View Full Version : Chris Paul headed to Lakers for Odom/Gasol.
Casino
12-08-2011, 07:23 PM
The rich get richer,lakers unloadng Odom whos too busy with his reality show,and Gasol who is as soft as ice cream.Players will always go to the big cities.Thought NBA had fix the problem.
Casino
12-08-2011, 07:47 PM
The rich get richer,lakers unloadng Odom whos too busy with his reality show,and Gasol who is as soft as ice cream.Players will always go to the big cities.Thought NBA had fix the problem.
Next Bynum for Dwight Howard which means Lebron aint winning a title anytime soon.
ManU918
12-08-2011, 07:57 PM
Next Bynum for Dwight Howard which means Lebron aint winning a title anytime soon.
If the Lakers do get Dwight Howard it will have to be for way more then just Bynum.
Not so fast on that trade, owners not happy NBA owned Hornets trading Paul to big market...trade might be DOA
Robert Goren
12-09-2011, 12:13 AM
Chris Paul who will be free agent after this season is over is headed to a big market team anyway. He has expressed a desire to play for the Knicks. He was not going to be in NO next year anyway. The money from non basketball sources for a player like Paul in LA or NY is a lot more than it would be if he stayed in NO. We are talking at least $20-30 million a year here.
PhantomOnTour
12-09-2011, 12:25 AM
Chris Paul who will be free agent after this season is over is headed to a big market team anyway. He has expressed a desire to play for the Knicks. He was not going to be in NO next year anyway. The money from non basketball sources for a player like Paul in LA or NY is a lot more than it would be if he stayed in NO. We are talking at least $20-30 million a year here.
But...the Hornets will get players and/or picks if they are able to trade him vs. lose him thru free agency.
Valuist
12-09-2011, 04:41 PM
Its BS that trade got cancelled.
redshift1
12-09-2011, 05:12 PM
According to Demps, who is Stern's man in New Orleans, " The league was kept aware of the trade throughout the process". Apparently after several small market owners complained the story has changed and Sterns is now claiming the NBA as owners of NO feel it's not a good deal.
If you follow the timeline is pretty clear that the NBA, to avoid potential litigation, is reworking the events to make it appear that the trade they green lighted is suddenly not in the best interests of N. O. basketball. So Chris Paul plays his final year with the Hornets, enters free agency and NO is left without any compensation.
Crazy.
Makes Stern look like a receptionist for a bloc of small market owners.
.
Its BS that trade got cancelled.
Why? It is about money. Making this trade would have stuck whoever buys the Hornets with an average team with no cap space. Who would buy that? They are better off letting Paul walk and having few commitments and lots of money. It also tells players screw off, you aren't using us to get your max contract as if you stayed here.
In the NBA, nothing is worse than mediocrity, and that is where the Hornets were headed.
But...the Hornets will get players and/or picks if they are able to trade him vs. lose him thru free agency.
This is a fallacy in the NBA. Usually, you are better off starting over with plenty of money. They are better off losing him and not being saddled with a bunch of contracts. This isn't about the players, it is about money.
Valuist
12-09-2011, 05:40 PM
Why? It is about money. Making this trade would have stuck whoever buys the Hornets with an average team with no cap space. Who would buy that? They are better off letting Paul walk and having few commitments and lots of money. It also tells players screw off, you aren't using us to get your max contract as if you stayed here.
In the NBA, nothing is worse than mediocrity, and that is where the Hornets were headed.
I was surprised they were able to get what they could. You bring up legit points, but I don't care for league meddling.
I was surprised they were able to get what they could. You bring up legit points, but I don't care for league meddling.
It isn't meddling if they own the team. They need to get out of that situation and fast, it is bad for everyone.
Robert Fischer
12-09-2011, 08:56 PM
This is a fallacy in the NBA. Usually, you are better off starting over with plenty of money. They are better off losing him and not being saddled with a bunch of contracts. This isn't about the players, it is about money.
agree.
It's a tough deal though...
lakers fighting miami with showtime teams = 10sMillions/yr for league
Hornets also have to have an attractive deal for parity...
dav4463
12-09-2011, 09:48 PM
I think it is a step in the right direction to not allow players to dictate where they will and will not play.
redshift1
12-10-2011, 04:42 AM
Talks back on, expect Lakers to also provide some minor concession perhaps a draft pick for the Hornets..... Allows the league to save face. Of course the endgame is Bynum + ? for Howard.
DigitalDownsJoe
12-11-2011, 09:45 AM
Coming from a magic fan, I hope we unload Howard. He is nothing more then a big kid playing for fun. He cant shoot free throws and is not someone who the offense can go through. He has a very limited offensive game other then what he does on the glass and put packs and dunks. He is however a great complimentary piece and good on defense. But I think his blocking shots overshadows the careless fouls, the turnovers, and most importantly the fact he cant be on the floor in a close game because the other team fouls him every time he touches the ball. I hope someone is dumb enough to give us someone good for him.
MadWorld
12-11-2011, 12:32 PM
Why? It is about money. Making this trade would have stuck whoever buys the Hornets with an average team with no cap space. Who would buy that? They are better off letting Paul walk and having few commitments and lots of money. It also tells players screw off, you aren't using us to get your max contract as if you stayed here.
In the NBA, nothing is worse than mediocrity, and that is where the Hornets were headed.
But if it's about being bad for a few years and stockpiling draft picks, the trade was best case scenario for them. They would have gotten an extra pick and very tradeable commodities in Odom, Martin, and Scola. They could have moved them all for younger players or picks, been horrible a year earlier, and gotten a high pick this year too.
The owners didn't approve of the trade because it helped the Lakers - not because it wasn't a great deal for the Hornets. That is what stinks about the Owner's involvement.
Dan Gilbert's letter starts off complaining that the deal was too good for the Lakers - not that it wasn't good enough for the Hornets.
:
"It would be a travesty to allow the Lakers to acquire Chris Paul in the apparent trade being discussed."
But if it's about being bad for a few years and stockpiling draft picks, the trade was best case scenario for them. They would have gotten an extra pick and very tradeable commodities in Odom, Martin, and Scola. They could have moved them all for younger players or picks, been horrible a year earlier, and gotten a high pick this year too.
The owners didn't approve of the trade because it helped the Lakers - not because it wasn't a great deal for the Hornets. That is what stinks about the Owner's involvement.
Dan Gilbert's letter starts off complaining that the deal was too good for the Lakers - not that it wasn't good enough for the Hornets.
:
"It would be a travesty to allow the Lakers to acquire Chris Paul in the apparent trade being discussed."
The problem is they wouldn't have been bad, they would have been about a 500 team stuck in nowhere land. That is a death sentence in the NBA. It wasn't going to be easy to deal a guy like Scola who is making a ton of money through 2015.
The 2nd version of the Paul deal is dead now, by the way. The Lakers pulled out when they actually didn't get a ton the best of it. They'll go for Howard now.
MadWorld
12-11-2011, 01:01 PM
The problem is they wouldn't have been bad, they would have been about a 500 team stuck in nowhere land. That is a death sentence in the NBA. It wasn't going to be easy to deal a guy like Scola who is making a ton of money through 2015.
The 2nd version of the Paul deal is dead now, by the way. The Lakers pulled out when they actually didn't get a ton the best of it. They'll go for Howard now.
My point is that if the goal is to become bad and get high draft picks, then the best way to do that is to acquire moveable assets (Odom, Scola, and Martin are perfect for that) and trade them for draft picks and even younger players. Odom is on his way to Dallas for a first round pick now. Worstcasescenario the Hornets move Scola and Martin in separate deals and get a future first round pick and a young guy that was a high 2nd rd pick. Add in Houston's pick they would have received and that's 3 first rd picks, a high 2nd rd and they would be a shoo in for a high lottery pick this year too.
Now they are going to barely miss the playoffs and get a worse pick than they would have by making the trade.
The owners didn't nix the trade because it was bad for the Hornets (because it was great for the Hornets) but because they didn't want the Lakers getting a great point guard.
My point is that if the goal is to become bad and get high draft picks, then the best way to do that is to acquire moveable assets (Odom, Scola, and Martin are perfect for that) and trade them for draft picks and even younger players. Odom is on his way to Dallas for a first round pick now. Worstcasescenario the Hornets move Scola and Martin in separate deals and get a future first round pick and a young guy that was a high 2nd rd pick. Add in Houston's pick they would have received and that's 3 first rd picks, a high 2nd rd and they would be a shoo in for a high lottery pick this year too.
Now they are going to barely miss the playoffs and get a worse pick than they would have by making the trade.
The owners didn't nix the trade because it was bad for the Hornets (because it was great for the Hornets) but because they didn't want the Lakers getting a great point guard.
I would disagree that Scola and Martin are all that movable. With the old labor deal, maybe, but not now. They both are way overpaid. I'm not disgreeing they should move Paul, but not by taking on pretty good but overpaid players.
I do find it a joke that the NBA says Paul should stay to keep up the value for a new owner. Do they really think the new owner will be a moron that doesn't realize Paul is leaving at the end of the year?
MadWorld
12-11-2011, 01:32 PM
I would disagree that Scola and Martin are all that movable. With the old labor deal, maybe, but not now. They both are way overpaid. I'm not disgreeing they should move Paul, but not by taking on pretty good but overpaid players.
I do find it a joke that the NBA says Paul should stay to keep up the value for a new owner. Do they really think the new owner will be a moron that doesn't realize Paul is leaving at the end of the year?
Agree the value of the franchise is in no way helped by making Chris Paul stay another year but I find it hard to believe they couldn't get some valuable assets for a player that averager over 23 pts a game and has one year on their contract. Scola averages 18 and 8 and is a relative deal at 9 to 10 million a year. There are a lot of teams with Championship aspirations that would try to find a way to get those players to plug a hole on their team. if either the Lakers or Nets get Howard, they have cap space and would love to get a guy like Scola.
We'll see how it plays out. I contend that teams never get fair value on these sign and trades. They are better off letting the guy walk and starting over. That is, of course, if the goal is to be a real contender at some point. If the goal is to fight for the 7 or 8 seed, maybe not.
MadWorld
12-11-2011, 03:09 PM
We'll see how it plays out. I contend that teams never get fair value on these sign and trades. They are better off letting the guy walk and starting over. That is, of course, if the goal is to be a real contender at some point. If the goal is to fight for the 7 or 8 seed, maybe not.
It's not about getting equal value but at least some value. Three mid to late first round picks is nowhere near the value of Chris Paul but it is extremely valuable for a rebuilding team and they would have gotten at least that if the other owners weren't so set on trying to keep Chris Paul from the Lakers.
It's not about getting equal value but at least some value. Three mid to late first round picks is nowhere near the value of Chris Paul but it is extremely valuable for a rebuilding team and they would have gotten at least that if the other owners weren't so set on trying to keep Chris Paul from the Lakers.
I get that, I just disagree that they could turn Scola and Martin into first round picks. At some point we'll probably find out.
Great article about the shape NO would have been in if that trade went through:
http://hoopspeak.com/2011/12/david-stern-did-the-right-thing/
Robert Goren
12-12-2011, 02:15 PM
We now know what Odom's trade value is. A late first round pick and some salary bookkeeping trick . Basically a tall latte at Starbucks. Gasol is probably worth a Grande latte.
We now know what Odom's trade value is. A late first round pick and some salary bookkeeping trick . Basically a tall latte at Starbucks. Gasol is probably worth a Grande latte.
Gasol wasn't going to the Hornets.
MadWorld
12-14-2011, 01:39 PM
We now know what Odom's trade value is. A late first round pick and some salary bookkeeping trick . Basically a tall latte at Starbucks. Gasol is probably worth a Grande latte.
That's not Odom's value though. The Laker's had to get rid of him after he threw a fit about getting possibly traded. His value is easily higher than that but they were apparently in a position where they had to move him quickly.
MadWorld
12-14-2011, 01:44 PM
Great article about the shape NO would have been in if that trade went through:
http://hoopspeak.com/2011/12/david-stern-did-the-right-thing/
Even if the author's reasons are true ( but a team with Kevin Martin, Odom, Scola, and a mid first rd pick is still far more valuable than a team without those pieces) then why didn't Stern and the owners allow the Clippers trade? It had an almost guaranteed lottery pick in one of the deepest drafts of the decade, a talented recent first round pick, a former all-pro center and still solid player in the final year of his contract, and an all rookie second team PG.
I really hope the Lakers and Clippers tell the league to forget it and NO loses Paul for nothing at the end of the year.
Bettowin
12-14-2011, 02:00 PM
Lakers should sign Kris Humphries. That would add some interest. LOL
Robert Goren
12-14-2011, 02:19 PM
Generally the in the NBA drafts these days, Most years there is 1 or 2 great picks another 4 or 5 who they think might start right away and the rest are projects. There are perhaps 10 rookies who start out in the "rotation" at the beginning of the season. The 15th pick in the draft is basically worthless for the coming year. Most teams would give away a 20 something pick for nothing if they could. That why so many times those picks are used on European players who they know is going to come to the NBA to play. The days of a known good player like Paul Pierce slipping to 10th are long over.
Robert Goren
12-14-2011, 02:25 PM
The value of a player has lot to do with his salary. To decide how much a player is worth in a trade compare him to other players making the same money. When you look at it like that then an aging player like Odom is not so valuable.
Even if the author's reasons are true ( but a team with Kevin Martin, Odom, Scola, and a mid first rd pick is still far more valuable than a team without those pieces) then why didn't Stern and the owners allow the Clippers trade? It had an almost guaranteed lottery pick in one of the deepest drafts of the decade, a talented recent first round pick, a former all-pro center and still solid player in the final year of his contract, and an all rookie second team PG.
I really hope the Lakers and Clippers tell the league to forget it and NO loses Paul for nothing at the end of the year.
I'm not sure the reported deal is what the Clips were offering. Paul won't sign beyond the second year, so his value to NO is slipping. Kaman sits more than he plays lately. Second team all rookie team isn't far from the D-League.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.