Friday, December 09, 2011
How do you feel about this new trend in the NBA where it seems like the players are in charge of where they end up playing? Fair is fair, I guess. We would all feel as though we deserve to work where we want if we're qualified and have offers. The problem to me is that this exacerbates the haves and have-nots issue. The players, especially NBA players, all want to play in LA, NY or South Beach. It's interesting as a Boston fan to feel second class. I know..."tough, how does that feel?" I get it but it is strange. They all can't play there, of course, but it does give the Lakers in particular first pick of the litter and more than half the league no pick of the litter (the litter being the best players in the league).
The "league" owns the Hornets. So how did the league agree to this deal and then the league step in and put the kibosh on it?
Does the NBA have a right, is it fair, to put the kibosh on a trade like this? Is your answer to this question affected by the fact that the league owns and manages the Hornets?
How do you feel about leagues stepping in and deciding whether trades are right or wrong, fair or unfair? There's not a lot of history for this. There is the famous case in baseball where the Commissioner refused to allow the Oakland A's to dump three stars to the Red Sox in the early '70s. I remember being pretty upset about that. It would've given the Sox a team that likely would have won a couple of World Series; but looking back on it now, that was a salary dump trade where the A's got nowhere near back what they would've given. I think leagues should look out for the league as a whole, even if doing something like this opens them up to criticism and we're likely going to think it was unnecessary and unfair in some instances. I do think they have the right. Whether it's wise in each instance is certainly another question.
Do you see this trade as being lopsided in favor of anyone? It's a three-way deal, so that makes it harder to look at in that vein. It looks to me like the Hornets received pretty good value out of this trade but it has the appearance of the Lakers receiving Chris Paul for Pau Gasol and Mr. Kardashian. So to me the team that's the "culprit" here is Houston, who in essence gave the Hornets the value they wanted in return for Paul, enabling the Lakers to not have to give equal to what they got. That's the part that bothers me.
Is this deal going to end up happening anyway?
Would losing Odom and Gasol but gaining Paul make the Lakers the prohibitive favorite this year? I'm not sure about prohibitive but they're certainly in the top 2 or 3. The question would be whether one ball is enough for Kobe and Paul; and with Bynum's injury tendency, it would leave the Lakers weak up front.
Would your opinions about this deal change if the Lakers then went out and traded for Dwight Howard? My opinions wouldn't change. I'd just be more upset and would feel it proves the point that the Lakers have an unfair advantage in making trades and proves the point that they gave up too little to get Paul if they still have enough ammunition to then trade for Howard. How can one team have enough to trade for the #1 big man in the league and arguably the #1 point guard in the league and still retain the #1 player in the league? The answer is that they have other teams over a barrel and can force a situation where a team has to take what they offer or else.
So while something may be fair to the one or the few doesn't mean it's fair to the group as a whole or to other single entities. Rumors have it that Howard wants to go to Brooklyn, so this may be moot. But I can tell you I won't be watching any NBA this season if the Lakers end up with both Paul and Howard.