EPTLooking at the teams with top 10 picks this year it doesn't really make sense for any of them to get Pau.
He's certainly not untradeable, far from it in fact, but I think the pool of teams willing to take him on at 31 with $38 mill owed is small.
NBA Playoffs 2012 - Page 349
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
RowdierBob
Australia13005 Posts
Looking at the teams with top 10 picks this year it doesn't really make sense for any of them to get Pau. He's certainly not untradeable, far from it in fact, but I think the pool of teams willing to take him on at 31 with $38 mill owed is small. | ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
imBLIND
United States2626 Posts
| ||
|
ecstatica
United States542 Posts
Im excited for this offseason. If KG doesnt come back Cs will have to move fast. There are some options out there that can make it real interesting given how much cap we still have. Also imagine Hibbert to Celtics while KG stays? Rondo Bradley Pierce KG Hibbert? lolol I like to dream Would LA trade Pau for 2 mid first round picks + some fodder? Cs can afford him too. KG and Pau on same team? New twin towers? They would have so much firepower they wouldnt even need Pierce, Ainge is probably hyperventilating right now thinking up some mad scheme that involves a third party team. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
On June 28 2012 10:21 krndandaman wrote: oh why oh why did stern block the cp3 trade  i was going crazy the day the trade was announced dreaming about a line up of kobe, bynum, cp3, who cares#1, who cares#2 He blocked it because it was a terrible trade. New Orleans GMs were morons for even allowing that to hit the table. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13005 Posts
The Lakers have a knack of fleecing people, so although I don't think they'd get equal value for Pau, it wouldn't suprise me if they do find a sucker to play with. Maybe Kahn would trade Love for Pau.  | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On June 28 2012 11:32 Ace wrote: He blocked it because it was a terrible trade. New Orleans GMs were morons for even allowing that to hit the table. It was not a terrible trade in my day dreams in which there are only 3 teams per conference. | ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On June 28 2012 11:32 Ace wrote: He blocked it because it was a terrible trade. New Orleans GMs were morons for even allowing that to hit the table. Still doesn't change the fact that it was one of, if not the most, shady moves Stern has pulled during his reign. Demps was told he had the authority to make trades, everyone else was told he had the authority to make trades, and that authority was necessary because there was a blatant conflict of interest in allowing the rest of the NBA owners and/or Stern make personnel decisions for the Hornets. Good trade or not, a deal had been agreed to and that has always been as good as final in the NBA up until that point. The cancellation of that trade completely screwed over the Lakers in a manner that should not been able to occur. It's not even about not getting CP3, it's the loss of Odom, the erosion of Pau's confidence in his team and role, and the many ways the Lakers were negatively impacted down the road. As you can tell, I'm still pissed about what happened. P.S. Still pissed that Stern forced the Clippers to include Gordon in that deal too. CP3, Gordon, and Blake would have been a monster team definitely capable of contending for a ring. | ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On June 28 2012 11:37 RowdierBob wrote: Ha yeah. Look at where NO are now vs where they would have been if that trade was allowed to stand. The Lakers have a knack of fleecing people, so although I don't think they'd get equal value for Pau, it wouldn't suprise me if they do find a sucker to play with. Maybe Kahn would trade Love for Pau. Without that #1 pick and the new owner (which may have been a package deal if you believe the conspiracy theorists), they'd arguably have nothing and Gordon would have no reason to stick around and not sign with another team. I'm not going to walk down the conspiracy theory road and claim Stern orchestrated the whole thing (but it all adds up SO well!), but I'm still not so sure that the Clippers trade was so much better than the Lakers one unless you consider a team with zero assets as a good thing. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13005 Posts
He's certainly not the first owner to kill a trade he didn't think was in his team's best interests. It was shady, but well within his right IMO (and 100% the correct move for the Hornets). There was a big conflict of interest but there always will be with a league owned team. I'm confident Stern made the decision in the best interest of the Hornets and that's what mattered most in that trade. It probably also had a lot of do with the league outrage at the Lakers fleecing another team to acquire a top level player, but I believe Stern also nixed the trade as it sucked balls for the Hornets most of all (a team he was trying to build a solid future for to make it saleable). | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13005 Posts
On June 28 2012 11:53 XaI)CyRiC wrote: Without that #1 pick and the new owner (which may have been a package deal if you believe the conspiracy theorists), they'd arguably have nothing and Gordon would have no reason to stick around and not sign with another team. I'm not going to walk down the conspiracy theory road and claim Stern orchestrated the whole thing (but it all adds up SO well!), but I'm still not so sure that the Clippers trade was so much better than the Lakers one unless you consider a team with zero assets as a good thing. But they do have the pick and new owner? And even if they didn't, it would still be better to start from fresh than be a 30 win team led by Kevin Martin and Luis Scola. That would have been their reality. | ||
|
Kamille
Monaco1035 Posts
| ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On June 28 2012 11:58 RowdierBob wrote: Hmmm, I don't know if Stern overreached in nixing the trade. He's certainly not the first owner to kill a trade he didn't think was in his team's best interests. It was shady, but well within his right IMO (and 100% the correct move for the Hornets). There was a big conflict of interest but there always will be with a league owned team. I'm confident Stern made the decision in the best interest of the Hornets and that's what mattered most in that trade. It probably also had a lot of do with the league outrage at the Lakers fleecing another team to acquire a top level player, but I believe Stern also nixed the trade as it sucked balls for the Hornets most of all (a team he was trying to build a solid future for to make it saleable). But Stern wasn't the owner. One deal they made when they purchased the Hornets was to appoint someone to make personnel decisions to avoid the obvious conflict of interest. Again, it's not so much that the Lakers missed out on CP3, but the way the situation was handled led to the Lakers getting screwed in a way they shouldn't have been able to. If Stern had made it clear up front that he was the one calling the shots, then there's no way the Lakers and Hornets would have announced the trade before Stern confirmed it. If the Lakers don't announce that trade, it's almost certain that the Lakers start the season off with Odom ready to play and Pau with his head in the right place. The Lakers were forced to show their hand when they didn't have to, and it screwed them royally this season and for at least the next few. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13005 Posts
I agree that Stern went about it wrong, but the right decision was ultimately made so I can't hate it too much. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
| ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On June 28 2012 12:02 RowdierBob wrote: But they do have the pick and new owner? And even if they didn't, it would still be better to start from fresh than be a 30 win team led by Kevin Martin and Luis Scola. That would have been their reality. Yeah, but that's justifying a move after the fact. You have to judge it by what they knew at the time, i.e. they had no owner and no interested buyers, CP3 was about to leave and everyone knew it so they had no leverage in trades, and their best players being Ariza and Okafor. The Clippers had the next best deal after the Lakers, and they were only offering Kaman, Bledsoe and Aminu. I don't think that's better than Odom, Scola, KevMart and Dragic. Stern stepping in not only rescinded the deal, but it also inserted him into all future negotiations where he continued with his shadiness by creating leverage for the Hornets where they had none with the threat of another cancelled trade. | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On June 28 2012 12:48 RowdierBob wrote: Yeah I agree with what you're saying. I think everyone bar Lakers fans knew how bad of a deal it was though which forced him to intervene. After the whole Pau/Memphis debacle, it would have been criminal to allow it to happen again. I agree that Stern went about it wrong, but the right decision was ultimately made so I can't hate it too much. Sorry, but I don't agree with this ends-justifying-the-means rationalization at all. That's a slippery slope if I've ever seen one. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13005 Posts
| ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On June 28 2012 13:01 RowdierBob wrote: Meh, I'm happy to apply it on a case-by-case basis. I think this was a very unique situation Stern actually handled well. There's no precedence for it so I think it's ok to judge the merits of his decision on the outcome which was positive for the Hornets. There's no precedent because it's a blatant abuse of a conflict of interest and goes against the competitive model of the NBA. Teams have been getting fleeced in trades since the league existed, but the trades were allowed because the teams are supposed to be independently run organizations who are supposed to be making their own decisions and competing the best way they know how. Would anyone really be okay with every trade being subject to the approval of Stern and the owners of the teams not involved in the trade? It's going over well now because the Lakers were the team who got screwed, who the rest of the league has no problem screwing over since everyone is tired of the Lakers winning, but what if the same thing had happened to the Thunder or the Bulls? No league would allow such a thing to happen because it'd neuter the sport. Also, why is it so important to protect the Hornets and make sure they're doing well? If there's a team that no one wants to own, then it shouldn't exist. I understand New Orleans has been through a lot, but there's no reason why the Hornets should have to remain viable at the expense of other teams (Lakers and Rockets) and competitive fairness. | ||
| ||
