Jump to content

  • Current Donation Goals

    • Monthly Donations
      Raised $390 of $700 target

Now that it's over, do you think Stern/NBA did the best thing for Hornets?

sturt

By sturt
in Homecourt

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
sturt Grand Master

sturt

Posted
  • Premium Member
Posted

...and... do you think we could have offered anything that should have been considered competitive with that?

Honest question.

Stern and the owners, of course, have taken a lot of criticism over the last week. Even if you think the Hornets came out for the better, do you still feel the process could have been better facilitated than it was (and how)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzard Enthusiast

Buzzard

Posted
Posted

...and... do you think we could have offered anything that should have been considered competitive with that?

Honest question.

Stern and the owners, of course, have taken a lot of criticism over the last week. Even if you think the Hornets came out for the better, do you still feel the process could have been better facilitated than it was (and how)?

I think they did ok. The L.A. deal looked good but Odom and Scola are up there in years. If you look at from a asset position both players could have netted separate returns in future trades. But that is pure speculation as to if and what they could have done later on.

This Clipper deal is good cap wise and also if rebuilding is your goal. What Amino and that Minny pick end up being is the key. If both are bust this trade is a bust IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

I'm just glad is over...I'm ready for basketball. Wouldn't it be funny if next year when Gordon is a free agent (restricted) he says he will only sign qaulifying offer and he asks to be traded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dlpin Newbie

dlpin

Posted
Posted

I think it is also interesting that the NBA relented on its stance that they also needed to get rid of Okafor's contract. Other than that, the laker trade involved more assets that would have allowed them to be a borderline playoff team now, but the clipper package can potentially be a home run if the minnesota pick turns out to be a good one. So this is a riskier deal, but with a lot more potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzard Enthusiast

Buzzard

Posted
Posted

I am very surprised they didn't get a pg back. Clippers have Mo, Bledsoe and Billups to go along with Paul. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense and the fact that NO only has Jack now.

I am also surprised that they didn't give up any big contracts.

If the NBA is looking to build NO fresh, I could see Okafor being moved soon for a expiring contract and/or picks. Dude is over paid for sure but compared to Kwame there is no comparison. Reggie Williams along with Baron Davis are a couple of players they may look at.

You are right about a PG, it is a head scratcher they did not get one back...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Premium Member
niremetal Rising Star

niremetal

Posted
  • Premium Member
Posted (edited)

From the "owners of the Hornets" perspective, the NBA did great. The Clippers gave up a king's ransom to get Paul. A young All-Star caliber guard, a center who'd be a starter on 25 teams, a near-guaranteed top 5 pick, and second year top 10 pick. I honestly don't see how the Hornets could have gotten anything more.

The problem is that the price was so steep that the Clippers basically have Griffin, Paul, and not much else. Arguably, 4 of their 5 best players are PGs. They'll need to trade Bledsoe and Mo Williams to get some help on the wing and front line. Not sure how much they'll be able to get back for them.

Edited by niremetal
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheNorthCydeRises Grand Master

TheNorthCydeRises

Posted
Posted

NO

That first deal would've kept them at playoff level. Now, all bets are off, unless Gordon develops into a superstar. The first deal gave them enough pieces to keep the people of New Orleans interested. But if this new deal don't pay dividends, and they start to lose, the people of New Orleans will abandon that team.

Also, don't forget that Houston also got screwed in this. They were on the verge of getting the Gasol brothers in Houston, because his brother Marc probably signs with Houston, if Pau is traded in that first deal to Houston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dlpin Newbie

dlpin

Posted
Posted

the thing is that Gordon will be a restricted free agent soon. Will the hornets have been sold by then? Will the NBA authorize a max deal, even if he still hasn't reached his full potential? If this franchise is still a mess in a year, he might just decide to play his restricted year on the offer sheet and become a free agent as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
AHF Grand Master

AHF

Posted
  • Moderators
Posted

From the "owners of the Hornets" perspective, the NBA did great. The Clippers gave up a king's ransom to get Paul. A young All-Star caliber guard, a center who'd be a starter on 25 teams, a near-guaranteed top 5 pick, and second year top 10 pick. I honestly don't see how the Hornets could have gotten anything more.

The problem is that the price was so steep that the Clippers basically have Griffin, Paul, and not much else. Arguably, 4 of their 5 best players are PGs. They'll need to trade Bledsoe and Mo Williams to get some help on the wing and front line. Not sure how much they'll be able to get back for them.

This was a big upgrade from the Hornets' perspective. You can also add in the real factor that if they would have acquired Odom, Martin and Scola these guys would not have garnered much future value so that rebuilding would be even more difficult. It would be tough to flip them for real assets (for example, the best the Lakers got for Odom was a pure salary dump due to his age and salary) and the fact that the Hornets would have finished 7th-11th in the West would have prevented them from getting a franchise changing star in the draft this year. Instead, they pick up Aminu, future All-Star Gordon, the Minny pick (which could be huge and at least should come with useful talent on the board given the talent in this draft), and the prospect of sucking worse in the short term and reaping more young talent for the future with their own pick this year.

There is no doubt in my mind that this was a huge upgrade as far as the assets ultimately received.

If you are trying to draw opinions about how the NBA handled this whole situation, then I think this is the wrong question to be asking. Stern had no insight into the future, so future actions in comparison to his initial decision to veto the Laker trade are irrelevant. Just because the Clipper trade is better than the Laker trade does not imply the Laker trade was not a move that would also be beneficial to the Hornets. The big issue here is Stern overstepping his boundaries, not necessarily that they made a savvy basketball move.

If you are just trying to get a simple: which is better? (and no underlying motive about Stern's actions) I would find it difficult to answer still. The Laker trade made them competitive now while the Clipper trade potentially sets them up to be competitive later. Of course that depends on whether the ticking timebomb of Eric Gordon's contract is reupped at a high cost or this whole situation starts again.

That said, hawksfanatic is right that this was a debacle as far as process and boundaries. They should have avoided the huge conflict of interest issues by giving NO management autonomy on this and just firing them if they made a bad basketball decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzard Enthusiast

Buzzard

Posted
Posted (edited)

That said, hawksfanatic is right that this was a debacle as far as process and boundaries. They should have avoided the huge conflict of interest issues by giving NO management autonomy on this and just firing them if they made a bad basketball decision.

I agree with it being a debacle from a process standpoint. Stern ( and The NBA in general ) and NO should have agreed to keep all trade offers quiet until he approved. It was a bad deal for the GMs of all three teams involved with the public embarrassment. But I do think the NBA and Stern should be looking after New Orleans in their best interest since they are the owners.

The potential sale of NO could be jeopardized or at least the value diminished if they did not get as good a deal as possible for their one great asset who wanted out.

Edited by Buzzard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joker Newbie

Joker

Posted
Posted

Hell yeah, the best deal on the table by far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WakaFlocka Newbie

WakaFlocka

Posted
Posted

I've seen a lot of people on other forums saying that the Lakers/Rockets deal was a better haul for the Hornets... I personally couldn't disagree more. Sure, you get three borderline All Stars and a decent PG, but Odom, Martin, and Scola are all up there in age and aren't getting any better. In the immediate short term (this season), NO would've been better, sure. But the NBA/Stern's goal is to make that franchise attractive to potential buyers. Thus getting Gordon, Aminu, Kaman, and a '12 top 5-10 pick is a MUCH better haul. Stern is building the Hornets for the future (to sell...) and getting this deal done was a very important step in ensuring that happens.

Like others have said, it'll be very interesting to see what happens with Gordon. I honestly can't see him resigning in NO, he (along with Aminu and Kaman) already don't look very happen in their new surroundings...

new-hornets.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...