Is it more reasonable to force them to have Paul for a year and then get absolutely nothing when he bolts?

 

For that trash? Yup. If anything to send a message to these p**** ass players that you're not going to hold us hostage by the balls when you're still under contract. Can you imagine a Hornets season ticket holder being told we just traded a superstar PG in his prime for Lamar Odom and Kevin Martin?

Edited December 9, 201114 yr by Jordan4life

For that trash? Yup. If anything to send a message to these p**** ass players that you're not going to hold us hostage by the balls when you're still under contract. Can you imagine a Hornets season ticket holder being told we just traded a superstar PG in his prime for Lamar Odom and Kevin Martin?

 

The Hornets are in a position with no leverage. 3 starters is a decent haul. It's not like there are a bunch of other superior offers we're aware of them getting.

 

If Paul wants to hold the Hornets hostage and refuse to play, then punish him. You don't play or get paid this year. Don't punish the Hornets for trying to do what's best for themselves.

The Hornets are in a position with no leverage. 3 starters is a decent haul. It's not like there are a bunch of other superior offers we're aware of them getting.

 

If Paul wants to hold the Hornets hostage and refuse to play, then punish him. You don't play or get paid this year. Don't punish the Hornets for trying to do what's best for themselves.

 

There are much better offers. Stephen Curry for one. But, of course, Paul is not going to sign an extension with GS. That's fine. But that ridiculous Odom/Martin/Scola haul does nothing for the Hornets in the short or long-term. So there's really nothing for them to lose. If Paul wants to sit out a year with no pay, so be it. The league did nothing wrong here. They own the team and nixed a disgrace of a deal.

There are much better offers. Stephen Curry for one. But, of course, Paul is not going to sign an extension with GS. That's fine. But that ridiculous Odom/Martin/Scola haul does nothing for the Hornets in the short or long-term. So there's really nothing for them to lose. If Paul wants to sit out a year with no pay, so be it. The league did nothing wrong here. They own the team and nixed a disgrace of a deal.

 

What were the details of the Curry offer?

 

I think you're really underrating the proposed package. Odom/Martin/Scola were #15/22/80 in Win Shares and #20/36/53 in PER. They're GOOD players.

 

The league didn't nix the deal because it was bad for the Hornets. They did it because they didn't like what it did for the Lakers. That's wrong.

Team sources: Golden State Warriors would trade Monta Ellis, not Stephen Curry, for Chris Paul

http://www.mercurynews.com/warriors/ci_19492287

Edited December 9, 201114 yr by CrimsonWeltall

Team sources: Golden State Warriors would trade Monta Ellis, not Stephen Curry, for Chris Paul

http://www.mercurynews.com/warriors/ci_19492287

 

OK? Did you read the first paragraph? It was all about Paul signing an extension I don't blame them for not wanting to deal Curry with no assurances that Paul would extend.

OK? Did you read the first paragraph? It was all about Paul signing an extension I don't blame them for not wanting to deal Curry with no assurances that Paul would extend.

 

You said the Hornets had a better offer available in Curry. They didn't.

You said the Hornets had a better offer available in Curry. They didn't.

 

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 12:44 PM) *

There are much better offers. Stephen Curry for one. But, of course, Paul is not going to sign an extension with GS. That's fine. But that ridiculous Odom/Martin/Scola haul does nothing for the Hornets in the short or long-term. So there's really nothing for them to lose. If Paul wants to sit out a year with no pay, so be it. The league did nothing wrong here. They own the team and nixed a disgrace of a deal.

 

That was me recognizing that it wasn't happening due to Paul not wanting to extend there. That's no excuse to settle for crap.

That was me recognizing that it wasn't happening due to Paul not wanting to extend there. That's no excuse to settle for crap.

 

What were the better options?

What were the better options?

 

Currently? None. It's obvious Paul wants NY or LA. He won't extended anywhere else. But f*** him. He's under contract. They don't have to do a thing. That package is so insignificant that you have nothing to lose either way.

Who the f*** WANTS to be a NJ Net? That just is ridiculous to even type

yeah, but they are subsidized by LA and NY

 

Obviously that isn't working any more in many arenas.

The trade should not have gotten to that point if this was true.

 

Actually that is about how it should have been handled if it were any other team. It got vetoed at the ownership level.

Yes.

 

This all screams of corruption.

 

In a league that has already dealt with rumors of corruption.

 

A trade was agreed to by the General Managers of teams, and it fell within the acceptable parameters of the salary cap and league rules. The league has never given a damn who was involved. Players who have been corpses in the league have been dealt very recently (ie - the contract of so and so traded). This is part of the NBA.

 

A trade that fell within the parameters of acceptable by league standards has been blocked for the first time in my memory. The landscape of the NBA has changed. I wanted no part of CP3 going to the Lakers, but I am entirely saddened that my favorite sport has decided to kick it's credibility to the curb.

 

MLB has done exactly this many times before, without owning a team. Go back and research when the Oakland A's literally tried to sell of their world series teams in the 70's.

What were the details of the Curry offer?

 

I think you're really underrating the proposed package. Odom/Martin/Scola were #15/22/80 in Win Shares and #20/36/53 in PER. They're GOOD players.

 

The league didn't nix the deal because it was bad for the Hornets. They did it because they didn't like what it did for the Lakers. That's wrong.

 

Wasn't there also an unprotected first round pick from Houston in the deal?

Currently? None. It's obvious Paul wants NY or LA. He won't extended anywhere else. But f*** him. He's under contract. They don't have to do a thing. That package is so insignificant that you have nothing to lose either way.

 

3 good starters is "so insignificant" and they should just wait and get nothing? You're not being reasonable.

Wasn't there also an unprotected first round pick from Houston in the deal?

 

Yes, also Goran Dragic.

 

Martin/Scola/Odom/Dragic/#1 (probably around pick 20 since it's a Knicks' pick)

Who the f*** WANTS to be a NJ Net? That just is ridiculous to even type

 

JayZ being involved probably peaks the interest of some of the players now.

Who the f*** WANTS to be a NJ Net? That just is ridiculous to even type

 

They will be Brooklyn soon enough.

JayZ being involved probably peaks the interest of some of the players now.

 

it didnt seem to phase Melo. Whatever, i just want free agency to start. this waiting sucks

3 good starters is "so insignificant" and they should just wait and get nothing? You're not being reasonable.

 

 

Yes, also Goran Dragic.

 

Martin/Scola/Odom/Dragic/#1 (probably around pick 20 since it's a Knicks' pick)

 

So the Lakers get by far and away the best player in the deal and SAVE millions in the process. The Hornets get back roleplayers, two of them in their 30's, and supposedly a draft pick that won't mean s***, and add salary? Yeah, score one for David Stern here.

I think playingnin Brooklyn would be pretty awesome

Who the f*** WANTS to be a NJ Net? That just is ridiculous to even type

The question you have to ask is... who wants to be a Brooklyn Net, since that's really all that matters. Jay-Z has a ton of pull in the league, too.

 

It's too bad Kanye is such a douchebag, or else I'd recommend the Bulls sell him 5% and bring him into every meeting.

I think playingnin Brooklyn would be pretty awesome

 

yea it would be great to be second fiddle to the knicks

2) It's not killing the NBA. Ratings were way up for LA/Boston before the Heat happened, interest in the league was quite high in the Jordan years, and the league had a big explosion in popularity in the Magic/Bird years. Great players and great teams draw interest in the league, which means more money for everyone.

Actually, I believe it will severely hurt the league int he long run. Smaller market, or less privileged teams will be treated as "feeders" to the larger markets.