What's new
By:

Impeach Stern

Mantis said:
67 million reasons why the NBA killed the Paul-to-Lakers trade:

https://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/12005/the-chris-paul-trade-what-the-nba-did-wrong
Click to expand...


We all know what happened -- the league shut down the deal. Dan Gilbert reportedly argued that the trade “should go to a vote of the 29 owners of the Hornets.” And I agree with him. Last year, the Hornets made a move to take on Carl Landry, and Mark Cuban justifiably complained. Why? Because when the Hornets make a move that costs them money, the other 29 owners are paying the bills. How much money were the Hornets planning to spend in the Chris Paul trade? $67,073,369
Click to expand...
.
That is a lot to spend to become last year’s Rockets plus Lamar Odom. The trade is even more financially dubious given that Luis Scola is the only player who has a contract that extends beyond two years. I would argue that very few owners would authorize spending that much money to acquire those players, several of whom have short, expensive contracts. But the Hornets didn’t have that problem, because GM Dell Demps was free to operate without a solitary owner hovering over him, potentially vetoing a financially prohibitive trade.
Click to expand...
 
Did you see Dragic play last year. Did you see the game when he had like 30 some points in one half? The guy can play. One of the best players in Eurobasket.
 
write4u said:
Did you see Dragic play last year. Did you see the game when he had like 30 some points in one half? The guy can play. One of the best players in Eurobasket.
Click to expand...

Dragic is a good player. Just inconsistent. Dragic, Martin, and first round pick certainly gave them some young talent. We will see what Stern will take from the Clippers or if that trade will die too.
 
The players in the Lakers trade have been good players yes. But they're old. And expensive. I'd be fine with the Paul to Lakers trade if it didn't save L.A. any money. But it did. So I'm glad it was squashed.

That doesn't change the fact that the NBA has no business owning a team though. Whatever. The lockout sucked. The NBA sucks. I hate not being able to just say goodbye to the game. I love the game, I love the Jazz. But man, it is so frustrating. I hate Stern. Hate.
 
But how much have you watched Dragic play? He was playing behind Steve Nash, so he didn't get the minutes, but a lot of the times, he was more effective than Nash.
 
That article defending 'basketball reasons' makes good points. But I don't think I can agree with it. As to the Laker deal, they would have acquired Scola, Odom, and Martin as the key principles. On that front, the writer states:

And while New Orleans could plausibly spin off Martin, Scola and Odom for younger players, if that’s the end goal, there’s no reason to add an additional layer of trades in dealing Paul. Because so much of the roster is built around him, dealing the All-NBA point guard for prospects would ensure the team sinks to the bottom of the standings, guaranteeing at least a top-4 pick in what’s projected to be one of the deepest draft classes in a decade.

The Hornets drafted Paul with the No. 4 pick in the 2006 draft, and the draft is the only realistic way for a small-market franchise to acquire that type of elite talent. In dealing Paul, they should ask themselves this question: do I want to be drafting between No. 10-15 over the next two seasons or between No. 1-5? Which path is more likely to return New Orleans to relevance?

That’s why dealing him to the Clippers for a package built around raw second-year players Eric Bledsoe and Al-Farouq Aminu and the Timberwolves’ unprotected first-round pick (which Kevin McHale rather amusingly gave up as the price for turning Sam Cassell into Marko Jaric) is so compelling.
Click to expand...

A) Dell Demps never had any idea of building around that nucleus.
B) All 3 of those guys are coveted and could have been flipped for young talent/draft picks.
C) Flip 'em all before the season and New Orleans gets their own high pick plus whatever the trades bring.
D) Even with those guys, that's not a playoff team, but all 3 would be highly valued at the deadline.
E) The league is littered with teams that should have gotten better when they drafted 1st through 4th and didn't.

The Clippers deal is arguably better. But Stern has to let Demps do his job. And acquiring assets for a superstar who will walk away is EXACTLY his job. So Stern is putting NO on course to get exactly ONE high pick for Paul. That's savage ownership.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top