Seems to me the problem is communication between Hornets GM and Ownership

[LarBrd33]

Not sure what the media spin is on this... but here's how I currently view this:   Typically a GM (I'll use Danny Ainge as an example) will be making calls constantly ... feelers on who is available.. discussing countless trade proposals.  There has been instances in the past where Boston's ownership (Wyc Groesbeck) has not been on the same page as Danny Ainge on a specific deal.  Like perhaps Danny approached them at one point with a possible Allen Iverson to Boston trade, and Wyc "vetoed" it.... so Danny goes back to the drawing board and comes up with a Kevin Garnett trade (to which Wyc approves).   Last week Danny Ainge was deeply in trade talks to trade Rondo and Jeff Green for Chris Paul... you have to assume that Wyc Groesbeck was aware of these trade talks and approved of them beforehand.  In other words, you have to assume Boston's GM and ownership were on the same page.

Now the Hornets are a little different.  The Hornets are currently owned by the NBA and have given their GM (Dell Demps) total control of trade discussions.  So Demps is currently going around coming up with lots of trades... and finally decides on trading Chris Paul to the Lakers.  The problem is, I'm not sure who represents "ownership" during this stage.  Who is "Wyc Groesbeck" for the Hornets?  Is it David Stern?  Assuming it's David Stern, I have a hard time believing that Demps and Stern had a conversation beforehand about whether the Hornets ownership (the NBA) would be willing to take back Scola, Martin and Odom.   So basically what happens is Demps comes up with a trade he likes, the media immediately reports on it... and then the Hornet's ownership rejected it.  But since the NBA owns the hornets, it reads like "The NBA rejects the trade" and everyone flips out.  The problem seems to be the communication between the Hornets GM and their current ownership (the NBA).   In other words, I don't see anything fishy about this at all.  From the NBA's standpoint, bringing on the crappy contracts of Kevin Martin, Scola and Odom doesn't really improve the value of the franchise they are trying to sell.  Lakers can cry conspiracy (and very possibly will get this trade done regardless), but it seems logical to me.  I blame the media here.

[Kiorrik]

The problem is, you can't be impartial when you have something at stake yourself.

The NBA owning a franchise is stupid. It always was.

[LarBrd33]

I have a feeling if the [hornets ownership] knew what Demps was doing beforehand, they would have squashed this before he even accepted the deal...

If you're looking to buy an NBA team, you don't want a team that is saddled with long term salary commitments owing millions of dollars.

They were trading away Chris Paul (who makes 16 million)  

and taking back Martin, Scola and Odom:  Martin makes 12 mil per year (for 2 more years), Scola makes 10 mil a year (4 years remaining) and Odom makes 9 mil.

That's a large chunk of change to owe... and [hornets ownership] is trying to sell this team.  I have a feeling the media got confused on the GM/ownership relationship here and forgot the fact that whatever Demps agrees to then has to be agreed to by the [hornets ownership] (the NBA)...   It's perfectly logical for them to reject this deal.  

[BballTim]

The problem is, you can't be impartial when you have something at stake yourself.

The NBA owning a franchise is stupid. It always was.

  It's not ideal, but neither is contracting a franchise that's temporarily without an owner.

[PosImpos]

i think you may be right; the hornets would have been about as good (perhaps better) right away, but in the long run the trade wouldn't have made them better and they'd have been saddled with long term money.  the owners certainly can make an argument that the deal would have made the hornets considerably less appealing to any prospective buyer, and that's a valid reason to veto the trade.

[gar]

i think you may be right; the hornets would have been about as good (perhaps better) right away, but in the long run the trade wouldn't have made them better and they'd have been saddled with long term money.  the owners certainly can make an argument that the deal would have made the hornets considerably less appealing to any prospective buyer, and that's a valid reason to veto the trade.

[LarBrd33]

There is a reason why the Hornets were so interested in Stephen Curry.  He has 2 years remaining on his rookie contract (3-4 mil a year) and is a legit talent. 

Taking back 73 million over the next 4 years (Scola, Odom and Martin) makes little to no sense for them.  Once Cp3 leaves, the seats will be empty.  It frankly isn't going to matter who the heck they trot out there.  Why have 73 million on the books??  It's foolish.

Long time fans may remember Paul Gaston's behavior before he sold the Celtics... it was the same kind of thing.  Don't take on long term deals when you want to sell the team.

[gar]

i think you may be right; the hornets would have been about as good (perhaps better) right away, but in the long run the trade wouldn't have made them better and they'd have been saddled with long term money.  the owners certainly can make an argument that the deal would have made the hornets considerably less appealing to any prospective buyer, and that's a valid reason to veto the trade.

Very interesting line of reasoning;however would Rondo and Green's more friendly salaries win them games - not in my view. Not unless they bring back David West. The LA trade gives them scoring size and toughness.

[LarBrd33]

i think you may be right; the hornets would have been about as good (perhaps better) right away, but in the long run the trade wouldn't have made them better and they'd have been saddled with long term money.  the owners certainly can make an argument that the deal would have made the hornets considerably less appealing to any prospective buyer, and that's a valid reason to veto the trade.

Very interesting line of reasoning;however would Rondo and Green's more friendly salaries win them games - not in my view. Not unless they bring back David West. The LA trade gives them scoring size and toughness.

All along the most logical trade would be one that dumped Emeka Okafor's contract in the process... bringing back 73+ million in contracts made no sense

[LarBrd33]

I'm kind of annoyed by how inaccurately the media is reporting this story.  And why are people blaming Stern?  It seems Demps accepted the trade, and it immediately leaked to the media before Demps could get approval from Hornets ownership.   Hornets are owned by the NBA.  The HORNETS OWNERSHIP rejected the trade.  Why is it so freakin hard for the media to report on this?  They keep saying "wow... Stern vetoed a trade... that never happens".  It's a bunch of shock garbage to get people talking, but it hurts the image of the league and the way they are presenting it simply isn't true.

Has anyone in the media pointed out that the Hornets are owned by the league and the league is trying to sell the team (thus not wanting to take on long term salary)?  ...

[PosImpos]

i think you may be right; the hornets would have been about as good (perhaps better) right away, but in the long run the trade wouldn't have made them better and they'd have been saddled with long term money.  the owners certainly can make an argument that the deal would have made the hornets considerably less appealing to any prospective buyer, and that's a valid reason to veto the trade.

Very interesting line of reasoning;however would Rondo and Green's more friendly salaries win them games - not in my view. Not unless they bring back David West. The LA trade gives them scoring size and toughness.

the LA trade definitely makes them a better team than the Rondo trade would have made them; however, it wouldn't make them a contender, and they wouldn't have a franchise player.  their financial situation would have been much less palatable.  harder to rebuild. 

in other words, the trade would have made the Hornets less appealing to a potential buyer.  the top priority for the league with respect to the Hornets has to be to make them as attractive as possible to potential buyers.

[PosImpos]

i think you may be right; the hornets would have been about as good (perhaps better) right away, but in the long run the trade wouldn't have made them better and they'd have been saddled with long term money.  the owners certainly can make an argument that the deal would have made the hornets considerably less appealing to any prospective buyer, and that's a valid reason to veto the trade.

Very interesting line of reasoning;however would Rondo and Green's more friendly salaries win them games - not in my view. Not unless they bring back David West. The LA trade gives them scoring size and toughness.

All along the most logical trade would be one that dumped Emeka Okafor's contract in the process... bringing back 73+ million in contracts made no sense

yeah, you'd think the lakers would have had to take back emeka and ariza, at least.

[LarBrd33]

Random:  I'm actually visiting family in LA... and I just had to turn off the local news, because the female sports analyst spent more than half of her "vetoed Chris Paul/Laker trade" news talking about the Kardashians and how it impacted their family...

[PosImpos]

Random:  I'm actually visiting family in LA... and I just had to turn off the local news, because the female sports analyst spent more than half of her "vetoed Chris Paul/Laker trade" news talking about the Kardashians and how it impacted their family...

yep, they've got to be thrilled with how this turned out.  no moving to new orleans.

[CelticHooligan3]

Random:  I'm actually visiting family in LA... and I just had to turn off the local news, because the female sports analyst spent more than half of her "vetoed Chris Paul/Laker trade" news talking about the Kardashians and how it impacted their family...

God i can relate...