CP3 deal to LA dead/Trade Rumors merged Super Thead

[kozlodoev]

So let's see if this makes sense.

Hornets clear Okafor's 3 years, $41 million, only to take back Scola's 3 years, $28 million.  As players, they're probably a wash.

I think it's fair to break this deal down as Chris Paul for Kevin Martin (2 years, $24 million) + NYK #1 + Odom (expiring) + $13 million + crappy young guys.

As a "basketball trade", how does that make more sense

Marginal analysis, Roy.

Having Scola's bad contract is better than having both Scola's and Okafor's bad contracts

[Roy H.]

Ebanks + Caracter = Basketball reason = we'll take any scrub you'll toss our way.

If only the Celtics had included the rights to Alberto Miralles in their original offer.

[Fafnir]

All the people who talked about how the original trade made the Hornets better were totally missing the point.

If you're a team trading away your franchise player, you're going to be entering rebuilding as soon as that guy goes.  If you're a rebuilding team, you don't want to make moves that make you better right now.  You want to make moves that make you much worse right now and much better two years from now.

Getting rid of Okafor is important for the Hornets because he's not much good for a rebuilding team and he just ties up their cap space.  Getting rid of Ariza is equally important.  But it doesn't make sense to me to take on Scola, Martin, and Odom in the process of getting rid of Okafor.  

It frees up cap space a year or two from now, sure, but not in the short term.  And in the short term you're still a middle of the road team that won't be getting any top 10 picks.

Odom/Scola/Martin are all going to be easier to trade in subsequent deals.

[kozlodoev]

All the people who talked about how the original trade made the Hornets better were totally missing the point.

If you're a team trading away your franchise player, you're going to be entering rebuilding as soon as that guy goes.  If you're a rebuilding team, you don't want to make moves that make you better right now.  You want to make moves that make you much worse right now and much better two years from now.

Getting rid of Okafor is important for the Hornets because he's not much good for a rebuilding team and he just ties up their cap space.  Getting rid of Ariza is equally important.  But it doesn't make sense to me to take on Scola, Martin, and Odom in the process of getting rid of Okafor.  

It frees up cap space a year or two from now, sure, but not in the short term.  And in the short term you're still a middle of the road team that won't be getting any top 10 picks.

My guess would be that getting rid of Scola was the only way you'd get Houston to participate in this.

[Roy H.]

So let's see if this makes sense.

Hornets clear Okafor's 3 years, $41 million, only to take back Scola's 3 years, $28 million.  As players, they're probably a wash.

I think it's fair to break this deal down as Chris Paul for Kevin Martin (2 years, $24 million) + NYK #1 + Odom (expiring) + $13 million + crappy young guys.

As a "basketball trade", how does that make more sense

Marginal analysis, Roy.

Having Scola's bad contract is better than having both Scola's and Okafor's bad contracts

Not if you're trying to "win now", though, which would be the only reason to take a package for older players like Martin, Scola, and Odom in the first place.

If you're "going young", and can find somebody to take Okafor, fantastic.  However, if you're committing to being mediocre, then you should keep as much talent on your roster as possible.

[PosImpos]

All the people who talked about how the original trade made the Hornets better were totally missing the point.

If you're a team trading away your franchise player, you're going to be entering rebuilding as soon as that guy goes.  If you're a rebuilding team, you don't want to make moves that make you better right now.  You want to make moves that make you much worse right now and much better two years from now.

Getting rid of Okafor is important for the Hornets because he's not much good for a rebuilding team and he just ties up their cap space.  Getting rid of Ariza is equally important.  But it doesn't make sense to me to take on Scola, Martin, and Odom in the process of getting rid of Okafor. 

It frees up cap space a year or two from now, sure, but not in the short term.  And in the short term you're still a middle of the road team that won't be getting any top 10 picks.

Odom/Scola/Martin are all going to be easier to trade in subsequent deals.

really?  is anybody going to give up real assets for those guys?  houston couldn't get any better building blocks with those guys, and we all know daryl morey is crazier than danny when it comes to always looking for trades to improve the team.

[barefacedmonk]

I don't understand this from Houston's POV. Is Lowry, Martin, Budinger, Scola, Hill worse than Lowry, Lee, Budinger, Pau, Hill? Enough to justify giving up Martin, Scola and 2012 first?

[kozlodoev]

Not if you're trying to "win now", though, which would be the only reason to take a package for older players like Martin, Scola, and Odom in the first place.

If you're "going young", and can find somebody to take Okafor, fantastic.  However, if you're committing to being mediocre, then you should keep as much talent on your roster as possible.

Well, the Hornets are against the wall anyhow, since they have little leverage with Paul leaving over the summer. So they'd like to get something.

I don't think the idea of their basketball operations is to go into total rebuilding mode (despite what Stern was trying to push with the veto). But in any case, if the idea is to accommodate Stern so that the deal could pass, I guess shedding one of the long contracts for young talent or simply as a dump is the way to go.

[PosImpos]

So let's see if this makes sense.

Hornets clear Okafor's 3 years, $41 million, only to take back Scola's 3 years, $28 million.  As players, they're probably a wash.

I think it's fair to break this deal down as Chris Paul for Kevin Martin (2 years, $24 million) + NYK #1 + Odom (expiring) + $13 million + crappy young guys.

As a "basketball trade", how does that make more sense

Marginal analysis, Roy.

Having Scola's bad contract is better than having both Scola's and Okafor's bad contracts

Not if you're trying to "win now", though, which would be the only reason to take a package for older players like Martin, Scola, and Odom in the first place.

If you're "going young", and can find somebody to take Okafor, fantastic.  However, if you're committing to being mediocre, then you should keep as much talent on your roster as possible.

yeah, the "win now" objective is the only justification for the trade that makes sense.  except trying to "win now" as a borderline playoff team makes no sense.  you try to "win now" if you think you have a chance of going deep in the playoffs.  you don't make a move to "win now" just so you can be an 8th seed.  especially not when you have assets that could get you a lottery pick and a young guy or two with upside (or, say, a 25 year old all-star who plays at a position of need and has demonstrated the ability to take over a playoff series).

[PosImpos]

I don't understand this from Houston's POV. Is Lowry, Martin, Budinger, Scola, Hill worse than Lowry, Lee, Budinger, Pau, Hill? Enough to justify giving up Martin, Scola and 2012 first?

hard to make sense of it unless they're making additional moves to put another very talented player next to paul.  not sure where that guy comes from, though.  they're not matching that nene offer from the nets.


sure seems like daryl morey is outsmarting himself on this one.

[Roy H.]

And hey, cool, the Hornets would still be taking back short-term salary, in order to trade their two best players:

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=8547ffq  (Trade Machine)

[PosImpos]

And hey, cool, the Hornets would still be taking back short-term salary, in order to trade their two best players:

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=8547ffq  (Trade Machine)

yeah.  makes no sense.  the hornets shouldn't want to get "11 wins better."  they're not going to be a top 4 seed after that trade.  they're a one and done playoff team at best.  

maybe that makes the GM look good in the short term.  he can say the hornets made the playoffs even after trading chris paul.  but it's really bad for the long term outlook for that team.  two years from now they'll be even worse than they would have been if paul had skipped town for nothing, and they won't be any closer to getting their rebuilding process started -- unless you think goran dragic is going to turn into a star. 

there isn't even a "marc gasol" sneaky prospect in this trade, unless you think the hornets are going to find a diamond late in the first round next summer.

[Fafnir]

And hey, cool, the Hornets would still be taking back short-term salary, in order to trade their two best players:

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=8547ffq  (Trade Machine)

Three best players, West is coming to us for short term salary too.

[barefacedmonk]

Expect Stern to take more criticism from the media if he signs off on this deal. I'm sure Ebanks and Caracter were not what the league had in mind when they issued the directive to get more young players and/or picks.

[Fan from VT]

-I think i might rather have Okafor at his deal than West for his proposed deal for JO/Pavlovic

-I'd definitely rather have Scola

Wish we could wedge ourselves in there somehow with picks and expirings to help provide the "young talent" the NBA wants Houston to get.