The Nixed Deal
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
splashmtn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 4:32 pm    Post subject: The Nixed Deal

Let us take a look at the teams post nixed deal. Name one team that it truly helped in the end? Some will say the clippers because it made them relevant. Yet they still can't see the finals. And another first round exit.


The clippers have been fools gold.

The lakers suck.

and the pelicans are trash as well.

Thanks Cuban, Jordan, Dan Gilbert, and David Stern.

What would have happened if the trade would've gone thru?

At least 2 of these teams would've been solid to very good for a few years at worse. One of them could've won a few rings-the lakers, at best.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kaoss128
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 13058
Location: Morgantown, WV

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 4:33 pm    Post subject:

I think the Pelicans would rather have Anthony Davis than whatever team they would have if the trade went through.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Inspector Gadget
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 46492

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 4:42 pm    Post subject:

Coulda...Woulda...Shoulda......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
AFireInside619
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 11 Dec 2015
Posts: 11447

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 4:58 pm    Post subject: Re: The Nixed Deal

splashmtn wrote:
Let us take a look at the teams post nixed deal. Name one team that it truly helped in the end? Some will say the clippers because it made them relevant. Yet they still can't see the finals. And another first round exit.


The clippers have been fools gold.

The lakers suck.

and the pelicans are trash as well.

Thanks Cuban, Jordan, Dan Gilbert, and David Stern.

What would have happened if the trade would've gone thru?

At least 2 of these teams would've been solid to very good for a few years at worse. One of them could've won a few rings-the lakers, at best.


Cuban - Won a Championship
Jordan - Still the GOAT
Gilbert - Won the lottery every year. Got Lebron back. Won a Championship.
David Stern - Sitting pretty in retirement without a care in the world. Legacy unaffected because no one cares about what happens to the Lakers or their fans. Lebron walks: Outrage. KD walks: Outrage.

I believe in Karma, but I guess the rich and powerful are sometimes immune? Especially Crybaby Gilbert.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MJST
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26091

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 5:00 pm    Post subject:

It robbed CP3 of rings like it robbed Kobe of rings.
_________________
How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
unleasHell
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Apr 2001
Posts: 11591
Location: Stay Thirsty my Friends

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 5:34 pm    Post subject:

In the end it was Sterns, call and only him to blame, rip stern..
_________________
“Always remember... Rumors are carried by haters, spread by fools, and accepted by idiots.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4083

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 5:40 pm    Post subject:

those who have benefited the most:
cavs, lebron, warriors, spurs, jordan

cp3 career ruined
kobe wasted years
30 years of lakers momentum completely destroyed
odom destroyed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakerjoshua
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 11277
Location: Bay Area

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 9:52 pm    Post subject:

SuperboyReformed wrote:
those who have benefited the most:
cavs, lebron, warriors, spurs, jordan

cp3 career ruined
kobe wasted years
30 years of lakers momentum completely destroyed
odom destroyed


You had me until Odom. Then I thought about the opposite.

Gasol, a Spur and contender.

Fisher, got a HC job (lost it but still a fortune end)

Luke, is our HC

Ariza, still solid.

Kobe, possible GOAT

Shaq, yeah he got a statue.

Metta, good send off in his twilight with the team he loves.

For every negative there is and equal and opposite good outcome.

My point is, for everything negative you can find something equally as positive. It's just how someone sees the cup I suppose.

Then again, haters gonna hate and chicken little will always say the sky is falling.........

Reformed? I'll question that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
The Logo
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 25 Jul 2013
Posts: 9577
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 9:55 pm    Post subject:

Would CP3 have prevented Howard from leaving? I feel like Dwight would've been hell bent on leaving especially if he couldn't get along with Nash and Kobe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
focus
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 May 2012
Posts: 2526

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 11:32 pm    Post subject:

The Logo wrote:
Would CP3 have prevented Howard from leaving? I feel like Dwight would've been hell bent on leaving especially if he couldn't get along with Nash and Kobe


CP3 and Kobe probably would have sized him up and encouraged Mitch to ship him out in a heartbeat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Chronicle
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 21 Jul 2012
Posts: 31930
Location: Manhattan

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 3:26 am    Post subject:

cp3 being here may have stopped orlando from trading us howard, perhaps leading to bynum never going bowling, and bynum being the dominant center
_________________
Kobe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
8Five8Seven
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 752
Location: Waipahu, Oahu

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 7:26 am    Post subject:

what still confuses me to this day was I thought the Pelicans at the time was run by a single GM who had talked to Kupchak about making a deal. And so they did. But iirc, the Pelican team was being overhauled for new ownership or something? If that was the case, why didn't the league step in to tell other GM's they couldn't make deals with the Pelicans yet until their new ownership was resolved?

Yet after allowing the Laker-Pelican trade to fall through and made official, all of a sudden Stern comes in on behalf of the league to nix the whole thing for something as vague as "Basketball Reasons?"

in all my years as a sports fan I have never heard or seen such a thing in any sport. It's stuff like that which completely changed my view of this sport where I rarely follow it anymore since 2012.
_________________
Pancho's Happy Bottom Riding Club
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4083

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 7:47 am    Post subject:

8Five8Seven wrote:
what still confuses me to this day was I thought the Pelicans at the time was run by a single GM who had talked to Kupchak about making a deal. And so they did. But iirc, the Pelican team was being overhauled for new ownership or something? If that was the case, why didn't the league step in to tell other GM's they couldn't make deals with the Pelicans yet until their new ownership was resolved?

Yet after allowing the Laker-Pelican trade to fall through and made official, all of a sudden Stern comes in on behalf of the league to nix the whole thing for something as vague as "Basketball Reasons?"

in all my years as a sports fan I have never heard or seen such a thing in any sport. It's stuff like that which completely changed my view of this sport where I rarely follow it anymore since 2012.

true. it has definitely colored my perspective as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 7:48 am    Post subject:

kaoss128 wrote:
I think the Pelicans would rather have Anthony Davis than whatever team they would have if the trade went through.


Umm yeah.

Interesting how they get the #1 pick after CP3 leaves...
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11264

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 7:52 am    Post subject:

8Five8Seven wrote:
what still confuses me to this day was I thought the Pelicans at the time was run by a single GM who had talked to Kupchak about making a deal. And so they did. But iirc, the Pelican team was being overhauled for new ownership or something? If that was the case, why didn't the league step in to tell other GM's they couldn't make deals with the Pelicans yet until their new ownership was resolved?

Yet after allowing the Laker-Pelican trade to fall through and made official, all of a sudden Stern comes in on behalf of the league to nix the whole thing for something as vague as "Basketball Reasons?"

in all my years as a sports fan I have never heard or seen such a thing in any sport. It's stuff like that which completely changed my view of this sport where I rarely follow it anymore since 2012.


That's not exactly how it happened. George Shinn owned the team, but operating it on razor thin margins while accumulating massive debt while still in Charlotte. He moved the team to a better market in New Orleans, but this added another $30 million in relocation fees to the problem. From there the team walked right into hurricane Katrina, and the team loaned Shinn and his company $35 million at a low interest rate -- while at the same time borrowing $100 million at higher interest rates. In the end it was too much, forcing Shinn to put the team up for sale.

The league wanted to find a buyer who would leave the team in New Orleans, but no one stepped up who would not relocate the team, who would assume the team's debts, and who would buy the team on Shinn's timeline. So the league took the unprecedented step of buying the team from him, pending a sale to a new buyer. The NBA Board of Governors was the official owner of the team, and Stern, as Commissioner, was the top decision maker. He installed Jac Sperling as its CEO, but Sperling's job was to find a buyer, not to make basketball decisions.

So Stern was operating in a dual role at the time -- as Commissioner of the leauge, and as the de facto owner of the Hornets. Keep in mind that owners ALWAYS sign off on big deals -- especially when a team is up for sale -- so Stern needing to sign off -- IN HIS ROLE AS TEAM OWNER -- was no big deal. But there was no clear separation between his two roles, and it can be said that there was an inherent conflict of interest that muddied the waters. Hell, I said it myself: LINK

So the three GMs negotiated a deal, which went to Stern for approval as the de facto owner of the team (and not as Commissioner). But at least one owner (Gilbert) clearly lobbied Stern as Commissioner, to put a stop to the deal as the owner. He nixed the deal, said it was for "basketball reasons," but clearly it wasn't.

There were a lot of factors in play -- as a team for sale, Stern wanted intangible assets like draft picks rather than tangible liabilities like expensive player contracts. The team had also just completed the new CBA, which was supposed to help protect small-market teams, and the first deal out of the gate was one that sent a superstar from a small market to Los Angeles. And other owners were tugging on his arm. The conflict of interest was clear, but nonetheless, he nixed the deal in his role as team owner, and not as Commissioner.

The sides returned to the table after that, with Stern wanting the Lakers to also throw in draft picks. The Lakers held firm, saying "we had a deal." THAT'S when the deal actually fell apart. They still could have had CP3 if they had thrown in another first. Definitely if they threw in two firsts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 7:54 am    Post subject:

Quote:
The sides returned to the table after that, with Stern wanting the Lakers to also throw in draft picks. The Lakers held firm, saying "we had a deal." THAT'S when the deal actually fell apart. They still could have had CP3 if they had thrown in another first. Definitely if they threw in two firsts.


Oh man Larry, if this was true...ouch (these picks probably later went for the Nash deal).
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53714

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 9:05 am    Post subject:

Quote:
They still could have had CP3 if they had thrown in another first.


LINK
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
22
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 9:26 am    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
Quote:
The sides returned to the table after that, with Stern wanting the Lakers to also throw in draft picks. The Lakers held firm, saying "we had a deal." THAT'S when the deal actually fell apart. They still could have had CP3 if they had thrown in another first. Definitely if they threw in two firsts.


Oh man Larry, if this was true...ouch (these picks probably later went for the Nash deal).


Ok now we did get screwed by the league, but that was dumb if true. Lakers should have given up another first or two
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
focus
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 May 2012
Posts: 2526

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 9:29 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
The sides returned to the table after that, with Stern wanting the Lakers to also throw in draft picks. The Lakers held firm, saying "we had a deal." THAT'S when the deal actually fell apart. They still could have had CP3 if they had thrown in another first. Definitely if they threw in two firsts.

What the heck? Is this new info? I have read your take on Stern before and toned down my multiyear F Stern stance since, but I definitely do not remember this. This is amazing.

Can you elaborate on this a little? What might have been the reasoning behind the Lakers being adamant on the pick or picks?

Thanks for the previous info.


Last edited by focus on Mon May 01, 2017 10:19 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 9:37 am    Post subject:

8Five8Seven wrote:
what still confuses me to this day was I thought the Pelicans at the time was run by a single GM who had talked to Kupchak about making a deal. And so they did. But iirc, the Pelican team was being overhauled for new ownership or something? If that was the case, why didn't the league step in to tell other GM's they couldn't make deals with the Pelicans yet until their new ownership was resolved?


At the time of the deal, the Pelicans (then called the Hornets) were owned by the league, which was preparing to sell it to a new owner. David Stern was acting as the owner of the franchise and he appointed a GM who he said would have authority to make decisions.

After the GM made Paul trade with the Lakers, the trade was sent to the league office for approval, as all trades must be.

Here's where it gets messy. Stern vetoed the trade, saying he was acting as team owner and didn't think the deal was good enough. (He said it was his responsibility to make sure the best deal was made to enhance the value of the franchise.) Now, owners have certainly vetoed trades before. But it contradicted what Stern said about the GM having authority, and it made it murky whether Stern was acting as owner or commissioner.

At the same time, Gilbert sent a letter to Stern saying the deal was bad because it enriched the Lakers too much and all the owners (who effectively owned the Hornets at the time) should have voted on the deal. Whether Gilbert's email actually affected anything is anyone's guess.

It was a messy, highly unusual situation with conflicts of interests of plenty, so anyone who didn't like it can find reasons to be angry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 9:45 am    Post subject:

focus wrote:


Can you elaborate on this a little? What might have been the reasoning behind being adamant on the pick or picks? .


Stern contended that new owners would be more interested in having young talent and picks than older vets (the Hornets would have ended up with Lamar Odom, Kevin Martin, Goran Dragic, Luis Scola in the three-person trade) who were unlikely to be contenders.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
focus
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 May 2012
Posts: 2526

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 10:18 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
focus wrote:


Can you elaborate on this a little? What might have been the reasoning behind being adamant on the pick or picks? .


Stern contended that new owners would be more interested in having young talent and picks than older vets (the Hornets would have ended up with Lamar Odom, Kevin Martin, Goran Dragic, Luis Scola in the three-person trade) who were unlikely to be contenders.


Sorry I meant US being adamant on the picks, as Larry Coon mentioned, not Stern.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
67ShelbyGT
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 May 2008
Posts: 4048

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 10:24 am    Post subject:

Quote:
The sides returned to the table after that, with Stern wanting the Lakers to also throw in draft picks. The Lakers held firm, saying "we had a deal." THAT'S when the deal actually fell apart. They still could have had CP3 if they had thrown in another first. Definitely if they threw in two firsts.


Wow! So 2 picks for an aging Nash and 1yr rental Dwight but Mitch/Jim didnt want to throw in even 1 for a PG in his prime?! Brilliant move, FO.
_________________
Alltime lineup: Magic | Kobe | MJ | Hakeem | KAJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 10:49 am    Post subject:

I hope it wasn't pride that killed the CP3 deal. The picks that we used for Nash...I mean...come on.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
focus
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 May 2012
Posts: 2526

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 1:52 pm    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
I hope it wasn't pride that killed the CP3 deal. The picks that we used for Nash...I mean...come on.

That's why I'm hoping for a little more info. Have you ever heard this before? It's news to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB