EPTHe's been lifting though:
NBA Regular Season 2011-2012 - Page 27
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
darkmetal505
United States639 Posts
He's been lifting though: | ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
Stern was only able to block the trade as the "owner", supposedly based on the best interests of the Hornets. However, the fact is that his job as commissioner makes him the representative of the interests of all the other non-participating team owners, all of whom do NOT have the best interests of the Hornets in mind. That puts Stern in the impossible position of representing the conflicting interests of the Hornets and the other teams, which is why Demps was brought in and given the authority he was given. Good idea until Stern and the rest of the league overruled Demps without any justification. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
On December 12 2011 15:50 XaI)CyRiC wrote: I think it's quite an assumption to make that no other owner or GM would have taken the deal that the Hornets were getting from the Lakers/Rockets, especially since one did. At the time when everyone thought the trade was going through, there were very few people saying that the trade was bad for the Hornets. In fact, almost everyone was saying that it was an impressive haul for the Hornets. I'm not saying this to prove that the deal was a good one or that it should have been taken, just to show that it was not an unreasonable one that warranted Stern's veto. What Owner came out and said that was a good deal for New Orleans? People thought the trade was good for the Hornets because they looked at the names of the players and said WOW GREAT instead of looking at the new composition of the team, what they were getting, the cap situation and their place in the West. Now that people have had a chance to look at what the Hornets would eventually become - the deal isn't so hot now. Before David Stern even released his statement I told you guys the reason it was bad was because the Hornets need assets (young talent and draft picks) to go forward. When Stern's press release came out that was exactly what he said. The prospective deals with the Clippers and Warriors showed this. Many worse deals have been made over the past few years (and beyond) that were allowed to go through, and there was nothing about this one that made it stand out except for the fact that Stern was playing a dual role of commissioner and team owner. That situation should never have been allowed to occur, because there's an absolute conflict of interest there. There's no way that the final decision maker for a team involved in a trade should be, at the same time, a representative of the rest of the owners in the league. Such a situation would be untenable in any other setting, and should not be allowed to happen in the NBA either. Indeed, a lot of deals far worse than this have been made. The difference is THIS deal became public for reasons unknown. Better and worse deals have been shot down by Owners but you never hear about it. This deal wasn't allowed to go through because not only did the league office see the Hornets getting ripped off (they were), but they were taking on more salary which would have hurt prospective buyers' eyes. Call it unfair but if the league doesn't own the Hornets then they would be contracted. It's the lesser of two evils depending on which side of the fence you are on. Also remember every trade needs to be approved by the League Office and Dan Gilbert's email didn't reach stern until after the decision was made. Stern could be lying about doing this via the LO, but he also could have legitimately thought it was a bad deal for a franchise that needs to be sold. He'd be right and he's the commissioner so he can do it. The only safeguard or check on that potential conflict of interest was the appointment of Demps as the GM of the Hornets, and him being given completely autonomy to make GM decisions without interference by Stern or the other team owners. Keep in mind that Demps was APPOINTED by the NBA specifically for the purpose of preventing this situation from happening, and then they deliberately and openly overruled him despite there being no indication that he was looking out for anyone's interest except for the Hornets' or of any collusion between him and the Lakers or the Rockets. The league acknowledged the clear conflict of interest, put in a means to counter/prevent it, and then simply removed it at their own convenience without taking any other steps to counter/prevent that conflict of interest. Think about the implications of that action, and then think more on the precedent being set by it. You've got a bit wrong. Dell Demps is just the General Manager. He has normal GM powers but instead of being overseen by an Owner he is overseen by a League appointed executive. I keep forgetting his name but I think it's Jac Sterling. General Managers never have final say in if a trade is accepted - that right belongs to the Owners since they are paying for the contracts. Dell Demps and no other GM in the league has carte blanche to do as they please. The league executive ran the trade by Stern and it got shot down. There is nothing about this incident that is different from any other trade except publicity. There is no precedent being set here, there is no conflict of interest - this was just a bad trade that got out because Chris Paul and the Lakers were involved. As for the "better" offers (in quotes because it's still just an opinion that they're better, and no one can know for certain what would the Hornets would have done with what they would have got from the Lakers/Rockets) they are receiving now, the Hornets were not getting those offers at the time of the Lakers/Rockets deal, and thus they should not be considered when assessing Stern's nixing it. Those offers are only coming now because of artificial and improper leverage created by Stern's blatant and abusive move, motivated by that same conflict of interest. The Hornets would not have these offers on the table under the terms of the CBA, i.e. the rules by which every team has to operate under. The Hornets actually were getting those offers. Before the deal with the Lakers and Rockets got out, Golden State turned down the Hornets request for Stephen Curry. The Clippers turned down their request for Eric Gordon. Boston tried to give them Rondo but they turned that down too. Those were 3 deals all with All-Star talent involved for Chris Paul and picks, with the Clippers having the most assets to give. To further illustrate the conflict of interest, consider the following scenario: You are in a fantasy basketball league where a manager suddenly has to back out due to unavailability. The league then discusses what to do with the team (A), decides that the best thing for the league is for it to continue to compete, and that a new neutral manager (X) will be brought in to manage it. Later on, you propose what you believe is a fair trade to X involving Team B, you and X discuss the trade at length and even make several modifications to it so that both of you are happy with what each of you are getting, X fields offers from other teams who are unwilling to offer anything he likes more than your offer, and both of you accept and submit the trade for league approval. The trade is then vetoed by the collective voting of the rest of the league, including 3 or 4 managers who are your strongest opponents and who you know view you as one of the bigger threats in the league, despite the fact that everyone agreed that X would have full authority to make trades and there is no sign of any collusion or impropriety on your part or X's in negotiating the trade. Would you find such a series of events to be fair or proper? Wouldn't it be even more unfair if you knew that all the other managers considered you to be one of the favorites to win that season and that they had a clear interest in handicapping you and your team if they could? Well first of all if this example actually correlated well to New Orleans then yes I would find it legit. There is no such thing as "fair" in fantasy or real life basketball, only the rules that everyone agreed to. So if we allow 4 managers to combine for veto power then I'll have to deal with it. However this still doesn't apply to Dell Demps because in this situation he isn't Neutral Manager X - that would be David Stern and Jac Sterling or whatever his name is. General Managers wouldn't even have a place in a fantasy league. | ||
|
zeehar
Korea (South)3804 Posts
On December 12 2011 13:38 RowdierBob wrote: Hmmm, not entirely sure about West for the Pacers. The deal is ok, but he's 31 and coming off major knee surgery. Don't know where it really leaves the Pacers. if he doesnt work out, hes an expiring contract after this season. if he does, pacers win more, and have a great chance at resigning him when his contract is over. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
If this goes through...holy ****. That team is going far. | ||
|
Insomniac22
United States907 Posts
"Chris Paul is in now in the Guinness Book of World Records. The first person to request a trade to the LA Clippers." | ||
|
zeehar
Korea (South)3804 Posts
On December 12 2011 16:50 Ace wrote: So according to ESPN and LATimes Chris Paul to the Clippers is a done deal. The Clippers would also get to keep Eric Gordon. If this goes through...holy ****. That team is going far. it's also a very good deal for the hornets. they're getting minny's pick, which will probably be top 3, a servicable starting C who is not too old, and two good young players with potential to be solid starters. bledsoe moreso than aminu, but yeah. i think it's a much more desirable package for nola than kmart, scola, odom and dragic and no pick. the first three have huge contracts, dragic is just average. no growth potential in there at all. EDIT: also, now the clips have no depth. paul gordon butler griffin ??? are the clips going to match golden state's 4 years and 40M for jordan? i think it's a ridiculous offer, actually, for someone who has zero offense. 6~7 per year, you match without hesitation, but 10? eh.... bench: foye, gomes, mo williams. uhh... | ||
|
Zidane
United States1692 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
What they're getting from the Clippers is pretty damn good but is it better than the value they would've gotten from the other trade? With Scola and Gasol at 30, who knows but I don't think it was a bad trade by any means, assuming they made secondary trades. And if you don't think that Clippers offer is coming, it seemed like it was by far the best they were going to get. That's what makes Stern's decision so absolutely horrid. He prevented them from being aggressive in the market, which is still necessary to turn that team around, and potentially nixed any decent value they could've gotten for Paul. Even though the Clippers trade is good, they're still not close to becoming a good team. They have to wait and pray that they don't fuck up on Minnesota's draft pick. | ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
On December 12 2011 17:36 zeehar wrote: it's also a very good deal for the hornets. they're getting minny's pick, which will probably be top 3, a servicable starting C who is not too old, and two good young players with potential to be solid starters. bledsoe moreso than aminu, but yeah. i think it's a much more desirable package for nola than kmart, scola, odom and dragic and no pick. the first three have huge contracts, dragic is just average. no growth potential in there at all. EDIT: also, now the clips have no depth. paul gordon butler griffin ??? are the clips going to match golden state's 4 years and 40M for jordan? i think it's a ridiculous offer, actually, for someone who has zero offense. 6~7 per year, you match without hesitation, but 10? eh.... bench: foye, gomes, mo williams. uhh... wasn't it 4 year 44 or something and clippers offered 5 years 40? it'll be tough for them to match it, but that's one insane team! get to keep gordon, get rid of kamans dead body and pretty much just twolves first round pick... wth was stern thinking...the lakers/rockets trade was FAR more benefitial than this... with jordan, you don't need him there for offense, gordon/butler/paul/griffin is more than enough, he'd be there to clean stuff up, clog the lane, grab the boards and that's about it. i'd let him go and try to get dalembert on the cheap. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13536 Posts
No way in hell they're going to flip those contracts into decent young talent or high lotto picks. So they've basically wasted 2-3 years in NBA purgatory (with little more than a first round sweep--and that's optimistic) and will have to rebuild anyway from the same spot they'd be if they just let Paul walk or got young talent/picks. People need to stop looking at the face value of the trade and look long term. That trade was going to set back the Hornets and Rockets many years. Maybe some people are happy seeing their team just make the Playoffs/have a semi decent run, but if you're serious about seeing your team actually CONTEND then you would hate that deal. Hate it. | ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
On December 12 2011 19:56 RowdierBob wrote: People need to stop looking at the face value of the trade and look long term. That trade was going to set back the Hornets and Rockets many years. Maybe some people are happy seeing their team just make the Playoffs/have a semi decent run, but if you're serious about seeing your team actually CONTEND then you would hate that deal. Hate it. we ain't contending with scola/martin/lowry. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13536 Posts
Still not brilliant considering they're losing a player of Paul's caliber, but this IS the best deal on the table for them. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13536 Posts
On December 12 2011 19:58 Doraemon wrote: we ain't contending with scola/martin/lowry. Yeah, but you can turn them into better assets than Pau, IMO. But I know not everyone agrees with me on this. | ||
|
Zidane
United States1692 Posts
| ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13536 Posts
| ||
|
Rikke
Germany302 Posts
On December 12 2011 20:03 RowdierBob wrote: Looks like the Hornets are getting Kaman, Aminu, Bledsloe and Minn 1st rounder for Paul. Still not brilliant considering they're losing a player of Paul's caliber, but this IS the best deal on the table for them. No way! This deal would be horrible for NOH in Comparison to the LAL/HOU Trade. And the Clippers with CP3, Gordon, Butler and Griffin? | ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
On December 12 2011 20:07 Zidane wrote: Wait so with this deal? Do they have paul for 1 or 2 years? i think clippers said they will only trade if paul signs the 1 year extension. so 2 years i would think | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
I don't know if you guys are serious here. On December 12 2011 20:39 Doraemon wrote: i think clippers said they will only trade if paul signs the 1 year extension. so 2 years i would think They want Chris Paul to pick up his option on the contract. Considering he said he wanted to play with Eric Gordon and Blake Griffin, I don't see why he wouldn't. Either way seems like Laker fans are taking this the hardest out of anyone. | ||
|
AntiGrav1ty
Germany2310 Posts
| ||
| ||
