View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
levon Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Oct 2016 Posts: 10352
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
crazylakerfan001 wrote: | But does anyone think chris paul, kobe, and often injured Bynum would win a championship? Remember Folks if we got Chris Paul Orlando most likely wouldn't have dealt Dwight Howard to us. |
Chris Paul would have extended the Lakers championship window. He's still running the show with Clips in 2016. Who knows what other additions we would have made. There's no question a prime Chris Paul would have kept the Lakers atop the west for years. And they knew this. Make no mistake, this deal doesn't get nixed if it wasn't a clear and present threat to all of the other bs organizations who simultaneously benefit from the revenue sharing of the Lakers and trash them 24/7. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
governator Franchise Player
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 24994
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
crazylakerfan001 wrote: | But does anyone think chris paul, kobe, and often injured Bynum would win a championship? Remember Folks if we got Chris Paul Orlando most likely wouldn't have dealt Dwight Howard to us. |
Why wouldn't they? it was a 4 team trade and Orl got 1st rd pick from each of the other 3 teams + young players... after Dwightmare! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002 Posts: 11264
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
2019 wrote: | As an owner, you have the right to veto a trade you don't like.
Problem is that Stern should have NEVER been an owner rep. There was a steep conflict of interest and he got bullied by other owners.
Also, if Demps was not authorized to make the trade, he should have been told not to send in any trade for league approval without first getting consent from "owner rep". Again, owner rep and league commissioner should have never been the same thing.
It's similar to Trump being president and also full time making his business decisions. Even Trumps knows he has to choose one of the other. |
There's still tons of misinformation floating around about this one. A trade never got submitted to the league office. Demps agreed with other GMs on the trade, but the acting owner of the team said no. Likewise, the Lakers once nearly traded James Worthy for a mediocre-by-comparison replacement of Worthy, and a drug-hazed center. Fortunately, the Lakers owner said "no" (with a little persuasion) and the trade never happened. Should Dallas have gotten upset about the veto? Of course not -- the trade never got to the stage where it was real (i.e, to scheduling a trade call) because it never reached the stage where the responsible parties for each team were okay with it.
You could correctly call out the conflict of interest for Stern, and I don't disagree with you. He had Joc Sperling as the president of the team, but Sperling's job was to find a buyer for the team, not to oversee Basketball Ops. So that made it up to Stern. He could have avoided the COI by appointing someone else over Basketball Ops so he stayed at arm's length, but he didn't -- so it was his final call (as owner) and he said no. COI notwithstanding, it was a trade that never made it to the stage of being real, just like hundreds of other trades have never made it that far.
And besides-which, everybody went back to the table after that, and it was the Lakers who wouldn't budge. They could have had Chris Paul anyway by changing the trade, but they stepped away from the table. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
levon Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Oct 2016 Posts: 10352
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LarryCoon wrote: | 2019 wrote: | As an owner, you have the right to veto a trade you don't like.
Problem is that Stern should have NEVER been an owner rep. There was a steep conflict of interest and he got bullied by other owners.
Also, if Demps was not authorized to make the trade, he should have been told not to send in any trade for league approval without first getting consent from "owner rep". Again, owner rep and league commissioner should have never been the same thing.
It's similar to Trump being president and also full time making his business decisions. Even Trumps knows he has to choose one of the other. |
There's still tons of misinformation floating around about this one. A trade never got submitted to the league office. Demps agreed with other GMs on the trade, but the acting owner of the team said no. Likewise, the Lakers once nearly traded James Worthy for a mediocre-by-comparison replacement of Worthy, and a drug-hazed center. Fortunately, the Lakers owner said "no" (with a little persuasion) and the trade never happened. Should Dallas have gotten upset about the veto? Of course not -- the trade never got to the stage where it was real (i.e, to scheduling a trade call) because it never reached the stage where the responsible parties for each team were okay with it.
You could correctly call out the conflict of interest for Stern, and I don't disagree with you. He had Joc Sperling as the president of the team, but Sperling's job was to find a buyer for the team, not to oversee Basketball Ops. So that made it up to Stern. He could have avoided the COI by appointing someone else over Basketball Ops so he stayed at arm's length, but he didn't -- so it was his final call (as owner) and he said no. COI notwithstanding, it was a trade that never made it to the stage of being real, just like hundreds of other trades have never made it that far.
And besides-which, everybody went back to the table after that, and it was the Lakers who wouldn't budge. They could have had Chris Paul anyway by changing the trade, but they stepped away from the table. |
Why wouldn't the Lakers budge? Were the Hornets asking for more? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LakerLanny Retired Number
Joined: 24 Oct 2001 Posts: 47565
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LarryCoon wrote: | 2019 wrote: | As an owner, you have the right to veto a trade you don't like.
Problem is that Stern should have NEVER been an owner rep. There was a steep conflict of interest and he got bullied by other owners.
Also, if Demps was not authorized to make the trade, he should have been told not to send in any trade for league approval without first getting consent from "owner rep". Again, owner rep and league commissioner should have never been the same thing.
It's similar to Trump being president and also full time making his business decisions. Even Trumps knows he has to choose one of the other. |
There's still tons of misinformation floating around about this one. A trade never got submitted to the league office. Demps agreed with other GMs on the trade, but the acting owner of the team said no. Likewise, the Lakers once nearly traded James Worthy for a mediocre-by-comparison replacement of Worthy, and a drug-hazed center. Fortunately, the Lakers owner said "no" (with a little persuasion) and the trade never happened. Should Dallas have gotten upset about the veto? Of course not -- the trade never got to the stage where it was real (i.e, to scheduling a trade call) because it never reached the stage where the responsible parties for each team were okay with it.
You could correctly call out the conflict of interest for Stern, and I don't disagree with you. He had Joc Sperling as the president of the team, but Sperling's job was to find a buyer for the team, not to oversee Basketball Ops. So that made it up to Stern. He could have avoided the COI by appointing someone else over Basketball Ops so he stayed at arm's length, but he didn't -- so it was his final call (as owner) and he said no. COI notwithstanding, it was a trade that never made it to the stage of being real, just like hundreds of other trades have never made it that far.
And besides-which, everybody went back to the table after that, and it was the Lakers who wouldn't budge. They could have had Chris Paul anyway by changing the trade, but they stepped away from the table. |
Good stuff Larry, never heard that information before. _________________ Love, Laker Lanny |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Inspector Gadget Retired Number
Joined: 18 Apr 2016 Posts: 46490
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LarryCoon wrote: | 2019 wrote: | As an owner, you have the right to veto a trade you don't like.
Problem is that Stern should have NEVER been an owner rep. There was a steep conflict of interest and he got bullied by other owners.
Also, if Demps was not authorized to make the trade, he should have been told not to send in any trade for league approval without first getting consent from "owner rep". Again, owner rep and league commissioner should have never been the same thing.
It's similar to Trump being president and also full time making his business decisions. Even Trumps knows he has to choose one of the other. |
There's still tons of misinformation floating around about this one. A trade never got submitted to the league office. Demps agreed with other GMs on the trade, but the acting owner of the team said no. Likewise, the Lakers once nearly traded James Worthy for a mediocre-by-comparison replacement of Worthy, and a drug-hazed center. Fortunately, the Lakers owner said "no" (with a little persuasion) and the trade never happened. Should Dallas have gotten upset about the veto? Of course not -- the trade never got to the stage where it was real (i.e, to scheduling a trade call) because it never reached the stage where the responsible parties for each team were okay with it.
You could correctly call out the conflict of interest for Stern, and I don't disagree with you. He had Joc Sperling as the president of the team, but Sperling's job was to find a buyer for the team, not to oversee Basketball Ops. So that made it up to Stern. He could have avoided the COI by appointing someone else over Basketball Ops so he stayed at arm's length, but he didn't -- so it was his final call (as owner) and he said no. COI notwithstanding, it was a trade that never made it to the stage of being real, just like hundreds of other trades have never made it that far.
And besides-which, everybody went back to the table after that, and it was the Lakers who wouldn't budge. They could have had Chris Paul anyway by changing the trade, but they stepped away from the table. |
the Lakers ended trade talks probably because they were upset at the owners whining. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bard207 Star Player
Joined: 08 Jan 2013 Posts: 7713
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
levon wrote: | LarryCoon wrote: | 2019 wrote: | As an owner, you have the right to veto a trade you don't like.
Problem is that Stern should have NEVER been an owner rep. There was a steep conflict of interest and he got bullied by other owners.
Also, if Demps was not authorized to make the trade, he should have been told not to send in any trade for league approval without first getting consent from "owner rep". Again, owner rep and league commissioner should have never been the same thing.
It's similar to Trump being president and also full time making his business decisions. Even Trumps knows he has to choose one of the other. |
There's still tons of misinformation floating around about this one. A trade never got submitted to the league office. Demps agreed with other GMs on the trade, but the acting owner of the team said no. Likewise, the Lakers once nearly traded James Worthy for a mediocre-by-comparison replacement of Worthy, and a drug-hazed center. Fortunately, the Lakers owner said "no" (with a little persuasion) and the trade never happened. Should Dallas have gotten upset about the veto? Of course not -- the trade never got to the stage where it was real (i.e, to scheduling a trade call) because it never reached the stage where the responsible parties for each team were okay with it.
You could correctly call out the conflict of interest for Stern, and I don't disagree with you. He had Joc Sperling as the president of the team, but Sperling's job was to find a buyer for the team, not to oversee Basketball Ops. So that made it up to Stern. He could have avoided the COI by appointing someone else over Basketball Ops so he stayed at arm's length, but he didn't -- so it was his final call (as owner) and he said no. COI notwithstanding, it was a trade that never made it to the stage of being real, just like hundreds of other trades have never made it that far.
And besides-which, everybody went back to the table after that, and it was the Lakers who wouldn't budge. They could have had Chris Paul anyway by changing the trade, but they stepped away from the table. |
Why wouldn't the Lakers budge? Were the Hornets asking for more? |
Draft picks because they were taking in players with not much upside other than Dragic. They would have been good enough to be a longshot getting a high lottery pick, but weak enough to not be considered a strong contender. Basically stuck in the middle which isn't a good place to be. Getting multiple draft picks would have given them a chance to bring in youth with potential. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tox Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015 Posts: 17833
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LarryCoon wrote: | 2019 wrote: | As an owner, you have the right to veto a trade you don't like.
Problem is that Stern should have NEVER been an owner rep. There was a steep conflict of interest and he got bullied by other owners.
Also, if Demps was not authorized to make the trade, he should have been told not to send in any trade for league approval without first getting consent from "owner rep". Again, owner rep and league commissioner should have never been the same thing.
It's similar to Trump being president and also full time making his business decisions. Even Trumps knows he has to choose one of the other. |
There's still tons of misinformation floating around about this one. A trade never got submitted to the league office. Demps agreed with other GMs on the trade, but the acting owner of the team said no. Likewise, the Lakers once nearly traded James Worthy for a mediocre-by-comparison replacement of Worthy, and a drug-hazed center. Fortunately, the Lakers owner said "no" (with a little persuasion) and the trade never happened. Should Dallas have gotten upset about the veto? Of course not -- the trade never got to the stage where it was real (i.e, to scheduling a trade call) because it never reached the stage where the responsible parties for each team were okay with it.
You could correctly call out the conflict of interest for Stern, and I don't disagree with you. He had Joc Sperling as the president of the team, but Sperling's job was to find a buyer for the team, not to oversee Basketball Ops. So that made it up to Stern. He could have avoided the COI by appointing someone else over Basketball Ops so he stayed at arm's length, but he didn't -- so it was his final call (as owner) and he said no. COI notwithstanding, it was a trade that never made it to the stage of being real, just like hundreds of other trades have never made it that far.
And besides-which, everybody went back to the table after that, and it was the Lakers who wouldn't budge. They could have had Chris Paul anyway by changing the trade, but they stepped away from the table. |
LC,
Not sure if you can comment on this, but did you get a sense that Stern blocked the trade legitimately because he thought the Hornets could fetch a better offer? Or was it something to do with trading specifically to the Lakers after the 2011 CBA (under pressure from owners like Dan Gilbert)?
I always got the sense that if the Clippers had made the Lakers' offer and vice-versa, Stern would have gone through with what Demps thought was the best offer --- i.e., it was all about the optics of the Lakers making an extremely favorable deal, as opposed to maximizing the return for the Hornets (which is what the Hornets' owner primary concern should be).
But that's based on little more than speculation from Gilbert's letter. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
levon wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | I agree with Stern's sentiments there. And always have. Doesn't mean it wasn't frustrating. Doesn't mean it wasn't and still is confusing.
But he didn't veto it as commissioner of the NBA. He vetoed it as acting "owner" of the team. He is fully within his rights as the legal owner of the team to decide whether or not to accommodate a trade involving his team.
Now, I will add that I am opposed in principal to a league being the owner of one of its teams for reasons like this. But, it was what it was, Stern was both owner of the Hornets and commissioner of the league. Just because I didn't like his decision, doesn't mean it was against the rules or law or something. |
The question isn't whether he was allowed to do this or not. The problem is that it's well known that other owners colluded and pressured him greatly not to keep the Lakers great in the name of "parity". Nevermind that the Miami Heat had just formed. Nevermind that this new CBA was intentionally designed to limit the signing power of the Lakers.
In twenty years when we look back at the league, it's going to be the obvious that actions like these established ZERO parity. LeBron gets free reign of the east and the Warriors in the west right now. Looking back, the only real consequences of that deal are that the Lakers' championship window was slammed shut, Odom being so dejected his career (and almost his life) ended, Pau never played with conviction for us again. Not to mention we were robbed of a Kobe-Lebron finals.
Then Dan Gilbert gets multiple #1 picks and Lebron and there's no more crying about parity. I'm not arguing with anything in your post, I'm just stating why I think this was extremely unethical business practice and I think most fans upset with this are justified. |
Yeah. I'm not saying I was thrilled about it, but, I also recognize that an owner has the right to decline a trade if he or she wants to.
But would his approval of the trade been any more or less unethical? No, because the conflict of interest issue rears its ugly head the moment the commissioner is involved in any transaction.
It just would have been an unethical act we'd have been ok with =) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Boldarblood Starting Rotation
Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 296
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
crazylakerfan001 wrote: | defense wrote: | I've always gotten the sense that Davis stern is an evil human being
I have no proof what so ever |
He always reminded me of Hitler and this is Long before the veto. |
That is such a horrible comparison, to the point of being almost offensive. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
AY2043 Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Feb 2012 Posts: 10620
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ringfinger wrote: | I agree with Stern's sentiments there. And always have. Doesn't mean it wasn't frustrating. Doesn't mean it wasn't and still is confusing.
But he didn't veto it as commissioner of the NBA. He vetoed it as acting "owner" of the team. He is fully within his rights as the legal owner of the team to decide whether or not to accommodate a trade involving his team.
Now, I will add that I am opposed in principal to a league being the owner of one of its teams for reasons like this. But, it was what it was, Stern was both owner of the Hornets and commissioner of the league. Just because I didn't like his decision, doesn't mean it was against the rules or law or something. |
I tend to agree with this. Nothing Stern did was against any rules, and taking off my homer glasses for a minute, the deal that was on the table wasn't all that great for the Hornets. Dragic turned out to be a good player, but LO and Pau both fell off a cliff.
Now that's not to say that the offer they eventually ended up taking was really all that much better. It was Gordon, Kaman, an unprotected Minny first, and Al Farouq Aminu. And the pick turned in to Austin Rivers, lol. In hindsight however, that trade made them suck so bad that they ended up with Anthony Davis, so I guess it's a wash |
|
Back to top |
|
|
crazylakerfan001 Starting Rotation
Joined: 14 Feb 2011 Posts: 996
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
governator wrote: | crazylakerfan001 wrote: | But does anyone think chris paul, kobe, and often injured Bynum would win a championship? Remember Folks if we got Chris Paul Orlando most likely wouldn't have dealt Dwight Howard to us. |
Why wouldn't they? it was a 4 team trade and Orl got 1st rd pick from each of the other 3 teams + young players... after Dwightmare! |
the other 2 teams wouldnt have have signed off on the trade if it meant putting a big 3 of Paul, kobe, and dwight in LA. And remember Orlando never wanted Bynum straight up they wanted young players and draft picks which we didnt have at the time. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Treble Clef Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Nov 2012 Posts: 23742
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just don't understand why Demps was negotiaiting for something so far outside of what made sense for the franchise. Houston and the Lakers were both just dumping salary on his team and coming away with the best players from the deal. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RestEasyBlackMamba Star Player
Joined: 24 May 2015 Posts: 3061
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So Demps had authority to deal him to the Clippers tho? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Treble Clef wrote: | I just don't understand why Demps was negotiaiting for something so far outside of what made sense for the franchise. Houston and the Lakers were both just dumping salary on his team and coming away with the best players from the deal. |
Yeah. The Clippers trade made more sense for them really. Young pieces. We were moving old pieces. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
levon Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Oct 2016 Posts: 10352
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
crazylakerfan001 wrote: | governator wrote: | crazylakerfan001 wrote: | But does anyone think chris paul, kobe, and often injured Bynum would win a championship? Remember Folks if we got Chris Paul Orlando most likely wouldn't have dealt Dwight Howard to us. |
Why wouldn't they? it was a 4 team trade and Orl got 1st rd pick from each of the other 3 teams + young players... after Dwightmare! |
the other 2 teams wouldnt have have signed off on the trade if it meant putting a big 3 of Paul, kobe, and dwight in LA. And remember Orlando never wanted Bynum straight up they wanted young players and draft picks which we didnt have at the time. |
Actually, I may be mixing up my history, but I believe the general sentiment was that the Lakers were trying to land Paul first and then Howard. This, or scenarios like this, is what I believe the other executives were afraid of. In the moment, there were debates about whether moving LO and Gasol for Paul was a positive move since it broke up the twin towers, and basically decimated the bench (Odom was the bench). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
levon Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Oct 2016 Posts: 10352
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ringfinger wrote: | Treble Clef wrote: | I just don't understand why Demps was negotiaiting for something so far outside of what made sense for the franchise. Houston and the Lakers were both just dumping salary on his team and coming away with the best players from the deal. |
Yeah. The Clippers trade made more sense for them really. Young pieces. We were moving old pieces. |
And here's what they got out of it: Eric Gordon's corpse, Chris Kaman, a raw Al Farouq Aminu, and a pick that eventually turned into Austin Rivers. Come on.
Edit: In the original deal they would have received Kevin Martin (a 23.5ppg scorer at the time), Scola (a serviceable bigman), Odom (at the time we didn't know that leaving the Lakers would hurt him so deeply), Dragic, and a 2012 first round pick. This is after Paul confirmed he wouldn't sign an extension with them. That's a hell of a haul.
Here's the quote from the ESPN article:
Quote: | "It's not true that the owners killed the deal," NBA spokesman Mike Bass said. "The deal was never discussed at the Board of Governors meeting and the league office declined to make the trade for basketball reasons."
Yet in an email to Stern obtained by Yahoo! Sports, The New York Times and Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert called the proposed deal "a travesty" and urged Stern to put the deal to a vote of "the 29 owners of the Hornets," referring to the rest of the league's teams. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
levon Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Oct 2016 Posts: 10352
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bard207 wrote: | levon wrote: | LarryCoon wrote: | 2019 wrote: | As an owner, you have the right to veto a trade you don't like.
Problem is that Stern should have NEVER been an owner rep. There was a steep conflict of interest and he got bullied by other owners.
Also, if Demps was not authorized to make the trade, he should have been told not to send in any trade for league approval without first getting consent from "owner rep". Again, owner rep and league commissioner should have never been the same thing.
It's similar to Trump being president and also full time making his business decisions. Even Trumps knows he has to choose one of the other. |
There's still tons of misinformation floating around about this one. A trade never got submitted to the league office. Demps agreed with other GMs on the trade, but the acting owner of the team said no. Likewise, the Lakers once nearly traded James Worthy for a mediocre-by-comparison replacement of Worthy, and a drug-hazed center. Fortunately, the Lakers owner said "no" (with a little persuasion) and the trade never happened. Should Dallas have gotten upset about the veto? Of course not -- the trade never got to the stage where it was real (i.e, to scheduling a trade call) because it never reached the stage where the responsible parties for each team were okay with it.
You could correctly call out the conflict of interest for Stern, and I don't disagree with you. He had Joc Sperling as the president of the team, but Sperling's job was to find a buyer for the team, not to oversee Basketball Ops. So that made it up to Stern. He could have avoided the COI by appointing someone else over Basketball Ops so he stayed at arm's length, but he didn't -- so it was his final call (as owner) and he said no. COI notwithstanding, it was a trade that never made it to the stage of being real, just like hundreds of other trades have never made it that far.
And besides-which, everybody went back to the table after that, and it was the Lakers who wouldn't budge. They could have had Chris Paul anyway by changing the trade, but they stepped away from the table. |
Why wouldn't the Lakers budge? Were the Hornets asking for more? |
Draft picks because they were taking in players with not much upside other than Dragic. They would have been good enough to be a longshot getting a high lottery pick, but weak enough to not be considered a strong contender. Basically stuck in the middle which isn't a good place to be. Getting multiple draft picks would have given them a chance to bring in youth with potential. |
Except they never got multiple draft picks out of the trade per se, unless you count them being bad enough to get Anthony Davis. Their 10th pick resulted in Austin Rivers. Setting the price much higher for the Lakers is just the more diplomatic way of nixing the deal. And then the cynicism to call it "basketball reasons." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bard207 Star Player
Joined: 08 Jan 2013 Posts: 7713
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
levon wrote: | Bard207 wrote: | levon wrote: | LarryCoon wrote: | 2019 wrote: | As an owner, you have the right to veto a trade you don't like.
Problem is that Stern should have NEVER been an owner rep. There was a steep conflict of interest and he got bullied by other owners.
Also, if Demps was not authorized to make the trade, he should have been told not to send in any trade for league approval without first getting consent from "owner rep". Again, owner rep and league commissioner should have never been the same thing.
It's similar to Trump being president and also full time making his business decisions. Even Trumps knows he has to choose one of the other. |
There's still tons of misinformation floating around about this one. A trade never got submitted to the league office. Demps agreed with other GMs on the trade, but the acting owner of the team said no. Likewise, the Lakers once nearly traded James Worthy for a mediocre-by-comparison replacement of Worthy, and a drug-hazed center. Fortunately, the Lakers owner said "no" (with a little persuasion) and the trade never happened. Should Dallas have gotten upset about the veto? Of course not -- the trade never got to the stage where it was real (i.e, to scheduling a trade call) because it never reached the stage where the responsible parties for each team were okay with it.
You could correctly call out the conflict of interest for Stern, and I don't disagree with you. He had Joc Sperling as the president of the team, but Sperling's job was to find a buyer for the team, not to oversee Basketball Ops. So that made it up to Stern. He could have avoided the COI by appointing someone else over Basketball Ops so he stayed at arm's length, but he didn't -- so it was his final call (as owner) and he said no. COI notwithstanding, it was a trade that never made it to the stage of being real, just like hundreds of other trades have never made it that far.
And besides-which, everybody went back to the table after that, and it was the Lakers who wouldn't budge. They could have had Chris Paul anyway by changing the trade, but they stepped away from the table. |
Why wouldn't the Lakers budge? Were the Hornets asking for more? |
Draft picks because they were taking in players with not much upside other than Dragic. They would have been good enough to be a longshot getting a high lottery pick, but weak enough to not be considered a strong contender. Basically stuck in the middle which isn't a good place to be. Getting multiple draft picks would have given them a chance to bring in youth with potential. |
Except they never got multiple draft picks out of the trade per se, unless you count them being bad enough to get Anthony Davis. Their 10th pick resulted in Austin Rivers. Setting the price much higher for the Lakers is just the more diplomatic way of nixing the deal. And then the cynicism to call it "basketball reasons." |
You selected one sentence and changed the context by neglecting the rest of what I wrote about being stuck in the middle. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bard207 Star Player
Joined: 08 Jan 2013 Posts: 7713
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
levon wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | Treble Clef wrote: | I just don't understand why Demps was negotiaiting for something so far outside of what made sense for the franchise. Houston and the Lakers were both just dumping salary on his team and coming away with the best players from the deal. |
Yeah. The Clippers trade made more sense for them really. Young pieces. We were moving old pieces. |
And here's what they got out of it: Eric Gordon's corpse, Chris Kaman, a raw Al Farouq Aminu, and a pick that eventually turned into Austin Rivers. Come on.
Edit: In the original deal they would have received Kevin Martin (a 23.5ppg scorer at the time), Scola (a serviceable bigman), Odom (at the time we didn't know that leaving the Lakers would hurt him so deeply), Dragic, and a 2012 first round pick. This is after Paul confirmed he wouldn't sign an extension with them. That's a hell of a haul.
Here's the quote from the ESPN article:
Quote: | "It's not true that the owners killed the deal," NBA spokesman Mike Bass said. "The deal was never discussed at the Board of Governors meeting and the league office declined to make the trade for basketball reasons."
Yet in an email to Stern obtained by Yahoo! Sports, The New York Times and Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert called the proposed deal "a travesty" and urged Stern to put the deal to a vote of "the 29 owners of the Hornets," referring to the rest of the league's teams. |
|
If it was such a great haul, Mitch should have redone the trade and cut New Orleans out of the transaction. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Goldenwest Star Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 2801
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144432 Location: The Gold Coast
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Eh, I never thought CP3 and Kobe together would have ever worked. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KingKobe20 Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 Posts: 18577 Location: L.A County, 26 miles away from Staples Center
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
levon Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Oct 2016 Posts: 10352
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
venturalakersfan wrote: | Eh, I never thought CP3 and Kobe together would have ever worked. |
It probably would have better than Ramon Sessions and Kobe. I may be wrong but in early 2013 Kobe was efficient coming off curls and draining mid-rangers. We would have seen a more offball Kobe paired with an elite shot creator in Paul. No doubt they would've butted heads a bit at the end of games but that's worth having Chris Paul on your team.
If you're thinking about Kobe taking the ball out of Nash's hands, remember that Nash hardly had a leg to stand on and Howard wasn't exactly willingly creating space for him on high pick n rolls. Kobe started playing the Harden role on that team and rightfully so.
But also that's beside the point. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
levon Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Oct 2016 Posts: 10352
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bard207 wrote: | levon wrote: | Bard207 wrote: | levon wrote: | LarryCoon wrote: | 2019 wrote: | As an owner, you have the right to veto a trade you don't like.
Problem is that Stern should have NEVER been an owner rep. There was a steep conflict of interest and he got bullied by other owners.
Also, if Demps was not authorized to make the trade, he should have been told not to send in any trade for league approval without first getting consent from "owner rep". Again, owner rep and league commissioner should have never been the same thing.
It's similar to Trump being president and also full time making his business decisions. Even Trumps knows he has to choose one of the other. |
There's still tons of misinformation floating around about this one. A trade never got submitted to the league office. Demps agreed with other GMs on the trade, but the acting owner of the team said no. Likewise, the Lakers once nearly traded James Worthy for a mediocre-by-comparison replacement of Worthy, and a drug-hazed center. Fortunately, the Lakers owner said "no" (with a little persuasion) and the trade never happened. Should Dallas have gotten upset about the veto? Of course not -- the trade never got to the stage where it was real (i.e, to scheduling a trade call) because it never reached the stage where the responsible parties for each team were okay with it.
You could correctly call out the conflict of interest for Stern, and I don't disagree with you. He had Joc Sperling as the president of the team, but Sperling's job was to find a buyer for the team, not to oversee Basketball Ops. So that made it up to Stern. He could have avoided the COI by appointing someone else over Basketball Ops so he stayed at arm's length, but he didn't -- so it was his final call (as owner) and he said no. COI notwithstanding, it was a trade that never made it to the stage of being real, just like hundreds of other trades have never made it that far.
And besides-which, everybody went back to the table after that, and it was the Lakers who wouldn't budge. They could have had Chris Paul anyway by changing the trade, but they stepped away from the table. |
Why wouldn't the Lakers budge? Were the Hornets asking for more? |
Draft picks because they were taking in players with not much upside other than Dragic. They would have been good enough to be a longshot getting a high lottery pick, but weak enough to not be considered a strong contender. Basically stuck in the middle which isn't a good place to be. Getting multiple draft picks would have given them a chance to bring in youth with potential. |
Except they never got multiple draft picks out of the trade per se, unless you count them being bad enough to get Anthony Davis. Their 10th pick resulted in Austin Rivers. Setting the price much higher for the Lakers is just the more diplomatic way of nixing the deal. And then the cynicism to call it "basketball reasons." |
You selected one sentence and changed the context by neglecting the rest of what I wrote about being stuck in the middle. |
I didn't ignore it dude. They only got one draft pick from the Clippers deal, not multiple. If they wanted to tank and not stay in the middle, they could have flipped everyone except Dragic to playoff contenders down the line for late picks. If they had gotten multiple picks in the Clippers deal, I would have agreed with you. I may be wrong but I believe the Clippers received multiple future 2nd round picks.
I just don't think the two deals, when taken in a vacuum are that drastically different in terms of implications for the Hornets' future at the time. That's because they were never considered in a vacuum. That's why I'm bitter about it and will forever be. Makes it worse that that pos Donald Sterling benefited and that Dan Gilbert was involved. |
|
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
|
|