This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
where's a link people? who's reporting this trade?
Not sure about that. 2 first round picks, Al Jefferson, a huge expiring deal in Ratliff, a nice young rotation guy in Gomes, and some young guys that didnt pan out in Green, and Telfair.I think it just seems worse than it was because Kevin McHale screwed everything up after that deal.
For real.As is the thought that Gilbert and Stern did this all on their own. Gilbert was the voice of plenty of NBA owners.
Throw Green out of that equation. It was known, at least by the Celts, that the kid was not NBA material. They were teaching him basic fundamentals that ten year olds already understood.
This doesn't make him any less of a petulant, childish, whiny tool. I guess give him credit for putting his money grubbing jealousy out there in public instead of hiding behind Stern's skirts?
Plenty of players out there but unfortunately they are all overpaid, whiny kids who think they should be able to decide where they want to play. The league is looking worse everyday. Pretty much every star player has demanded a trade at one point in time.
Whether or not a rational Lakers fan thinks it's a bad deal is interesting but it doesn't really impact my ability to laugh at the other Lakers fans. Have you seen Tim's posts over the last few pages?Anyway, the issue here IMO is with the way the league is running a team, not with the way the league is being run generally. Any owner obviously has the authority to veto a trade; the issue is whether the owners are somehow harming the best interests of a team it runs in order to protect what they see as their own best interests. But that is always a question when a league's owners collectively run a team; believe me, as a die-hard Washington Nationals fan, I know. Any fan of the three teams in this deal should try knowing that his team could have had Brandon Phillips, Cliff Lee and Grady Sizemore if the league hadn't traded them away for a half-season of Bartolo Colon.'Gr00vus said:Actually, I think it's a bad deal for the Lakers, so I'm hoping it doesn't go through. I have no idea how you put the pieces back together with all the players (besides Paul) who were getting shipped out though, so I'm not happy about that or the sophomoric way the league is being "run."'the moops said:'TobiasFunke said:
I know this is a short-term PR disaster, but it's easily worth it for the laughs at the expense of Lakers fans.I am quite sure they would be laughing like the rest of the world if this happened to the Heat or the Celtics or the Knicks.
Stinky bait. You can do better.'TobiasFunke said:I gotta admit, the idea of seeing what happens when the best crunch time player in the league is put on the floor with the worst crunch time player in the league would have been intriguing.'pollardsvision said:I'm not a Laker fan, but I do like Kobe.That said, like many, I'd love to see a #### storm in LA. I could see Kobe having a much bigger problem with CP3.'B-Deep said:
Howard would take the limelight, but he won't take the ball.
CP3 to the Lakers just has all sorts of ways for it to be treat for Laker-haters.
Kobe/CP3 trying to find a way to share the ball.
The very real possibility of CP3 and his bum knee being an albatross of a contract in a couple of years.
Stern might've stolen that possibility from us.
Unless they have roots in Houston, why would they go? No stars to make them the next super-friends team. Only hope for the other 25 or so teams in the league is getting lucky in the draft (after being ####ty for multiple years) and then hope they can win a title in the 5 year window which they have a superstar. Cause if they don't'Abraham said:
Of course this is assuming that the year they do get lucky in the draft that the player isn't a snot-nosed brat and demands to play for a specific team before he is even in the league.
Nothing's ever impacted your ability to laugh at other Laker fans. And Tim is always laughable, Lakers or no. (I kid because I love).
It is a league issue because, as Gilbert's letter so eloquently illustrates, this isn't about the Hornets, this is about the owners of non supermarket teams being jealous of the supermarket teams. The Hornets situation is just a lever for them to push their agenda. Instead of addressing the obvious reality that there are probably several teams that aren't viable and contracting in this last deal, they tried to level the playing field for the suckwads at the expense of the lucky/successful teams. Apparently they didn't do that well enough so they have to circumvent the rules they friggin signed the very same day to get even more life support. It's pathetic.
It's the fourth largest tv market in the country and one of the two most popular teams in china (still). The potential tO be an international star in Houston is as high as it is anywhere else, new York and la included. I'm just pointing out that it makes no sense for houstOn to be a bad free agent spot like it is.Unless they have roots in Houston, why would they go? No stars to make them the next super-friends team. Only hope for the other 25 or so teams in the league is getting lucky in the draft (after being ####ty for multiple years) and then hope they can win a title in the 5 year window which they have a superstar. Cause if they don't'Abraham said:
Yeah, #### those guys for wanting to decide where they work/live and who they want to work with!You're being ridiculous here.
And you don't think they have a cause for concern? When you build 3 super teams, what is the point of watching games for the fans of the other 27 teams? What is the point in having a couple franchises thriving when 90% are struggling?
Houston's not a great FA draw because it's a ####ty place to live. I spent six years there and don't ever want to go back unless I absolutely have to.It's the fourth largest tv market in the country and one of the two most popular teams in china (still). The potential tO be an international star in Houston is as high as it is anywhere else, new York and la included. I'm just pointing out that it makes no sense for houstOn to be a bad free agent spot like it is.Unless they have roots in Houston, why would they go? No stars to make them the next super-friends team. Only hope for the other 25 or so teams in the league is getting lucky in the draft (after being ####ty for multiple years) and then hope they can win a title in the 5 year window which they have a superstar. Cause if they don't'Abraham said:
You're right. Lets get rid of the draft and just let players go where they want. May as well get rid of contracts since they don't mean a whole hell of a lot anymore.
You must have lived outside the loopHouston's not a great FA draw because it's a ####ty place to live. I spent six years there and don't ever want to go back unless I absolutely have to.It's the fourth largest tv market in the country and one of the two most popular teams in china (still). The potential tO be an international star in Houston is as high as it is anywhere else, new York and la included. I'm just pointing out that it makes no sense for houstOn to be a bad free agent spot like it is.Unless they have roots in Houston, why would they go? No stars to make them the next super-friends team. Only hope for the other 25 or so teams in the league is getting lucky in the draft (after being ####ty for multiple years) and then hope they can win a title in the 5 year window which they have a superstar. Cause if they don't'Abraham said:
It's a league issue in the sense that everything is a league issue, but ultimately this comes down to whether the league's owners were acting fairly as the collective owners of what was for all of them their second team. I don't think it's fair to say "Stern vetoed the trade." I think the ownership of the Hornets rejected it- which is a pretty normal thing- but being in a position to veto it as owners of other teams in the league is the unusual thing. And Stern is the one who created a scenario that allowed them to do that. That's the problem. It's a pretty basic principle that having someone with an ownership stake in two teams in the same sports league is a conflict of interest. Something like this was virtually inevitable. It just happens to be high-profile because it involves the Lakers and Chris Paul, but everything they do can be called into question if you look hard enough.
The same as it's been for the last 32 years. The Bucks are my 2nd favorite NBA team, and have been since the late 70's Marques Johnson era. I still root for them and try to catch their games whenever I can knowing they have little to no chance of winning it all unless they get a magic lottery ball. I guess, according to you, I have no reason to follow/watch them, yet I do.The reality is, there will never be enough franchise players to go around in a 30 team league. In fact you're lucky if there's even half that number. So whether they're spread out over 15 teams, or 10 teams, or 5 teams is basically inconsequential. Half the league is still going to be out in the cold. Parity in a 5 man game is a stupid premise to complain about/try to legislate.
Salary cap, how to conduct trades, etc. etc. As far as I can tell there was nothing wrong with the trade, so on what grounds did it get vetoed by Stern after it had been agreed to by the people who were (supposedly) empowered to conduct trades?What rules were circumvented?
And the popularity of the league didn't expand exponentially worldwide in the 80's because of parity. It grew because of star power, great teams, and great rivalries that were national obsessions.
"basketball reasons"Salary cap, how to conduct trades, etc. etc. As far as I can tell there was nothing wrong with the trade, so on what grounds did it get vetoed by Stern after it had been agreed to by the people who were (supposedly) empowered to conduct trades?
Go for it. I'm serious. At will seems to work in every other industry, let's open it up. Can't be any worse than what they have now according to you, right?
I haven't been following the league for that long but I really don't remember players demanding trades every year. Seems to me that it is a more recent phenomenon.
Nope, can't get much worse. At least now, there might be fleeting hope for a couple years but that is more a pipe dream than anything else.Go for it. I'm serious. At will seems to work in every other industry, let's open it up. Can't be any worse than what they have now according to you, right?
You can view it in the form of like a closed corporation. NO has 29 shareholders who each have a vote. Shareholders have to authorize fundamental changes, owners and Stern are viewing the trading of Paul as a fundamental change to the franchise and therefore require majority approval from the 29 other owners and they didn't get it.Same way as if Danny Ainge is authorized to make FA offers, proposals and conditionally accept trades on behalf of the Celtics but final approval lies in the owner. If the owner doesn't approve the trade than it won't be made. Just so happens NO has 29 equal owners who happen to own other teams.Salary cap, how to conduct trades, etc. etc. As far as I can tell there was nothing wrong with the trade, so on what grounds did it get vetoed by Stern after it had been agreed to by the people who were (supposedly) empowered to conduct trades?
You're missing the point. It's one thing if there's parity. It's another if there's hope.
Funny they expect people to believe that someone would consider paying more for the Hornets because CP3 is on the roster for the 2011-12 season. Like there's some dip#### billionaire that can't comprehend that there is zero chance that CP3 will be on the Hornets roster next season and should have absolutely no impact on the team's value.
According to the commish/owners, Paul's continued presense in NO was greater than the trade.Salary cap, how to conduct trades, etc. etc. As far as I can tell there was nothing wrong with the trade, so on what grounds did it get vetoed by Stern after it had been agreed to by the people who were (supposedly) empowered to conduct trades?
I don't care either way...I just don't see what rules were broken. I still think the trade is going to happen in some fashion.
Paul didn't threaten to hold out. He simply said he wouldn't sign an extension. How is that bratty? New Orleans has the right to expect Paul to honor his current contract. They have no right to demand that he sign a new contract. Nor does any team that he is traded to. Chris Paul has the contractual right to be a free agent at the end of the season and to pick what team he wants to play for. Why would he possibly be expected to give up that right for nothing?'Cliff Clavin said:
Again, that's how it's been for about 30 years now. It's up to management to make those guys want to stay. Obviously money isn't the only carrot - so the owners need to learn some new tricks, namely putting a full, competitive roster together. Money helps there, but so does player evaluation. The players are basically holding the owners accountable here - if I'm a superstar and you can't put enough players around me such that we're contenders over the course of 5 to 7 years, why the #### should I want to hang around?
Members of a voluntary association, like the NBA, are governed by its bylaws. They also may have a fiduciary duty to one another. If Stern represented that the league would not control the internal business decisions of the Grizzlies and members of the association relied upon that promise, they can argue that Stern breached a fiduciary duty to them or acted outside of the authority vested in him by the bylaws (I don't have a copy of the bylaws).According to the commish/owners, Paul's continued presense in NO was greater than the trade.
Maybe he didn't threaten to hold out...but he's likely going to now...and he'll look pretty bad in my eyes doing so.
I'm not saying rules were broken. I'm saying they just signed a set of rules into being that apparently didn't accomplish what they seem to actually have needed to accomplish, so they just exerted their will arbitrarily by fiat. I'm just highlighting another aspect of the silliness of the whole league fiasco.
Making it public that you not only won't sign an extension with your current team but that there's only a very very small handful of teams for whom you'd consider signing an extension devalues you as a trade asset. Look at Boston- the Hornets may well have been able to acquire Rondo and some other pieces if he hadn't come out and said he won't sign an extension, because Boston being Boston I'm sure they would have convinced themselves that he could be talked into it if he hadn't been so adamant. That's somewhat bratty, because it hurts the New Orleans fans who have supported him his entire career.
If I understood what you wrote, and why you wrote it, I'd have a better reply.Members of a voluntary association, like the NBA, are governed by its bylaws. They also may have a fiduciary duty to one another. If Stern represented that the league would not control the internal business decisions of the Grizzlies and members of the association relied upon that promise, they can argue that Stern breached a fiduciary duty to them or acted outside of the authority vested in him by the bylaws (I don't have a copy of the bylaws).According to the commish/owners, Paul's continued presense in NO was greater than the trade.
