When he visits NBA arenas during the season, David Stern often makes a grand entry into each team’s locker room before the game to mingle with the fellows, perhaps giving them a brief but very inspiring pep talk and showing them the king has his common-man side.
Usually, the commissioner is welcomed with smiles and handshakes and appreciation. When you have a leader who helped the average salary balloon north of $5 million, it’s only proper to be respectful. Plus it’s always a treat to be in the presence of royalty.
I would say the possibility of that warm and fuzzy scene happening this year, however, is about the same as Donald Trump adopting Michael Jordan’s hair style. After a brutal, litigious and often angry labor negotiation, Stern made the second worst move in his 28-year tenure as commissioner when he disallowed the trade that would have sent Chris Paul to the Lakers last week, and if you have seen a quote from a player who thought it was an intelligent decision, please forward it to me.
It was a decision of such overpowering absurdity, in fact, that Stern and the league looked foolish trying to defend it. Stern’s decision came on the same day he received a scathing e-mail from Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert saying it would be a “travesty” to approve the deal.
As that e-mail was published, the league came back with a weak response that the trade was denied for “basketball reasons.” There was even a diversionary tactic of saying the trade had not been discussed at the Board of Governors meeting in New York on Thursday, but that was silly. Obviously Gilbert is not going to be sitting at the meeting with a laptop and e-mailing the commissioner while they are in the same room. But no one denied the commissioner had received the email.
Still, when he finally got around to issuing a press release, Stern felt the need to say his decision was made “free from the influence of other NBA owners.” That was so unusual and awkward that you had a feeling he had his hand behind his back with his fingers crossed.
Stern should have done the opposite – say the 29 owners jointly own the team, and they have the right to decide if a trade is good or bad.
The “basketball reasons” excuse was overwhelmingly mocked with Steve Kerr, the respected TNT analyst and former Suns GM, saying on ESPN radio that vetoing the trade was “one of the dumbest things the league has ever done.”
The idea that Hornets general manager Dell Demps did not get the best deal he possibly could was ludicrous. It was no secret Paul wanted to be traded, and it had to be to a contender because Paul has one year left on his contract. So that rules out a team like Gilbert’s Cavaliers, who are bad with young players and potential high draft picks. Why would any team trade for Paul for 66 games without a guarantee of him signing a new contract?
Demps judged the deal to bring Lamar Odom (32), Luis Scola (31), Kevin Martin (28) and Goran Dragic (25) along with the Knicks’ 2012 No. 1 draft pick to be the best deal he could get. It certainly gave the Hornets a better chance to compete for the playoffs than the deal they are reportedly getting from the Clippers – a reserve small forward, an injured point guard (but, hey, they’re young, which is what the league said it wanted!), a center who has missed 133 games with injuries the last four years and a No. 1 pick.
Yes, the No. 1 pick from Minnesota in 2012 will result in a good player – but better than Martin or Scola? And that No. 1 pick is likely to be 19 years old, and by the time he is ready to help a team win regularly, the Hornets could be contracted or playing in another city.
Preventing the deal was a mistake. But it was different than the biggest mistake Stern ever made as commissioner – having no idea that former referee Tim Donaghy was betting on games he officiated and giving information to gamblers. That eventually led to two felony convictions and jail time for Donaghy.
The NBA had received reports of aberrant behavior by Donaghy, who was reported to have been in a feud with neighbors, had yelled obscenities at the wife and was accused by the neighbors of setting fire to their tractor and driving a golf cart into a ditch in 2005.
The NBA responded by suspending Donaghy for the 2005 playoffs and threatened to fire him if something similar happened again. Obviously, in retrospect, Donaghy should have been terminated, and given the chance again, Stern undoubtedly would do that.
By disallowing the original Paul deal, Stern had a major impact on the fortunes of the three teams. He made the Rockets worse because they were going to get Pau Gasol, and maybe Nene, too. He made the Hornets worse and he penalized the Lakers, although there was a strong feeling throughout the league that in giving up two 7-footers for a point guard, the Lakers actually did not make a good deal.
So why hurt those teams and help another such as the Mavericks, who sent a mere trade exception to the Lakers for Odom? That’s not the job of the commissioner.
After his recent performance during the nasty lockout and the controversy of the original Paul decision, some have ventured to reassess Stern’s tenure as commissioner. Stern claimed to not care, saying last Thursday, “I don’t believe in legacies.” After hearing that, close advisers were thankful Stern was not burdened with the Pinocchio curse because his nose would have grown six inches.
I would say that two terrible decisions do not damage all of Stern’s accomplishments. But the latest has adversely affected his relationship with players. If he does decide to walk in the locker room before a game this year, perhaps he will be greeted by smiles, but they will be ones of sarcasm, not sincerity.
Jan Hubbard has written about basketball since 1976 and worked in the NBA league office for eight years in between media stints. His columns appear every Tuesday on SheridanHoops.com. Follow him on Twitter at @whyhub.
DeeBasketballGuy says
You can’t be both Commissioner and Owner. Stern is using his power as Commissioner to benefit his position as Owner.
That’s unethical.
DeeBasketballGuy says
@p00ka Sign and Trade is not guarantee as part of CBA. But Paul could legitimately claim losses as a result of the NBA’s actions — which a lot of people see as a clear, conflict of interest.
DeeBasketballGuy says
@p00ka The Laker deal would have given NOLA a competitive team with tradeable assets. Demps did good.
ignarus says
Since it seems like Stern is trying to force CP to stay in NO until free agency, what teams will be sufficiently under the cap to offer him the max (or close to it?)
I still think it’s foolish of Stern to screw over the Hornets just to keep players from dictating trades. It’s actually worse for NO to just flat out lose him, but I guess he thinks the next buyer will think he’s got a shot at keeping him, which, hope-wise, is probably worth more than Eric Gordon and Minny’s #1 pick.
Pretty crappy of Stern to be going All In on NO keeping CP3 when he’s got no money of his own in the pot.
DeeBasketballGuy says
Yeah, it’s a PR nightmare. Totally unnecessary too. Now Stern has opened the door for possible litigation against the NBA on the heals of a disastrous lockout.
Meanwhile the hornets only have 6 players on roster.
p00ka says
LOL, there isn’t a hope in hell for litigation. CP3 is not a free agent. He’s under contract to the Hornets and has no say in trade decisions if the owners don’t want him to, period. You’re listening to too much sensational rhetoric. Think for yourself. At least actually respond to what opposing views are made.
DeeBasketballGuy says
If Chris loses $25 million in a sign and trade deal shot down by the league, he most definitely has a strong case for litigation given the league’s obvious conflict of interest
When is the last time a legitimate trade has been vetoed by the league?
p00ka says
I don’t recall sign and trade being part of the deal, but even if it was, it’s laughable to say that Chris Paul has a legal right to the benefits of a sign and trade. Sorry, but neither his contract nor the CBA give him any such thing.
p00ka says
Finally found someone writing with common sense:
http://basketball.realgm.com/blog/217408/David_Sterns_Basketball_Reasons
DeeBasketballGuy says
League Executives/GMs were told that Dell Demps had full autonomy to make deals on behalf of the Hornets. Then Stern stepped in…. That’s the problem
Dan Gilbert’s email made the problem WORSE. Obviously there was discussion among owners to block the Lakers. That’s a monumental conflict of interest.
Whether the deal is a good one or bad one is always debatable. You’ll probably have just as many people for it as against it.
p00ka says
Major share holders step in all the time to stop a bad major deal that top execs make. It’s not a sandbox game. It’s business. Instead of all the sanctimonious blabber about Stern being a bully, someone should question what Demps was thinking in accepting a deal contrary to the both the short term (sale) and long term (building a contender) interests of the franchise.
Dan Gilbert does not represent 29 owners. Never has, never will, and there’s nothing obvious about what other owners discussed. Nothing. Where is there any evidence of this? It would be conflict of interest if what Stern (the League, as in temporary owners) did was against the best interests of obtaining a buyer and keeping the Hornets in NOLA. That’s the league’s #1, 2, & 3 top interest in dealing with the Hornets, and should be what any deal is gauged against. Are you hearing the owners or GMs of the Lakers or Rockets crying that it’s a conflict of interest? Stern’s been dealing with prospective buyers and is in far better position to judge what is in the best interest of selling the team while keeping it in NOLA
DeeBasketballGuy says
Again, it was Demps decision to make — the guy with the experience in making deals.
And you highlighted the conflict between selling the team (Stern) and getting a good deal (Demps). The league put Jac Sparling and Dell Demps in power to keep these 2 interests from colliding.
Yes, Stern has experience dealing with buyers — but NOT building teams. Chris Paul is gone, either now or at the end of the season. Every prospective buyers knows that.
Nobody knows the endgame except Demps. This is just one move. It’s like Chess when you move to setup the next move. Stern doesn’t have a clue.
Rockets and Lakers GMs can’t speak out (Bully Stern).
p00ka says
Yeah, Demps has been a master.
We can compare options when the CP3/NOLA hand is over, but bottom line is that it’s a very hard sell to say the Lakers/Rockets deal was in the best interest of the NOLA franchise, either short or long term. It worked nicely for LA and Houston, but not NOLA. Demps was an idiot making that deal to plant NOLA in mediocrity cement for years to come.
badax33 says
I’ve tried to look at this voided trade objectively. Did NO get decent talent? Yes, and it might let them make the playoffs and be fodder for the the Lakers, Mavs, Spurs etc. However it eats up all their cap space so and puts them at or over the CAP when you add in cap holds/Vet Mins etc. And none of the new players is a Superstars!
Can they get a better trade? I don’t know. But who is to say that CP3 won’t resign with NO. He probably won’t as they are constructed, but DH12 will be a FA this summer. Might he sign with with CP3, we know he won’t if CP3 is traded. Or maybe another FA or trade will pop up that makes CP3 want to stay.
Lastly, if CP3 does leave this summer, a S&T will be available. Yes they might not get the same haul, but I can t see CP3 leaving about $25M on the table and that is only avail from NO. Yes, there is a risk that NO would get less in assets, but is the risk worth it it he resigns because of a trade or major FA signing.
It just seems to me that everyone is jumping on the NBA without even considering these possibilities.
One last thing, is NO worth more to an owner with CP3 or Odom, Martin and Scola!
DeeBasketballGuy says
They won’t get a better trade.
Odom is only guaranteed $2 million next year (think he’s scheduled to make $9)
You can trade Scola and Martin and get a good return on investment.
Your point about leaving $25 million on the table highlights the problem that a lot of people have. David Stern seems to be holding CP3 hostage so he’ll end up in that predicament.
BUT if it gets to that point, CP3 has a strong case to sue since the league’s actions resulted in him losing that money.
Imagine a player suing the league — as if the last 5 months hasn’t been bad for the NBA.
Stern has completely lost it.
DeeBasketballGuy says
@p00ka First off all, the league put the Hornets Braintrust in place to avoid to MAKE THE BASKETBALL decisions and avoid the blatant conflict of interest that most people see now.
Secondly, how many players has David Stern ever traded or signed? How is he more qualified to make a good basketball decision than Dell Demps? Demps is well-respected, haven risen through the ranks of the Spurs franchise.
Young pieces and draft picks is laughable. How many impact players were in the past draft? After the Top 5 – 10 picks, the draft loses momentum real fast.
With the Lakers deal, the Hornets had a team that could compete right now and most likely make the playoffs. They also had some players that could be flipped in trades to lure more elite players (Scola and Martin are proven players). Pieces like that are more valuable than unproven youngsters.
p00ka says
Too young to understand the idea of quick brush-offs and business concepts? I can see that, but the writer should be better informed, or at least try to expand the mind a little.
DeeBasketballGuy says
Well, if you have issues with the article, I can’t argue against that.
But the majority of writers agree that this is a sham. Even a lot of NBA executives has spoken anonymously about how bad this looks for the league.
Just like the owners told the players near the end of the lockout… the deal isn’t going to get better. One GM is on record that he would lowball the Hornets in wake of this craziness.
They should have taken the Lakers deal — it gives them the most collateral. How soon does Stern think a young team will start competing? It would like take 3 years or so.
Jacob says
Not going through with that Laker deal was a smart decision for the Hornets. Priority number one is to get that team sold, bringing in three or four C level starts each making 10 million a year is not going to do that.
I can see why on the surface people think it looks like they are getting all this talent back, but the reality is that none of that matters. You are so sure Chris Paul is going to leave? What do you think Lamar Odom is going to do? Oh and by the way there is still a season to play. Who is going to fill the building and win more games this year Paul or Odom? The league is trying to fix the underlying problem, not ensure the team wins 43 games instead of 33 a year from now.
The league has done a good job of standing behind their promise to do everything they can to make the Hornets a meaningful contributor to the city of New Orleans. If they can’t find a buyer in the next year they will likley have to sell the team to someone who will move it. If that happens, it will all be on Chris Paul. The league did its best.
The owners just need to stop making these trades. It didn’t work for the Cavs, the Raptors, Utah, or Denver. If someone comes to your house and tells you to take $100 for your car otherwise they are going to come back tonight and steal it, you don’t thank them for their generosity you tell them to go F themselves.
I will be curious to see what the free agent market looks like next off season. Its not going to be like it was last year. That year was completely unique. The Knicks and Heat threw away two whole seasons to prepare for that off season. Something like 2/3 of players were free agents that year.
If Paul and Howard are still on their teams, my gut tells me that those player options are going to start looking pretty good come the end of this season.
DeeBasketballGuy says
Dude, the owners are LUCKY to have these trades.
What did the St Louis Cardinals get when Albert Pujols left? NOTHING
The NBA owners are the ones who expect to get something in return from free agents. As if they are entitled? No other sports does that
Chris Paul could easily play the season out and make his announcement of leaving on ESPN.
DeeBasketballGuy says
@p00ka It’s not Stern’s place to make basketball related decisions on behalf of the New Orleans Hornets.
p00ka says
It’s the owner’s place to make whatever decision they want, and he is given the task of representing the owners. Aside from that, my point about getting all twisted about the “basketball reasons” statement, is that it’s silly to be hanging any hat on that flippant remark, likely intended to get past the wall of reporters clamoring to get a story. It was a brush-off for heaven’s sake. Looking past one’s nose, it’s would seem far more likely he made a business decision for the best interests of attracting a buyer more interested in long term prospects than short term mediocrity. Hell, the Clippers’ deal fits exactly what the stated goal was, and the Lakers/Rockets deal didn’t even touch on that goal. Damn, journalists were all over understanding the goal of getting very good YOUNG talent and likely very good draft picks, but now say how Stern screwed up by denying a trade that didn’t give them anything close to it.
I was directed to this site by a highly respected journalist, but I think he jumped the gun before seeing what kind of simple minded journalism was going to prevail. Oh, there’s been some very good stuff, but this is just garbage, sensationalism. Disappointing.
paul says
Give it up.
You are trying to explain a business reality to a bunch of emotional player lovers.
In fact, the League owns the Hornets. Demps, like lots of managers, gets his decision stopped. So…big deal.
This happens a lot in basketball…owners put a damper on a trade. Why is it so hard to recall these?
The question asked by the writer to supply any player that was against this trade as a sort of proof it was OK is nonsense!
Really stupid.
Just like I think many player did not speak out against the big mouthed players controlling the negotiations because they didn’t want to stand out and get lambasted.
This whole lockout would have been settled earlier if Garnett hadn’t walked in and blasted the thing wide open.
To thin players would now stand out for Paul is stupid.
Give it up…let they drink their player cool-aid.
DeeBasketballGuy says
You have no proof that this happens a lot in the NBA. Furthermore, you can’t name one legitimate deal that has been vetoed for “Basketball Reasons”
p00ka says
I can’t believe journalist after journalist keep writing this kind of single minded crap. Sure, this wasn’t handled well in that it was made public before the owners of a team signed off on it, but let’s be honest about the fact it doesn’t fit even the previously stated goal for the Hornets: get at least one young, proven prospect (a la Curry, Gordon) and very promising draft pick(s). We now see the deal on the table with the Clippers. Which of the two deals fits the previously stated goal, and which doesn’t address it at all? Which of these deals is more appealing to a prospective buyer? How about analyzing it from that point rather than whining about the “basketball reasons” brush off (that’s all it is for heaven’s sake). This kind of writing seems all about kissing butt of players for whatever motive.