|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
PLATNUM
Star Player
Joined: 17 Dec 2002
Posts: 7124
Location: L.A.
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ReaListik wrote: | | PLATNUM wrote: |  |
Where did you get that avatar |
Leaked test footage for the film. Should be able to find it online
_________________
"Dread it, run from it... destiny arrives all the same." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
J.C. Smith
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 12670
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't think it really matters which deal was better. What does matter is that the league hired a GM to make the moves for the team and he finished a deal that most people felt was a great deal for them. I remember the 5 on 5 on ESPN right after it happened. Everyone thought they made out well. Some people felt the Lakers gave up too much. Then the commisioner vetoed the deal with no explanation. Looking back in hind sight at the decline of players acquired doesn't really matter. At that time, they were getting four solid players for a disgruntled one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fruscas
Star Player
Joined: 12 Mar 2013
Posts: 5130
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'd rather watch people let the whole dr. Phil hipotetical non subject go and talk about how we're screwed by the league instead. The Lakers should've sued the league for that horrible veto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cup-of-noodles
Star Player
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 1696
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
All I know is we shall rise again. not saying when but we shall rise.
Forget about Sperm he is gone now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ElginBaylor
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Posts: 10775
Location: Hoosier Nation
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let it go people. You're as bad as my ex-wife.
_________________
Not a legend |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Shadow King
Star Player
Joined: 02 Apr 2011
Posts: 4363
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
The anger sharks are swimming in my head...
_________________
Lakers, today. Lakers, tomorrow. Lakers, forever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| J.C. Smith wrote: | | I don't think it really matters which deal was better. What does matter is that the league hired a GM to make the moves for the team and he finished a deal that most people felt was a great deal for them. I remember the 5 on 5 on ESPN right after it happened. Everyone thought they made out well. Some people felt the Lakers gave up too much. Then the commisioner vetoed the deal with no explanation. Looking back in hind sight at the decline of players acquired doesn't really matter. At that time, they were getting four solid players for a disgruntled one. |
Here's the 5x5 you mentioned. I was one of the panelists:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7334694/nba-lingering-questions-chris-paul-trade
I don't think anyone thought the Hornets made out well, but as I noted, "The Hornets were never going to get the best of this or any other trade. They were dealing from a position of weakness. They had to trade Paul, and the rest of the league knew it."
That said, we can't really say the Commissioner vetoed it with no explanation. He DID give an explanation (I was on the phone conference with him when he explained it), and he didn't veto it as the Commissioner -- he did so as the owner of the team.
And let me be clear -- for any signing or trade of that size, where franchise players are involved, the owner of the team ALWAYS has the final say. Even though Mitch & Jim run the show on a day-to-day basis and Mitch did all the leg work on the trade, the deal would have gone to Jerry for a final thumbs-up or thumbs-down. LOTS of deals get killed at the last minute when the GMs put them together but the owners won't sign off on them. It happens -- and this is just one example.
But this is where my defense of the deal ends, because this is where the similarities to other deals end. In this case, Stern has installed Jac Sperling as the fiduciary over the Hornets, specifically to keep himself at arm's length, then he ignored that arrangement in vetoing the deal. If Sperling had made the call it would have looked a lot better (even if Sperling turned out to be just a Stern puppet).
But by swinging the axe himself, Stern conflated his two roles -- in fact, most people think Stern vetoed it as Commissioner, and not as the owner of the Hornets. What made it even worse was that Dan Gilbert not only wrote an obscenely stupid letter to Stern, he also leaked it to the public.
I tore Gilbert's letter apart here:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7336526/nba-critique-dan-gilbert-letter
Gilbert tried to cover by saying he wrote the letter after Stern had vetoed the deal (really -- he had a mutual friend who worked for the Cavs at the time call me to make that case), which was blatantly and obviously dishonest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Exactly Larry. That was always my complaint, the circumvention of the guy who was supposed to keep you at arms length. Stern slipped up by not having jac do it (maybe it was the heat he was taking and he wanted to do it personally, or maybe sperling wouldn't go back after approving the deal--essentially giving his word. Who knows?). Because no matter which hat he was wearing, he was also wearing the other, and everyone knows it. Following it up by essentially forcing the clipper trade added more insult and injury.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postandpivot
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Sep 2003
Posts: 36822
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ElginBaylor wrote: | | Let it go people. You're as bad as my ex-wife. |
tell your "we want phil" guys to "LET IT GO"
tell the MDA and JIM SUCKS " to let it go"
tell the "why didnt we trade pau" people, to "LET IT GO"
all those people are here because of what stern and those small market owners did to the lakers with that shady trade veto. that started the domino effect. So you cant have the things that came out of it without including what started it all.
_________________
LAL4K3RS wrote: He(Kobe) is the white haired kung fu master that you realize is older than dirt but can still kick your arse when in a sitting position drinking a nice herbal tea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postandpivot
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Sep 2003
Posts: 36822
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | J.C. Smith wrote: | | I don't think it really matters which deal was better. What does matter is that the league hired a GM to make the moves for the team and he finished a deal that most people felt was a great deal for them. I remember the 5 on 5 on ESPN right after it happened. Everyone thought they made out well. Some people felt the Lakers gave up too much. Then the commisioner vetoed the deal with no explanation. Looking back in hind sight at the decline of players acquired doesn't really matter. At that time, they were getting four solid players for a disgruntled one. |
Here's the 5x5 you mentioned. I was one of the panelists:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7334694/nba-lingering-questions-chris-paul-trade
I don't think anyone thought the Hornets made out well, but as I noted, "The Hornets were never going to get the best of this or any other trade. They were dealing from a position of weakness. They had to trade Paul, and the rest of the league knew it."
That said, we can't really say the Commissioner vetoed it with no explanation. He DID give an explanation (I was on the phone conference with him when he explained it), and he didn't veto it as the Commissioner -- he did so as the owner of the team.
And let me be clear -- for any signing or trade of that size, where franchise players are involved, the owner of the team ALWAYS has the final say. Even though Mitch & Jim run the show on a day-to-day basis and Mitch did all the leg work on the trade, the deal would have gone to Jerry for a final thumbs-up or thumbs-down. LOTS of deals get killed at the last minute when the GMs put them together but the owners won't sign off on them. It happens -- and this is just one example.
But this is where my defense of the deal ends, because this is where the similarities to other deals end. In this case, Stern has installed Jac Sperling as the fiduciary over the Hornets, specifically to keep himself at arm's length, then he ignored that arrangement in vetoing the deal. If Sperling had made the call it would have looked a lot better (even if Sperling turned out to be just a Stern puppet).
But by swinging the axe himself, Stern conflated his two roles -- in fact, most people think Stern vetoed it as Commissioner, and not as the owner of the Hornets. What made it even worse was that Dan Gilbert not only wrote an obscenely stupid letter to Stern, he also leaked it to the public.
I tore Gilbert's letter apart here:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7336526/nba-critique-dan-gilbert-letter
Gilbert tried to cover by saying he wrote the letter after Stern had vetoed the deal (really -- he had a mutual friend who worked for the Cavs at the time call me to make that case), which was blatantly and obviously dishonest. |
good insight. LC..question. when the veto happened. did you think to self "this may set the lakers back 5 years?" cause i know thats the first thing that came into my thought process.
the reason being..we just lost one of the key pieces to the puzzle for the future AND now.
anytime you can get a somewhat young vet thats also a superstar, that can also RUN a team(cp3 can). you have someone to build around for the future.
anytime you have a guy like that, with kobe + dwight(who we already knew was on his way to the lakers). you have a Contender today, and even when kobe calls it quits. there will be one more solid FA ready to hop on the team going forward seeing that you have a great PG and great defensive big in the middle. two things wing players that love to score want.
#1 a great facilitator(so they can get their touches) =cp3
#2. a great defensive anchor in the middle(so they can press up on guys if they are defenders or so their lack of defense can be covered by said anchor).
^^^those two things will always attract FA's to your team. and thats what we would have had. you take cp3 out of it. and i knew who dwight was(a big kid with a lot of talent but not as mentally tough as others may wanted to think he was.) i knew cp3 was our franchise leader going forward not dwight. so it felt as if they just stole our kobe replacement. which is where i got the idea of wow it may take anothr 5 years to find another kobe replacement. granted at the time i didnt know this draft was going to be this stacked nor did i know the lakers would be this bad(injuries, etc.)
then if you look at the fall out odom losing his mind(the guy still isnt right). gasol with trade rumors(sometimes he plays well, other times he doesnt all due to dealing with trade rumors and his age/mileage). everytime gasol gets injured due to old age. i think "we already traded this guy."
every time we attempted to trade gasol but couldnt. i would think "we already traded this guy and now our hand is shown to the world because of that veto."
super setback
_________________
LAL4K3RS wrote: He(Kobe) is the white haired kung fu master that you realize is older than dirt but can still kick your arse when in a sitting position drinking a nice herbal tea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144462
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| postandpivot wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | The league's goal was to sell the team, they did after the Clipper trade, so it worked out well for them. |
thats the wrong way to think about it. you cant make that statement without saying are you sure the team would not have sold if they had a much better roster and fans with their butts in seats because their team looks like a playoff team or close to it. |
I am well aware of the Hornets owner, and the lower payroll is what he wanted. I think the NBA would have had to give even more aid to him if he were saddled with the high contracts that the Laker trade would have left them with. The trade with the Clippers was what he would have wanted, and the sale happened quickly after the trade was made.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moses
Star Player
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 8270
Location: London
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
It still makes me angry. The effects of it are plain to see, we suck and the Clippers are good, and that is all because of that moment in time.
Stern crossed the line. As commissioner of the league he shouldn't have been involved, he should've let the person he hired to do a job have the final say.
They talk about how big market teams always get the stars, how the new CBA was meant to reduce spending. We reduced our spending and gave away 2 of our best players to get CP3, yet Stern still listened to owners complaining.
I don't think Dwight would've left a team that had CP3 on it either.
_________________
Lakers, Chargers, Dodgers, Arsenal FC.
Mamba Forever
The Marathon Continues
Still I Rise |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144462
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 55 wrote: | | postandpivot wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | The league's goal was to sell the team, they did after the Clipper trade, so it worked out well for them. |
thats the wrong way to think about it. you cant make that statement without saying are you sure the team would not have sold if they had a much better roster and fans with their butts in seats because their team looks like a playoff team or close to it. |
That "much better roster" would still be a losing team but with a higher payroll, compared to bottom team with a #1 pick on the way. Buyers would rather purchase a team they can build rather than a mediocre team with a higher payroll. Remember, they don't make money every year like the Lakers - they make money when they sell the team years later. |
It isn't even a question of "buyers", they had their buyer and knew what he wanted.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postandpivot
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Sep 2003
Posts: 36822
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | postandpivot wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | The league's goal was to sell the team, they did after the Clipper trade, so it worked out well for them. |
thats the wrong way to think about it. you cant make that statement without saying are you sure the team would not have sold if they had a much better roster and fans with their butts in seats because their team looks like a playoff team or close to it. |
I am well aware of the Hornets owner, and the lower payroll is what he wanted. I think the NBA would have had to give even more aid to him if he were saddled with the high contracts that the Laker trade would have left them with. The trade with the Clippers was what he would have wanted, and the sale happened quickly after the trade was made. |
i'll say it again. that proves nothing. you give him a solid team that fans are hyped about. now your jersey sales are up, your hat sales are up, your season ticket sales are up, your daily ticket sales are up. you are actually bringing in more money. we dont know the math. we dont know if it would have broke even at the end of day. or been even more lucrative for the owner.
dont be silly. thats not why the deal was vetoed. that was an afterthought. if that was the reason. then the deal would've been shot down from day one. but it wasnt.
look at it like this. stern put a guy in place to play the role of GM. are you telling me, stern never told the guy "hey look, whatever deal you get for cp3 lets make the payroll easy to swallow for a new owner."
if thats what stern thought was the best way to go about selling the team. he would've mentioned that to the GM. so the GM would have a direction when making deals. if stern didnt tell him that. that means stern wasnt as concerned with that as you guys may think.
there is more then one way to make a team attractive. and being cheap with the payroll isnt the only way.
sometimes its a winning product with excitement around the ball club.
_________________
LAL4K3RS wrote: He(Kobe) is the white haired kung fu master that you realize is older than dirt but can still kick your arse when in a sitting position drinking a nice herbal tea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postandpivot
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Sep 2003
Posts: 36822
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Moses wrote: | It still makes me angry. The effects of it are plain to see, we suck and the Clippers are good, and that is all because of that moment in time.
Stern crossed the line. As commissioner of the league he shouldn't have been involved, he should've let the person he hired to do a job have the final say.
They talk about how big market teams always get the stars, how the new CBA was meant to reduce spending. We reduced our spending and gave away 2 of our best players to get CP3, yet Stern still listened to owners complaining.
I don't think Dwight would've left a team that had CP3 on it either. |
and even if dwight leaves. SO WHAT> we have cp3 to build around and kobe still here for the here and now. thats an easy sell for melo, love, durant even.
_________________
LAL4K3RS wrote: He(Kobe) is the white haired kung fu master that you realize is older than dirt but can still kick your arse when in a sitting position drinking a nice herbal tea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ForumBlueFrank
Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 12889
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | J.C. Smith wrote: | | I don't think it really matters which deal was better. What does matter is that the league hired a GM to make the moves for the team and he finished a deal that most people felt was a great deal for them. I remember the 5 on 5 on ESPN right after it happened. Everyone thought they made out well. Some people felt the Lakers gave up too much. Then the commisioner vetoed the deal with no explanation. Looking back in hind sight at the decline of players acquired doesn't really matter. At that time, they were getting four solid players for a disgruntled one. |
Here's the 5x5 you mentioned. I was one of the panelists:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7334694/nba-lingering-questions-chris-paul-trade
I don't think anyone thought the Hornets made out well, but as I noted, "The Hornets were never going to get the best of this or any other trade. They were dealing from a position of weakness. They had to trade Paul, and the rest of the league knew it."
That said, we can't really say the Commissioner vetoed it with no explanation. He DID give an explanation (I was on the phone conference with him when he explained it), and he didn't veto it as the Commissioner -- he did so as the owner of the team.
And let me be clear -- for any signing or trade of that size, where franchise players are involved, the owner of the team ALWAYS has the final say. Even though Mitch & Jim run the show on a day-to-day basis and Mitch did all the leg work on the trade, the deal would have gone to Jerry for a final thumbs-up or thumbs-down. LOTS of deals get killed at the last minute when the GMs put them together but the owners won't sign off on them. It happens -- and this is just one example.
But this is where my defense of the deal ends, because this is where the similarities to other deals end. In this case, Stern has installed Jac Sperling as the fiduciary over the Hornets, specifically to keep himself at arm's length, then he ignored that arrangement in vetoing the deal. If Sperling had made the call it would have looked a lot better (even if Sperling turned out to be just a Stern puppet).
But by swinging the axe himself, Stern conflated his two roles -- in fact, most people think Stern vetoed it as Commissioner, and not as the owner of the Hornets. What made it even worse was that Dan Gilbert not only wrote an obscenely stupid letter to Stern, he also leaked it to the public.
I tore Gilbert's letter apart here:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7336526/nba-critique-dan-gilbert-letter
Gilbert tried to cover by saying he wrote the letter after Stern had vetoed the deal (really -- he had a mutual friend who worked for the Cavs at the time call me to make that case), which was blatantly and obviously dishonest. |
Great insight into what transpired. Thanks LC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KobeRe-Loaded
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 14944
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lakers got screwed.... let's move on.
_________________
#11/08/16 America became GREAT again
#Avatar-gate |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ShadyG
Star Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2002
Posts: 3100
Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
My complaint was about the conflict of interest. What owner would cancel a deal because too many teams complained that the other party was saving money? David Stern wasn't simply being the owner when he gave the thumbs down, he was a combination of owner and commissioner, allowing a bunch of jealous owners to influence a decision that should have been made with only his own team's perspective in mind.
_________________
Nerd rock in progress.
http://briangraymusic.com/?toptab=1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13711
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:29 am Post subject: Re: Revisiting the vetoed trade for Chris Paul... |
|
|
| Sccit wrote: | | I was curious regarding the opinions around here...we all know about the deal that brought cp3 to the lakers and immediately got vetoed. sad day in laker history...but my question is, which package for cp3 do u think was actually better. was it the clipper package revolving around eric gordon, or was it our package revolving around pau? tell me which u feel was actually the better deal and explain why............. |
I don't see how anyone can say the Clipper package wasn't better when they look at what NO ultimately wound up with (Anthony Davis) and what happened to the players in the original package:
Scola - Older and no longer a difference maker
Martin - Older and no longer a difference maker
Odom - Out the league
Dragic - OVERALL STUD! But he really wanted to return to Phoenix.
The Pelicans are clearly better off with the package they received. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13711
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Dynasty24 wrote: | | Would anyone really even suggest that it was a good trade for the Hornets if they didn't "luck" into Anthony Davis? Eric Gordon was the center piece of that trade by the clippers, and he's been extremely injury prone. Good thing for the new owners that they were lucky enough to get the first pick, huh? |
It depends on the goals of the team and ownership. If the goal is to be a mediocore team battling for a 9th spot then no. If the goal is to rebuild then yes either way. The initial trade would have given NO a capped out lotto team with a minuscule chance of winning the lottery. Who wants that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13711
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| postandpivot wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | The league's goal was to sell the team, they did after the Clipper trade, so it worked out well for them. |
thats the wrong way to think about it. you cant make that statement without saying are you sure the team would not have sold if they had a much better roster and fans with their butts in seats because their team looks like a playoff team or close to it. |
But odds are they wouldn't have looked like a playoff team. The Rockets had the same core, with more support (ie Lowry) in Houston and didn't make the playoffs. So why would that core suddenly make the playoffs in NO, with less help, and an uninterested Odom? That core didn't put butts in seats in Houston either, so why would they suddenly put butts in seats in NO? Who is paying to come see a team starring Kevin Martin and Scola?
You talk about the things that could have happened, ie making the playoffs or generating revenue, and we will never know. But we do have an example of that core in Houston, where those things didn't happen. Neither place (NO or Houston) is the kind of city that will support the team no matter who is on it. If you don't have a winning team or a star then no one is watching basketball in either place.
Last edited by Dreamshake on Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:43 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144462
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| postandpivot wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | postandpivot wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | The league's goal was to sell the team, they did after the Clipper trade, so it worked out well for them. |
thats the wrong way to think about it. you cant make that statement without saying are you sure the team would not have sold if they had a much better roster and fans with their butts in seats because their team looks like a playoff team or close to it. |
I am well aware of the Hornets owner, and the lower payroll is what he wanted. I think the NBA would have had to give even more aid to him if he were saddled with the high contracts that the Laker trade would have left them with. The trade with the Clippers was what he would have wanted, and the sale happened quickly after the trade was made. |
i'll say it again. that proves nothing. |
Seeing how you can't prove something that never happened, looking for proof is a losing proposition. The league wanted the team sold, Benson is known for being cheap, and with a cheap team they sold quickly. That happened so it can be proved.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13711
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | J.C. Smith wrote: | | I don't think it really matters which deal was better. What does matter is that the league hired a GM to make the moves for the team and he finished a deal that most people felt was a great deal for them. I remember the 5 on 5 on ESPN right after it happened. Everyone thought they made out well. Some people felt the Lakers gave up too much. Then the commisioner vetoed the deal with no explanation. Looking back in hind sight at the decline of players acquired doesn't really matter. At that time, they were getting four solid players for a disgruntled one. |
Here's the 5x5 you mentioned. I was one of the panelists:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7334694/nba-lingering-questions-chris-paul-trade
I don't think anyone thought the Hornets made out well, but as I noted, "The Hornets were never going to get the best of this or any other trade. They were dealing from a position of weakness. They had to trade Paul, and the rest of the league knew it."
That said, we can't really say the Commissioner vetoed it with no explanation. He DID give an explanation (I was on the phone conference with him when he explained it), and he didn't veto it as the Commissioner -- he did so as the owner of the team.
And let me be clear -- for any signing or trade of that size, where franchise players are involved, the owner of the team ALWAYS has the final say. Even though Mitch & Jim run the show on a day-to-day basis and Mitch did all the leg work on the trade, the deal would have gone to Jerry for a final thumbs-up or thumbs-down. LOTS of deals get killed at the last minute when the GMs put them together but the owners won't sign off on them. It happens -- and this is just one example.
But this is where my defense of the deal ends, because this is where the similarities to other deals end. In this case, Stern has installed Jac Sperling as the fiduciary over the Hornets, specifically to keep himself at arm's length, then he ignored that arrangement in vetoing the deal. If Sperling had made the call it would have looked a lot better (even if Sperling turned out to be just a Stern puppet).
But by swinging the axe himself, Stern conflated his two roles -- in fact, most people think Stern vetoed it as Commissioner, and not as the owner of the Hornets. What made it even worse was that Dan Gilbert not only wrote an obscenely stupid letter to Stern, he also leaked it to the public.
I tore Gilbert's letter apart here:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7336526/nba-critique-dan-gilbert-letter
Gilbert tried to cover by saying he wrote the letter after Stern had vetoed the deal (really -- he had a mutual friend who worked for the Cavs at the time call me to make that case), which was blatantly and obviously dishonest. |
Very informative. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LA_Lakers_Rule
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 19482
Location: The X-Files
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mnstrdnk wrote: | | danzag wrote: | | http://cdn.niketalk.com/e/e3/e3598b1c_3581747.jpeg |
 |
_________________
Rule = win titles  
Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. - Will Rogers ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AshesToAshes
Star Player
Joined: 20 Jun 2009
Posts: 4837
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's like being robbed for your wallet right after putting your long lost teenage love's number in it cuz you ran into her and she asked you to call her that night; but then the robber drops the wallet and some schmuk picks it up.
robber - is a prick for robbing you
schmuk whom found the wallet - he has her number now, but wont do anything with it
you - either way, you're screwed because for the foreseeable future you will be searching again for that long lost love. Except now, you know they're closeby.
longlost love - will move on and be her awesome self, but whatever happens it'll never be as good as if you had hooked up.
_________________
KOBE!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
