Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Great, now dictator commishes have real life precedence


Big Country
 Share

Recommended Posts

Damn you David Stern.

 

All of the little Napoleon commishes that like to dictate how other teams are allowed to manage their teams can now say - well, the NBA does it, so precedence is set where if they do it in the pros, I can do it in my fantasy league.

 

Just great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn you David Stern.

 

All of the little Napoleon commishes that like to dictate how other teams are allowed to manage their teams can now say - well, the NBA does it, so precedence is set where if they do it in the pros, I can do it in my fantasy league.

 

Just great.

 

Really disturbing, isn't it? And on top of that - I thought LA was getting taken in the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn you David Stern.

 

All of the little Napoleon commishes that like to dictate how other teams are allowed to manage their teams can now say - well, the NBA does it, so precedence is set where if they do it in the pros, I can do it in my fantasy league.

 

Just great.

Hogwash. All you need to do is remind them that your FF league is not some two-bit flea circus like the NBA and you're all good.

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my local redraft, instead of replacing an owner who leaves, we like to have the other 11 owners manage the team. It totally works!

It's really stunning, actually. Moves so bush-league that any self-respecting guy refuses to be a part of for $100 and these guys are doing this crap with a league as large as the NBA. It's truly amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn you David Stern.

 

All of the little Napoleon commishes that like to dictate how other teams are allowed to manage their teams can now say - well, the NBA does it, so precedence is set where if they do it in the pros, I can do it in my fantasy league.

 

Just great.

 

That's what you get in a league where the league itself runs a team. (Not familiar with why, as I don't follow NBA much.) If you have an absentee owner in a fantasy league the commissioner (one person) should not be responsible for making decisions.

 

This is actually more like allowing a league to veto trades by a vote. And the people who say "It doesn't benefit me so I always vote against it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what you get in a league where the league itself runs a team. (Not familiar with why, as I don't follow NBA much.) If you have an absentee owner in a fantasy league the commissioner (one person) should not be responsible for making decisions.

 

This is actually more like allowing a league to veto trades by a vote. And the people who say "It doesn't benefit me so I always vote against it."

In fairness, the Hornets are collectively owned by the other owners in the league but is managed by a GM who works for that team exclusively. Messed up to be sure, but not quite as bad as it seems. At very least, it pales in comparison to Stern vetoing a trade, especially in light of the fact that no shortage of NBA experts have said was by no means lopsided.

 

Hell, how does this help the Hornets. Paul is gone the second his contract is up, which means they'll get nothing for him. As it is, they get Lamar Odom and two big men who are not household names but hughly capable players. LA, meanwhile, is giving up two starters, one to Houston and one to NO.

 

Seriously, it's exactly the type of trade that people here would be wondering who actually got the better deal and, thus, why it's even being discussed at all.

 

In fact, many think the Hornets did well enough in the deal that it sort of undermines any conspiracy theories about the team being owned by the league and how that may have affected the ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was my first reaction too ... but all things aside doesn't the NFL own the Hornets and as such can choose NOT to trade any player on their team?

 

 

The NBA does indeed own it, however all thorughout have said that the management team in place was allowed to run the team as they saw fit. The league was also appraised of the negotiations throughout and had confirmed to multiple league executives, not just those involved in this particular deal, that Dell Demps, the team GM did have the authority to execute and make a deal. The deal was agreed to by all parties involved, from what I heard the league accepted it but then David Stern stepped in and nixed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness, the Hornets are collectively owned by the other owners in the league but is managed by a GM who works for that team exclusively. Messed up to be sure, but not quite as bad as it seems. At very least, it pales in comparison to Stern vetoing a trade, especially in light of the fact that no shortage of NBA experts have said was by no means lopsided.

 

Hell, how does this help the Hornets. Paul is gone the second his contract is up, which means they'll get nothing for him. As it is, they get Lamar Odom and two big men who are not household names but hughly capable players. LA, meanwhile, is giving up two starters, one to Houston and one to NO.

 

Seriously, it's exactly the type of trade that people here would be wondering who actually got the better deal and, thus, why it's even being discussed at all.

 

In fact, many think the Hornets did well enough in the deal that it sort of undermines any conspiracy theories about the team being owned by the league and how that may have affected the ruling.

 

Not to turn this into an NBA discussion, but yes, most "ekspurts" agree that it was a pretty dang good deal across the board. The Hornets were receiveing 3 starting players (Odom, Martin and Scola) and a backup PG and a 1st round pick for a player with 66 games left on his contract who had already stated he would not be resigning with the team. Talk about a freaking steal for the Hornets.

 

I know, based on the letter that Dan Gilbert, owner of the Cavs, sent to Stern asking for the trade to be reviewed/reversed, one of the issues was that in addition to getting Paul, the Lakers essentially got about $40 million in cap relief over the next several years in salary savings and reduced luxury tax.... which... guess what, if they have to pay, gets distributed to the smaller market teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to turn this into an NBA discussion, but yes, most "ekspurts" agree that it was a pretty dang good deal across the board. The Hornets were receiveing 3 starting players (Odom, Martin and Scola) and a backup PG and a 1st round pick for a player with 66 games left on his contract who had already stated he would not be resigning with the team. Talk about a freaking steal for the Hornets.

 

I know, based on the letter that Dan Gilbert, owner of the Cavs, sent to Stern asking for the trade to be reviewed/reversed, one of the issues was that in addition to getting Paul, the Lakers essentially got about $40 million in cap relief over the next several years in salary savings and reduced luxury tax.... which... guess what, if they have to pay, gets distributed to the smaller market teams.

:wacko: So the Lakers, who apparently realize they're about to go over the cap and have to pay out a bunch of jack to everyone are not allowed to rectify the situation? Do I understand that correctly? Dude, how effed up is that? I would have thought the luxury tax thing was put in place to discourage teams from running up their pay-rolls not simply as a means of fleecing certain teams out of some money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think part of the league's thinking in nixing the trade was that the team would be more valuable to prospective buyers with Paul there.

even if the team was more competitive after the trade a big name is what draws at the gate.

where that reasoning falls short is: 1) they haven't been able to sell the team even with Paul there 2) any prospective owner now knows that Paul won't be staying.

 

to me theyve just delayed Pauls leaving and made it tougher to find a new owner.

 

is the league now going to keep Paul from going anywhere? who's going to offer a better trade?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my perception is that this is the league's lame way of putting its foot down on the phenomenon of all these prima donna players trying to create these "super teams" in the larger markets. they realize this phenomenon is really hurting the league and its image outside of those larger markets.

 

but shooting down this trade doesn't fix the larger problem even a little bit. if paul just waits until the end of the season and bolts, that certainly doesn't help the hornets any.

 

maybe david stern just wants to see him end up in new york instead of LA? :wacko:

Edited by Azazello1313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

is the league now going to keep Paul from going anywhere? who's going to offer a better trade?

 

Well, they can't exactly accept another offer else I would think they are opening themselves up to lawsuits by the owners and accusations that rather than players dictating where they are going to play, it is Stern trying to dictate it. There were obviously multiple deals on the table. Now when he leaves at the end of the season, the Hornets get nothing for him instead of having received 3 starters, the backup PG AND a 1st round pick.

 

my perception is that this is the league's lame way of putting its foot down on the phenomenon of all these prima donna players trying to create these "super teams" in the larger markets. they realize this phenomenon is really hurting the league and its image outside of those larger markets.

 

but shooting down this trade doesn't fix the larger problem even a little bit. if paul just waits until the end of the season and bolts, that certainly doesn't help the hornets any.

 

maybe david stern just wants to see him end up in new york instead of LA? :wacko:

 

Problem is that if the Knicks do indeed sign Tyson Chandler, they no longer have the cap room to sign Chris Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my perception is that this is the league's lame way of putting its foot down on the phenomenon of all these prima donna players trying to create these "super teams" in the larger markets. they realize this phenomenon is really hurting the league and its image outside of those larger markets.

 

but shooting down this trade doesn't fix the larger problem even a little bit. if paul just waits until the end of the season and bolts, that certainly doesn't help the hornets any.

 

maybe david stern just wants to see him end up in new york instead of LA? :wacko:

 

 

There's a good article on SI.com about how the league has been star driven to this nature even before the Bird/Magic arrival. I actually didn't realize it and they tossed around a few names that surprised me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information