Phenomenal player. Wish the Celtics had a player even half as exciting to watch as The Brow on the roster. That's what I'm praying for in the draft this year.
Davis is somewhere between Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett in terms of his attributes and style of play. I'm really looking forward to following his career.
And just think... had the owners of the Hornets (the NBA) not stepped in and vetoed that god-awful Chris Paul-to-Lakers trade, they would have ended up with Kevin Martin, Lamar Odom and Luis Scola... probably would have ended up a late seed in the playoffs and entered into the realm of perpetual mediocrity.
But since the team owners (the NBA) stepped in and killed ("vetoed") their idiot GM from making a disaster trade, they instead ended up accepting a pennies-on-the-dollar Eric Gordon/Austin Rivers package that cemented their tankerific lotto chances and netted them arguably the greatest big man the league will see over the next 15 years.
And that's why I always seem warm to the idea of moving Rondo for prospects in a year where the top of the draft has "franchise player" potential.
Right, except that's not why the NBA vetoed that trade.
They vetoed the trade because it was coming hot on the heels of a lockout where the owners had successfully won the negotiations based on the idea of increased parity to small market teams. Signing off on Chris Paul's trade to the Lakers wasn't going to fly after that.
That's really not the reason why. That's media spin.
It was a god-awful trade. I said at the time it was a god-awful trade. New Orleans had yet to find a buyer... doing that trade would have left New Orleans stuck paying Scola, Odom and Martin a combined 90 million dollars. It was insane. It made no sense. Why owe boatloads of money to some mediocre players who aren't going to win you a title. Who would buy a franchise when it had 90 million on the books locked up with garbage non-franchise players?
So the NBA (acting owner of New Orleans) killed the deal. The GM thought he was had complete freedom to do whatever he wanted. If it had been a traditional GM/Owner relationship, the GM would have presented that trade to the owner... the owner would have crapped all over the deal and probably fired the GM for even suggesting it. But since it was this weird situation where the NBA owned the team, the GM accepted the deal, the owner blocked it... and the media spun it as "David Stern vetoes a deal". There is no such thing as commissioner veto in the NBA. It was a bunch of hype.
Reality was, the second trade was far more preferable to any rebuilding team... you get a couple young assets, you improve your own pick and have a chance at building your team through youth. That's exactly what ended up happening. Gordon and the pick (Austin Rivers) haven't exactly panned out, but doing that trade cemented their tanking position and allowed them to draft a Top 5 talent. The Pelicans can win titles in the future if they build around Davis correctly.
But that mentality is exactly why a large portion of this fanbase wants to see us trade down the standings and take a shot at landing a proper franchise player.
I posit to you that because the Hornets were controlled by the rest of the league they would've accepted the first trade, the Gasol trade, to keep New Orleans from getting Anthony Davis had it not been on the heels of that lockout, which was incredibly damaging to the PR of the ownership at that time (but, like we saw with the NFL, ultimately superfluous).
I would also suggest that since you don't actually work with the sports news media that your sources surrounding the idea that "it was a bunch of hype" are about as reliable as Chris Broussard's.
"It's not true that the owners killed the deal," NBA spokesman Mike Bass said. "The deal was never discussed at the Board of Governors meeting and the league office declined to make the trade for basketball reasons."
The NBA controlled the Hornets. They were the acting owner.
"Said NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver on how involved the league is in Hornets decision-making: "Ultimately the buck stops with the league office. But we're relying on the management -- Jac Sperling, Dell Demps, Hugh Weber -- we're relying on the management of that team to make decisions that are in the best interest of that franchise. But ultimately the decision rests with the league office. The final final say."
Ultimately, they decided that the trade (which would have given the Hornets Scola, Odom and Martin) wasn't a deal they were comfortable with doing. In retrospect, they also would have gotten a throw-in named Goran Dragic (who has played well) and some mediocre 2012 1st rounder as well... but the main issue was that they would have been on the hook paying Scola, Odom and Martin close to 90 million dollars over the next 4 years. That didn't make sense considering that #1 - The Pelicans hadn't been profitable for the last several seasons and had been hemorrhaging money ... and #2 - They were trying to make the team financial sound so that a prospective new owner wouldn't be stuck with a bad situation.
The media just presented it as "Scola, Martin and Odom would have been a haul!! " without realizing that all three players were in their 30s and didn't make the team a contender. Without realizing that it would have made a bad financial situation worse. Without realizing that rebuilding teams don't usually trade superstars for 3 veteran starters. It made no sense at the time. IT was a dumb trade.
They didn't report on the aspect of the team needing to be financially stable in order to attract a buyer. It was much
easier just sticking with the tried-and-true "STERN IS CORRUPT!!" storyline... a fictional reality were Stern rigs the NBA lottery, has NBA Refs fixing games for him, and vetoes trades in order to hurt the Lakers.
