Lol hopefully I'm not reading too much into this... But interesting read, coincidentally 9 days before the deadline about David Sterns' plans with the Hornets. "I know that there are some owners who might share that view (that the Hornets should be contracted). But anything that we do gets done by the majority of the owners. All you're stating is a potential third option. But right now we are steaming full-speed ahead with every single possible way to make that team succesful in New Orleans, and I think we're going to succeed. We're going to make it unattractive to move it or contract it." http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/27527551 Could making the team unattractive mean moving Paul and/or Okafor? I didn't see this posted, please lock if so. Thanks
huh??? Not to be rude but you have to work on your reading comprehension skills. He is specifically talking about making it unattractive to move or contract the franchise. Not make it a crappy/unattractive team. Not sure how that implies they are going to move Chris Paul. Unless I am missing something and you can clarify what you were trying to say.
I'm a very humble person, and would gladly listen to what you think making a team unattractive to contract or move means.
"right now we are steaming full-speed ahead with every single possible way to make that team succesful in New Orleans" team succesful = unattractive to contract or move
You know, like winning a lot, competing for the championship, having a loyal fan base, star franchise player... All things that make organizations profitable and therefore less likely to be sold or moved. IE it would not be attractive business move to relocate a thriving franchise.
they will make MOVING the team unattractive, not make the team unattractive so they can move them! op went with the opposite answer.
Of all the tradeable assets that have been discussed on this board, CP3 is the one I want the most, especially if he comes with Okafor. I don't like Okafor's contract, but he does fill a need we have, and he may be a contract we have to take in order to get CP3 anyway. Pugs
"unattractive to move or contract" means "it wouldn't be (attractive, conducive, easy, feasible, profitable,etc.) to move or contract". In other words, "it ain't gonna happen"!
They aren't making the "team" unattractive. As Smoothy said, they're actually pumping the team up to where noone wants to move or fold it. A fire sale isn't in the works.
oh snap! the refs are in this!! any body remember lakers vs kings all those questionable calls. or maybe im thinking too hard.
Strange that refs have not really played a role in this yet. How about refs giving crucial calls to Hornets to make them good = unattractive to move. Hornets have lost 7 of last 9... so looks like refs are not doing their job.
another (prob not in this case) is by having a bunch of high $$$ contracts still on the payroll (bad or good) Which would also make it also harder to sell.
Was going to respond then I read the rest of the thread. So thanks everyone for doing all the explaining
Stern is going to get the Hornets to trade for unattractive players like Chris Kaman and Al Jefferson and maybe hiring unattractive former players like Tyrone Hill to be assistant coaches.
you are reading too much into it. stern simply meant that he wants to make the current players more unattractive.
