|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53835
|
 Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | He went backhand demanded more picks (and while I trust Larry, I don't exactly trust that the people who told him are on the up and up, since that would be like trusting the defendant to tell the truth in a trial. Of course they are going to tell it favoring themselves. |
This is the same thing as saying nothing could convince you because if any of the people involved contradict your speculation it probably means they're lying. Multiple people directly involved all seem to be on the same page about how Mitch handled it. Seems odd for them to be in on a conspiracy without a purpose (including keeping up the ruse in a private conversation with Larry). I don't get the impulse to deny this point.
Mitch mishandling the deal doesn't take away from the point that Stern shouldn't have had this power and we got screwed out of an agreed upon deal.
_________________
14-5-3-12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kinda wonder why people still care. Nothing illegal occurred, Stern is gone, Mitch is gone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
999
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Oct 2006
Posts: 20267
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
David stern is a lying (bleep) sucker.
He wouldn't have veto anything if there were not any backlash from Dan Gilbert, mark Cuban and Gregg popovich.
And honestly I think he wanted to help his buddy Donald sterling out |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | | Quote: | | He went backhand demanded more picks (and while I trust Larry, I don't exactly trust that the people who told him are on the up and up, since that would be like trusting the defendant to tell the truth in a trial. Of course they are going to tell it favoring themselves. |
This is the same thing as saying nothing could convince you because if any of the people involved contradict your speculation it probably means they're lying. Multiple people directly involved all seem to be on the same page about how Mitch handled it. Seems odd for them to be in on a conspiracy without a purpose (including keeping up the ruse in a private conversation with Larry). I don't get the impulse to deny this point.
Mitch mishandling the deal doesn't take away from the point that Stern shouldn't have had this power and we got screwed out of an agreed upon deal. |
No, it is not the same thing to acknowledge that the people who told the story have a vested interest, as does the person who is now embellishing that. But again, the original story was that he was asked to throw in more picks (or Bynum according to some), and would not. That's a long ways from he panicked, and a long way from, "if he had just given us a couple more days, we get houston to give Lowry and we get Odom moved for a pick)".
My only point about the inside story is we don't even know if that's true, but it doesn't matter. This story is very different from that one. If you think Mitch should have offered more, that's a reasonable point of view. But that was never what we were arguing really.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53835
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | Quote: | | He went backhand demanded more picks (and while I trust Larry, I don't exactly trust that the people who told him are on the up and up, since that would be like trusting the defendant to tell the truth in a trial. Of course they are going to tell it favoring themselves. |
This is the same thing as saying nothing could convince you because if any of the people involved contradict your speculation it probably means they're lying. Multiple people directly involved all seem to be on the same page about how Mitch handled it. Seems odd for them to be in on a conspiracy without a purpose (including keeping up the ruse in a private conversation with Larry). I don't get the impulse to deny this point.
Mitch mishandling the deal doesn't take away from the point that Stern shouldn't have had this power and we got screwed out of an agreed upon deal. |
No, it is not the same thing to acknowledge that the people who told the story have a vested interest, as does the person who is now embellishing that. But again, the original story was that he was asked to throw in more picks (or Bynum according to some), and would not. That's a long ways from he panicked, and a long way from, "if he had just given us a couple more days, we get houston to give Lowry and we get Odom moved for a pick)".
My only point about the inside story is we don't even know if that's true, but it doesn't matter. This story is very different from that one. If you think Mitch should have offered more, that's a reasonable point of view. But that was never what we were arguing really. |
To be clear, I don't agree that he "panicked". I think that's a poor choice of words. Mitch had a tendency to offer a deal with a take it or leave it mentality, and if he didn't get the answer he wanted he moved on quickly. There appears to be ample evidence that had he been more flexible and offered more (which is not unreasonable given the deal as constructed was a fleecing) the deal could have been revived. There's no real motivation to lie about this point. Those involved could simply say they liked the Clippers deal better, which happens to be the truth anyway. Adding the bit about Mitch leaving the table while a deal was still achievable serves no purpose, unless you believe multiple people are conspiring to embarrass him for the fun of it.
_________________
14-5-3-12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, my objection was to the current take, which basically not only said he panicked (btw, the word was Mitch and Jerry, who was still involved at that point, were livid, and refused to throw more in on a principle of already having a deal), but that he didn't even really have to give up more.
While I don't know the truth or the exact motive of others in terms of what might have done the deal (i suspect stern was either not giving us cp3 at all or would have extracted an extreme price, so the extra pick doesn't ring true, but that's just my guess), indo know that stern is using the current regime shift and Mitch bashing to try and square his end.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | JMK it's a cute response, but it doesn't negate the point that Mitch walked away from the table, and we have more than one source to corroborate this. Here's more from Larry:
| Larry Coon wrote: | | I had a nice conversation a year or two ago with one of the principal dealmakers in that deal. He said they all got back on the phone and tried to work it out, but the Lakers' position was that they had agreed on deal terms, and they weren't changing them. I don't know how much of that was standing on principle, and how much was not wanting to cross a line where they give up assets they'd need for a subsequent Howard trade. If I ever talk to Mitch or Jim down the line I'll try to find out. |
Exactly how many sources do we need to have on this? |
All reports came from a single source:
David Stern.
He is completely honest
and not biased in any way
nor guilty of waiting years before publicly attacking an honorable man in defense of his own indefensible actions
right after his position of power has been revoked under utterly bizarre circumstances.
Two men have a conversation.
One of them is Mitch.
The other is David Stern.
Do you really believe Stern? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53835
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | ocho wrote: | JMK it's a cute response, but it doesn't negate the point that Mitch walked away from the table, and we have more than one source to corroborate this. Here's more from Larry:
| Larry Coon wrote: | | I had a nice conversation a year or two ago with one of the principal dealmakers in that deal. He said they all got back on the phone and tried to work it out, but the Lakers' position was that they had agreed on deal terms, and they weren't changing them. I don't know how much of that was standing on principle, and how much was not wanting to cross a line where they give up assets they'd need for a subsequent Howard trade. If I ever talk to Mitch or Jim down the line I'll try to find out. |
Exactly how many sources do we need to have on this? |
All reports came from a single source:
David Stern.
He is completely honest
and not biased in any way
nor guilty of waiting years before publicly attacking an honorable man in defense of his own indefensible actions
right after his position of power has been revoked under utterly bizarre circumstances.
Two men have a conversation.
One of them is Mitch.
The other is David Stern.
Do you really believe Stern? |
Unless you have knowledge about who Larry talked to, you don't know who the other source is. And there's still the problem of there being no reason to lie about this. The story doesn't require this detail.
_________________
14-5-3-12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laker4life
Star Player
Joined: 26 Nov 2001
Posts: 7320
|
| Posted: Sun May 28, 2017 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JerryMagicKobe wrote: | Stern didn't veto the trade for want of a couple draft picks.
He vetoed the trade because a small market All-star was being traded to a large market powerhouse right after a lockout and CBA designed to stop exactly that.
Factor in the payroll cut, and Stern was going to look really bad.
A few draft picks would not have changed that.
Blaming Mitch is reprehensible, although saying he panicked is silly.
When has Mitch ever been anything other than cold, calculating and methodical? |
Stern should just keep his mouth close.
Blaming Kupchak is ridiculous.
The issue was the lockout was to prevent the continuation of the laker dynasty.
Owners were pissed off so Stern nixed the deal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JerryMagicKobe wrote: | Stern didn't veto the trade for want of a couple draft picks.
He vetoed the trade because a small market All-star was being traded to a large market powerhouse right after a lockout and CBA designed to stop exactly that.
Factor in the payroll cut, and Stern was going to look really bad.
A few draft picks would not have changed that. |
I agree that the first trade out of the gate bringing a superstar from a small market to LA was what got this started, and I agree that Stern abused his conflict of interest. But I respectfully disagree that draft picks wouldn't have changed it. That was exactly what was on the table when the sides reconvened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | The NBA owners had just ended the lock out with a new CBA designed to limit the Lakers' ability to steal away small market talent. It also imposed stiffer luxury taxes aimed at distributing the Lakers revenue across the NBA. With all due respect to Larry who knows more about this than I ever will, but how would 2 extra draft picks bring satisfaction to the small market owners who would watch in horror as the Lakers added CP3, eliminated their luxury tax burden, and perfectly positioned themselves to flip Bynum for Howard? |
Nobody said anything about bringing satisfaction to the other owners. Had the deal happened a little later, when the CBA wasn't so fresh, it wouldn't have been as big a deal. As it was, the owners owners raised hell; Gilbert even specifically complained about the Lakers not having to give up draft assets in the deal. And that's exactly what the Hornets (Stern) asked for when the sides returned to the table. Would the other owners have been satisfied with that? Who knows -- probably not. But Stern would have been able to tell them he got more from the Lakers, and specifically what owners like Gilbert said they should be giving up. We keep saying Stern had a CONFLICT of interest. The other interest in this conflict was wanting to get Paul traded, and wanting to put the Hornets in a better position to be sold. Going back & getting more out of the Lakers would have given Stern enough to handle the other owners.
What I know (because I was told directly by someone who was a member of that conversation) was that they asked the Lakers to throw in draft picks to get the deal done. Whether that would have ended up being one or two (or maybe even more) is unknown because they never actually negotiated. The Lakers said "we had a deal" and refused to even contemplate it.
| Quote: | Stern could never say this, so it unsurprising that he would tell anyone and everyone that the Lakers could have had CP3 if only they had sweetened their offer just a little bit. So nice of him to come out years later and after Kupchak is fired to pile on. Extra points for blaming the victim for 'panicking'.
Sounds like a steaming load of self-serving load of horse crap. |
I personally don't care what Stern is saying now, or how he's spinning it. And for the record, he isn't my source on the information I gave above.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Annihilator
Star Player
Joined: 02 Jul 2001
Posts: 4035
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | The NBA owners had just ended the lock out with a new CBA designed to limit the Lakers' ability to steal away small market talent. It also imposed stiffer luxury taxes aimed at distributing the Lakers revenue across the NBA. With all due respect to Larry who knows more about this than I ever will, but how would 2 extra draft picks bring satisfaction to the small market owners who would watch in horror as the Lakers added CP3, eliminated their luxury tax burden, and perfectly positioned themselves to flip Bynum for Howard? |
Nobody said anything about bringing satisfaction to the other owners. Had the deal happened a little later, when the CBA wasn't so fresh, it wouldn't have been as big a deal. As it was, the owners owners raised hell; Gilbert even specifically complained about the Lakers not having to give up draft assets in the deal. And that's exactly what the Hornets (Stern) asked for when the sides returned to the table. Would the other owners have been satisfied with that? Who knows -- probably not. But Stern would have been able to tell them he got more from the Lakers, and specifically what owners like Gilbert said they should be giving up. We keep saying Stern had a CONFLICT of interest. The other interest in this conflict was wanting to get Paul traded, and wanting to put the Hornets in a better position to be sold. Going back & getting more out of the Lakers would have given Stern enough to handle the other owners.
What I know (because I was told directly by someone who was a member of that conversation) was that they asked the Lakers to throw in draft picks to get the deal done. Whether that would have ended up being one or two (or maybe even more) is unknown because they never actually negotiated. The Lakers said "we had a deal" and refused to even contemplate it.
| Quote: | Stern could never say this, so it unsurprising that he would tell anyone and everyone that the Lakers could have had CP3 if only they had sweetened their offer just a little bit. So nice of him to come out years later and after Kupchak is fired to pile on. Extra points for blaming the victim for 'panicking'.
Sounds like a steaming load of self-serving load of horse crap. |
I personally don't care what Stern is saying now, or how he's spinning it. And for the record, he isn't my source on the information I gave above. |
#Sternspeak
_________________
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
--Anonymous |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, Larry.
When I said Stern was the source, I assumed that Stern was talking directly to Mitch, leaving no other options. Obviously, more people in the room means more potential first hand sources. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | JerryMagicKobe wrote: | Stern didn't veto the trade for want of a couple draft picks.
He vetoed the trade because a small market All-star was being traded to a large market powerhouse right after a lockout and CBA designed to stop exactly that.
Factor in the payroll cut, and Stern was going to look really bad.
A few draft picks would not have changed that. |
I agree that the first trade out of the gate bringing a superstar from a small market to LA was what got this started, and I agree that Stern abused his conflict of interest. But I respectfully disagree that draft picks wouldn't have changed it. That was exactly what was on the table when the sides reconvened. |
I've had issues with this part of the narrative since it first hit the news. It's not that I doubt the factual accuracy of anything you are saying. Instead, the narrative is based on a flawed concept of negotiating behavior and therefore strikes me as a post hoc rationalization. "A few draft picks" are not lagniappe. That's a fundamental change in the deal.
In order for this narrative to make sense, Demps must have been such a criminally awful negotiator that he was leaving a significant amount of value on the table. If, and only if, that is true, then it is plausible that the Lakers would have added some draft picks to the deal. Otherwise, the Lakers had offered a deal that is commensurate with their valuation of Paul (and the payroll reductions that were part of the deal). They weren't going to add anything to the deal, other than little stuff that no one cares about. What I would expect someone in that position to say is "I'm not going to negotiate against myself." This appears to be what happened.
I think the Lakers had a more realistic valuation of Chris Paul than some people on this board. He is not a transcendently great player, and there were legitimate issues about whether he could have co-existed with Kobe. When the price tag got too high, the Lakers walked. "We had a deal" = "We're not negotiating against ourselves."
The league knows that this looks awful. Stern knows that this is a stain on his legacy in the eyes of a lot of people. So we get BS excuses. Demps really didn't have authority (even though we said he did). The Lakers could have made the deal go down with a few draft picks (on top of what they already considered to be a fair price). Whatever.
Again, I don't doubt the factual accuracy of what you're saying. I just think the underlying story is an attempt by the league and Stern to rationalize their own behavior. It's the victim's fault! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silkwilkes
Star Player
Joined: 15 Jul 2002
Posts: 6938
Location: searching for the mojo of Dr. Buss
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stern's point is that he wanted a 3rd team involved and was more interested in picks/youth than guys like Gasol/Odom... which is exactly what I heard as well. The problem Mitch/Jim had was that it went public and they were afraid of Odom's reaction and how it would impact things if they waited too long.
Time just ran out on the risk Mitch/Jim were willing to take give the Odom dynamic.
The counter point... and a very valid one... is that the NO GM represented that NBA sign off was a mere formality and that his decision was one you could rely on. He decided to make the trade. The fact that the NBA got involved with the decision was improper and unexpected. They had empowered the GM only to turn around and take that power away due to the political ramifications with some owners of such a trade.
In short, Stern is talking from both sides of his mouth.
_________________
"He may say it's not you, it's him.... but it's really you." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerLanny
Retired Number
Joined: 24 Oct 2001
Posts: 47581
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
One thing about the veto when it happened is many of us said it could set the Lakers back a decade.
It was that major of a thing and I think that has proven to be true as along with Kobe's extension it put the franchise in a terrible position to compete.
It was obviously done as a carrot to the whining "small market" owners like Gilbert and the clown in Phoenix and everybody's love child (Popovich) was one of the loudest, most butt hurt advocates against the deal.
I have never understood why the Lakers caved so easily to a new CBA which is not in their favor, I think it was due to Dr. Buss being sick.
_________________
Love, Laker Lanny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greenfrog
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| silkwilkes wrote: | Stern's point is that he wanted a 3rd team involved and was more interested in picks/youth than guys like Gasol/Odom... which is exactly what I heard as well. The problem Mitch/Jim had was that it went public and they were afraid of Odom's reaction and how it would impact things if they waited too long.
Time just ran out on the risk Mitch/Jim were willing to take give the Odom dynamic.
The counter point... and a very valid one... is that the NO GM represented that NBA sign off was a mere formality and that his decision was one you could rely on. He decided to make the trade. The fact that the NBA got involved with the decision was improper and unexpected. They had empowered the GM only to turn around and take that power away due to the political ramifications with some owners of such a trade.
In short, Stern is talking from both sides of his mouth. |
This part I'll never understand. In terms of being a distraction, his teammates and the city loved him. What was the danger in giving him some time to stew, like longer than a weekend? If the urgency was his declining trade value well that doesn't really fly either seeing as how he garnered basically no return. They even threw in a pick to hasten his exit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerLanny wrote: | One thing about the veto when it happened is many of us said it could set the Lakers back a decade.
It was that major of a thing and I think that has proven to be true as along with Kobe's extension it put the franchise in a terrible position to compete.
It was obviously done as a carrot to the whining "small market" owners like Gilbert and the clown in Phoenix and everybody's love child (Popovich) was one of the loudest, most butt hurt advocates against the deal.
I have never understood why the Lakers caved so easily to a new CBA which is not in their favor, I think it was due to Dr. Buss being sick. |
There was an article about Doc going in and giving them the what for, but ultimately, they had the votes.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greenfrog wrote: | | silkwilkes wrote: | Stern's point is that he wanted a 3rd team involved and was more interested in picks/youth than guys like Gasol/Odom... which is exactly what I heard as well. The problem Mitch/Jim had was that it went public and they were afraid of Odom's reaction and how it would impact things if they waited too long.
Time just ran out on the risk Mitch/Jim were willing to take give the Odom dynamic.
The counter point... and a very valid one... is that the NO GM represented that NBA sign off was a mere formality and that his decision was one you could rely on. He decided to make the trade. The fact that the NBA got involved with the decision was improper and unexpected. They had empowered the GM only to turn around and take that power away due to the political ramifications with some owners of such a trade.
In short, Stern is talking from both sides of his mouth. |
This part I'll never understand. In terms of being a distraction, his teammates and the city loved him. What was the danger in giving him some time to stew, like longer than a weekend? If the urgency was his declining trade value well that doesn't really fly either seeing as how he garnered basically no return. They even threw in a pick to hasten his exit. |
Because he melted down and they had to trade him before everyone else saw that and they got even nothing. Cuban danced around in glee at robbing the Lakers, but very shortly the show was on the other foot.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laker's Fan
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jun 2002
Posts: 12861
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | Yeah, my objection was to the current take, which basically not only said he panicked (btw, the word was Mitch and Jerry, who was still involved at that point, were livid, and refused to throw more in on a principle of already having a deal), but that he didn't even really have to give up more.
While I don't know the truth or the exact motive of others in terms of what might have done the deal (i suspect stern was either not giving us cp3 at all or would have extracted an extreme price, so the extra pick doesn't ring true, but that's just my guess), indo know that stern is using the current regime shift and Mitch bashing to try and square his end. |
Given there was a cone of silence around the basketball ops people and the regime change has just completed dispatching anyone who was inside it, Stern has the perfect situation to rewrite history. Its dirty pool, but it's also worth mentioning that it reflects how poorly Mitch and Jim handled politics. They put themselves on an island and got killed for it every day and are still getting killed after the fact.
_________________
Austin Reaves keeps his game tight, like Kobe Bryant on game night. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Laker's Fan wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | Yeah, my objection was to the current take, which basically not only said he panicked (btw, the word was Mitch and Jerry, who was still involved at that point, were livid, and refused to throw more in on a principle of already having a deal), but that he didn't even really have to give up more.
While I don't know the truth or the exact motive of others in terms of what might have done the deal (i suspect stern was either not giving us cp3 at all or would have extracted an extreme price, so the extra pick doesn't ring true, but that's just my guess), indo know that stern is using the current regime shift and Mitch bashing to try and square his end. |
Given there was a cone of silence around the basketball ops people and the regime change has just completed dispatching anyone who was inside it, Stern has the perfect situation to rewrite history. Its dirty pool, but it's also worth mentioning that it reflects how poorly Mitch and Jim handled politics. They put themselves on an island and got killed for it every day and are still getting killed after the fact. |
Eh, if they still had an owner behind them instead of out to kill them, that silence would be lauded as super discipline, just like it was when Buss senior was alive. The lack of leaks in the Laker org was legendary. And there's a reason stern waited until long after Jerry was dead and while Jeanie was throwing Mitch under the bus(s) to make his move at revisionist history.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | The NBA owners had just ended the lock out with a new CBA designed to limit the Lakers' ability to steal away small market talent. It also imposed stiffer luxury taxes aimed at distributing the Lakers revenue across the NBA. With all due respect to Larry who knows more about this than I ever will, but how would 2 extra draft picks bring satisfaction to the small market owners who would watch in horror as the Lakers added CP3, eliminated their luxury tax burden, and perfectly positioned themselves to flip Bynum for Howard? |
Nobody said anything about bringing satisfaction to the other owners. Had the deal happened a little later, when the CBA wasn't so fresh, it wouldn't have been as big a deal. As it was, the owners owners raised hell; Gilbert even specifically complained about the Lakers not having to give up draft assets in the deal. And that's exactly what the Hornets (Stern) asked for when the sides returned to the table. Would the other owners have been satisfied with that? Who knows -- probably not. But Stern would have been able to tell them he got more from the Lakers, and specifically what owners like Gilbert said they should be giving up. We keep saying Stern had a CONFLICT of interest. The other interest in this conflict was wanting to get Paul traded, and wanting to put the Hornets in a better position to be sold. Going back & getting more out of the Lakers would have given Stern enough to handle the other owners.
What I know (because I was told directly by someone who was a member of that conversation) was that they asked the Lakers to throw in draft picks to get the deal done. Whether that would have ended up being one or two (or maybe even more) is unknown because they never actually negotiated. The Lakers said "we had a deal" and refused to even contemplate it.
| Quote: | Stern could never say this, so it unsurprising that he would tell anyone and everyone that the Lakers could have had CP3 if only they had sweetened their offer just a little bit. So nice of him to come out years later and after Kupchak is fired to pile on. Extra points for blaming the victim for 'panicking'.
Sounds like a steaming load of self-serving load of horse crap. |
I personally don't care what Stern is saying now, or how he's spinning it. And for the record, he isn't my source on the information I gave above. |
LC, I have a question for you. The way you phrased it here is Gilbert's problem with the deal as originally constructed stemmed from the Lakers not giving up much in return for CP3. Was that the issue, or was the issue that people actually thought the Hornets didn't get enough/ were receiving a poor deal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mhan00
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32067
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mixtim wrote: |  @a trade was never submitted to league offices
again @technically there was not a trade to void(see above)
bottom line is Stern was the man who didn't let Paul come to Lakers
period |
Larry Coon confirmed both points. He also confirmed that the other teams were willing to retweak and that it was the Lakers who refused to budge and decided to instead walk away. That's good enough for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2019
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Dec 2014
Posts: 10811
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stern was the guy who said his ideal finals was the Lakers vs the Lakers so I doubt he though it was a good business move to keep CP3 from LA. If what's reported by Coon is true, that Mitch decided to play hard ball or non at all, then that's frustrating but also understandable. I'm sure there was a meeting point of what could have been done to make it happen. However, we were backed into a corner.
Having said all that, F Stern for even talking about it again and even bigger finger to him for trying to make Mitch look like the incompetent/irrational/panicky one here.
Like other said here, there was a clear conflict of interest for the league owning a team and then taking the GM's power away once he pulled of something that 28 other teams didn't like. That was the issue and that was the person who panicked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laker's Fan
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jun 2002
Posts: 12861
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | Laker's Fan wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | Yeah, my objection was to the current take, which basically not only said he panicked (btw, the word was Mitch and Jerry, who was still involved at that point, were livid, and refused to throw more in on a principle of already having a deal), but that he didn't even really have to give up more.
While I don't know the truth or the exact motive of others in terms of what might have done the deal (i suspect stern was either not giving us cp3 at all or would have extracted an extreme price, so the extra pick doesn't ring true, but that's just my guess), indo know that stern is using the current regime shift and Mitch bashing to try and square his end. |
Given there was a cone of silence around the basketball ops people and the regime change has just completed dispatching anyone who was inside it, Stern has the perfect situation to rewrite history. Its dirty pool, but it's also worth mentioning that it reflects how poorly Mitch and Jim handled politics. They put themselves on an island and got killed for it every day and are still getting killed after the fact. |
Eh, if they still had an owner behind them instead of out to kill them, that silence would be lauded as super discipline, just like it was when Buss senior was alive. The lack of leaks in the Laker org was legendary. And there's a reason stern waited until long after Jerry was dead and while Jeanie was throwing Mitch under the bus(s) to make his move at revisionist history. |
Knowing Jeanie was an enemy, Jim chose to distance himself and his team from her. The right choice would have been attaching himself to her hip making his fortunes intertwined with hers. Would have required humility and a willingness to take some lumps in the short run. Every time I heard Jeanie say 'I have no idea what's going on with the BB ops side' I found myself thinking Jim should be publicly acknowledging her role and making it clear he was consulting her on every major decision. If she tried to distance herself by saying that's not her job to be in the know it would be up to him to spin that as her being incapable (or uninterested) in a critical part of the business. He let her off the hook because his ego wouldn't let him publicly kiss the ring.
_________________
Austin Reaves keeps his game tight, like Kobe Bryant on game night. |
|
| 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
|
|
