Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Clippers, Hornets agree in principle to CP3 trade


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
96 replies to this topic

#51 Kutcher Era Youth

  • 128 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 01:04 PM

They also got one of the best players in NBA history for Vlade fucking Divac because Kobe threw a fit and a top 5 big man in NBA history for nothing. The Lakers can indeed suck it. Guess it's not as easy to compete when you're not being gifted all-stars at every turn.


The Lakers can cry about Stern's "unfairness" and pound sand all they want. What's fair about acquiring a superstar despite not having the best offer on the table? What was fair about getting Gasol for jack shit? I hope Stern blocks a D12 trade to the Lakers as well. If Stern didn't put his foot down the Lakers were surely headed for a Kobe/ Paul/ Howard superteam and you just know the next shoe to drop would be the Zen Master's unretirement. Fuck the Lakers, fuck Kobe, and fuck Phil Jackson too.

That's my hot sports take.

#52 nighthob

  • 2821 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 02:05 PM

But in no way did Stern do the right thing. The Clippers deal is better for the Hornets but the Lakers deal was in the zone of fair for the Hornets and Stern had no business stepping in.


Otis Smith and Billy King reached an agreement in principle on a Dwight Howard trade, should Stern step in and overrule Rich DeVos for refusing to sign off on it on the grounds that the GMs agreed? No trade is final until all the owners of the teams involved sign off on the deal. In this case the Hornets' owners balked at paying $60 million to finance Jerry Buss' fantasies. And they were right to do so because they got a much better deal as a result.

#53 Brickowski

  • 3587 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 04:05 PM

But the league doesn't own either the Nets or the Magic. The league does own the Hornets. Why is it so difficult for some people to grasp that Stern was wearing two hats? Lot's of people wear two hats. Here's what Stern himself said about the situation:

"“When we bought the team there was some discussion of whether other owners should be involved in deciding upon transactions because they all owned 1/29, and it was decided, by both the audit committee and the advisory finance committee, that that would not be a tenable arrangement — and that it was best that I be the person to sign off on all transactions,” he said. "There were no other teams involved at all, and in fact, I always thought that the owners were punishing me for making the recommendation to buy the team.”

I'm sure the Lakers were pissed. Kupchack was about to fleece the inexperienced Demps, and Stern wouldn't allow it to happen. Actually, the team that should really be pissed that Stern stepped in is Houston.

#54 lexrageorge

  • 3013 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 04:53 PM

But the league doesn't own either the Nets or the Magic. The league does own the Hornets. Why is it so difficult for some people to grasp that Stern was wearing two hats? Lot's of people wear two hats. Here's what Stern himself said about the situation:

""When we bought the team there was some discussion of whether other owners should be involved in deciding upon transactions because they all owned 1/29, and it was decided, by both the audit committee and the advisory finance committee, that that would not be a tenable arrangement — and that it was best that I be the person to sign off on all transactions," he said. "There were no other teams involved at all, and in fact, I always thought that the owners were punishing me for making the recommendation to buy the team."

I'm sure the Lakers were pissed. Kupchack was about to fleece the inexperienced Demps, and Stern wouldn't allow it to happen. Actually, the team that should really be pissed that Stern stepped in is Houston.


You and others have raised this point, either directly or via implication. It is true that the owner of the Hornets, or any NBA franchise, would have the right to veto a trade made by his GM. So, in isolation, Stern as de-facto owner, did the right thing for the Hornets.

The problem is that Stern is wearing two hats, and wearing them at a time of labor strife (since resolved) and big vs. small market fratricide. The Dan Gilbert letter, while technically irrelevant, just further salts some of those wounds. So, yes, both the Lakers and the Rockets have a right to be pissed at this. Was Stern doing this solely under his own judgment that a better deal could be had? Or was Stern doing this because Gilbert and his ilk had problems with the Lakers being good? Can we ever know the answer?

This is why the appearance of a conflict of interest can be messy, even if the parties claim there is no such conflict.

#55 Brickowski

  • 3587 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 05:00 PM

The conflict of interest was inevitable as soon as the NBA bought the Hornets. Delegating all of the power to Stern was the least of evils, outside of a receivership.

At least Jerry Buss can take solace in the fact that he now owns 1/29th of a more valuable team. He had a conflict of interest too.

Edited by Brickowski, 15 December 2011 - 05:01 PM.


#56 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5644 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 05:01 PM

On the flipside, this pretty much guarantees the Celtics an extra draft pick next summer. Where it lands depends on health and how all the new pieces mesh, but they won't be a bottom 10 team.


Yeah. That's why I was rooting against this. That pick was the Celtics only shot at getting out of cap hell before rondo becomes to old. Oh well.

#57 Mike in CT



  • 2125 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 05:12 PM

Yeah. That's why I was rooting against this. That pick was the Celtics only shot at getting out of cap hell before rondo becomes to old. Oh well.


The Celtics are in great cap shape after this year.
http://hoopshype.com...ries/boston.htm (probably not 100% accurate, but paints the picture well enough)

I do not think the Clipper will be as good as some, and they have key starters who have all missed significant time recently with injuries... and a Center who has proven very little. I'm kind of excited by the thought that the pick could end up in the 11-15 range if things break right.

#58 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3267 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 05:31 PM

The conflict of interest was inevitable as soon as the NBA bought the Hornets. Delegating all of the power to Stern was the least of evils, outside of a receivership.

At least Jerry Buss can take solace in the fact that he now owns 1/29th of a more valuable team. He had a conflict of interest too.


Can we stop saying this like it's fact? The idea that individual players have that much of an effect on a team's valuation is sort of ridiculous. It may hold true in the case of certain guys--LeBron, Howard, and Paul perhaps--but the idea that the difference between Scola/Martin/Dragic/etc. and Gordon/Aminu/etc. is so drastic that it will effect the purchase price and overall valuation of the franchise is crazy. The team's flexible payroll situation may help entice buyers, but it's certainly not going to change the value, because ultimately the team's value has more to do with it's shitty stadium deal, inability to attract sponsors (they play in New Orleans Arena), their inability to sell tickets, and their inability to attract a sizeable television audience. Those elements aren't changing now that Eric Gordon is there.

#59 Brickowski

  • 3587 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 05:35 PM

But at least for now, the payroll is a hell of alot smaller than it would have been if the LA trade had been allowed to proceed. That makes the Hornets much more marketable.

Are you arguing that Buss did not have a conflict of interest?



#60 Statman

  • 585 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 05:48 PM

I'm kind of excited by the thought that the pick could end up in the 11-15 range if things break right.


The Clippers pick was top 10 protected until 2016 so has to be pick 11 and above for us to get it.

#61 Cellar-Door


  • SoSH Member


  • 5395 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 05:54 PM

Anyone else enjoy Holley on WEEI when he kept complaining that Stern and the owners were acting like they own the Hornets over and over?
Umm... Mike.... THEY DO OWN THE HORNETS.

#62 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3267 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 06:29 PM

But at least for now, the payroll is a hell of alot smaller than it would have been if the LA trade had been allowed to proceed. That makes the Hornets much more marketable.

Are you arguing that Buss did not have a conflict of interest?



No, not saying Buss didn't have a conflict of interests, just saying that the franchise's value wasn't really effected by this trade, though it's attractiveness to potential buyers might have been.

#63 Brickowski

  • 3587 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 07:02 PM

Can we agree, then, that the team's "fair market value"-- the price at which the team would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts-- was improved by the trade with the Clippers, as opposed to the proposed trade with the Lakers?



#64 DannyDarwinism

  • 1880 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 07:12 PM

just saying that the franchise's value wasn't really effected by this trade, though it's attractiveness to potential buyers might have been.


But market value is the relevant value here, at least as far as Stern/NBA is concerned. What other "value" are you talking about?

Edit- replied from phone, brevity was necessary, snark was not.

Edited by DannyDarwinism, 15 December 2011 - 07:38 PM.


#65 nighthob

  • 2821 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 07:37 PM

You and others have raised this point, either directly or via implication. It is true that the owner of the Hornets, or any NBA franchise, would have the right to veto a trade made by his GM. So, in isolation, Stern as de-facto owner, did the right thing for the Hornets.

The problem is that Stern is wearing two hats, and wearing them at a time of labor strife (since resolved) and big vs. small market fratricide. The Dan Gilbert letter, while technically irrelevant, just further salts some of those wounds. So, yes, both the Lakers and the Rockets have a right to be pissed at this. Was Stern doing this solely under his own judgment that a better deal could be had? Or was Stern doing this because Gilbert and his ilk had problems with the Lakers being good? Can we ever know the answer?

This is why the appearance of a conflict of interest can be messy, even if the parties claim there is no such conflict.


The problem is that everyone involved had a conflict of interest, including Demps. But you know what? It's ultimately irrelevant because here's the little factoid that you need to respond to. The deal that Demps cut required the other NBA owners to pay $60 million for the privilege of losing as much as another $100 million (in lost re-sale value). Could you show me where in the league constitution that the Lakers and Rockets are entitled to subsidies to finance their dreams?

Here's the deal, LA and Houston were demanding that the other 27 owners pay $60 million in order to take a bath on the sale of the Hornets. Do you really think that the Jerry Bus and Les Alexander should have the right to demand money from the other 27 owners without them having a vote in the matter? If Buss and Alexander were paying 100% of the salaries that they were dumping on the league, no one would have cared. The reason a majority of the owners were up in arms is that the incoming owners would have either demanded that the league pay for all the shitty contracts that LA & Houston were dumping or that they get to make a massive reduction in the purchase price.

You can try and minimize this as much as you want, but at the end of the day these guys all ponied up $12 million to buy the team, and any transaction that would have that sort of impact on the investment has to be voted on by the other investors. And whether you like it or not, that's always how it should be.

#66 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3267 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 08:04 PM


But market value is the relevant value here, at least as far as Stern/NBA is concerned. What other "value" are you talking about?

Edit- replied from phone, brevity was necessary, snark was not.


Sorry, I wasn't particularly clear. By "attractiveness to potential buyers" I meant that a potential buyer might find the Hornets' payroll situation more amenable than they would have if the Lakers deal had been approved, or they might feel that Eric Gordon is a decent piece to have on hand when it comes to building a contender, but that the actual cost (in terms of the money changing hands) of the team won't be any different than it would have been if the Lakers deal had been approved.

#67 ifmanis5


  • SoSH Member


  • 11132 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 08:10 PM

press conference going on now, some truly bizarre statements being thrown around.

#68 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3267 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 08:11 PM

Can we agree, then, that the team's "fair market value"-- the price at which the team would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts-- was improved by the trade with the Clippers, as opposed to the proposed trade with the Lakers?



Honestly, I'm not sure that's the case. I could certainly be convinced otherwise, but it seems like there are so many other economic factors in play here that make this franchise a financial mess that the strength of the roster and the payroll dont seem particularly relevant when talking about the valuation of an asset that's in the $300 million dollar range.

#69 Brickowski

  • 3587 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 08:58 PM

Well, if no one will buy the team, its fair market value is zero. If a buyer threatened to back out if the Laker trade were consummated, that's a $300M swing. If, hypothetically, some other buyer came in and offered $250M for the franchise six months later, thats an adverse swing of $50M, plus the present value of $50M over 6 months at some assumed discount rate plus legal, marketing and carrying costs for six more months.. Jerry Buss and each other NBA owner would each lose around $1.8-1.9M, give or take, in that scenario.

Edited by Brickowski, 15 December 2011 - 09:00 PM.


#70 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 9457 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 09:47 PM

I think it's pretty far from clear that any potential buyer exists, let alone one who cares about whether Luis Scola or Eric Gordon is on the roster. I think that's all that GMB was saying - we don't know that the sale value of the team is going to be affected at all by this trade.

I'm also less certain than most people here that this package is better than the Laker deal, but I don't like Eric Gordon as much as everyone else does.

#71 nighthob

  • 2821 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 11:38 PM

The league already has a buyer lined up, and former Dep. Commissioner Russ Granik has been working with them to ensure a smooth transition. However the league hasn't identified them yet. And there's no way alive that any owner with the sort of money to buy an NBA team could be stupid enough to not understand the difference between "a shitty team strapped to the cap by long term contracts tied up in roleplayer-level talent" and "a shitty team about to land two lottery picks to sell the hell out of".

And, ultimately, it doesn't matter how much you like Eric Gordon, if Dell Demps is desperate for a 31 year old 6'8" PF with no ups and a 29 year old shooting guard that once missed ten games after injuring himself waking up in the morning, he could offer Gordon to Houston and get all that and more. And he'd still have more assets to trade and a second lottery pick to boot. There's literally no comparison between the trades beyond the obvious that they both involved Chris Paul.

#72 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3267 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 08:58 AM

The league already has a buyer lined up, and former Dep. Commissioner Russ Granik has been working with them to ensure a smooth transition. However the league hasn't identified them yet. And there's no way alive that any owner with the sort of money to buy an NBA team could be stupid enough to not understand the difference between "a shitty team strapped to the cap by long term contracts tied up in roleplayer-level talent" and "a shitty team about to land two lottery picks to sell the hell out of".

And, ultimately, it doesn't matter how much you like Eric Gordon, if Dell Demps is desperate for a 31 year old 6'8" PF with no ups and a 29 year old shooting guard that once missed ten games after injuring himself waking up in the morning, he could offer Gordon to Houston and get all that and more. And he'd still have more assets to trade and a second lottery pick to boot. There's literally no comparison between the trades beyond the obvious that they both involved Chris Paul.


Actually, Russ Granik is the reason I brought this up. I remembered an article in Bloomberg during LeBron's free agency where several people were speculating that LeBron leaving Cleveland would cut the value of the franchise by $250 million, but Russ Granik essentially debunked that idea by saying that individual players have an effect on very short term revenue through ticket sales, sponsorship revenue, and depending on the timing, TV revenue, but have virtually no effect on the long term valuation of franchises.

And, let's not lose sight of the fact that in the short term the Hornets would have been a better team with Scola, Martin, Odom and Dragic. They would likely have been a fringe playoff team, and probably would have sold more tickets than the team they're going to put on the floor this season. So in the short term, that team may actually have been better for short term revenue. That said, I think it's pretty well established that to rebuild in most cases rebuilding in the NBA requires blowing your team up and sucking for a couple of years, and as such, the Clippers move is the route that has the potential to be better for New Orleans. But this trade hasn't made it a certainty that the Hornets are back to respectability anytime soon anymore so than landing Al Jefferson did for Minnesota. A lot will have to break right for New Orleans, and they'll have to use those draft picks wisely.

To reiterate, my point in all of this was just to say that with a buyer lined up, I really, highly doubt that the outcome of this trade had any bearing on the price at which the Hornets were being purchased. We're talking about a $300 million dollar asset that may be owned for 30 some odd years.

#73 Tony C


  • SoSH Member


  • 8510 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 09:07 AM

ElUno20, congrats on the off-season moves. As a Celts fan in LA, I must say I really enjoy following the Clippers. They are fun to watch, and have one of the better TV announcing teams in the game. I'm waiting for you to start this years official Clippers thread, as you are probably their truest fan around here. I just went back and re-read last years thread- it's an entertaining read given the recent news surrounding the Clippers, and only 4 pages long.

http://sonsofsamhorn...lippers-thread/

I still want to see how their rotations work, as they are thin up front depth wise and (too?) deep in the back court. But I do think Billups can play the 2 sufficiently, and am excited to see if DeAndre continues to grow as a player as he did last year. It could be a big season for him.

Start the thread, it should get beyond 4 pages this year!


I'm looking forward to Uno's Clips thread, too -- lots of talent, some weird construction of that talent, but....will be fun.

#74 DannyDarwinism

  • 1880 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 10:08 AM

Actually, Russ Granik is the reason I brought this up. I remembered an article in Bloomberg during LeBron's free agency where several people were speculating that LeBron leaving Cleveland would cut the value of the franchise by $250 million, but Russ Granik essentially debunked that idea by saying that individual players have an effect on very short term revenue through ticket sales, sponsorship revenue, and depending on the timing, TV revenue, but have virtually no effect on the long term valuation of franchises.

To reiterate, my point in all of this was just to say that with a buyer lined up, I really, highly doubt that the outcome of this trade had any bearing on the price at which the Hornets were being purchased. We're talking about a $300 million dollar asset that may be owned for 30 some odd years.


Interesting, thanks for the clarification. Is this the article you're referring to? Good read and you summarize Granik's position well. On the flip side though, you have former Trailblazers president Bob Whitsitt, "If I asked today what could you sell the Cavaliers for, obviously the first question is, ‘Is LeBron on the team or not?'", and Michael Cramer, former president of the Rangers (MLB) and Stars (NHL), saying, "I wouldn’t be surprised if the Cavaliers in a year or two are below the league average in terms of value. One player has a tremendous impact, especially in the NBA, and especially when you’re talking about one of the top two or three visible, recognizable players not only in the league, but in all of professional sports.”

Granted they're talking about Lebron, and though I like him as a player, I don't think Eric Gordon has the potential to become a franchise-defining global icon. But at the least, there seems to be some debate as to whether the make-up of a team impacts valuation.

#75 Brickowski

  • 3587 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 10:39 AM

.

To reiterate, my point in all of this was just to say that with a buyer lined up, I really, highly doubt that the outcome of this trade had any bearing on the price at which the Hornets were being purchased. We're talking about a $300 million dollar asset that may be owned for 30 some odd years.


Well, we're both guessing. However, I'd be very surprised if the NBA does not have a buyer lined up and a term sheet in place given the NBA's announced schedule for the sale. You would have to look at the term sheet to know how trade A vs trade B affects the pricing. There may be no effect. Or, the final price could be determined by a complex formula to determine "going concern" value of the franchise as of "x" days before closing, which formula might include things like positive cash flow projections. A business with a lower payroll-- not just this year but over several years-- is almost always more attractive to a buyer. And this is not a normal acquisition where the buyer can lay people off if the payroll is too high, because NBA contracts are guaranteed. A franchise with younger, inexpensive players may not sell as many tickets, but it doesn't have to because its operating costs are lower.

Edited by Brickowski, 16 December 2011 - 10:39 AM.


#76 nighthob

  • 2821 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 10:42 AM

Actually, Russ Granik is the reason I brought this up. I remembered an article in Bloomberg during LeBron's free agency where several people were speculating that LeBron leaving Cleveland would cut the value of the franchise by $250 million, but Russ Granik essentially debunked that idea by saying that individual players have an effect on very short term revenue through ticket sales, sponsorship revenue, and depending on the timing, TV revenue, but have virtually no effect on the long term valuation of franchises.


You understand that what he meant when he said that was "Sure, the Cadavaliers are worthless today, and maybe for a few years as ticket sales stay down, they need to slash the prices of luxury boxes, etc. but eventually they'll be an NBA team again and the revenues will go back up and the franchise will again reach its sale price in value," right?

The problem is that in this particular case the NBA is planning on having the franchise sale complete within 90 days, and it's actually the short term valuation that matters.

And, let's not lose sight of the fact that in the short term the Hornets would have been a better team with Scola, Martin, Odom and Dragic.


What you're losing sight of is that Odom would never have suited up for the Hornets at all. He would never have played a single game for them. Not one. So the 2011 Hornets would have been a worse version of the .500 team that they traded for (the 2011 Rockets). And no one is paying NBA ticket prices to see Luis Scola and Emeka Okafor lead the Hornets to the 12th-14th pick in the draft.

The trade would have stripped the Hornets of all marketable commodities, and left them no way of acquiring any. The trade would have ended basketball in New Orleans because no one would have bought a franchise that had no marketable players, no way of charging NBA prices for tickets, and thanks to the long term contracts would be three to four years from bottoming out and actually acquiring marketable players. That's what you're stomping your feet, pouting and refusing to see. Luis Scola's parents won't pay NBA ticket prices to watch him flop, and he'd be the best player on the Hornets because Kevin Martin is generally only available for 60% of the games.

Any owner looking at the gate figures would see that the franchise is hemorrhaging money and say "Tell you what, you assholes pay 100% of all those shitty contracts and I'll give you 250 large for the privilege of losing money for the next five years until I can dig myself out of this fucking hole you assholes put this franchise in by trading a superstar for $76 fucking million in dead salary." The Lakers and Rockets got greedy and attempted to dump all their shitty contracts on the Hornets, they have no right, legal, ethical, or moral, to expect the other 27 owners to pay their way. The other 27 owners were absolutely right to tell them to go fuck themselves.

But this trade hasn't made it a certainty that the Hornets are back to respectability anytime soon anymore so than landing Al Jefferson did for Minnesota. A lot will have to break right for New Orleans, and they'll have to use those draft picks wisely.


But, see, in Minnesota they wanted Jefferson because he was a marketable asset. He had the pretty post game that made all the fans ooh and ah over and that people paid NBA ticket prices for. "Getting back to respectability" was a secondary consideration for the franchise (in fact they've pretty much had no interest in it until this year when they don't have yet another first to sell the heck out of to the local market). Just as in Boston winning a title was a secondary consideration to the owners, they were only interested in turning a profit. After 2008 they made no moves to sign someone over 6'6" (aside from the late season waiver wire special of the execrable Mikki Moore) and let the depth players depart. Why? Because it's always about the benjamins.

To reiterate, my point in all of this was just to say that with a buyer lined up, I really, highly doubt that the outcome of this trade had any bearing on the price at which the Hornets were being purchased. We're talking about a $300 million dollar asset that may be owned for 30 some odd years.


There's a zero percent chance that they get their purchase price back with the original trade, and a negligible chance that whatever investment group they've lined up holds the franchise for 30 years. For one, whatever loan they use to buy the team will come due in 10 or 15 years and they'll be looking to cash out then. Guys like Jerry Buss and Mark Cuban are the exceptions, Grousbeck & Son are the rule of thumb in the NBA these days (and it is by design as the league continuously rejects attempts by guys like Ellison to join the billionaire boys club, the only exception being the Brooklyn Nyets as Ratner's group needed capital to finance the Atlantic Yards development).

#77 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3267 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 11:52 AM

The trade would have stripped the Hornets of all marketable commodities, and left them no way of acquiring any. The trade would have ended basketball in New Orleans because no one would have bought a franchise that had no marketable players, no way of charging NBA prices for tickets, and thanks to the long term contracts would be three to four years from bottoming out and actually acquiring marketable players. That's what you're stomping your feet, pouting and refusing to see. Luis Scola's parents won't pay NBA ticket prices to watch him flop, and he'd be the best player on the Hornets because Kevin Martin is generally only available for 60% of the games.


Yikes. You're far more into this discussion than I am. I'm really not sure where in my posts you get the sense that I'm even slightly worked up about any of this, but truthfully, I'm only vaguely engaged in this discussion, and was just trying to raise an opposing viewpoint for the sake of discussion.

#78 Mike in CT



  • 2125 posts

Posted 20 December 2011 - 12:43 AM

Earlier I said I didn't think the Clippers would be as good as some think, and that our pick could still be high.

Well, I change my mind after watching the Clippers absolutely stomp the Lakers tonight.
Yeah, it's preseason, but wow. DeAndre Jordan looked tremendous with Chris Paul.

#79 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 16495 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 02:32 AM

David Stern's GM skills really need to be mocked here, with Eric Gordon having only played two games for NO so far and heading to RFA status after the season after turning down an extension from NO, and the Minnesota pick looking like it will be middle of the first round at best, maybe not even lottery.

#80 moondog80


  • heart is two sizes two small


  • 1587 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 08:01 AM

David Stern's GM skills really need to be mocked here, with Eric Gordon having only played two games for NO so far and heading to RFA status after the season after turning down an extension from NO, and the Minnesota pick looking like it will be middle of the first round at best, maybe not even lottery.


Some people saw Minnesota becoming a decent team, but Gordon was the main piece of the trade and his injury was just bad luck. I still say it was the best deal at the time.

#81 nighthob

  • 2821 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:25 AM

Given Scola and Martin's play this year, Eric Gordon remains the best player from either trade, and the 10-14 pick is likely to result in the second best. I mean the best player in the original deal, as it turns out, would have been Lamar Odom, currently demanding a buyout from the defending world champions so that he can go play somewhere closer to home to be near his father (who's dying). So, no, the Laker/Houston scenario remains the worse one.

#82 BigMike


  • SoSH Member


  • 18097 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:27 AM

David Stern's GM skills really need to be mocked here, with Eric Gordon having only played two games for NO so far and heading to RFA status after the season after turning down an extension from NO, and the Minnesota pick looking like it will be middle of the first round at best, maybe not even lottery.


Plus he ultimately accomplished his only goal (or at least as pushed by the other owners), which was to keep Paul away from the Lakers

#83 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3267 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:31 AM

Given Scola and Martin's play this year, Eric Gordon remains the best player from either trade, and the 10-14 pick is likely to result in the second best. I mean the best player in the original deal, as it turns out, would have been Lamar Odom, currently demanding a buyout from the defending world champions so that he can go play somewhere closer to home to be near his father (who's dying). So, no, the Laker/Houston scenario remains the worse one.


I agree that Eric Gordon is the best player in either trade, but the idea that the player picked 10-14 is going to be better than Scola, Martin, and Lamar Odom is crazy. The depth of this draft is getting blown completely out of proportion.

#84 nighthob

  • 2821 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:45 AM

You may not be paying attention. Scola has been awful this year, and Martin is aging overnight. Lamar Odom is good, but he wants out of Dallas because he wants to come back to the northeast to be closer to his family. So that original package would have been a disaster for New Orleans. Their own pick would have fallen in the 11-15 range and they would have had a rapidly aging, cap-strapped squad.

#85 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3267 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:51 AM

You may not be paying attention. Scola has been awful this year, and Martin is aging overnight. Lamar Odom is good, but he wants out of Dallas because he wants to come back to the northeast to be closer to his family. So that original package would have been a disaster for New Orleans. Their own pick would have fallen in the 11-15 range and they would have had a rapidly aging, cap-strapped squad.


We're not arguing the same thing here. I'm not saying that the package from the Clippers wasn't better, I'm just saying that the idea that you're gonna get a player who is better than Kevin Martin picking in the 10-14 range is crazy. He just had a bad 30 game stretch in a season in which there wasn't a training camp, and shooting percentages are down across the league, and he's still putting up 20 points per 36. He's only 29, so unlike you, I'm not quite ready to call his career over based on the sample size of this season's first half. I know this draft is being heralded as being deep, but who in the 10-14 range is gonna be a better player than Kevin Martin?

Edited by Grin&MartyBarret, 29 February 2012 - 10:51 AM.


#86 Brickowski

  • 3587 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 12:19 PM

I know this draft is being heralded as being deep, but who in the 10-14 range is gonna be a better player than Kevin Martin?


Well the following seven guys have the potential to be better, especially considering that KMart plays virtually no defense: Jeremy Lamb, Bradley Beal, Austin Rivers, Damian Lillard, Kendall Marshall, Terrence Ross and probably Doron Lamb. And that's just the guards. I haven't listed the big men who might be available from 10-15, e.g. Zeller, Leonard or Jones.

#87 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3267 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 12:42 PM

Well the following seven guys have the potential to be better, especially considering that KMart plays virtually no defense: Jeremy Lamb, Bradley Beal, Austin Rivers, Damian Lillard, Kendall Marshall, Terrence Ross and probably Doron Lamb. And that's just the guards. I haven't listed the big men who might be available from 10-15, e.g. Zeller, Leonard or Jones.


If any of those players ever score 23 points a game as efficiently as Kevin Martin, I'll be shocked.

#88 Brickowski

  • 3587 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 01:27 PM

If any of those players ever score 23 points a game as efficiently as Kevin Martin, I'll be shocked.


If you had said "scorer" rather than "player" I might have agreed with you. But a guy liked Lillard, who plays defense and has true pg skills, brings other things to the table.

#89 swingin val

  • 978 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 01:32 PM

I'm just saying that the idea that you're gonna get a player who is better than Kevin Martin picking in the 10-14 range is crazy.

Kevin Martin was picked 26th. Not sure why it is so crazy to think that a guy picked in the 10-14 range could become as good or better.

#90 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3267 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 01:47 PM

Kevin Martin was picked 26th. Not sure why it is so crazy to think that a guy picked in the 10-14 range could become as good or better.


Based on 4 year PER samples, here are the median comps for players selected 10-14:

10: Ed Pinckney, Lindsay Hunter
11: Gary Trent, Tyrone Hill
12: Khalid Reeves, Nick Collison
13: Loy Vaught, Keon Clark
14: Fred Jones, Eric Williams

That's why saying that it's "likely" that a 10-14 pick will be a better player than Kevin Martin is crazy.

#91 nighthob

  • 2821 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 02:10 PM

We're not arguing the same thing here. I'm not saying that the package from the Clippers wasn't better, I'm just saying that the idea that you're gonna get a player who is better than Kevin Martin picking in the 10-14 range is crazy. He just had a bad 30 game stretch in a season in which there wasn't a training camp, and shooting percentages are down across the league, and he's still putting up 20 points per 36. He's only 29, so unlike you, I'm not quite ready to call his career over based on the sample size of this season's first half. I know this draft is being heralded as being deep, but who in the 10-14 range is gonna be a better player than Kevin Martin?


Martin's first step is largely gone. Training camp or no, that shouldn't be happening to a 29 year old. And it's a real red flag for a player whose only efficiency comes from racking up free throws, because he's always been a mediocre shooter. The question isn't whether the Hornets can find a better player than the 26 year old Martin, because they weren't getting that guy. Next year Martin will be another year older, and have another year of wear and tear on a fragile body. So, given these realities and the vast injury history, it's not really a stretch to say that New Orleans could find an above average player in the 10-14 range. And have that be the second best player from either trade scenario. And not get stuck with the rapidly aging Luis Scola and his contract in the process.

Edited by nighthob, 29 February 2012 - 02:10 PM.


#92 Brickowski

  • 3587 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 02:16 PM

Draft order is based on perception, not reality. Martin was undervalued because he played at a Division 2 school (Western Carolina). Even so, I can name at least a dozen players who were picked below 26 and are better than Martin.

#93 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 16495 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 02:29 PM

Martin's first step is largely gone. Training camp or no, that shouldn't be happening to a 29 year old. And it's a real red flag for a player whose only efficiency comes from racking up free throws, because he's always been a mediocre shooter. The question isn't whether the Hornets can find a better player than the 26 year old Martin, because they weren't getting that guy. Next year Martin will be another year older, and have another year of wear and tear on a fragile body. So, given these realities and the vast injury history, it's not really a stretch to say that New Orleans could find an above average player in the 10-14 range. And have that be the second best player from either trade scenario. And not get stuck with the rapidly aging Luis Scola and his contract in the process.


Right, I guess what I'm saying, although it's total second-guessing two months after the fact, is that maybe Stern should have waited for a better offer than either of those two or not moved Paul. As it is, it looks like he got very little in return for two full seasons of a top 5 MVP candidate.

#94 TheDeuce222

  • 211 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 02:49 PM

The other important thing to remember with the trade that Stern killed is that with Scola and Martin and Odom, despite those players' regressions, the Hornets would absolutely be better this year than their current performance to date. And, really, with the strength of the very top of this year's draft, the absolute best-case scenario for them is to win the lottery and get Davis, or get someone like a Thomas Robinson or Harrison Barnes at the least. I still think the Clippers trade was far better than the Lakers trade for the long-term health of that franchise and their ability to survive in NO. So in some ways, Gordon getting hurt was the best of both worlds for them, as their record is worse than it would otherwise be, but if they can lock up Gordon this summer to go along with Davis or Robinson or Barnes or Sullinger + someone in the 10-16 range, they will be in business for the future.

Edited by TheDeuce222, 29 February 2012 - 02:49 PM.


#95 Jeff Van GULLY

  • 2606 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 02:49 PM

Also need to consider that the Clippers trade also made the Hornets considerably worse this season, which I find to be a positive.

As presently situated, they have the 3rd worst record in the league and are primed for a top 5 pick in the draft. This would not be a reality with the inferior Lakers deal.

Edited by Jeff Van GULLY, 29 February 2012 - 02:49 PM.


#96 Brickowski

  • 3587 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 04:25 PM

The Clippers deal also made the balance sheet look alot stronger for the prospective buyer of the team. Scola's cap clogging deal was a long-term liability. Buyers tend not to like those.

#97 nighthob

  • 2821 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 05:20 PM

Also need to consider that the Clippers trade also made the Hornets considerably worse this season, which I find to be a positive. As presently situated, they have the 3rd worst record in the league and are primed for a top 5 pick in the draft. This would not be a reality with the inferior Lakers deal.


Essentially this is a re-run of the Baron Davis deal, only with a better return in trade. Which completes the CP3 loop (as that's how they ended up with him in the first place).