Lakers set to land Paul

By Adrian Wojnarowski, Yahoo! Sports
1 hour, 49 minutes ago

The Los Angeles Lakers have reached an agreement in principle to acquire All-Star point guard Chris Paul in a three-team trade that will cost them Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom, league sources told Yahoo! Sports.

The Lakers are finalizing the trade with the New Orleans Hornets and Houston Rockets. Under terms of the proposed deal, the Lakers would send Gasol to the Rockets. The Hornets would receive Odom, Rockets guards Kevin Martin and Goran Dragic and forward Luis Scola, league sources said.

More From Adrian Wojnarowski
Pistons to re-sign Prince to 4-year deal Dec 8, 2011
Celtics still pushing hard to land Chris Paul Dec 8, 2011
“It’s not finalized, but we’re close,” one front-office official involved in the negotiations said.

The Hornets will receive a draft pick from the Rockets as part of the package for Paul.

Hornets general manager Dell Demps informed two of the other finalists for Paul on Thursday evening that he had a deal in place for Paul to go the Lakers, front-office sources said.

Paul had listed the Lakers as one of his preferred destinations, and it became a more clear choice for him on Thursday after the New York Knicks moved to the brink of completing a four-year, $58 million contract for free-agent center Tyson Chandler. The Knicks lost the salary-cap space they would’ve needed to sign Paul this summer, and the Lakers had been pushing hard to close a deal for Paul with Houston and New Orleans.

The Lakers could turn their attention toward using center Andrew Bynum as a trading chip to make a play for Orlando Magic center Dwight Howard.

112288

If this is indeed a done deal, I'm not sure it makes the Lakers better.

On the plus side for the Lakers, this obviously addresses their hole at point guard, which became a gaping chasm with the switch in LA from the triangle (which doesn't use a point guard to initiate the offense) to a more traditional offense under Mike Brown.

My sense of Paul as a defensive player was that he isn't that good, but after doing some research on basketball-reference.com, I see that I may be wrong about that. Last season, his steals were slightly higher than Rondo (2.4 vs. 2.3), his rebounding was slightly lower (4.1 vs. 4.4), and the site's attempts at putting a number on defense, Defensive Win Share and Defensive Rating, are both respectable compared to Rondo (4.4 vs. 4.8, and 103 vs. 100).

For anyone interested, here's a link to my query, which was for all guards 6-6 or shorter (I could select "guard" but not "point guard").

http://bkref.com/tiny/ZZAVK

There are several reasons why this may not work in the Lakers' favor.

Gasol may have had a poor playoffs last season, and his game is finesse, not power, but the guy has been solid since they got him, particularly after the first season, when Boston showed him he had to get tougher. I like Odom a lot, too. Both of them do so many things well, including a lot of little things that don't end up in the stats. They're smart, durable, and both tall and long (which includes wingspan). Giving all that up means giving away A LOT, and it puts extra burden on the remaining bigs to be productive, which means rolling the dice in a big way when those bigs are physically fragile, immature Andrew Bynum and career-cratering Ron Artest.

My math isn't the greatest, but here's something else I see:

1 point guard - 2 forwards = huge hole in the frontcourt

How are the Lakers going to get one, let alone two, quality big guys? Who is their starting power forward? Who are the backup big guys? Not only was Odom a stud off the bench, both he and Gasol were versatile enough to play multiple positions. With Gasol gone, the Lakers not only lose their starting power forward, they also lose their primary backup center. The LA Times is saying that the Lakers will get another player in the deal, possibly Emeka Okafor, and that's the only way this deal remotely makes sense to me. We'll see who goes where if and when this is done.

Both Gasol (31) and Odom (32) are much older than Paul (26), but it's no sure thing that Paul has more left in his career than Gasol and Odom. Paul had a serious knee injury, and he could wind up like Brandon Roy in a couple of years. Here's Bill Simmons' take:

We're not supposed to talk about Chris Paul's pseudo-bum knee, or the fact that he played much of last season on cruise control to protect that knee before cranking it up for a few games in the playoffs, because it's a lot less fun to make up fake trades if you have to mention that the principal of those trades might be playing on one leg in two years.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7327616/the-fourth-day-nba-christmas

So there's that.

Yes, I know the Lakers still have plans to trade Bynum for Dwight Howard, but I'm not even sure how they can do that now considering they'd have to trade Bynum plus somebody (or multiple somebodies) to get Howard or Howard plus Turkoglu's bad contract. It doesn't look to me like they have many somebodies left to trade.

Time will tell. Gutsy move by the Lakers. Roll them dice.

Outside

Outside,

Word is coming out that LA will be getting another player.
Possibly Okafor or Scola.

TJ,

Like I said, that's the only way it remotely makes sense. Both of those guys are good players, not superstars, but generally underrated.

But even given that, giving up Gasol and Odom is like giving up 3-4 players because those guys are so versatile and play multiple roles. Heck, Odom played center on the US World Championship team last year and was generally considered their captain and second-best player after Durant.

Then there's Paul's knee. His knee issue could be more severe than Bynum's.

We'll see. Maybe everyone stays healthy and the chemistry is great. Maybe they get Howard too (but can you imagine the pressure on Orlando from the other teams to NOT trade Howard to LA?). If it all falls right, it could be genius.

The deal is not happening.

Interesting. I'm not sure what the logic is for blocking the deal. It seems to be that he's being traded to the Lakers, not that he's being traded, or else they would've been squawking since all these trade rumors started. This sounds like a bunch of small-market owners getting upset about another superstar going to a big-market team, especially after they just had a lockout to supposedly stop this kind of stuff.

But it's legal under the CBA, so how are they allowed to block the deal? Is New Orleans supposed to keep Paul and let him walk away next summer and get nothing in return?

Yes, it is interesting that the other owners went to Stern to kill the trade.
Plan B for Lakers: Billups or Baron Davis???

Outside wrote:Interesting. I'm not sure what the logic is for blocking the deal. It seems to be that he's being traded to the Lakers, not that he's being traded, or else they would've been squawking since all these trade rumors started. This sounds like a bunch of small-market owners getting upset about another superstar going to a big-market team, especially after they just had a lockout to supposedly stop this kind of stuff.

But it's legal under the CBA, so how are they allowed to block the deal? Is New Orleans supposed to keep Paul and let him walk away next summer and get nothing in return?

Outside,

I wonder how many owners it takes to veto a trade.
If it has to be unanimous, Paul will never be traded.

So a bunch of small-market owners can kill a deal by throwing a tantrum? I missed that part of the new CBA.

So who's going to file a lawsuit first -- Chris Paul, his agent, Houston, or LA?

Would they have done the same thing if he was traded to Boston? How small does the market need to be for the deal to be allowed?

It will be interesting to read the explanation out of the league office. This is stunning.

ESPN and Marc Stein are reporting the problem is that the Hornets are owned by the league. The claim is that in essence the league is making a deal that puts Paul together with Bryant and is diminishing competition.

The owners didn't make or vote for the decision. They complained to Stern who in turn killed the deal because of the competitive issue.

Bad deal for the Hornets and their front office, who could stay intact whenever the team is sold. Paul is expected in camp tomorrow with New Orleans.

Just another sign that NO needs to be out of league hands as quickly as possible.

Bad deal for The Lakers as well. Nothing like having the league office squash a deal you worked out to try and build the team for the longer haul.

NYCelt wrote:ESPN and Marc Stein are reporting the problem is that the Hornets are owned by the league. The claim is that in essence the league is making a deal that puts Paul together with Bryant and is diminishing competition.

So where is the list of teams that Paul can be traded to? Why allow this to get all this way, with the deal done, after two weeks of trade talk to a bunch of places? What, if would've been fine if he was traded to the Warriors or Clippers, but not New York, Boston, or the Lakers?

I understand that NO is owned by the league, but does that give other teams veto rights over trade deals? If so, if I'm the Hornets GM, I'm submitting my resignation. You can't run a club like that. He arranged for pretty darn good compensation for Paul.

This could've just as easily happened to Boston. How does Ainge feel now about dangling Rondo for Paul knowing that if he'd gotten a deal done, it would've been blocked anyway?

Phil Jackson, the Visionary...from 2010.
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/news/story?id=5968288

Outside wrote:

NYCelt wrote:ESPN and Marc Stein are reporting the problem is that the Hornets are owned by the league. The claim is that in essence the league is making a deal that puts Paul together with Bryant and is diminishing competition.

So where is the list of teams that Paul can be traded to? Why allow this to get all this way, with the deal done, after two weeks of trade talk to a bunch of places? What, if would've been fine if he was traded to the Warriors or Clippers, but not New York, Boston, or the Lakers?

I understand that NO is owned by the league, but does that give other teams veto rights over trade deals? If so, if I'm the Hornets GM, I'm submitting my resignation. You can't run a club like that. He arranged for pretty darn good compensation for Paul.

This could've just as easily happened to Boston. How does Ainge feel now about dangling Rondo for Paul knowing that if he'd gotten a deal done, it would've been blocked anyway?

Outside,

As a Lakers fan, I understand you're justifiably upset; but I think the problem goes even deeper than owners getting Stern to kill one deal and we should all be upset.

It looks like the Paul deal being called off could be among the factors that got the Knicks to push through on the Chandler deal. If adding CP3 to an aging Bryant is skewing competition what does a combination of Paul, Chandler and Anthony do?

The bottom line is the league could be seen as the de facto agent pushing Paul into NY with a strong supporting cast while gutting NO for the foreseeable future.

This is how we level the field?

NYCelt wrote:Outside,

As a Lakers fan, I understand you're justifiably upset;

Actually, I'm not presenting my arguments as a Laker fan. Yes, I live in Southern California and follow the Lakers, but (sad to say) the Warriors are the first team I root for, and (even sadder) I also follow the Clippers and Kings. As I posted somewhere, I'm not even sure this was a good deal for the Lakers. If I was a Laker fan, I'd be glad the deal got killed. I don't trust Paul's knee, and I think Gasol and Odom are too valuable to give up.

NYCelt wrote:but I think the problem goes even deeper than owners getting Stern to kill one deal and we should all be upset.

That's where I'm coming from.

I think this NBA CB Agreement is going to be like a Pandora's Box, once opened all bad things will spill out! This can get a little heated in days to come, and what I mean is a few owners may file suit with the NBA or try to get Stern ousted.

112288

Outside,

Sorry to confuse you with a Laker fan!

I do have some mild rooting interest in the Kings since they used to be the Rochester Royals.

[sorry about that cheap "Laker fan" shot too TJ! All intended in good humor!]

Regards

Added notes popping up...

• The league is reporting to SI.com that rumors of owner complaints are false. They're saying the league killed the deal on it's own accord!
  
  
• Pau Gasol is saying he didn't want to go to Houston (not that it's a factor in the league decision).
  
  
• Chris Paul is said to be seeking grounds to file suit.

Now Lady's & Gentlemen

Does Danny seek a trade for Paul. From the stand point of passing the smell test, the trade would be fair...#1 point guard for #2 point guard and 4 years in N.O. per Rondo's contract and maybe another player.

I do not want Paul, but what does Danny want?

112288

Here is an interesting article that was just written by John Hollinger. Since it is an ESPN Insider article, I had to copy and paste the article. It is interesting that by doing this deal Houston would have saved $3m, enough to sign Nene to a max offer. Nene and Gasol would have been a nice front line...

Stern saves Lakers from themselves

We've long suspected that many of the league's owners are only dimly aware of what makes a basketball team successful.

Now we have proof.

Set aside the league's laughable press release that the Chris Paul trade to the Lakers was blocked "for basketball reasons." I guess David Stern was concerned about Kevin Martin's defensive plus-minus.

No, the widely suspected reason that I'm only writing about an imaginary trade instead of a real one is that the league's owners were so irate over the agreed-to deal to send Paul to the Lakers that they implored commissioner David Stern to block it & apparently, because they were so focused on the idea of another shiny object going to the Lakers that they didn't really look at what was happening.

The Lakers had agreed to trade Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom to New Orleans to get Paul, a trade that sent from Los Angeles an All-Star power forward and the league's best sixth man, also a forward. As a result, L.A. was left with just one credible frontcourt player -- Andrew Bynum, who has missed at least 17 games in each of the past four seasons. Bynum will be suspended for the first five games this season after belting J.J. Barea in the playoffs, meaning the Lakers were looking at an opening night frontcourt of Derrick Caracter and Luke Walton.

Yes, this was offset with a monumental upgrade at point guard, but look at the big picture. Pau-for-Paul is pretty much an even swap. Last season they had virtually identical marks in PER (23.33 for Gasol and 23.76 for Paul) and Estimated Wins Added (17.9 and 18.3). Yes, Gasol is five years older, but he also has a much better injury history. Additionally, bigs age much better than small guards, primarily because it doesn't make them any shorter.

Plus, I would argue that Gasol is a better fit in L.A. than Paul. For starters, Kobe Bryant and Paul have only one ball to share on the perimeter. But more importantly, Paul is a pick-and-roll maestro who thrives when surrounded by spot-up shooters, pick-and-pop big men and a finisher who can roll to the rim. This isn't Kobe, who struggles as a spot-up shooter, and it isn't Bynum, who likes to catch and hold in the post. In fact, the only four Lakers who really fit that style are Gasol and Odom, who were getting shipped off, and Derek Fisher and Steve Blake, whom Paul would have replaced.

All of that makes me queasy from L.A's end about Pau-for-Paul straight up. Throwing in Odom, when the team has no depth and little means to replace him, tilts it heavily in the Hornets' favor. The Lakers would have had an $8.9 million trade exception, but with no meaningful assets (and I mean NONE) to put in a trade, they were going to have a big problem using it to get anybody good.

I suspect this is actually a case of misplaced anger. The owners were so upset about the possibility of Dwight Howard forming a "Superfriends" team with Paul and Kobe that they forgot the logistics of doing so.

Newsflash to L.A.: Andrew Bynum alone doesn't get you Howard. Not even close. Trade Bynum and Gasol and you might get Howard, but you might not. A lot of teams are fishing in that pond and most of them have better bait.

This is where people argue that Howard can "force" his way to Los Angeles, just like Chris Paul forced his way to New York. Er, check that ... Carmelo Anthony.

But there was one big difference during the Melo chase last year: The Knicks were going to have cap space, so the leverage Anthony held was real. Trade me there now, or I'll go there on my own later. In Howard's case, the Lakers have no plausible means of signing him as a free agent, and they wouldn't have had the trade assets to strike a deal with the Magic had they made the Paul deal.

The irony of all this, in other words, is that the owners were so upset about the Lakers potentially getting Howard, that they nixed a trade that would have virtually killed any chance of that happening.

In the meantime, the Rockets have to be upset. Houston took a gamble here, but it getting Gasol would have opened up a crucial $3 million more in cap space they could have used to offer Nene a max contract. That frontcourt, combined with great depth and several underrated perimeter players, would likely have propelled Houston to a top-4 seed in the West, if not further. (Scoff if you will, but Houston had the scoring margin of a 48-win team last season. They didn't need to improve that dramatically to join the elite.)

And if the Rockets are upset, the Hornets must be apoplectic. New Orleans scored three very solid, not-quite-All-Stars in Kevin Martin, Luis Scola and Odom, plus they added a scoring guard in Goran Dragic and a first-round pick from New York. The Hornets could have started those four and Emeka Okafor and likely been a one-and-done playoff team just like they were with Paul, except with a brighter future.

Instead ... now what?

What does the league tell them when they have to settle for a lesser deal instead of this one, or lose Paul outright in free agency? Or when the Hornets have trouble even negotiating another Paul deal, for fear the league will swoop in at the last second after everybody on their roster has heard their name in trade talks?

Big picture, the league put itself in a tough spot the day it bought the Hornets & but it put itself in a much tougher one today. By setting an ugly, awful precedent, they've shown the entire league the ramp to a long, slippery slope.

NYCelt wrote:Outside,

Sorry to confuse you with a Laker fan!

Actually, if I'd stop and think for a minute, this could be good for the Warriors, so maybe I should've been thinking like a fan, a Warriors fan. Chris Paul with Stephen Curry at guard, Ekpe Udoh, Dorell Wright, and Reggie Williams at forward, pick up a center to go with David Lee, and things would be looking up for my forlorn Warriors. Thank you, David Stern!

NYCelt wrote:Chris Paul is said to be seeking grounds to file suit.

Oh, he's already got grounds to file suit. And the players' union will be right there with him.

Updated piece:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AnY45CVD24rqFWC2H1tLMxM5nYcB?slug=aw-wojnarowski_chris_paul_lakers_hornets_nba_120811

The trade weakens la for this year. No got better and houston got worse.

Why all the fuss.

HOORAY the Purple & Gold got a screw job for once. Let's proclaim a National Holiday for the LA Party Spoilers. No Paul, That's ALL!

MD.!

What, me worry?

After reading the UPDATED post by Steve 3344 I am more suspicious of how things really unfolded. As a team owned by the league, Stern HAD TO KNOW what was being considered and offered for Paul before the deal was agreed to by the Hornets. What, the Hornets GM trades Paul and then tell the owners (NBA)?
Are we to believe the story now being told by Stern that he nixed it for the good of the league? Stern got caught with his hands in the cookie jar! The league is becoming a joke! Now I hear that Paul is contacting the Union Head to see if there are grounds to sue. As I said before the new CBA will become a PANDORA'S BOX.

112288