Lakers set to land Paul

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.

TJ,

Management, yes; ownership, no.

bob

.

TJ, I'd prefer to have Big Al with healthy knees, but those days are over. Regarding Stern and the LA trade, I think Outside's perspective is correct. The owners pressured Stern into vetoing it before signing the CBA.

tjmakz wrote: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.

This is obviously the problem the league has by being the owner of the team. But it's the league office, not the 29 owners, who have the say-so on how the Hornets are run. The 29 are supposed to be silent partners. They certainly don't have a 29-member committee signing off on player deals. If owners squawk, like Cuban did last year when the Hornets picked up Carl Landry, there's nothing they can do if the league office approves the deal.

Do I have proof that the owners refused to sign the CBA unless Stern killed the deal? Of course not. I just find it compelling that the league office announced that the owners had signed the CBA shortly after word got out that the league killed the trade. These guys were willing to lose the season over the very issue being thrown in their faces by the Paul trade, and they had signing the CBA as powerful leverage.

For most teams it would be a good deal yes provided the raise in payroll was approved.

As it is now though NO might be able to just take it easy and get a lot of "amnesty value", players like Arenas maybe Rashard Lewis and what not.

Their 15 millions could be spent on players like that and you would be getting a lot of star shine for it, worst case scenario Paul walks for free next year (and has to sign at a team under the salary cap) and you get salary relief making you able to sign whoever is available.