and Renz, just answer me this one simple question: Which was the better trade? the Laker-Houston-Hornets trade or the Clippers-Hornets trade?
Both were good. Pretending that the Lakers offer wasn't good ignores everyone in the NBA that said they made out very well for a guy who was leaving. But the league used the power of the commissioner's office as leverage in a trade in order to suck out assets from the Clippers to make a better offer.
And yes, it is a better offer - however, when the league is negotiating AND approving the final offer, as well as managing (and knowing all of) the Billups bids which helped enable the Clips to make that offer, there is an incredible conflict of interest. That kind of leverage is dangerous, and something no team in the league can remotely match. When Demps, Morey and Kupchak work out a three team deal that the basketball minds agree works out for all parties, it isn't a horrible deal for any of them. It was a pretty good deal for all parties.
The party that should be the most pissed is the Rockets. They got their plans smashed into the dust.
Overall, its not that big of a deal. The Clips still have Sterling as the owner, and he'll ef it up as usual. The Lakers still have Jim Buss, who will start effing it up as his track record has consistently shown - everything he touches turns into dogcrap. The Lakers still need a real PG...nothing new there.