How the NBA Screwed the Lakers out of Chris Paul

12/9/11 in NBA   |   Murphy24   |   278 respect

By 5 p.m. yesterday, the sports media had reported that Chris Paul was headed to the Los Angeles Lakers, as part of a three team trade with Houston and New Orleans that saw Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol also trading hands. Lakers fans were salivating over a future with Paul, a top-5 player, running the point next to Kobe Bryant (and maybe even Dwight Howard). Chris Paul represents such a marked improvement over last season’s 1 guards for the Lakers, Steve Blake and Derek Fisher, that they likely would have become title favorites overnight.

Perhaps because of this, the NBA owners stepped in and blocked the trade before it could be finalized. How could they do this? Until a new ownership group formally purchases the Hornets, their basketball office is under overall control by the NBA – and the owners of the rest of the 29 teams in the league. Because they are partial owners for the time being, the rest of the league has a right to veto any trades that the Hornets try to do. Earlier in the week, commissioner David Stern gave the Hornet’s management group the right to negotiate a trade for Chris Paul, but once it seemed Paul was headed to the Lakers, Stern caved to owners who were scared of the swing in balance of power, allowing them to block the trade.

Owners claimed to do this on the grounds that it "wasn't in the best interest of the league," and that Chris Paul would be required to play out his contract in New Orleans. The problem is, they would have felt, and acted, differently if he were headed to Cleveland, Minnesota, Sacramento, or any other struggling franchise.

Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

12/10/11   |   Tigers2010   |   646 respect

 When you are talking about the best PG in the NBA you will get a lot of responses.

12/10/11   |   derms33   |   17642 respect

i am amazed this many people give a crap about the NBA

12/10/11   |   Tigers2010   |   646 respect

(Edited by Tigers2010)

 Hornets GM said the trade is not dead 

12/10/11   |   richard_cranium   |   17673 respect

So David Stern claims that getting nothing for CP3 after this season(when he signs with another team as a free agent), is more beneficial to the Hornets. Instead of getting 4 players and a first round draft pick.

12/10/11   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

When I first heard about this trade, I was a bit upset. As a Celtics fan, it's the last thing I wanted to hear. But then I heard that the NBA rejected it, and I got even more upset. There's really no excuse for that. The Hornets got as much as they were gonna get for CP3.

Also, let's keep in mind... the Hornets aren't giving up an entire career worth of Chris Paul. They're only trading away ONE SEASON of Chris Paul. So realistically, it's a VERY fair trade, since they might get nothing for him after the season.

12/10/11   |   derms33   |   17642 respect

(Edited by derms33)

Because Stern doesn't want any more competition for his beloved HEAT

12/9/11   |   WhoDat12   |   2252 respect

I can understand why none of the guys involved in the trade that wasn't would feel compelled to report to camp. But the notion that Chris Paul is considering a lawsuit is ridiculous.  The league rescinded a trade (as insane as it was to do that), so they didn't really STOP him from going anywhere.  He is still under contract with the New Orleans Hornets.  If he's not traded, when he opts out, he will be a FREE agent. Emphasis on the word FREE. He will be FREE to go as he pleases

12/9/11   |   WhoDat12   |   2252 respect

Mannysworld wrote:

The real problem is/was that the Hornets weren't receiving equal or greater value. They were giving up a top 5 player for a player who has reached his peak and is on the down side(Odom) and two players who are good players but had reached their ceilings as top 30-40 players, who were never going to be top 10 (Martin and Scola). You need to have THREE legit, bonafide stars to win in todays NBA. They were giving up one and not getting anyone with the potential to be one, back. At least if he had gone to the Clippers (Gordon) or the Warriors (Curry) there was chance for these players to become a top 10 player. Potential is great in those two. I disagree with the fact that the league did it but this was a crap trade.

As a Hornets fan, I was fine with the trade.  New Orleans isn't going to get equal or greater value for Chris Paul unless they trade him to the 1988 Detroit Pistons for Isaiah Thomas.  It would take the Hornets going 66-0 and winning the title to POSSIBLY get CP3 to return to New Orleans after this season. Trading him and getting something is much better than letting him walk in free agency and get nothing.  No it wasn't "equal value" but we were getting value for him in Scola, Odom, and Kevin Martin.  IDK if we can get better compensation for Paul than that.  Now, thanks to Fuhrer Stern, an awkard situation has been created for all parties involved.  

12/9/11   |   Dan_B   |   1067 respect

And now Lamar Odom isn't reporting to Lakers' camp. The trickle down of this will be vast. 

12/9/11   |   Dan_B   |   1067 respect

 I think this is sort of analogous to a GM agreeing to a trade and the owner vetoing. And economically this makes sense for the league and the other 29 owners. If they trade Paul the value of the franchise goes down, so do ticket and merchandise sales, etc. THat means the selling price will be lower and the shares per team will be lower.

That said, total bush-league move. I'd hate to be one of those players.

12/9/11   |   Mannysworld   |   121 respect

Murphy24 wrote:
Just because it  wasn't equal value doesn't mean it was a horrible trade though. They got some solid pieces, and it was probably the best option they had since the Clips and Warriors were unwilling to part with Gordon or Curry. Now it's looking like the league won't let Paul get traded at all (or else they look like total hypocrites), so he'll almost definitely just walk at the end of the year. If I am N.O., I would much, much, much rather get Odom, Scola, Martin, and a 1st rounder for Chris Paul, than nothing at all.

Good points. And it would suck if Paul walked away and they get nothing. But remember at some point they have to sell the Hornets. After this trade, the team has limited or no value to a potential buyer. At least the new ownership group may feel like they can talk Paul into staying (highly unlikely, I know but most of these owners are arrogant, "i'm better than everyone else" type of people so I am sure they feel like they could talk him into staying better than Shin Family).Even the proposed trade for Rondo, Green and 2 first round picks wasn't enough without getting a third team involved for more talent. I think the bigger issue is what the NBA can do to stop its players from leaving all these small markets for bigger ones. There has to be a HARD CAP, with all teams on equal footing. otherwise the whole league is screwed  

12/9/11   |   Murphy24   |   278 respect

Mannysworld wrote:

The real problem is/was that the Hornets weren't receiving equal or greater value. They were giving up a top 5 player for a player who has reached his peak and is on the down side(Odom) and two players who are good players but had reached their ceilings as top 30-40 players, who were never going to be top 10 (Martin and Scola). You need to have THREE legit, bonafide stars to win in todays NBA. They were giving up one and not getting anyone with the potential to be one, back. At least if he had gone to the Clippers (Gordon) or the Warriors (Curry) there was chance for these players to become a top 10 player. Potential is great in those two. I disagree with the fact that the league did it but this was a crap trade.

Just because it  wasn't equal value doesn't mean it was a horrible trade though. They got some solid pieces, and it was probably the best option they had since the Clips and Warriors were unwilling to part with Gordon or Curry. Now it's looking like the league won't let Paul get traded at all (or else they look like total hypocrites), so he'll almost definitely just walk at the end of the year. If I am N.O., I would much, much, much rather get Odom, Scola, Martin, and a 1st rounder for Chris Paul, than nothing at all.

12/9/11   |   Mannysworld   |   121 respect

The real problem is/was that the Hornets weren't receiving equal or greater value. They were giving up a top 5 player for a player who has reached his peak and is on the down side(Odom) and two players who are good players but had reached their ceilings as top 30-40 players, who were never going to be top 10 (Martin and Scola). You need to have THREE legit, bonafide stars to win in todays NBA. They were giving up one and not getting anyone with the potential to be one, back. At least if he had gone to the Clippers (Gordon) or the Warriors (Curry) there was chance for these players to become a top 10 player. Potential is great in those two. I disagree with the fact that the league did it but this was a crap trade.