I don't agree with the way the trade rejection came about, so publicly, it should've been done before the whole thing went public, so I won't defend him on that but David Stern is right to reject it purely on basketball reasons, it was a terrible terrible trade for New Orleans. It was horrible in every way shape or form. Their GM really had no clue on even the basics of what they should be trying to do. The Basic rules of trading your superstar, 1) Send out bad contracts with your superstar so you have a clean slate to start over. No clue why they didn't try to send out okafor or Ariza along with CP3. 2) Try to be players in Free Agency as soon as possible. Instead they took on multiple years of salary that meant that they had no chance of free agency in the near future. 3) get really bad to get a good draft pick, instead they were building a poor man's houston rockets 2009 team to get a 12-14 pick range. 4) get back high draft picks or young talent with potential. dragic and a mid 20s first rounder does not qualify. So in the end, the trade violated every common sense rule of trading your superstar. and david stern was right to overrule for basketball reasons
The only rules are to get the best deal possible and the Rockets / Lakers had the best one per The assigned GM. Sterns reason for not allowing the deal had nothing to do with what NOH was receiving but instead it was all about what LAL was getting. I can only assume that you are ok with Stern choreographing what teams get what players.
This is an "Ends justifies the means" argument. In no other professional sport has the commissioner vetoed a trade because he thought one side was getting hosed. It completely negates our advantage in the front office to have our commissioner neuter the disparity between GM skills. That being said, I sure as hell wish Bud Selig vetoed some of Ed Wade's trades.
That's the popular narrative but it's false. David Stern's main job is to make sure that the Hornets continue to be a viable franchise and that they can find a buyer in the near future. While it's good theater to have the stern doesn't want CP3 to go to lakers story, it's untrue, it's way better for the NBA to have a dominant Lakers, better TV ratings, more money, etc...
When they announced the new lease? with NO a month or so ago. They said they had potential buyers lined up and that the team could be sold in 10 months.
There is a conflict of interest because the league owns the hornets. No doubt about it. But in the end it was an ownership decison not a commissioner decision. What Morey should've done is called up david stern and asked him whether he would approve this trade before the whole thing leaked. He probably didn't want to look a gift horse in the mouth cos he was so happy that he was taking advantage of a GM out of his depth.
The whole point of the lockout was to limit player movement and allow smaller market teams to compete. This deal had two marquee players, CP and Pau. The biggest name was going to the biggest market. The 2nd biggest name was going to the 2nd biggest market. Thus leaving NOLA with no big name players. Furthermore, this move would have paved the way for Orlando to lose their marqee player to yet another big market team. The whole thing about big market teams getting all the good players will eventually implode the NBA. I agree with the OP that Stern handled this very poorly. What sucks for all involved is dealing with all the stilted players who now distrust their own teams.
I disagree, small market teams can compete very well IF they are run well. Look at all the superstars leaving their teams in small markets. All their teams are run absolutely terribly. Cleveland - owner is a douchebag, horrible GMing during Lebron's tenure there New Orleans - even more horrible owner that the NBA had to buy it Orlando - horrible GM, Rashard Lewis contract anyone? Toronto - terrible GM Basically, if you run your team well, your superstars will stay, regardless of market size, if you run it poorly, your superstars will leave.
It's hard to say Stern is "right" because the entire system is rotten from bottom to top and he's the one pulling the strings. Even before you talk about the trade, the entire situation with New Orleans in the first place is untenable. How can you have the LEAGUE own the franchise? It's completely a conflict of interest and only a matter of time before something would have come up like this. As a competent commissioner Stern should have been working to unload the team ASAP. Second that trade isn't as good as it seems for New Orleans. The media is biased towards LA. A lot of writers were butthurt they weren't getting Paul. New Orleans was getting a bunch of role players who would not have gotten them to the playoffs. LA was the best team getting the best player by FAR. Probably the best player in his position in the league. It was getting maneuvering room to also get Howard. It wasn't competitive for the league. I dont think adding those players would have made New Orleans any more of a lucrative investment for an owner either This ironfisted move laid bare a lot of how the league operates in the shadows: under Stern's thumb. It's how things have been for a long time though.
1. Clippers deal didn't do this either. 2 and 3. They contradict each other. If you're going to make contradictory statements, at least don't place them next to each other. 4. You don't know if Scola, Martin, and Odom would've stayed or flipped for young players elsewhere. And finally, read any of the gazillion articles that talks about the Conflict of Interest with Stern butting in to become the de facto GM of the Hornets.
What people continue to ignore is the overwhelming evidence (based on two vocal owners spouting off) that Stern was forced to veto the trade. It's not on him, it's on small market owners who are worried their team is going to become the NBA version of the Washington Generals.
The OP is correct if for no other reason than this, and someone like Bima can verify: If NO took even $1 in salary more than they shed, then the deal was improper and every NBA owner had the right to be furious due to the ongoing conflict of the NBA owning a team. All other arguments are meaningless.
Whether Stern was right or not depends on the power Demps has. I have a hard time imagining that the NBA didn't place some financial limits on the Hornets regarding taking on a larger payroll. If that is the case, Demps exceeded his authority and it required Stern's approval. If it as Stern just being a rogue commissioner, that sucks what he did.
The trade was vetoed before any of the owners started b****ing. The timing of the veto is public record, it happened before the owner lobbying
Dead wrong, and multiple GMs felt that Demps got a haul for Chris Paul. Bad teams with good draft picks and young stars weren't and aren't offering them because Paul's a clear rental. Contenders that want Paul don't have young studs or good draft picks to offer. The NBA has made clear that the Hornets aren't allowed to simply clean house and tank - they want fans in the seats to help attract a buyer. The Clippers offer is no stronger than ours....and even that's on the verge of collapsing. Look at the Carmelo and Deron Williams trades again. That's what the going market rate is....and teams have already stated that they're going to lowball the Hornets. Stern has made a colossal mistake. No one's crazy enough to pay more than what he had on the table. He can't allow a trade for a lesser return, because he's already under threat of a lawsuit for collusion. If Paul ISN'T traded because of his rejection, both he and the union are threatening to sue for lost wages (FA contract $40M less than a Bird resigning). He wasn't "forced" - there is just as much evidence that he wanted to humble Chris Paul and not allow him to choose his destination.
