JorgeFabregas Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Weird s*** happens when the league owns a team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted December 9, 2011 Author Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 10:41 PM) Ok, the NBA owns the Hornets, who have bled money for the NBA. The 29 owners said no, so therefore, trade can't go through. They have as much right to veto it as Reinsdorf can veto a Bulls trade. Plus, the Hornets would be taking on $50M in contracts for three 30 year olds as opposed to Paul's expiring, thus costing the NBA more money. And Paul won't honor his contract. Sorry, but the owners had every right to veto it and did. Well, thank you for typing it up so coherently. I guess these are all valid points. So you say 29 owners said no? Meaning even at least one team involved in the trade said no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 The truth is its entirely unclear where in the process the trade was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted December 9, 2011 Author Share Posted December 9, 2011 Chris Paul will explore legal options along with union chief Billy Hunter after the NBA inexplicably stopped Thursday's big trade, and there are rumors that he will not show up in Hornets camp. Right now league spokesman Tim Frank has said the owners had nothing to do with the decision, saying the league office made a "basketball decision." This is all really, really, really, really, really bad for the NBA. Also, WTF Bulls DO SOMETHING. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 10:43 PM) Well, thank you for typing it up so coherently. I guess these are all valid points. So you say 29 owners said no? Meaning even at least one team involved in the trade said no? Majority of 29 owners. Obviously Alexander and Buss didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted December 9, 2011 Author Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 10:46 PM) Majority of 29 owners. Obviously Alexander and Buss didn't. Right now league spokesman Tim Frank has said the owners had nothing to do with the decision, saying the league office made a "basketball decision." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Steve, How can you say its bad without knowing the facts? For all we know the GM's had an agreement subject to the approval of the owners. The Hornets owner didnt approve. I just cant find any real information on what happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 The problem is that the NBA should have never been able to "buy" the Hornets in the first place and create that kind of conflict of interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Correct. And if they were going to own a team they basically should have appointed some sort of trustee to protect the asset who would have a duty to the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted December 9, 2011 Author Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 10:48 PM) The problem is that the NBA should have never been able to "buy" the Hornets in the first place and create that kind of conflict of interest. Yes. This all screams of corruption. In a league that has already dealt with rumors of corruption. A trade was agreed to by the General Managers of teams, and it fell within the acceptable parameters of the salary cap and league rules. The league has never given a damn who was involved. Players who have been corpses in the league have been dealt very recently (ie - the contract of so and so traded). This is part of the NBA. A trade that fell within the parameters of acceptable by league standards has been blocked for the first time in my memory. The landscape of the NBA has changed. I wanted no part of CP3 going to the Lakers, but I am entirely saddened that my favorite sport has decided to kick it's credibility to the curb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Steve, If KW agrees to a trade and Reinsdorf says no, do you think the trade still happens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted December 9, 2011 Author Share Posted December 9, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 10:54 PM) Steve, If KW agrees to a trade and Reinsdorf says no, do you think the trade still happens? Different sports, different history, different rules. Go away. Congrats, lawyer. You care not about the NBA. I will post my opinion as someone who has cared about the league a very long time. Giving owners who compete with teams in the league a vote is such an epic fail. This is like giving Brian Cashman a vote when the Red Sox pull off an awesome trade. Edited December 9, 2011 by Steve9347 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 I care about knowing the facts before I go and say that something is the worst thing thats ever happened in the world. The worst thing that ever happened is the idea that a sport can own a franchise. It doesnt make any sense and it cant be run properly. That being said, since the NBA decided to go that route, the next best thing is to run the franchise for as little as possible, to sell the team as quickly as possible and during the ownership do as little as possible to hurt the value. The NBA owning the Hornets is a major problem, thats what should really be questioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted December 9, 2011 Author Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 10:59 PM) The NBA owning the Hornets is a major problem, thats what should really be questioned. And in the end, my point that the NBA is f***ed because of this remains valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 10:56 PM) Giving owners who compete with teams in the league a vote is such an epic fail. This is like giving Brian Cashman a vote when the Red Sox pull off an awesome trade. QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 10:47 PM) Right now league spokesman Tim Frank has said the owners had nothing to do with the decision, saying the league office made a "basketball decision." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Yes but it shouldnt take this fiasco for people to question why the NBA owns the Hornets with no conceivable plan for getting rid of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flippedoutpunk Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 (edited) i actually thought the trade made the lakers into s***. if/when bynum goes down with injury, who would be the other big man on the roster? oh and Odom seems a tad perturbed (per realgm): “Imagine how Pau feels,” Odom said. “Pau came to the Lakers and played here for four years, went to the Finals and lost, won two NBA championships and then got swept [by the Dallas Mavericks this year]. Wow! Imagine how he must feel. “Man, I’m just in total disbelief about all of this,” Odom continued. “They don’t want my services, for whatever reason. I don’t know what I’m supposed to do. I was proud to be a Laker, so I’ll try to help them in the process as much as possible." Edited December 9, 2011 by flippedoutpunk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 I have no problem with the league stepping in (especially in the NBA) to stop this roster stacking. If it means GM's, players and coaches' have less ability to dictate how they handle their rosters then so be it. Those GM's and players are the ones who allowed this practice of hoarding superstars to happen, and its killing the NBA*. The leagues' interest should be the broader success of the NBA, not how a select 6 or 7 franchises can be allowed to take part in a meaningful offseason and players like Chris Paul can simply get out of their contracts with one team by forcing a trade to go to one of those 6 or 7 lucky teams. This is not the NBA's fault, they really dont like it when this happens. A majority of the owners despise it and so do a lot of fans. I really hope this sets a precedent that the NBA is not going to sit idly by and let smaller market teams become farm systems for the breadwinners. I understand this situation is unique because the NBA owns the Hornets, but its also indicative of the push-back from a lot of people in basketball to this roster stacking bulls***. *The Heat situation generating interest really is an outlier. LeBron became the villain because of The Decision and what he did to Cleveland and people wanted to root against the level of arrogance. Chris Paul was not about to generate nationwide disgust by forcing himself to the Lakers, even if I think he should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenryan Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 12:20 AM) i actually thought the trade made the lakers into s***. if/when bynum goes down with injury, who would be the other big man on the roster? oh and Odom seems a tad perturbed (per realgm): “Imagine how Pau feels,” Odom said. “Pau came to the Lakers and played here for four years, went to the Finals and lost, won two NBA championships and then got swept [by the Dallas Mavericks this year]. Wow! Imagine how he must feel. “Man, I’m just in total disbelief about all of this,” Odom continued. “They don’t want my services, for whatever reason. I don’t know what I’m supposed to do. I was proud to be a Laker, so I’ll try to help them in the process as much as possible." I think most believe this was the start in the Lakers attempt to acquire Howard. I cant imagine the Lakers giving up Odom and Gasol and being happy with just Paul to go alongside Kobe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 11:41 PM) I have no problem with the league stepping in (especially in the NBA) to stop this roster stacking. If it means GM's, players and coaches' have less ability to dictate how they handle their rosters then so be it. Those GM's and players are the ones who allowed this practice of hoarding superstars to happen, and its killing the NBA*. The leagues' interest should be the broader success of the NBA, not how a select 6 or 7 franchises can be allowed to take part in a meaningful offseason and players like Chris Paul can simply get out of their contracts with one team by forcing a trade to go to one of those 6 or 7 lucky teams. This is not the NBA's fault, they really dont like it when this happens. A majority of the owners despise it and so do a lot of fans. I really hope this sets a precedent that the NBA is not going to sit idly by and let smaller market teams become farm systems for the breadwinners. I understand this situation is unique because the NBA owns the Hornets, but its also indicative of the push-back from a lot of people in basketball to this roster stacking bulls***. *The Heat situation generating interest really is an outlier. LeBron became the villain because of The Decision and what he did to Cleveland and people wanted to root against the level of arrogance. Chris Paul was not about to generate nationwide disgust by forcing himself to the Lakers, even if I think he should. That's crap for a multitude of reasons... 1) It's not like Lebron was the first player to ever leave for a more attractive team. Gasol went to LA for peanuts before that and KG and Allen went to Boston before that. If you go back even further you get guys like Shaq, Mosese Malone, Kareem and Wilt. 2) It's not killing the NBA. Ratings were way up for LA/Boston before the Heat happened, interest in the league was quite high in the Jordan years, and the league had a big explosion in popularity in the Magic/Bird years. Great players and great teams draw interest in the league, which means more money for everyone. 3) If it's really a "league" move and not a specific scenario based on the league owning the Hornets, why did they finally decide to do something now? Why didn't they block KG to Boston, or Gasol to LA, or The Decision or Melo to New York? Would they block it if Paul were going to Orlando or Houston? Are there actual rules/guidlines involved with this or is it just like the anal retentive comissioner in your fantasy leagues blocking every smart move a contender makes? 4) What exactly are the Lakers supposed to do, not try to get better? 5) What exactly is New Orleans supposed to do? Let Paul walk in free agency with no compensation? Trade him to a bad team for a lesser package of talent? 6) What are you going to do, abolish free agency? Players are going to do what they want to do when they are free agents. 7) How exactly are you going to legislate competitive balance, clone Lebron so every team can have a star? This isn't the NFL where you can win big with depth. You either have a star or you don't, and there are only a handful of guys that really make a difference. 8) Small market teams can still compete with good management. The Spurs have several rings and teams like OKC and Memphis are well positioned this year. Oh, and the Heat aren't exactly a glamour franchise in a big market. Edited December 9, 2011 by ZoomSlowik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flippedoutpunk Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 The Nets emerged as the number one choice for Dwight Howard, according to multiple sources. Howard is expected to ask the Magic to trade him to New Jersey. The Nets are offering Brook Lopez and two first round picks to Orlando for Howard. Despite their pursuit of Howard, the Nets are also actively engaged in talks with Nene in case they are unsuccessful. Howard can become a free agent next summer. Via Chris Broussard/ESPN (via Twitter) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 12:34 AM) The Nets emerged as the number one choice for Dwight Howard, according to multiple sources. Howard is expected to ask the Magic to trade him to New Jersey. The Nets are offering Brook Lopez and two first round picks to Orlando for Howard. Despite their pursuit of Howard, the Nets are also actively engaged in talks with Nene in case they are unsuccessful. Howard can become a free agent next summer. Via Chris Broussard/ESPN (via Twitter) Well last I checked it gets cold in New York, so muc for that being the reason he won't come to Chicago. If he is willing to be a Net I don't see why not a Bull. I think we can put a better offer and still be a better team up to them to get it done. Ask for a window with Dwight I'm sure he can be convinced and even if he won't sign immediately migh be worth the risk after playing here he will sign plus a true shot at a championship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 So the NBA has a long lockout, and it comes back an even bigger joke? Nice. You can't just stop a completely reasonable trade on paper because it makes a team good. This sounds like wrestling nonsense (again). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 02:29 AM) So the NBA has a long lockout, and it comes back an even bigger joke? Nice. You can't just stop a completely reasonable trade on paper because it makes a team good. This sounds like wrestling nonsense (again). Reasonable? lol. Odom is a 32-year old roleplayer. Scola is solid. But nothing close to a building block and he's also 31 or 32. Kevin Martin is a black hole that scores a bunch of points for bad teams and that's it. This trade was awful for NO. No young talent, salary relief or draft picks. You're not going to be able to flip any of that garbage for anything worthwhile. Edited December 9, 2011 by Jordan4life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 11:53 AM) Reasonable? lol. Odom is a 32-year old roleplayer. Scola is solid. But nothing close to a building block and he's also 31 or 32. Kevin Martin is a black hole that scores a bunch of points for bad teams and that's it. This trade was awful for NO. No young talent, salary relief or draft picks. You're not going to be able to flip any of that garbage for anything worthwhile. Is it more reasonable to force them to have Paul for a year and then get absolutely nothing when he bolts? 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.