Revisiting the Chris Paul/LA trade and veto (1 Viewer)

[Bojang0301]

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7333285/los-angeles-lakers-deal-acquire-chris-paul-off

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7353870/los-angeles-clippers-new-orleans-hornets-agree-chris-paul-trade

Now, more than ever I think this is a curiosity to look at. The NBA gifted Paul to Sterling's much maligned franchise. Not only is this deal littered with storylines, it also has it's many ironies. To those that do not know the trade that occured was

Paul

Two 2nds

for

Eric Gordon

Chris Kaman

Al-Farouq Aminu

2012 1.10 (Austin Rivers)

The Lakes 3-way deal would have sent the Pelicans Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic and a pick that ended up being Royce White. Houston would get Pau Gasol. I find it interesting that this may have changed Dwight Howards path drastically and also this ultimately ends up being the better deal. I'm not sure this should be tied to Sterling-gate too much but the Lakers, Rockets and Pelicans history was greatly altered thanks to David Stern. IMO, if a commisioner is acting on the leagues behalf to stop the first trade, no trade should occur at all. Really an interesting dynamic, hopefully history doesn't repeat itself on this one because it really was a flawed prospective Stern was operating on.

 

[timschochet]

It was bull####. It was vetoed not because Stern was looking out for the best interests of the Pelicans, but because some of the other NBA owners were jealous of the Lakers' success- notably a certain owner in Cleveland who had just lost his star player and was pissed off that the lesser franchises didn't make as much money as the big boys.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It was bull####. It was vetoed not because Stern was looking out for the best interests of the Pelicans, but because some of the other NBA owners were jealous of the Lakers' success- notably a certain owner in Cleveland who had just lost his star player and was pissed off that the lesser franchises didn't make as much money as the big boys.

What you continue not to understand is that the "other NBA owners" and the "certain owner in Cleveland" were 1/29th owners of the New Orleans Pelicans at the time. They were free to reject the trade for any reason, just as any owner is free to reject any proposed transaction by the team they own for any reason. It's not bull####. It's a privilege of ownership. You have no more right to whine about it than you do to whine about any other Lakers trade that is proposed and rejected by the trade partner.

 

[Bojang0301]

It was bull####. It was vetoed not because Stern was looking out for the best interests of the Pelicans, but because some of the other NBA owners were jealous of the Lakers' success- notably a certain owner in Cleveland who had just lost his star player and was pissed off that the lesser franchises didn't make as much money as the big boys.

I find it interesting that it is essentially at the core of putting the Lakers back some amount of years now. I have no doubt they'll bring in a cornerstone to replace Kobe either while he's still playing or afterward but Paul was supposed to be that and instead they got spurned by Dwight who went to a team that may not have had the ability or interest in him had they had Pau Gasol. I'm not a Lakers fan but this should be a huge black eye on Stern's tenure as NBA commisioner. It's essentially collusion of the other league owners in small markets against a large market team. The thing that confuses me is why the Clippers? They weren't small market. No commisioner should be able to dictate a teams future such as this. I understand at the time the ownership was in flux for NO but then no trade at all should have occured.

 

[DiStefano]

It was bull####. It was vetoed not because Stern was looking out for the best interests of the Pelicans, but because some of the other NBA owners were jealous of the Lakers' success- notably a certain owner in Cleveland who had just lost his star player and was pissed off that the lesser franchises didn't make as much money as the big boys.

Homer whine.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

It was bull####. It was vetoed not because Stern was looking out for the best interests of the Pelicans, but because some of the other NBA owners were jealous of the Lakers' success- notably a certain owner in Cleveland who had just lost his star player and was pissed off that the lesser franchises didn't make as much money as the big boys.

 

[Bucky86]

It was bull####. It was vetoed not because Stern was looking out for the best interests of the Pelicans, but because some of the other NBA owners were jealous of the Lakers' success- notably a certain owner in Cleveland who had just lost his star player and was pissed off that the lesser franchises didn't make as much money as the big boys.

I find it interesting that it is essentially at the core of putting the Lakers back some amount of years now. I have no doubt they'll bring in a cornerstone to replace Kobe either while he's still playing or afterward but Paul was supposed to be that and instead they got spurned by Dwight who went to a team that may not have had the ability or interest in him had they had Pau Gasol. I'm not a Lakers fan but this should be a huge black eye on Stern's tenure as NBA commisioner. It's essentially collusion of the other league owners in small markets against a large market team. The thing that confuses me is why the Clippers? They weren't small market. No commisioner should be able to dictate a teams future such as this. I understand at the time the ownership was in flux for NO but then no trade at all should have occured.

This.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It was bull####. It was vetoed not because Stern was looking out for the best interests of the Pelicans, but because some of the other NBA owners were jealous of the Lakers' success- notably a certain owner in Cleveland who had just lost his star player and was pissed off that the lesser franchises didn't make as much money as the big boys.

I find it interesting that it is essentially at the core of putting the Lakers back some amount of years now. I have no doubt they'll bring in a cornerstone to replace Kobe either while he's still playing or afterward but Paul was supposed to be that and instead they got spurned by Dwight who went to a team that may not have had the ability or interest in him had they had Pau Gasol. I'm not a Lakers fan but this should be a huge black eye on Stern's tenure as NBA commisioner. It's essentially collusion of the other league owners in small markets against a large market team. The thing that confuses me is why the Clippers? They weren't small market. No commisioner should be able to dictate a teams future such as this. I understand at the time the ownership was in flux for NO but then no trade at all should have occured.

This.

Really? It freed them to acquire Dwight Howard- seen at the time as just as valuable or even more valuable than Paul- without having to part with Gasol. If Howard found that he couldn't win with Kobe and hated playing with him so much that he left for greener pastures instead of reupping on a longer deal what makes you think Paul wouldn't have had the same results and reached the same decision?

As to the collusion- depends on your definition I guess, but it's no different from every other situation where the league takes ownership of a franchise. It's always problematic- even if they don't make any trades their inaction affects the other franchises. This situation was no more shady than the many other times it's happened in pro sports.

 

[packersfan]

Stern was a shady f'r. So glad he is no longer the NBA commissioner.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7333285/los-angeles-lakers-deal-acquire-chris-paul-off

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7353870/los-angeles-clippers-new-orleans-hornets-agree-chris-paul-trade

Now, more than ever I think this is a curiosity to look at. The NBA gifted Paul to Sterling's much maligned franchise. Not only is this deal littered with storylines, it also has it's many ironies. To those that do not know the trade that occured was

Paul

Two 2nds

for

Eric Gordon

Chris Kaman

Al-Farouq Aminu

2012 1.10 (Austin Rivers)

The Lakes 3-way deal would have sent the Pelicans Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic and a pick that ended up being Royce White. Houston would get Pau Gasol. I find it interesting that this may have changed Dwight Howards path drastically and also this ultimately ends up being the better deal. I'm not sure this should be tied to Sterling-gate too much but the Lakers, Rockets and Pelicans history was greatly altered thanks to David Stern. IMO, if a commisioner is acting on the leagues behalf to stop the first trade, no trade should occur at all. Really an interesting dynamic, hopefully history doesn't repeat itself on this one because it really was a flawed prospective Stern was operating on.

What Stern did was wrong.

I think it would help to see what the Pels ended up with instead, but at any rate the NBA itself had no business involving itself in a trade. This reminds me of one of those bs FF 'Should I Veto This Trade" threads in TSP - no, no trade should be vetoed unless there is collusion. But what if the commish is the one colluding with another owner?

The Pels have been decimated because of the trade that they ended up getting. Basically it's been Paul for Gordon and Gordon has been a basket of manure.

And I say that because I think yes the NBA wanted a better team in L.A. and he wanted the Clippers to be better an get out of the dumpster they had been in ever since Jack Ramsey left as HC of the Buffalo Braves.

And Stern and the NBA has known for years what kind of person Sterling is - the tales go back at least to the 80s when Sterling tried to hire Massimino, not to mention all the other stuff with the hookers/girlfriends, but this is the guy that they decided to lay down with. And now they've been burnt.

 

[TobiasFunke]

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7333285/los-angeles-lakers-deal-acquire-chris-paul-off

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7353870/los-angeles-clippers-new-orleans-hornets-agree-chris-paul-trade

Now, more than ever I think this is a curiosity to look at. The NBA gifted Paul to Sterling's much maligned franchise. Not only is this deal littered with storylines, it also has it's many ironies. To those that do not know the trade that occured was

Paul

Two 2nds

for

Eric Gordon

Chris Kaman

Al-Farouq Aminu

2012 1.10 (Austin Rivers)

The Lakes 3-way deal would have sent the Pelicans Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic and a pick that ended up being Royce White. Houston would get Pau Gasol. I find it interesting that this may have changed Dwight Howards path drastically and also this ultimately ends up being the better deal. I'm not sure this should be tied to Sterling-gate too much but the Lakers, Rockets and Pelicans history was greatly altered thanks to David Stern. IMO, if a commisioner is acting on the leagues behalf to stop the first trade, no trade should occur at all. Really an interesting dynamic, hopefully history doesn't repeat itself on this one because it really was a flawed prospective Stern was operating on.

What Stern did was wrong.

I think it would help to see what the Pels ended up with instead, but at any rate the NBA itself had no business involving itself in a trade. This reminds me of one of those bs FF 'Should I Veto This Trade" threads in TSP - no, no trade should be vetoed unless there is collusion. But what if the commish is the one colluding with another owner?

The Pels have been decimated because of the trade that they ended up getting. Basically it's been Paul for Gordon and Gordon has been a basket of manure.

And I say that because I think yes the NBA wanted a better team in L.A. and he wanted the Clippers to be better an get out of the dumpster they had been in ever since Jack Ramsey left as HC of the Buffalo Braves.

And Stern and the NBA has known for years what kind of person Sterling is - the tales go back at least to the 80s when Sterling tried to hire Massimino, not to mention all the other stuff with the hookers/girlfriends, but this is the guy that they decided to lay down with. And now they've been burnt.

Huh? What they got from the Clips is far better than what they would have gotten in the Lakers' proposal (remember Dragic was a free agent after 2012). In other words, the Pelicans' ownership was right to reject the Lakers offer and hold out for something better. Incredibly savvy move by the ownership at the time Hats off to them.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7333285/los-angeles-lakers-deal-acquire-chris-paul-off

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7353870/los-angeles-clippers-new-orleans-hornets-agree-chris-paul-trade

Now, more than ever I think this is a curiosity to look at. The NBA gifted Paul to Sterling's much maligned franchise. Not only is this deal littered with storylines, it also has it's many ironies. To those that do not know the trade that occured was

Paul

Two 2nds

for

Eric Gordon

Chris Kaman

Al-Farouq Aminu

2012 1.10 (Austin Rivers)

The Lakes 3-way deal would have sent the Pelicans Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic and a pick that ended up being Royce White. Houston would get Pau Gasol. I find it interesting that this may have changed Dwight Howards path drastically and also this ultimately ends up being the better deal. I'm not sure this should be tied to Sterling-gate too much but the Lakers, Rockets and Pelicans history was greatly altered thanks to David Stern. IMO, if a commisioner is acting on the leagues behalf to stop the first trade, no trade should occur at all. Really an interesting dynamic, hopefully history doesn't repeat itself on this one because it really was a flawed prospective Stern was operating on.

What Stern did was wrong.

I think it would help to see what the Pels ended up with instead, but at any rate the NBA itself had no business involving itself in a trade. This reminds me of one of those bs FF 'Should I Veto This Trade" threads in TSP - no, no trade should be vetoed unless there is collusion. But what if the commish is the one colluding with another owner?

The Pels have been decimated because of the trade that they ended up getting. Basically it's been Paul for Gordon and Gordon has been a basket of manure.

And I say that because I think yes the NBA wanted a better team in L.A. and he wanted the Clippers to be better an get out of the dumpster they had been in ever since Jack Ramsey left as HC of the Buffalo Braves.

And Stern and the NBA has known for years what kind of person Sterling is - the tales go back at least to the 80s when Sterling tried to hire Massimino, not to mention all the other stuff with the hookers/girlfriends, but this is the guy that they decided to lay down with. And now they've been burnt.

Huh? What they got from the Clips is far better than what they would have gotten in the Lakers' proposal (remember Dragic was a free agent after 2012). In other words, the Pelicans' ownership was right to reject the Lakers offer and hold out for something better. Incredibly savvy move by the ownership at the time Hats off to them.

The league was running the club at the time.

 

[Doug B]

Basically it's been Paul for Gordon and Gordon has been a basket of manure.

.

Tangent to the thread, but:

BasketballGuys -- what's Eric Gordon's deal? Has he really been hurt all this time? Or did he never want to be in New Orleans, and thus has spent three seasons sulking and sandbagging?

Guess he'll go somewhere else next season and be a 20-ppg guy again.

 

[TobiasFunke]

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7333285/los-angeles-lakers-deal-acquire-chris-paul-off

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7353870/los-angeles-clippers-new-orleans-hornets-agree-chris-paul-trade

Now, more than ever I think this is a curiosity to look at. The NBA gifted Paul to Sterling's much maligned franchise. Not only is this deal littered with storylines, it also has it's many ironies. To those that do not know the trade that occured was

Paul

Two 2nds

for

Eric Gordon

Chris Kaman

Al-Farouq Aminu

2012 1.10 (Austin Rivers)

The Lakes 3-way deal would have sent the Pelicans Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic and a pick that ended up being Royce White. Houston would get Pau Gasol. I find it interesting that this may have changed Dwight Howards path drastically and also this ultimately ends up being the better deal. I'm not sure this should be tied to Sterling-gate too much but the Lakers, Rockets and Pelicans history was greatly altered thanks to David Stern. IMO, if a commisioner is acting on the leagues behalf to stop the first trade, no trade should occur at all. Really an interesting dynamic, hopefully history doesn't repeat itself on this one because it really was a flawed prospective Stern was operating on.

What Stern did was wrong.

I think it would help to see what the Pels ended up with instead, but at any rate the NBA itself had no business involving itself in a trade. This reminds me of one of those bs FF 'Should I Veto This Trade" threads in TSP - no, no trade should be vetoed unless there is collusion. But what if the commish is the one colluding with another owner?

The Pels have been decimated because of the trade that they ended up getting. Basically it's been Paul for Gordon and Gordon has been a basket of manure.

And I say that because I think yes the NBA wanted a better team in L.A. and he wanted the Clippers to be better an get out of the dumpster they had been in ever since Jack Ramsey left as HC of the Buffalo Braves.

And Stern and the NBA has known for years what kind of person Sterling is - the tales go back at least to the 80s when Sterling tried to hire Massimino, not to mention all the other stuff with the hookers/girlfriends, but this is the guy that they decided to lay down with. And now they've been burnt.

Huh? What they got from the Clips is far better than what they would have gotten in the Lakers' proposal (remember Dragic was a free agent after 2012). In other words, the Pelicans' ownership was right to reject the Lakers offer and hold out for something better. Incredibly savvy move by the ownership at the time Hats off to them.

The league was running the club at the time.

Yup. Hats off to them for rejecting the Lakers' trade proposal and holding out for the better offer that eventually came.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7333285/los-angeles-lakers-deal-acquire-chris-paul-off

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7353870/los-angeles-clippers-new-orleans-hornets-agree-chris-paul-trade

Now, more than ever I think this is a curiosity to look at. The NBA gifted Paul to Sterling's much maligned franchise. Not only is this deal littered with storylines, it also has it's many ironies. To those that do not know the trade that occured was

Paul

Two 2nds

for

Eric Gordon

Chris Kaman

Al-Farouq Aminu

2012 1.10 (Austin Rivers)

The Lakes 3-way deal would have sent the Pelicans Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic and a pick that ended up being Royce White. Houston would get Pau Gasol. I find it interesting that this may have changed Dwight Howards path drastically and also this ultimately ends up being the better deal. I'm not sure this should be tied to Sterling-gate too much but the Lakers, Rockets and Pelicans history was greatly altered thanks to David Stern. IMO, if a commisioner is acting on the leagues behalf to stop the first trade, no trade should occur at all. Really an interesting dynamic, hopefully history doesn't repeat itself on this one because it really was a flawed prospective Stern was operating on.

What Stern did was wrong.

I think it would help to see what the Pels ended up with instead, but at any rate the NBA itself had no business involving itself in a trade. This reminds me of one of those bs FF 'Should I Veto This Trade" threads in TSP - no, no trade should be vetoed unless there is collusion. But what if the commish is the one colluding with another owner?

The Pels have been decimated because of the trade that they ended up getting. Basically it's been Paul for Gordon and Gordon has been a basket of manure.

And I say that because I think yes the NBA wanted a better team in L.A. and he wanted the Clippers to be better an get out of the dumpster they had been in ever since Jack Ramsey left as HC of the Buffalo Braves.

And Stern and the NBA has known for years what kind of person Sterling is - the tales go back at least to the 80s when Sterling tried to hire Massimino, not to mention all the other stuff with the hookers/girlfriends, but this is the guy that they decided to lay down with. And now they've been burnt.

Huh? What they got from the Clips is far better than what they would have gotten in the Lakers' proposal (remember Dragic was a free agent after 2012). In other words, the Pelicans' ownership was right to reject the Lakers offer and hold out for something better. Incredibly savvy move by the ownership at the time Hats off to them.

The league was running the club at the time.

Yup. Hats off to them for rejecting the Lakers' trade proposal and holding out for the better offer that eventually came.

Ok league executes trade, league vetoes own trade, redoes trade with new team in same town.

The NBA knew what a bstrd Sterling is and yet they did what they could to get Chris Paul in L.A., not the Lakers, ok then the Clips. The Clips never had a division title `til CP3 showed up, courtesy of the league.

 

[packersfan]

Gordon has two years, $30 million left on his contract. Final year is a player option but since he's set to make $15m I'd be shocked if Gordon waived it.

By all accounts, he never wanted to return to New Orleans. He wanted to go to Phoenix. New Orleans fans can speak more to his attitude since signing the contract but he made it very clear at the time he wanted to play for the Suns.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Gordon has two years, $30 million left on his contract. Final year is a player option but since he's set to make $15m I'd be shocked if Gordon waived it.

By all accounts, he never wanted to return to New Orleans. He wanted to go to Phoenix. New Orleans fans can speak more to his attitude since signing the contract but he made it very clear at the time he wanted to play for the Suns.

He has been worthless, NO got a turd (Gordon), a brick (Aminu) and a 1st round pick (Rivers) that admittedly Demps screwed up all on his own, basically any way it's diced LAC - ie Sterling - got CP3 for a handful of beans.

 

[B-Deep]

the league owning a team is a very very bad idea

 

[TobiasFunke]

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7333285/los-angeles-lakers-deal-acquire-chris-paul-off

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7353870/los-angeles-clippers-new-orleans-hornets-agree-chris-paul-trade

Now, more than ever I think this is a curiosity to look at. The NBA gifted Paul to Sterling's much maligned franchise. Not only is this deal littered with storylines, it also has it's many ironies. To those that do not know the trade that occured was

Paul

Two 2nds

for

Eric Gordon

Chris Kaman

Al-Farouq Aminu

2012 1.10 (Austin Rivers)

The Lakes 3-way deal would have sent the Pelicans Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic and a pick that ended up being Royce White. Houston would get Pau Gasol. I find it interesting that this may have changed Dwight Howards path drastically and also this ultimately ends up being the better deal. I'm not sure this should be tied to Sterling-gate too much but the Lakers, Rockets and Pelicans history was greatly altered thanks to David Stern. IMO, if a commisioner is acting on the leagues behalf to stop the first trade, no trade should occur at all. Really an interesting dynamic, hopefully history doesn't repeat itself on this one because it really was a flawed prospective Stern was operating on.

What Stern did was wrong.

I think it would help to see what the Pels ended up with instead, but at any rate the NBA itself had no business involving itself in a trade. This reminds me of one of those bs FF 'Should I Veto This Trade" threads in TSP - no, no trade should be vetoed unless there is collusion. But what if the commish is the one colluding with another owner?

The Pels have been decimated because of the trade that they ended up getting. Basically it's been Paul for Gordon and Gordon has been a basket of manure.

And I say that because I think yes the NBA wanted a better team in L.A. and he wanted the Clippers to be better an get out of the dumpster they had been in ever since Jack Ramsey left as HC of the Buffalo Braves.

And Stern and the NBA has known for years what kind of person Sterling is - the tales go back at least to the 80s when Sterling tried to hire Massimino, not to mention all the other stuff with the hookers/girlfriends, but this is the guy that they decided to lay down with. And now they've been burnt.

Huh? What they got from the Clips is far better than what they would have gotten in the Lakers' proposal (remember Dragic was a free agent after 2012). In other words, the Pelicans' ownership was right to reject the Lakers offer and hold out for something better. Incredibly savvy move by the ownership at the time Hats off to them.

The league was running the club at the time.

Yup. Hats off to them for rejecting the Lakers' trade proposal and holding out for the better offer that eventually came.

Ok league executes trade, league vetoes own trade, redoes trade with new team in same town.

The NBA knew what a bstrd Sterling is and yet they did what they could to get Chris Paul in L.A., not the Lakers, ok then the Clips. The Clips never had a division title `til CP3 showed up, courtesy of the league.

No, the league didn't execute a trade or veto a trade. The Lakers made a trade offer, the GM office of the Pelicans liked it, they took it to ownership, ownership said no, trade didn't happen, Pelicans eventually got a better offer. The only thing unusual about that is that ownership's meddling in personnel decisions was actually for the best.

As to the connection to Sterling ... have you considered switching to decaf?

 

[TobiasFunke]

the league owning a team is a very very bad idea

THIS was the problem. The only problem. There's no way the league owning a team can be fair and equitable. There's always a conflict of interest and always people who seem to benefit or get screwed because of the arrangement.

 

[B-Deep]

the league owning a team is a very very bad idea

THIS was the problem. The only problem. There's no way the league owning a team can be fair and equitable. There's always a conflict of interest and always people who seem to benefit or get screwed because of the arrangement.

yup

had the trade gone through and the lakers won a couple of titles all we would hear is how stern gifted Paul to the lakers for garbage because the league wants the lakers to win

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Remember the time Houston offered Asik for LeBron and it was turned down by Miami? Thanks Stern.

 

[Bojang0301]

Remember the time Houston offered Asik for LeBron and it was turned down by Miami? Thanks Stern.

You can't be that short sighted to think this had no impact? And I can't believe anyone would argue Gordon > Martin and Dragic even if they weren't able to get him to re-sign.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7333285/los-angeles-lakers-deal-acquire-chris-paul-off

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7353870/los-angeles-clippers-new-orleans-hornets-agree-chris-paul-trade

Now, more than ever I think this is a curiosity to look at. The NBA gifted Paul to Sterling's much maligned franchise. Not only is this deal littered with storylines, it also has it's many ironies. To those that do not know the trade that occured was

Paul

Two 2nds

for

Eric Gordon

Chris Kaman

Al-Farouq Aminu

2012 1.10 (Austin Rivers)

The Lakes 3-way deal would have sent the Pelicans Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic and a pick that ended up being Royce White. Houston would get Pau Gasol. I find it interesting that this may have changed Dwight Howards path drastically and also this ultimately ends up being the better deal. I'm not sure this should be tied to Sterling-gate too much but the Lakers, Rockets and Pelicans history was greatly altered thanks to David Stern. IMO, if a commisioner is acting on the leagues behalf to stop the first trade, no trade should occur at all. Really an interesting dynamic, hopefully history doesn't repeat itself on this one because it really was a flawed prospective Stern was operating on.

What Stern did was wrong.

I think it would help to see what the Pels ended up with instead, but at any rate the NBA itself had no business involving itself in a trade. This reminds me of one of those bs FF 'Should I Veto This Trade" threads in TSP - no, no trade should be vetoed unless there is collusion. But what if the commish is the one colluding with another owner?

The Pels have been decimated because of the trade that they ended up getting. Basically it's been Paul for Gordon and Gordon has been a basket of manure.

And I say that because I think yes the NBA wanted a better team in L.A. and he wanted the Clippers to be better an get out of the dumpster they had been in ever since Jack Ramsey left as HC of the Buffalo Braves.

And Stern and the NBA has known for years what kind of person Sterling is - the tales go back at least to the 80s when Sterling tried to hire Massimino, not to mention all the other stuff with the hookers/girlfriends, but this is the guy that they decided to lay down with. And now they've been burnt.

Huh? What they got from the Clips is far better than what they would have gotten in the Lakers' proposal (remember Dragic was a free agent after 2012). In other words, the Pelicans' ownership was right to reject the Lakers offer and hold out for something better. Incredibly savvy move by the ownership at the time Hats off to them.

The league was running the club at the time.

Yup. Hats off to them for rejecting the Lakers' trade proposal and holding out for the better offer that eventually came.

See, I guess this is what I don't understand. I assume that even when the league "owned" the Pelicans, they still had a GM. If I remember correctly, the Pelicans front office (GM...) worked the deal with the Lakers and were ready to make the trade. However, the owner (the league in this case), overrode the decision and decided not to go forward with the trade. When the Clippers offer came along and was agreed to by the Pelicans front office (GM...), it still needed sign-off from the team's owner, the league (Stern).

With the Pelican's owner being the league at the time (Stern), I can see why people would look for collusion type reasons for nixing the Lakers deal, but if Stern and his consultants really felt that they could do better than the Lakers offer, and overrode the team's GM, I have no problem with it. If non-basketball factors came into play, then it was collusion between the league and Sterling and shouldn't have happened. Problem is, there is no way to prove that. In fact, Gordon was 22 and coming off three 15+ point seasons, with his last season in LAC scoring 22.3 a game. On paper at the time, a young stud like Gordon was better than any player the Lakers were offering.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Remember the time Houston offered Asik for LeBron and it was turned down by Miami? Thanks Stern.

You can't be that short sighted to think this had no impact? And I can't believe anyone would argue Gordon > Martin and Dragic even if they weren't able to get him to re-sign.

Dragic had zero value. He sucked then. If they somehow knew enough to consider him an untapped asset they could have gotten him in free agency. He was just a piece to make the numbers work. And Martin and Scola's deals expired after the next season, well before the Pelicans could ever hope to compete. It's basically Gordon/Aminu/Rivers pick vs. White pick and some vets whose deals would be up by 2013. Consider also that those vets probably would have gotten them a couple extra meaningless wins in 2011-12 and 2012-13 before leaving in free agency, possibly costing them Anthony Davis or the draft asset they turned into Jrue Holiday.

I think most experts agreed at the time that the Clippers offer was the better offer for the Pelicans.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Remember the time Houston offered Asik for LeBron and it was turned down by Miami? Thanks Stern.

You can't be that short sighted to think this had no impact? And I can't believe anyone would argue Gordon > Martin and Dragic even if they weren't able to get him to re-sign.

We can play the "what-if" game with every draft pick, (non)trade or free agent signing made. This one isn't any different. Using hindsight to determine which trade was better is pretty terrible. Dragic had started a grand total of about 10 games at that point in his career and was a nobody. Martin was the same player he'd always been; useful in the right situation but a horrible piece for a rebuilding team. Eric Gordon, on the other hand, was viewed as an up and coming all-star.

Yes, in hindsight, getting Dragic would have been a much better option for NO. You'd have been laughed out of the building had you said that when the trade was offered.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7333285/los-angeles-lakers-deal-acquire-chris-paul-off

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7353870/los-angeles-clippers-new-orleans-hornets-agree-chris-paul-trade

Now, more than ever I think this is a curiosity to look at. The NBA gifted Paul to Sterling's much maligned franchise. Not only is this deal littered with storylines, it also has it's many ironies. To those that do not know the trade that occured was

Paul

Two 2nds

for

Eric Gordon

Chris Kaman

Al-Farouq Aminu

2012 1.10 (Austin Rivers)

The Lakes 3-way deal would have sent the Pelicans Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic and a pick that ended up being Royce White. Houston would get Pau Gasol. I find it interesting that this may have changed Dwight Howards path drastically and also this ultimately ends up being the better deal. I'm not sure this should be tied to Sterling-gate too much but the Lakers, Rockets and Pelicans history was greatly altered thanks to David Stern. IMO, if a commisioner is acting on the leagues behalf to stop the first trade, no trade should occur at all. Really an interesting dynamic, hopefully history doesn't repeat itself on this one because it really was a flawed prospective Stern was operating on.

What Stern did was wrong.

I think it would help to see what the Pels ended up with instead, but at any rate the NBA itself had no business involving itself in a trade. This reminds me of one of those bs FF 'Should I Veto This Trade" threads in TSP - no, no trade should be vetoed unless there is collusion. But what if the commish is the one colluding with another owner?

The Pels have been decimated because of the trade that they ended up getting. Basically it's been Paul for Gordon and Gordon has been a basket of manure.

And I say that because I think yes the NBA wanted a better team in L.A. and he wanted the Clippers to be better an get out of the dumpster they had been in ever since Jack Ramsey left as HC of the Buffalo Braves.

And Stern and the NBA has known for years what kind of person Sterling is - the tales go back at least to the 80s when Sterling tried to hire Massimino, not to mention all the other stuff with the hookers/girlfriends, but this is the guy that they decided to lay down with. And now they've been burnt.

Huh? What they got from the Clips is far better than what they would have gotten in the Lakers' proposal (remember Dragic was a free agent after 2012). In other words, the Pelicans' ownership was right to reject the Lakers offer and hold out for something better. Incredibly savvy move by the ownership at the time Hats off to them.

The league was running the club at the time.

Yup. Hats off to them for rejecting the Lakers' trade proposal and holding out for the better offer that eventually came.

Ok league executes trade, league vetoes own trade, redoes trade with new team in same town.

The NBA knew what a bstrd Sterling is and yet they did what they could to get Chris Paul in L.A., not the Lakers, ok then the Clips. The Clips never had a division title `til CP3 showed up, courtesy of the league.

No, the league didn't execute a trade or veto a trade. The Lakers made a trade offer, the GM office of the Pelicans liked it, they took it to ownership, ownership said no, trade didn't happen, Pelicans eventually got a better offer. The only thing unusual about that is that ownership's meddling in personnel decisions was actually for the best.

As to the connection to Sterling ... have you considered switching to decaf?

Ha, ok caffeine's a problem, good point.

Also have a host of personal sports grudges stemming from living in NO, granted.

However.

The trade was in fact made.

Yet in an email to Stern obtained by Yahoo! Sports, The New York Times and Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert called the proposed deal "a travesty" and urged Stern to put the deal to a vote of "the 29 owners of the Hornets," referring to the rest of the league's teams.

This truly reads like some bad FF trade thread, with a commish with a stake in things running a team for an absent owner and another owner btching about the outcome and calling for a veto on the basis of "fairness."

The fact that the league was the owner and vetoing its own trades is very very unusual.

Admittedly Paul wanted to be in L.A. but then the league wanted him there too. If he wasn't there both the Lagadores (for once) and the Clips (as usual) would suck. The league did not and does not want that.

As for Sterling - that's not a tough one, the commissioners, the league, the other owners they knew what he was about and they've loved having one of the richest men in California running that show no matter how ugly of a person he was.

 

[B-Deep]

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7333285/los-angeles-lakers-deal-acquire-chris-paul-off

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7353870/los-angeles-clippers-new-orleans-hornets-agree-chris-paul-trade

Now, more than ever I think this is a curiosity to look at. The NBA gifted Paul to Sterling's much maligned franchise. Not only is this deal littered with storylines, it also has it's many ironies. To those that do not know the trade that occured was

Paul

Two 2nds

for

Eric Gordon

Chris Kaman

Al-Farouq Aminu

2012 1.10 (Austin Rivers)

The Lakes 3-way deal would have sent the Pelicans Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic and a pick that ended up being Royce White. Houston would get Pau Gasol. I find it interesting that this may have changed Dwight Howards path drastically and also this ultimately ends up being the better deal. I'm not sure this should be tied to Sterling-gate too much but the Lakers, Rockets and Pelicans history was greatly altered thanks to David Stern. IMO, if a commisioner is acting on the leagues behalf to stop the first trade, no trade should occur at all. Really an interesting dynamic, hopefully history doesn't repeat itself on this one because it really was a flawed prospective Stern was operating on.

What Stern did was wrong.

I think it would help to see what the Pels ended up with instead, but at any rate the NBA itself had no business involving itself in a trade. This reminds me of one of those bs FF 'Should I Veto This Trade" threads in TSP - no, no trade should be vetoed unless there is collusion. But what if the commish is the one colluding with another owner?

The Pels have been decimated because of the trade that they ended up getting. Basically it's been Paul for Gordon and Gordon has been a basket of manure.

And I say that because I think yes the NBA wanted a better team in L.A. and he wanted the Clippers to be better an get out of the dumpster they had been in ever since Jack Ramsey left as HC of the Buffalo Braves.

And Stern and the NBA has known for years what kind of person Sterling is - the tales go back at least to the 80s when Sterling tried to hire Massimino, not to mention all the other stuff with the hookers/girlfriends, but this is the guy that they decided to lay down with. And now they've been burnt.

Huh? What they got from the Clips is far better than what they would have gotten in the Lakers' proposal (remember Dragic was a free agent after 2012). In other words, the Pelicans' ownership was right to reject the Lakers offer and hold out for something better. Incredibly savvy move by the ownership at the time Hats off to them.

The league was running the club at the time.

Yup. Hats off to them for rejecting the Lakers' trade proposal and holding out for the better offer that eventually came.

Ok league executes trade, league vetoes own trade, redoes trade with new team in same town.

The NBA knew what a bstrd Sterling is and yet they did what they could to get Chris Paul in L.A., not the Lakers, ok then the Clips. The Clips never had a division title `til CP3 showed up, courtesy of the league.

No, the league didn't execute a trade or veto a trade. The Lakers made a trade offer, the GM office of the Pelicans liked it, they took it to ownership, ownership said no, trade didn't happen, Pelicans eventually got a better offer. The only thing unusual about that is that ownership's meddling in personnel decisions was actually for the best.

As to the connection to Sterling ... have you considered switching to decaf?

Ha, ok caffeine's a problem, good point.

Also have a host of personal sports grudges stemming from living in NO, granted.

However.

The trade was in fact made.

Yet in an email to Stern obtained by Yahoo! Sports, The New York Times and Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert called the proposed deal "a travesty" and urged Stern to put the deal to a vote of "the 29 owners of the Hornets," referring to the rest of the league's teams.

This truly reads like some bad FF trade thread, with a commish with a stake in things running a team for an absent owner and another owner btching about the outcome and calling for a veto on the basis of "fairness."

The fact that the league was the owner and vetoing its own trades is very very unusual.

Admittedly Paul wanted to be in L.A. but then the league wanted him there too. If he wasn't there both the Lagadores (for once) and the Clips (as usual) would suck. The league did not and does not want that.

As for Sterling - that's not a tough one, the commissioners, the league, the other owners they knew what he was about and they've loved having one of the richest men in California running that show no matter how ugly of a person he was.

if his ugliness had stayed unrecorded they still would not care

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

No, the league didn't execute a trade or veto a trade. The Lakers made a trade offer, the GM office of the Pelicans liked it, they took it to ownership, ownership said no, trade didn't happen, Pelicans eventually got a better offer. The only thing unusual about that is that ownership's meddling in personnel decisions was actually for the best.

As to the connection to Sterling ... have you considered switching to decaf?

Ha, ok caffeine's a problem, good point.

Also have a host of personal sports grudges stemming from living in NO, granted.

However.

The trade was in fact made.

Yet in an email to Stern obtained by Yahoo! Sports, The New York Times and Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert called the proposed deal "a travesty" and urged Stern to put the deal to a vote of "the 29 owners of the Hornets," referring to the rest of the league's teams.

This truly reads like some bad FF trade thread, with a commish with a stake in things running a team for an absent owner and another owner btching about the outcome and calling for a veto on the basis of "fairness."

The fact that the league was the owner and vetoing its own trades is very very unusual.

Admittedly Paul wanted to be in L.A. but then the league wanted him there too. If he wasn't there both the Lagadores (for once) and the Clips (as usual) would suck. The league did not and does not want that.

As for Sterling - that's not a tough one, the commissioners, the league, the other owners they knew what he was about and they've loved having one of the richest men in California running that show no matter how ugly of a person he was.

if his ugliness had stayed unrecorded they still would not care

And bingo.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Remember the time Houston offered Asik for LeBron and it was turned down by Miami? Thanks Stern.

You can't be that short sighted to think this had no impact? And I can't believe anyone would argue Gordon > Martin and Dragic even if they weren't able to get him to re-sign.

We can play the "what-if" game with every draft pick, (non)trade or free agent signing made. This one isn't any different. Using hindsight to determine which trade was better is pretty terrible. Dragic had started a grand total of about 10 games at that point in his career and was a nobody. Martin was the same player he'd always been; useful in the right situation but a horrible piece for a rebuilding team. Eric Gordon, on the other hand, was viewed as an up and coming all-star.

Yes, in hindsight, getting Dragic would have been a much better option for NO. You'd have been laughed out of the building had you said that when the trade was offered.

Yet Dell Demps didn't, if he had to send CP to L.A. that's the trade he wanted. He did want Dragic; we all know this, get the talent on the way up not after they're already there (and btw Gordon never got "there" in the first place, he showed up injured and has stayed injured). It was a plus for LAC just getting rid of Gordon.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Remember the time Houston offered Asik for LeBron and it was turned down by Miami? Thanks Stern.

You can't be that short sighted to think this had no impact? And I can't believe anyone would argue Gordon > Martin and Dragic even if they weren't able to get him to re-sign.

Dragic had zero value. He sucked then. If they somehow knew enough to consider him an untapped asset they could have gotten him in free agency. He was just a piece to make the numbers work. And Martin and Scola's deals expired after the next season, well before the Pelicans could ever hope to compete. It's basically Gordon/Aminu/Rivers pick vs. White pick and some vets whose deals would be up by 2013. Consider also that those vets probably would have gotten them a couple extra meaningless wins in 2011-12 and 2012-13 before leaving in free agency, possibly costing them Anthony Davis or the draft asset they turned into Jrue Holiday.

I think most experts agreed at the time that the Clippers offer was the better offer for the Pelicans.

Why wouldn't Demps have just taken that offer in the first place then?

 

[Judge Smails]

I'll never understand why this was vetoed. It's sort of like trades in fantasy football - better have a great reason to veto. Total BS.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Remember the time Houston offered Asik for LeBron and it was turned down by Miami? Thanks Stern.

You can't be that short sighted to think this had no impact? And I can't believe anyone would argue Gordon > Martin and Dragic even if they weren't able to get him to re-sign.

Dragic had zero value. He sucked then. If they somehow knew enough to consider him an untapped asset they could have gotten him in free agency. He was just a piece to make the numbers work. And Martin and Scola's deals expired after the next season, well before the Pelicans could ever hope to compete. It's basically Gordon/Aminu/Rivers pick vs. White pick and some vets whose deals would be up by 2013. Consider also that those vets probably would have gotten them a couple extra meaningless wins in 2011-12 and 2012-13 before leaving in free agency, possibly costing them Anthony Davis or the draft asset they turned into Jrue Holiday.

I think most experts agreed at the time that the Clippers offer was the better offer for the Pelicans.

Why wouldn't Demps have just taken that offer in the first place then?

I assume it hadn't been made yet? I don't know. Hell for all I know they could have rejected the Clips offer too and gotten an even better one from someone else. All I know is that the decision to reject the Lakers' deal worked out well for NO.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Remember the time Houston offered Asik for LeBron and it was turned down by Miami? Thanks Stern.

You can't be that short sighted to think this had no impact? And I can't believe anyone would argue Gordon > Martin and Dragic even if they weren't able to get him to re-sign.

Dragic had zero value. He sucked then. If they somehow knew enough to consider him an untapped asset they could have gotten him in free agency. He was just a piece to make the numbers work. And Martin and Scola's deals expired after the next season, well before the Pelicans could ever hope to compete. It's basically Gordon/Aminu/Rivers pick vs. White pick and some vets whose deals would be up by 2013. Consider also that those vets probably would have gotten them a couple extra meaningless wins in 2011-12 and 2012-13 before leaving in free agency, possibly costing them Anthony Davis or the draft asset they turned into Jrue Holiday.

I think most experts agreed at the time that the Clippers offer was the better offer for the Pelicans.

Why wouldn't Demps have just taken that offer in the first place then?

I assume it hadn't been made yet? I don't know. Hell for all I know they could have rejected the Clips offer too and gotten an even better one from someone else. All I know is that the decision to reject the Lakers' deal worked out well for NO.

I have to go back and look at where that White pick went - but Kaman's gone, Gordon is a liability, and Aminu is a journeyman who's been ok. - Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic plus whatever that White pick would have/could have been. Odom probably never would have wanted to have played a game here, but he could have been traded for something. Kevin Martin has had some very bright spots including a big game just a couple weeks ago, Scola and Dragic by themselves are a better trade. I'll take the Laker trade and hey so did the Pels' GM in the first place.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Remember the time Houston offered Asik for LeBron and it was turned down by Miami? Thanks Stern.

You can't be that short sighted to think this had no impact? And I can't believe anyone would argue Gordon > Martin and Dragic even if they weren't able to get him to re-sign.

Dragic had zero value. He sucked then. If they somehow knew enough to consider him an untapped asset they could have gotten him in free agency. He was just a piece to make the numbers work. And Martin and Scola's deals expired after the next season, well before the Pelicans could ever hope to compete. It's basically Gordon/Aminu/Rivers pick vs. White pick and some vets whose deals would be up by 2013. Consider also that those vets probably would have gotten them a couple extra meaningless wins in 2011-12 and 2012-13 before leaving in free agency, possibly costing them Anthony Davis or the draft asset they turned into Jrue Holiday.

I think most experts agreed at the time that the Clippers offer was the better offer for the Pelicans.

Why wouldn't Demps have just taken that offer in the first place then?

I assume it hadn't been made yet? I don't know. Hell for all I know they could have rejected the Clips offer too and gotten an even better one from someone else. All I know is that the decision to reject the Lakers' deal worked out well for NO.

I have to go back and look at where that White pick went - but Kaman's gone, Gordon is a liability, and Aminu is a journeyman who's been ok. - Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic plus whatever that White pick would have/could have been. Odom probably never would have wanted to have played a game here, but he could have been traded for something. Kevin Martin has had some very bright spots including a big game just a couple weeks ago, Scola and Dragic by themselves are a better trade. I'll take the Laker trade and hey so did the Pels' GM in teh first place.

Let's set aside the fact that Scola is terrible and the Pacers would probably be up 3-2 on the Hawks were it not for his hilarious defense. The bottom line is that all of those players would have left New Orleans by the start of this season. Gordon may be a liability but he wasn't seen as such at the time, and you got Aminu plus a better draft prospect - granted Rivers kinda sucks, but I'd still rather have his rights than have to put up with Royce White, plus the pick was higher regardless of what was made of it.

If they'd taken the Lakers' offer no player in the deal would still be in the organization, including the draft pick. And between now and then those vets playing for contracts would probably have won a few games, possibly costing them Anthony Davis and/or Jrue Holliday. That's what you prefer? For a crappy team to have piled up a few extra wins in two lost seasons?

 

[Eephus]

I'll never understand why this was vetoed. It's sort of like trades in fantasy football - better have a great reason to veto. Total BS.

Owners veto trades that have been negotiated by the GM. They usually don't get publicized and almost never involve the league acting in the role of owner.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The Clippers offer was better at the time IMO, but in retrospect the Laker offer was far better.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'll never understand why this was vetoed. It's sort of like trades in fantasy football - better have a great reason to veto. Total BS.

Owners veto trades that have been negotiated by the GM. They usually don't get publicized and almost never involve the league acting in the role of owner.

Just for the record, the league had a caretaker who was charged with the responsibility to act as "owner", Stern stepped in as commish over and above all that. If the Pels had an owner independently the Cleveland owner would have gotten after him all the same to reject the trade.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Remember the time Houston offered Asik for LeBron and it was turned down by Miami? Thanks Stern.

You can't be that short sighted to think this had no impact? And I can't believe anyone would argue Gordon > Martin and Dragic even if they weren't able to get him to re-sign.

Dragic had zero value. He sucked then. If they somehow knew enough to consider him an untapped asset they could have gotten him in free agency. He was just a piece to make the numbers work. And Martin and Scola's deals expired after the next season, well before the Pelicans could ever hope to compete. It's basically Gordon/Aminu/Rivers pick vs. White pick and some vets whose deals would be up by 2013. Consider also that those vets probably would have gotten them a couple extra meaningless wins in 2011-12 and 2012-13 before leaving in free agency, possibly costing them Anthony Davis or the draft asset they turned into Jrue Holiday.

I think most experts agreed at the time that the Clippers offer was the better offer for the Pelicans.

Why wouldn't Demps have just taken that offer in the first place then?

I assume it hadn't been made yet? I don't know. Hell for all I know they could have rejected the Clips offer too and gotten an even better one from someone else. All I know is that the decision to reject the Lakers' deal worked out well for NO.

I have to go back and look at where that White pick went - but Kaman's gone, Gordon is a liability, and Aminu is a journeyman who's been ok. - Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic plus whatever that White pick would have/could have been. Odom probably never would have wanted to have played a game here, but he could have been traded for something. Kevin Martin has had some very bright spots including a big game just a couple weeks ago, Scola and Dragic by themselves are a better trade. I'll take the Laker trade and hey so did the Pels' GM in teh first place.

Let's set aside the fact that Scola is terrible and the Pacers would probably be up 3-2 on the Hawks were it not for his hilarious defense. The bottom line is that all of those players would have left New Orleans by the start of this season. Gordon may be a liability but he wasn't seen as such at the time, and you got Aminu plus a better draft prospect - granted Rivers kinda sucks, but I'd still rather have his rights than have to put up with Royce White, plus the pick was higher regardless of what was made of it.

If they'd taken the Lakers' offer no player in the deal would still be in the organization, including the draft pick. And between now and then those vets playing for contracts would probably have won a few games, possibly costing them Anthony Davis and/or Jrue Holliday. That's what you prefer? For a crappy team to have piled up a few extra wins in two lost seasons?

And that's a good point. I'll also add that there has been plenty mismanagement in between.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Remember the time Houston offered Asik for LeBron and it was turned down by Miami? Thanks Stern.

You can't be that short sighted to think this had no impact? And I can't believe anyone would argue Gordon > Martin and Dragic even if they weren't able to get him to re-sign.

Dragic had zero value. He sucked then. If they somehow knew enough to consider him an untapped asset they could have gotten him in free agency. He was just a piece to make the numbers work. And Martin and Scola's deals expired after the next season, well before the Pelicans could ever hope to compete. It's basically Gordon/Aminu/Rivers pick vs. White pick and some vets whose deals would be up by 2013. Consider also that those vets probably would have gotten them a couple extra meaningless wins in 2011-12 and 2012-13 before leaving in free agency, possibly costing them Anthony Davis or the draft asset they turned into Jrue Holiday.

I think most experts agreed at the time that the Clippers offer was the better offer for the Pelicans.

Why wouldn't Demps have just taken that offer in the first place then?

I assume it hadn't been made yet? I don't know. Hell for all I know they could have rejected the Clips offer too and gotten an even better one from someone else. All I know is that the decision to reject the Lakers' deal worked out well for NO.

I have to go back and look at where that White pick went - but Kaman's gone, Gordon is a liability, and Aminu is a journeyman who's been ok. - Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic plus whatever that White pick would have/could have been. Odom probably never would have wanted to have played a game here, but he could have been traded for something. Kevin Martin has had some very bright spots including a big game just a couple weeks ago, Scola and Dragic by themselves are a better trade. I'll take the Laker trade and hey so did the Pels' GM in teh first place.

Let's set aside the fact that Scola is terrible and the Pacers would probably be up 3-2 on the Hawks were it not for his hilarious defense. The bottom line is that all of those players would have left New Orleans by the start of this season. Gordon may be a liability but he wasn't seen as such at the time, and you got Aminu plus a better draft prospect - granted Rivers kinda sucks, but I'd still rather have his rights than have to put up with Royce White, plus the pick was higher regardless of what was made of it.

If they'd taken the Lakers' offer no player in the deal would still be in the organization, including the draft pick. And between now and then those vets playing for contracts would probably have won a few games, possibly costing them Anthony Davis and/or Jrue Holliday. That's what you prefer? For a crappy team to have piled up a few extra wins in two lost seasons?

Dragic is far an away the best player in the deal, and the Pelicans wouldn't have had Gordon's albatross of a contract the last few years.

 

[Raider Nation]

Cliffy No Rings.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Clippers have still never advanced past the conference semis in their 45 seasons.

Chris Paul has never advanced past the conference semis in his 9 seasons.

The Clips have had their three best seasons in franchise history under CP, which has really ruined what had been a spotlessly, continuously horrible franchise, but it seems its history may have done more to taint Paul (and Griffin) than they have been able to change it.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAC/

 

[Abraham]

the league owning a team is a very very bad idea

Seems unbelievable that just a few years ago they couldn't find an owner for a franchise.

 

[the moops]

The Clippers offer was better at the time IMO, but in retrospect the Laker offer was far better.