Chris Paul is a shameless copycat

I would love to see Paul stay in NO. I would love to see Howard stay in Orlando. But let's consider what they would be staying for. Who is the second best player on the either of those teams? The above average, but coming of a blown ACL David West? The underachieving, constantly injured Jameer Nelson? New Orleans is so underfinanced that the league owns it. Orlando is so poorly managed that they gave Rashard Lewis a massive deal that makes him currently the second highest paid player in the league and then traded him for Gilbert Arenas, whose awfulness need not be discussed.

You have your prime once as an athlete. And if you're either of these players, resigning with your current teams means throwing away any chance of realistically being competitive during that prime. And you could say the same about the Lebron Cavs too - who was their second best player? Mo Williams? An aging Antwan Jamison? We can name several players on the Kings that are better than those guys.

They will be free agents - they put in their time (longer than most of us will ever spend at a job)...they deserve the right to go wherever they want. As for Paul leaking this out early, some may argue this is better than not doing that and leaving the franchise with no heads up.
 
Last edited:
Vlade4GM said:
I'll retract what I said to the point that I admit that how I phrased it was based on an emotional reaction to what is going on right now.

What I should have stated was that I don't think that many of the "hardline owners" (that were mostly just the new owners in the NBA) were as much about competitive balance as they made out. Which is why they caved much more on system issues than they did on the BRI. Lets see how much these small market teams spend this new influx of money over the next few years.
Click to expand...

I think they all really wanted to prevent the drama we're seeing now with Howard and Paul, and they understand that being able to retain star players is essential to having success both competitively and with the fans.

One of the big wins for the players was the change in the minimum salary a team can have. With the new agreement it will end up being 90% of the cap in 3 years, which is going to force small market teams to spend more money, so we could even see more 'slightly-overpaid' players just do the minimums which will be in place.

I think the owners are happy with the financials and aren't that thrilled with the system issues. But they did win some of the sytem issues and they weren't willing to risk the entire season when they got 1.5 of the 2 things they wanted. (All of the finances and half the system issues)

I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the owners are hoping that there will be a lot of drama around Paul, Howard, and Williams, with all three forcing their way onto big market teams. That will give the owners a lot of leverage in 6 years to push for things such as a franchise tag, or allowance of a single Bird-right option/year, ect.

I think that in 6 years, the owners will be mostly happy with the finances, and will keep that 'as-is' which will really afford them the opportunity to push hard to get the remaining system issues in place to keep everyone competitive. And as much as they wanted it this time around, they got a lot of what they wanted, and felt it was better to have a season, and take up the fight next time around.

We'll just have to see how things play out. As a fan of the game, I'm disappointed that the Owners didn't win out on more of the system issues. But I'd rather be where we are today, and have a season, then the prospect of missing a year or two fighting for the remaining system issues.

I truly do expect the owners to win on a lot of these outstanding system issues in 6 years when they have the ability to opt out of the current agreement, especially since they probably won't be pushing as much on the economics.
 
Uncia03 said:
I think they all really wanted to prevent the drama we're seeing now with Howard and Paul, and they understand that being able to retain star players is essential to having success both competitively and with the fans.

One of the big wins for the players was the change in the minimum salary a team can have. With the new agreement it will end up being 90% of the cap in 3 years, which is going to force small market teams to spend more money, so we could even see more 'slightly-overpaid' players just do the minimums which will be in place.

I think the owners are happy with the financials and aren't that thrilled with the system issues. But they did win some of the sytem issues and they weren't willing to risk the entire season when they got 1.5 of the 2 things they wanted. (All of the finances and half the system issues)

I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the owners are hoping that there will be a lot of drama around Paul, Howard, and Williams, with all three forcing their way onto big market teams. That will give the owners a lot of leverage in 6 years to push for things such as a franchise tag, or allowance of a single Bird-right option/year, ect.

I think that in 6 years, the owners will be mostly happy with the finances, and will keep that 'as-is' which will really afford them the opportunity to push hard to get the remaining system issues in place to keep everyone competitive. And as much as they wanted it this time around, they got a lot of what they wanted, and felt it was better to have a season, and take up the fight next time around.

We'll just have to see how things play out. As a fan of the game, I'm disappointed that the Owners didn't win out on more of the system issues. But I'd rather be where we are today, and have a season, then the prospect of missing a year or two fighting for the remaining system issues.

I truly do expect the owners to win on a lot of these outstanding system issues in 6 years when they have the ability to opt out of the current agreement, especially since they probably won't be pushing as much on the economics.
Click to expand...

Really? I suspect the opposite will happen in six years. The revenue concessions this time around (both in terms of BRI and revenue sharing so small market teams can eat into deals like the one the Lakers got), combined with presumably a better economy in six years, will likely mean better profits all around. If there is a lockout, the players will negotiate hard to get back some of what they lost (because they gave up a ton this time around). If things are REALLY going well to the point that the owners would be losing money by missing games, then the players may take a real hard line stance in the next labor negotiations (maybe even initiate a strike). CBA negotiations are all about leverage. This time the owners had ALL the leverage...in six years, the players might have some.


And don't be too discourgaed that they didn't fix system issues in this labor agreement. They actually did make some changes that should seriously prevent Carmelo type things from happening again - essentially eliminating sign and trades, restricting what luxury tax payers can do, etc. Unfortunately, those provisions don't kick in for 2 years.
 
acisking said:
Really? I suspect the opposite will happen in six years. The revenue concessions this time around (both in terms of BRI and revenue sharing so small market teams can eat into deals like the one the Lakers got), combined with presumably a better economy in six years, will likely mean better profits all around. If there is a lockout, the players will negotiate hard to get back some of what they lost (because they gave up a ton this time around). If things are REALLY going well to the point that the owners would be losing money by missing games, then the players may take a real hard line stance in the next labor negotiations (maybe even initiate a strike). CBA negotiations are all about leverage. This time the owners had ALL the leverage...in six years, the players might have some.


And don't be too discourgaed that they didn't fix system issues in this labor agreement. They actually did make some changes that should seriously prevent Carmelo type things from happening again - essentially eliminating sign and trades, restricting what luxury tax payers can do, etc. Unfortunately, those provisions don't kick in for 2 years.
Click to expand...

you are spot on about the leverage in CBA negotations and why the owners had so much power this time around -- they were the party losing money. Make the league profitable and they are a LOT less eager to go to the mat. That said they were very much interested in fighting for the system issues as well as the money, and even if the league is proftiable by the time the next CBA is negotiated, I could see any bounceback in player percentages (which might have a tendency to be "sticky" at 50% due to the inherent fairness arguments associated with that number) being part of an actual give and take negotationa this time. As in we'll slide you back up to 52% if you give us more of the system issues we wanted last time.
 
acisking said:
Really? I suspect the opposite will happen in six years. The revenue concessions this time around (both in terms of BRI and revenue sharing so small market teams can eat into deals like the one the Lakers got), combined with presumably a better economy in six years, will likely mean better profits all around. If there is a lockout, the players will negotiate hard to get back some of what they lost (because they gave up a ton this time around). If things are REALLY going well to the point that the owners would be losing money by missing games, then the players may take a real hard line stance in the next labor negotiations (maybe even initiate a strike). CBA negotiations are all about leverage. This time the owners had ALL the leverage...in six years, the players might have some.
Click to expand...

I bolded the most important part of this. Next time around the players might have some of the leverage, especially if the league is very profitable. But the players are never going to have more leverage than the owners for the simple fact that the owners will always be able to wait out the players, if it truly came to that. So I don't ever see the owners giving up the kind of financial concessions the player made this time around.

So because the players may have more leverage next time most likely means that the owners are not going to be as aggressive next time, and most certainly won't be pushing the economics the way they did.

So the owners aren't going to be fighting for the economics when we next deal with these CBA issues, and for that reason I expect them to resolve most, if not all, of the competitive balance issues that are outstanding.
It didn't make sense for the owners to lose an entire season when they won on the economics and also got some partial victories on the system.

The Owners most likely won't have the same sort of leverage next time around, but there is no way the players will have enough leverage to move the BRI 5+%, plus win on system issues.
More than likely the BRI will still hover around 50%, while the owners get their way on a lot of the remaining system issues.


Hopefully it will play out that way.
 
My father has always said it will take a stubborn owner that will act on pinciple in spite of the money he's spending. The owner would need to tell the player and his agent...

You are under contract, you are playing for this team, end of story. When your contract is up we can have this conversation, and you'll be free to pursue other offers. If the coaching staff believes that you are dogging it, slacking off, playing uninterested, causing fractures on the team, they will bench you indefinitely up to, and including until your contract expires. Unless you prove that you are willing to give 100% and be a good teammate once again. This is nothing personal, this is business, and we have a contract. A contract YOU agreed to, and you have to live with that contract until it expires.

The problem is everyone is too worried about upsetting the players fragile ego, and the owners aren't willing to bite the bullet and bench a player if need be while paying them large sums of money.
 
DocHolliday said:
My father has always said it will take a stubborn owner that will act on pinciple in spite of the money he's spending. The owner would need to tell the player and his agent...

You are under contract, you are playing for this team, end of story. When your contract is up we can have this conversation, and you'll be free to pursue other offers. If the coaching staff believes that you are dogging it, slacking off, playing uninterested, causing fractures on the team, they will bench you indefinitely up to, and including until your contract expires. Unless you prove that you are willing to give 100% and be a good teammate once again. This is nothing personal, this is business, and we have a contract. A contract YOU agreed to, and you have to live with that contract until it expires.

The problem is everyone is too worried about upsetting the players fragile ego, and the owners aren't willing to bite the bullet and bench a player if need be while paying them large sums of money.
Click to expand...

No, the problem is that you pretty much guarantee that relationship will be ruined, and you significantly hurt your chances at attracting other players. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
 
mac said:
What I can't stand about this whole "play on a contender/winning" bs is that they (Howard, Lebron) came from teams that recently made the finals/ went deep in the playoffs for a good number of years. If this is the attitude that players these days are taking then I wish all Kings fans very good luck, because when Tyreke and DMC are reaching the end of their contracts we wouldn't have had success remotely near that of pre-LBJ leaving Cleveland, current Orlando, and even the Hornets.
Click to expand...
Durantula gives me hope. It'd be great if our guys take a look at him. Think a spanking new arena would also help.
 
acisking said:
They will be free agents - they put in their time (longer than most of us will ever spend at a job)...they deserve the right to go wherever they want. As for Paul leaking this out early, some may argue this is better than not doing that and leaving the franchise with no heads up.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of your post. It's tough, but I think you're right, in that I'd rather pull a Utah than a Cleveland if losing a superstar.
 
DocHolliday said:
My father has always said it will take a stubborn owner that will act on pinciple in spite of the money he's spending. The owner would need to tell the player and his agent...

You are under contract, you are playing for this team, end of story. When your contract is up we can have this conversation, and you'll be free to pursue other offers. If the coaching staff believes that you are dogging it, slacking off, playing uninterested, causing fractures on the team, they will bench you indefinitely up to, and including until your contract expires. Unless you prove that you are willing to give 100% and be a good teammate once again. This is nothing personal, this is business, and we have a contract. A contract YOU agreed to, and you have to live with that contract until it expires.

The problem is everyone is too worried about upsetting the players fragile ego, and the owners aren't willing to bite the bullet and bench a player if need be while paying them large sums of money.
Click to expand...

That's a horrible business strategy. If anything you patiently put up with it, while shopping him around the league and springing at the best offer. Losing a player for nothing, after underachieving because that player was benched and became a cancer off the court, all the while sending out a message which will cause other stars never to consider signing here, and having to deal with our coaching/managerial style, will kill any pro sports organization.

Hope your father stays a fan.
 
Players don't seem to understand how they're damaging the product their career is based upon.

I think one of the reasons Michael Jordan was such a hardass during the negotiations is because he lost respect for the players when they cashed out on their own competitive pride.
 
swisshh said:
Players don't seem to understand how they're damaging the product their career is based upon.

I think one of the reasons Michael Jordan was such a hardass during the negotiations is because he lost respect for the players when they cashed out on their own competitive pride.
Click to expand...

(Re: Jordan) It's not that deep, he was a hardass because it benefited his business to be a hardass.
 
calling chris paul "shameless" seems a bit strong to me. i don't really have a problem with what he's doing. the hornets had a good run there for a couple of seasons as a second-tier playoff team, but injuries and financial uncertainty took them out at the knees. now, with no ownership, and no guarantee of remaining in new orleans, the team is in a basketball purgatory that no superstar would want any part of. paul has made it clear that he wants an opportunity to win. he's also made his respect for new orleans clear. he loves the city, loves the organization, and wants them to get a fair deal should they trade him. of all the superstars clamoring for new situations, at least paul is doing his best to stay out of the way. he's not forcing anybody's hand. and he's not barking in the media...

in fact, the only time he ever personally gave any public indication that he wanted to play elsewhere was at carmelo anthony's wedding, when he toasted a suggestion that carmelo, amare, and himself should team up. that's not much of a "public" trade demand, and it mostly sounds like it was all in good fun. whatever channels that paul is actually pursuing to end up in a more favorable situation are behind-closed-doors, as they should be. its not even clear that he has requested a trade. new orleans is pursuing potential trade partners for him because paul has said that he won't sign an extension. new orleans is then doing the smart thing, and attempting to avoid the circus sideshow that were the trade talks surrounding carmelo anthony last season...

people forget that it usually takes two or more all-star caliber players to even be in the hunt for a championship, and at least one of those all-stars needs to play at a superstar level. there are a multitude of ways to acquire that talent in the nba. you can draft well. you can trade well. and you can sign well. ordinarily it is some combination of all three. now, i, and a lot of others, had a problem with what miami's big three did because it reeked of collusion and cowardice. same with carmelo anthony in new york. other than dwayne wade, who already has a title to his name, none of these guys has much in the way of gut instinct when it comes to winning it all. lebron was on a good team in cleveland. he went to the finals with cleveland. he couldn't put them over the top. so he signed with miami. then he went to the finals with miami. and he still couldn't put them over the top. that's on him. he deserves the criticism he gets in miami. likewise, carmelo was on a good team in denver. he had a lot more talent around him than lebron, and he could not elevate his team to anything resembling championship-level aspirations. he requested a trade to new york. he's still on a mediocre team, and he still can't elevate them to a higher level. that's on him. he deserves the criticism he gets in new york...

now, what has chris paul done except fight for every inch his entire career? he's incredibly loyal (remember how pissed he was when new orleans canned byron scott?), an incredible talent, an incredible competitor, and an incredible team player with an unfortunate injury history. he's stuck it out with the hornets for a long time, and he's watched the talent-level dwindle around him. he deserves a shot at a title so much more than lebron james, who's already been there but still shies away from the big moments, and carmelo anthony, who knows he's as overrated as so many people say he is. personally, i hope paul ends up with the clippers. provided he stayed healthy, he and blake griffin would easily outshine whatever carmelo and amare could accomplish in new york. i'd like to see these hypothetical clippers outshine whatever miami's big three can accomplish, as well, but with howard headed out of orlando, and boston's big three on the downturn, miami has little competition out east, save chicago. paul would still be fighting uphill in a tougher conference. and my guess is that he'll be just fine with it. the guy wants to play. the guy wants to win. and i hope he gets that chance this season...
 
I like that the Lakers moved Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom for Chris Paul. It weakens their interior on several levels. Would have been nice if we had kept Dalembert. Now hopefully they don't get Howard, because then the point is moot.
 
Spike said:
I like that the Lakers moved Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom for Chris Paul. It weakens their interior on several levels. Would have been nice if we had kept Dalembert. Now hopefully they don't get Howard, because then the point is moot.
Click to expand...

I'm sure David Stern has a divine plan to change the "Clippers" on the front of Blake Griffin's jersey to "Lakers" without anybody noticing.

Even though I do agree that it weakens their interior significantly, Nene or another FA big will sign there for below market value. This trade is just making me one step closer to boycotting the NBA
 
id rather them have chris paul than Gasol. I mean gasol and kobe are inside outside. Paul and Kobe are only effective whne they have the ball. both play in backcourt they both can't have ball. it wouldn't work well i don't think with no inside help although they were leverageing the get howard as well.
 
Variant said:
Per Marc Stein on Twitter, the deal is off ... ?
Click to expand...

Yep Deal is off..

Stern kills Lakers’ deal for Paul
NBA commissioner David Stern has killed the New Orleans Hornets’ trade of Chris Paul after several owners complained about the league-owned team dealing the All-Star point guard to the Los Angeles Lakers, league sources told Yahoo! Sports.
more...
 
By itself, I didn't mind the trade since it actually made LA worse... however, I was next expecting some voodoo to occur and Dwight would be traded to the Lakers giving us another superteam.

Based on that, the fan in me is glad it didn't happen, but Stern has really opened up pandora's box by nixing this. Somewhat of a get out of jail free card because the Hornets are league owned, but this really sets a bizarre precedent.

Will anyone be allowed to trade for Paul? What trades will the Lakers be allowed to do?
 
Gary said:
Yep Deal is off..

Stern kills Lakers’ deal for Paul
NBA commissioner David Stern has killed the New Orleans Hornets’ trade of Chris Paul after several owners complained about the league-owned team dealing the All-Star point guard to the Los Angeles Lakers, league sources told Yahoo! Sports.
more...
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a giant wow. I absolutely love the theory of stuffing these manufactured trades back in the faces of these wimps we call call stars today. And to come out of the lockout only to immediately have the biggest glam market of them all run around the league buying up everybody else's supserstars was an ugly and ill timed thing.

BUT...the deal that New Orelans was going to get, Martin, Scola AND Odom? With Dragic thrown in as well? Was fair and then some. No superstar coming back, but as much talent as I have seen come back in one of these things because of Houston's apparent desire to be rid of Scola and Martin (defense? money? not sure why). So once the NBA nixes it...what's the theory there? The excuse? If you don't have some guiding principle then you have just been arbitrary and opened up awhole stinkpot. If you did it for instance becasue you just knew that the immediate followup would be Dwght trying to force his way in there to join Kobe and CP3 and thoght that would be bad for the league...well you're right. But then that's you conducting the business of one franchise on behalf of the entire league.

And now you've created a giant stink ball. Paul is pissed. Paul and Odom are pissed. The chemstiry and trust in three organizations has been blown up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

venom_7
Venom_7 Doxxes | A Ghost of Christmas Past
Replies
2
Views
574
venom_7
venom_7
Tetsujin
  • Locked
[Game] Shriek-ramento Kings @ Charlotte Horror-nets 10/31/2022 4pm Western, 7pm Eastern
15 16 17
Replies
492
Views
17K
kingsfan101
K
V
What should a good NBA GM know - and when should he/she know it ? (A LONG read - be warned)
2
Replies
53
Views
3K
Noble
Noble
Tetsujin
[Game] Kings @ Pelicans, 10/29/21 5pm Pacific 8pm Eastern
9 10 11
Replies
304
Views
11K
Mr. S£im Citrus
Mr. S£im Citrus
Tetsujin
[Game] Kings @ Magic, 1/27/2021, 4pm PST, 7pm EST
4 5 6
Replies
161
Views
7K
SCKingsfan
S
Back
Top