This is bad. Very bad. Let’s sit back and think about what just happened last night for a few minutes logically. The National Basketball Association officially ratified a new collective bargaining agreement between the league owners and players. Then, three teams in the National Basketball Association agreed to a trade. Hours later, that trade was vetoed by the league’s dictator, David Stern.

Before I even get into the ramifications that this decision has on the Hornets, Paul, and the NBA moving forward; let’s first analyze the deal that as of right now isn’t happening.

The New Orleans Hornets (who are league-owned BTW) attempted to send Chris Paul to the Los Angeles Lakers in exchange for Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol. As part of that deal, New Orleans would then flip Gasol to the Houston Rockets in exchange for Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Goran Dragic, and a 1st Round pick.

Look at that trade again.

If you really know the NBA, you can’t honestly tell me that this trade would have been grossly in LA’s favor. If ANYTHING, The New Orleans Hornets make out like bandits in this deal. The biggest loser without a doubt would have been Houston.

Perspective: LA gives up all of their depth down low for a top talent in the league at point guard. When you factor in that Chris Paul could easily be considered a bit of an injury risk, this trade is very fair for LA. The Hornets, in return for a player THAT WAS LEAVING NO MATTER WHAT, received a more than solid big in Scola, a 28-year-old scoring guard, an efficient 7-foot power forward, a young point guard, and a first round pick. And I’ll reiterate, New Orleans is losing Chris Paul and getting nothing in return if they don’t trade him now. So The Hornets could have possibly received not two or three, but FOUR rotation players (two of whom are guaranteed starters) and a draft pick. Yet somehow this trade still isn’t fair enough? You could argue that it’s a fair trade even if Chris Paul didn’t plan to leave at the end of the year.

And still, David Stern said no. The obvious questions are why and how?

How? The league owns the Hornets. So apparently as owners, there was enough backlash over this deal that Stern had to step in. The very notion that the League owns a team is ridiculous. Because at the end of the day, you could make the case that any trade or free agent signing involving New Orleans is a conflict of interest. But the league doesn’t want to lose the franchise to contraction, so this is the bed they’ve made.

The better question is why?

Now there is a complex answer there, and I’ll be honest; I don’t know it. It could be any number of things. Maybe Stern genuinely wants to make a point that players aren’t allowed to dictate their destination while under contract anymore. Can’t be. Because if that’s the case, Dwight Howard can’t get dealt to New Jersey or Los Angeles now because he’s expressed interest in those teams. If you’re going to block one trade for “basketball reasons,” don’t you have to block the other one too? Maybe the deal wasn’t fair for New Orleans? I’ve already explained pretty thoroughly that that is definitely not the case. And what is equal value anyway? Who decides it? Different teams and different management have different ideas for what value is. One team may value a young player signed through 2015. Another may value a 34-year-old about to come off the books. They may make the same amount of money, but one is definitely a better player than the other, does that mean a trade involving the two is unfair?

Maybe it’s because the league fears another super team? CP3 and Kobe in Los Angeles already; with potentially Dwight Howard on the way for Andrew Bynum? Yikes. The league just had a 150 day lockout meant to solve among other things like financial problems, the “competitive balance” issue in the league. CP3 and D12 in LA with Kobe wouldn’t be a good look for the NBA if the league perceives that it was successful in solving the parity problem by locking the players out for five months. Paul and Howard together means that in 2 years there are only 4 competitive teams (OKC, LAL, MIA, CHI). It looks even worse when you take into account that just like when Boston acquired Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, both Howard and Paul would have been acquired through legitimate trades. Not a free agency heist like down in South Beach. Yet either way, David Stern decided he wouldn’t let this happen again. It may sound like a conspiracy theory, but I honestly believe this to be the most logical answer. However, NBA corruption is a column for a later day and this is as deep as I will go right now.

RAMIFICATIONS

First, the league. This is a bad precedent that we can look at two different ways. A) If the league can nix trades involving the Hornets, the fact they own the team is a conflict of interest. And moving forward, they absolutely cannot make moves involving this team until the Hornets have an actual owner. Scarier thought is B), the league can just decide to nix any trade they see as bad for “basketball reasons.” If that happens, oh my God, I don’t even know what to say.

For Paul, he has a legitimate beef here. Because by the rules of the CBA, he should have been able to get dealt to Los Angeles, where he could have signed a max dollar extension. Now, he can’t get the same contract offer from his next team. Because without a trade, they won’t own his bird rights. We’re talking about a difference of tens of millions of dollars. If CP3 sues the NBA for damages, he will win.

The Hornets, sorry New Orleans fans, but you get screwed the worst here. Because unless a miracle takes place and David Stern admits he was wrong (not Effin-happenin), you’re not trading Chris Paul. That means he’s going to walk at the end of the season and you get nothing back. The Hornets will have no valuable assets left. And eventually will have to fold when they can’t find a new buyer. Sorry, blame Stern.

Solution:

To me it’s obvious. David Stern has to reverse this decision. And then he needs to resign. Because moving forward, how else can you make this right? If you’re David Stern, you said this was nixed for “basketball reasons.” It’s better for the Hornets to have Chris Paul. So how can you possibly trade Chris Paul in a different deal? If it’s bad for CP3 to leave New Orleans for Los Angeles for “basketball reasons,” what is a trade that works for “basketball reasons?” New Orleans isn’t getting a better deal than the LA/Houston trade. And if you don’t deal him, guess what? New Orleans gets no compensation and the franchise eventually folds. Because news flash: New Orleans doesn’t have an owner! And no potential buyer is going to drop hundreds of millions of dollars on a franchise with no assets.

So great job, David Stern. You’ve outdone yourself on this one. You now have to bite the bullet on this. The message you send if you reverse your own decision isn’t a good one. But make no mistake about it, that message you’d send is far less damaging to your league and its functionality than the precedent that you just set by nixing a totally fair and legal deal. You want to make this right? Reverse your decision. Let this trade go through. And then go away forever. That’s your only play.

Join the Forum discussion on this post

Join the Forum discussion on this post