Does the NBA hate Los Angeles?

[dbadefense1990]

After witnessing the Lakers and Clippers implode because Stern screwed BOTH outta getting Chris Paul, I have to wonder:

Does the NBA hate Southern California?

[dbadefense1990]

After witnessing the Lakers and Clippers implode because Stern screwed BOTH outta getting Chris Paul, I have to wonder:

Does the NBA hate Southern California?

[ninersdd]

Seriously? Do you remember 2002 when the refs handed the Lakers the series over Sacramento.

[TFoA]

Nope. The league just has an extremely warped idea on what they figure will be "equal value" in any deal concerning Chris Paul. Plus, there's also the idea floating around that the league doesn't want Paul to leave until his contract is up or they find a buyer for the team. A team w/ Chris Paul on it will be much more easier to sell than a team w/o a superstar. That basically means that the only way Paul is leaving is if the Hornets get a superstar in return. There's a VERY small chance of that happening, which basically means that this is the NBA's way of saying " you, stay in New Orleans."

Besides, the Celtics were also on the doorstep of completing a deal w/ the Hornets but apparently the league got involved there as well. Does the NBA hate Boston, too?

[Fox]

Seriously? Do you remember 2002 when the refs handed the Lakers the series over Sacramento.

+1

But back on topic, I can't believe how poorly the NBA has handled the Chris Paul situation. The Hornets have been denied of two different packages of talented players while the Lakers and Clippers have been denied of an all-star point guard.

I think, if anything, in the process of trying to help New Orleans, the NBA is screwing them over. They could end up getting nothing for CP3 if they can't work out a trade and he leaves as a free agent. They're acting like they saved the Hornets of having their star player stolen from them when in reality they're just blocking a deal that the Hornets agreed to- a deal that they thought would better them as a team.

[ninersdd]

I said this in the lounge when you started the topic there, but hell no. Remember the refs gift wrapping Game 6 against the Kings in 2002? I just know Stern still likes LA the way Madden likes Favre.

[Fox]

Nope. The league just has an extremely warped idea on what they figure will be "equal value" in any deal concerning Chris Paul. Plus, there's also the idea floating around that the league doesn't want Paul to leave until his contract is up or they find a buyer for the team. A team w/ Chris Paul on it will be much more easier to sell than a team w/o a superstar. That basically means that the only way Paul is leaving is if the Hornets get a superstar in return. There's a VERY small chance of that happening, which basically means that this is the NBA's way of saying " you, stay in New Orleans."

Besides, the Celtics were also on the doorstep of completing a deal w/ the Hornets but apparently the league got involved there as well. Does the NBA hate Boston, too?

If that's true, that means the NBA must love Boston! They let them keep their star point guard instead of dealing him for a one-year rental of CP3.

But in all seriousness, if the theory of the NBA only allowing Paul to be dealt if they get a superstar back, I'm surprised that they blocked a deal with the Celtics, because while he's not a "superstar" IMO Rajon Rondo is the best single player (right now) that I can see the Hornets pulling in for Paul.

[dbadefense1990]

Can this be merged with the "Sports in General" posts? Stupid double posts.

[Lights Out]

The Clippers have not "imploded"... not by a long shot. It's the Lakers who have succumbed to drama and broken up the team. That's their own damn fault, not Stern's.

The deal with the Celtics didn't happen because the Hornets weren't interested in Rondo, IIRC, not because the league stepped in. Anyway, David Stern is a complete joke, and Chris Paul should rightfully be a Clipper right now. This is so stupid. Hopefully they're forced to cave in and accept the Clippers' actual offer, which is the best offer they will get, bar none.

[-kj]

Can this be merged with the "Sports in General" posts? Stupid double posts.

Done.

[MadmanLA]

The Clippers have not "imploded"... not by a long shot. It's the Lakers who have succumbed to drama and broken up the team. That's their own damn fault, not Stern's.

The deal with the Celtics didn't happen because the Hornets weren't interested in Rondo, IIRC, not because the league stepped in. Anyway, David Stern is a complete joke, and Chris Paul should rightfully be a Clipper right now. This is so stupid. Hopefully they're forced to cave in and accept the Clippers' actual offer, which is the best offer they will get, bar none.

Agreed...the Clippers have a brighter future than the Lakers do. I mean, if the original deal with the Laker went through, then you're left with Paul still in his prime, but an aging Kobe and Metta World Peace, and really not much else; plus you have Mike "I can't coach offense to save my life" Brown is the head coach. Sure, they'll still be competitive, but they would be lucky to make past the second round of the playoffs. Add to the fact that they're so capped-out, a sign-and trade is the only way they'll lure another superstar to town.

It's just really nauseating with this going back-and-forth with Chris Paul...it's pretty obvious that the Association wants Paul to stay on the Hornets so they can get higher value when they eventually sell the team. However, you can't blame Paul for wanting out; he doesn't want to waste his prime in what may turn out to be another rebuilding project.

I'm glad Neil Olshey is standing his ground in regards to Eric Gordon. Kaman's expiring contract, Aminu, Bledsoe, and a future draft pick should be sufficient enough.

[Still MIGHTY]

Nope. The league just has an extremely warped idea on what they figure will be "equal value" in any deal concerning Chris Paul. Plus, there's also the idea floating around that the league doesn't want Paul to leave until his contract is up or they find a buyer for the team. A team w/ Chris Paul on it will be much more easier to sell than a team w/o a superstar. That basically means that the only way Paul is leaving is if the Hornets get a superstar in return. There's a VERY small chance of that happening, which basically means that this is the NBA's way of saying " you, stay in New Orleans."

Which makes absolutely no sense at all.

Chris Paul is going to be gone either way. Either traded or leaving for nothing as a free agent. Either Stern/NBA trades him or the new owner trades him. Chris Paul brings no extra value to the Hornets, because he's going to be gone one way or the other. That line of thinking from the NBA is ridiculous.

It's almost like Stern and the league are taking a stand to try and say that players no longer dictate where they will go or when they will go. I understand their sentiment about it, but if that's what you're going to do, Stern, don't even field offers for Paul then. Why even negotiate with a team when you know that you're asking for an entire starting line-up in return? Nobody can negotiate in good faith with the Hornets because the trade is never going to go through either by "value" not being met or by veto.

[oddball]

Holy cow. Really? Are people really still on that whole the league stole the series from the Kings? Go to Home Depot or Lowe's buy some hammer and nails and get over it. Now as far as the Chris Paul fiasco. I've said it because of the Lakers deal and I'll continue it now, the league had no credibility controling or telling who can and can't be traded. If the commisioner wants to be a GM, then he needs to step down and try and apply for a GM job when it opens. When a commisioner is telling a team what is fair and what isn't, then he's over stepping his bounds as a commisioner if he doesn't do it for every trade. This tells me the league is telling a team where he can be traded to and to me that's 100% wrong. Unless it's breaking a rule, then the league needs to stay out of any trade that the Hornets make.

[ninersdd]

Holy cow. Really? Are people really still on that whole the league stole the series from the Kings? Go to Home Depot or Lowe's buy some hammer and nails and get over it. Now as far as the Chris Paul fiasco. I've said it because of the Lakers deal and I'll continue it now, the league had no credibility controling or telling who can and can't be traded. If the commisioner wants to be a GM, then he needs to step down and try and apply for a GM job when it opens.

When a commisioner is telling a team what is fair and what isn't, then he's over stepping his bounds as a commisioner if he doesn't do it for every trade. This tells me the league

is telling a team where he can be traded to and to me

that's 100% wrong. Unless it's breaking a rule, then the league needs to stay out of any trade that the Hornets make.

Are you ok? Where did I blame the league? I blamed the refs who obviously were really bad in Game 6 which a lot of people agree about.

[Fox]

Holy cow. Really? Are people really still on that whole the league stole the series from the Kings? Go to Home Depot or Lowe's buy some hammer and nails and get over it. Now as far as the Chris Paul fiasco. I've said it because of the Lakers deal and I'll continue it now, the league had no credibility controling or telling who can and can't be traded. If the commisioner wants to be a GM, then he needs to step down and try and apply for a GM job when it opens. When a commisioner is telling a team what is fair and what isn't, then he's over stepping his bounds as a commisioner if he doesn't do it for every trade. This tells me the league is telling a team where he can be traded to and to me that's 100% wrong. Unless it's breaking a rule, then the league needs to stay out of any trade that the Hornets make.

Well it's not like it was brought up out of nowhere. It was a response to the thread title, "Does the NBA hate Los Angeles" which contradicts the popular conspiracy theory that the NBA actually favors the Lakers (2002 WCF being the main example) *Which, as a Celtics fan, other than the Kings series, I don't believe in

But anyway- I agree with the rest of what you said completely. The league is in no position to step in and reject that deal, a deal that all three sides agreed on. If they think they're helping the Hornets, they're not. They're screwing them over and setting them up to receive nothing in exchange for their star.

[Lights Out]

Shutting down the Lakers' trade was defensible. Stern decided the Hornets would be better off with young players and picks - a totally reasonable stance, considering that is the most successful, tried-and-true method of rebuilding a team. Where he made a crucial mistake was in turning down the Clippers' initial offer, which had plenty of young players and a prized lottery pick. Making further, outrageous demands just made him look like a hypocrite.

Now, he's been completely outsmarted by the Clippers' front office. By claiming Billups, they now hold ALL the leverage, Stern is desperate to make a trade, and the Clippers are his only option. If he starts demanding half the team again, the Clips can tell him "go screw, we already have Billups". Stern is certainly not in an enviable position right now, because no matter what he does, someone will be pissed... but he did it to himself.

[Gothamite]

Shutting down the Lakers' trade was defensible. Stern decided the Hornets would be better off with young players and picks - a totally reasonable stance, considering that is the most successful, tried-and-true method of rebuilding a team. Where he made a crucial mistake was in turning down the Clippers' initial offer, which had plenty of young players and a prized lottery pick. Making further, outrageous demands just made him look like a hypocrite.

So did changing the story about why they were turning down the trade. "Basketball reasons" or business reasons? Make up your mind....

[Shmee]

Claiming Billups was a brilliant move by the Clippers. Not only do they have a better-than-decent PG in case they don't get Paul, they also have all the leverage in their negotiations with Stern & Co. Of course, it also means that the deal is going to be dead in the water. The Clips no longer have to give away everything but Blake Griffin, because they have a legit starter. But the league can't decrease it's offer now in a desperate attempt to get rid of Paul, because that would kill any facade of the Lakers deal being nixed for basketball reasons. Stern made his bed when he let Dan Gilbert bully him into killing the Lakers deal, and now he's got to lie in it. Paul is going to walk at the end of the season for nothing, and "basketball reasons" will be this year's "Mission Accomplished!"

[Lights Out]

I don't think it necessarily means that the deal is dead. It definitely gives the Clippers more leverage to force Stern to take the reasonable offer they've put forth.

As a Clipper fan, I couldn't be prouder of how this offseason has gone so far. They've made shrewd, forward-thinking moves, and Sterling is actually spending money. It appears that Neil Olshey has turned this franchise around.