| Forum Index > General Games |
|
x2fst
1272 Posts
On December 12 2011 20:07 Zidane wrote: clips claim the deal is conditional on paul not using his contract opt-out option next summer and playing out the full 2 years he has left on his deal. clips mgmt probably want to make sure his knees are ok before they sign him to a longer term dealWait so with this deal? Do they have paul for 1 or 2 years? | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13385 Posts
On December 12 2011 20:39 AntiGrav1ty wrote: The deal isnt bad for the hornets in my opinion. You can't get a better draft pick than that per trade. Kaman has an expiring contract and Aminu and Bledsoe are very young with great upside. If you want to rebuild thats the kind of deal you want to make. I think it's the best they can get. They'll probably end up with 2 top 5 picks in this year's mega draft. I don't know why people think a package of KevMart, Scola, Dragic and Odom would have been better than that. | ||
|
Keyboard Warrior
United States1178 Posts
The trend this generation of NBA is players starting to own. Is it good or bad in the long run? I don't know, but something is definitely wrong somewhere if players can bully teams in their control | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
This allows the teams ample time to package their superstar and rebuild quickly. This is great for both parties. Of course there IS one problem: The team you are trading them to wants to make sure that the superstar will sign a contact and not walk away at the end of the year. This eliminates some teams off the market in an already small list of suitors. So while the players themselves can't exactly bully their Franchises around easily, they still have the threat of not signing a long-term contract to lessen their own trade value. It's somewhat good imo since both parties can check each other and have to negotiate and get the best deal for each other. | ||
|
VENDIZ
1575 Posts
| ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
On December 12 2011 21:32 VENDIZ wrote: Can anyone give me an overview of who the Clippers are sending to the Hornets for Paul? Was it Bledsoe, Aminu & Kaman? If the Clippers can hold on to DeAndre Jordan and getting Paul at the same time, then they've got a fierce team for the upcoming season (and years to come).. yer. bledsoe, aminu, kaman and mini's first round pick (unprotected for clippers, but they may have protected it for the trade to NO). i honestly don't think they can hold onto jordan unless they amnesty someone, probably mo. | ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
On December 12 2011 21:24 Ace wrote: It's a good thing and it isn't new. Technically what Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, and Carmelo Anthony are doing is great: Before their contract runs out they are telling their teams "I don't think I'm going to re-sign here. Trade me now so you can get something for me". This allows the teams ample time to package their superstar and rebuild quickly. This is great for both parties. Of course there IS one problem: The team you are trading them to wants to make sure that the superstar will sign a contact and not walk away at the end of the year. This eliminates some teams off the market in an already small list of suitors. So while the players themselves can't exactly bully their Franchises around easily, they still have the threat of not signing a long-term contract to lessen their own trade value. It's somewhat good imo since both parties can check each other and have to negotiate and get the best deal for each other. I wouldn't think it was a bad thing if players did this less publicly. If you know that a player isn't going to re-sign with a team, it's going to be a lot easier to get him for less. Another thing, someone mentioned that Chris Paul's trade dependent on him finishing 2 his player option? Can't happen without new contract. | ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On December 12 2011 16:14 Ace wrote: 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. My first sentence was confusing now that I'm looking back at it. I was trying to say that it's quite an assumption that no owner or GM would have taken the Lakers/Rockets deal since one GM (Demps) did. The bottom line though is that the rest of the team owners should not have had any input or part in whether the trade went through. Anyone can say "I would never have accepted this trade..." when they have an interest in not letting it go through, but the fact is that many trades like that have been negotiated between GMs and owners in the past with no interference by the league. Sure, you and some others thought that it was a bad deal for the Hornets in light of their situation, but none of us are the ones who were appointed to make these types of decisions for the Hornets. 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. Actually, this deal was no more public than many other blockbuster trades (except that ninja trade involving Deron last season that came out of nowhere). Lots of trades involving a superstar like Paul get leaked and there are often a ton of rumors going around leading up to the execution of the trade. While some of the details sometimes get confused or are left out, the media usually finds a way to sniff out huge trades as they're being negotiated, particularly when they're close to going through. This deal also indicated no improprieties such as collusion or someone not doing their job in the best manner they could. Again, many trades worse than, or at least comparable to, this one have gone through in the past. The only difference is that parties with a clear conflict of interest had final say over whether the trade could go through. 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. While it's true that Demps is just the GM and does not have final say, he was (as I've read and understood it) given complete autonomy and authority to negotiate the best deal he believed he could get for the Hornets with Paul. Other teams were told this, as was Demps. While a GM agreeing to a trade typically should not, and does not, mean it should go through, this was a special case in that he was a neutral party appointed by the NBA to make that determination since the actual "owners" had a clear and undeniable conflict of interest. At that point, the League Office and Stern should only have stepped in to block the trade if there was some indication of impropriety. They should never have been the ones to determine whether it was in the "best interest" of the Hornets because they could not possibly be looking out for the best interests of the Hornets alone due to their other roles. It was, and is, impossible for Stern to be looking out for the best interests of just the Hornets as its "owner", while also complying with his obligations and duties as commissioner to the league as a whole. People can pretend that they can put on different "hats" and change their mindsets according to what role they are acting in at the moment, but it's just not possible. That's why conflict of interest situations are never tolerated, either legally or as a matter of practice, anywhere. Whether or not anyone believes that it was better for the Hornets to be purchased by the NBA is irrelevant when determining whether Stern should have had the final say on the trade as its "owner" while also being commissioner. It's inherently unfair and illegal, and there's a lawsuit there if someone chooses to pursue it. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely anyone will because the Paul-Clippers trade is going to go through and wipe the Lakers/Rockets deal from everyone's memories. The worst part about that is that Stern, as an attorney himself, knows full well that what he did was illegal and unethical, but he's going to get away with it free and clear. 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. The Hornets weren't getting those offers, they were asking for them. However, because the Warriors and Clippers were unwilling to give them what they wanted (Curry, Gordon, Minnesota's pick, etc.), they went with the next best thing which was the Lakers/Rockets trade (all indications are that they were never interested in Rondo, and thus any deal the Celtics sent their way). While none of us know for sure exactly what was offered to the Hornets at the time of the Lakers/Rockets trade, I don't remember reading a single report of the Warriors agreeing to offer up Curry, or the Clippers offering up Gordon or the Minnesota pick. There were also no indications that Paul was willing to agree to play out an additional year for either team at that time either, which is one of the main reasons the Clippers trade is going through now. All reports indicate that Paul only shifted his preference to the Clippers (and thus agreed to play another year for them) after it became apparent that the Lakers and Knicks were out of the picture, which again shows that Stern's decision changed everything and forced a new landscape that resulted in the current offers. 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. Change the term "Neutral Manager" to neutral party if you want, but the bottom line is that he was the only person involved in the decision-making who didn't have a conflict of interest. We can also change the title of the people playing in fantasy basketball league to "owners", and the title of the neutral party to be "substitute owner" if you want. The parallel is there in that the teams are typically all owned by owners, one of the teams had to become "owned" by the rest of the owners, and a neutral party (whatever you want to call him) was brought in to make decisions because the rest of the owners would have inherent bias if allowed to make decisions on player moves for one of their competitors. Also, I never said in the scenario that the rest of the league were supposed to have authority to veto the trade. They had all agreed beforehand to let X have that authority, but blatantly ignored that agreement at their convenience at your expense. Those were the rules they all agreed to, but they broke them themselves. | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
| ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
| ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that the Hornets aren't getting a better trade, that is a fact -specially the way things are going now and the NBA is imposing its will- but the legality of Stern imposing on the trade. | ||
|
VENDIZ
1575 Posts
.. I know it's a lot of "if's and but's", but that's what I imagine is going through the heads of the people in charge with the Clippers at the moment. Also, keep in mind they wouldn't want to trade Eric Gordon, which makes what they have to offer limited (Blake Griffin is of course not going anywhere) Edit: OK, just got word that the CP3 to LAC deal is off.. people are speculating if Stern nixed this trade aswell! .. and DeAndre Jordan just signed for GSW. | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
| ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On December 13 2011 03:24 VENDIZ wrote: Well, in short-term I can see why the Clippers would make a trade like this. They've already secured Caron Butler, and if he stays healthy, Aminu's playing time would be kept to a minimum (given he didn't get traded obviously). With CP3 on board, it would be a battle for the backup PG spot between Mo Williams and Bledsoe (and I'm guessing the Clippers offered Williams before Bledsoe, but given how the Hornets want to rebuild, they'd never accept him).. and if they do well with CP3 in the coming season, an extension would be probable, which would've made Bledsoe nothing more than a backup for most of his career with LAC (given that CP3 is also young). As for trading Kaman... I guess they're going to match GSW's offer for DeAndre Jordan? If not, than I'm not sure what they're planning.. .. I know it's a lot of "if's and but's", but that's what I imagine is going through the heads of the people in charge with the Clippers at the moment. Also, keep in mind they wouldn't want to trade Eric Gordon, which makes what they have to offer limited (Blake Griffin is of course not going anywhere) Edit: OK, just got word that the CP3 to LAC deal is off.. people are speculating if Stern nixed this trade aswell! .. and DeAndre Jordan just signed for GSW. Source please on both? DeAndre is restricted. We can freaking match. Don't tell me we didn't match. EDIT: And if Stern nixed a trade where they could have gotten E freaking J and an unlimited 1st round pick, then he's a big fat dummy. | ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
| ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On December 13 2011 04:22 slyboogie wrote: Source please on both? DeAndre is restricted. We can freaking match. Don't tell me we didn't match. EDIT: And if Stern nixed a trade where they could have gotten E freaking J and an unlimited 1st round pick, then he's a big fat dummy. I can't find anything stating that Clippers didn't match GSW's offer sheet for DeAndre. I don't think it's been decided yet. I believe Clippers backed away because they were unwilling to trade both Gordon and the Minnesota pick for Paul. I agree with their refusal, because it makes no sense to give up so much when they're basically bidding against themselves. | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On December 13 2011 04:33 XaI)CyRiC wrote: I can't find anything stating that Clippers didn't match GSW's offer sheet for DeAndre. I don't think it's been decided yet. I believe Clippers backed away because they were unwilling to trade both Gordon and the Minnesota pick for Paul. I agree with their refusal, because it makes no sense to give up so much when they're basically bidding against themselves. Thatt's exactly right. There's no reason to offer so much for a commodity that's about to enter the free market. A market where the Clippers would be armed with tons of cap space and 2 young superstars under cost control + their 2 draft picks in one of the richest drafts in recent memory + 3 project potential players. Cmon. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Such a depressing article for Pistons fans. ._. The tldr is: Player A: 15.5 points, 5.2 assists, 3.1 rebounds, 31.2 minutes per game. A is Stuckey, he wants 10 million per year.Player B: 11.2 points, 2.1 assists, 44% field-goal shooting, 26 minutes. Player C: 11.1 points, 3.9 rebounds, 44.2% field-goal shooting, 21.9 minutes. B is Ben Gordon, he's getting 11.6 (9.3 with shortened season) million per year C is Charlie V, getting 7.5 per year. This team is a complete mess. I wonder if the Pistons can trade for extra amnesty clauses... Also, I wonder where Chauncey ends up. He said he wants to play a significant role (not mentor) on a competitive team. No idea how much money he's looking for (it sounds like money isn't an issue), but quite a few very good teams come to mind that are light at PG. o.o He's still 35 and in good condition for the type of game he plays. I don't know if he's lost a step at all, but he used to dominate CP3 and other small guards. The Mavs lost JJ Barea and Kidd is getting a bit older, and the Lakers just have Steve Blake. The Heat have been mentioned, but it seems like they're committed to Chalmers now plus they have enough players that dominate the ball. Mavs seem like the best fit, even if he has to share time with Kidd. | ||
|
VENDIZ
1575 Posts
On December 13 2011 04:22 slyboogie wrote: Source please on both? DeAndre is restricted. We can freaking match. Don't tell me we didn't match. EDIT: And if Stern nixed a trade where they could have gotten E freaking J and an unlimited 1st round pick, then he's a big fat dummy. My bad, I misread "the fine print" of what DeAndre Jordan's agent had stated! He has signed the offer sheet, so yeah, LAC still have a couple of days to decide. And the CP3 to LAC deal didn't involve Eric Gordon | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Escore
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
OSC
Big Brain Bouts
MaNa vs goblin
Scarlett vs Spirit
Serral vs herO
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
IPSL
WolFix vs nOmaD
dxtr13 vs Razz
BSL
UltrA vs KwarK
Gosudark vs cavapoo
dxtr13 vs HBO
Doodle vs Razz
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
