No Question. Stern Did What Was Best For Hornet's Future

[Kane3387]

I don't understand why people are mad here. Stern and the NBA owns the Hornets. Stern as the Commissioner and head guy for the NBA is basically that of the Hornets - the head guy. The GM for the team, that he is the head guy of, put together a trade that he didn't like. Thus he trashed it. The deal was never "done"! That was BS by the media. It wasn't done because it wasn't approved by the Hornet's ownership, basically Stern who has ultimate final say.

Again, the NBA owns the Hornets. Stern is the head guy of the NBA. Thus he is the acting owner of the Hornets. No different then if DA said "I got a deal done to trade Rondo for Tony Parker and a protected first but I need ownership to sign off on it." Then Wyc not liking the trade doesn't sign off on it.

That's what happened. Stern didn't like the trade and geez I wonder why?! What did the trade accomplish besides a commitment to mediocrity? No youth to build around, no young star, no cap space, and no lottery picks. WOW! Lol that's a great deal for the long term future of this team. Let's be good enough to always get eliminated in the first round of the playoffs and never have a chance at drafting a franchise player. I mean it's worked great for the Sixers and Hawks.

Stern wants to sell the team and that package ain't helping. You either need young talent and cap flexibility or you need another superstar in return for Paul. You can't settle for anything else even if at the time it seems like a less trade in the short term.

That trade was made by a GM who is looking for his next job. He wants to say "look I still created a playoff team even after CP3 wanted out." Yet, that's not the way to go. Stern has seen what it takes for success in a small market and he wants to go the route of the Thunder and how the Jazz are doing now. Not how Charlotte and Atlanta have been doing it the last few years.

[Marcus13]

Yeah, he was looking out for the best interest of his investment like an owner is supposed to do

[Kane3387]

"The decision was taken that Chris Paul in New Orleans was more valuable than the trade that was being discussed," David Stern tells Bloomberg. "I don't want to speak on the basketball side, but that particular one was weighed against Chris Paul's continued presence in New Orleans.''

http://www.sbnation.com/2011-nba-free-agency/2011/12/9/2623601/chris-paul-trade-david-stern-veto-explanation

[bfrombleacher]

Wasn't this more of the other owners forcing his hand? Either way Stern made a good move by making the NBA not look foolish. The players are making it look like they own the place.

[Kane3387]

This decision CAN NOT be appealed either.

http://lakersblog.latimes.com/lakersblog/2011/12/no-appeal-possible-for-chris-paul-trade.html

The Lakers planned to appeal to the NBA office after the Chris Paul trade was nixed, but there was a problem: The NBA considered the trade to have been blocked by New Orleans, not the league itself.

It's a sticky situation because the NBA owns the Hornets after purchasing them last December.

"This is technically a New Orleans decision," said an NBA official who did not want to be identified because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the trade.

In other words, one of the three teams involved in Thursday's trade technically got cold feet, but it's hard to deny the existence of a contributing factor to the death of the deal. Some small-market owners were irritated by the Lakers acquiring the league's top scoring-passing combo at point guard.

[Eja117]

If Paul doesn't show up then he won't be with the team. And he won't be with the team later.

I'm not sure what the Oklahoma model of success is. I guess it's to get lucky with the draft. If Charlotte has to start over like the Cavs that won't be very fun.

[Kane3387]

If Paul doesn't show up then he won't be with the team. And he won't be with the team later.

I'm not sure what the Oklahoma model of success is. I guess it's to get lucky with the draft. If Charlotte has to start over like the Cavs that won't be very fun.

It's too rely on building through the draft and not squandering your cap space on guys like Scola and Kevin Martin if you don't have a 1-2 stars to put them around. Presti got rid of all the big long term deals. He knew he needed high lottery picks and to build around youth. So he brought in prospects and drafted high in the draft.

Was getting some of those players lucky? To an extent but your odds of drafting a great player
significantly increase when you have a top 5 pick. The main point was always having cap flexibility to acquire assets either through trade, the purchase of picks, or signing a FA when it is the ideal time.

[Kane3387]

If Paul doesn't show up then he won't be with the team. And he won't be with the team later.

I'm not sure what the Oklahoma model of success is. I guess it's to get lucky with the draft. If Charlotte has to start over like the Cavs that won't be very fun.

There will still be buyers out there for Paul. For the future of the team a package like the one Boston offered is better then the one that was agreed upon. At least if you are looking long term. Stern is clearly thinking long term and Demps wasn't hence the miscommunication and the rejection of the trade.

[pearljammer10]

How is this good for the Hornets future... They were getting 4 players in return that could play great basketball... Now next year they'll loose Chris Paul to free agency, get nothing in return, and be horrible again.

[PAOBoston]

honestly, looking at the trade after a night's sleep, i dont think it was that bad. the lakers get a paul, they trade all their bigs (gasol to houston, odom to NO). as far as new orleans, odom/martin/scola gives some more chips to trade at the deadline for picks/assets. in this ordeal, i feel bad for houston (a small market team btw) b/c they get hosed. they could have added gasol and reports say they were in the hunt (if not favorites) for nene. they would have had a heck of big man duo.

the bigger issue here is the nba owning the hornets. when the nba bought the hornets the other year, how on earth didn they forsee potential issues as far as major trades etc? it's kind of a big deal. contract the team if you cant find a buyer. the nba owning the hornets is a slight conflict of interest, dont ya think???

[Kane3387]

How is this good for the Hornets future... They were getting 4 players in return that could play great basketball... Now next year they'll loose Chris Paul to free agency, get nothing in return, and be horrible again.

There not gonna lose him. Come on he will get traded at some point. Whats the point in being the 7th seed for the next 2-3 years? Was it that fun when Boston was doing it with Pierce and Lafrentz? It sucked. Those players are good but their CONTRACTS aren't.

Again no lottery picks, no youth, no star to market. Three strikes. How is the deal good at all? Because they got something? Is that it? People might not like Stern but he's not dumb. He knows getting nothing for CP3 at the end of day is bad, but he's not going to mortgage the future of the team on a group of players with 0 combined all star games.

[Kane3387]

honestly, looking at the trade after a night's sleep, i dont think it was that bad. the lakers get a paul, they trade all their bigs (gasol to houston, odom to NO). as far as new orleans, odom/martin/scola gives some more chips to trade at the deadline for picks/assets. in this ordeal, i feel bad for houston (a small market team btw) b/c they get hosed. they could have added gasol and reports say they were in the hunt (if not favorites) for nene. they would have had a heck of big man duo.

the bigger issue here is the nba owning the hornets. when the nba bought the hornets the other year, how on earth didn they forsee potential issues as far as major trades etc? it's kind of a big deal. contract the team if you cant find a buyer. the nba owning the hornets is a slight conflict of interest, dont ya think???

Definitely and the idea of trying to sell the Hornets factors into this. If this trade was executed then the Hornet's become immediately less attractive not only because they lost Paul but also because of that payroll.

[soap07]

Again no lottery picks, no youth, no star to market. Three strikes. How is the deal good at all? Because they got something? Is that it? People might not like Stern but he's not dumb. He knows getting nothing for CP3 at the end of day is bad, but he's not going to mortgage the future of the team on a group of players with 0 combined all star games.

I guess I'm crazy - but if "getting nothing" includes two very good big men, a great scorer, a solid point guard and first rounders....I'll "take nothing".

[Lucky17]

Weren't the Hornets already "mediocre" (a 6-8 seed) with Paul?

People seem to be assuming that the nixed Paul trade was the last one New Orleans would make.

They could have rerouted some of those assets (Knicks' pick, Odom, Scola, etc.) for additional rebuilding pieces.

[indeedproceed]

I don't understand why people are mad here. Stern and the NBA owns the Hornets. Stern as the Commissioner and head guy for the NBA is basically that of the Hornets - the head guy. The GM for the team, that he is the head guy of, put together a trade that he didn't like. Thus he trashed it. The deal was never "done"! That was BS by the media. It wasn't done because it wasn't approved by the Hornet's ownership, basically Stern who has ultimate final say.

Again, the NBA owns the Hornets. Stern is the head guy of the NBA. Thus he is the acting owner of the Hornets. No different then if DA said "I got a deal done to trade Rondo for Tony Parker and a protected first but I need ownership to sign off on it." Then Wyc not liking the trade doesn't sign off on it.

That's what happened. Stern didn't like the trade and geez I wonder why?! What did the trade accomplish besides a commitment to mediocrity? No youth to build around, no young star, no cap space, and no lottery picks. WOW! Lol that's a great deal for the long term future of this team. Let's be good enough to always get eliminated in the first round of the playoffs and never have a chance at drafting a franchise player. I mean it's worked great for the Sixers and Hawks.

Stern wants to sell the team and that package ain't helping. You either need young talent and cap flexibility or you need another superstar in return for Paul. You can't settle for anything else even if at the time it seems like a less trade in the short term.

That trade was made by a GM who is looking for his next job. He wants to say "look I still created a playoff team even after CP3 wanted out." Yet, that's not the way to go. Stern has seen what it takes for success in a small market and he wants to go the route of the Thunder and how the Jazz are doing now. Not how Charlotte and Atlanta have been doing it the last few years.

New Orleans made out as good or better than anyone else in the deal.

They gave up their franchise player for two top-10 players at their position, a playoff proven frontcourt player, a valuable up and coming combo guard than should lock down the bench for the next 8 years, and a 1st round draft pick.

In terms of what other teams have been getting in return for their franchise players, and a point guard at that, you have to think New Orleans did pretty well. Better than Denver did. Better than Utah did.