Hornets Exec: "No Deals for Paul"

[Masbee]

You never argued against why NOH would want Camby? Maybe that was Masbee, you both have the Brandon avatars so I find it confusing on occasion.

Why would you find it confusing?

One posts brilliance. The other, not so much.

 

[B-Roy]

-snip-

You are just so smart aren't you? How you don't have an executive position on an NBA team is beyond me.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't consider this (what was posted in the original post) to be usable information. I'm not going to speculate on whether the Hornets are posturing for leverage; I simply think that regardless of their intentions, this is what they'd say. If they weren't going to trade Paul, of course they'd say they're not trading Paul. If they are going to trade Paul, it's in their interests to seem like they're uninterested in doing so, to reduce the sense that they're eager to (even if they are). Not to mention that there will be a shitstorm among New Orleans fans when he's traded and season ticket sales will end on that day, so why would they telegraph it prior to it happening?

Note, again, this is not an argument that they really do want to trade Paul. I have no idea. This is an argument that the Hornets saying they are uninterested in trading Paul tells us little, if anything, about their true intentions.

 

[Idog1976]

Slight correction - *Shinn* gets more desperate, if the potential sale of the team falls through. None of us know how the potential buyer feels about all of this. He could be saying "trade Paul and I will increase my offer $50 million." He could also be saying "trade Paul and I cut my offer $50 million."

In any discussion between Paul and the team, the potential buyer is the invisible third party. That adds a wildcard to the game and makes the outcome even less predictable.

Yes, this is a great point. Offshore oil drilling moratorium and related events might have more impact on whether we get Paul then adding Batum in the mix!

 

[B-Roy]

The point is, that in a dream season when they won 49 games and made the playoffs they still weren't at capacity in a small arena with one of the best players in the league. I don't see them repeating that season any time soon, and if their star player, once thought to be their savior, doesn't want to be there, I doubt that helps attendance either.

Most teams aren't at capacity. Being 8th in the league is pretty impressive. The Hornets weren't exactly great that year either, they made the playoffs as the 7th seed. What happens once they start losing WITHOUT their star player? Do they drop to 30th?

 

[Masbee]

Got news for you: http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance

Nobody was going anyways. I don't think NO will end up trading him, because I think they're actually delusional/inept enough to believe they can still trade their way to a decent team, but just wanted to point that out. And like idog said, if they hold on to him and let him walk, they lose the option of getting rid of Okafur or Posey's contracts by trading them with Paul. They're just delaying the inevitable and getting nothing in return. But I think near the trading deadline would be the earliest Paul will be moved, by then they may realize that their "plan" isn't going to work.

I already brought this up this weekend, but seems folks don't pay attention.

Yes, New Orleans wasn't selling tickets anywho. That is WITH Chris Paul.

New Orleans is a very strange sports town. Very tiny population. Crap stadium in a wierd spot. Locals really only support football. Lukewarm on basketball in general.

Then, the other issue that some forget, some of the best NBA players are not huge draws at the box office. And Point Guards in recent history have not sold a lot of tickets - Jason Kidd for example. SuperStar wings that dunk sell tickets. Shaq sold tickets. Winning teams sell tickets. Well run franchises in cities that support basketball sell tickets.

 

[maxiep]

The lockout is going to be a lot like LBJ to NY trust me. The NBA has become a players league and we have gone well past the point of changing that.

Actually, that's what the lockout is going to be about. The owners want control of the league back. They're tired of being held hostage by players on guaranteed contracts who decide to stop trying. They want to try to prevent the collusion like what happened with James, Bosh and Wade and what Stoudemire, Anthony and Paul would like to do. And they want the shit Paul is pulling to come to an end.

The players need their paychecks more than the owners need the players.

 

[Idog1976]

Why would you find it confusing?

One posts brilliance. The other, not so much.

LOL, actually I think you both post well. You're just a bit less testy. I'm more like B-Roy in that regard hence why we cross swords (keyboards) so often. Both of you guys are great posters though I tend to agree with you more often as it happens.

 

[Masbee]

In terms of total yes, but percentage wise, they were at 98.7% capacity, which puts them 8th in the league.

You need to look at revenue. They give away a lot of tickets.

 

[Minstrel]

What happens once they start losing WITHOUT their star player? Do they drop to 30th?

Maybe. They just have to decide, from a financial perspective, whether they'd rather be last in attendance with a much lower payroll or near the bottom in attendance with a more expensive payroll. It's not a slam dunk that higher attendance is better, if it costs them too much to attain it.

By and large, I don't believe in "blowing it all up to get better." I think you get better by building on success, step by step. So I think New Orleans, purely from a team-building standpoint, would be smart to hang onto Paul, West and Okafor and only trade them for equivalent talent. But the hope is that they're not looking at this purely from a team-building standpoint, that money is a big factor too. Or that they're not the most rational front office and think razing the team down to its foundations and rebuilding with draft picks and cap space is a good idea. Or a combination of both.

 

[maxiep]

I already brought this up this weekend, but seems folks don't pay attention.

Yes, New Orleans wasn't selling tickets anywho. That is WITH Chris Paul.

New Orleans is a very strange sports town. Very tiny population. Crap stadium in a wierd spot. Locals really only support football. Lukewarm on basketball in general.

This jibes with what my brother and sister--both huge basketball fans and residents of The Big Easy--tell me.

 

[Idog1976]

Actually, that's what the lockout is going to be about. The owners want control of the league back. They're tired of being held hostage by players on guaranteed contracts who decide to stop trying. They want to try to prevent the collusion like what happened with James, Bosh and Wade and what Stoudemire, Anthony and Paul would like to do. And they want the shit Paul is pulling to come to an end.

The players need their paychecks more than the owners need the players.

I agree with this, but it won't save the Hornets. In fact it will just make Paul's camp push harder.

 

[B-Roy]

Maybe. They just have to decide, from a financial perspective, whether they'd rather be last in attendance with a much lower payroll or near the bottom in attendance with a more expensive payroll. It's not a slam dunk that higher attendance is better, if it costs them too much to attain it.

By and large, I don't believe in "blowing it all up to get better." I think you get better by building on success, step by step. So I think New Orleans, purely from a team-building standpoint, would be smart to hang onto Paul, West and Okafor and only trade them for equivalent talent. But the hope is that they're not looking at this purely from a team-building standpoint, that money is a big factor too. Or that they're not the most rational front office and think razing the team down to its foundations and rebuilding with draft picks and cap space is a good idea. Or a combination of both.

I agree.

 

[Masbee]

I don't consider this (what was posted in the original post) to be usable information. I'm not going to speculate on whether the Hornets are posturing for leverage; I simply think that regardless of their intentions, this is what they'd say. If they weren't going to trade Paul, of course they'd say they're not trading Paul. If they are going to trade Paul, it's in their interests to seem like they're uninterested in doing so, to reduce the sense that they're eager to (even if they are). Not to mention that there will be a shitstorm among New Orleans fans when he's traded and season ticket sales will end on that day, so why would they telegraph it prior to it happening?

Note, again, this is not an argument that they really do want to trade Paul. I have no idea. This is an argument that the Hornets saying they are uninterested in trading Paul tells us little, if anything, about their true intentions.

Yeah, I was going to post something similar, but you beat me to it.

No matter what, this is exactly what New Orleans would say at this point in time. Thus, we learn nothing about their current state of mind and position. And, until their meeting with Paul, I don't think they are even worried about their exact position. Why should they when they are going into the meeting with the hope they can talk Paul off the ledge.

 

[Idog1976]

Maybe. They just have to decide, from a financial perspective, whether they'd rather be last in attendance with a much lower payroll or near the bottom in attendance with a more expensive payroll. It's not a slam dunk that higher attendance is better, if it costs them too much to attain it.

So I think New Orleans, purely from a team-building standpoint, would be smart to hang onto Paul, West and Okafor and only trade them for equivalent talent.

Hold on to them until what? A better offer comes a long I presume? Or they can swing Peja for Carmelo? Seriously, how does their bargaining position to acquire talent increase over time?

I still haven't seen a good argument for how NOH improves either money OR team wise by not dealing Paul now. They are locked in with their contracts and have almost no movable assets. How do they get better by waiting and risking injury to any of those players, not to mention Maxiep's point about lockout etc. I find it odd that people were concerned about us having Paul as a one year rental due to lockout, yet folks don't see how the reverse is also true, that Paul's trade value decreases over time.

 

[Masbee]

If Paul can't be convinced to buy into the organization's rebuilding plan, New Orleans will certainly take some comfort in the knowledge that it possesses a two-season buffer before Paul is eligible for free agency.
In that scenario, though, New Orleans would still have plenty to ponder. A case can be made that keeping Paul in hopes of eventually regaining the confidence of the face of the franchise -- or merely holding off until the Hornets decide that they're ready to trade him -- might not be as beneficial for the long-term health of the franchise as proactively trying to move Paul and ultimately spare themselves from the daily distraction and potential negative impact at the gate that comes with employing a disgruntled superstar.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5410152

This from Mark Stein, where he opines that a case can be made that New Orleans would be best served by trading Paul sooner rather than later.

 

[maxiep]

Maybe. They just have to decide, from a financial perspective, whether they'd rather be last in attendance with a much lower payroll or near the bottom in attendance with a more expensive payroll. It's not a slam dunk that higher attendance is better, if it costs them too much to attain it.

By and large, I don't believe in "blowing it all up to get better." I think you get better by building on success, step by step. So I think New Orleans, purely from a team-building standpoint, would be smart to hang onto Paul, West and Okafor and only trade them for equivalent talent. But the hope is that they're not looking at this purely from a team-building standpoint, that money is a big factor too. Or that they're not the most rational front office and think razing the team down to its foundations and rebuilding with draft picks and cap space is a good idea. Or a combination of both.

I've thought about how I would rebuild the Hornets if I were the GM. I would take the OKC/POR approach by getting young talent, getting below the cap and building through the draft. Here would be my four step plan:

1. Trade Paul along with Okafor and/or Posey (if possible). Get promising players on rookie contracts, expiring deals and as many draft picks as you can get.

2. Trade West with Posey if he's not moved with Paul. West is a hell of a player who has real value on his own. Get the same type of package as you got for Paul.

3. Trade Peja's expiring deal for an impact player or the same type of package you got for Paul and West. In other words, use Paul and West to get under the cap and Peja to come back up a bit.

4. Make a consolidation trade out of the assets you picked up from the top three deals. Hope you get lucky in the draft and the players you acquired come into their own.

Even with the current team playing up to their abilities, they're still most likely a lower seed and a first round exit. They're bumping up against the luxury tax and don't have much flexibility. The best move, IMO, is to burn it down and start over. It would be great if Paul were willing to spearhead that rebuilding effort, but he's not. Therefore, the smart thing to do is to trade him.

 

[Idog1976]

I've thought about how I would rebuild the Hornets if I were the GM. I would take the OKC/POR approach by getting young talent, getting below the cap and building through the draft. Here would be my four step plan:

1. Trade Paul along with Okafor and/or Posey (if possible). Get promising players on rookie contracts, expiring deals and as many draft picks as you can get.

2. Trade West with Posey if he's not moved with Paul. West is a hell of a player who has real value on his own. Get the same type of package as you got for Paul.

3. Trade Peja's expiring deal for an impact player or the same type of package you got for Paul and West. In other words, use Paul and West to get under the cap and Peja to come back up a bit.

4. Make a consolidation trade out of the assets you picked up from the top three deals. Hope you get lucky in the draft and the players you acquired come into their own.

Even with the current team playing up to their abilities, they're still most likely a lower seed and a first round exit. They're bumping up against the luxury tax and don't have much flexibility. The best move, IMO, is to burn it down and start over. It would be great if Paul were willing to spearhead that rebuilding effort, but he's not. Therefore, the smart thing to do is to trade him.

Awesome post and that is exactly what I've been thinking. Awesome post Maxiep! Repped.

 

[Sug]

Actually, that's what the lockout is going to be about. The owners want control of the league back. They're tired of being held hostage by players on guaranteed contracts who decide to stop trying. They want to try to prevent the collusion like what happened with James, Bosh and Wade and what Stoudemire, Anthony and Paul would like to do. And they want the shit Paul is pulling to come to an end.

The players need their paychecks more than the owners need the players.

If the owners gamble on a lockout I think they lose in a big way, because fans are going to migrate elsewhere. The problem with a lockout in the modern world is that there are far too many options for the consumer in terms of entertainment. You and I will always be there until we die, but they need the casual fan to really make money. I agree that the players need a paycheck, but I will tell you this right now, LBJ will make a traveling all-star team and span the globe making MILLIONS while the owners get nothing. I bet they could put together a 100 million dollar three month Asian tour tomorrow if they wanted. That could all be done internationally with no taxes, and they could easily generate more revenue in marketing. The players have transcended the owners because of the star power globally, not just within the US. It is a different landscape now, and without the players you have nothing. Without the owners there will still be basketball going on somewhere, and being broadcast somewhere. There are so many high end sports facilities now world-wide that the players could literally write their own tickets in terms of setting up an exhibition.

Now will that happen, probably not. I say that because I don't think there will be a lockout. The owners will put up a fight, but in the end a deal will be made. If for no other reason the Lakers & Celtics will see that their ability to win is almost gone. The shit teams that have been losing money will understand that the lockout might actually break them due to the terrible economy for the last six years. On top of that the NBA WILL NOT lose the marketing opportunity that is the La-ami Heat, because the interest in that team on a global scale will be like nothing the world has ever seen. I guess I am saying that the NBA cannot afford a lockout.

 

[maxiep]

If the owners gamble on a lockout I think they lose in a big way, because fans are going to migrate elsewhere. The problem with a lockout in the modern world is that there are far too many options for the consumer in terms of entertainment. You and I will always be there until we die, but they need the casual fan to really make money. I agree that the players need a paycheck, but I will tell you this right now, LBJ will make a traveling all-star team and span the globe making MILLIONS while the owners get nothing. I bet they could put together a 100 million dollar three month Asian tour tomorrow if they wanted. That could all be done internationally with no taxes, and they could easily generate more revenue in marketing. The players have transcended the owners because of the star power globally, not just within the US. It is a different landscape now, and without the players you have nothing. Without the owners there will still be basketball going on somewhere, and being broadcast somewhere. There are so many high end sports facilities now world-wide that the players could literally write their own tickets in terms of setting up an exhibition.

Now will that happen, probably not. I say that because I don't think there will be a lockout. The owners will put up a fight, but in the end a deal will be made. If for no other reason the Lakers & Celtics will see that their ability to win is almost gone. The shit teams that have been losing money will understand that the lockout might actually break them due to the terrible economy for the last six years. On top of that the NBA WILL NOT lose the marketing opportunity that is the La-ami Heat, because the interest in that team on a global scale will be like nothing the world has ever seen. I guess I am saying that the NBA cannot afford a lockout.

We'll agree to disagree.

 

[Minstrel]

I've thought about how I would rebuild the Hornets if I were the GM. I would take the OKC/POR approach by getting young talent, getting below the cap and building through the draft.

Portland and OKC could afford to do that, because they were pretty well burned down when they started. They didn't really have a talented core that they liquidated. In Portland's case, their best player was Zach Randolph who's trade didn't do a ton to kick-start the rebuilding process.

By and large, though, I think teams that purposely destroy their talent base in order to build up draft picks, non blue chip prospects (since no team trades those, the John Wall/Tim Duncan/etc types) and cap flexibility tend to wander in the wilderness for quite a while.

It would be great if Paul were willing to spearhead that rebuilding effort, but he's not. Therefore, the smart thing to do is to trade him.

If New Orleans truly cannot convince him to stick around, they might be justified in trading him for prospects and cap flexibility. But I'm still skeptical. Unless you luck into a blue chip prospect (like Denver did with Carmelo Anthony or Cleveland did with LeBron James)...burn downs tend to put teams in extended periods of being bad. OKC would not be a team on the rise without the fortune of getting the #2 pick in 2007. If they had ended up at #3, they might have a decent young core but nothing special.

In some sense, New Orleans got their stroke of luck in Chris Paul...I'm not sure they can count on another.

 

[e_blazer]

I think Maxie's got it about right. As it is, even with Paul the Hornets are locked in to being, at best, one of the lower half of the Western Conference playoff teams or, at worst, one of the near-miss teams that has a mid-level draft pick unlikely to bring in another star. They probably can use an expiring contract to bring in a decent player, but they're not going to get another star. Paul will walk for sure in two years and, even with a sign-and-trade deal, the Hornets aren't going to get equal value for him. In the NBA, being a mid-level team is the worst position you can have.

 

[Idog1976]

Portland and OKC could afford to do that, because they were pretty well burned down when they started. They didn't really have a talented core that they liquidated. In Portland's case, their best player was Zach Randolph who's trade didn't do a ton to kick-start the rebuilding process.

By and large, though, I think teams that purposely destroy their talent base in order to build up draft picks, non blue chip prospects (since no team trades those, the John Wall/Tim Duncan/etc types) and cap flexibility tend to wander in the wilderness for quite a while.



If New Orleans truly cannot convince him to stick around, they might be justified in trading him for prospects and cap flexibility. But I'm still skeptical. Unless you luck into a blue chip prospect (like Denver did with Carmelo Anthony or Cleveland did with LeBron James)...burn downs tend to put teams in extended periods of being bad. OKC would not be a team on the rise without the fortune of getting the #2 pick in 2007. If they had ended up at #3, they might have a decent young core but nothing special.

In some sense, New Orleans got their stroke of luck in Chris Paul...I'm not sure they can count on another.

I see your point certainly, but two things come to mind. One how do they keep Paul past 2012? Two, what choice do they have other than rebuilding? That's really just one point disguised as two.

 

[RR7]

Portland and OKC could afford to do that, because they were pretty well burned down when they started. They didn't really have a talented core that they liquidated.

Seattle/OKC had Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis when they decided to break it all down. They aren't of Paul's caliber, but it's not like they were starting with crap.

 

[Minstrel]

I see your point certainly, but two things come to mind. One how do they keep Paul past 2012?

They'll need to make good decisions over the next two years. If they can't make good team-building decisions, rebuilding is useless also. If the team is headed upward, even if it's not a title contender yet, I think they'll be the heavy favourites to re-sign Paul. This off-season featured two superstars switching teams in free agency, but that's not the norm. Generally, max contract caliber players stay at home, because their team can offer them the most. Unless Paul has grown to hate it there, I think he'll stay in New Orleans if the team has upgraded the talent at least a bit over the next two seasons.

You overestimate what they're risking here. They're not getting any blue chip offers. Portland's offer of Batum and Bayless is nice, but those two players are hardly make-or-break for a franchise. They're much better off, IMO, holding onto their once-a-generation point guard for one-two seasons (depending on what the lockout eats) and hoping they're able to retain him. If they can't, I don't think they'll be crushed as a franchise for not having Batum and Bayless. And I say that as a charter member of the Batum fanclub.

 

[Idog1976]

Seattle/OKC had Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis when they decided to break it all down. They aren't of Paul's caliber, but it's not like they were starting with crap.

Oh yeah? Well what accomplishments did Ray Allen have after leaving the Sonics? ...Oh right.

Good point RR7.

 

[Idog1976]

They'll need to make good decisions over the next two years. If they can't make good team-building decisions, rebuilding is useless also. If the team is headed upward, even if it's not a title contender yet, I think they'll be the heavy favourites to re-sign Paul. This off-season featured two superstars switching teams in free agency, but that's not the norm. Generally, max contract caliber players stay at home, because their team can offer them the most. Unless Paul has grown to hate it there, I think he'll stay in New Orleans if the team has upgraded the talent at least a bit over the next two seasons.

You overestimate what they're risking here. They're not getting any blue chip offers. Portland's offer of Batum and Bayless is nice, but those two players are hardly make-or-break for a franchise. They're much better off, IMO, holding onto their once-a-generation point guard for one-two seasons (depending on what the lockout eats) and hoping they're able to retain him. If they can't, I don't think they'll be crushed as a franchise for not having Batum and Bayless. And I say that as a charter member of the Batum fanclub.

You don't think NYK and NJN among others will make moves to clear cap for Paul? Or do you think the CBA will restrict it somehow?

 

[Minstrel]

Seattle/OKC had Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis when they decided to break it all down. They aren't of Paul's caliber, but it's not like they were starting with crap.

Hmm, I suppose it depends on when you feel they decided to break it all down. My perception was they did when they lost Lewis to free agency. That is, I don't feel they made a conscious decision to get rid of Lewis as part of a "burn down." They offered him a fairly large contract, but it was blown away by the overpriced offer Orlando made. At that point, with Allen and not much else, they decided to liquidate their one remaining major player.

 

[RR7]

Hmm, I suppose it depends on when you feel they decided to break it all down. My perception was they did when they lost Lewis to free agency. That is, I don't feel they made a conscious decision to get rid of Lewis as part of a "burn down." They offered him a fairly large contract, but it was blown away by the overpriced offer Orlando made. At that point, with Allen and not much else, they decided to liquidate their one remaining major player.

Except that timeline isn't correct. They got rid of Allen first. The decision was made to break it all down when they got the #2 pick.

 

[Minstrel]

You don't think NYK and NJN among others will make moves to clear cap for Paul?

They might. How did that work out for New York/New Jersey this off-season? Again, if New Orleans has made no strides by then...it's possible they might lose him. Of course, if they can't make any strides in two seasons, what chance do they have of successfully doing a slash-and-burn rebuild? Either way, they have to believe that they can make good basketball moves. I think if they make good basketball moves over the next year or two, they (with their "larger max" offer than New York/New Jersey can offer) will be more attractive to Paul than a largely undeveloped New York/New Jersey (if they build normally, it will be hard [though not impossible] to have cap room for a max deal).