Uncharted Territory - What Does The NBA Do Now?

by Jeff Clark on Dec 9, 2011 12:23 AM EST in Boston Celtics Articles

I thought we saw the last of these two for a while.

Nobody can tell you what is going to happen next because nothing like this has ever happened before. All we've got is questions upon questions upon questions. For example.

The Chris Paul-to-Lakers trade is dead

This is such uncharted territory, it is hard to fathom what comes next. Apparently, all the players who were supposed to have been in the trade have been told to report to their (original) teams for the start of training camp Friday, and where this thing goes from here is anyone’s guess.

Do the Lakers sue? Do the Rockets raise a stink? Do the Celtics get back into the hunt? And if they do, would a subsequent Paul trade get vetoed, too? And what about the reverse domino effect? If Paul was the main domino in everybody’s revamping plans, how will the killing of this deal impact other teams?

It doesn't sound like any of this is going to be wrapped up quickly either. It is like the fans were just starting to get excited for free agency and trades and actual basketball talk again, and the needle goes scratching across the record and it all stops dead.

This couldn't have come at a worse time for the league. Whatever good will the league was trying to nurture by "saving the season" has been torn to shreds. The credibility of the league will now be called into question by everyone and the NBA will now be even more of a punchline.

Stern kills Lakers' deal for Paul - NBA - Yahoo! Sports

As one rival executive with strong ties to the league office said, "Stern cared about two things: Selling that franchise for the best possible price; and showing the players that they weren’t going to dictate where teams could trade them.

But now, there’s no way that the league can allow Chris Paul to be traded at all, otherwise Stern is basically deciding where one of the top players in the league is going versus having any fair process." Officials from New Orleans, Houston and Los Angeles were stunned Thursday night. The killed trade had ripple affects everywhere in free agency and potential trades, and literally pushed the market into paralysis on the even of training camps opening up.

I had a good laugh at the Lakers expense when this was announced, but I don't think this is good for anyone at this point.

There are plenty of questions for the Celtics too.

Can they (and should they) go after Chris Paul again?
Whatever contingency plans Danny had, will they be sideswiped by "the ripple effects?"
How is Rajon Rondo going to handle all this? (at least much of the spotlight has been taken away from him now)
What happens when free agency opens tomorrow? Will we finally get some backup centers on the roster?
Will Jeff Green and Big Baby still be in "holding patterns" until we can see if there's somewhere to trade them to? Or do they decide to take matters in to their own hands and get free agent deals elsewhere?

It has already been a very fascinating week and it is only going to get more interesting (though that may or may not be a good thing).

Tweet Comment 79 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

As much as I hate the Lakers....

This is not a good thing. The deal for Pau Gasol was much more “unfair” and lopsided. The Lakers giving up Odom and Gasol for Chris Paul seems like decnt enough trade chips. New Orleans gets some good/solid players (and future trade chips) in K-Mart, Odom, & Scola. Where does it end? Will Stern now be picayune with every deal that comes down the road that he doesn’t like or deems “not good for the league”. We are going into very dangerous waters here. And coming off of the lockout and the bad PR from that makes it even worse.

by Marco33 on Dec 9, 2011 12:39 AM EST reply actions

+1

Totally agree. If the NBA was into killing trades, it should have happened with the Gasol-to-LA debacle. This trade, on the other hand, is one of the more fair scenarios for Chris Paul that I can imagine.

by IdahoGreen on Dec 9, 2011 12:47 AM EST up reply actions

I agree completely. While I am very glad to not see the Lakers get CP3, I think this is completely out of line for Stern to block the trade in this manner.

If he had come out beforehand and said CP3 will not be traded until NOH has new management or what ever, that would be one thing. But to block the trade after there have been weeks of negotiations and speculations? Not a good move.

I think their will be a lot of backlash from this move and rightly so, I wouldn’t be surprised if CP3 still ends up in LAL this season.

by Fnordesque on Dec 9, 2011 12:48 AM EST up reply actions

This action is specific to NO because it is league owned.

I don’t think it extrapolates to any team other than NO; they’re the only team the league owns. In a league that talks about the desire for more competitive balance, and ending the constant exodus of star players to marquis teams (and they don’t get more marquis than the Lakers), I can see the inherent conflict of interest when a league owned team sends yet another superstar to the team that has already been to the Finals 31 times in the league’s 64 year history. It flies in the face of their stated desire of competitive balance. If you were a small market team, you’d be screaming too. If NO had a real, privately owned team, and the Lakers were able to pull off that trade, everybody’d grouse about the rich getting richer, but could really do nothing about it. Since the league does own the team, they can take an action that upholds a stated principle, and then, once sold, if a real owner still wants to make a trade to help a marquis team, nobody can do a darned thing about it.

It was a bad decision for the league to assume ownership of the team in the first place. Really a no win for NBA management; allow the trade to go through, and it looks like you just helped the rich get richer, at odds with your stated principles; disallow an agreed to trade after you had earlier expressed confidence in the NO management team, and it makes it appear as though the league is picking winners and losers (a little like the government picking winners and losers; also a bad idea), because you know if the trade had sent Paul to a small market team, they’d have allowed it.

On the whole, for me, I think it would have been a bad thing for the league to have facilitated the Lakers getting yet another superstar, and I’m glad they stopped this (for now) from going through. It doesn’t make sense to imply or fear that this applies to any team other team than the league owned Hornets. It is unique to them. The rest is histrionics.

by Mencius on Dec 9, 2011 11:14 AM EST up reply actions

Back to business

Do we go for cp3 or move on? I’d rather move on to other players now and focus on the season

by vgarcia890 on Dec 9, 2011 12:44 AM EST reply actions

No, but can we PLEASE make some sort of move! we NEED upgrade!

by Fnordesque on Dec 9, 2011 12:49 AM EST up reply actions

How do you like this?

@chris_broussard: Nets have emerged as No. 1 choice for Dwight Howard, multiple sources say. D12 is expected to ask Magic to trade him to NJ.

Stern’s gonna love that.

by G$ on Dec 9, 2011 12:45 AM EST reply actions

Ya, except, once they're in Brooklyn, they're not a small market team anymore.

"Phil is obviously a good coach. You don't win that many games without being a damn good coach, ... Remember one thing: He's been very fortunate. He picks his spots. That's all I can say." - Red Auerbach

by Sizzlack on Dec 9, 2011 9:35 AM EST up reply actions

Had the NBA not owned the NOH then wouldn't this trade have gone thru?

If yes, then this is a one-time occurrence correct? and if this a one time thing then the league is not in unchartered territory except for what to do with Chris Paul…not anybody else.

Now if the league can veto trades for “basketball reasons” on teams they don’t own then that of course is a horse of a different color that just rode in to unchartered territory

Should the Celtics go after CP3 again? Unless they are not considered a Big market team the answer is NO not NOH

Is it Soup Yet?

by Master Po on Dec 9, 2011 12:49 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

If the NBA didn't own NOH then this trade still doesn't go through.

But.. for the reason that no sane GM and owner would make that trade from the NOH end.

by Fnordesque on Dec 9, 2011 12:55 AM EST up reply actions

I get what your saying though, its a slippery slope if the NBA can start vetoing trades for ambiguous “basketball reasons”.

by Fnordesque on Dec 9, 2011 12:56 AM EST up reply actions

EXACTLY!

My understanding is that Stern didn’t “block” this trade using his authority as Commissioner. He rejected the trade using his authority as representative of the owners of the Hornets — the collected NBA owners. So when we’re told the trade was rejected “for basketball reasons,” what we’re being told is that the Hornets basketball people worked out a trade, submitted it to their owners, and the owners rejected the trade because they didn’t like the return they were getting for what they were giving up.

Of course, there’s a horrible conflict of interest involved, and the real reason the trade was rejected probably has more to do with sour grapes from owners who are unhappy to see the big market Lakers improve, and to see a player get his way. But Stern’s ability to muck up trades only extends to the league-owned Hornets. I.e., the NBA can’t block a Dwight Howard trade “for basketball reasons.”

And as a C’s fan, I kind of wish the trade went through, because I think it was a fair exchange, and maybe even hurt the Lakers more than it helped them. As I’ve seen others argue, the Lakers unique advantage in recent years has been their ability to deploy three effective 7-footers. Losing Gasol and Odom puts an end to that. And let the Lakers worry about Paul’s knee, along with Kobe’s.

by SAS129 on Dec 9, 2011 2:33 AM EST up reply actions

Exactly the case, Po

by Mencius on Dec 9, 2011 11:16 AM EST up reply actions

league cant let any star players be traded unless they allow this trade to happen

that means howard in orl, paul in NO, etc…or else everyone will be calling faoul again…i get what the league is trying to do but at teh same time how do they do it and make it fair? dont think they can….

by craziness@analltimehigh on Dec 9, 2011 12:54 AM EST reply actions

in a sense league made things worse for small market teams

because now basically they are forced to let paul, howard, etc…walk as free agents at the end of teh year and they will go where they want anyways….teams get nothing. could be good for the celtics if they could land howard from it but still its messed up…its why i think nba will have a franchise tag soon as much as i dont want one

by craziness@analltimehigh on Dec 9, 2011 12:56 AM EST up reply actions

I still say this deal was killed only because the NBA owned the Hornets....if they didn't own the Hornets

I am not sure Stern had the power to kill this deal based upon the stated reason.

Is it Soup Yet?

by Master Po on Dec 9, 2011 12:59 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah agree, but I still think he is doing NOH a disservice, and making the team less attractive to potential buyers.

by Fnordesque on Dec 9, 2011 1:02 AM EST up reply actions

agree

Is it Soup Yet?

by Master Po on Dec 9, 2011 1:03 AM EST up reply actions

Absolutely correct.

I agree 100% AND now he can’t allow Paul to be traded to anyone or it will look as if he is assisting certain teams. Thank God !! The price for the Celtics was way too high to begin with. I would like to hear Danny’s conversation with Rondo now. I personally wish the LA trade had gone through…… they lose Gasol and Odom to get CP3, I like that idea. People were saying that meant Bynum for DH, that is not gonna happen and then LA has no trade chips to satisfy Orlando.

by CelticsUKfan on Dec 9, 2011 7:44 AM EST up reply actions

It's the Owners Right to Veto The Trade

Hornets have 29 co owners as they’re owned by the league. If ownership wants to kill any trade they can. Having a lot of these superstars wanting to play together is a problem for the NBA and I don’t know how you solve it. Really wish they could fold half a dozen of the crap teams. Then we’d really see some great basketball.

by Kuberski33 on Dec 9, 2011 12:57 AM EST reply actions

Yeah i think getting rid of maybe 4 teams would be a big help to the NBA

by Fnordesque on Dec 9, 2011 1:03 AM EST up reply actions

Can we veto David Stern

Power corrupts

Absolute power corrupts absolutely

Pompous a$$ must be overthrow

Fans unite… Storm the inter webs…..

Celtic Chat Handle: Bird

by David Henderson on Dec 9, 2011 1:14 AM EST reply actions

Ha!

Stern is so OG, no one can touch him.

and plus, are you not taking a guilty kind of pleasure in seeing LA screwed over?

But… If this happened to the Celtics instead of the Lakers? I would be livid and calling for Stern’s blood!

by Fnordesque on Dec 9, 2011 1:19 AM EST reply actions

Im confused

I hate kobe but I get that some people/players look at him as a great player BUT I dont get y cp3 wanted to go to la if he didnt want to go to boston because we r too old. Its not like the lakers r a young squad. Like I said I can see wanting to play with kobe, but hes getting old and his body is breaking down….whats the deal.

by Kgwillkillyou on Dec 9, 2011 1:19 AM EST via mobile reply actions

Bynum is young

Pretty much any article discussing this situation would mention that. Plus, LA always spends money and gets players. Boston doesn’t generate the same interest and Paul knows that. Don’t forget Kobe and Paul have spent a lot of time together through the national team, unlike our guys.

by guava_wrench on Dec 9, 2011 4:33 AM EST up reply actions

Understandable BUT

I think we all know the plan was for bynum to not be there. Granted, if things went l.a.’s way, they also get howard, whos is not old…..but as far as game changers that have some youth it would have been just cp and dh

by Kgwillkillyou on Dec 9, 2011 3:15 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

I am sure the fact that he would live in CA is a perk to him. I love my C’s, but I don’t think I could give living in southern CA….actually I would for Northern CA lol

SAVE THE PLANET. GO GREEN!

by CaliforniaGreen on Dec 9, 2011 9:42 AM EST up reply actions

David Stern beds to step down, NOW!,,,,

This league is just falling apart being run by spoiled brat superstars who get to go wherever they damn well please and force GMs to make horrible deals that kill their franchise and their careers. This looked like a very good deal for New Orleans, truth be told. The Lakers have just Bynum at Center and MWP at forward? I suppose the next deal was to trade Bynum to Orlando for Dewey Howard. But dear old friend Perkins would have been waiting in Oklahoma to get a piece of him.

Boston Celtics - 2008 World Champions
Boston Bruins - 2011 Stanley Cup Champions
New England Patriots - Super Bowl xxxvi, xxxviii, and xxxix champions
Boston Red Sox - 2004, 2007 World Series Champions

by QuinielaBox on Dec 9, 2011 1:29 AM EST reply actions

dhoward to ask magic for trade to nets

buckle down for the next decade of rebuilding w/band aides, retreads, draft picks, and other teams left-over trash.

by greenbeand on Dec 9, 2011 1:38 AM EST reply actions

In this particular instance, Stern actually did the right thing

Now whether it was his move or the collective of the other 29 owners we may never know.

Point is moot though. The league owns the team, and has the right to stop the trade. There is no horrible precedent being set. This was simply a statement by the league that the trade was not a fair deal.

Point blank, this trade WAS a terrible deal for the Hornets. They had better offers left on the table. The Hornets GM left the NBA no other choice. If the Lakers want to offer a fair deal, then I fully beleive the league will allow it.

" Hell yeah I'm trying to gain an advantage out here. If you can't handle it, get off the court."- Kevin Garnett
"Stats are for losers."- Rahim Morris (Tampa Bay Buccaneers)

by KG's Knee on Dec 9, 2011 3:45 AM EST reply actions

I disagree

I don’t agree. The package was decent, better offers is a matter of opinion. People seem to be putting Paul on a pedestal. AND the Hornets GM was in contact with the league office DURING these trade talks and was never told it was a no go. Either the GM has the authority to make a trade OR Stern runs the Hornets himself. That’s the bottom line.

by CelticsUKfan on Dec 9, 2011 7:51 AM EST up reply actions

This was a horrible move by the league

NO has no chance of keeping Paul and needs to get talent back in order to sell the team. Paul and the players union should sue the league for the conflict of interest that is obvious with the owners making that decision.

by guava_wrench on Dec 9, 2011 4:31 AM EST reply actions

Jeff you speak of backup centers

Didn’t know we already had a first team C.

by Wintersun on Dec 9, 2011 6:10 AM EST reply actions

What potential owner is going to want the Hornets and a pissed off Chris Paul?

He’s sitting out training camp/refusing to report. So now Chris Paul could be so upset that he just decides to sit out the season or play like crap or with no heart until his contract plays out and then sign wherever. Also, check out this link to a letter that Dan Gilbert sent to Stern pleading to kill this deal. Also, since the NBA owns the Hornets why wait until the deal was accepted and announced before killing it? I’m sure they knew this was going to go down. So why not squash this before players are packing there bags? Here’s the link to Gilberts rant:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ys-nba_dan_gilbert_email_lakers_hornets_trade_120811

by Marco33 on Dec 9, 2011 7:12 AM EST reply actions

Trade value Chris Paul vs. Rondo

So the Hornets would have gotten Odom, Scola, Kev-Mart and Goran in exchange for Chris Paul. Would the Celtics do that deal (Rondo for the same package)? Would Rondo command that kind of value? I realize it doesn’t work on paper but that kind of shows you the value difference between the two on the trade market.

by Marco33 on Dec 9, 2011 7:16 AM EST reply actions

Flowers Anyone?

I would not want to be in any GM’s shoes after trying to trade a star and failing. Can you imagine Ainge trying to make this right with Rondo? Kupchek tellin Odom “we were only kiddin” ? How about Stern telling Paul " we did this for your own good "? AND THEN expecting that/those player(s) to play hard for you. WOW!

by CelticsUKfan on Dec 9, 2011 7:55 AM EST reply actions

Well,

we’re about to basically see Ainge trying to make this right with Rondo, so we won’t have to imagine it.

[IMG]http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy213/irondan1/vitalypotapenko.jpg[/IMG]

by KGHurtYourFeelings on Dec 9, 2011 8:23 AM EST up reply actions

The best thing...

that could come of this embarrassing 6 months of NBA travesty would be the owners get fed up and fire dictator Stern.

by CelticsFanNC on Dec 9, 2011 8:17 AM EST reply actions

?

Stern works for the owners. Any puppet of the owners would likely seem much more dictatorial than Stern.

For all we know, Stern has smoothed things over behind the scenes and tempered the demands of the owners.

i’ll admit he certainly comes off way to authoritarian and condescending sometimes.

[IMG]http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy213/irondan1/vitalypotapenko.jpg[/IMG]

by KGHurtYourFeelings on Dec 9, 2011 8:25 AM EST up reply actions

Horrible Trade

This was such a bad trade from the Hornets point of view. The GM obviously does not have any job security and only cares about the present to save his job. Those guys he got are all vets either past or in the midst of their prime. They would get bounced in the first round easily. Thats not in the best interest of the team long term when your losing the best point guard in the game. They should be moving to straight rebuilding mode and shedding salary by acquiring assets that will improve over time. Ownership doesn’t want a team that isn’t going any where, they want to build for the future so someone will want to buy them. Having overpaid over the hill guys isn’t the way to attract potential buyers. Ownership has ever right to nix a deal from a GM that is too selfish to think ahead.

by BjamesVT on Dec 9, 2011 8:23 AM EST reply actions

Are you kidding me?

Do you honestly think CP3 is better than the package NO was getting in return? The NBA has no chance of attracting a new owner for NO if/when they allow Paul to walk with nothing in return. He has said he is leaving, one way or another.

by CelticsUKfan on Dec 9, 2011 8:30 AM EST up reply actions

no, i’m not kidding you. this trade helps short term but the team isn’t going anywhere. The Hornets GM said he wanted youth and picks yet he got a 33, 32 and a 29 when the season is over. Demps just wants to save his job at the expense of the long term development.

by BjamesVT on Dec 9, 2011 8:33 AM EST up reply actions

I don't think you are right about Demps.

.
He wanted to resign when the trade was blocked. He had to be talked out of it.

by GetYourSoxOn on Dec 9, 2011 10:48 AM EST up reply actions

Good...maybe the Hornets will be contracted

These small market teams have no chance of winning a title if the players all want to play for the same 5-6 teams. Maybe if small market teams start going away it will cause the owners and players to realize that something has to give for the health of the league.

I think Dan Gilbert’s Washington General line was spot on. Unfortunately the owners didn’t have enough concern/guts to cancel the season like Hockey owners.

by MaxAMillion on Dec 9, 2011 8:51 AM EST up reply actions

Explain

Try to explain this ………. Demps said he was in contact with the league office DURING the trade talks and wasn’t told it wouldn’t be allowed. ???? Also, the purpose of any trade is to get better and this trade definitely improved NO. Plus, it actually downgraded LA because they lose two very good bigs, that is a good thing.

by CelticsUKfan on Dec 9, 2011 8:39 AM EST reply actions

The Stern was trying to build the Lakers into the next superteam

And Danny made him show his true colors and the rest of the owners knew it. End of story

by michael32951 on Dec 9, 2011 8:41 AM EST reply actions

Really?????

Someone help me out here.
Do you really mean to tell me that giving up Gasol and Odom for CP3 actually makes the Lakers better?
Do you really mean to tell me that trading Rondo, Jeff Green, a rookie, and 1-2 draft picks for CP3 makes the Celtics better?

by CelticsUKfan on Dec 9, 2011 8:48 AM EST reply actions

Immediately, as in this season

trading Rondo, Jeff Green, a rookie and 1-2 draft picks for CP3 almost certainly makes the Celtics better.

As for the Lakers, it is arguable. But it is my opinion that after last year, the trade made a lot of sense for the Lakers as well, as they clearly needed to shake things up if they intend on competing for another championship

[IMG]http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy213/irondan1/vitalypotapenko.jpg[/IMG]

by KGHurtYourFeelings on Dec 9, 2011 8:52 AM EST up reply actions

NO WAY

OK, so you are OK with sending a great PG, a good SF, draft picks, and a rookie for Paul? I’m not! There comes a time when the price is too high. You don’t give away the future for a very uncertain 6 month rental.

by CelticsUKfan on Dec 9, 2011 8:59 AM EST up reply actions

I've been torn the entire time.

On one hand, I don’t honestly believe that this team, as constructed, is a title favorite this year. And I believe that the addition of Chris Paul could make us one.

So in that sense, I almost think it is worth the gamble. We are at an end of an era, and we are going to have to start fresh sometime.

On the other hand, I am a huge Rondo fan. I have followed him since high school and we went to UK at the same time. I root for him and I love his heart AND his game.

But objectively, Paul is better. I don’t know that Rondo is a centerpiece, but he can certainly be a solid building block, and I would love to root for a new C’s team with him in that position.

But Paul IS definitely a centerpiece. All emotions aside, we are looking at either building our future around Rondo, or around Paul, and Paul is the better player. Granted, Rondo makes less money, so I suppose it is arguable who is the better value.

Again, I don’t really want to trade Rondo for Paul, but it seems like the best basketball move to me, from a cold calculating business standpoint

[IMG]http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy213/irondan1/vitalypotapenko.jpg[/IMG]

by KGHurtYourFeelings on Dec 9, 2011 9:05 AM EST up reply actions

We just have to disagree

I find it comical that anyone believes adding CP3 at a high cost simply makes you an immediate contender. All emotions aside, I prefer Rondo over Paul.

by CelticsUKfan on Dec 9, 2011 9:11 AM EST up reply actions

Cost

has nothing to do with contending.

You can prefer Rondo all you want, and maybe I prefer Rondo also.

But emotions, money, injury concerns aside…CP3 is better at basketball than Rondo. That is not debatable.

[IMG]http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy213/irondan1/vitalypotapenko.jpg[/IMG]

by KGHurtYourFeelings on Dec 9, 2011 9:13 AM EST up reply actions

it is very debatable

Everything about a player can’t be measured by stats. Who is a better fir for the Celtics…. Rondo or CP3? Who has more heart? It is easy to say Paul shoots better or scores more. It is just as easy for me to say that Rondo is a better fit, a better defender, and gives out more assists. It is a matter of opinion. The same as any arguement of who is the best of all time…. Russell, Jordan, Oscar, Jabbar???

by CelticsUKfan on Dec 9, 2011 9:21 AM EST up reply actions

Your arguments don’t have much substance to them. Who has more heart? what does that even mean? Are we to assume that because Rondo has played his entire career with Boston he automatically cares more about winning and basketball in general. If that was true he could make a foul shot consistently. He was born with all the athletic ability in the world, but he doesn’t seem to have enough heart to spend all summer on the charity stripe. I love Rondo, but to say that hes a better fit because he’s already here doesn’t sound logical to me.

by BjamesVT on Dec 9, 2011 9:57 AM EST up reply actions

read again maybe?

I didn’t say anything about him being better because he’s already here. I said there are things in any player that can’t be measured. If you think CP3 has the chemistry that Rondo has with the current Celtics the minute he steps on the court, you are worse than wrong. That chemistry comes from being around those players. Any arguement over who is better is always subjective. Renting Cp3 for 6 months and giving up 4-5 players is stupid.

by CelticsUKfan on Dec 9, 2011 10:01 AM EST up reply actions

and..........

Does Rondo being a Celtic his entire career mean he cares more about winning? It means he cares more about the CELTICS winning than Paul! Paul doesn’t want to come to Boston, he wants to go play with Melo in NY. So yes, along those lines.. Rondo cares more about winning as a Celtic.

by CelticsUKfan on Dec 9, 2011 10:04 AM EST up reply actions

You really think developing chemistry with 3 first ballot hall of famers is difficult? You pass them the ball when their open and they make the play. Your overvaluing Rondo because he’s been our boy since he got here. Paul’s stats were on par if not better then Rondo when he was playing with 4 scrubs and he’s not a liability in the 4th quarter or at the FT line. Trading a 2nd tier point guard and a bunch of scrubs for a top 5 player is a no brainer with the fact our core is all but done after this season. I want a championship now! We are not going anywhere with Rondo as our best player.

by BjamesVT on Dec 9, 2011 10:18 AM EST up reply actions

wow

A second tier PG and a bunch of scrubs? That was truely a way to express how you feel about the Celtics! And to explain that chemistry is simply about “throwing them the ball”. I never realized it was quite that elementary, thanks for explaining that to all of us. I must be in the wrong thread!

by CelticsUKfan on Dec 9, 2011 10:26 AM EST up reply actions

Rondo can’t shoot. Until he can he’s not in the conversation as being the best at his position. Jeff Green, Avery Bradley and future late first rounders are SCRUBS. They will not sway a championship for the Celtics this season. So they don’t matter. Blindly saying your team has the best players doesn’t make it so. I’ll trade anybody if it brings another banner to Boston. This is about WINNING, not about hurt feelings. I want TITLES, not decent 2nd string players. Chemistry can be created with one good game together, hell I’ve gotten good chemistry with guys playing down at park after a couple games. You act like it’s impossible for the Celtics to exist without Rondo. I love the dude. He’s amazing! but I love WINNING more.

by BjamesVT on Dec 9, 2011 10:34 AM EST up reply actions

DAYUM!

I was with you until you said Jeff Green was a scrub… Not his fault we’re using him wrong. He’s a very talented player, athletic, and young. Definition of valuable.

P2 is the man.

by MikeMartin on Dec 9, 2011 11:08 AM EST up reply actions

jeff green has potential but he’s not a hot commodity in the league by a long shot. yes in a ideal situation he could be a starter on a championship team but he’s the 4th or 5th best player on that team, tops. if you have a chance to get an all world player for him, an all-star and some change, you take it and don’t think twice.

by BjamesVT on Dec 9, 2011 1:07 PM EST up reply actions

also.......

Cost has nothing to do with contending? Do you want to rethink that statement?

by CelticsUKfan on Dec 9, 2011 9:23 AM EST up reply actions

maybe i didn't phrase that properly

The cost for this year was negligible. I suppose that the long-term cost, as in potentially losing paul after this season and having to rebuild from scratch, albeit with plenty of space, is considerable.

And again, I suppose you could debate any 2 players, but CP3 is better. On every single NBA team, only considering ability, it is better to have CP3 at PG than Rondo.

And Rondo is my favorite player.

[IMG]http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy213/irondan1/vitalypotapenko.jpg[/IMG]

by KGHurtYourFeelings on Dec 9, 2011 9:49 AM EST up reply actions

The league owns the hornets. They should not be taking on more salaries at this time. If someone buys the team they can do whatever they want. But as long as the league is the one paying for the hornets salaries they have every right to want their GM to shed salaries and and build for the future. The Laker trade did not do that. It kept the status quo. First round playoff bounces are not going to help this team get better in the future. Being middle of the pack is a death sentence in the NBA. You either bomb and get a decent draft pick or your fighting for a championship.

by BjamesVT on Dec 9, 2011 9:09 AM EST up reply actions

Look, CP3 + Kobe + Bynum

That makes you a contender, no doubt about it.

But if Bynum got hurt again, contending over. You have no other size, no bench.

So the thing is, are they a contender there? Yes. But they were already a contender, so would it actually make them better? Eh, not so sure on that.

It’s putting a lot of faith in Bynum’s knees.

by Sizzlack on Dec 9, 2011 9:41 AM EST up reply actions

it doesn’t really matter if the trade makes LA better or not. From a Hornets pov it does not improve them but makes them worse long term. They didn’t get trade assets. The vets they got make way too much money for what they bring to the table at their age. Getting old guys is not how you rebuild. It was a lateral move at best. The owners of the Hornets didn’t want to take on additional salaries for a team that would not be very good. Thats all that needs to be said. Everything else is just gossip and conspiracy theories.

by BjamesVT on Dec 9, 2011 9:48 AM EST up reply actions

I dont think rebuilding was NO's plan though after I saw that trade

Just look at that roster: Ariza, Odom, Martin, Scola, Okafor. All they need is a serviceable point guard and they can make noise.

by staticcc on Dec 9, 2011 11:36 AM EST up reply actions

make noise? in the western conference?!?! thats a 7th seed and a first round exit.

by BjamesVT on Dec 9, 2011 1:04 PM EST up reply actions

The next LA move Was Howard for Bynum

and absolutely the Lakers would be unstoppable. I firmly believe Danny was only trying to force the Lakers to include Bynum in the trade to prevent Howard from going to LA. When Stern tried to have it both ways the owners revolted.

by michael32951 on Dec 9, 2011 8:55 AM EST reply actions

really?

Bynum for Howard? Do you think Orlando is that stupid to trade him straight up for Bynum? If CP3 is worth a 5-6 player package, then DH has to be worth at least two whole teams. Maybe the NBA can allow NO to trade Paul for the Orlando Magic and the New York Knicks? hmmmm

by CelticsUKfan on Dec 9, 2011 9:01 AM EST up reply actions

If Howard demands to be traded to LA (which he probally would)

Orlando will have no better option then Bynum or loose him for nothing at the end of the season

by michael32951 on Dec 9, 2011 9:04 AM EST up reply actions

missing something?

The whole point of the LA trade being vetoed is what you are suggesting with Howard. He can demand a lot of things. Give Orlando a bit of credit.

by CelticsUKfan on Dec 9, 2011 9:08 AM EST up reply actions

They signed Rashard Lewis to a max contract, they have no credit.

by BjamesVT on Dec 9, 2011 9:10 AM EST up reply actions

The trade was vetoed

Because the owners knew exactly what I am saying was going to happen

by michael32951 on Dec 9, 2011 9:11 AM EST up reply actions

that's your opinion

you can’t predict anything. No one predicted that NO-HOU-LAL three team trade and no one can also predict what will happen to DH.

by staticcc on Dec 9, 2011 11:38 AM EST up reply actions

I'm not predicting anything

I’m just observing NO took a bad trade to benefit the Lakers and it is a known fact LA is after Howard and this trade gave them the means to make it happen

by michael32951 on Dec 9, 2011 2:27 PM EST up reply actions

paul will eventually wind up in ny or la and be a glitterati, maybe not this year. good try danny. at least danny put it all out there and now get us a reasonable facsimile of a big man.

by nazzbo on Dec 9, 2011 8:57 AM EST reply actions

The NBA saved its integrity yesterday

The trade made no sense. The Hornets were getting old (good but still old) and injury prone guys. When have you seen a team trading its superstar for, instead if young guys to rebuild, old guys and injury prone guys (Kevin I’m made of glass Martin).The Rockets were trading two or three guys for an old and useless Pau Gasol. The Lakers were saving lots of money and giving up virtually nothing, especially considering they would have got Dwight Howard afterwards and they were getting younger and better (did anyone see Pau Gasol in the playoffs? Yeah, the Lakers were very sad to give up that contract). You want to talk about conspiracy? How about the league’s team gifting its superstar player to a team that has milions of fans worldwide because it money and ratinga. Of course ESPN is pissed! And I’d be pissed if this ridiculous trade had gone through. If the Lakers want Chris Paul, fine, but you’re going to have to make a deal that makes sense,mespecially because the Celtics had a better offer on the table. No doubt about it.

by Celticsdude on Dec 9, 2011 1:39 PM EST reply actions