southsider2k5 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (TheCut87 @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 08:02 PM) the NBA owns the hornets correct? so why would David Stern kill this deal? Because it kills a lot of the credibility of why the lockout supposedly happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 The NBA owns the Hornets is the exact reason he may kill the deal. He isnt going to have an owners civil war that results in his ouster over trading Paul to the Lakers. He works for the owners, he will appease the majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 On what grounds can he kill it though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Marc Stein @ESPNSteinLine Marc Stein One source close to the three-team Chris Paul trade talks just told ESPN.com: "The deal is off." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vote4Pedro Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 09:06 PM) Marc Stein @ESPNSteinLine Marc Stein One source close to the three-team Chris Paul trade talks just told ESPN.com: "The deal is off." NICE!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 On what grounds, i can make up a million but my guess is something like: Hornets are owned by NBA as such the deal was "preliminary" and not "official" in that it had to be approved by XYZ. When presented to XYZ the deal was not approved and thus there never was any deal to kill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 08:06 PM) On what grounds can he kill it though? I'm sure the NBA has leeway for the commish to kill things for the good of the game or competitive reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sircaffey Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Sadly, it probably all but assures Howard to LA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 08:06 PM) On what grounds can he kill it though? conflict of interest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 02:08 AM) On what grounds, i can make up a million but my guess is something like: Hornets are owned by NBA as such the deal was "preliminary" and not "official" in that it had to be approved by XYZ. When presented to XYZ the deal was not approved and thus there never was any deal to kill. I'm honestly shocked though. The lakers are one of the teams that will share revenue with all the others, I'm shocked stern would screw them over. Pleased, but shocked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 08:11 PM) I'm honestly shocked though. The lakers are one of the teams that will share revenue with all the others, I'm shocked stern would screw them over. Pleased, but shocked. The problem comes with the 27 teams that aren't in LA or NY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 (edited) Also the NBA has to try and retain the value of the Hornets franchise for when they want to sell it. They cant just trade everyone for nothing. Its surprising they are entertaining any trade offers when the team is not owned. Edited December 9, 2011 by Soxbadger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Personally, I think it's bogus for the NBA to veto this deal if it's for competitive balance reasons. This shouldn't be fantasy sports where you have to oversee crappy owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 08:12 PM) Also the NBA has to try and retain the value of the Hornets franchise for when they want to sell it. They cant just trade everyone for nothing. Its surprising they are entertaining any trade offers when the team is not owned. That also makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Fathom, The NBA is the crappy owner here. See the problem, if the Hornets lose everyone really has lost. Thats why its very odd that Hornets are even involved in any trade discussions. The #1 priority for the NBA should be to find a new owner for Hornets and let the new owner do what he wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 08:12 PM) Personally, I think it's bogus for the NBA to veto this deal if it's for competitive balance reasons. This shouldn't be fantasy sports where you have to oversee crappy owners. the problem is there is no crappy owner here and the deal is shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 03:15 AM) Fathom, The NBA is the crappy owner here. See the problem, if the Hornets lose everyone really has lost. Thats why its very odd that Hornets are even involved in any trade discussions. The #1 priority for the NBA should be to find a new owner for Hornets and let the new owner do what he wants. Thing is, aren't the Hornets better off by adding three above average players in Scola/Odom/Martin? I doubt Paul's body will hold up during this 66 game sprint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 08:12 PM) Personally, I think it's bogus for the NBA to veto this deal if it's for competitive balance reasons. This shouldn't be fantasy sports where you have to oversee crappy owners. the problem is there is no crappy owner here and the deal is shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 08:12 PM) Personally, I think it's bogus for the NBA to veto this deal if it's for competitive balance reasons. This shouldn't be fantasy sports where you have to oversee crappy owners. Normally, I wouldn't be whining like I am. But we lost damn near two months of hoops for s*** the lockout was supposed to address. Edited December 9, 2011 by Jordan4life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 (edited) Fathom, There is no way the Hornets are better off trading a young superstar for those guys. Paul is a superstar, if you want a new owner you are going to have to move Paul for another superstar that you can sell to the new owner to build the franchise around. If I was thinking of buying the Hornets, Id want to at least try and resign Paul and sell him on the idea that Im going to make the Hornets great. Edited December 9, 2011 by Soxbadger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 08:17 PM) Thing is, aren't the Hornets better off by adding three above average players in Scola/Odom/Martin? I doubt Paul's body will hold up during this 66 game sprint. Chris Paul is arguably the best PG in the game, 26, and in his prime. Two role players and a dime a dozen SG is bad (though I like Martin). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 02:17 AM) Thing is, aren't the Hornets better off by adding three above average players in Scola/Odom/Martin? I doubt Paul's body will hold up during this 66 game sprint. And Paul was going to leave after this season anyway. 3 solid starters in exchange for 1 season of Paul? I don't think the Hornets are getting robbed here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Truth be told, I'm not a fan of Paul's. With that said, I think this trade doesn't hurt the integrity of the game nearly as much as the Gasol one did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Why would anyone want Odom anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chw42 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (Soxfest @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 08:26 PM) Why would anyone want Odom anymore. Two words: Khloe Kardashian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.