But the league didn't institute Chinese Walls. Per Stern, the Board gave him final say on NO player transactions. So unless he was lying about that.... And if he isn't, then the superior of Demps would be Stern. You "shouldn't" be referee and owner at the same time. And the league shouldn't own a team. But they do. And according to Stern, the Board gave the Commish final say on player transactions to avoid owners truly doing what folks were crying about them doing. And that makes perfect sense, to not have the owners voting on team transactions and appointing someone else (the Commish) to do so. This can help prevent a GM who may care more about his job and the present from making a move to win now when the best thing for the team (on and off the court) is to not tread water and rebuild. This prevents owners like Gilbert from cockblocking. The issue is folks think Stern declined the trade because owners were doing that anyway and don't believe him when he says it was for what was best for NO (selling the team and rebuilding).
No, that would be Jac Sterling, Chairman of the New Orleans Hornets. http://www.nola.com/hornets/index.ssf/2010/12/phil_jackson_critical_of_nbas.html http://www.nola.com/hornets/index.ssf/2010/12/nba_board_of_governors_approve.html No, it does not "make perfect sense". It makes no sense at all. It certainly does not make sense to have the owners vote on individual trades of the New Orleans Hornets, because they also have a conflict of interest. It was a bad idea for the league to own a team to begin with, but if it has to happen, then Chinese walls and someone other than Stern making the final call would have been the most proper solution. It's not that people don't believe Stern that what he was doing was best for New Orleans. It's that people say that once he puts himself in a position to do what's best for New Orleans, he - still being the NBA Commissioner also, inseparably uniting both jobs in one person - is no longer treating all teams in the league equally, but actually screwing over the other teams involved in the trade. It's really mind-boggling that you don't get it. You are one of the good posters here, yet you are arguing as if you have blinders on.
God Cowherd is a horrible interviewer and worse yet, sounded like a suck up here. I didn't think it possible but he actually dropped a few notches in my respect ladder. He was so unprepared and threw Stern the softball questions. Would rather it had been Dan Patrick. At least he has the stones to call out the commish....
So in other words you are saying Stern is lying about the NBA Board giving him final say on NO player transactions? Can you point to anything that says that was not the case? Actually it does make perfect sense to have Stern be the final authority instead of the owners. Yes, it would have been better to have someone else completely independent have final say, but that doesn't mean it's not better for one lone Commish to have final say over a collective of owners. It all comes down to whether or not the Board gave him that authority or not. Can you point to anything to show that he is lying? I'm just assuming, but it's been a few days now and I think if he were lying about that some reporter would have done the research and busted him on it by now. But that would be the case no matter what team he traded Paul to. Again, the question is did the NBA Board really give him that authority. If so, then they decided that he was the best person to make those decisions, not matter what you, I or anyone else thinks. I mean, it's only their league. It has to make sense to them, not us. I get it just fine. I'm not saying the league should own a team or that Stern should have had final authority. I'm saying that the NBA, for whatever reason, does own a team and the Board did give him final authority. It makes sense why they would give someone final authority instead of letting the owners decide, even if you think that "someone" should be someone else. I'm not arguing that is shouldn't be someone else. But that's after the fact. So if he is telling the truth about that then it makes perfect sense. It doesn't make him right to let his GM build a trade that he knows he will reject or to make the dude lie about it, but as far as having final say to reject it and doing it for the reasons he says he did...it makes perfect sense.
It made no sense. He knew this deal was being made and had no pronlem with it earlier. Knew what the Lakers and Rockets had on the table and favored New Orleans over the Rockets by asking for more. Not just that but also favored the Lakers by asking the Rockets to be the one adding more to get the deal done. It was just inappropriate all around to make specific demands on behalf of the Hornets towards the Rockets.
I am not necessarily saying that he is lying, but it certainly seems like the information that was out in the public contradicts his version of the events. I could not find anything in news media that said that Stern would be the one making final decisions. The only source I could find said what I quoted above - that Jac Sterling would represent the league's interest. If something else is (much) better, then it does not "make perfect sense". Just because you throw an (unrealistic) hypothetical solution out there that would be even more stupid does not mean that Stern acting in a position where he has an evident conflict of interest "makes perfect sense". No, it does not "all come down to that". He has a conflict of interest regardless. The only difference is whether the Board designed it that way from the beginning. As I said above, I could not find anything in public news media except the two quotes from nola.com from the time of the acquisition of the Hornets by the NBA. Those two quotes clearly contradict what happened now and how Stern presents it now. But I am not privy to the internal considerations between the Board of Governors and Stern. In any case, it is not relevant to the answer whether there was a conflict of interest: There is an evident conflict of interest once Stern as a person acts as arbiter and market participant at the same time. That's nonsense. You keep confusing two questions: Whether Stern acted formally within the authority given to him and whether there was a conflict of interest anyway. Your constantly repeated argument is that if it is formally correct, there cannot be a conflict of interest. That, however, is wrong. See above. No, it does not. See above. No, it doesn't, no matter how many times you repeat it. See above.
It makes perfect sense considering the circumstances (league owned team and whether or not they decided to give him that authority). It all boils down to whether or not the NBA Board really appointed him to have final say on player transactions. If they did then he did his job, no matter how dumb we think it was for him to be in that position, for the league to own a team, etc. Exactly. Glad we finally agree. Of course there is a conflict of interest. That would be the case with any trade if the league truly gave him the authority that he says they did. If so, then it makes no sense to keep saying there was a conflict of interest when that would be the case with any trade, including the vetoed one. And like I said, if he were lying about the league giving him that authority I'm sure some investigative reporter would have busted him on it by now. I'm not saying there is no conflict. I'm saying no matter the team a conflict would exist. The true question is did the league design it to be that way? Did they say we would rather the Commish have this conflict than all of us voting on it? Did they say we trust the Commish to do what's best for the team because we can't trust ourselves? Etc. But for whatever reason, they decided him having that authority was best....unless he is lying about that. I'm not confusing anything. It all starts with what authority the league gave him, even if that authority created a conflict of interest in any trade with any other team.
I'm pretty sure I have multiple other posts noting if it's a conflict of interest then it would be that way no matter what team he traded Paul to. The key is whether the league gave him that authority. No, I don't think he is lying about that.
To make it simple... If Stern is acting as 'owner' of the Hornets, he should have assessed the trade BEFORE it was submitted to the 'league office' for approval - like any other owner... Morey isnt going to submit a trade to the league office only to have Les axe it... (and thats the opinion of a Rockets fan who was AGAINST the trade)
Kobe Bryant said it was the owners who united to get the trade blocked. Stern probably should not have COMPLIED, should have let business continue as normal. But the SPITEFUL owners were the ones pulling the strings. They're the ones that pay Stern's salary and elect to keep him in ANUALLY. Stern knows where his bread is buttered. Still how can you really tell anymore what the "best interest" of the league is, and what STERN'S best interests are? Stern probably was busting a nut seeing Chris Paul on his way to the Lakers. Before hypocrite Mark Cuban and vindictive Dan Gilbert still frothing about PRIOR LA favoritism deals and Lebron Decisions had to call him out and use their "collective league ownership" of the Hornets as the veto tool. Maybe its PLENTY people to get mad at ALONG with Stern.
I don't know why people can't see this. Why be a boderline team like the rockets when you can get a great prospect like gordon, a easy to move contract like kaman and a unprotected pick from minny. They could turn it around very quickly because they will have their top 10 pick as well as the wolves.
He's such a prick. Let's get a trend started and at every Rockets game a Clutch Fan member attends he brings a sign that is negative in regards to Stern. Then put the twitter tag #STERNmustGo on the sign.
Can someone provide footnotes of the interview? I would like to know what was discussed, but hearing Sperm's voice would really ruin my mood. TIA.
- Because they want to be mad at Stern. - Because they are against tanking even though our GM wishes he could do it.
