Stern block Chris Paul trade to Lakers

Then Vlad should have been a Yankee.

So is your view the Hornets roster is frozen until they are sold? Or should they not play, because the lineup created by the league is then dictating winners and losers?

 

Well, there's 20+ of them and only about a half-dozen franchises that are indisputably "large-market teams."

And at least for the official record, each team gets one vote, although sometimes it seems like the Knicks and Lakers' votes count about 25.

 

I don't know. Maybe a five-person committee of owners is the answer. Getting the Hornets sold is the clear solution, and maybe this is their chance to realize that they need to do that even if it's for half-price.

But the league cannot be shifting the balance of power that way. Cannot. And the fact that the trade just happened to be an eyebrow-raiser involving the marquee team that always seems to end up on the good side of such trades, that makes it worse.

Paul might just have to bide his time for five months, the casualty of a bad situation.

 

How is he making any kind of case? The Lakers should be forced to be over the cap?

Here's Dan Gilbert's problem, whether he wants to admit it or not: Dan Gilbert owns a team in fucking Cleveland. Owners like him want a system that allows his team to compete for players with New York, Miami and the Lakers. If he wants to do that, he needs to move his team to New York, Miami or Los Angeles.

No top free agent is signing in a place like Cleveland, ever. Or Milwaukee, or Sacramento, or fill-in-small-market-team here. He needs to face the fact that barring a great draft, his team will be the Washington Generals.

Go back through the NBA champs over the years. I forget the exact stat, but something like 7 teams account for 80% of the championships.

The only time a smaller market team breaks through is because of the draft -- Cleveland getting Labron, San Antonio getting Robinson and then Duncan, Milwaukee getting Kareem. Other than that, the championships go to LA, Boston, and a few other big-market, attractive teams. Gilbert can stomp his feet and hold his breath, but he's still the owner of a team in a city where no one with options will go.

 

The Lakers gave up an all-star and the 2011 sixth man of the year in the deal. This was not some giant shift in the balance of power.

 

And when does a team ever get the best player in the deal AND $40 million in cap/tax relief -- which, as Gilbert points out, can and probably would be spun into a deal for Dwight Howard?

If the New Orleans Hornets are stuck making this deal, Gilbert can suck it. If the NBA makes the deal -- and Gilbert essentially owns one-twenty-eighth of the Hornets -- that's the problem.

Someone said it a few pages ago, but Lakers fans are getting mighty worked up about a deal that was so eminently fair. They should be happy they get to keep Odom and Gasol if that's the case.

 

Bynum plus a first-round pick for Howard.

 

I will now root for the Heat to win the title if ESPN will provide live shots of Dan Gilbert's reactioons throughout the Finals.

I didn't like this trade for the Lakers. But the owner of the freaking Cleveland Cavaliers, an NBA franchise that does not matter, doesn't get to loudly attempt to dictate terms for the league.

Especially since he just has to note the luxury tax losses for the league that such a deal would cause.

"That $21 million goes to non-taxpaying teams and to fund revenue sharing."

So basically, this NBA small-timer is angry that he won't get his money.

This, on the heels of the lockout, should end with Stern gently forced out by the end of the season.

 

Not that Dan Gilbert was going to get high-powered FAs in Cleveland, but his LeBron shenanigans and this leading of Paul-blocking guarantees that any player of note who ends up on the Cavaliers will count down the days until he goes.

At this rate, Cavs fans will wish for the heady days of Ted Stepien.

 

That's a fundamentally flawed view of how a good trade works.

A good trade is not 50/50 for a team. A good trade benefits both sides.

It's a good trade for a Lakers because they get a damn good point guard and financial relief.

It's a good trade for New Orleans because they get a good, solid return for a guy who is gone in 66 games.

And again, I don't see any way the Lakers turn around and put together a Howard deal with what they have left, but if they can, is that really an argument against what seems to be a very fair deal with the Hornets?

So here's the result: three teams with players who are expected to report tomorrow, on teams that have traded them in the past 24 hours. This will be a complete shitstorm for the league, including a star player who will now almost assuredly sit out and completely tank the value of the franchise the owners are allegedly saving. Good work.