why would Stern allow a similar deal for Howard to the Lakers now? It would be clear then that the league was just burning the Hornets franchise to the ground.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:30 (twelve years ago) link
comments my wife just made about various NBA stars:
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 9 December 2011 02:31 (twelve years ago) link
the wouldn't block a howard deal
― v-shasty, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:31 (twelve years ago) link
well the league can't be accused of tampering in a deal like that. the hornets/lakers deal had bad optics since the league essentially runs NO.
― ~occubarn~ (clay), Friday, 9 December 2011 02:31 (twelve years ago) link
stern has no ability to kill a howard to lakers trade. the NBA doesn't own either of those teams.
they could do this in a snap bcuz they have control of the hornets -- they wouldn't set a precedent of vetoing trades b/w two third parties
(i guess they could kill a howard-to-LAL deal if it was the product of tampering or a violation of league rules, but that isn't what happened here, either.)
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 9 December 2011 02:32 (twelve years ago) link
i think the nene thing was the rockets' plan
― v-shasty, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:33 (twelve years ago) link
I was under the impression that this trade was "nullified," i.e. it was done under the commissioner's prerogative to approve or not approve any trade.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:33 (twelve years ago) link
or at least grabbing a for real center
not sure where he gets a potential top seed out of that backcourt tho
I'm happy to announce that the NBA has sold the hornets to me, for $1, so that this deal can go through - I'm going on record as saying that I don't object at all to this trade. happy basketball y'all
― dayo, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:33 (twelve years ago) link
fyi, jho has the authority to kill any deal involving howard if he feels it is unjust
― ~occubarn~ (clay), Friday, 9 December 2011 02:33 (twelve years ago) link
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, December 8, 2011 8:33 PM (9 seconds ago) Bookmark
no, stern as the 'owner' of the team, killed the trade like any owner could
― v-shasty, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:34 (twelve years ago) link
another horrible thing: they just lowered the franchise value of the hornets!
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:34 (twelve years ago) link
this is just utter insanity
― v-shasty, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:35 (twelve years ago) link
but Stern should not be able to nullify a trade in his capacity as "owner," right? Because obviously as "owner" he would like the deal!
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:36 (twelve years ago) link
like I said: Buss should sue.
matt, it's just the optics of the thing mostly. the other owners don't want the nba making deals regarding superstars going to very visible teams right on the heels of a lockout that, theoretically, was supposed to help small market teams and keep stars from bolting whenever they felt like it.
― ~occubarn~ (clay), Friday, 9 December 2011 02:37 (twelve years ago) link
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, December 8, 2011 8:36 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
yeah but he doesn't have to have a good reason to stop his GM from trading one of his players
― v-shasty, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:38 (twelve years ago) link
owners don't consult with other owners about how their trade has hurt their feewwwwings. Which is why the Lakers should sue.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:41 (twelve years ago) link
and can the owners possibly be so dumb as to buy their own BS about the reasons for the lockout? It was always about the revenue split and contract lengths.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:42 (twelve years ago) link
there was a lot of small-market owner anger at big-market teams.
the labor-dispute was largely owner v. owner.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 9 December 2011 02:43 (twelve years ago) link
this is totally true and never really got enough coverage.
― clay, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:44 (twelve years ago) link
this wasn't about optics or owners being concerned about the league's image -- it was about butthurt owners
― v-shasty, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:45 (twelve years ago) link
butthurt small-market team owners. micky arison didn't do this.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 9 December 2011 02:46 (twelve years ago) link
RT @MickyArison Whatever happens with @CP3 all I can say is I wish him the the best.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 9 December 2011 02:47 (twelve years ago) link
oh god, daniel. don't just assume that bcuz micky arison amassed the big 3 that he was just totally cool w/ the lakers starting to assemble a super team to rival the heat.
― v-shasty, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:48 (twelve years ago) link
RicBucher Ric BucherReports are owners squashed Hou-LA-NO deal, citing conflict of interest for NBA-owned NO. But sources say Pau didn't want to go to Hou, too.
yeah, no shit
― v-shasty, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:49 (twelve years ago) link
David Stern steps in to protect the fragile pride of Pau Gasol
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:49 (twelve years ago) link
what's the evidence you have for thinking arison's trying to pull the ladder out now that he's climbed up into the treehouse of NBA powerhouses?
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 9 December 2011 02:50 (twelve years ago) link
maybe if the league wanted to restrict player movement they shouldn't have asked for the players to give them 3 billion dollars.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:50 (twelve years ago) link
what's the evidence you have that he didn't? a tweet at chris paul? the guy is a CEO, he knows how to put on a good face.
― v-shasty, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:51 (twelve years ago) link
sorry that sounded overly harsh. arison's comments -- during the lockout and now -- suggest to me he's not afraid of competiton or player movement or other teams ascending. maybe i'm wrong. we're all just reading tea leaves about individual owner's motives.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 9 December 2011 02:51 (twelve years ago) link
it's in arison's interest to be pro-player. he'll be able to spend a lot of money to create a new team if and when the Big 3 move on, retire, get injured, etc. that's a business-savvy perspective that a good CEO might take, as well.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 9 December 2011 02:52 (twelve years ago) link
i highly doubt that he tried to step in and defend the rights of jerry buss and the lakers to come for a crown that the heat desperately need
― v-shasty, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:52 (twelve years ago) link
like mccain said when the GOP was proposing to kill the fillibuster in, say, 2003: "i'd like this idea more if i thought we'd always be in the majority."
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 9 December 2011 02:53 (twelve years ago) link
yeah but this move will have no precedent unless he's planning on trading for a hornet while the team is owned by the nba
― v-shasty, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:53 (twelve years ago) link
rescind the wilt chamberlain trade!
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:55 (twelve years ago) link
pretty fucking shameful that ESPN doesn't acknowledge Woj for breaking the story.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:57 (twelve years ago) link
everyone carry on
NBA spox Mike Bass: "It's not true that owners killed the deal. The League office declined ... for basketball reasons."
― v-shasty, Friday, 9 December 2011 02:59 (twelve years ago) link
i think it's actually unspoken espn policy to never credit yahoo
unless it's something completely unavoidable, like hurricanes scandal
― v-shasty, Friday, 9 December 2011 03:00 (twelve years ago) link
"basketball reasons"
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 9 December 2011 03:00 (twelve years ago) link
hooooly shit @ tonight
jordan otm throughout
― k3vin k., Friday, 9 December 2011 03:01 (twelve years ago) link
For Basketball Reasons
― clay, Friday, 9 December 2011 03:01 (twelve years ago) link
xp chuch
― v-shasty, Friday, 9 December 2011 03:02 (twelve years ago) link
chris paul, i think, could and maybe even should sue the league
― v-shasty, Friday, 9 December 2011 03:05 (twelve years ago) link
jerry buss wouldn't really be able to sue for anything, unless they ginned up some number to represent the estimated revenue that chris paul would've made the team, which considering the team involved, is prob pretty minimal
paul on the other hand via the cba is actually being forced out of money against his will by the nba, and that's something he could reasonably pursue
― v-shasty, Friday, 9 December 2011 03:06 (twelve years ago) link
ppl are talking about that on twitter - idk what kind of grounds he'd have to do that but i'd lol xp
― k3vin k., Friday, 9 December 2011 03:07 (twelve years ago) link
and it's a clear, precise number already in a contract
― v-shasty, Friday, 9 December 2011 03:07 (twelve years ago) link