David Stern: "There was never a trade to void" ??
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Treble Clef
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Posts: 23744

PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:21 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.


Eric Gordon was really good, he just got hurt that year. The pick was the key to that trade IIRC. It was expected to be a top 3 pick. The one Houston was offering was much lower.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Bard207
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 7713

PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:24 pm    Post subject:

Quote:

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.



The draft pick that was offered was via Houston and you failed to mention that.

Sources: Chris Paul trade resubmitted

Quote:

Initially, the Rockets' part of the deal was exactly the same, with Houston sending Luis Scola, Kevin Martin and a 2012 first-round draft pick to New Orleans, while receiving Pau Gasol from the Lakers, according to sources.

But sources close to the process told ESPN.com on Saturday afternoon that the Rockets have added unspecified players to the trade construction at the Hornets' request. The Rockets are prepared to make further tweaks, sources said, but have thus far been advised not to make any additional changes.

The rest of the specific changes to the original trade scenario were not immediately available, but sources told ESPN.com that a reconfigured trade has been presented by the league-owned Hornets to NBA commissioner David Stern in hopes that he'll approve this construction after vetoing Thursday's trade in principle.



LarryCoon wrote:

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.



Mitch refused to offer a first round draft pick, yet you claim the price was much higher for the Lakers than it was for the Clippers who did send a first round draft pick. The following summer, Mitch sent out two first round picks and two second round picks in a Sign and Trade for a PG (the same position as Chris Paul)

Steve Nash headed to Lakers


Quote:

In return, the Suns get four draft picks -- first rounders in 2013 and 2015 and second rounders in 2013 and 2014.



Chris Paul is still playing at a respectable level while Nash hasn't played in a while.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DocK36
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 19 Apr 2001
Posts: 19454

PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:33 pm    Post subject:

scottpot29 wrote:
encina1 wrote:
Taking one from the Trump school of denials


Older than Trump my man.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."


I would go even older than that.

"I am not a crook."
_________________
Ringo "You retired too?"
Doc "Not me, I'm in my prime."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13709

PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:35 pm    Post subject:

levon wrote:

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.


What they got was the ability to tank and go after a high pick instead of being a middling team, with their capspace used on guys who weren't great or lacked upside. And the league got to sell the team.

Stern clearly got NO a better deal.

levon wrote:

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.


All of those players but Odom were on the Rockets and we were a middling team with them. And we know what happened to Odom. You don't trade a superstar player and receive a package that makes you a middling team. That doesn't help you rebuild. Draft picks or young studs....not cap killing vets that are too bad to do playoff damage and too good to get you a top pick.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Gatekeeper
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Posts: 5103
Location: Southland Native

PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:41 pm    Post subject:

Stern is a birther. Confirmed.
_________________
Character
Manchester United | Greatest European Moments
Fabric of United - Our Belief
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LAkers 4 Life
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 14629

PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:18 pm    Post subject:

F' Stern.

And I still don't feel that the Hornets made a better deal with the Clippers than the original Laker deal. If I were the purchasing owner, I'd rather have a team competitive enough to make the playoffs in weak Eastern conference and get extra playoff $$$ than an unwatchable piece of garbage. Market a winning team that can make the playoffs or an absolute tank. Which would be preferable? Yeah, sure they got Anthony Davis, and what has happened since? They're still the same garbage. They could've delayed the rebuild a couple of seasons and still kept some of the fanbase. The Clippers didn't even give up a real impact player. At least Pau made All-Star teams.

Plus, the Laker plan wasn't just getting Chris Paul. They were set to also get David West as a replacement for Pau. That and the eventual trade of Howard and who knows how the Lakers could've really been, but at least the title window would've been extended a few more seasons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
levon
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 11 Oct 2016
Posts: 10353

PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:52 pm    Post subject:

Bard207 wrote:
If it was such a great haul, Mitch should have redone the trade and cut New Orleans out of the transaction.

Mitch should have acquired Chris Paul without New Orleans involved? What?

Bard207 wrote:

The draft pick that was offered was via Houston and you failed to mention that.


I did fail to mention that, I apologize, so let's mention it. That pick ended up being the 16th pick? The Rockets picked Royce White. On the board at that pick: Tyler Zeller, Terrence Jones, Evan Fournier, Jared Sullinger, Miles Plumlee, Festus Ezeli, Draymond Green, Khris Middleton, Mike Scott, Kyle O'Quinn, Will Barton to name a few. Hindsight is 20/20, but the reality is they got a pick 6 places higher with which they chose Austin Rivers. That was the deciding factor?


Bard207 wrote:

Mitch refused to offer a first round draft pick, yet you claim the price was much higher for the Lakers than it was for the Clippers who did send a first round draft pick.


Why does it matter what the Lakers sent out? New Orleans was going to get that Houston first round pick in the Lakers deal. The Clippers deal goes through because they offered a 1st round pick? Doesn't that support my argument?

Also I know Mitch made high-risk high-reward moves with Howard and Nash and we got shafted. How is that even relevant to this though?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
crazylakerfan001
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 14 Feb 2011
Posts: 996

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:14 am    Post subject:

So many Things would be different if that trade went through through out the land scape of the league.

Houston would have Pau and probably wouldnt be able to get harden cause they traded kevin martin in that trade.

Clippers would have kept the pick that would eventually win the lottery and have kyrie irving along with eric gordon, eric bledsoe, aminu, Blake griffin, and Deandre.

thunder would have maybe kept harden or dealt him else where like detroit.

New Orleans wouldnt have been bad enough to get anthony davis and he probably ends up in Charlotte.


Last edited by crazylakerfan001 on Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
J.C. Smith
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 12665

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:15 am    Post subject:

Stern's actions here will forever tarnish an otherwise great career.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Bard207
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 7713

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:45 am    Post subject:

levon wrote:
Bard207 wrote:
If it was such a great haul, Mitch should have redone the trade and cut New Orleans out of the transaction.

Mitch should have acquired Chris Paul without New Orleans involved? What?




You are being too cute with the quoting.

You took the quote from this post:

Bard207 wrote:
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.



You were talking up Odom, Martin, Dragic and Scola.

Quote:

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.


...and my response was directed to that.

Bard207 wrote:
If it was such a great haul, Mitch should have redone the trade and cut New Orleans out of the transaction.


You spoke well of Scola, yet Houston ended up using their Amnesty on him the following summer.

Rockets use amnesty on Scola

Quote:

The one-time provision allows Scola to leave without his remaining contract counting against the team's salary cap or luxury tax. Scola is due to make about $21 million over the next three seasons.


Mitch decided not to redo the deal (cut out New Orleans) and bring Scola, Martin, Dragic and the first round pick to LA. So Mitch apparently didn't agree with your assessment about the trade package.



************


Bard207 wrote:

The draft pick that was offered was via Houston and you failed to mention that.


Quote:

I did fail to mention that, I apologize, so let's mention it. That pick ended up being the 16th pick? The Rockets picked Royce White. On the board at that pick: Tyler Zeller, Terrence Jones, Evan Fournier, Jared Sullinger, Miles Plumlee, Festus Ezeli, Draymond Green, Khris Middleton, Mike Scott, Kyle O'Quinn, Will Barton to name a few. Hindsight is 20/20, but the reality is they got a pick 6 places higher with which they chose Austin Rivers. That was the deciding factor?



Bard207 wrote:

Mitch refused to offer a first round draft pick, yet you claim the price was much higher for the Lakers than it was for the Clippers who did send a first round draft pick.


Quote:

Why does it matter what the Lakers sent out? New Orleans was going to get that Houston first round pick in the Lakers deal. The Clippers deal goes through because they offered a 1st round pick? Doesn't that support my argument?



Here is what you originally wrote...

Quote:

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.



Since the Lakers refused to send out a first round pick, they didn't even match what the Clippers sent out. Yet, you said the price was set much higher for the Lakers. If they (Lakers) had included a first round pick and were still unable to get the trade done, then I could understand your statement about a much higher price set for the Lakers.


************

Quote:

Also I know Mitch made high-risk high-reward moves with Howard and Nash and we got shafted. How is that even relevant to this though?



The Lakers were obstinate during the CP3 trade talks and would not do whatever it took (within reason) to get the trade done. Yet, 7 - 8 months later they changed their stance and sent out two first round picks for an older PG in Nash because they wanted to get the trade done. They refused to send at least one first round pick to get the CP3 deal done, yet eventually sent out two first round picks for a PG (Nash) that was over ten years older.

Chris Paul: May 6, 1985

Steve Nash: February 7, 1974


I realize that most prefer to solely blame the NBA for the CP3 trade not getting done, but Larry Coon pointed out that the Lakers could have gotten the deal done if they had budged some on the terms of the trade.

LarryCoon wrote:

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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
levon
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 11 Oct 2016
Posts: 10353

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:03 am    Post subject:

Thanks for the patronizing reply. That's a lot to quote all at once, but I still don't understand what you mean by trading Gasol and Odom and cutting New Orleans out of the transaction. I know exactly what you were referring to, you don't need to underline and italicize especially since you use the same diction in your replies. Are you saying the Lakers had a burning desire to dump their guys of value for anyone? How exactly does that land them a superstar PG? I genuinely don't understand.

You keep bringing up the ineptitude of the Lakers FO. I'm not addressing that at all. I agree with you about Nash being a mistake. If all the Lakers had to give up to land Paul is an extra first round pick, of course they needed to do it. And I respect Larry Coon, but frankly it matters little to me how far the trade got in the hierarchy. There's evidence that Stern denied the deal under the influence of multiple owners, which is unprecedented in the history of the NBA and in sports in general.

I didn't play up Scola, I played up Martin and Dragic. They could have dumped Scola, traded K Mart for a second round pick, and kept Dragic. They could have tanked all the same and scored AD. I don't see this decisive or obvious difference in the two deals.

You keep bringing up Mitch's perspective. Let's look at it from Stern's perspective. So he's pushing the Lakers to give up a first round pick in this scenario so presumably NO can score both the Rocket's pick and the Laker's. The Lakers don't budge. Then they suddenly turn around and quickly complete a deal to the Clippers for only one pick.

I don't buy that this was for the betterment of the NO franchise to find a potential buyer. This was about gutting the Lakers as much as possible. Remember that on that very day league owners had met to talk about "parity" in the league going forward. As another poster said, murmurs of David West and Dwight Howard were on the horizon. This can't just be taken in a vacuum, but even if you do take it in a vacuum, I'm not entirely convinced the Clippers deal was better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Bard207
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 7713

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:29 am    Post subject:

Quote:

That's a lot to quote all at once, but I still don't understand what you mean by trading Gasol and Odom and cutting New Orleans out of the transaction. I know exactly what you were referring to, you don't need to underline and italicize especially since you use the same diction in your replies. Are you saying the Lakers had a burning desire to dump their guys of value for anyone? How exactly does that land them a superstar PG? I genuinely don't understand.


You aren't the first person on LG to speak well of the package that was going to New Orleans and which would have probably got them stuck in the middle of the standings (and draft order).

If it was great for New Orleans, then it should have been great for the Lakers as well. Consider it a variation of walking a mile in someone else's shoes. The Lakers had the opportunity to actually take those shoes (Scola, Martin, Dragic, first round pick) for themselves and passed on it.


Quote:

You keep bringing up the ineptitude of the Lakers FO. I'm not addressing that at all.


I realized that you weren't addressing it and I kept bringing it up because most in this discussion thread are/were launching barbs solely at the NBA/Stern. If more of those posting were in synch with Larry Coon and acknowledged the stumbles by the FO, then I wouldn't have kept mentioning it.


Quote:

I agree with you about Nash being a mistake. If all the Lakers had to give up to land Paul is an extra first round pick, of course they needed to do it. And I respect Larry Coon, but frankly it matters little to me how far the trade got in the hierarchy.

There's evidence that Stern denied the deal under the influence of multiple owners, which is unprecedented in the history of the NBA and in sports in general.


The league actually owning a franchise is quite rare. I won't say it is unprecedented because I would need to research decades of league history to say that with confidence. I will say that the ownership situation was not normal and that made things more murky. Something that the FO should have thought about in early negotiations and then later when they refused to budge on their trade offer.



Quote:

I didn't play up Scola, I played up Martin and Dragic. They could have dumped Scola, traded K Mart for a second round pick, and kept Dragic. They could have tanked all the same and scored AD. I don't see this decisive or obvious difference in the two deals.


Less than a year later, Houston was unsuccessful in dumping Scola and had to use an Amnesty on him.


Quote:

You keep bringing up Mitch's perspective. Let's look at it from Stern's perspective. So he's pushing the Lakers to give up a first round pick in this scenario so presumably NO can score both the Rocket's pick and the Laker's. The Lakers don't budge. Then they suddenly turn around and quickly complete a deal to the Clippers for only one pick.

I don't buy that this was for the betterment of the NO franchise to find a potential buyer. This was about gutting the Lakers as much as possible. Remember that on that very day league owners had met to talk about "parity" in the league going forward. As another poster said, murmurs of David West and Dwight Howard were on the horizon. This can't just be taken in a vacuum, but even if you do take it in a vacuum, I'm not entirely convinced the Clippers deal was better.



Other teams (and their fanbases) probably had some resentment about being outmuscled by the Lakers over the years in regards to finances and location. Demps was working with a Short List of acceptable destinations for Chris Paul and it appears that the FO wanted to take advantage of it by being one of the teams sending a middling package to New Orleans.

If Chris Paul had given New Orleans a list of 15 - 20 acceptable teams/cities, would Mitch have had to increase his offer to get further consideration from Demps to get Chris Paul?


In regards to your thoughts about gutting the Lakers as much as possible, the refusal of the FO to budge on their trade offer Chris Paul did eventually cost them a bit more than the one or two first round picks that was being asked of them.

Sessions - Walton trade
Cleveland Cavaliers send Ramon Sessions to Los Angeles Lakers as part of a deal that nets a first-round pick, Luke Walton and Jason Kapono

Quote:

sent productive reserve point guard Ramon Sessions and Christian Eyenga to the Los Angeles Lakers for a lottery-protected, first-round draft pick, Jason Kapono and oft-injured Luke Walton. The deal was first reported by ESPN.

The Cavaliers also received the right to swap draft picks in 2013. They possess a pair of 2013 first-round selections – theirs and the one from the Miami Heat in the LeBron James" sign-and-trade. The Cavs now have the option of exchanging their least-favorable first rounder for the Lakers" first-round pick.


Some of the value sent out in the trade should be assigned to moving Walton's contract, but some value should also be assigned to acquiring a stopgap PG in Sessions.

Nash trade -- two first round and two second round picks


By refusing to give in and include picks in their offer, they probably sent out even more picks for much less satisfactory acquisitions in Sessions and Nash.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 24996

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:38 am    Post subject:

DocK36 wrote:
scottpot29 wrote:
encina1 wrote:
Taking one from the Trump school of denials


Older than Trump my man.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."


I would go even older than that.

"I am not a crook."


Let's take it all the way back

"When one side only of a story is heard and often repeated, the human mind becomes impressed with it insensibly."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:17 am    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.


Hmm, I don't recall a 2012 pick being a part of the original trade. I remember it being Odom/Scola/Martin/Dragic.

If you're a team moving off a guy like Chris Paul, wouldn't the goal to get younger? Scola was like 31 at that time, so was Odom. Martin was 28. The only young player in the deal was Dragic. 75% of the assets that would have been required would not even play in the league just 3-4 seasons later and everyone knew that was coming because of their ages.

The actual trade got them much younger. Aminu was a 20 year old still-in-development lottery pick and then they received another first round pick expected to be a lottery pick as well. So what they got in the actual trade, that they didn't get in the proposed trade, was a heck of a lot younger and an opportunity to draft a future starter.

Pretty much everyone knew that the original deal was a landslide, lopsided victory for the Lakers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13709

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:20 am    Post subject:

levon wrote:

There's evidence that Stern denied the deal under the influence of multiple owners, which is unprecedented in the history of the NBA and in sports in general.


No there isn't. There is evidence that owners complained. There is no evidence that Stern cared about their complaining and let it influence his decision. If anything, Stern has shown that he really doesn't care what others think we he decides to do things.

levon wrote:

I didn't play up Scola, I played up Martin and Dragic. They could have dumped Scola, traded K Mart for a second round pick, and kept Dragic. They could have tanked all the same and scored AD. I don't see this decisive or obvious difference in the two deals.


So how is dumping Scola (actually eating his contract, like Houston had to do) and getting a 2nd rounder and Dragic make that a better haul than what they actually ended up with? It doesn't. Stern clearly got a better deal. That really isn't arguable.

levon wrote:

You keep bringing up Mitch's perspective. Let's look at it from Stern's perspective.


His perspective was to get NO the best deal possible and get the team sold. He did that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakersRGolden
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 7910
Location: Lake Forest

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:29 am    Post subject:

Team that dumped CP sold for $338M
Team that took CP in the deal sold for $2,000M

Is that how you extract value for the 29 owners?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Treble Clef
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Posts: 23744

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:08 am    Post subject:

levon wrote:
Thanks for the patronizing reply. That's a lot to quote all at once, but I still don't understand what you mean by trading Gasol and Odom and cutting New Orleans out of the transaction. I know exactly what you were referring to, you don't need to underline and italicize especially since you use the same diction in your replies. Are you saying the Lakers had a burning desire to dump their guys of value for anyone? How exactly does that land them a superstar PG? I genuinely don't understand.

You keep bringing up the ineptitude of the Lakers FO. I'm not addressing that at all. I agree with you about Nash being a mistake. If all the Lakers had to give up to land Paul is an extra first round pick, of course they needed to do it. And I respect Larry Coon, but frankly it matters little to me how far the trade got in the hierarchy. There's evidence that Stern denied the deal under the influence of multiple owners, which is unprecedented in the history of the NBA and in sports in general.

I didn't play up Scola, I played up Martin and Dragic. They could have dumped Scola, traded K Mart for a second round pick, and kept Dragic. They could have tanked all the same and scored AD. I don't see this decisive or obvious difference in the two deals.

You keep bringing up Mitch's perspective. Let's look at it from Stern's perspective. So he's pushing the Lakers to give up a first round pick in this scenario so presumably NO can score both the Rocket's pick and the Laker's. The Lakers don't budge. Then they suddenly turn around and quickly complete a deal to the Clippers for only one pick.

I don't buy that this was for the betterment of the NO franchise to find a potential buyer. This was about gutting the Lakers as much as possible. Remember that on that very day league owners had met to talk about "parity" in the league going forward. As another poster said, murmurs of David West and Dwight Howard were on the horizon. This can't just be taken in a vacuum, but even if you do take it in a vacuum, I'm not entirely convinced the Clippers deal was better.


It seems like you have only been applying hindsight to the Lakers offer and not the Clippers offer. Like how you said Odom was great at the time of the trade but then you call Gordon a corpse and downplay the #1 pick by saying it turned into Austin Rivers.

Gordon was a very good young player who was going to be maxed out. The pick was the pocket aces of the league at the time, a completely unprotected #1 pick that had a good chance of being the #1 overall. It devalued after the trade because Minny ended up being better than expected. They also made a bad pick but it was their choice. They were able to pick their team rather than being saddled with Houston's team for several years.

The Lakers and Rockets almost pulled a fast one but it didn't work. I think all 3 teams are better off now. I never thought Kobe and Paul would have challenged LeBron and Wade or even Durant and Westbrook.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Stumpy25
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 27 Oct 2016
Posts: 1314

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:20 am    Post subject:

999 wrote:
999 wrote:
((COMMENT REMOVED - JMK))


David stern is not a honest person at all.


There that should make the cut


He's a lawyer what else do you expect. He was hired by the league to do their dirty work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:39 am    Post subject:

Stumpy25 wrote:
999 wrote:
999 wrote:
((COMMENT REMOVED - JMK))


David stern is not a honest person at all.


There that should make the cut


He's a lawyer what else do you expect. He was hired by the league to do their dirty work.


He was hired by the owners to promote the league and make it more profitable. And he was wildly successful at that.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
levon
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 11 Oct 2016
Posts: 10353

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:14 pm    Post subject:

Bard207 wrote:
Quote:

That's a lot to quote all at once, but I still don't understand what you mean by trading Gasol and Odom and cutting New Orleans out of the transaction. I know exactly what you were referring to, you don't need to underline and italicize especially since you use the same diction in your replies. Are you saying the Lakers had a burning desire to dump their guys of value for anyone? How exactly does that land them a superstar PG? I genuinely don't understand.


You aren't the first person on LG to speak well of the package that was going to New Orleans and which would have probably got them stuck in the middle of the standings (and draft order).


First of all, with all due respect, this makes zero sense in the context of NBA trades. Regardless of our disagreement about the value of those players (and I think our opinions of them don't differ as greatly as you think) you can't just say "if you value them so much, why didn't you take them." I'm sure you know why though.

I admit I had an incorrect recollection of Eric Gordon at the time. It seems like he was coming off the best year of his career. With that said, let's rehash what NO would receive in both deals. Remember that Paul has indicated definitively to the NO brass that he won't re-sign.

Lakers deal: Kevin Martin (27), Luis Scola (30), Lamar Odom (32), Goran Dragic (25), 2012 First Round Pick (Houston via NY, ended up being #16)

Clippers deal: Eric Gordon (23), Chris Kaman (27), Al-Farouq Aminu (21), and 2012 First Round Pick (LAC via MIN, ended up being #10)

Do you see a significant difference in the quality of those players?

If you think the Clippers deal is better talent-wise and has more "upside", consider that Chris Kaman had a significant drop-off in production the year before and then continued to steadily decline. Aminu and Gordon were exciting prospects here, though Aminu was reaaaally raw at the time. But if this talent pool is better than the Lakers, how is it conducive to tanking for AD which many of you have implicated was the trajectory of NO?

In the Lakers deal you had established talent (Martin in his prime and Dragic entering it). If you wanted to tank, you could trade Martin (K Mart and Jeremy Lamb for James Harden, anyone?). Odom was also a championship player, and you could conceivably plug him into any team that was win-now looking to go deep into the playoffs and willing to give up a late 1st rounder. Scola was a burden, but if you're tanking, why do you care about playing out a few years of a bad contract?

Dreamshake:
Please note the picks were always 1st rounders, no 2nd rounders involved. One of us is misinformed or misremembering, which is fine. Glad to concede if it's me. I think Treble said something really interesting, which is that Stern stopped Houston and LA from getting away with a trade that would benefit them greatly. It's interesting that it's framed that way, and I think that gets to the crux of the issue here, which is:

Was Stern, in his good sympathetic conscience, impartially looking for the trade best for NO? Or was he acting according to his sentiments and the sentiments of other league owners to make sure the rich don't get richer? I think I've broken down why I don't think there was a tremendous difference in the quality of the two trades. I think it's far from "not debatable." And like with Bard, I think our disagreement is subtle.

By the way, being critical of your own FO and critical of the commissioner's actions are not mutually exclusive. Would I have given up one more pick if it meant Chris Paul? (bleep) yes I would have. I'd also like to say something else though, not sure if it's fair or not, but if you're going to criticize our own FO, how about New Orleans' selection at #10 in 2012? Maybe Stern could have established or recommended a better scouting transition team. Maybe that would have ensured better long-term success, instead of doing something frankly cataclysmic and hurting both Gasol and LO.

In the end, I see that the Lakers were the only ones severely wounded that December. And when I said that before, I was never blaming Stern for Nash and Howard. And again, as a cherry on top, Sterling was able to pocket 2 billion by piggybacking Chris Paul.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SoCal88
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 Apr 2001
Posts: 7486

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:41 pm    Post subject:

Stern. Still a d**k in 2016.
_________________
Lakers | Dodgers | ACFC | COYS | LA Kings | Rams
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17835

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:00 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.


You can't say w.r.t. Odom that "we didn't know he'd fall off a cliff" and then say New Orleans ended up with Eric Gordon's corpse. He was pretty good in '10-'11.

I always thought he was a bad team/ big stats, no defense chucker type, even back in '10-'11 (his best season). But a trade centered around him made more sense for the Hornets than the Lakers' deal. I just can't get over the fact that Stern, with all of conflict-of-interest concerns, made himself the ultimate arbiter over the judgment of guys who are unbiased. If he thought Demps was unqualified to make the final call, Stern should have given ultimate authority to someone else. Just not someone with other concerns besides what's best for the Hornets.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17835

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:09 pm    Post subject:

Bard207 wrote:

Mitch refused to offer a first round draft pick, yet you claim the price was much higher for the Lakers than it was for the Clippers who did send a first round draft pick. The following summer, Mitch sent out two first round picks and two second round picks in a Sign and Trade for a PG (the same position as Chris Paul)



What a misleading argument. The Lakers gave out two first rounders in the Nash deal because they weren't giving up:
1) the reigning 6MOY who had a phenomenal season
2) Pau, still a 17/10/3.5 guy

Furthermore, they lost Odom for nothing, which meant that they couldn't just stand pat like they did in 2011 and hope things work out. And that put the Lakers in a worse negotiating spot.

The Nash deal and the CP3 deal were in such different scenarios it makes no sense to even compare them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
levon
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 11 Oct 2016
Posts: 10353

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:19 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
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.


You can't say w.r.t. Odom that "we didn't know he'd fall off a cliff" and then say New Orleans ended up with Eric Gordon's corpse. He was pretty good in '10-'11.

I always thought he was a bad team/ big stats, no defense chucker type, even back in '10-'11 (his best season). But a trade centered around him made more sense for the Hornets than the Lakers' deal. I just can't get over the fact that Stern, with all of conflict-of-interest concerns, made himself the ultimate arbiter over the judgment of guys who are unbiased. If he thought Demps was unqualified to make the final call, Stern should have given ultimate authority to someone else. Just not someone with other concerns besides what's best for the Hornets.

Yeah I retract what I said about Eric Gordon, I forgot the season he had prior.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Bard207
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 7713

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:42 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
Bard207 wrote:

Mitch refused to offer a first round draft pick, yet you claim the price was much higher for the Lakers than it was for the Clippers who did send a first round draft pick. The following summer, Mitch sent out two first round picks and two second round picks in a Sign and Trade for a PG (the same position as Chris Paul)



What a misleading argument. The Lakers gave out two first rounders in the Nash deal because they weren't giving up:
1) the reigning 6MOY who had a phenomenal season
2) Pau, still a 17/10/3.5 guy

Furthermore, they lost Odom for nothing, which meant that they couldn't just stand pat like they did in 2011 and hope things work out. And that put the Lakers in a worse negotiating spot.

The Nash deal and the CP3 deal were in such different scenarios it makes no sense to even compare them.



I was pointing out the reluctance to send out a first round pick (or two) to get the deal done for CP3 who was over a decade younger than Nash.

Some on LG have espoused the philosophy that owed first round picks for the Lakers didn't matter much during the winning years because they would be late first round. CP3 is still playing and if the FO had been able to form a respectable roster around him, the first round pick(s) owed would have been in the 20's and inline with the philosophy of not being highly valued.

When they finally did send out first round picks, it was for an older PG near the end of his career and a much more dubious situation in regards to the value of first round picks owed.




Pau Gasol had already been shown up by Phil in the prior season with the chest thump.

Odom was traded to Dallas for a first round pick.
Lamar Odom dealt to Dallas

Quote:

Los Angeles Lakers forward Lamar Odom, so hurt by being included in a three-team trade for Chris Paul that was vetoed by the NBA last week, finally was dealt on Sunday, going to the Dallas Mavericks for an $8.9 million trade exception, as well as a protected first-round pick.

The Lakers also threw in a 2012 second-round draft pick in the deal, which came two days after Odom requested a trade, according to a Lakers team source...

...Regardless of whether the Lakers use the trade exception from Dallas in a subsequent trade, at the very least, the Lakers feel the trade allowed them to move a disgruntled player while saving close to $18 million in salary and luxury tax penalties, the source said. Another team source said there was also concern Odom would not have had as vital a role this season under new coach Mike Brown as he did under Jackson, when he was relied upon to activate the triangle offense when he was on the floor with the second unit.

Without those additional responsibilities, Odom becomes a very pricey substitute to retain on the roster.



The first round pick from the Odom trade was used later in the season to facilitate the Fisher - Hill trade.

Sources: Lakers trade Derek Fisher

Quote:

The Lakers have traded Derek Fisher to Houston for forward Jordan Hill. In addition, they will send the pick acquired from Dallas in the Lamar Odom deal to the Rockets.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 3 of 9
Jump to:  

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






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


Powered by phpBB