LeBron FA saga is old to say the least; He need to man up...

[trojanfan12]

I think most objective parties will agree with you on this one Wiggy.

I guess the writers in the articles referenced by Mecca (who isn't a Lakers fan) were written by Lakers fans.

 

[trojanfan12]

That is the whole point though. Those other moves were coming thanks to the $ they were saving. Their championship window had closed with the roster they had.

Again though, this is not about whether or not the deal was good for the Lakers.

So, in other words, the money they were saving was only temporary and they would have been right back over the salary cap and paying the luxury tax. Which, once again, shows how stupid and petty Gilbert was.

Also, if it wasn't about it being a good deal for the Lakers, then why was that, along with his welfare check, part of what Gilbert was bitching about.

 

[lakersrule]

That is the whole point though. Those other moves were coming thanks to the $ they were saving. Their championship window had closed with the roster they had.

Again though, this is not about whether or not the deal was good for the Lakers.

It put them under the luxury tax but they were still over the cap. They would still have to trade Bynum and other assets to get D12.

 

[tlance]

I never said it wasn't favorable for the Lakers. I just contend it wasn't awful for New Orleans. They received a nice haul for CP3. Other rival executives thought so. Ultimately it worked out good because they were able to draft Davis, but getting the #1 pick was never guaranteed in the trade. Took some luck there. Very speculative to make any conclusions about what the state of the franchise would look like now if the Lakers trade were allowed.

The money saved wasn't opening any windows to acquire D12. The Lakers would still be trading Bynum and other assets for him.

I don't know what to say there. NO had absolutely no future with Odom, Martin, etc. Zero. What upside does that core of players offer? Yes, they could help win a few games in the short term, but that is real shitty compared to 2 lottery picks + Eric Gordon.

Yes, I say 2 picks because the Hornets/Pelicans being bad enough to win lottery would never have happened with those players. The league could not afford to diminish future prospects for a team they controlled, and this deal would have done exactly that.

 

[trojanfan12]

then why was it vetoed?

Seriously? It's been stated in the articles Mecca posted and even spelled out by at least 3 different posters and you still have to ask?

Because Gilbert bitched and cried about his welfare check and Cuban was afraid they'd use the money they saved to improve the team.

 

[trojanfan12]

That is the whole point though. Those other moves were coming thanks to the $ they were saving. Their championship window had closed with the roster they had.

Again though, this is not about whether or not the deal was good for the Lakers.

So, in other words, as stated in one of the articles, it was vetoed because of what the Lakers "might do."

 

[WiggyRuss]

Seriously? It's been stated in the articles Mecca posted and even spelled out by at least 3 different posters and you still have to ask?

Because Gilbert bitched and cried about his welfare check and Cuban was afraid they'd use the money they saved to improve the team.

so you believe that GIlbert and Cuban had the power to lobby the commissioner to veto a trade that you believe was perfectly fair.

sounds reasonable. lol.

 

[trojanfan12]

so you are saying that Gilbert and Cuban by themselves were enough to get the Commissioner of the NBA to veto a trade? lol...do you know how dumb that sounds?---- hey- if you want to give Gilbert that much power- great...i just think its delusional. - as would any other sane people.

Gilbert and Cuban were the only owners that bitched. Face it, you're completely wrong and are making a fool of yourself in your desperation to defend Gilbert.

 

[tlance]

So, in other words, the money they were saving was only temporary and they would have been right back over the salary cap and paying the luxury tax. Which, once again, shows how stupid and petty Gilbert was.

Also, if it wasn't about it being a good deal for the Lakers, then why was that, along with his welfare check, part of what Gilbert was bitching about.

I think Gilbert is a punk, but that deal was awful for NO. That is my only real point. Gilbert seemed to be the voice of the small market owners after LeBron left. Now, I bet he stays out of the middle of fiture league $ issues until LeBron leaves again.

Personally, I think Gilbert used the "welfare check" as an arguing point. The reality was that owners were against the deal for basketball reasons and Gilbert was trying to block another super team formation after he was jolted by LeBron. While he may have cited the $, that was not the real reason he and others were against the deal.

 

[trojanfan12]

I don't know what to say there. NO had absolutely no future with Odom, Martin, etc. Zero. What upside does that core of players offer? Yes, they could help win a few games in the short term, but that is real shitty compared to 2 lottery picks + Eric Gordon.

Yes, I say 2 picks because the Hornets/Pelicans being bad enough to win lottery would never have happened with those players. The league could not afford to diminish future prospects for a team they controlled, and this deal would have done exactly that.

Go back and read the articles and posts. Stats were even posted on the players that NO was getting. That deal, at the time, was a lot better than your are trying to make it look.

 

[trojanfan12]

I think Gilbert is a punk, but that deal was awful for NO. That is my only real point. Gilbert seemed to be the voice of the small market owners after LeBron left. Now, I bet he stays out of the middle of fiture league $ issues until LeBron leaves again.

Personally, I think Gilbert used the "welfare check" as an arguing point. The reality was that owners were against the deal for basketball reasons and Gilbert was trying to block another super team formation after he was jolted by LeBron. While he may have cited the $, that was not the real reason he and others were against the deal.

I disagree about it being awful for NO. It wasn't great, but they got assets they could work with in exchange for a player who had already stated he was leaving in FA.

 

[trojanfan12]

@WiggyRuss if you make one more repetitive post, you will be banned from the thread.

 

[tlance]

Go back and read the articles and posts. Stats were even posted on the players that NO was getting. That deal, at the time, was a lot better than your are trying to make it look.

The players they were getting were solid. That is the problem. NO would have been a 40-45 win team with no real future upside. That is absolutely the opposite of where you want to be in the NBA.

You don't trade a superstar for "solid" players. NO's only attractive choice here was to hit the reset button. This deal was about the opposite of that.

 

[WiggyRuss]

There have been numerous reports that Demps was neutered by the league at the last, cast aside as Stern, league president of basketball operations Joel Litvin and vice president of operations Stu Jackson took control of the negotiations. Demps and Stern have denied this, and both have cited a "miscommunciation" between the Hornets and the league that led New Orleans to initially believe the Lakers deal would get done. The Lakers, and Rockets, see it differently, of course, with each team making its feelings known through anonymous sources to its respective local media in the last week.

There are legit reasons to criticize how the NBA handled the deal and, how, regardless of its role, the public perception that Demps was powerless hurt him. It's also hard not to see why Demps may well have liked the initial deal that would have brought veterans like Luis Scola and Lamar Odom to New Orleans; altruism is fine and all, but Demps wouldn't be faulted if he wanted to try and hold onto his job (nor would Monty Williams, the Hornets' coach), and those players would certainly have a better chance of getting the Hornets to the playoffs than the young players and picks for whom the NBA was pushing.

"He's got to sell this asset (the team) and get value," a source involved in the discussions said last week. "In the short term, people may say he's shooting himself in the foot and not improving the value of the asset."

 

[Heatles84]

Gilbert and Cuban were the only owners that bitched. Face it, you're completely wrong and are making a fool of yourself in your desperation to defend Gilbert.

That's crazy. Wiggy would never do that.

 

[trojanfan12]

The players they were getting were solid. That is the problem. NO would have been a 40-45 win team with no real future upside. That is absolutely the opposite of where you want to be in the NBA.

You don't trade a superstar for "solid" players. NO's only attractive choice here was to hit the reset button. This deal was about the opposite of that.

So they'd be exactly where they are now, only sooner. Gotcha.

Also, you DO trade superstars who aren't going to re-sign with you so that you can get some kind of assets rather than see them walk away for nothing. There is no "even trade" when it comes to superstars unless you are trading superstar for superstar, which rarely happens.

When the Lakers traded Shaq, all they got in return were solid players. Solid players can be traded for better players and draft picks. Let's not pretend like that trade was going to handcuff NO if they didn't want to be.

 

[Heatles84]

So they'd be exactly where they are now, only sooner. Gotcha.

Also, you DO trade superstars who aren't going to re-sign with you so that you can get some kind of assets rather than see them walk away for nothing. There is no "even trade" when it comes to superstars unless you are trading superstar for superstar, which rarely happens.

When the Lakers traded Shaq, all they got in return were solid players. Solid players can be traded for better players and draft picks. Let's not pretend like that trade was going to handcuff NO if they didn't want to be.

Agreed. We got Shaq for (and I could be wrong) Lamar Odom, Brian Grant, and another player if I'm not mistaken. Lamar Odom at the time was viewed as average, but he would be an integral part of the Lakers two titles in '09 and '10.

At the time (which those against the trade keep forgetting), this was viewed as a pretty decent trade as NO got back some decent assets (which you could package for other things like draft picks). Yes, the Pelicans ended up getting the number 1 draft pick which got them Anthony Davis. But guess what? The Pelicans still suck.

 

[trojanfan12]

Agreed. We got Shaq for (and I could be wrong) Lamar Odom, Brian Grant, and another player if I'm not mistaken. Lamar Odom at the time was viewed as average, but he would be an integral part of the Lakers two titles in '09 and '10.

At the time (which those against the trade keep forgetting), this was viewed as a pretty decent trade as NO got back some decent assets (which you could package for other things like draft picks). Yes, the Pelicans ended up getting the number 1 draft pick which got them Anthony Davis. But guess what? The Pelicans still suck.

I think people are looking at what became of some of the players involved, specifically Odom going off the rails like he did when the Lakers eventually did trade him. However, at the time, the trade was considered perfectly fair. In fact, if you look at the player each team got with the trades, it could be said that the Lakers got screwed over worse in the Shaq trade than NO did with the CP3 trade.

Additionally, while CP3 was very good, he wasn't the hall of famer that he is now or that Shaq was when the Lakers traded him. In fact, if memory serves, there were even questions about CP3's health because he was coming off of knee surgery.

 

[tlance]

Agreed. We got Shaq for (and I could be wrong) Lamar Odom, Brian Grant, and another player if I'm not mistaken. Lamar Odom at the time was viewed as average, but he would be an integral part of the Lakers two titles in '09 and '10.

At the time (which those against the trade keep forgetting), this was viewed as a pretty decent trade as NO got back some decent assets (which you could package for other things like draft picks). Yes, the Pelicans ended up getting the number 1 draft pick which got them Anthony Davis. But guess what? The Pelicans still suck.

Completely different situations.

The Lakers still had Kobe. They could not go full rebuild.

The Pelicans still suck because Gordon did not pan out and they made moves to acquire supporting players that don't fit together. They still do have Davis, however, and if they ever wisen up and get a set of guards that don't dominate he ball, they will be in much better shape.

Those "assets" we're not landing a top lottery pick because no lottery team would want players like Odom, Martin and Scola. Those guys don't move the needle enough to help a bad team get over the hump. The high lottery pick is a preferred asset.

 

[tlance]

I think people are looking at what became of some of the players involved, specifically Odom going off the rails like he did when the Lakers eventually did trade him. However, at the time, the trade was considered perfectly fair. In fact, if you look at the player each team got with the trades, it could be said that the Lakers got screwed over worse in the Shaq trade than NO did with the CP3 trade.

Additionally, while CP3 was very good, he wasn't the hall of famer that he is now or that Shaq was when the Lakers traded him. In fact, if memory serves, there were even questions about CP3's health because he was coming off of knee surgery.

I think that may be true, but again, different situations.

Kobe was not letting the Lakers lose 60 games and the Lakers were not controlled by the NBA