Orleans, the NBA, the official owners of the league-run Hornets, called it off.

          What happened? Who would have won if it had gone through? Where do Paul and the Lakers go from here? We're on the case.

          1. Who won the trade (before it was canceled)?

          Kevin Arnovitz, ESPN.com: Ironically, the trade had upside and downside for all sides. The Lakers snagged Paul but gave up an elite player and another very good one to get him. New Orleans sent away the face of its franchise but got a nice haul in return. Houston was getting a legend in Gasol and some important cap flexibility but at the cost of some nice pieces.

          Larry Coon, ESPN.com: The Lakers won, but it wasn't the slam dunk that many think it was. They gave up two-thirds of their front line for a player who, while great, has a bum knee and could leave them in the lurch at season's end. The Hornets were never going to get the best of this or any other trade. They were dealing from a position of weakness. They had to trade Paul, and the rest of the league knew it.

          Zach Harper, Daily Dime Live: Houston? Well, if we assume the Lakers' inevitable next move was to trade for Dwight Howard, Los Angeles won this trade. But on surface alone, Houston gave up three role players and got back one of the top big men in the league. The Lakers' giving away their size would have taken away their advantage. But the next move probably would have negated that.

          Mark Haubner, The Painted Area: The Lakers. Acquiring Paul without giving up Andrew Bynum was a classic Jerry Buss move that kept his all-in Paul-Howard dream viable. For the Hornets, it was an admirable return, given that they couldn't get maximum value because Paul wouldn't commit long term to many teams. Houston's role seemed the most questionable, as acquiring Gasol didn't seem to put the Rockets on a championship path.

          Beckley Mason, HoopSpeak: The Rockets. Daryl Morey has waited years to sign a major free agent and has been thwarted at every turn. The names of the excellent players he inherited were too often paired with "when healthy." He apparently had Pau and great pieces in his grasp -- a major stride toward contending. The future benefits for New Orleans and L.A. were murkier."

          2. Fact or Fiction: The Lakers got screwed by the NBA.

          Kevin Arnovitz, ESPN.com: Fact. With no reasonable precedent, the league tried to make a symbolic statement by hijacking a real-life transaction.

          Larry Coon, ESPN.com: Fact. From David Stern's mysterious "basketball reasons" justification to Dan Gilbert's (if not comic sans, then at least comical) letter, the league appears to have been acting on the basis of collusion and conflict of interest. The league set the Hornets up with a caretaker specifically to avoid this problem, then trumped the caretaker's autonomy. It set a dangerous and disturbing precedent, and I can't help but think the league's integrity has suffered a blow here.

          Zach Harper, Daily Dime Live: Fact. Whether you agree with the trade being fair or not, the league had no right to block it from happening. The Hornets weren't forced into sending Paul to the Lakers. They chose to. And they got a pretty decent haul for him. If this is a case of limiting what a big-market team can do, that sounds like league collusion to me.

          Mark Haubner, The Painted Area: Fact. And the Hornets did, too, possibly even worse. Apparently, they are required to hold on to Paul for the entire season and lose him with no compensation. There are repercussions leading to uncertainties all over the place here. It's staggering how poorly thought-out this decision by the NBA appears to have been.

          Beckley Mason, HoopSpeak: Fact! The Lakers won a ton of games last season, so it makes sense they would have more assets than most other teams to pull off a big trade. They had to sacrifice their identity, the one that brought two rings, in order to make this happen. They did a fair deal, and it was quashed foolishly and without warrant.

          3. Fact or Fiction: This was just a case of an NBA owner vetoing a trade.

          Kevin Arnovitz, ESPN.com: Fiction. Owners veto trades all the time. They do so because they're some combination of cheap, idiosyncratic, megalomaniacal or delusional. The motive here was something entirely different and more nefarious -- checking the power of a particular class of players and a specific NBA team.

          Larry Coon, ESPN.com: Fiction. It's not clear at this point whether Stern was acting within his broad authority as commissioner or in his fiduciary position over the Hornets. But Gilbert's letter is a smoking gun. Read it carefully; he talks about what the deal will do for the Lakers and what it will do for non-taxpayers such as himself. He never mentions what it will do for the Hornets. Gilbert called on Stern to let the "29 owners of the Hornets" vote, but his letter made it clear the Hornets were the least of his concerns.

          Zach Harper, Daily Dime Live: Fact-ish fiction? I guess it depends on what we believe the story to be. Did Stern decide this was a bad deal for "his team"? Did the owners bully him into reversing the trade decision? Either way, I don't know which case is worse than the other.

          Mark Haubner, The Painted Area: Fiction. This was an egregious abuse of power by the league, which had said all along that the Hornets' basketball operations staff would be able to operate without interference. This was a reasonable trade with no reasonable cause to be blocked, and possibly the single worst thing David Stern has done as commissioner.

          Beckley Mason, HoopSpeak: Fiction. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, the NBA had to create distance between itself and the management of the Hornets. It flagrantly violated that arrangement, and evidence suggests this decision was made for a reason other than the Hornets' good. What owner would wittingly act against his own franchise?

          4. More likely to end up with the Lakers: Dwight Howard or Chris Paul?

          Kevin Arnovitz, ESPN.com: Paul. If the league doesn't rescind its decision (in the face of possible legal action), it will be untenable for it to allow a similar deal between the Lakers and the Magic for Howard.

          Larry Coon, ESPN.com: How can one possibly answer a question like that now that the rules have been thrown out the window? For whatever reason, Stern is now exercising his power to nix deals he doesn't like. It's not like the Hornets were taken for a ride -- they had to trade Paul and weren't going to get a significantly better deal (for example, neither Stephen Curry nor Eric Gordon were ever offered, according to reports). It's not like the Lakers were getting Paul for nothing; they were trading an All-Star PF/C and the reigning sixth man of the year. What gets approved or denied in the future? Is it arbitrary?

          Zach Harper, Daily Dime Live: Howard. Maybe the league wises up and forces this trade through during the weekend. Hopefully, we don't have legal action that falls out from this debacle. Either way, the Lakers still have pieces to get Dwight from Orlando, and he can still urge Orlando to acquiesce. You know ... unless the league vetoes all trades to big markets now.

          Mark Haubner, The Painted Area: I would say Howard at this point. If the Lakers are going to be denied the opportunity to acquire Paul, they should be able to include more assets in a deal to attract Howard from Orlando.

          Beckley Mason, HoopSpeak: I've got a feeling this deal could still go through Friday, maybe with an extra pick or something going New Orleans' way. It's really the only way this obscene mess can be cleaned up. But if that doesn't happen, I think the Paul-to-Lakers deal dies while Howard remains in the mix.

          5. Where will Chris Paul be playing a year from now?

          Kevin Arnovitz, ESPN.com: Staples Center.

          Larry Coon, ESPN.com: Not New Orleans, that's for sure. And it's a pretty safe bet he won't be playing in Cleveland. Most likely he will get traded somewhere else -- either right away, or shortly before the trade deadline -- then will take his option to become a free agent in June and sign a contract with a contender. A contract Stern can't nix.

          Zach Harper, Daily Dime Live: Well, we know he's not allowed to join the Lakers. He's probably not allowed to join the Knicks, either, because they're a pretty big market. The Clippers also play in a big market, so let's not send him there. How about we let him rotate from Cleveland to Charlotte to Indiana every three games? Would that solve competitive balance?

          Mark Haubner, The Painted Area: After a day with two shocking NBA events -- both the Paul trade and the blocking thereof -- I don't feel confident predicting much of anything, so I'll say CP3 will be playing his home games at Staples Center to double my chances. Both the Lakers and Clippers have some combination of appeal and possibility, for different reasons.

          Beckley Mason, HoopSpeak: Wherever he wants. That's the thing some owners don't seem to get. Talent like his is the scarcest quality in the NBA. In market terms, that means he has all the power, all the leverage. If he really wants to be in New York, my guess is that's where he's going.

          Comment


          • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

            This whole mess can be summed up in 3 words: conflict of interest.

            First of, I agree that one could find basketball and financial reasons for ownership to nix the trade. So in that sense, David Stern acting for the NOH owners had the right to stop the trade.

            If it had been any other owner stopping the trade at the last minute, it would still have raised a fuss. Generally you want the owners to set a direction (like, don't add money, or go for young talent, etc) but to otherwise let the GM have a free hand. To do otherwise would create a dysfunctional FO that no one would want to trade with (Hello MJ!)

            In this case though, the NBA's 29 other owners owning the team just creates massive conflicts of interest. How can NOH possibly complete any trade without potentially pissing off one of the other owners. If Paul had been traded to the Celtics, you can be sure Dan Gilbert would have sent a similar complaining letter to Stern. Heck, the Landry trade was enough for Cuban to raise a stink.

            What kind of directive was Dell Demps given? I'd have to assume he was given the green light to trade CP3, given his actions. So he did and brought back what he felt was the best package. Do you think he'd had ask for players like Odom and Scola if his directive was to cut salary? The current veto smacks too much of Stern/owners making up the rules as they go. If the plan all along was for CP3 to be traded for young players and cap relief, don't you think the Lakers would have recruited a different third team, maybe a team like the Pacers?

            So now the whole league is in chaos. No one knows the rules anymore. Is there an agenda against all big market team moves? Is it just NOH that is blocked from making moves? But since NOH controls a major piece (CP3) which is up for grabs, the uncertainty is holding up the plans of nearly every other team.

            The league needs clarity. They've announced that they've blocked the trade for "basketball reasons" - it's incumbent on them to spell out what those reasons are and what future trades will be allowed/disallowed.

            Btw, I find it funny that commentators have gone from shaking their heads at the Lakers for getting yet another superstar, to now castigating the league for stopping the move. Frankly I think the trade was legit - the Lakers were giving up solid value here, this wasn't a Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown trade. I don't like the Lakers much but I think they should have the same chance as anyone else at getting CP3 in a trade. If the Celtics, Warriors, and Clippers want CP3 for themselves they should up the ante, instead of giving lowball offers as reported.

            Comment


            • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

              Just kinda skimmed through this thread and agree that this seems wrong, however, has anyone mentioned the flip side of this trade?

              Would everyone be complaining about how the owners of NO, (Stern n Company), would have allowed a super team to be constructed in LA if somehow they landed Dwight Howard after this trade went through?

              In the end, because I'm a Pacers fan, this is of little interest to me.

              Comment


              • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                Great article! It captures a lot of the questions every NBA observer must be thinking.

                This point in particular disturbs me:

                Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                Larry Coon, ESPN.com: How can one possibly answer a question like that now that the rules have been thrown out the window? For whatever reason, Stern is now exercising his power to nix deals he doesn't like. It's not like the Hornets were taken for a ride -- they had to trade Paul and weren't going to get a significantly better deal (for example, neither Stephen Curry nor Eric Gordon were ever offered, according to reports). It's not like the Lakers were getting Paul for nothing; they were trading an All-Star PF/C and the reigning sixth man of the year. What gets approved or denied in the future? Is it arbitrary?
                Exactly, what are the rules now? Can the good commissioner clarify in which situations exactly would he exercise his veto? Is it all superstar deals? Is it all NOH deals? NOH deals that add salary? NOH deals with the Lakers? Or is the league to be ruled by Stern's whim, or maybe the whim of the whiniest owner?

                :shakehead

                Comment


                • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                  The only thing I can think of is that he has a buyer lined up right now who wants Paul on the team because he thinks he can resign him. And if Paul is traded, the value of the team either drops significantly or its just a complete deal breaker.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                    I think people have overblown this situation. Owners are always the final say in any deal, above the GM. The NBA currently owns the Hornets, so the NBA (which I assume means the collective owners, David Stern, and a few others) has the final say in any deal the Hornets make. If the majority didn't like the deal for New Orleans, they were right to veto it.

                    How does this, in any way, shape, or form, lead anyone to conclude that David Stern can veto deals involving non-NBA-owned teams?

                    My only problem is that the collective NBA's vetoing power should've been made more clear earlier on, which would've prevented a lot of this backlash.

                    One thing I do think is funny is how quickly the conspiracy theories have been flipped in their head. One second, David Stern is a conman trying to give the Lakers their next dynasty, beginning with Chris Paul. The next, he's an evil dictator, using his tyrannical powers to prevent the Lakers from acquiring a superstar.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                      I just don't get what all the owners were fussing about. The Lakers were giving up a TON for CP3. They were going to go from having maybe the deepest front line in the league to being on the verge of having no one upfront if (when) Bynum got hurt. Christ, by the way some people people were acting, you would have thought the Lakers traded Metta and Luke Walton for CP3.

                      Gasol is what caused that team to get to 3 straight Finals. Yeah he had an off year last year, but that kind of stuff happens.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                        Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post

                        How does this, in any way, shape, or form, lead anyone to conclude that David Stern can veto deals involving non-NBA-owned teams?
                        He can. It's in the CBA, both old and new. All trades must be approved by the league.

                        The point is, he's never used the veto before (that I can recall). So is the current veto from his acting for the NOH owners or as commissioner? What future situations will trigger a veto?

                        Teams/agents/players urgently need clarification on these points.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                          I think the fear was that LA was going to use Bynum and their trade exemption to get Howard.

                          Otherwise, LA's roster is pretty crappy, even with the hall of fame backcourt. They actually take a step back with this deal.
                          Last edited by Kstat; 12-09-2011, 06:47 AM.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            I think the fear was that LA was going to use Bynum and their trade exemption to get Howard.


                            That has to be it. There had to be some chatter that the Lakers had a chance of pulling a deal for Howard and that caused everyone to flip out.

                            There's just no way that Gasol and Odom for CP3 should have caused this much outrage if that was the only deal that was going to take place. You can make the argument that the Lakers are worse off after that deal. Even if you think it would make them better, you certainly can't say they shafted anyone. They were giving up a ton.

                            But if they pulled a deal off for Howard, then yeah, they would have come out on top by a large margin. That had to have been what was going on.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                              I'm not even sure it's an argument. The Lakers ARE worse off with this deal. their frontcourt is pitiful and their depth is nonexistent. Their only big man would be an immature kid with bad knees that routinely misses months to injury.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment


                              • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                                This whole mess can be summed up in 3 words: conflict of interest.

                                First of, I agree that one could find basketball and financial reasons for ownership to nix the trade. So in that sense, David Stern acting for the NOH owners had the right to stop the trade.

                                If it had been any other owner stopping the trade at the last minute, it would still have raised a fuss. Generally you want the owners to set a direction (like, don't add money, or go for young talent, etc) but to otherwise let the GM have a free hand. To do otherwise would create a dysfunctional FO that no one would want to trade with (Hello MJ!)

                                In this case though, the NBA's 29 other owners owning the team just creates massive conflicts of interest. How can NOH possibly complete any trade without potentially pissing off one of the other owners. If Paul had been traded to the Celtics, you can be sure Dan Gilbert would have sent a similar complaining letter to Stern. Heck, the Landry trade was enough for Cuban to raise a stink.

                                What kind of directive was Dell Demps given? I'd have to assume he was given the green light to trade CP3, given his actions. So he did and brought back what he felt was the best package. Do you think he'd had ask for players like Odom and Scola if his directive was to cut salary? The current veto smacks too much of Stern/owners making up the rules as they go. If the plan all along was for CP3 to be traded for young players and cap relief, don't you think the Lakers would have recruited a different third team, maybe a team like the Pacers?

                                So now the whole league is in chaos. No one knows the rules anymore. Is there an agenda against all big market team moves? Is it just NOH that is blocked from making moves? But since NOH controls a major piece (CP3) which is up for grabs, the uncertainty is holding up the plans of nearly every other team.

                                The league needs clarity. They've announced that they've blocked the trade for "basketball reasons" - it's incumbent on them to spell out what those reasons are and what future trades will be allowed/disallowed.

                                Btw, I find it funny that commentators have gone from shaking their heads at the Lakers for getting yet another superstar, to now castigating the league for stopping the move. Frankly I think the trade was legit - the Lakers were giving up solid value here, this wasn't a Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown trade. I don't like the Lakers much but I think they should have the same chance as anyone else at getting CP3 in a trade. If the Celtics, Warriors, and Clippers want CP3 for themselves they should up the ante, instead of giving lowball offers as reported.



                                I agree with most of your post, but how do we know Lakers and other NBA owners wouldn't have been upset and wanted Stern to invalidate a trade to their cross town rivals the Clippers? Or to their big NBA rivals the Celtics? The owners should have made their feelings known long ago how they felt except they all were hoping to be the ones who would end up with CP3. Only in the end when the advantage goes to the Lakers did they complain. The owners should be held responsible for allowing this to happen. Stern was forced by his employers to invalidate the trade. Believe me, Stern isn't happy about having to do it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X