Chris Paul is a shameless copycat

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

Just to further the point, let's say you are Larry Ellison or Phil Knight or some other big time billionaire with an ego the size of Texas... Are the Hornets worth more to you with Chris Paul and 15 wins this season or a bunch of serviceable but relatively anonymous guys and 25 wins? Big time billionaire is sure he can get Paul to come around because he always wins at the negotiating table. Having Paul on the roster is a major asset when it comes to the selling price of the team.

I'm also fine with making that call if Stern has an owner lined up.

But it has to be before the trading deadline, or once again .. that team is screwed.

And I think Okafor-Scola-Odom-Martin-Jack with Ariza and other FA's on the bench is a playoff team or close to it. Plus they get another pick from Houston .. certainly better than 25 wins, even with a shortened season.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Great Bill Simmons article on the entire situation:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7334835/the-sixth-day-nba-christmas

Stern explicitly and repeatedly said that he would not step in, and that all trades were at Demps' discretion. If Stern wanted to be involved in the process, he should have said so from the beginning.

Stern needs to go. He's accomplished the enviable feat of being hated by every fanbase in the league, and now all the major writers, commentators, and owners. He has injected himself into basketball affairs far too often, has never been able to appear impartial, and has overseen some of the largest blunders in sports (from ref scandals to the botched Kings-to-Anaheim debacle, and now this). A commissioner should be an impartial manager that fans don't have to think twice about.

I think it's obvious that they had no intentions of getting involved until the Lakers got him. This wasn't about them doing what's in the best interest of the Hornets, or the potential sale of their team, this was about stopping Paul to the Lakers and only that. It was a move made for the "best interest" of the league, not the Hornets. Now they pretty much can't trade Paul, and all three teams probably have disgruntled players.

 

[swisshh]

The trade would have made New Orleans a perrenial middling team with no potential upswing. That's the worst spot to be in if you're an NBA team. Kings fans should remember the 8th seed purgatory of no direction and no hope. It's better tear down and rebuild completely.

In that matter, it was a move that protected the Hornets. It was also a move to protect the league from further damage to itself as a product, but the trade itself was unacceptable.

 

[DocHolliday]

Yeah, they "added" Chris Paul to Kobe and Bynum, that's so objectively worse than what happened in NY, or Miami, or what could happen in NJ.

Not sure if that was sarcasm or not, if so, I see your point. However, I specifically believe that this happening right after the CBA and the supposed purpose of the hard line the NBA took would look very bad.

Also, the team without CP would be MUCH harder to sell to potential buyers in my opinion. I know if I'm the one buying it the team looks WAAAAY more attractice with CP3 on it. At least the team has a player that draws.

 

[captain bill]

Not sure if that was sarcasm or not, if so, I see your point. However, I specifically believe that this happening right after the CBA and the supposed purpose of the hard line the NBA took would look very bad.

Also, the team without CP would be MUCH harder to sell to potential buyers in my opinion. I know if I'm the one buying it the team looks WAAAAY more attractice with CP3 on it. At least the team has a player that draws.

Except now its clearer than ever that Paul will be gone in six months and the Hornets won't get anything good in return. This hurts the franchise far more than helps it.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

The trade would have made New Orleans a perrenial middling team with no potential upswing. That's the worst spot to be in if you're an NBA team. Kings fans should remember the 8th seed purgatory of no direction and no hope. It's better tear down and rebuild completely.

In that matter, it was a move that protected the Hornets. It was also a move to protect the league from further damage to itself as a product, but the trade itself was unacceptable.

Are you telling me they couldn't swing Odom, Martin, and Scola for picks and young players at the deadline if they wanted to? This wasn't Webber for Skinner, Thomas, and Williamson ... The players they got back were legit under solid, solid contracts. Martin and Odom both signed 'hometown' deals at the time they were extended.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Not sure if that was sarcasm or not, if so, I see your point. However, I specifically believe that this happening right after the CBA and the supposed purpose of the hard line the NBA took would look very bad.

Also, the team without CP would be MUCH harder to sell to potential buyers in my opinion. I know if I'm the one buying it the team looks WAAAAY more attractice with CP3 on it. At least the team has a player that draws.

It was sarcasm.

I don't know about that, it depends on the prospective owner. Maybe some dupe comes along thinking the extra money will sway Paul, but that's an awfully big gamble. The team they have after this trade has flexibility, they can compete, or they can be moved for better rebuilding pieces. Wouldn't a prospective owner prefer flexibility rather than have the direction the team all but decided when they bought it? All it took for Cavs to get what would eventually be the number one pick, was to swap a bad contract for a worse contract. What do you think the Hornets could do with Scola, Odom, and Martin, all being plus starters on team friendly contracts? Not great rebuilding pieces in return per se, but when they start to pile up, they can pretty nice. There's no grounds to complain that the Hornets get no star player back, because they were never going to get one back, and Paul (in all likelihood) is not staying. They screwed the Hornets over, they're not going to get anything for him now.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Flexible pieces.

Where've I heard that?

Incidentally, Lamar Odom makes about what Kenny made. Martin about 50% more. Hometown discount my a**.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Flexible pieces.

Where've I heard that?

Okay, make the argument that the packages were similar in terms of talent and trade value. Go ahead.

 

[Vlade4GM]

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7335235&categoryid=2378529

Normally don't like these ESPN guys, but pretty good discussion on this whole thing.

 

[Tetsujin]

You have to worry about that one a bit just in that is that Russian culture shock coming from the anything goes Euro sports culture? Or even Russian disdain for the rules?

Da.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Okay, make the argument that the packages were similar in terms of talent and trade value. Go ahead.

New Orleans gives up way more to get a little more. Fact is they still have some teeny tiny chance at retaining Paul as long as he is on the roster, the team is way more saleable with him on the roster, the team is far more attractive to fans with him on the roster. I can go on.

Webber was a washed up ex-superstar who would never contribute significantly again on a bad contract. In retrospect it was a horrid deal because Petrie obviously overestimated the return he could get breaking up the salary that way. But the deal was more horrid in terms of the emotional impact to the fanbase that results from sending someone who was leaps and bounds the greatest player in the Sacramento-era Kings' history for a bunch of forgettable nobodies.

Trading Paul will have the same emotional impact. At least Kings fans still had hope in 2004. New Orleans is already about as close as it gets to contraction being league owned. They also don't have anywhere near the history with the town that the Kings have and the market is saturated with other sports (primarily college based, but that's bigger in the South) so there's no reason for fans to show up. It will be the nail in the coffin of the franchise.

 

[Superman]

Except now its clearer than ever that Paul will be gone in six months and the Hornets won't get anything good in return. This hurts the franchise far more than helps it.

They can still do a sign and trade, even with the Lakers, after this season. Which makes you wonder what the point of the lockout was in the first place.

I think it's better for the league and the franchise for them to get an owner in place who can steward those decisions, because then that owner has to answer to his fan base.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I think it's better for the league and the franchise for them to get an owner in place who can steward those decisions, because then that owner has to answer to his fan base.

Of course it is.

When the trade was going down: OMG, David Stern is pushing this through to form another super team in a big market.
When the trade was shot down: OMG, David Stern is a maniacal despot trying to crush a big market super team.

 

[Vlade4GM]

New Orleans gives up way more to get a little more. Fact is they still have some teeny tiny chance at retaining Paul as long as he is on the roster, the team is way more saleable with him on the roster, the team is far more attractive to fans with him on the roster. I can go on.

Webber was a washed up ex-superstar who would never contribute significantly again on a bad contract. In retrospect it was a horrid deal because Petrie obviously overestimated the return he could get breaking up the salary that way. But the deal was more horrid in terms of the emotional impact to the fanbase that results from sending someone who was leaps and bounds the greatest player in the Sacramento-era Kings' history for a bunch of forgettable nobodies.

Trading Paul will have the same emotional impact. At least Kings fans still had hope in 2004. New Orleans is already about as close as it gets to contraction being league owned. They also don't have anywhere near the history with the town that the Kings have and the market is saturated with other sports (primarily college based, but that's bigger in the South) so there's no reason for fans to show up. It will be the nail in the coffin of the franchise.

So you're not going to make the argument then?

You implied that it was a similar trade package to the one the Kings got, I said back that claim up, and you side stepped it and talked about something else.

 

[Superman]

Of course it is.

When the trade was going down: OMG, David Stern is pushing this through to form another super team in a big market.
When the trade was shot down: OMG, David Stern is a maniacal despot trying to crush a big market super team.

Yeah, it's extreme to either side. I didn't really expect the deal to be vetoed, but it only makes sense to me. Ask anyone not in the media, even level-minded Laker fans here at the office, and they all get why the deal was vetoed. But all the screaming is all that's ever heard.

 

[Tyndel]

the team is way more saleable with him on the roster, the team is far more attractive to fans with him on the roster. I can go on.

If I am looking to buy a team and the league is trying to shop one why would I pay 50-100 million more this year then wait till Paul is gone this summer and start a true rebuild either in NO or in a market that can actually support a team like KC? Even just 2.5%(25million price difference on a billion) of an owners net worth is enough to make them wait a bit even if they are looking to spend when they do get a team.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

If I am looking to buy a team and the league is trying to shop one why would I pay 50-100 million more this year then wait till Paul is gone this summer and start a true rebuild either in NO or in a market that can actually support a team like KC? Even just 2.5%(25million price difference on a billion) of an owners net worth is enough to make them wait a bit even if they are looking to spend when they do get a team.

Well you either pay more now because you think you are the guy that can talk Paul into staying or you take a chance and wait a year and hope to save some money (you probably won't save that much) and buy a team that is going to be awful without their star and take your chances in the lottery building from scratch. Either of those seem like better paths than going the fringe playoff with no star player route. Seriously, this is Kingsfans right??? Kevin Martin was here as the face of the franchise only 2 seasons ago??? Hello???

 

[Superman]

If I am looking to buy a team and the league is trying to shop one why would I pay 50-100 million more this year then wait till Paul is gone this summer and start a true rebuild either in NO or in a market that can actually support a team like KC? Even just 2.5%(25million price difference on a billion) of an owners net worth is enough to make them wait a bit even if they are looking to spend when they do get a team.

If you buy the Hornets and start making decisions before the trade deadline, maybe you can get a deal done that helps you keep Paul in NO. Maybe, if Dwight Howard doesn't leave Orlando, you can pair him with Paul at the deadline, and maybe re-sign both. Worse case, you can work a sign-and-trade after the season.

The whole point is that I think someone who will eventually have to answer to their fan base should be directing major decisions like this one. It's not Marcus Thornton for Carl Landry. This is one of the top players in the NBA, and his presence drives the team's value, it affects ticket prices (the Hornets increased their STH base by 4,000 in the past year; think that has something to do with Chris Paul?), etc. There's tons of things to take into consideration here, and the league-appointed GM and the board of governors don't really have to consider them. They claim to be waiting for a buyer who will commit to NO, and that kind of commitment is a lot easier when you have a superstar like Chris Paul. Even just having a chance at a superstar like Chris Paul makes a difference.

I'm not saying the league should block any play by the Lakers or any other big market team to acquire Chris Paul. I'm just saying I don't think the league should orchestrate that kind of deal.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Then they never should have bought the team, and they never should have let any trade talks happen. This was a last minute call that was made because Stern wanted to appease the owners (probably because they control how big of a pension he gets), and the owners didn't give a rat's *** about the value of that team, they only cared about stopping the Lakers. You can't have that happen in this league. No one was going to stop anything until it was the Lakers getting him.

None of the arguments you're making are the reasons why this was done.

 

[Vlade4GM]

The talks are supposedly back on.

 

[SacKings7]

How does the new CBA work when it comes to the cap and retaining your own free agents? If it was like before, then it only really seems logical (in the modern day NBA anyway :s) to pair Paul with Howard. The tricky part being that neither team has any assets of any real value other than those 2, outside of Daniel Orton perhaps

 

[dbfish]

We missed almost two months of the NBA season and yet we're still stuck here fearing the same crap we did before the lockout. Paul requesting a trade to the Knicks? It seems completely unfeasible, but this is getting absolutely ridiculous. I can't think of a better way to spoil basketball permanently than to have this turn into a permanent trend where the star players just consolidate with each other to manipulate their way onto the same team. Do basketball players have any pride anymore? Although maybe I'm giving basketball players too much credit in implying they ever did.

The bright side is that Paul's request will probably never be fulfilled while the league owns the team. The NBA trading Paul to the Knicks? Man, if the NBA's fanbase wasn't already full of conspiracy nuts, it would be after that. Still, the fact that he feels comfortable making this request, and Howard and Williams are probably gearing up to do something similar, is a very bad sign. If they pull this off, then the only hope the NBA has is that these teams don't pan out because of their crappy depth, and therefore stops being trendy.

My sentiments exactly! If it were left up to the players, there would be four teams. Knicks, Celtics, Heat and Lakers. Then when that happens the 400 (+ or -) players out of a job still wouldn't be able to figure out why.

 

[Superman]

Then they never should have bought the team, and they never should have let any trade talks happen. This was a last minute call that was made because Stern wanted to appease the owners (probably because they control how big of a pension he gets), and the owners didn't give a rat's *** about the value of that team, they only cared about stopping the Lakers. You can't have that happen in this league. No one was going to stop anything until it was the Lakers getting him.

None of the arguments you're making are the reasons why this was done.

You're telling me that the NBA doesn't want the Lakers to be good? The Lakers being good is driving a whole heck of a lot of revenue for the NBA right now, and as soon as they get their revenue sharing banged out, it's going to be even bigger. They signed a TV deal that's bringing in $150 million a year for the next two decades. And now, you're saying that this entire veto was to stop the Lakers?

 

[Superman]

Then they never should have bought the team, and they never should have let any trade talks happen. This was a last minute call that was made because Stern wanted to appease the owners (probably because they control how big of a pension he gets), and the owners didn't give a rat's *** about the value of that team, they only cared about stopping the Lakers. You can't have that happen in this league. No one was going to stop anything until it was the Lakers getting him.

None of the arguments you're making are the reasons why this was done.

You're telling me that the NBA doesn't want the Lakers to be good? The Lakers being good is driving a whole heck of a lot of revenue for the NBA right now, and as soon as they get their revenue sharing banged out, it's going to be even bigger. They signed a TV deal that's bringing in $150 million a year for the next two decades. And now, you're saying that this entire veto was to stop the Lakers?

 

[swisshh]

Are you telling me they couldn't swing Odom, Martin, and Scola for picks and young players at the deadline if they wanted to? This wasn't Webber for Skinner, Thomas, and Williamson ... The players they got back were legit under solid, solid contracts. Martin and Odom both signed 'hometown' deals at the time they were extended.

You can only move those guys for players of roughly the same talent level. We got Carl Landry out of dealing Kevin Martin. Odom isn't getting you anything to help you rebuild until hes an expiring. The only teams that will want him are contenders and they can only give up middling players and late draft picks in return.

I don't see how they rework this deal with the same teams to make it better.

 

[mac]

Then they never should have bought the team, and they never should have let any trade talks happen. This was a last minute call that was made because Stern wanted to appease the owners (probably because they control how big of a pension he gets), and the owners didn't give a rat's *** about the value of that team, they only cared about stopping the Lakers. You can't have that happen in this league. No one was going to stop anything until it was the Lakers getting him.

None of the arguments you're making are the reasons why this was done.

You sir are funny. Is there anything about the NBA and the Kings that doesn't pee you off?

 

[Variant]

I don't like to see the star players being able to drive the creation of these teams of super friends and truly do believe that sorta thing needs to end. Fans of smaller market teams will lose interest if it's clear the deck is stacked against us ever picking up enough star power (except via the draft -- a crapshoot to begin with added to the fact the star draft pick that does pan out probably forces his way out near the end of his rookie deal) to contend.

I see the big name players colluding together to all get on the same squad in a glitzy market and I really wonder why I bother to watch the NBA.

It's a problem I want the NBA to solve, and based on that I halfway like what Stern did yesterday even though I think it was a messy and wrong way to go about it. This is something that shoulda been hammered out in the CBA even if it meant losing the whole season. One-offs like this will only backfire.

 

[swisshh]

It's something that should have been done through the new CBA, but the players wouldn't have it.

Instead of acting as the voice piece for agents, I'd love for some press to ask the players how they reconcile the problem of fighting against things that the fans dearly want and then coming back and expecting fans to support them?

 

[mac]

It's something that should have been done through the new CBA, but the players wouldn't have it.

Instead of acting as the voice piece for agents, I'd love for some press to ask the players how they reconcile the problem of fighting against things that the fans dearly want and then coming back and expecting fans to support them?

Sounds good to me! I reckon their response would just harp at the whole "we want a system where players are able to play in any market/city that they want, one that doesn't limit opportunities as free agents", kinda do the whole I am not answering your question thing, here is our stance, you figure it out.