451 replies to this topic

[BigMike]

He won't leave all that money on the table. He'll resign with the Hornets and will then be shopped.

I still believe the most likely explanation is that a prospective buyer nixed the deal. Either he (or she) didn't like the trade or was not kept in the loop and wanted more time for due diligence. I could very easily imagine a prospective buyer calling Stern and saying "How do you expect me to sell tickets when my marquee player is Luis Scola?"

If the new owner thinks he is going to have Chris PAul as a marquee player moving forward then he is a fool. And if the new owner thinks they are going to somehow get more of a fair value deal moving forward, then he is crazy

[TOleary25]

And what if Howard ends up going to the Lakers now?

Then Howard is on the Lakers and probably gets extended. Orlando isn't in the same position as New Orleans and Stern probably wouldn't veto a trade from a team with an owner already established.

[Brickowski]

If the new owner thinks he is going to have Chris PAul as a marquee player moving forward then he is a fool. And if the new owner thinks they are going to somehow get more of a fair value deal moving forward, then he is crazy

Maybe he just doesn't believe in giving up a perrenial all-star in his prime for bits and pieces, none of which even constitutes a legitimate building block going forward.

[ivanvamp]

The NBA has found a way to become both a sports league and a sitcom -- like a male version of Us Weekly. Props.

Incredible athletes, referees on the take, interfering commissioner, soap-opera storylines.....

.....welcome to the WWE!!

[Burt Reynoldz]

Maybe he just doesn't believe in giving up a perrenial all-star in his prime for bits and pieces, none of which even constitutes a legitimate building block going forward.

I love how you say this like it means anything.

It's clear from the various trade rumors we've heard that NOBODY was going to give up a marquee young player/building block for 66 games of Chris Paul. The "bits and pieces" weren't bad - Scola and Martin are good players, as is Odom, and they're getting back a 2012 first-rounder. People are reacting like this trade was flat-out robbery, and it wasn't. If I'm the Hornets, I'd rather have Scola/Martin/Odom + bonus 2012 first round pick, all of which will help the team in future seasons, than 66 games of Chris Paul when you KNOW he's not re-signing with NO.

If anything, I think this trade seemed weird for the Lakers - yeah, you'd have Kobe and Chris Paul, but then what? No way do you land Howard with Bynum alone, and that supporting cast would be thin as hell.

[Super Nomario]

If anything, I think this trade seemed weird for the Lakers - yeah, you'd have Kobe and Chris Paul, but then what? No way do you land Howard with Bynum alone, and that supporting cast would be thin as hell.

The Lakers would have thrown in a draft pick, and taking Odom and Gasol off the books would give them the room to take on one or two of the Magic's bad contracts.

[Ed Hillel]

I love how you say this like it means anything.

It's clear from the various trade rumors we've heard that NOBODY was going to give up a marquee young player/building block for 66 games of Chris Paul.

Except the Celtics?

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Except the Celtics?

The jury is out as to whether Rondo is a building block. I'd say that the league's reaction to his being made available to pretty much everybody this week tells you an awful lot.

[CreightonGubanich]

Stern's decision had absolutely nothing to do with the return the Hornets were getting. NO was in a tough position, and you'll never get a "fair" return when everyone knows you have to trade your superstar. But that was a pretty good haul, all things considered. They'd still likely be a playoff team. They're certainly worse off now, if Paul leaves at the end of the year for nothing. The scary thing about this whole soap opera is that the trade was only vetoed because it was the Lakers making the deal. That's it. It wasn't one sided, there was nothing nefarious about it...David Stern just decided that now was a bad time to have one more superstar headed to a big market team. Just an awful day for the league.

What's weird is what the hell does Chris Paul do now? The Lakers don't have the cap space to sign him as a free agent. New York was also screwed by Stern - they took themselves out of the running by signing Tyson Chandler, thinking Paul was already gone. If the Nets trade for Howard, Paul can't go play with him because D-Will is there. Who does that leave for decent teams with cap space in a desirable location?

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

Edited by BannedbyNYYFans.com, 09 December 2011 - 02:34 PM.

[Jeff Van GULLY]

Looks like LA and Houston are trying to tinker with the deal but the Hornets have not been given guidance on what would be acceptable.

My guess that guidance includes not dealing CP3 to the Lakers.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Stern's decision had absolutely nothing to do with the return the Hornets were getting. NO was in a tough position, and you'll never get a "fair" return when everyone knows you have to trade your superstar. But that was a pretty good haul, all things considered. They'd still likely be a playoff team. They're certainly worse off now, if Paul leaves at the end of the year for nothing. The scary thing about this whole soap opera is that the trade was only vetoed because it was the Lakers making the deal. That's it. It wasn't one sided, there was nothing nefarious about it...David Stern just decided that now was a bad time to have one more superstar headed to a big market team. Just an awful day for the league.

What's weird is what the hell does Chris Paul do now? The Lakers don't have the cap space to sign him as a free agent. New York was also screwed by Stern - they took themselves out of the running by signing Tyson Chandler, thinking Paul was already gone. If the Nets trade for Howard, Paul can't go play with him because D-Will is there. Who does that leave for decent teams with cap space in a desirable location?

The Clippers, I guess. Another big market team.

[Brickowski]

I would have very little problem with the deal if Bynum were going to the Hornets instead of Odom. Bynum, a young center with skills, would potentially be a building block for NO. Odom isn't. Of course, including Bynum would have made it impossible for the Lakers to get Howard also.

Edited by Brickowski, 09 December 2011 - 02:41 PM.

[CreightonGubanich]

The Clippers, I guess. Another big market team.

I guess they could end up being the big winner in all of this. If they can sign Chris Paul without parting with Eric Gordon, they could have a real contender. Paul, Gordon, Griffin and Jordan (if they can find a way to bring him back) is a nice young core. Of course, that assumes that Paul would sign with the Clippers.

[Lose Remerswaal]

Stern just negated the Kardashian divorce

[Ed Hillel]

The jury is out as to whether Rondo is a building block. I'd say that the league's reaction to his being made available to pretty much everybody this week tells you an awful lot.

Well, I'm not sure it says that much because there really aren't too many other teams that the trade would make sense to the Celtics for other than New Orleans. He may be available, but there weren't many realistic landing spots outside of New Orleans when you consider the needs of the Celtics as well.

I'd say with high confidence that Rondo is a top 10 PG in the NBA, whether or not that constitutes a building block is up for question, I suppose.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Quote from an NBA exec to Adrian Wojnarowski:

As teams wait to re-engage Hornets on Chris Paul, here's one executive: "Truly feel for those guys, but we're all gonna lowball them now."

https://twitter.com/#!/WojYahooNBA/status/145230928392884224

[JokersWildJIMED]

Stern's decision had absolutely nothing to do with the return the Hornets were getting. NO was in a tough position, and you'll never get a "fair" return when everyone knows you have to trade your superstar. But that was a pretty good haul, all things considered. They'd still likely be a playoff team. They're certainly worse off now, if Paul leaves at the end of the year for nothing. The scary thing about this whole soap opera is that the trade was only vetoed because it was the Lakers making the deal. That's it. It wasn't one sided, there was nothing nefarious about it...David Stern just decided that now was a bad time to have one more superstar headed to a big market team. Just an awful day for the league.

What's weird is what the hell does Chris Paul do now? The Lakers don't have the cap space to sign him as a free agent. New York was also screwed by Stern - they took themselves out of the running by signing Tyson Chandler, thinking Paul was already gone. If the Nets trade for Howard, Paul can't go play with him because D-Will is there. Who does that leave for decent teams with cap space in a desirable location?

What the Hornets were getting back was crap. The league is a superstar league and the players it was getting back were merely good players on good teams, but only average players on a bad teams like the Hornets.

What does Paul do now? Are you kidding me? How about play out his contract and enter free agency at the end of the season, and either re-sign with the Hornets or go to a team with cap room. The attitude that is being spouted that this is such a bad day for the league is absurd, unless you believe that the league is best served by having superstars make up their own teams. The CBA was specifically written to try to avoid that, and that is what Paul (and the Lakers) tried to circumvent. I applaud Stern for doing what he did, although talking heads with their own agendas disagree.

[DrewDawg]

The league can't possibly get away with trading him at this point, though, can they? I mean, it would have to be to the Lakers, if at all. If they, say, took the Celtics deal now, it would look hilariously bad.

They already look hilariously bad.

Edited by DrewDawg, 09 December 2011 - 03:11 PM.

[DrewDawg]

Quote from an NBA exec to Adrian Wojnarowski:


Quote


As teams wait to re-engage Hornets on Chris Paul, here's one executive: "Truly feel for those guys, but we're all gonna lowball them now."



https://twitter.com/...230928392884224

That seems backwards to me. Clearly if Stern is going to agree to a CP3 deal at this point, lowballing won't get it done..it's going to have to be something seen as a superior offer than what they shot down.

[Super Nomario]

The attitude that is being spouted that this is such a bad day for the league is absurd, unless you believe that the league is best served by having superstars make up their own teams. The CBA was specifically written to try to avoid that, and that is what Paul (and the Lakers) tried to circumvent.

No, it wasn't. It was written to reduce player costs and increase owner profits. If they'd wanted to avoid superstars making up their own teams, they could have written a CBA that would do that (for instance, removing the cap on individual player salaries).

[ivanvamp]

What the Hornets were getting back was crap. The league is a superstar league and the players it was getting back were merely good players on good teams, but only average players on a bad teams like the Hornets.

What does Paul do now? Are you kidding me? How about play out his contract and enter free agency at the end of the season, and either re-sign with the Hornets or go to a team with cap room. The attitude that is being spouted that this is such a bad day for the league is absurd, unless you believe that the league is best served by having superstars make up their own teams. The CBA was specifically written to try to avoid that, and that is what Paul (and the Lakers) tried to circumvent. I applaud Stern for doing what he did, although talking heads with their own agendas disagree.

I don't feel bad for Paul. He's going to make a dumptruck load of money playing a game. But it *is* a bad thing for the league to step in and nix this trade. Look, here are the relevant facts (as far as I understand them):

- Chris Paul has made it clear that he will *NOT* be re-signing with the Hornets.

- The Hornets, therefore, had two options: (1) Trade him and try to maximize the return for him (either trade him now or at the trade deadline or after the season in a sign-and-trade); or (2) let him go as a free agent and get nothing for him.

- Option (2) is perfectly valid - forcing Paul to play out his contract and let him leave as a FA and ultimately make less money (only NO could give him the absolute max contract). But that doesn't really help the Hornets, does it? Only by trading him could they assure themselves of getting as good a return as possible for him.

- After shopping Paul around a lot, they deemed (rightly or wrongly) that this deal with the Lakers and Rockets was the best deal they had available. I think the deal is totally defensible for them, given the first premise above. So they pulled the trigger.

Now, why is the league saying no to this? They are stating that it's in the best interest of the.......HORNETS!?? Seriously? Either they trade Paul or they go to option 2, which sinks them as a franchise, really. What this really is is a bunch of owners not wanting the Lakers to get Paul and (presumably) Dwight Howard. They don't care about what's in the best interest of the Hornets. They care about the Lakers building a megapower out West.

So they used their power to nix a legitimate trade because they didn't want LA to get too good. Talk about a conflict of interest. This has nothing to do with the Hornets, but everything to do with the other teams protecting themselves from the big, bad, Lakers.

[scottyno]

at this point the best thing for the hornets might be if paul tries to pout and sit out the year, hornets are so bad without paul they're pretty much a lock for a top 5 pick in a stacked draft, and then they can still sign and trade him in the offseason if they want to and add a few more picks for the future

[CreightonGubanich]

What the Hornets were getting back was crap. The league is a superstar league and the players it was getting back were merely good players on good teams, but only average players on a bad teams like the Hornets.

What does Paul do now? Are you kidding me? How about play out his contract and enter free agency at the end of the season, and either re-sign with the Hornets or go to a team with cap room. The attitude that is being spouted that this is such a bad day for the league is absurd, unless you believe that the league is best served by having superstars make up their own teams. The CBA was specifically written to try to avoid that, and that is what Paul (and the Lakers) tried to circumvent. I applaud Stern for doing what he did, although talking heads with their own agendas disagree.

That's great. Please point out the teams willing to trade a superstar to the Hornets in exchange for Chris Paul. I'll wait.

It's not like they have a choice here. Chris Paul is not re-signing in New Orleans. They aren't going anywhere this year, and need to take what they can. There are dozens of past trades to look at for precedence - seriously, look at the package that Denver got for Carmelo Anthony and tell me this was worse.

Chris Paul and the Lakers didn't try to circumvent anything. They executed a perfectly legitimate trade - it's actually up for debate whether that trade in and of itself made the Lakers better or worse. The only thing the Lakers were guilty of was trying to make their team better. The commissioner unilaterally vetoed this deal because people like Dan Gilbert were whining that stars want to play in big cities. This is not a new phenomenon. It's the leverage that free agency creates. But David Stern decided that he should get to decide where the leagues' stars play. It's a travesty and it gives credence to all those conspiracy theorist nuts out there who insist the NBA is rigged.

[Brickowski]

The GM wanted to do a deal and the owner vetoed it. End of story. You don't think Stern made the decision unilaterally, do you?

All trades require final league approval after the league and its capologists have reviewed the deal. I doubt if that happened here.

[Statman]

But David Stern decided that he should get to decide where the leagues' stars play.

And that's better than the stars dictating which teams they want to play for?

Paul can't have his cake and eat it to. If he wants to sign with another team, he's entirely free to do so at the end of the season as long as he is willing to leave a big chunk of money on the table.

[JokersWildJIMED]

So they used their power to nix a legitimate trade because they didn't want LA to get too good. Talk about a conflict of interest. This has nothing to do with the Hornets, but everything to do with the other teams protecting themselves from the big, bad, Lakers.

Comfict of interest? Who doesn't have a conflict of interest here? Certainly everyone reporting on it has such a conflict. It is quite simple...a "league" cannot exist where players are making the teams. If Paul (and Howard, and whoever else) will circumvent the rules (with the help of a handful of complicit teams) then the league cannot survive, despite what the clowns on ESPN state. It is not about protecting the league from the big bad Lakers, but from themselves.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

The GM wanted to do a deal and the owner vetoed it. End of story. You don't think Stern made the decision unilaterally, do you?

All trades require final league approval after the league and its capologists have reviewed the deal. I doubt if that happened here.

Yep, the owner(s) who have a ridiculous conflict of interest and no justifiable reason to veto the deal.

[CreightonGubanich]

And that's better than the stars dictating which teams they want to play for?

Paul can't have his cake and eat it to. If he wants to sign with another team, he's entirely free to do so at the end of the season as long as he is willing to leave a big chunk of money on the table.

But that's all Paul was doing. He didn't orchestrate this deal. Everyone knew Paul's intentions were to sign elsewhere at the end of the season, and he was perfectly within his rights to do so. And by most accounts, he was focused on the Knicks, not L.A. With that knowledge, the Hornets made the best deal they could to get something for him now. What part of this deal was against the rules or shady? The deal was only vetoed because the league didn't like the end result. I'm all for trying to protect the teams in this situation, but this decision did absolutely nothing to protect the Hornets or their viability as a franchise. It did the exact opposite.

I realize it's not a perfect analogy for a few different reasons - but can you imagine if Bud Selig nixed the Adrian Gonzalez deal and told San Diego they had to wait and lose him for nothing in free agency, because he didn't want all the stars bolting to play in the AL East?

[Brickowski]

Yep, the owner(s) who have a ridiculous conflict of interest and no justifiable reason to veto the deal.

There are inherent conflicts of interest when the league owns a team. Maybe there ought to be a rule that in such circumstances the league puts the team in receivership and relinquishes the power to direct its fortunes. But that didn't happen here, and it didn't happen in baseball either.

IMHO the prospective purchaser of the Hornets franchise likely vetoed the deal. If I were the prospective buyer I would have vetoed it too. I would have insisted on Bynum, not Odom.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

There are inherent conflicts of interest when the league owns a team. Maybe there ought to be a rule that in such circumstances the league puts the team in receivership and relinquishes the power to direct its fortunes. But that didn't happen here, and it didn't happen in baseball either.

IMHO the prospective purchaser of the Hornets franchise likely vetoed the deal. If I were the prospective buyer I would have vetoed it too. I would have insisted on Bynum, not Odom.

If that's the case, it's obviously acceptable and I'd have no issue.

[CreightonGubanich]

The GM wanted to do a deal and the owner vetoed it. End of story. You don't think Stern made the decision unilaterally, do you?

All trades require final league approval after the league and its capologists have reviewed the deal. I doubt if that happened here.

But that's a gross oversimplification of what happened here. Under normal circumstances, an owner would veto a deal his GM wanted to make because he thought it was in the best interests of his team. David Stern's protests notwithstanding, I don't see anyone arguing that this decision was in the best interest of the Hornets. If you think it was, you have to show that they either could have signed Paul long term, or gotten a better package for him. All the evidence we've seen so far suggests that neither of those things are true.

[Statman]

But that's all Paul was doing. He didn't orchestrate this deal.

Actually Paul did orchestrate this deal because he made it clear that he would only re-sign with certain teams if he was traded to them.

The reason the Clippers and Warriors did not include young potential stars like Eric Gordon and Stephen Curry is because Paul would not give those teams any assurance that he would re-sign with them. Thus, NO was put in a bad position because they were forced to deal with teams that Paul would re-sign with because no rational team is going to give up good talent for a 5 month rental.

The teams that Paul said he would re-sign with? The Lakers and the Knicks. The latter had no assets to trade so NO was left with only one team that fit Paul's demand.

Edited by Statman, 09 December 2011 - 03:47 PM.

[Meff Nelton]

What the Hornets were getting back was crap. The league is a superstar league and the players it was getting back were merely good players on good teams, but only average players on a bad teams like the Hornets.

What does Paul do now? Are you kidding me? How about play out his contract and enter free agency at the end of the season, and either re-sign with the Hornets or go to a team with cap room. The attitude that is being spouted that this is such a bad day for the league is absurd, unless you believe that the league is best served by having superstars make up their own teams. The CBA was specifically written to try to avoid that, and that is what Paul (and the Lakers) tried to circumvent. I applaud Stern for doing what he did, although talking heads with their own agendas disagree.

The CBA suborns stars dictating exactly where they want to play by treating Joe Johnson as an equal to LeBron James. The minute a player like Chris Paul can get paid what he is actually worth is the minute he cannot play with a top-5 player unless he is drafted to do so.

[PBDWake]

Comfict of interest? Who doesn't have a conflict of interest here? Certainly everyone reporting on it has such a conflict. It is quite simple...a "league" cannot exist where players are making the teams. If Paul (and Howard, and whoever else) will circumvent the rules (with the help of a handful of complicit teams) then the league cannot survive, despite what the clowns on ESPN state. It is not about protecting the league from the big bad Lakers, but from themselves.

By all accounts, that's not what happened here. Chris Paul didn't force his way to the Lakers. Apparently he wanted to be in New York. New York couldn't saddle up a half decent trade offer due to what they expended on Carmelo Anthony. He said he wasn't going to sign an extension in a place he didn't want to be. Something he's completely within his rights to do. The Lakers ponied up the best offer for him, and despite what many of you think about what teams SHOULD want from a trade, they had an offer of a top-15 player for him in Pau Gasol, and they opted to then move him on to Houston for more pieces, because that's what they determined was better for their team. Chris Paul apparently liked the Lakers, although no guarantee of an extension was made, and they got him. And it's not like players are never traded without extension guarantees (See Williams, Deron).

This is precisely nothing like a player deciding he's going to make the team. But the NBA brought this on themselves with the stupid salary structure of an NBA. When you cap individual player salaries, and have a salary cap that allows for multiple max contracts to fit under the cap, you're going to wind up with most of the best players in their primes gathered in one of 3 places: 1) Where they want to live, 2) Where tax implications make it more profitable, and 3) Where it's super easy to win and play with your friends. When two or more overlap, there's even more of an incentive. If there was no max salary for individual players, the Lakers can't afford to pay Paul, Kobe, and whomever else.

Side note: I'm about 100% sure I didn't here any of this "players making the teams" when Bill Walton requested the Celtics or Lakers acquire him. Or when Kevin Garnett wouldn't come to the Celtics until they got a better supporting cast, and we sent out an inferior package than this Lakers package for Garnett and Allen combined.

[Tony C]

I fully agree. Bynum makes this deal work for everyone.

I guess they could end up being the big winner in all of this. If they can sign Chris Paul without parting with Eric Gordon, they could have a real contender. Paul, Gordon, Griffin and Jordan (if they can find a way to bring him back) is a nice young core. Of course, that assumes that Paul would sign with the Clippers.

I think Paul would sign with the Clippers -- great city, warm, lots of media opportunities, and a chance to win with a great young core. Assuming Howard goes to the Nets, then in the long run that will be seen as a triumph for the league. 2 competitive teams in NY and 2 in L.A., plus Chicago and Miami -- major markets are covered, but more equitably. And, if so, for all the criticism Stern is getting, he'll be proven smart.

[CreightonGubanich]

Actually Paul did orchestrate this deal because he made it clear that he would only re-sign with certain teams if he was traded to them.

The reason the Clippers and Warriors did not include young potential stars like Eric Gordon and Stephen Curry is because Paul would not give those teams any assurance that he would re-sign with them. Thus, NO was put in a bad position because they were forced to deal with teams that Paul would re-sign with because no rational team is going to give up good talent for a 5 month rental.

The teams that Paul said he would re-sign with? The Lakers and the Knicks. The latter had no assets to trade so NO was left with only one team that fit Paul's demand.

Yup. That's a tough spot for New Orleans to be in, no doubt. But that's what happens in a league with a salary cap and cap on individual player salaries. Because individual players have such an impact on the success of a franchise, they have a tremendous amount of leverage. But such is the nature of free agency. Paul has every right to pick where he wants to go next year. And New Orleans, once they have that information, has every right to make the best of it. It's not like there weren't other offers - they could have dealt him to Boston for Rondo, but they made the decision that the Houston/LA package was better.

If you (not you specifically) don't like that series of events, then find a way to rework the salary structure of the league so this doesn't happen as much. But it's not new - stars want to play in big markets like LA and New York. Free agency gives them the right to do so. Maybe that's a problem, but the way to solve it isn't by vetoing trades that are perfectly within the rules just because you don't like the outcome.

[Beomoose]

If you (not you specifically) don't like that series of events, then find a way to rework the salary structure of the league so this doesn't happen as much. But it's not new - stars want to play in big markets like LA and New York. Free agency gives them the right to do so. Maybe that's a problem, but the way to solve it isn't by vetoing trades that are perfectly within the rules just because you don't like the outcome.

You make an excellent point, however it bears repeating that as owners of NO, the NBA (through Stern) has every right to overrule the team's GM and veto a trade.

[irishtap03]

No, it wasn't. It was written to reduce player costs and increase owner profits. If they'd wanted to avoid superstars making up their own teams, they could have written a CBA that would do that (for instance, removing the cap on individual player salaries).

Yes, this is 100% correct. The owners were so hell bent on getting every percentage point they could from the $$$ side of it that they gave in on this side of the deal and now the owners want to have it both ways. They could have very easily gotten some form of a franchise tag etc into this deal to protect superstars from controlling the league but they couldn't come to grips with giving up anymore money. So now teams that aren't the big dogs are left to hope they hit the lottery, draft well and surround a young superstar with talent and win early so they can entice a superstar to stay. San Antonio is a perfect model of how it can work but it is not easy.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Talks between NO, LAL, and HOU are back on, according to Woj Twitter.

[CreightonGubanich]

You make an excellent point, however it bears repeating that as owners of NO, the NBA (through Stern) has every right to overrule the team's GM and veto a trade.

Right, but if they do so for reasons other than the best interest of the Hornets, they're on the wrong side of an already blatant conflict of interest. Despite what Stern says, I can't find a credible argument that this decision makes the Hornets better off. Especially if, as Simmons alluded to in his article, the message wasn't just "not this trade" but "Paul has to spend the entire year in New Orleans".

[Gdiguy]

You make an excellent point, however it bears repeating that as owners of NO, the NBA (through Stern) has every right to overrule the team's GM and veto a trade.

While this is absolutely true, I have to think that this power has almost never been used because there's a very very significant concern of both the appearance of, and possible lawsuit over, collusion.

It certainly seems that 28 owners decided to nix a trade that was beneficial for both the Hornets and the Lakers, and thus nix Paul's ability to get a max contract from the Lakers, because making the Lakers better would hurt the rest of their chances at winning a championship (disregarding whether or not this deal actually makes the Lakers better). To me, that's nudging so close to the line that it opens up the possibility of a serious lawsuit, which regardless of whether it could actually win, would be a complete disaster for the league.

[kazuneko]

I wonder if Howard ends up traded to NJ if that will change anything. I imagine the big fear among many of the owners is LA landing both Paul and Howard. If all they acquire is Paul (at the cost of Gasol and Odom) its not even clear if that improves their team (because of Paul's age its still worth doing but it won't make them instant favorites or anything). As long as they can't also acquire Howard I'd be fine with this going through...

[The Social Chair]

This trade will happen. Hopefully Dwight ends up in Brooklyn, and the Lakers are left hoping that Bynum doesn't get injured because they will have no frontline.

[tbrown_01923]

Talks between NO, LAL, and HOU are back on, according to Woj Twitter.

Wait, now this has to comply to the new CBA - right? How does that change things.

this is like reality TV, train wreck after train wreck, and I feel stupider for watching. but i can't seem to turn my head away...

[Brickowski]

Actually this new CBA does impose significant financial penalties on "Bird level" players like Chris Paul who want the right to choose their teams. Also, I believe that all sign and trades are limited to 4 year deals with 4.5% raises. There are significant financial rewards for big stars who resign with their own teams.

[kazuneko]

This trade will happen. Hopefully Dwight ends up in Brooklyn, and the Lakers are left hoping that Bynum doesn't get injured because they will have no frontline.

Yeah...I really think that -one way or another- this will be resolved by the Howard situation. If LA acquires him using a Bynum +Gasol package the Paul trade becomes moot. If a different team acquires Howard the league probably ends up approving the original trade.

Edited by kazuneko, 09 December 2011 - 04:31 PM.

[Marbleheader]

The only way to rectify this is to make a similar trade with the same teams (maybe adding a 4th), but with more coming back to NO. He can't be traded anywhere else.

[Jeff Van GULLY]

The only way to rectify this is to make a similar trade with the same teams (maybe adding a 4th), but with more coming back to NO. He can't be traded anywhere else.

I wonder if they now bring in Bynum and Okafor as part of the trade.

LA: CP3/Okafor
Hou: Gasol
NO: Bynum/Scola/etc...

[Super Nomario]

Actually this new CBA does impose significant financial penalties on "Bird level" players like Chris Paul who want the right to choose their teams. Also, I believe that all sign and trades are limited to 4 year deals with 4.5% raises. There are significant financial rewards for big stars who resign with their own teams.

Right, so the new MO is for players to shoot their way out of town the year before they become FAs rather than after. It took players and agents all of one day to figure this out; you think the owners would have anticipated it.