"I believe in free agency," Stern said. "We have a deal where a player who has completed his time at a team under a contract has a right to go someplace else."
He took it a step further, addressing players who could become free agents next season, such as New Orleans Hornets All-Star guard Chris Paul.
"And then there are potential judgments to be made by teams about whether there's a time when they want to consider getting something more for that player in the event he will leave than if he stays," Stern said.
Only a few hours later, Stern was put to the test on what he said — and his decision to nix the three-team trade that would have sent Paul to the Los Angeles Lakers threw an already beleaguered NBA into an unsavory predicament, if not outright embarrassment.
The Hornets, who are owned by the league which acquired it from George Shinn a year ago, realized it was unlikely they would be able to retain Paul with a contract extension or in free agency after he opted out of his contract after this season.
So New Orleans general manager Dell Demps, a respected player personnel man who came from the respected San Antonio Spurs, went to work, hoping to get something for Paul instead of nothing if he left in free agency. Or in Stern's words, "Getting something more for that player in the event he will leave than if he stays."
Demps, in his second year as GM of the Hornets, arranged a huge three-team trade with the Lakers and the Houston Rockets: Paul to the Lakers; Los Angeles forward Lamar Odom to the Hornets and Los Angeles forward Pau Gasol to the Rockets, who would have sent forward Luis Scola, guards Kevin Martin and Goran Dragic and a first-round draft pick to New Orleans.
All things considered, Demps came away with a fine haul, maybe the best he will get for losing Paul.
The NBA didn't see it that way — and has been skewered across all platforms for its heavy-handed decision, despite its belief the trade was killed not because of the owners but for "basketball reasons," league spokesman Mike Bass said.
Just as the bitter effects of the lockout were dissipating, the unpleasantness returned. It didn't help that hardline Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert put himself in the middle of it with a letter to Stern, objecting to the proposed trade and casting the majority of NBA teams as the "Washington Generals" — foil of the Harlem Globetrotters— to the marquee few.
Now what happens?
It is possible Paul does not show up at the Hornets' first practice, scheduled for 4 p.m. CT on Friday. He has reason to be upset.
Under the new rules of the CBA, if Paul played out the season with the Hornets and then opted for free agency, he could only sign a four-year, $74 million deal with another team. If he were traded during the season to a team he wanted to remain with, he could sign a five-year, $100 million deal because he still has his Bird rights, which allows a team to sign its own free agents for more money and more years.
The National Basketball Players Association is reviewing the league's decision according to a person with knowledge of the situation who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.
Meanwhile, what do the Hornets do with Paul, one of the most respected players on and off the court in the NBA? What is a suitable trade?
Confusion, anger and frustration have dominated Twitter timelines.
•Paul's only tweet since the deal was nixed: "WoW"
•Player agent Happy Walters tweeted, "shocked by what NBA had done with the CP3 trade - players enraged."
•Rockets guard Terrence William on Twitter: "It's krazy @CP3 is not waking up a laker & it's dumb I'm not able to run pick/roll w/gasol smh sad disappointing day 4 NBA."
Long-term, how close is the league to selling the club to a buyer and extracting itself from an awkward situation filled with so many conflicting interests?
Short-term, the league is left not only with unhappy players, but some unhappy owners.
In the letter sent by Gilbert and obtained by Yahoo! and The New York Times, it was clear the Paul deal did not sit well with all owners:
"It would be a travesty to allow the Lakers to acquire Chris Paul in the apparent trade being discussed. This trade should go to a vote of the 29 owners of the Hornets. … I just don't see how we can allow this trade to happen. I know the vast majority of owners feel the same way that I do. When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals? Please advise," Gilbert wrote.
That's the same Dan Gilbert who used a letter to blast Miami Heat forward LeBron James for leaving the Cavaliers in free agency in the summer of 2010. That time, that passionate, if not ill-advised, letter was posted on the Cavaliers' web site in the much-maligned font Comic Sans, bringing another level of absurdity to the situation. It also brought Gilbert a $100,000 fine from the league office.
That's also the same Dan Gilbert who was one of the hardline owners during the lockout. He wanted more financial and system restrictions on players and is thought to be one of the five owners who voted against the collective bargaining agreement.
On another front, while he has not publicly commented on the Paul trade, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban was upset last season when the Hornets acquired Carl Landry for Marcus Thornton at the trade deadline, because the Hornets took in more salary than they sent out.
So Gilbert might be right. In a new CBA which is supposed to help the small-market teams become more competitive, owners just witnessed one of the league's most profitable teams, the Lakers, come away with the league's best point guard. And the Lakers still had center Andrew Bynum to dangle in front of the Orlando Magic for center Dwight Howard, who will become a free agent after the season if he does not sign an extension with the Magic.
Imagine the Lakers with Paul, Howard and Kobe Bryant— and imagine how small-market owners wonder how they can compete.
All the same, the Paul deal was permissible under the CBA the owners just ratified. Did they not understand the future of Paul and Howard were going to dominate the discussions right at the start? And if those stars chose to leave their current teams, did the owners not realize it very likely would be to big-market, big-spending teams?
After the NBA's news conference Thursday in Manhattan announcing the owners ratified the CBA, Deputy Commissioner Adam Silver stood in a hallway and was asked point-blank, as the Hornets were trying to finalize the Paul deal and before it was vetoed, about who makes the decisions for the Hornets.
Silver said the league has relied on team chairman Jac Sperling, Hornets president Hugh Weber and Demps to make sound judgments. But he said the buck stops with the NBA front office and the league has the "final, final say" on New Orleans' transactions.
Silver also understands the dynamics of big-time players.
"Superstars, under any collective bargaining agreement, will always have tremendous leverage in this league, because an individual player can be so impactful on a franchise," Silver said. "But we'll see how it plays out."
Paul tried to use his leverage and get to a team of his choice, perfectly acceptable and standard.
When the NBA acquired the Hornets last December, Stern said, "Actually, the league generally approves all trades, number one. And number two, as far as we're concerned there have been — while this process has been going on — there have been two significant transactions. And our response to both of them was, 'You guys are management, you understand your budget and your instructions, just go ahead, because we've got Jac Sperling, Hugh Weber here, and if they recommend it, then we're going to be approving it.'"
But when asked about dealing with free agents and big contracts, Stern said at the time, "That's a bridge that we're not planning to cross today because right now there are no free agents that I'm aware of and there won't be free agents until July 1 or a new collective bargaining agreement. So we'll deal with the team and all the other issues in that context."
The new CBA is aimed, in part, in preventing the highest-spending clubs from scooping up all the top free agents. But the punitive luxury tax will not kick in until 2013-14, allowing teams like the Lakers and New York Knicks until then to spend as freely as they have in the past.
Or does it?
No comments:
Post a Comment