Paul to Lakers

[tobiazz]

Wasn't nothing. was a young big in Lil' Gasol, cap space that they could use and an expiring K in stonehands.

But they did that via TRADING, not by letting Gasol walk away. They picked up a goon in Kwame that they dumped for space...plus space from the deal in itself, plus a good prospect in Marc that the Lakers liked in the first place.

Not a good example, IMO.

I know, Marc was such a highly touted prospect at the time. That's how the Lakers got him with the 48th overall pick. Please.

 

[Folster]

Rondo and Green is a better package than Odom, Martin, and Scola. Reports are that Paul refused to extend with Boston, but what other big-market options would he have next year. LA has no cap room, and neither will NY after signing Chandler.

And if I were the owner of the Magic I'd straight-up tell Howard's agent that the only way that he will ever play for LA is if it's with the Clippers or for the MLE with the Lakers. I'd be prepared to lose him for nothing before gift wrapping LA my second franchise center. The Lakers have no pull nor does Howard. This isn't like Melo with the Knicks having a ton of cap space to sign him as a free agent if a trade couldn't be worked out.

 

[D-Dogg]

I know, Marc was such a highly touted prospect at the time. That's how the Lakers got him with the 48th overall pick. Please.

Nobody said he was highly touted. I just said the Lakers were high on him. They liked the kid and IIRC tried to keep him out of the deal in the first place.

Please. Your point was not good on its face, since the huge cap space was created by the TRADE itself, from which they also got players, picks and even extra cap space from the difference in contracts.

 

[D-Dogg]

Rondo and Green is a better package than Odom, Martin, and Scola. Reports are that Paul refused to extend with Boston, but what other big-market options would he have next year. LA has no cap room, and neither will NY after signing Chandler..

Paul most certainly wouldn't extend in Boston. Not a chance.

So that package is moot.

Of course he has no big market options next year because of cap space...thus he wants to be moved now, to a team he wants. And he had it. And it was blocked "for basketball reasons" which means it wouldn't be crazy to see legal action being brought by the union...which Broussard reports is what Chris is exploring right now.

 

[Joe L]

The contract of a player who wanted to be traded was traded to a team he wants to be moved to, legally. Other players contracts were also legally traded, regardless of their desires, but within the confines of the agreement. The deal was nixed by the league, by their statement "for basketball reasons." In a collective bargaining agreement environment, that is shady. Reeks of collusion of owners against players. Definition of "basketball reasons" would need to be explained and proven. Otherwise, the league is acting in a manner that violates the rights of a player to request and be provided a trade to a team of his choosing if the teams can work out a mutually agreed too transaction.

So yeah, I'd not be surprised at legal action.

Every trade has to be approved by the league, always been that way. And since no deals can be inked until tomorrow, this deal technically does not exist.

 

[tobiazz]

The contract of a player who wanted to be traded was traded to a team he wants to be moved to, legally. Other players contracts were also legally traded, regardless of their desires, but within the confines of the agreement. The deal was nixed by the league, by their statement "for basketball reasons." In a collective bargaining agreement environment, that is shady. Reeks of collusion of owners against players. Definition of "basketball reasons" would need to be explained and proven. Otherwise, the league is acting in a manner that violates the rights of a player to request and be provided a trade to a team of his choosing if the teams can work out a mutually agreed too transaction.

So yeah, I'd not be surprised at legal action.

Well, it's all according to whatever the CBA says and we have no clue about that. In the CBA there are provisions that would violate the players' normal rights outside of such an agreement. For example, a team would never be allowed to block another team from signing a 17 year old, if the team and player were willing partners, if not for the CBA. So, I've got no clue if and how the CBA accounts for this trade rejection.

I'd imagine Stern can get away with this though. The league office has blocked trades before.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

I know, Marc was such a highly touted prospect at the time. That's how the Lakers got him with the 48th overall pick. Please.

Marc was 23 and in the middle of an MVP-like season overseas. A lot of people thought he was going to continue his career over there and never make the move to the NBA.

 

[Joe L]

Well, it's all according to whatever the CBA says and we have no clue about that. In the CBA exist provisions that would violate the players rights outside of such an agreement.

For example, a team would never be allowed to block another team from signing a 17 year old, if the team and player were willing partners, if it were not for the CBA. So, I've got no clue if and how the CBA accounts for this trade rejection. I'd imagine Stern can get away with this though. The league office has blocked trades before.

The deal is not recognized. No deals until tomorrow. Paul has nothing to stand on.

 

[D-Dogg]

Every trade has to be approved by the league, always been that way. And since no deals can be inked until tomorrow, this deal technically does not exist.

Very true - nothing existed technically at all.

However, "basketball reasons" is the Stern equivalent of "because I said so and that's all the reason you need."

When you have 3 GMs agree to a trade (hard enough to pull off at any time, much less when a superstar, an all star and a 6th man of the year are involved) then those basketball reasons better be crystal clear as to why it is overridden.

 

[D-Dogg]

The deal is not recognized. No deals until tomorrow. Paul has nothing to stand on.

Incorrect - this is a proposed deal that the league actually did nix. It could not be finalized until tomorrow, but it was proposed, and it was negated.

Paul has a lot to stand on.


It will come down to a conflict of interest in the league actually owning a team and not divorcing the front office from the commissioner's office.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Has anyone even thought to ask Khloe Kardashian for her opinion ?!

 

[tobiazz]

Has anyone even thought to ask Khloe Kardashian for her opinion ?!

She's pissed. They had already sold the rights to their big trade-induced divorce to the E channel.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

She's pissed. They had already sold the rights to their big trade-induced divorce to the E channel.

 

[Joe L]

Incorrect - this is a proposed deal that the league actually did nix. It could not be finalized until tomorrow, but it was proposed, and it was negated.

Paul has a lot to stand on.


It will come down to a conflict of interest in the league actually owning a team and not divorcing the front office from the commissioner's office.

Even so, Paul doesn't have anything to stand on. He is the property of the team and his rights were traded and brought back. He has to fulfill his contract, no matter what team he plays on. Just like a disgruntled player can't submit a grievance for going to a bad team, a player not traded to a good team, can't file a grievance for not being traded.

 

[Folster]

I actually think the proposed trade makes the Lakers worse. Kobe is wearing down Bynum and Paul are injury prone. The problem is that as soon as the deal had been completed, Howard would have announced to the Magic and every other GM/owner that he would refused to sign an extension with any team but the Lakers, thereby forcing a trade to the Lakers. The writing was on the wall, which is why the owners forced Stern to decline the trade.

 

[Joe L]

Incorrect - this is a proposed deal that the league actually did nix. It could not be finalized until tomorrow, but it was proposed, and it was negated.

Paul has a lot to stand on.


It will come down to a conflict of interest in the league actually owning a team and not divorcing the front office from the commissioner's office.

I forgot to answer your response:

The proposed deal was leaked when it should have waited till tomorrow. The reason it was nixed was because the people opened their mouths and the owners got wind of it. That's why it had to be dealt with. How many other trades got leaked? None.

 

[tobiazz]

You must be registered for see images

 

[Cheesebeef]

word on CNNSI is that Ainge might be willing to roll the dice on a Paul trade WITHOUT assurances that he'd sign a long-term deal. Sorry Laker fans, but the rumored Rondo, Green, Clippers top ten protected pick and the Celtics 2012 draft pick is better than the deal y'all offered up.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...ee.agency.trade.market/index.html?eref=sircrc

 

[Mainstreet]

You must be registered for see images

This is a very funny video. Did you create it?

 

[tobiazz]

This is a very funny video. Did you create it?

Nope.

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1127431&start=1140#wrap

 

[D-Dogg]

word on CNNSI is that Ainge might be willing to roll the dice on a Paul trade WITHOUT assurances that he'd sign a long-term deal. Sorry Laker fans, but the rumored Rondo, Green, Clippers top ten protected pick and the Celtics 2012 draft pick is better than the deal y'all offered up.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...ee.agency.trade.market/index.html?eref=sircrc

Sweet! Then Ainge is as dumb as he's always been, and it will ruin the Celtics for years with a guarantee they don't win a ship this year too.

I'm all for it!

 

[Griffin]

word on CNNSI is that Ainge might be willing to roll the dice on a Paul trade WITHOUT assurances that he'd sign a long-term deal. Sorry Laker fans, but the rumored Rondo, Green, Clippers top ten protected pick and the Celtics 2012 draft pick is better than the deal y'all offered up.

The problem is that whichever deal is actually better for the Hornets in the long run is a matter of opinion. How could the league reject NO's trade with the Lakers and then turn around and approve Paul to Boston? Didn't NBA leave Demps in charge of determining those things? When it rejected the Lakers deal, was the league acting as a governing body or as Hornets' ownership group?

For those reasons I think Hornets may not be making any more trades until they are sold. Right now there is a serious conflict of interest and it needs to be resolved. This actually could benefit the Suns and their 2012 plans. If Paul indeed becomes a free agent next summer, the Suns with their cap room will be one of the more attractive options for him at that point.

 

[D-Dogg]

@WojYahooNBA
Adrian Wojnarowski
To listen to the GM's, coaches, players, agents reaching out to me tonight: I think the NBA has changed forever with Stern's act tonight.

Doesn't say if that is for good or bad...

 

[D-Dogg]

The problem is that whichever deal is actually better for the Hornets in the long run is a matter of opinion. How could the league reject NO's trade with the Lakers and then turn around and approve Paul to Boston? Didn't NBA leave Demps in charge of determining those things? When it rejected the Lakers deal, was the league acting as a governing body or as Hornets' ownership group? For those reasons I think Hornets may not be making any more trades until they are sold. Right now there is a serious conflict of interest and it needs to be resolved.

Crux of the matter right there...it's an incredible conflict of interest. Nobody can tell.

This actually could benefit the Suns and their 2012 plans. If Paul indeed becomes a free agent next summer, the Suns with their cap room will be one of the more attractive options for him at that point.

Very interesting observation right there. Trade 'em all, tank and get a nice pick, CP3 and roll. Not a bad approach.

 

[sunsfan88]

LMFAO!

This is not a good trade for Houston! Watch Gasol in the postseason last year?