David Stern kills Chris Paul trade

The Game Room
21

I think that a team that is owned by the league is ludicrous, because there is no way to make deals without looking like you are trying to benefit the league as a whole (give LA Chris Paul (CPIII), thereby keeping LA a strong team), while not worrying about what happens to New Orleans.

From what I’ve been reading though, most people think the trade was fair, especially since CPIII will be leaving N.O. as a free agent next year and they won’t get anything.

However, as much as I don’t like David Stern, I am glad he stopped the trade. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the Lakers always seem to get great players, while the “other” NBA franchises (like Portland, Sacramento, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc, etc) don’t. I think CPIII was headed to the Lakers weeks ago. I heard rumors of both he and Dwight Howard heading to the Lakers.

The NBA sucks in that it works hard to keep strong teams in Boston and LA, even at the expense of other teams. A few cities are favored, including NY (the rumor of the draft being fixed for the Knicks to get Ewing way back when was very loud, even if there wasn’t anything to it), Miami (now with the Big 3), and LA (the Lakers, of course… not the Clippers.) I hate to be a cynic on such matters, but it’s hard not to be when you see how things shake out every year. The fact that the Knicks haven’t won anything since what, the 70’s? doesn’t mean the NBA doesn’t want a strong franchise there. But do they really care about Denver? Oklahoma City? Please. Kevin Durant is a rare talent, and I hope he can bring a championship to OC, but I think they will turn into Cleveland without Lebron as soon as he can leave.

Let’s face it. CPIII is the only real asset N.O. has. If I were a prospective buyer, I’d be much less interested in the team without CPIII. I’d like the opportunity to trade him myself (assuming a buyer is found before the trading deadline - not sure when that is), or try to keep him with an incredible financial offer and build around him. And I don’t know what N.O. is like as a basketball town, but who’s going to go see them without CPIII this year? (I know they lost the Jazz… Didn’t they have another team leave before the Hornets come in from Charlotte? - not the most stable city for an NBA franchise). And I’m guessing since Katrina, NBA games are not as popular as they once were simply due to financial reasons.

Here’s the thing, though… if N.O. was owned by someone other than the NBA, the trade would have gone through. As much as I don’t like to see CPIII going to the Lakers, if everyone is happy and feels that they’ve improved their team, so be it.

My prediction: LA or Houston, will throw in another player or draft pick, and Stern will then OK it. The Lakers will have arguably the best point guard in the game, and all will be right with the world.

22

By the way, David West is going to the Celtics in a sign-and-trade.

Clyde Drexler, and Bill Walton before him. Chris Webber (OK, before him you’d have to go way back). Chris Paul, and a bunch of stars in Charlotte before him. Dominique Wilkins. No, it’s not a coincidence the Lakers get great players - winning does tend to beget winning and they’re an attractive destination for a player.

How?

The Knicks have won two championships in their entire history and the last was in '73, and they’ve stunk for a decade, but do go on.

You know he signed a five-year extension with them just a year ago, right? It doesn’t look like he’s going anywhere. He seems to have committed to the team about as much as you can.

23

didn’t know this. thanks for the info.

I understand this. And you are going WAY back for the Trailblazers. Drexler was good, but didn’t he get traded to Houston to win his championships? It doesn’t matter. Portland shouldn’t have been on my list. That’s the most unlucky franchise in all of sports. It seems that all of their really good players go down to injury… Walton is a good example, but Oden is a very recent example. Plus they just had a guy retire today at 27 because his knees were deteriorating. Name escapes me now, but he was an excellent player (Rookie of the Year and 3 time all-star). Portland is snakebit. Last championship in 77? Is that their only one?

Dominique Wilkins? LOL! Yes, most teams have one marquee player, even if you have to go back 20-30 years to find him. Dr. J was a hell of a player for the Sixers.

This is a good question, and I am not sure it has a factual answer. It’s more of a gut feel for me. I know that’s not a good answer for the dope, but I’m not in GQ. I guess what I see is a combination of things. What you say is correct (winning attracts players), and the places are appealing (Los Angeles beats Milwaukee in January), but I feel like the league’s system is set up to permit players to name their destinations. In MLB, for example, the union rarely lets a player take less money to go to the team of their choice (A-Rod wasn’t permitted to go to Boston), but the NBA doesn’t seem to have that restriction. That means that a team like Cleveland, who can pay Lebron more than any other team in the league, doesn’t have a prayer to keep him. Especially if he talks to a couple of friends and they all agree to play for Miami. Or Los Angeles. And only the Lakers, never the Clippers, even though they play in the same building. Boston intrigues me only because of the reputation of the town as one of the racist big cities in America still attracts very good to great black players. Winning must make you color blind.

Do you understand my point though? It’s set up differently than MLB in that a player can pick his team if he wants, but very few “small market” teams would be on that list. So the big cities and big basketball towns benefit from the system. Baseball’s player union might force a player to take the biggest deal on the table, but you don’t see Kansas City or Pittsburgh in the running for an Albert Pujols.

Do I detect a twinge of annoyance and skepticism in your tone? :smiley: Look, just because the system might slant toward the big markets, and NY is one of the biggest stages in the league, you can’t get rid of ownership. BAD ownership. (see Isaiah Thomas fiasco for example). You seem to know the NBA. I don’t have to explain the Knick situation.

Yes, I did know that. I was very happy to see that, and he seems like a very good guy that likes OKC. However, I used to think the same thing about King James. I still like Lebron as a person… he never seems arrogant when interviewed, but I wish he would have stayed in Cleveland and won his championships there (if he ever wins them, that is)

24

He played in Portland for 12 seasons and they had some very good teams. He did get traded to Houston and played his last couple of years there.

So was Allen Iverson in Philly. I’m not going to compare Joe Johnson to Dominique. Anyway the point is that I think the difference between teams has more to do with good or bad ownership and good or bad management than the league somehow putting its thumb on the scales.

Players can take whatever contract they want in either sport. The problem with A-Rod and Boston was that he was already under contract and the trade to Boston called for him to forfeit a significant amount of money from his contract. The union wasn’t going to allow that, and the deal fell through.

There are definitely differences in the NBA and MLB (like the salary cap) and it’s true that in the NBA there have been more situations where stars pick their destinations. It’s happened a few times in baseball, but not as often. NBA players have more power for a variety of reasons - smaller teams, for one. It’s just not that the league wants particular teams to win.

The Clippers lose because they have the worst owner in professional sports. Decades ago, Donald Sterling figured out that he can still make money off a losing team, so he’s been happy to do that instead of spending more money or hiring better people. As it happens, the Clippers are on the verge of getting good just the same. It’d be a shame if he got to enjoy that.

The union doesn’t do that. Pujols may have turned down more money from the Marlins than he got from the Angels, and C. J. Wilson DEFINITELY did. Cliff Lee did something similar when he went back to Philly last year. Guys are usually happy to take the biggest offer, but they’re not forced to. KC didn’t go after Pujols because they don’t have the money and it would ruin their development strategy, and Pittsburgh didn’t go after Pujols because they don’t have the money and it wouldn’t be worth it.

The system arguably does slant toward big markets in that the small-market teams can’t outbid the large market teams. For a year or two I’ve been hearing people argue that the best way to even out this system is to eliminate maximum contracts - let the big stars make whatever they can. I’m starting to see the logic, in fact.

He does. And I think Oklahoma City is doing a much better job of building a team around him than Cleveland ever did with LeBron.

25

Sheesh… When this thread appeared in the main forum listing, the last word was cut off. I was a TAD concerned at first blush…

26

Stern tried ro include that provision in the CBA but the NBPA wasn’t having it.

27

Some people have argued that if Lebron Wade and Bosh were making as much as they could there is no way they would ever be on a single team. I am not sure how true that is, some teams have a lot more money than others.

28

I don’t see the NBA abandoning max contracts. That’s what the 99 lockout was about. LJ’s $84 million deal and Glen Robinson trying to get $100 million for his rookie contract and Kevin Garnett actually getting $125 million is stuff the NBA doesn’t wanna go back to.

29

It sounds like the trade is back on, with some tweaks (Hou will give NO 2 ham sandwiches, 1 now, and 1 to be eaten later). I have no doubt this is due to just about everyone who cares about the NBA being critical of the block. I’m not a Lakers fan per se, but I am Laker-friendly, so I’m glad this will go through. I’m wondering if they’ll still be able to get Howard, though, if he doesn’t go to the Nets. You still need a good big man to win a title, unless you’re Michael Jordan.

30

The NBA apparently wants the Hornets to get more young players and draft picks, which, again, would be reasonable if you leave out the conflict of interest. No details on the new trade have been released yet.

The argument is that with the salary cap and luxury taxes, if these guys were paid what they were worth, nobody would be able to put them on the same team.

There was no salary cap back then, and there’s now a limit of five years on a contract. I think if you bring those provisions together, it might work.

31

The problem, as I see it, is that there’s not a normal ownership hierarchy for the Hornets to have a general plan for the franchise.

Dell Demps is probably a good GM, but if left to his own devices he is going to try to maximize the team’s wins in the short term without as much consideration for the long term. This is where having an ownership in place would be helpful; they could tell him to go for a full rebuild, without worrying about his job security.

As mentioned previously in this thread, as presently constituted this trade would land NO squarely in “no-man’s land” where your team has between 30 and 40 wins per year. Odom is 32, Scola is 30, Kevin Martin 28. Those would be the best 3 players on the Hornets, along with 29 year old Emeka Okafor. Not only is that not a playoff team, it’s a team burdened by long-term salaries to Okafor, Martin and Scola. The team would honestly be better-off in the long term to just let Paul walk or do a sign-and-trade for picks than to trade for 3 guys in the twilight of their careers when they wouldn’t even make the playoffs afterwards.

32

I agree that’s a problem, but Demps isn’t acting on his own. The hierarchy isn’t normal, but it does exist.

They seem to be planning for the long term: they’re dealing Paul and sign-and-trading West. It looks like they’re getting Jermaine O’Neal back and I can’t imagine they will keep him.

Odom is gone after this year and a contending team might want him at the deadline. Okafor is another one of those guys who is always part of trade discussions. He’s got a long-term contract and he’s not great, but he’s a solid center. Scola is really good and he’s under contract at a reasonable salary for several more years. I’m not sure what they would do with Martin. But I think you’re assuming they would keep everybody.

Anybody who trades for Chris Paul is going to be a contending team to start with, and they’ll get better by trading him. So it’s unlikely they would get any really good draft picks. And players between 28 and 32 are not in the twilight of their careers. Martin and Scola are at their peaks, Odom is at the beginning of his decline but still valuable. I think Okafor will go downhill faster because of his previous health problems, but he’s not fading that fast.

33

28 is the “twilight” of Kevin Martin’s career? I’ll just say I respectfully disagree. You’re also making the assumption that Scola, Odom, and Martin would all wind up staying in New Orleans through the season - I doubt they are. They’re not being acquired as players; they’re being acquired as assets. This move gives New Orleans an interesting enough short-term lineup, a potential keeper in Martin (he’s only 28. There’s no reason in the world to expect that he will no longer be productive four years from now), an extremely tradable asset in Odom, the Knicks 2012 pick (which, no one’s saying it but it’s true, is one Amar’e Stoudamire knee injury away from being a lottery pick), their own 2012 pick (absent Paul, this becomes a near-certain lottery pick), and whatever they’re about to get from the Celtics for David West.

I just don’t see how they’re better off sneaking an 8 seed this year with Paul, then watching him walk for nothing. They’d have a bit more cap room, but no useful players and absolutely no reason for any player to come join them and use that cap room. At least with Martin, Scola, Okafor, two first round picks, and whatever return they eventually get for Odom, they can make an argument to a first-tier free agent that it’s worth coming to New Orleans. With just Okafor and the one pick, plus the vapor trail Chris Paul leaves on his way to New York, no free agent worth the money will even consider the Hornets.

34

Look no further than SEA/OKC to see how a rebuilding project should be done. Their GM, Sam Presti, traded all their veterans for young players and/or draft picks. He may have had an opportunity to make a trade such as the Chris Paul one, where he could have acquired some bigger-salary veteran types, but he realized that if you are creative, you can use your cap space really well. He proceeded to “rent” his cap space over the course of 2 or 3 years, where teams desperate to shed salary would trade him a player AND first rounders, in exchange for a second round pick. For example:

Presti acquired Thomas plus two first rounders from the Suns in exchange for a second round pick, then turned around a year later and traded Thomas for the Spurs’ first round draft pick! So in exchange for “renting” his salary cap space for a season, plus a second round pick, the Sonics were able to acquire three first round draft picks.

One of the players obtained with those picks? Serge Ibaka, their up-and-coming center.

Trading for veterans with longer-term contracts can work, but you have to be careful since if you can’t trade them, you’re paying them a ton of money, plus they will make your team actively better, which is the opposite of what you want when you’re rebuilding. Instead, most rebuilding teams prefer to get rid of their pricey veterans ASAP and stockpile picks and young talent, with the opportunity to use their cap space to their advantage if they can.

35

It may have been harsh for me to include Kevin Martin in that group, but the peak for NBA players is generally considered to be about age 27 or 28 (Martin turns 29 this year). Of course that could mean nothing where he is concerned, as plenty of players perform very well after age 30 or even hit their peak after that age (i.e. Steve Nash), but if I were making a bet, I would bet on Martin declining from here on out.

But even more importantly, he has a very significant injury history. He has 3 seasons with 20 or more games missed, including campaigns of 46, 51, and 61 games played. These tend to be a variety of injuries due to his aggressive style of play (he is among the leaders in free throws attempted every season) rather than a single chronic issue, however if he’s unable to change his style I doubt this situation will get any better.

36

Sam Presti got lucky with Durant. Lots of teams try the same type formula with little to no success. The Clippers every year gets some young up-and-comers but they never end up keeping them. Likewise it seems like the Timberwolves, Warriors, Kings, Pacers and others keep getting high draft picks and getting good young guys, but they never really amount to anything or they get traded away for some older guys who were supposed to bring stability but didn’t pan out. Credit to Presti for doing what he’s doing, but its not every year a GM lucks into the youngest scoring champion in history along with an explosive and quick point guard and complementary pieces all within 2 or 3 years of each other.

37

No, they don’t. The Clippers have drafted some good players and plenty of bad ones. When they haven’t kept them, it’s often because they didn’t want to pay them. It’s true they have had a significant amount of bad luck in there.

The Timberwolves in particular have been horrible at the draft. Luck always helps and the Thunder have certainly had some, but they knew what they were doing. And the Thunder got Durant because the Blazers bet big on Greg Oden, who is probably going to miss this season, too. Does that mean the Thunder are lucky, or that they’re smarter?

38

The trade may be dead after all. There are reports now that the Lakers are pulling out of the talks and will trade Odom to Dallas instead. I wonder if they think they have a better shot at Dwight Howard, who has formally requested a trade and can talk to the Lakers, Mavs, and Nets.

39

Yuck. I’d rather have Kobe, Bynum, and Paul and lose Odom and Gasol than Kobe, Howard, and lost a combination of Bynum + one of the other two

With Paul, even if he’s not known for defense, at least he’s quick and can break down the defense and keep with guys like JJ Barea. We’ve won 2 championships, one with Bynum and one without, so I’m fine with keeping him

If they get Howard, they’ll simply upgrade Bynum and downgrade either Gasol or Odom’s position and still have no one to deal with quick point guards

40

The plan was to trade Bynum away as part of a deal for Howard, so it was never going to be Kobe, Bynum, and Paul- at least, not for long. What I’m reading is that the Lakers decided the new price for Paul was too high, so instead, it sounds like they’re trying to put together a stronger trade for Howard. They could make a lesser upgrade at point guard and wind up with Kobe, Howard, maybe Gasol.