Re: Lakers set to land Paul

by **swedeinestonia** Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:20 pm

I think it was a good trade for the Hornets out of pure "skill perspective", I never disagreed with that. They got a lot of player value out of it.

The original Paul for Odom and Gasol you can see as a valid trade that is "fair" and everybody gets value, just different values. Just how a trade should be, nobody gets screwed.

But it did not make sense money wise.

If you start throwing in other players then it might not make sense player wise. As an example Thabeet might not be a super player and he might be overpaid. But on the other hand he would very much fill a need that the Lakers would have (big men) and that means that the Lakers would be willing to pay a premium for that.

To be able to get superstars you should have to sacrifice and then the Lakers would not be doing that (as much).

I first thought it was crap that they didnt "allow" the trade but I now see factors that make "disallowing" it sound business and not only "according to league guidelines".

by **tjmakz** Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:22 pm

worcester,

The league does not approve/disapprove trades.
Last nights debacle only happened because they league owns the Hornets.

by **worcester** Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:24 pm

I guess Jerry West was doing the Lakers a huge favor.

by **tjmakz** Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:31 pm

If it was a fair trade for New Orleans and they got a lot of player value out of it, why did the "owners" veto the trade?
Why didn't the "owners" tell them what players they wanted to get the deal done? They made a joke out of the league and New Orleans GM last night.
How is this going to work out for New Orleans this year and next year?

Thabeet is a 7'3" man who is not an NBA player. He was given away last year to Houston in a salary dump.

You don't think LA was sacrificing by trading away Gasol and Odom?
If Gasol and Odom were on Minnesota or Charlotte would the league have cancelled this trade?

by **tjmakz** Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:32 pm

worcester wrote:I guess Jerry West was doing the Lakers a huge favor.

And McHale the same for Boston.
That subject should have ended years ago...

by **bobheckler** Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:34 pm

tjmakz wrote:worcester,

The league does not approve/disapprove trades.
Last nights debacle only happened because they league owns the Hornets.

TJ,

I understand why you mean to say. I think, but the way you said it doesn't make sense to me.

"The league does not approve/disapprove trades".

"Last nights debacle only happened because they (the) league owns the Hornets".

Well, the league DID stop the trade, ergo, the league does approve/disapprove trades. It may be uncommon for them to do it, but they obviously can and do.

The fact that the league owners had the juice to force the Commissioner to disapprove the trade was because they, collectively, own the Hornets and could force the league's hand. Dell Demps, the GM of the Hornets, got neutered because the league DID void the trade.

bob

.

by **swedeinestonia** Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:35 pm

You are not following.

It is the Hornets taking on more salary meaning the other owners would have to pay more since they are somehow splitting up the costs of running the Hornets (and the profits if any I am guessing.

So the other owners outside of this trade would:

1. take on more costs
2. See the Lakers get a superstar
3. Have less chance of getting Nene
4. See the Lakers cut their payroll
5. Hornets would get better (probably) and harder to beat (not in their interest).
6. Rockets would get harder to beat (not in their interest).

I am not saying all of those points are "ok" but they still exist.

by **tjmakz** Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:42 pm

swede,

Where have you read that taking on more salary was a problem in this trade for New Orleans? Is that what Dan Gilbert was complaining about in his e-mail? No.

Cancelling this trade was about not having Paul go to LA.
This was not about doing what is in the best interests for New Orleans.
Why didn't the league step in earlier when it was only Gasol in the discussions?

by **tjmakz** Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:45 pm

bobheckler wrote:
tjmakz wrote:worcester,

The league does not approve/disapprove trades.
Last nights debacle only happened because they league owns the Hornets.

TJ,

I understand why you mean to say. I think, but the way you said it doesn't make sense to me.

"The league does not approve/disapprove trades".

"Last nights debacle only happened because they (the) league owns the Hornets".

Well, the league DID stop the trade, ergo, the league does approve/disapprove trades. It may be uncommon for them to do it, but they obviously can and do.

The fact that the league owners had the juice to force the Commissioner to disapprove the trade was because they, collectively, own the Hornets and could force the league's hand. Dell Demps, the GM of the Hornets, got neutered because the league DID void the trade.

bob

.

bob,

The league did not cancel this trade.
Technically, the owners of the Hornets did. (Yes, the same thing).
Other then a circumstance like this, the league does not approve/disapprove trades to see if one team got the better of the trade.
They verify that numbers match up, etc.

by **swedeinestonia** Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:47 pm

I dont know why they did not step in earlier in general.

Could be that they were going to let the GM do what GMs do and just live with it and they just didnt think of the wage implications etc that it would have.

In general though any trade that the GM does on any team one would think would need to have the "OK" from the owner, especially if more costs are involved. In this case the owner situation is obviously more complicated.

I am not saying these are the reasons for why the trade did not go through. I am saying they are "legit" reasons for it, the financial part that is.

The Hornets would be sending out 17Mish worth in Paul and taking on 35Mish worth in return. That is a 20M difference.

by **bobheckler** Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:54 pm

swedeinestonia wrote:I dont know why they did not step in earlier in general.

Could be that they were going to let the GM do what GMs do and just live with it and they just didnt think of the wage implications etc that it would have.

In general though any trade that the GM does on any team one would think would need to have the "OK" from the owner, especially if more costs are involved. In this case the owner situation is obviously more complicated.

I am not saying these are the reasons for why the trade did not go through. I am saying they are "legit" reasons for it, the financial part that is.

The Hornets would be sending out 17Mish worth in Paul and taking on 35Mish worth in return. That is a 20M difference.

swede,

Good point. I doubt Danny, or any other GM, sends a trade off to the league office without running past their ownership first.

bob

.

by **Outside** Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:57 pm

Swede,

One factor is that the Hornets need to take on more salary. They only have five players under contract for a total of $38.7 million (the minimum roster payroll is $46.435 million). They need at least eight additional players for their roster, and this deal was an opportunity to add four quality players to their roster, which of course will add salary.

Outside

by **swedeinestonia** Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:59 pm

That is true but then they could offer and structure the contracts according to how the owners want it.

I doubt the Hornets will or would have made any big splashes in free agency, one of their key things is probably to keep the payroll low and "flexible" so any new owners can shape their own team.

by **worcester** Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:00 pm

TJ, The lakers trade for Pau Gasol was in NO WAY equivalent to the Celtics trade for KG. Lakers gave up hardly anyone. Celts gave up a damned good promising young forward in Al Jefferson plus Ryan Gomes plus Telfair plus plus... The Lakers got a huge Xmas present with Gasol. Thh Celts made a fair trade.

by **gyso** Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:12 pm

Funny tweet:

Hardest hit by the return of Chris Paul to the Hornets was Andrew Bynum, who said Paul was his best friend on the team .

by **Outside** Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:40 pm

Everyone is engaging in speculation (except Sam, who does a better job than any human I know at avoiding speculating), so I'll do the same. Here's what makes sense to me, based on the information I've read and heard.

This could only happen because the league owns the Hornets. The flimsy leg they have to stand on is that they killed the trade as owners of the Hornets, not as "the league." (Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I'm calling this a fact, not speculation.)

This only happened because the owners had not yet officially agreed to the new CBA. The timing was awful. The owners were meeting to ratify the CBA when they got word about the deal. A significant number of them instantly rebelled. This was the exact scenario that these owners wanted to keep from happening going forward -- elite player leaving a small market to go to a large market -- and it was happening at the very moment that they were supposed to sign the new CBA that was supposed to prevent this very scenario. They turned to David Stern and said, we own the Hornets, we can kill this trade, and you're going to kill this trade or we won't sign the CBA. Stern was forced to give a blood oath to get the CBA, and that was that.

The only thing left was for Stern to formulate the legally-approved lies ("we decided, free from the influence of other NBA owners, that the team was better served with Chris in a Hornets uniform than by the outcome of the terms of that trade") and deal with lawsuits and horrific aftermath that would inevitably result.

So if Dell Demps had waited a few hours until the CBA was signed before notifying other GMs that a deal was in place, the owners would've gone ballistic, but they would've lost their leverage. The only reason Stern gave in is because the CBA wasn't signed yet, and the owners had him by the, uh, throat. Stern is a lot of things, but he had made it through a difficult lockout with irrational, entrenched owner factions, let alone players and agents, and he was literally at the finish line getting the deal signed. He knew that killing the deal would cause a world of trouble and maybe forever tarnish his legacy, but he had no choice.

The above three paragraphs are speculation, but it's what makes sense to me based on the facts.

Outside

by **swedeinestonia** Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:45 pm

So you dont put any value at all into the monetary aspects of it?

by **worcester** Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:52 pm

Outside, Your perspective makes the most sense to moi.

by **sinus007** Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:52 pm

By the way, according to AW, they are at it again. I mean LAL, Hornets and HOU.

AK

by **tjmakz** Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:13 pm

swedeinestonia wrote:I dont know why they did not step in earlier in general.

Could be that they were going to let the GM do what GMs do and just live with it and they just didnt think of the wage implications etc that it would have.

In general though any trade that the GM does on any team one would think would need to have the "OK" from the owner, especially if more costs are involved. In this case the owner situation is obviously more complicated.

I am not saying these are the reasons for why the trade did not go through. I am saying they are "legit" reasons for it, the financial part that is.

The Hornets would be sending out 17Mish worth in Paul and taking on 35Mish worth in return. That is a 20M difference.

swede,

Do you think Odom was going to New Orleans because they wanted him or because LA wanted to dump him?
They were intentionally taking on more salary.

by **tjmakz** Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:15 pm

bobheckler wrote:
swedeinestonia wrote:I dont know why they did not step in earlier in general.

Could be that they were going to let the GM do what GMs do and just live with it and they just didnt think of the wage implications etc that it would have.

In general though any trade that the GM does on any team one would think would need to have the "OK" from the owner, especially if more costs are involved. In this case the owner situation is obviously more complicated.

I am not saying these are the reasons for why the trade did not go through. I am saying they are "legit" reasons for it, the financial part that is.

The Hornets would be sending out 17Mish worth in Paul and taking on 35Mish worth in return. That is a 20M difference.

swede,

Good point. I doubt Danny, or any other GM, sends a trade off to the league office without running past their ownership first.

bob

.

bob,

You have to realize that New Orleans management approved of this trade.
It was officially approved by all 3 teams.

by **tjmakz** Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:17 pm

worcester wrote:TJ, The lakers trade for Pau Gasol was in NO WAY equivalent to the Celtics trade for KG. Lakers gave up hardly anyone. Celts gave up a damned good promising young forward in Al Jefferson plus Ryan Gomes plus Telfair plus plus... The Lakers got a huge Xmas present with Gasol. Thh Celts made a fair trade.

worcester,

I really don't want to get into this discussion again.
That discussion died years ago.
Who would you rather have as the center of the Celtics this year, Marc Gasol or Jefferson?

by **tjmakz** Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:22 pm

outside,

I don't think the signing of the CBA had anything to do with the cancellation of the trade. The 29 owners are still the owners of the Hornets and can decide on transactions.

by **swedeinestonia** Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:34 pm

I do not know what you are asking for here.

I do not know if they wanted Odom specifically or the package was just the best value, I would say the latter.

I am not so sure if they were intentionally taking on more salary beyond the fact that the GM was able to do it and it would give him the best "basketball value" and felt it was within his "powers" to do so. He might even have received the power from Stern to do so just that Stern never expected the owners to mind as much as they did and possibly have as valid points as they did (the financial part).

I honestly think that Stern would have let the trade go through if it was not for the cost issue that he really could not argue against. He might not have rather not have done it but he could have later been in trouble with the owners for it.

None of us know what the real reasons are, I am just saying that there are reasons that I find to be somewhat legit, no matter if those are the actual ones or not. It does not have to be a "Stern conspiracy".

I am not sure the trade would have been done if it was the exact same situation but the Sacramento Kings or something instead where the owners are short on pennies.

by **Outside** Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:10 pm

tjmakz wrote:
bobheckler wrote:
swedeinestonia wrote:I dont know why they did not step in earlier in general.

Could be that they were going to let the GM do what GMs do and just live with it and they just didnt think of the wage implications etc that it would have.

In general though any trade that the GM does on any team one would think would need to have the "OK" from the owner, especially if more costs are involved. In this case the owner situation is obviously more complicated.

I am not saying these are the reasons for why the trade did not go through. I am saying they are "legit" reasons for it, the financial part that is.

The Hornets would be sending out 17Mish worth in Paul and taking on 35Mish worth in return. That is a 20M difference.

swede,

Good point. I doubt Danny, or any other GM, sends a trade off to the league office without running past their ownership first.

bob

.

bob,

You have to realize that New Orleans management approved of this trade.
It was officially approved by all 3 teams.

Several points here.

I have heard and/or read several times that Dell Demps, the Hornets GM, was in close contact with the league office during this whole process. The league office knew what trades Demps was arranging. It got to the point that everything was done, and Demps was calling the other teams that didn't get Paul to tell them thank you very much but we have a deal with the Lakers and Rockets. This was a done deal, approved by the Lakers, Rockets, the Hornets management team (Demps, Jac Sperling, etc.), and whoever in the league office was required to approve it. Everything I'm hearing is the Demps is a stand-up guy who did everything he was supposed to do, including keeping the league office informed. He did not work all this out and then spring it on the league office at the last minute. This deal was killed AFTER everyone required had agreed to it.

As to the financial aspects, whether NO was taking on too much salary, I suppose that's one way to look at it. An alternative view is that the Hornets were getting maximum value in return for their elite player asset. What is the alternative -- get worse players? Get less value in return for their asset? How would that look to the fans and potential buyers? They were getting three very good starters (Odom, Scola, and Martin), one very good sub (Goran Dragic), and a first-round draft pick in return for Paul. That's a lot of value, and that value comes with salary. Here's a rundown.

Paul, $16.3 million - 15.9 pts, 4.1 reb, 9.8 ast, 46.3% FG, 38.8% 3PT, 87.8% FT, good defender

Odom, $8.9 million - 14.4 pts, 8.7 reb, 3.0 ast, 53.0% FG, 38.2% 3PT, 67.5% FT, 6th man of the year, decent defender, can literally play any position
Scola, $8.5 million - 18.3 pts, 8.2 reb, 2.5 ast, 50.4% FG, 73.8% FT, fair defender
Martin, $12 million - 23.5 pts, 3.2 reb, 2.5 ast, 43.6% FG, 38.3% 3PT, 88.8% FT, lousy defender
Dragic, $2.1 million - 7.5 pts, 2.0 reb, 2.9 ast, 43.5% FG, 36.1% 3PT, 62.4% FT, I don't know him as a defender

I'd say that maybe Martin is overpaid, but he does score, so maybe not. The other guys have fair contracts. So, yes, they'd take on salary, but their getting good players for that salary, very good players.

Outside

by Sponsored content