J.R. Smith has literally been shanghaied away for the foreshortened 2011-2012 NBA season: rolling ILH sandbox thread

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.

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

fyi, jho has the authority to kill any deal involving howard if he feels it is unjust

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, 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

another horrible thing: they just lowered the franchise value of the hornets!

this is just utter insanity

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!

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.

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, 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

owners don't consult with other owners about how their trade has hurt their feewwwwings. Which is why the Lakers should sue.

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.

there was a lot of small-market owner anger at big-market teams.

the labor-dispute was largely owner v. owner.

the labor-dispute was largely owner v. owner.

this is totally true and never really got enough coverage.

this wasn't about optics or owners being concerned about the league's image -- it was about butthurt owners

butthurt small-market team owners. micky arison didn't do this.

RT @MickyArison Whatever happens with @CP3 all I can say is I wish him the the best.

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.

RicBucher Ric Bucher
Reports 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

David Stern steps in to protect the fragile pride of Pau Gasol

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?

maybe if the league wanted to restrict player movement they shouldn't have asked for the players to give them 3 billion dollars.

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.

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.

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.

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

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."

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

rescind the wilt chamberlain trade!

pretty fucking shameful that ESPN doesn't acknowledge Woj for breaking the story.

everyone carry on

NBA spox Mike Bass: "It's not true that owners killed the deal. The League office declined ... for basketball reasons."

i think it's actually unspoken espn policy to never credit yahoo

unless it's something completely unavoidable, like hurricanes scandal

"basketball reasons"

hooooly shit @ tonight

jordan otm throughout

For Basketball Reasons

xp chuch

chris paul, i think, could and maybe even should sue the league

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

ppl are talking about that on twitter - idk what kind of grounds he'd have to do that but i'd lol xp

and it's a clear, precise number already in a contract

it would be tough, i mean they would have to depose every owner in the nba -- but it's something worth pursuing if he eventually doesn't get dealt

how would that work, paul agreed to the cba

and stern has the right to veto any trade, "for best interests of the game"

and it's a clear, precise number already in a contract

― v-shasty, Thursday, December 8, 2011 10:07 PM (1 minute ago)

wait what is this referring to?

that max free agent deals are capped at a lower number than deals signed by returning players

my point is that chris paul could point at the CBA and say "this collusion cost me x amount of dollars" whereas the lakers would have a much less tenuous position. they couldn't sue for the rights to chris paul, i don't think...

I would demand compensatory picks, but I doubt that's enforceable by a court.

right

he should just sue out of spite. Fuck these guys.