There was a conflict of interest with the league operating as ownership. Their objectives centered on league prosperity, not the prosperity of the team. The Lakers were going to be popular regardless, but the Clippers were the most underperforming property in the league. After vetoing the Laker deal Stern essentially dictated the deal would be made with the Clippers, even directing what they would offer in return. Why not the Knick? Why not the Bulls? Because those teams were already selling out their arenas. He gifted Sterling a star n Paul that as an owner he didn’t deserve. But none of that mattered to the bottom line.
As for the Pelicans, outside of keeping them from folding, I doubt Stern cared all that much. He wanted the PR of keeping the team in New Orleans. But the prosperity of the league mattered very little with the Hornets.
I know it's hard to accept but his explanation makes sense. It's much more difficult to clear salary than it is to obtain salary. Furthermore, the former usually involves giving up assets whereas the latter often involves gaining assets. It also boils down to certainty and control. Yes you could theoretically give up a Luis Scola or Lamar Odom for first round picks down the line but as a potential buyer I could see why it makes sense to want to have those picks on hand already. And if you do decide you're willing to walk that treadmill of mediocrity, it isn't difficult to acquire a Luis Scola or Lamar Odom-level of impact player with cap-space.
Was Stern "tanking" to get AD? Arguably...but no more so than any other team that holds a fire-sale, which is certainly within the rules of engagement.
Bottom line is that if you're dropping hundreds of millions-to-billions on something, you're probably going to want the maximum amount of control. We can argue until the cows come home about the value of player/pick X versus Y but on principle alone that's certainly understandable. _________________ Luxury Tax/FA Spreadsheet (Save to your Google Drive to edit)
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 36137 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2021 11:31 am Post subject:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Mamba Mentality wrote:
acer77 wrote:
It was vetoed cause David Stern didn't want MJ replaced by Kobe as the face of the NBA. Kobe would've easily won 7+ championships with CP3 surpassing MJ's 6.
This had more to do with the owners complaining about the Lakers than it did about keeping Kobe from winning a title. No one but fan's care about silly things like ring count when it comes to these outcomes.
The fact that Mitch was able to cut the Laker’s luxury tax bill drastically after just agreeing on revenue sharing made some owners mad, they could see revenue that they were counting on slipping away. Jeanie was at those meetings and could have fought for the deal but chose to just go home.
Simultaneously cut salary and got the best player in the deal by far. And some on this board and in the media didn’t even like it because we were giving up size. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
here's the bottom line, David stern wanted that unprotected pick from the clippers (by way of Minnesota). if there was ever any conspiracy that stern KNEW that pick was gonna be the #1 (and that meant ANTHONY DAVIS), it was this veto.
i just think it's fishy. i mean if the clippers knew that pick would turn into the #1, they may have chose to just draft anthony davis. i think stern KNEW that pick was the #1 beforehand.
"Why the Lakers didn't trade NVE for Kidd"? _________________ “Always remember... Rumors are carried by haters, spread by fools, and accepted by idiots.”
There was a conflict of interest with the league operating as ownership. Their objectives centered on league prosperity, not the prosperity of the team. The Lakers were going to be popular regardless, but the Clippers were the most underperforming property in the league. After vetoing the Laker deal Stern essentially dictated the deal would be made with the Clippers, even directing what they would offer in return. Why not the Knick? Why not the Bulls? Because those teams were already selling out their arenas. He gifted Sterling a star n Paul that as an owner he didn’t deserve. But none of that mattered to the bottom line.
As for the Pelicans, outside of keeping them from folding, I doubt Stern cared all that much. He wanted the PR of keeping the team in New Orleans. But the prosperity of the league mattered very little with the Hornets.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 36137 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2021 1:11 pm Post subject:
oaktown_dimond wrote:
here's the bottom line, David stern wanted that unprotected pick from the clippers (by way of Minnesota). if there was ever any conspiracy that stern KNEW that pick was gonna be the #1 (and that meant ANTHONY DAVIS), it was this veto.
i just think it's fishy. i mean if the clippers knew that pick would turn into the #1, they may have chose to just draft anthony davis. i think stern KNEW that pick was the #1 beforehand.
purely speculation on my part obviously.
I thought it was the Pelicans’ own pick. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
that pick to the hornets was the #10 for austin rivers. MY BAD!
CandyCanes wrote:
oaktown_dimond wrote:
here's the bottom line, David stern wanted that unprotected pick from the clippers (by way of Minnesota). if there was ever any conspiracy that stern KNEW that pick was gonna be the #1 (and that meant ANTHONY DAVIS), it was this veto.
i just think it's fishy. i mean if the clippers knew that pick would turn into the #1, they may have chose to just draft anthony davis. i think stern KNEW that pick was the #1 beforehand.
Vetoed becase the NBA didn't want Kobe to tie/pass their precious MJ in rings and didn't want any obstacles getting in the way of their Chosen One LeBron getting his first.
I believe this and the irony of it all is that we ended up getting Super Teams afterwards...
IF CP3 never wins a ring one has to wonder if he could've gotten it here.
Time has proven that Stern did the right thing for NO. That initial return was a garbage one that woulda resulted in a high paid but subpar team, similar to the Rockets squad that included the majority of those players. We even had to amnesty Scola. No, that's not as attractive to a buyer.
Time has proven that Stern did the right thing for NO. That initial return was a garbage one that woulda resulted in a high paid but subpar team, similar to the Rockets squad that included the majority of those players. We even had to amnesty Scola. No, that's not as attractive to a buyer.
I disagree with that. It's not like the clippers deal really help the Hornets in the long run or even the short run. When you looked at how things evolved, I don't think you can really say that one deal was significantly better than the other.
Stern really screwed this up. At the very least, he should have communicated that he personally was going to approve deals rather than make it seem like he would be hands off in the process, which is what he did at first.
In reality, you should have set things up so there was a independent party approving deals.
Time has proven that Stern did the right thing for NO. That initial return was a garbage one that woulda resulted in a high paid but subpar team, similar to the Rockets squad that included the majority of those players. We even had to amnesty Scola. No, that's not as attractive to a buyer.
I disagree with that. It's not like the clippers deal really help the Hornets in the long run or even the short run. When you looked at how things evolved, I don't think you can really say that one deal was significantly better than the other.
Stern really screwed this up. At the very least, he should have communicated that he personally was going to approve deals rather than make it seem like he would be hands off in the process, which is what he did at first.
In reality, you should have set things up so there was a independent party approving deals.
Yeah I don't think it looks good in retrospect either. Eric Gordon and Austin Rivers' tenures with the Hornets didn't impress anybody. They didn't acquire anybody of significance with their cap-space IIRC. The best gain was that they stumbled into AD but that was their own pick. I guess you can't argue with that but I'm not sure that's something to brag about; if your goal as a GM is to just tank without gaining significant assets then you probably won't last long.
I do agree however that it probably just boiled down to money. Scola, Dragic, and Martin were the type of players you only pay at FMV to fill out a championship roster. _________________ Luxury Tax/FA Spreadsheet (Save to your Google Drive to edit)
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 36137 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2021 1:46 pm Post subject:
gng930 wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Dreamshake wrote:
Time has proven that Stern did the right thing for NO. That initial return was a garbage one that woulda resulted in a high paid but subpar team, similar to the Rockets squad that included the majority of those players. We even had to amnesty Scola. No, that's not as attractive to a buyer.
I disagree with that. It's not like the clippers deal really help the Hornets in the long run or even the short run. When you looked at how things evolved, I don't think you can really say that one deal was significantly better than the other.
Stern really screwed this up. At the very least, he should have communicated that he personally was going to approve deals rather than make it seem like he would be hands off in the process, which is what he did at first.
In reality, you should have set things up so there was a independent party approving deals.
Yeah I don't think it looks good in retrospect either. Eric Gordon and Austin Rivers' tenures with the Hornets didn't impress anybody. They didn't acquire anybody of significance with their cap-space IIRC. The best gain was that they stumbled into AD but that was their own pick. I guess you can't argue with that but I'm not sure that's something to brag about; if your goal as a GM is to just tank without gaining significant assets then you probably won't last long.
I do agree however that it probably just boiled down to money. Scola, Dragic, and Martin were the type of players you only pay at FMV to fill out a championship roster.
Not sure why they didn’t try to get a return like OKC got for Paul George or Minnesota got for KG. Rising young star + boatload of picks. And then you tank and still get AD. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 36137 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2021 1:47 pm Post subject:
New Orleans has actually drafted so many generational talents and done absolutely nothing with them— Kobe, CP3. AD, Zion… _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144573 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2021 1:53 pm Post subject:
activeverb wrote:
Dreamshake wrote:
Time has proven that Stern did the right thing for NO. That initial return was a garbage one that woulda resulted in a high paid but subpar team, similar to the Rockets squad that included the majority of those players. We even had to amnesty Scola. No, that's not as attractive to a buyer.
I disagree with that. It's not like the clippers deal really help the Hornets in the long run or even the short run. When you looked at how things evolved, I don't think you can really say that one deal was significantly better than the other.
Stern really screwed this up. At the very least, he should have communicated that he personally was going to approve deals rather than make it seem like he would be hands off in the process, which is what he did at first.
In reality, you should have set things up so there was a independent party approving deals.
One could argue that adding a lottery pick could have helped the league sell the franchise. I’m not sure if it’s a valid argument but Benson did know how to run a franchise. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
the veto was because Stern and Cuban didn't want Kobe to win more rings. _________________ "Now, if life is coffee, then the jobs, money & position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold & contain life, but the quality of life doesn't change. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee in it."
can you imagine, CP3 running the MDA offense... with Kobe and Pau... damn. _________________ "Now, if life is coffee, then the jobs, money & position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold & contain life, but the quality of life doesn't change. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee in it."
the veto was because Stern and Cuban didn't want Kobe to win more rings.
No, it was financial.
I recall back then reports coming out that CLE's owner called Stern and moaned as well about it being unfair the Lakers got that deal plus "cap relief" out of it.
Maybe it played a part in the decision (along with other reasons), maybe it did not. I have a hard time believing the complaints from other owners regarding the Lakers did not play some percentage. Also, it is ironic that the stated rationale to veto...was to tank Of course, before some of the changes they've made since then to avoid the sort of "process" Philly made...and...cough...others... _________________ "One thing I admire about Kuzma is his unwavering confidence. He truly has no idea that he’s not as good as he thinks." - Killer_Z
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144573 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2021 9:24 pm Post subject:
DrDent wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Drifts wrote:
the veto was because Stern and Cuban didn't want Kobe to win more rings.
No, it was financial.
I recall back then reports coming out that CLE's owner called Stern and moaned as well about it being unfair the Lakers got that deal plus "cap relief" out of it.
Maybe it played a part in the decision (along with other reasons), maybe it did not. I have a hard time believing the complaints from other owners regarding the Lakers did not play some percentage. Also, it is ironic that the stated rationale to veto...was to tank Of course, before some of the changes they've made since then to avoid the sort of "process" Philly made...and...cough...others...
We can’t forget that the trade happened at the end of a long Board of Governors meeting in which they had hammered out profit sharing. It probably wouldn’t have done any good but Jeanie was there and could have battled for the trade, but didn’t. Maybe she didn’t want Jim to succeed? 100% speculation. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Ask Lewis Hamilton and he will tell you exactly when your winning way is being manipulated. F1 was kinda bored because Hamilton keeps winning, just as the NBA was tired of Lakers pulling off winning moves all the time. I almost stopped watching basketball since then if not for Kobe Bryant. But for F1, the hell with it. They have ruined the sport to no way of return especially if Hamilton quits F1. This is what happens if a "boss" can say anything to change the result of a championship. I was sure Lakers would win some more rings with CP and Kobe. Lakers were robbed just as Hamilton was blatantly robbed of a sure win and a record 8th championship. _________________ Kobe's Top 5 Dunks, 81 points, MJ last gm @Staples
Man, watching CP3 pulled a foul out of Melo... y'all right, would've had 11 healthy years from CP3 and prob Kobe too since he wouldn't have been the one running the bulk of offense
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Of course, before some of the changes they've made since then to avoid the sort of "process" Philly made...and...cough...others...
