Chris Paul is NOT a Laker . . . FML

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Nikolokolus said:
The NBA is an inclusive enterprise unto itself. Its teams function as franchise members of a monopolistic cartel that doesn't operate like a widget making company -- they set their own bylaws and rules and punish member franchises when those bylaws are broken. Trades are more like one employee in one department moving to another wing of the building than moving to a true competitor.

Irrespective of the "legality," I think you're completely blinded if you think the Hornets were getting fucked in this deal; Dell Demps was making a move to make them more competitive in a year from now, not less so, and given Paul's knees he was probably about to ship a ticking time bomb off to LA for real assets.
Click to expand...

I think the hornets got one hell of a deal. I actually thought this made the lakers worse. What I'm telling you is that the nba is still a united states corporation and are bound by the corporate laws. When I get to work, I will pull the exact law section and definition why it's against the law.

And the last time I checked. Each team is its own corporation....
 
magnifier661 said:
You're missing the point. Any company in the united states are bound to our constitution. Doesn't matter if there is some contact in the nba that allows for this to happen. You cannot do this. 100% fact and I will bet big dollars for anyone that thinks otherwise.
Click to expand...

It's only illegal if a judge will rule it is. I don't believe that will happen, thus the NBA's actions are perfectly legal.
 
magnifier661 said:
I think the hornets got one hell of a deal. I actually thought this made the lakers worse. What I'm telling you is that the nba is still a united states corporation and are bound by the corporate laws. When I get to work, I will pull the exact law section and definition why it's against the law.

And the last time I checked. Each team is its own corporation....
Click to expand...

Sports leagues have long been exempt from the US's antitrust laws. They have to be to operate.
 
Nikolokolus said:
Irrespective of the "legality," I think you're completely blinded if you think the Hornets were getting fucked in this deal; Dell Demps was making a move to make them more competitive in a year from now, not less so, and given Paul's knees he was probably about to ship a ticking time bomb off to LA for real assets.
Click to expand...

The real problem is that the best deals are being nixed by CP3. They are being forced into an inferior deal to those offered by the Celtics or Warriors by a player that is still under contract.

There's no way Stern could allow this crap to happen the day they ratify a new CBA that promises to restore more competitive balance. This is completely within the rights of the NBA and Stern to step in not by undermined by a player that essentially want to dictate the terms of any deal.
 
magnifier661 said:
I think the hornets got one hell of a deal. I actually thought this made the lakers worse. What I'm telling you is that the nba is still a united states corporation and are bound by the corporate laws. When I get to work, I will pull the exact law section and definition why it's against the law.

And the last time I checked. Each team is its own corporation....
Click to expand...



Anti-trust laws would keep the Hornets from being able to sue. I think?
 
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski

To listen to the GM's, coaches, players, agents reaching out to me tonight: I think the NBA has changed forever with Stern's act tonight.
 
How can anyone think this is for the better? this just proves the NBA is a joke.
 
craigehlo said:
The real problem is that the best deals are being nixed by CP3. They are being forced into an inferior deal to those offered by the Celtics or Warriors by a player that is still under contract.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt any team was seriously able to out-compete the Pau-Odom package for Paul.

There's no way Stern could allow this crap to happen the day they ratify a new CBA that promises to restore more competitive balance. This is completely within the rights of the NBA and Stern to step in not by undermined by a player that essentially want to dictate the terms of any deal.
Click to expand...

I get it that the fight over the new CBA was supposedly all about ending this kind of thing, but that's really a sham, because the system wasn't altered in any appreciable way.

All they did was shrink the player's pie and make it even more unlikely that small market teams would be able to spend their way to success. It will definitely cost the Knicks and Lakers more in this new deal, but their coffers run deep enough to offset this costs if they chose.
 
JFizzleRaider said:
How can anyone think this is for the better? this just proves the NBA is a joke.
Click to expand...

Because I don't like the inmates running asylum. I don't like all the stars forcing themselves onto a handful of teams. I don't like small markets getting crapped on.
 
Mediocre Man said:
I'm not sure this particular move changed things for the better?
Click to expand...

It's just the beginning of the end of these stars holding their teams hostage for a trade to a team they want to go to.

The deal NOH got today was myopic and horrible for their future. They would have been much better off with Rajon Rondo, but CP3 wanted "nothing to do with the Celtics, will only sign extension in two cities."
 
craigehlo said:
Because I don't like the inmates running asylum. I don't like all the stars forcing themselves onto a handful of teams. I don't like small markets getting crapped on.
Click to expand...

He might have wanted to go to LA, but all 3 teams did well in the deal, IMO
 
Nikolokolus said:
I highly doubt any team was seriously able to out-compete the Pau-Odom package for Paul.
Click to expand...

Does nobody remember how bad these guys looked down the stretch and in the playoffs last year? I'd agree if it where Bynum, but these two chumps are on the serious downside of their careers.

Any package with Rondo or Step Curry is a helluva lot better than Pau-Odom combo because you can rebuild with them.
 
Stern and most high up in the nba are lawyers. They know the law. I guarantee that a lawsuit was threatened. And... Even if the nba somehow won that case, it would be a long drawn out battle. Terrible for the nba. This is terrible too, but I think it was thought not as terrible as what I just suggested. Trust me, I've seen a lot of corporate law being on the winning and losing end. It sucks but it's the law.
 
craigehlo said:
Because I don't like the inmates running asylum. I don't like all the stars forcing themselves onto a handful of teams. I don't like small markets getting crapped on.
Click to expand...

Is it the players faults they want to go where they want to? Have you ever left a little guy to go work for a big bad corporation? I have.

There are players who just want to play ball (Durant, Aldridge, Granger) and there are guys that want to play in bigger markets. Can you fault them for that? Did the Spurs ever throw the white flag up and say we give up because we are in a small market? No.

The fact is LA and NY are bigger stages to show off the talent they have. With that comes endorsements and more money.
 
craigehlo said:
Does nobody remember how bad these guys looked down the stretch and in the playoffs last year? I'd agree if it where Bynum, but these two chumps are on the serious downside of their careers.

Any package with Rondo or Step Curry is a helluva lot better than Pau-Odom combo because you can rebuild with them.
Click to expand...

The Warriors wouldn't part with Curry. they are the idiots.

Rondo will be exposed when he doesnt have his big 3 with him.
 
craigehlo said:
Because I don't like the inmates running asylum. I don't like all the stars forcing themselves onto a handful of teams. I don't like small markets getting crapped on.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of those sentiments, but the fact is the system in the new CBA actually made it less likely small markets will be able to compete. I can't guarantee it, but I suspect we're going to see the gulf between big (rich) and small (poor) widen not shrink.

Here's a quick hypothetical to illustrate the problem:
Assume small market team X generates revenues of 100 million dollars with an operating budget of about 95 million dollars, while they stay below the tax threshold. If they go above the tax they are very quickly operating in the red in a progressive luxury tax system that is going to spank them harder than the last one.

Now let's look at large market team Y. This team generates revenues in excess of 300 million dollars a year, but their operating budget is around 150 million dollars because they don't mind going over the cap.

See the problem? Team X can't compete because they aren't able to live above the tax without getting hammered into the red. Team Y spends a helluva lot of money but still manages to produce a profit almost no matter what they do.

The only thing that was going to create a truly competitive league was a hard cap and un-guaranteed contracts, but that dream died on the vine months ago.
 
JFizzleRaider said:
Is it the players faults they want to go where they want to? Have you ever left a little guy to go work for a big bad corporation? I have.
Click to expand...

These guys are still working for the same corporation. Bad analogy.

Plus the stars consolidating onto a handful of teams is a new phenomenon that we haven't seen on this scale before. Miami started a really dangerous precedent where
there's little hope for broader parity in the league.
 
craigehlo said:
These guys are still working for the same corporation. Bad analogy.

Plus the stars consolidating onto a handful of teams is a new phenomenon that we haven't seen on this scale before. Miami started a really dangerous precedent where
there's little hope for broader parity in the league.
Click to expand...

Same corporation sure, but the difference between playing for New Orleans and the Lakers is huge. Not to mention a MUCH better team.
 
Nikolokolus said:
The only thing that was going to create a truly competitive league was a hard cap and un-guaranteed contracts, but that dream died on the vine months ago.
Click to expand...

Real revenue sharing of TV contrast was the only hope IMHO. That ship sailed early in the CBA negotiations. Lakers and Knicks have lucrative deals that give them unfair leverage to simply ignore the economic effects of the luxury tax.

At least there's the NFL.
 
Feel sorry for hornet fans. They won't get anything in return for Paul unless a buyer comes this season. I can see the big market teams using the same threat if a small market team or any other team for that matter work out a deal. To be honest, the hornets came out like champs. Almost as good as Denver did last season. The unfortunate situation now is the hornets will have any deal 86'd unless every owner unanimously agrees to it.
 
Pau Gasol is owed close to $60 million over the next 3 seasons. Taking on that awful contract for the opportunity to overpay for Nene? There's no way anyone could justify the Rockets part in this deal.
 
craigehlo said:
Pau Gasol is owed close to $60 million over the next 3 seasons. Taking on that awful contract for the opportunity to overpay for Nene? There's no way anyone could justify the Rockets part in this deal.
Click to expand...

They got an All-Star big man.

That's all the justification needed.
 
JFizzleRaider said:
They got an All-Star big man.

That's all the justification needed.
Click to expand...

I watched that "all-star" get dismantled in the playoffs and fade in the regular season. The Rockets will thanks Stern for this. Much like Blazer fans thank Hedo for choosing the Raptors.
 
Many owners will applaud because they thought the deal unfairly favored the Lakers. Stern, the only guy in the room with a clue, more likely vetoed it because he thought the Lakers gave up too much.
 
This heavy handed-ness from the commissioner just makes the NBA feel more and more like WWE.
 
It's too bad this trade didn't happen as I thought it'd make the Lakers less versatile and have less depth in the front court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top