Did Stern veto the trade before or after it was submitted to the league office? The steps may seem like one and the same, but it makes a huge difference whether he chose to reject the deal prior to it being submitted in his capacity as the representation of the other 29 owners, or if he empowered Demps/Sperling to submit the paperwork to the league office and vetoed it "in the best interest of the league". In one case, it's terrible ownership to publicly leak such a high profile trade, but such things have been done before and is somewhat defensible. In the other, it's having the league office decide what is an acceptable trade, which is screaming out for an anti-trust lawsuit. Not to go all OHMSS on ya, but if you don't believe that Stern changed his mind after being pressured by the other owners, you clearly have no knowledge of basketball and negotiations. The craziest thing is that if Stern was doing what was best for the league, he would have forced Dwight and Paul to the Lakers, since the NBA is a much more financially healthy league when there are dynasties/big markets in play, and then could contract the remains of the Hornets to get more leverage for the next CBA and wipe off all those guaranteed dollars owed to Martin/Scola/Okafor. Then, right before they negotiate the new national TV deal, award an expansion team to Seattle, collecting ~$300-400M in expansion fees, an extra 82 games to the broadcast deal, and cooked stats on how league revenues have gone up, so the players should accept a hard cap. That would be the truly evil thing to do. And brilliant.
I guarantee you Stern justifies it to himself by claiming that he is the fulcrum between the players and the owners. In vetoing this trade, he appeased the ownership side and maintained a precarious peace for the foreseeable future and did so in a particularly fragile moment, right after the new CBA had been ratified. He doesn't understand though that he is also the representative of the league, the face of the NBA to fans (yes Stern it is you we look to when we ask questions about how the league is being run; we are fans of Lebron and Kobe but we couldn't care less how moral or immoral they were in their personal lives as long as they bring the product to the court. You are different). When we see a guy as shady and petty and vindictive and egotistical as David Stern running the NBA, we can only assume, and rightfully so as this instance showed us, that he is putting those same qualities to work in governing the NBA. The MLB understood that one of the fundamental principles to getting fans interested in professional sports was ensuring fair play and freedom from corruption by outside forces. That is why Congress gave them the antitrust agreement way back when, that's why they banned Shoeless Joe and the Black Sox and Pete Rose when they were found to be gambling on the game whose outcome they themselves had a chance to affect based on their play. In the NBA these principles of fairness and equality have been violated repeatedly, and there is no better person to look to as a source of this corruption than the very CEO himself. Sure, David Stern, you can make your league all about entertainment and advertising and dynasties and superstars and big markets if you want, but in doing so, the longterm outlook for your sport will be going the way of the WWF/WCW rather than the MLB. You are already easily #3 in sports based on money and fan interest, but it can get a lot worse, ask the NHL. Whatever, there's no use further explaining this. David Stern like many politicians does an exemplary job at teaching us that society is not fair. I dunno if there is anything any of us can do about this anymore.
I'm confused - - how can one act in the best interests of one team yet have the responsibility to act in the best interests of all teams? And, back on track, forget Cowherd, what does this have to do with Feigan's 'notorious' piece? If it was totally crap then crap on JF. Who believes it was totally crap? Not me, for one!
This is what needs to be established. It is how Stern's claim to be acting as owner can be undermined. As with the Euroleaguer troll, an assertion is not an argument. It seems obvious that Stern got an earful from other owners over the proposed deal. But if Stern acted in such a way to cover his ass, such as getting an even better deal while still getting Paul into a big market, then the whining is for naught. After the Sac/LA series, I have wanted this guy taken down a few notches. A lot of things in the NBA look bad. We just need real proof.
It's not a conflict of interest if the NBA Board put the Commish in that authority when they bought the team to truly avoid them having to vote on the matter and having a conflict of interest. This keeps getting overlooked. Now if someone thinks Stern is lying about the Board giving him that authority then that's a whole nother issue. But if that is indeed the case then it makes perfect sense and he was only wrong for letting his GM bring a deal that he wasn't going to approve (for letting it get that far).
Icehouse, He did not negotiate in good faith and he screwed two franchises in the process. The evidence does point to a conflict of interest. The evidence points to the trade being acceptable until the other owners started cleaning his clock about it. But, even if that is not the case, he did not negotiate in good faith with his own GM nor with the front offices of the Rockets and Lakers. He lied.
Of course it is still a conflict of interest. Nothing is getting overlooked when that is stated. Even if the NBA Board gave the Commissioner the authority (which I assume), then it means he formally had the authority, but still doesn't change anything about it being a conflict of interest.
this was a horribly misinformed interview by Cowherd 1. DS, other GMs said Demps told them he was acting with full authority, is this true? 2. DS, what about Lakers who lost Odom and Rockets who lost Hayes and have potentially disgruntled players? 3. DS, why does the league office think it knows more than the GM they hired?
I'm confused. How is it a conflict of interest if the Board directly gave him that duty to avoid all teams having a vote, or for whatever reason? If that's the case then any trade involving the Hornets while they are league owned is a conflict of interest. So harping on that is pointless, IMO. Now jumping on him for letting the trade build to that point....pile it on. But I still don't see how that's any different than any other "owner" telling his GM never mind at the last second. We just don't hear about those situations.
What evidence would this be? An email from an owner that was sent after the trade was already rejected? What other evidence is there?
I disagree completely. This is the politically correct oppinion but do you know there are lots of un-biased media outside of Houston that think the Rockets / Lakers was not just a better deal but a superior deal. In Dallas they blasted Stern for screwing the Hornets because they were all shocked that anyone would think the Clippers deal was the better deal. Eric Gordon by himself and the pieces that are on the Hornets now do not equall what they would have gotten from Lakers / Rockets. The key to the draft will be the Minny pick. If it lands Andre Drummond then the Hornets deal is absolutely better. But if the pick lands them a mid lottery pick or worse, then no way the Clippers deal is better. How funny would it be if Amare or Carmelo gets hurt and the NY pick turns into a mid lottery pick while RA coaches the TPups to a decent record and actually has a worse pick.
That's not true. The deal is instantly better because it should make the Hornets rebuilding easier. With the first trade they would have been a potential playoff team with no hope to win and no cap space (sound familiar??). Now they are a team with young guys, a cheap payroll and they should be in the lotto with or without the Sota pick. They also get a young player to guage and a real C to guage (better than multiple PF's). If the Sota pick is a lotto one then that would give them 2. Trade #1 sucked for a rebuilding team, unless your owner is a Les dude that doesn't want to suck for a period of time.
Him formally having the right and the duty has nothing to do with whether there is a conflict of interest. What he did might have formally been legal, but he still had a conflict of interest anyway, because he was at the same time the commissioner (who makes and enforces rules on trades) and a market participant, acting as the CEO of the Hornets. To have both functions united in one person and that person then using the powers of both functions at the same time is a conflict of interest by design. Yes, exactly - unless the league institutes "Chinese walls" where the people running the Hornets can act as if they were owners, independent of Stern - because then you don't have the functions of arbiter and market participant united in one person (Stern). And that is exactly what the other parties involved in the trade discussions were made to believe by Stern and the NBA. I quoted articles here that showed that the NBA actually made statements at the time of the acquisition saying that the superiors of Demps were to make the final decisions. Of course it is different. I cannot believe that you cannot see that. You cannot be referee and player at the same time. Any other owner is not referee and player at the same time.
Yall ought to collect all these books yall are writing and send them to DS. I can't believe yall are arguing about this. This is david stern. Get it?
Nobody believes one word he says anymore. He has changed his story multiple times already. Rockets should pursue a lawsuit just to do it.
How will people feel about Stern nixing the deal if it comes out that he did so under the direction of someone who's close to buying the Hornets? I gotta think that if that's the case then Stern was jusytified in acting as he did. That's my best guess as to how things actually went down, but who really knows.
