Why was the Chris Paul to Lakers trade veto'd, but

[Waew]

they let 3 superstars play in miami together? it just doesnt make sense to me.

[YoungOne87]

because the nba owned the hornets at that time and it has nothing to do with what free agents do..

[BudweiserCeltic]

It wasn't technically vetoed... NBA was playing the role of Team Owners.

[Monkhouse]

they let 3 superstars play in miami together? it just doesnt make sense to me.

-_-..

[pearljammer10]

They really can't control what free agents want to do or how much money they are willing to accept in a deal.

[bruinsandceltics]

We're all lucky the NBA vetoed that deal, cause it was in fact better than what the Hornets/Pelicans ended up getting for Paul anyway.

They would have got Dragic, Scola, Odom, Martin, #16 pick in 2012.

Instead they got Eric Gordon, #10 (Austin Rivers), Chris Kaman and Al-Farouq Aminu. Yuck.

[LarBrd33]

It was misreported by the media. The nba owned the hornets and had final say on any trades.

Imagine Ainge agreeing to trade rondo to the bobcats for a bunch of bad contracts.  The owners of the celtics (wyc grosbeck) has final say on the trade. Pretty frequently owners kill trades or force ones the GM doesn't want to do. For instance, it's believed the celtics owners pushed for Ainge to bring back Antoine walker so they could sell more tickets. It's believed that Donald sterling killed plenty of prospective trades in the past when he didn't want to pay for players.

So the hornets GM thought he was operating with full control... He then proceeded to agree to a moronic trade where he sent out Chris Paul and took back the horrid contracts of Lamar odom, Kevin Martin and Luis scola. The Hornets would have been on the hook for about 100 mil over the next 4 years fielding a mediocre also-ran at best ( scola and odom fell off cliffs shortly after this).  This was an issue, because reportedly the hornets had lost money the previous 3 years (Even with a superstar named Chris Paul) and the nba was adamant about making that team financially sound before a new owner took over.  So the NBA (acting as owners) rightfully killed that deal and accepted a more traditional "rebuild" deal that brought in a young quality player, the #7 pick, and a fast past ticket to tankville (eventually culminating in them bottoming out and landing arguably the 4th best player in the entire league (Anthony Davis).

Media jackwagon reported it as evil stern screwing the lakers ... Which seems completely counter to what an evil commish would actually do if he was fixing the league. 

The nba does not have the power to "veto" deals. That whole thing was misreported and misunderstood.  The heat thing was just a team freeing up cap space and signing free agents. Nothing outside the rules.

[mgent]

We're all lucky the NBA vetoed that deal, cause it was in fact better than what the Hornets/Pelicans ended up getting for Paul anyway.

They would have got Dragic, Scola, Odom, Martin, #16 pick in 2012.

Instead they got Eric Gordon, #10 (Austin Rivers), Chris Kaman and Al-Farouq Aminu. Yuck.

Yeah, but it was the injured Gordon lineup with Kaman as the team's best player that allowed them to draft Davis #1.

In other words, the NBA promotes tanking?

[D.o.s.]

It was misreported by the media. The nba owned the hornets and had final say on any trades.

Imagine Ainge agreeing to trade rondo to the bobcats for a bunch of bad contracts.  The owners of the celtics (wyc grosbeck) has final say on the trade. Pretty frequently owners kill trades or force ones the GM doesn't want to do. For instance, it's believed the celtics owners pushed for Ainge to bring back Antoine walker so they could sell more tickets. It's believed that Donald sterling killed plenty of prospective trades in the past when he didn't want to pay for players.

So the hornets GM thought he was operating with full control... He then proceeded to agree to a moronic trade where he sent out Chris Paul and took back the horrid contracts of Lamar odom, Kevin Martin and Luis scola. The Hornets would have been on the hook for about 100 mil over the next 4 years fielding a mediocre also-ran at best ( scola and odom fell off cliffs shortly after this).  This was an issue, because reportedly the hornets had lost money the previous 3 years (Even with a superstar named Chris Paul) and the nba was adamant about making that team financially sound before a new owner took over.  So the NBA (acting as owners) rightfully killed that deal and accepted a more traditional "rebuild" deal that brought in a young quality player, the #7 pick, and a fast past ticket to tankville (eventually culminating in them bottoming out and landing arguably the 4th best player in the entire league (Anthony Davis).

Media jackwagon reported it as evil stern screwing the lakers ... Which seems completely counter to what an evil commish would actually do if he was fixing the league. 

The nba does not have the power to "veto" deals. That whole thing was misreported and misunderstood.  The heat thing was just a team freeing up cap space and signing free agents. Nothing outside the rules.

Yeah that's actually not true though. We know for a fact that A) the owners were in stern's ear about the deal, B) the Hornets' GM was given the green light by the league office and no one was under the impression that the NBA would need to sign off on the deal, and C) that the owners applauded the deal that was killed after they stepped in and said "this isn't fair David make it stop."

The fact that the Hornets got a better deal the second time is incidental to the events that lead to the second deal. That's what you're missing in your analysis.

Appropriate links below.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ys-nba_dan_gilbert_email_lakers_hornets_trade_120811

http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/7335491/mark-cuban-opposed-chris-paul-la-lakers-deal-went-lockout-reason

Here's a really good take on it:

It all started from the uncomfortable premise that the league has ownership of an individual franchise and could act as a forthright and honest broker. That led to G.M. Dell Demps being told that he had full authority to make deals, a message that clearly wasn?t true, but was disseminated throughout the league.  No one told the Lakers or the Rockets or any other club interested in trading for Chris Paul that the league office would have to sign off on the deal.  If Stern was going to intervene and run the show, it should have been before the N.O.-L.A.-Houston deal was agreed upon

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2011/12/15/blogtable-bonus-chris-paul-trade/

[saltlover]

We're all lucky the NBA vetoed that deal, cause it was in fact better than what the Hornets/Pelicans ended up getting for Paul anyway.

They would have got Dragic, Scola, Odom, Martin, #16 pick in 2012.

Instead they got Eric Gordon, #10 (Austin Rivers), Chris Kaman and Al-Farouq Aminu. Yuck.

To be fair, this wasn't a trade which occurred after pick order was known.  They received the better of the Minnesota pick and the Clippers own pick, unprotected.  Minnesota had finished the previous season dead last, and the season before second-to-last.  Neither team had been to the playoffs in the prior 5 seasons.  New Orleans was frankly unlucky that they only picked 10th.

The pick that Houston was offering belonged to the Knicks.  It wouldn't have surprised anyone if that pick were in the 20's.

Also, it's silly to say that they got Austin Rivers.  They got a pick, which unfortunately for them was #10 (Andre Drummond went 9th -- can you imagine Davis and Drummond together?) and they unfortunately used it on Austin Rivers.  Also, as disappointing as Austin Rivers has been, the 16th pick that New Orleans would have received in an alternate universe was used to select Royce White, so they in fact still would have been worse off pick-wise, if you insist on saying they got Austin Rivers.