Chris Paul --> Lakers - (Vetoed again)

[BunniesMan]

Following sums it up damn well:

DanWetzel Dan Wetzel



Hornets actually got three good players for a guy who is gone in 66 games. Best of a bad situation, right?

But the thing is the Lakers can only get him in a trade. He's not going to go and play for them for 5 million a year in free agency.

The NBA would let them trade him to a non big market or will just force them to keep him until he walks away next summer. The latter would hurt the Hornets but it'll help the rest of the league because he'll go to a different team. Or in other words to one of the other 28 owners.

And TT, you mention conflict of interest. Yeah it's a huge conflict of interest but it's not like the NBA gives a damn about that.

And Paul himself has recently tweeted:

CP3 Chris Paul



WoW

Either he's a world of warcraft fan or he ain't happy.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

It's actually a pretty dangerous precedent. What are the Hornets supposed to do? Not trade him at all and lose him as a free agent for nothing?

It's not like it was a dodgy deal giving him away for nothing *cough Kwame Brown cough* they were getting good pieces in return

Baffling move to reject it because NO could well be worse off in the long run

 

[Nth-Qld-Raider]

CP3 Chris Paul
WoW.

 

[Ridders]

Following sums it up damn well:


But the thing is the Lakers can only get him in a trade. He's not going to go and play for them for 5 million a year in free agency.

The NBA would let them trade him to a non big market or will just force them to keep him until he walks away next summer. The latter would hurt the Hornets but it'll help the rest of the league because he'll go to a different team. Or in other words to one of the other 28 owners.

And TT, you mention conflict of interest. Yeah it's a huge conflict of interest but it's not like the NBA gives a damn about that.

And Paul himself has recently tweeted:

Either he's a world of warcraft fan or he ain't happy.

That's my point. How is that fair for the Hornets?

I actually don't mind too much that it got blocked. And I don't even blame the other owners for wanting to veto it.

The whole problem is that the other 29 teams in the league technically own a share in the Hornets, since the league represents the owners. So what are the Hornets supposed to do? Sit tight and do nothing till the team is sold?

This situation is f**ked.

 

[Nth-Qld-Raider]

I'd laugh if the Magic or another team jump in now and get CP3.

 

[cb4]

It's not like it was a dodgy deal giving him away for nothing *cough Kwame Brown cough* they were getting good pieces in return

Baffling move to reject it because NO could well be worse off in the long run

Thats what I dont understand. Im not a Laker fan nor am I a NO fan.

For me, as good as Paul is, NO are getting the better end of the pineapple in this case. The NBA have stiffed the Hornets.

NY are probably licking their lips at this.

 

[BunniesMan]

KevinDing KEVIN DING



... Jackson: "Someone’s going to have to make a very nonjudgmental decision that’s not going to irritate anyone else in the league.”

2 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply


»


KevinDing KEVIN DING



Phil Jackson called this on 12/29/10 about NBA owning Hornets: "When Chris says he has to be traded, how’s that going to go?" ...

The problem is, because of the mess the NBA got themselves into with NO, 29 guys own the Hornets, and for those 29 guys the Hornets are their absolute last priority.

Word is NO GM Dell Damps is "close to tears" because it looks increasingly likely like he'll lose his star for nothing and will have an awful awful team next season.

 

[BunniesMan]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski



Several GM's were lauding the haul of players and the draft pick that Demps was able to get back for Chris Paul in the deal. Now what?

/\ This is what we're all thinking pretty much.

Given the circumstances it was a good deal for the Hornets. A great one for LA. And a terrible one for the other 28 owners. I guess 28 votes beats 1 vote.

 

[Ridders]

This is genuine madness.

 

[ByRd]

This is absolutely ridiculous, how can the league justify trading Paul to anyone else now. It is a complete mess and a joke.

Also, if the other owners thought it was a conflict of interest that the league owned Hornets could make a move, then why not say straight out from the start that no player will be dealt until an owner is found. Instead they wait until a move is made and is out there, players involved in the trade have been informed, we had Odom getting teary in an interview and Kevin Martin thanking the Rockets and talking about moving on but then everyone has a whinge and its blocked, absolutely pathetic really.

 

[ByRd]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski

All along, the league office had allowed the Hornets to negotiate the Chris Paul trade without interference, sources said. And then, this.

 

[Big Mick]

Only reason I can think of for why the league didn't want to do it would be the fact losing Paul would hurt the net value of the team.

 

[Ridders]

This is absolutely ridiculous, how can the league justify trading Paul to anyone else now. It is a complete mess and a joke.

Also, if the other owners thought it was a conflict of interest that the league owned Hornets could make a move, then why not say straight out from the start that no player will be dealt until an owner is found. Instead they wait until a move is made and is out there, players involved in the trade have been informed, we had Odom getting teary in an interview and Kevin Martin thanking the Rockets and talking about moving on but then everyone has a whinge and its blocked, absolutely pathetic really.

I'd imagine it's because he was going to the Lakers.

But they do have a valid point in the sense that the Hornets would have taken on money in the deal.

Still the situation is just so messed up. I feel for the Hornets. How are they supposed to move on as franchise?

 

[Ridders]

Only reason I can think of for why the league didn't want to do it would be the fact losing Paul would hurt the net value of the team.

So it's going to get better when he leaves for nothing as a free agent?

Not attacking you, as I've read that elswhere. But it doesn't really hold up in the long-run for the Hornets.

 

[ByRd]

It would be a legit point if the owners were acting out of the interest of the Hornets franchise. They're acting out of self interest for their teams. The conflict of interest makes this really murky and sketchy. The league is clearly going to get blasted on it, and rightfully so.

 

[ByRd]

Good point from someone on Real GM:

Don't give me this BS that the trade is not allowed because it will cost the Hornets more money. The NBA established the precedent with the Carl Landry-Marcus Thornton trade that the Hornets could take on a higher payroll without a majority vote of the owners. While Cuban questioned the decision at the time, THE PRECEDENT WAS SET. It is a HUGE conflict of interest that the NBA could nullify this trade BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE PRECEDENT.

Here is the ESPN article where Cuban talks about the dangerous precedent:
http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nba/news/story?id=6152463

 

[Ridders]

It would be a legit point if the owners were acting out of the interest of the Hornets franchise. They're acting out of self interest for their teams. The conflict of interest makes this really murky and sketchy. The league is clearly going to get blasted on it, and rightfully so.

Yeah that's the real problem here.

Man I remember back when the league bought the team. It seemed somewhat queer at the time, but I didn't think too much of it.

Who know it would have blown up like this!

 

[Big Mick]

So it's going to get better when he leaves for nothing as a free agent?

Not attacking you, as I've read that elswhere. But it doesn't really hold up in the long-run for the Hornets.

Doesn't matter if they sell the franchise this year.

It'll be the new owner's problem

 

[Ridders]

Good point from someone on Real GM:

Don't give me this BS that the trade is not allowed because it will cost the Hornets more money. The NBA established the precedent with the Carl Landry-Marcus Thornton trade that the Hornets could take on a higher payroll without a majority vote of the owners. While Cuban questioned the decision at the time, THE PRECEDENT WAS SET. It is a HUGE conflict of interest that the NBA could nullify this trade BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE PRECEDENT.

Here is the ESPN article where Cuban talks about the dangerous precedent:
http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nba/news/story?id=6152463

Hmmm, I guess that kinda throws my point out the window.

And Cuban was dead right then as well.

 

[Ridders]

Doesn't matter if they sell the franchise this year.

It'll be the new owner's problem

But surely that owner is going to buy with the knowledge the franchise player will be leaving in a year's time?