Has the NBA paid off their CP3 debt to the Lakers?
Yes
13%
[ 17 ]
No
86%
[ 107 ]
Total Votes : 124
Author
Message
AFireInside619 Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 Posts: 11447
Posted: Wed May 17, 2017 11:53 am Post subject: Has the NBA paid off their CP3 debt to the Lakers?
When David Stern vetoed the Chris Paul trade to the Lakers, it set off a chain reaction with the end result being the Lakers sucking for pretty much half a decade. For the past four draft lotteries, I (as well as many other Lakers fans) joked about them giving us the #1 overall pick for "Basketball Reasons". The Lakers have gotten the #2 pick three years a row, with the odds stacked against us.
So just for fun I am taking the pulse of LG with this poll. Call it Karma or dumb luck, but in your opinion, do three #2 picks in a row make up for the blocked CP3 trade?
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Posts: 22734 Location: La Jolla, San Diego
Posted: Wed May 17, 2017 11:59 am Post subject:
The lotto is not rigged. The odds weren't really stacked against us. 47% is basically 50/50. It only felt stacked, because as fans, we FEARED losing it. If they were trying to pay a debt, we would at least win the lottery once.
When the Cavs won the lottery a few years ago, now the odds were stacked against them. After winning in 92, I believe the Magic weren't' as bad in 93, but somehow won it again. Now those odds were stacked.
No. Because there was no debt to pay back.
The league had a right to veto the trade as the Hornets were owned by the other teams. But can Lakers fans finally let go?
No veto means cp3 and kobe win a championship, likely attracting howard or with bynum, and melo would join too. It would win multiple championships
It would beat oklahoma, but not with the twin towers. This means they don't keep perkins and instead keep harden. Harden never goes to houston
Golden state never beats other young teams because it's just the lakers. Small ball never materalizes
Lebron doesn't win a ring in miami so he doesn't move back to cleveland
Everything would be drastically different if there was no cp3 veto. Most importantly is that teams would still be building their rosters based on how to stop the lakers. As a result, no small ball _________________ Kobe
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35750 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Wed May 17, 2017 12:02 pm Post subject:
epak wrote:
No. Because there was no debt to pay back.
The league had a right to veto the trade as the Hornets were owned by the other teams. But can Lakers fans finally let go?
Right, and the package they got from the Clippers was SO much better than ours. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
No. Because there was no debt to pay back.
The league had a right to veto the trade as the Hornets were owned by the other teams. But can Lakers fans finally let go?
Right, and the package they got from the Clippers was SO much better than ours.
The lotto is not rigged. The odds weren't really stacked against us. 47% is basically 50/50. It only felt stacked, because as fans, we FEARED losing it. If they were trying to pay a debt, we would at least win the lottery once.
When the Cavs won the lottery a few years ago, now the odds were stacked against them. After winning in 92, I believe the Magic weren't' as bad in 93, but somehow won it again. Now those odds were stacked.
We just merely won 50/50 coin tosses.
Totally agreed. Lakers got lucky, how does that have anything to do with NBA helping Lakers? The only way the NBA can payback the Lakers is give the Lakers a extra top 3 pick or give Lakers extra salary cap. FU Stern.
Joined: 23 Apr 2006 Posts: 6572 Location: Oceanside Ca
Posted: Wed May 17, 2017 12:06 pm Post subject:
epak wrote:
No. Because there was no debt to pay back.
The league had a right to veto the trade as the Hornets were owned by the other teams. But can Lakers fans finally let go?
They would have let that trade go through if it wasn't for the Cavs owner crying like a BABY
No. Because there was no debt to pay back.
The league had a right to veto the trade as the Hornets were owned by the other teams. But can Lakers fans finally let go?
No. Because there was no debt to pay back.
The league had a right to veto the trade as the Hornets were owned by the other teams. But can Lakers fans finally let go?
They would have let that trade go through if it wasn't for the Cavs owner crying like a BABY
Which as a part 1/30th owner of the Hornets, he had a right to do no?
Joined: 23 Apr 2006 Posts: 6572 Location: Oceanside Ca
Posted: Wed May 17, 2017 12:14 pm Post subject:
epak wrote:
noahp45 wrote:
epak wrote:
No. Because there was no debt to pay back.
The league had a right to veto the trade as the Hornets were owned by the other teams. But can Lakers fans finally let go?
They would have let that trade go through if it wasn't for the Cavs owner crying like a BABY
Which as a part 1/30th owner of the Hornets, he had a right to do no?
Yes he did
but it was based off of bias and some BS and anyone that says different is on some BS
No. Because there was no debt to pay back.
The league had a right to veto the trade as the Hornets were owned by the other teams. But can Lakers fans finally let go?
They would have let that trade go through if it wasn't for the Cavs owner crying like a BABY
Which as a part 1/30th owner of the Hornets, he had a right to do no?
Yes he did
but it was based off of bias and some BS and anyone that says different is on some BS
no, because it robbed us of so many things. another championship(s) for kobe. having the superteams before everyone else with cp3 and dwight. it would have prevented a couple of lebron championships and probably the warriors championship. then all the free agents that didn't come afterwards. the championships is the worst because that's really the only thing lakers care about, unlike other teams. we've won a lot of them, the other things like making playoffs or good draft picks pale in comparison.
what's the most annoying part is gilbert complaining about the potential superteam coming to LA, and then the past few years he has been winning precisely due to the thing he complained about.
[edit] i wasn't saying no to noah, i was agreeing. no to the OP question.
No. Because there was no debt to pay back.
The league had a right to veto the trade as the Hornets were owned by the other teams. But can Lakers fans finally let go?
Okay Epak, I'm finally ready to let go.
Sing with me...
Let it go, let it go.
Can't hold it back anymore
Let it go, let it go.
Turn away and slam the door
I don't care
What they're going to say
Let the storm rage on
Stern never bothered me anyway
No. Because there was no debt to pay back.
The league had a right to veto the trade as the Hornets were owned by the other teams. But can Lakers fans finally let go?
Okay Epak, I'm finally ready to let go.
Sing with me...
Let it go, let it go.
Can't hold it back anymore
Let it go, let it go.
Turn away and slam the door
I don't care
What they're going to say
Let the storm rage on
Stern never bothered me anyway
No. Because there was no debt to pay back.
The league had a right to veto the trade as the Hornets were owned by the other teams. But can Lakers fans finally let go?
They would have let that trade go through if it wasn't for the Cavs owner crying like a BABY
Which as a part 1/30th owner of the Hornets, he had a right to do no?
Here the thing, even if he had the right to do so he shouldn't of gotten involved with what was happening at the time.
His involvement was unethical, he should of had no part in day to day decisions of the hornets. Imo he should of resigned, it was disgraceful.
For a commissioner to stop a trade that was already agreed to was an abuse of power. The kind that has never been seen in an american sport league.
When fans boo the current commissioners of the sports league today it makes me kinda makes me mad because when they do it, its for no reason too. When it came to david stern it made sense, he was the most abusive commissioner of all time.
Last edited by Lucky_Shot on Wed May 17, 2017 12:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
No. Because there was no debt to pay back.
The league had a right to veto the trade as the Hornets were owned by the other teams. But can Lakers fans finally let go?
They would have let that trade go through if it wasn't for the Cavs owner crying like a BABY
Which as a part 1/30th owner of the Hornets, he had a right to do no?
Here the thing, even if he had the right to do so he shouldn't of gotten involved with what was happening at the time.
His involvement was unethical, he should of had no part in day to day decisions of the hornets. Imo he should of resigned, it was disgraceful.
For a commissioner to stop a trade that was already agreed to was an abuse of power. The kind that has never been seen in an american sport league.
You're saying this with the understanding that the League owned the Hornets at that time right? I agree that it sucked. But I don't blame Stern or the League.
No. Because there was no debt to pay back.
The league had a right to veto the trade as the Hornets were owned by the other teams. But can Lakers fans finally let go?
They would have let that trade go through if it wasn't for the Cavs owner crying like a BABY
Which as a part 1/30th owner of the Hornets, he had a right to do no?
Here the thing, even if he had the right to do so he shouldn't of gotten involved with what was happening at the time.
His involvement was unethical, he should of had no part in day to day decisions of the hornets. Imo he should of resigned, it was disgraceful.
For a commissioner to stop a trade that was already agreed to was an abuse of power. The kind that has never been seen in an american sport league.
You're saying this with the understanding that the League owned the Hornets at that time right? I agree that it sucked. But I don't blame Stern or the League.
It doesnt matter if he owned it. He clearly used his power and a loop hole to justify the way he wanted the league to look like. It was unethical... i said he should of resigned but honestly he should of been fired
Last edited by Lucky_Shot on Wed May 17, 2017 12:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
No. Because there was no debt to pay back.
The league had a right to veto the trade as the Hornets were owned by the other teams. But can Lakers fans finally let go?
They would have let that trade go through if it wasn't for the Cavs owner crying like a BABY
Which as a part 1/30th owner of the Hornets, he had a right to do no?
Here the thing, even if he had the right to do so he shouldn't of gotten involved with what was happening at the time.
His involvement was unethical, he should of had no part in day to day decisions of the hornets. Imo he should of resigned, it was disgraceful.
For a commissioner to stop a trade that was already agreed to was an abuse of power. The kind that has never been seen in an american sport league.
You're saying this with the understanding that the League owned the Hornets at that time right? I agree that it sucked. But I don't blame Stern or the League.
It doesnt matter if he owned it. He clearly used his power and a loop hole to justify the way he wanted the league to look like. It was unethical
Stern did NOT own the Hornets.
The league, comprised of its 29 owners owned it no?
I think the fix was in, yeah. but without causation relating to the CP3 deal so much.
This is the league's move to try to right the Laker ship, which heeled on its own due to a seven year series of lousy talent decisions.
Reminds me of Pat Ewing going to the Knicks in '86. The league behaves from time to time as if it needs to force feed talent to specific clubs so as to fulfill a responsibility to its business partners (i.e., to be profitable and successful in major markets.) Imagine that.
Of course, the steps taken by the league don't always work: Philadelphia still sucks wind despite having taken four top five picks in the last seven drafts. Managerial incompetence and poor assessment of basketball talent can defeat anything the league might try.
No. Because there was no debt to pay back.
The league had a right to veto the trade as the Hornets were owned by the other teams. But can Lakers fans finally let go?
They would have let that trade go through if it wasn't for the Cavs owner crying like a BABY
Which as a part 1/30th owner of the Hornets, he had a right to do no?
Here the thing, even if he had the right to do so he shouldn't of gotten involved with what was happening at the time.
His involvement was unethical, he should of had no part in day to day decisions of the hornets. Imo he should of resigned, it was disgraceful.
For a commissioner to stop a trade that was already agreed to was an abuse of power. The kind that has never been seen in an american sport league.
You're saying this with the understanding that the League owned the Hornets at that time right? I agree that it sucked. But I don't blame Stern or the League.
It doesnt matter if he owned it. He clearly used his power and a loop hole to justify the way he wanted the league to look like. It was unethical
Stern did NOT own the Hornets.
The league, comprised of its 29 owners owned it no?
Its actually worse that he didnt owned it because every decision he made alone was that of an owner.
Posted: Wed May 17, 2017 1:01 pm Post subject: Re: Has the NBA paid off their CP3 debt to the Lakers?
AFireInside619 wrote:
When David Stern vetoed the Chris Paul trade to the Lakers, it set off a chain reaction with the end result being the Lakers sucking for pretty much half a decade. For the past four draft lotteries, I (as well as many other Lakers fans) joked about them giving us the #1 overall pick for "Basketball Reasons". The Lakers have gotten the #2 pick three years a row, with the odds stacked against us.
So just for fun I am taking the pulse of LG with this poll. Call it Karma or dumb luck, but in your opinion, do three #2 picks in a row make up for the blocked CP3 trade?
Getting the three picks was equivalent to flipping a coin three times and getting heads each time -- it's a nice bit if luck, but it's hardly a mind-boggling occurrence.
About the Paul thing, there was no debt, and we haven't been paid anything.
I don't think Stern vetoing the trade was wrong; the way he handled it was. The NBA didn't owe us anything.
The NBA had no role in our draft picks. They haven't given us anything.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144432 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Wed May 17, 2017 1:02 pm Post subject:
Lucky_Shot wrote:
epak wrote:
Lucky_Shot wrote:
epak wrote:
noahp45 wrote:
epak wrote:
No. Because there was no debt to pay back.
The league had a right to veto the trade as the Hornets were owned by the other teams. But can Lakers fans finally let go?
They would have let that trade go through if it wasn't for the Cavs owner crying like a BABY
Which as a part 1/30th owner of the Hornets, he had a right to do no?
Here the thing, even if he had the right to do so he shouldn't of gotten involved with what was happening at the time.
His involvement was unethical, he should of had no part in day to day decisions of the hornets. Imo he should of resigned, it was disgraceful.
For a commissioner to stop a trade that was already agreed to was an abuse of power. The kind that has never been seen in an american sport league.
You're saying this with the understanding that the League owned the Hornets at that time right? I agree that it sucked. But I don't blame Stern or the League.
It doesnt matter if he owned it. He clearly used his power and a loop hole to justify the way he wanted the league to look like. It was unethical... i said he should of resigned but honestly he should of been fired
Fired for doing what those who employed him wanted him to do? That isn't how the world works. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Joined: 04 May 2017 Posts: 3077 Location: The Left Coast
Posted: Wed May 17, 2017 1:17 pm Post subject:
I voted no because there is no debt. That CP3 veto was within its boundaries, albeit sucked for us Lakers fans. The real issue was when Odom started crying about how we were trying to trade him and ended up only getting a second round pick for him. Gasol was never the same emotionally and we let him walk. Those two guys hurt us more than anything during that time.
BTW there is no way to rig the lottery. The NBA isn't hand picking us to get the #2 pick 3 years in a row.
Joined: 27 Jul 2004 Posts: 18190 Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posted: Wed May 17, 2017 1:40 pm Post subject:
I voted no because as soon as we hit another rough patch someone is going to bring it up again. _________________ "Suck it up. Don't be a baby. Do your job." - Kobe Bryant
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