Report: Lakers To Acquire Chris Paul

[drzachary]

My only reaction is to point and laugh at the Lakers' bandwagoners. Well, thankfully, the Lakers drones won't have be infesting our arena this year, so there won't be an easy opportunity to point at them all en masse.

Great decision by the Hornets to back out of the trade.

[Guest]

I don't like the LA's and NY's and MIA's getting all the stars because I want some of the stars to pick ATL (I can dream), but this reeks if the trade was vetoed because it was LA. Some of the other owners don't like having to compete with LA (Cuban), some are still pissed that LBJ left for less money (Gilbert), some are stilled pissed because of the Pau trade a few years ago.

[drzachary]

Squabbles amongst team ownership, with one owner claiming authority and nixing the deal ... where have we seen this before?

Hmm.

[AHF]

The more I think about this one, the worse it seems to me. It just goes to the integrity of the league. It reminds me of a fantasy league where the owners veto a fair trade because it helps the best team. You only veto because of collusion or a competitive disparity that is utterly indefensible (i.e, Lebron James for Boris Diaw).

This will probably go down as the worst moment of David Stern's career.

[drzachary]

Was it actually a veto? That's what I don't get -- trades can't even happen til today. I think it was more Belkiny -- the (perceived) ultimate authority amongst owners said "no, we ain't doin' that." Stern was acting as the supreme commander of the Hornets. Right?

[sturt]

Had Stern not stepped in, this very well might be getting played today as "NBA-owned Hornets being used to keep Lakers (and/or Celtics) relevant." That's because, a mere 24 hours ago, the Warriors and Clips seemed to be better positioned than the Lakers to get the deal done.

To me, this comes down to that... if the Warriors and/or Clips felt like they have a legitimate beef that their offers were substantially better, and yet the Lakers were the franchise the NOLA GM worked with, then yes, Stern had to step in.

If neither of those two did that, then, I don't understand listening to the CLE owner's complaint.

If nothing else, the whole ordeal makes it clear that the league needs to get out of the team-owning business... as AHF suggested, there is damned-ness with regard to almost any decision made, which erodes the perceived integrity of the league... a league that, until just the last couple or three years (ironically enough, since the Donaghy incident) had some serious perceived-integrity issues.

Edited December 9, 2011 by sturt

[dlpin]

My only reaction is to point and laugh at the Lakers' bandwagoners. Well, thankfully, the Lakers drones won't have be infesting our arena this year, so there won't be an easy opportunity to point at them all en masse.

Great decision by the Hornets to back out of the trade.

How is this a great decision to back out?

Certainly they won't be making another deal for him now (Boston was the next best package, and I doubt they'd veto a trade to the lakers but not the celtics).

So Paul will walk for free. And a franchise that has trouble filling its arena on the way to the playoffs will be in even more financial problems. This veto essentially guarantees that the Hornets will either fold or relocate.

Had Stern not stepped in, this very well might be getting played today as "NBA-owned Hornets being used to keep Lakers (and/or Celtics) relevant." That's because, a mere 24 hours ago, the Warriors and Clips seemed to be better positioned than the Lakers to get the deal done.

To me, this comes down to that... if the Warriors and/or Clips felt like they have a legitimate beef that their offers were substantially better, and yet the Lakers were the franchise the NOLA GM worked with, then yes, Stern had to step in.

If neither of those two did that, then, I don't understand listening to the CLE owner's complaint.

At least Adande and others say that the Clippers didn't offer a deal because they didn't want to give up Eric Gordon and what will be a top lottery pick.

[NekiEcko]

I think its was a veto, but not too sure. I understand how people is feeling about this. I was thinking about this all night and I feel like they should done the trade at first, but then reality hits me, Lakers was not only getting the youngest player in this trade but saving over 40 mil in salaries, keep their main asset, all of their draft picks as well. When Williams was trade to Nets, the Nets gave up a ton more than Fakers. So I can understand about that.

So at the end, I am netural about this. Besides if you look at all the trade proposals for Paul, the Lakers fail to compare to the Warriors, Clippers, and Hawks deals.

Edited December 9, 2011 by NekiEcko

[macdaddy]

Had Stern not stepped in, this very well might be getting played today as "NBA-owned Hornets being used to keep Lakers (and/or Celtics) relevant." That's because, a mere 24 hours ago, the Warriors and Clips seemed to be better positioned than the Lakers to get the deal done.

To me, this comes down to that... if the Warriors and/or Clips felt like they have a legitimate beef that their offers were substantially better, and yet the Lakers were the franchise the NOLA GM worked with, then yes, Stern had to step in.

If neither of those two did that, then, I don't understand listening to the CLE owner's complaint.

I think Stern stepped in his own rat trap. I think in the interest of looking like he cared about the rest of the league he put it to a vote thinking there was no way the owners would vote to have the league screw up transactions like this. Then when 27 owners voted against the trade he had no choice. I can't imagine what the Lakers, Rockets and these players are thinking now.

[dlpin]

I think its was a veto, but not too sure. I understand how people is feeling about this. I was thinking about this all night and I feel like they should done the trade at first, but then reality hits me, Lakers was not only getting the youngest player in this trade but saving over 40 mil in salaries, keep their main asset, all of their draft picks as well. When Williams was trade to Nets, the Nets gave up a ton more than Fakers. So I can understand about that.

So at the end, I am netural about this. Besides if you look at all the trade proposals for Paul, the Lakers fail to compare to the Warriors, Clippers, and Hawks deals.

But the reason this was a good trade for the lakers was because the rockets were the ones getting fleeced. It was actually a pretty fair deal for New Orleans. And as the owners of the Hornets, the league should care about how New Orleans fares, not if the trade benefits the lakers too much or hurts the rockets too much.The only team that was really losing out here was houston, for god knows what reason.

[Blunt91]

From the reports I have read on RealGm and Yahoo Sports Dan Gilbert and Mark Cuban were two of the owners whom did not want the trade to go threw. Gilbert stated that trade would have saved the Lakers tons of money. They have the letter over at RealGM if anyone wants to read it.

[coachx]

http://www.hoopsworld.com/2011-nba-free-agency-diary/

Bill Ingram, at hoopsworld, is reporting the NBA could soon annouce a reversal and allow the trade.

There are contract issues that are not being reported according to Steve Tyler at hoopsworld. The Horents are taking on too much salary. They must shift $2.21 million in contracts to the Lakers for the proposed trade to be legal.

[lethalweapon3]

This will probably go down as the worst moment of David Stern's career.

Oh my, that's saying something...

~lw3

[AHF]

Edited December 9, 2011 by AHF

[lethalweapon3]

(edit: letter already posted by sawvboy earlier)

Sent by e-mail after the trade was already nixed, according to Woj@Yahoo, but it doesn't mean a few phone calls didn't happen by then.

~lw3

http://www.hoopsworl...e-agency-diary/

Bill Ingram, at hoopsworld, is reporting the NBA could soon annouce a reversal and allow the trade.

There are contract issues that are not being reported according to Steve Tyler at hoopsworld. The Horents are taking on too much salary. They must shift $2.21 million in contracts to the Lakers for the proposed trade to be legal.

Now THAT makes more sense. If the numbers don't jibe then nix the deal until they do. But no more of that "competitive balance" crap. If you want Chris Paul so bad, small-markets, draft him, and have an owner who can afford keeping him happy and winning.

~lw3

Edited December 9, 2011 by lethalweapon3

[AHF]

The only team that was really losing out here was houston, for god knows what reason.

The Rockets were freeing up cap room and reportedly were closing on a deal to sign Nene. They would then have moved from a Luis Scola/Chuck Hayes frontcourt to a Nene/Pau Gasol frontcourt. I can understand why they might think that was desirable.

[drzachary]

I'm still really, really enjoying this. My absolute favorite outcome would be for the deal to stay dead, Gasol and Odom to start publicly demanding a trade (and phoning in their seasons until they get what they want), the Lakers to send them away for pennies on the dollar, the new Lakers coach to get fired and for Woodson to replace him.

[drzachary]

Maybe one ameliorating addition to the NBA would be something like MLB's compensation picks if your FAs leave.

[Randy]

I'm still really, really enjoying this. My absolute favorite outcome would be for the deal to stay dead, Gasol and Odom to start publicly demanding a trade (and phoning in their seasons until they get what they want), the Lakers to send them away for pennies on the dollar, the new Lakers coach to get fired and for Woodson to replace him.

I'm with you on this, though I don't really care about whether Woody gets hired. If I were the owner (the NBA) I would say this deal sucks. The league takes on oodles of salary and gives up tons of salary cap money from the Lakers, as Dan Gilbert's letter explained. Why would they do that just to help the Lakers and pick up a few guys who are getting old. In this deal the lose CP and pick up lots of costs. This is probably more costly than just getting nothing for him at the end of the season. (Or sending him somewhere else.)

[AHF]

I'm with you on this, though I don't really care about whether Woody gets hired. If I were the owner (the NBA) I would say this deal sucks. The league takes on oodles of salary and gives up tons of salary cap money from the Lakers, as Dan Gilbert's letter explained. Why would they do that just to help the Lakers and pick up a few guys who are getting old. In this deal the lose CP and pick up lots of costs. This is probably more costly than just getting nothing for him at the end of the season. (Or sending him somewhere else.)

They are playoff contenders if they make the trade with a lineup of Kevin Martin, Lamar Odom, Luis Scola, Emeka Okafor and they have about 12M in expiring contracts that are good trade pieces each of the next two seasons. I think that compares very favorably to losing him for nothing at the end of the year. Remember that they still need to add salary to hit the salary floor this year so it isn't like it is a total waste to add salary - at least these are all productive players.

The bigger picture issue is that the league gave NO management the responsibility to run the team without interference from the league, let them make moves and add salary over Mark Cuban's objections, and then stomped out this trade which NO management viewed as the maximum return for the team after hearing offers from Boston, Atlanta, Golden State, etc.

Edited December 9, 2011 by AHF