Poll: CP3 trade, do you agree with DStern’s decision?

[Q_FBE]

Ironically, I think this three superstar system got kicked off in the summer of 2007 when Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and KG teamed up to engineer the most remarkable turnaround in the History of the NBA.

The problem is Miami copied the model, and now LAL are trying to upgrade their two superstars behind alpha dog Kobe.

I don't agree with Dave Stern's interference in basketball trades - This is a free trade society.

And for the record, David Stern should retire for the good of the NBA. We need new leadership in the commissioner's office.

[Marcus13]

Yes - these deals that players are dictating make 90% of the league's franchises irrelevent.  It's terrible for business

[action781]

I don't agree with Dave Stern's interference in basketball trades - This is a free trade society.

And for the record, David Stern should retire for the good of the NBA. We need new leadership in the commissioner's office.

Haha, that's the problem.  This is not a free trade society.

Yes - these deals that players are dictating make 90% of the league's franchises irrelevent.  It's terrible for business

Then the league needs to allow the teams to be able to do something about it.  It's not the player's fault they want to go play somewhere nicer for a very small reduction in pay.  It's the league's fault for restricting what companies are allowed and willing to do to keep their superstars.

[soap07]

I thought the Hornets made out really well in the deal. Really well. Stern has to go, I used to be a big fan - but two lockouts in ten years, Donaghy, and now this? Awful. Guess what guys? The Rondo deal would've been vetoed too. A lot of us would've been apoplectic over that. This puts the NBA in a terrible light (again).

[Kwhit10]

I thought the Hornets made out really well in the deal. Really well. Stern has to go, I used to be a big fan - but two lockouts in ten years, Donaghy, and now this? Awful. Guess what guys? The Rondo deal would've been vetoed too. A lot of us would've been apoplectic over that. This puts the NBA in a terrible light (again).

I don't think they made out well at all.  They threw away their cap flexability, got 3 players who are not all-stars.  Martin is 27 injury prone, Scola is 31, and they got Odom.  They are now paying more money for lesser players who aren't even young.

[bdm860]

I wish we could peer into the alternate history of how this board reacts if the same thing had happened to the proposed Celtic trade.

Because there is a very strong chance it would have, though not a certainty of course.

See I don’t think Stern veto’s the proposed Celtics trade.

1.    The Hornets are taking on much less salary and retain tons of flexibility for new ownership with the Celtics deal.

2.   The Celtics are giving up a young player which still has a lot of upside potential, the Lakers are giving up players on the downside of their career (though arguably not that far down the hill yet).

3.   The Celtics are mortgaging their future giving up young pieces and multiple picks with no guarantee Paul sticks around.  The only gamble the Lakers are taking is if their two mega-superstars can co-exist.  The Celtics are gambling on a player who doesn’t even want to go there, and hoping to sign another player next year who also hasn’t listed Boston as one of his preferred destinations.  A very good chance Boston trades for Paul, and 6 months later have nothing to show for it.  The Lakers on the other hand trade for Paul, and there’s a 100% chance he re-signs, and there’s a very good chance they get Dwight Howard too. 

Basically because the Celtics are taking a huge gamble, and giving up more long term talent, multiple picks, but taking on more salary for a player whose camp has strongly said Paul doesn’t want to play there, I think there is no outrage if the Celtics make the trade.

[Marcus13]

I thought the Hornets made out really well in the deal. Really well. Stern has to go, I used to be a big fan - but two lockouts in ten years, Donaghy, and now this? Awful. Guess what guys? The Rondo deal would've been vetoed too. A lot of us would've been apoplectic over that. This puts the NBA in a terrible light (again).

Trading a top 5 player in basketball to the destination he demanded after he find out NY wasnt an option for three non all-stars on bad contracts AND two of them are on the wrong side of 30...

Not a good deal at all.  There were clearly better deals on the table or Stern wouldnt have vetoed it

[bdm860]

I wish we could peer into the alternate history of how this board reacts if the same thing had happened to the proposed Celtic trade.

Because there is a very strong chance it would have, though not a certainty of course.

See I don’t think Stern veto’s the proposed Celtics trade.

1.    The Hornets are taking on much less salary and retain tons of flexibility for a new ownership with the Celtics deal.

2.   The Celtics are giving up a young player which still has a lot of upside potential, the Lakers are giving up players on the downside of their career (though arguably not that far down the hill yet).

3.   The Celtics are mortgaging their future giving up young pieces and multiple picks with no guarantee Paul sticks around.  The only gamble the Lakers are taking is if their two mega-superstars can co-exist.  The Celtics are gambling on a player who doesn’t even want to go there, and hoping to sign another player next year who also hasn’t listed Boston as one of his preferred destinations.  A very good chance Boston trades for Paul, and 6 months later have nothing to show for it.  The Lakers on the other hand trade for Paul, and there’s a 100% chance he re-signs, and there’s a very good chance they get Dwight Howard too. 

Basically because the Celtics are taking a huge gamble, and giving up more long term talent, multiple picks, but taking on more salary for a player whose camp has strongly said Paul doesn’t want to play there, I think there is no outrage if the Celtics make the trade.

Another thing I will say though, is I would hate to get Paul now.  We’d never hear the end of it from Lakers fans.  “Oh, the league screwed us to give Paul to you blah blah blah”  or “You never win #18 without Stern’s help blah blah blah.”


Not that I wouldn’t want Paul on this team, just thinking of the crap we’d have to deal with from other fans if he did now. 

[BudweiserCeltic]

I'll have to say yes. For all the talk about precedent, fact still remains that the Hornet's situation is not the norm & there's a lot of conflicts of interest involved.

I for one think that the trade is horrible for everyone but the Lakers, it just makes zero sense particularly with seemingly New Orleans not getting quite a few 1st round draft picks for Paul and seemingly none coming from the Lakers.

This trade would make some sense if it involved Bynum in some manner.

In any case, I don't think New Orleans under a real ownership would have made this crappy deal, and Stern was absolutely right to veto it. And remember, who knows how many owners approached Stern before he even vetoed it.

[CelticG1]

I disagree with stern completely and its embarrassing.

But how can anyone think that the hornets made put good in the trade? When you think about it they really couldn't have done much worse unless they swapped Odom for Paul straight up. What's the argument for them making out good? The best argument is that they received 3 above average players I guess? Not above average starters, above average players.

[Inside-Out]

It wasn't a good deal for the Hornets franchise, given their current situation.  They were to give up their superstar/franchise player without having any opportunity to rebuild while committing massive  cash to players that are, at best, second or third options, and not getting enough young, cheap talent with upside.

That was the problem (or should have been) for the Hornets "owners."  Unfortunately, some owners are really dumb, like Dan Gilbert, who wanted to make it about competitive balance.  There's nothing about balance that should void a trade that is otherwise within the rules.

Dell Demps was an idiot for taking that deal rather than one involving multiple 1st rounders, players on rookie deals, and/or young, current all stars.  And he should have looked to shed more salary in the process to clear the decks for the next owners.

Essentially, he should have taken the C's offer of Rondo, Green, plus picks, and he should have tried to talk us into taking Okafor for Ray's expiring and a couple 2nds as well.  It would have been smart to try to get hometown guy BBD there as well to perhaps sell ten or fifteen more tickets to BBD's old buddies.

WE made the best offer, but the trade went to LA anyway.  Something was up, and whatever THAT was is a problem for competitive balance.

[snively]

The league should have been more involved from the beginning, but better late than never.  Demps was about to sentence New Orleans to small market purgatory.

[boscel33]

while i may absolutely despise the lakers, this was out of bounds.  one note though:  i am sick and tired of athletes signing their contracts then either trying to renegotiate or demand a trade.  chris johnson renegotiated and got his money.  he's having a crappy year.  is he going to give money back?  no!!tough!  it is getting to believe they are all spoiled little brats who have always gotten their way.  paul said he is very upset and said he's ready to go to war over this. well, maybe the hornets should trade him to the marine corp 3rd id so he can see what war really is.  as chris carter says, c'mon man!

btw, so the moderators wouldn't yell at me, this was edited to remove profanity.  this really ticks (another edit) me off!!!!!!!!

[jimmehx]

I'm still trying to get my head around it. The trade seemed perfectly fair (objectively) and I have no idea how the commiss can just say... nah soz. Interesting to see if this happens with any other trades this season to keep up appearances.

[snively]

I'll have to say yes. For all the talk about precedent, fact still remains that the Hornet's situation is not the norm & there's a lot of conflicts of interest involved.

I for one think that the trade is horrible for everyone but the Lakers, it just makes zero sense particularly with seemingly New Orleans not getting quite a few 1st round draft picks for Paul and seemingly none coming from the Lakers.

This trade would make some sense if it involved Bynum in some manner.

In any case, I don't think New Orleans under a real ownership would have made this crappy deal, and Stern was absolutely right to veto it. And remember, who knows how many owners approached Stern before he even vetoed it.

Agreed.  The problem is that Stern and the owners should have set better ground rules in the first place.  I guess they were surprised at Demps' willingness to dump long-term contracts onto the Hornets roster.