Fallacies Regarding the CP3 Situation

…and self-aware…

1. Yes, there are all sorts of things that can be mitigating circumstances on the financial end, but we are going to have a tough time determining what those are for each individual player. However, what I believe is missing from your point is the fact that players can’t just go anywhere they want anymore and sacrifice a little bit of money. The CBA has brought in a new dynamic and it is obviously designed to keep players with their current teams.

However, with the super duper luxury tax that will be in effect and the cap issues that are now present, IF some of these teams a player like Paul wishes to go to are not ABLE to offer him a contract, the point is probably moot. Teams are getting one amnesty contract to get rid of and its going to be a little bit harder to get rid of players via trade, just to sign one player. As all of this CBA stuff moves forward, the bottom-feeder teams will be filling out rosters and building to contend, while many contenders will not be able to keep their teams together, due to salary cap constraints, thus forcing them to fall back towards the pack a bit. For example, the Nets were Howard’s first choice, but they couldn’t get rid of enough salary or send off enough talent to acquire him, and still have him want to come to the Nets. It’s about teams being able to keep their players and building a team that fans can get behind.

The Cavs and Raptors example isn’t the same and is probably not appropriate for the Paul issue. Paul asked to be traded, but he only wanted to be traded to a handful of teams. This limits NO’s options in working out a deal. The difference with Paul and the Cavs situation is that Paul still has another year to play. LeBron actually gave many indications that there was a good chance he’d stay in Cleveland. Well, with what we know now, that was a lie. They had developed this plan a year prior, about all playing together. I’d have to crunch the numbers, but that plan may not have been able to work or at least be as attractive under the new CBA. He is right that Paul “has” to play well, as this is his contract year.

The bottom line is that players should not get to dictate where they will play UNTIL they are free agents, or worse, hold their teams hostage to take deals THE TEAM feels are not in their best interest. Well, the thing with the Hornets is, THE TEAM is owned by the league and if they want a new owner to buy the team, you can’t have the team hamstrung by old players or bad contracts as an attractive selling point.

2) I don’t even know how to reply to this point. I don’t think there would have been anything fun about watching the Hornets play if that was the roster. I don’t think anybody would want to go see a team with some decent players, who all hated the fact that they were traded there and just biding their time to get the hell out. Did the Hornets make it to the playoffs anytime recently? So, if they make it there with a worse overall team, in attitude, effort and talent, does that seem like a recipe for fans getting behind the franchise that just gave their elite player away for expensive role players that really amount to a pile of junk and wasted time/money?

Btw, it is apparent that this fallacy that he listed was indeed a fallacy, as is indicated by the potential deal with the Clippers. That draft pick is huge!!

3) I don’t know if we agree on this point or not. However, basically he was saying that the Lakers would now all of a sudden be able to sign free agents next off-season if they could get rid of those contracts, and this is in addition to being able to offer the best contract to Paul (if the deal would have been done by December 31st. Additionally, IF they were going to go after Howard in trade or in free agency, Bynum would be traded. Personally, I think the Lakers are in deep shit, even before trading Odom. The new CBA is going to hurt them a lot more than many teams. They have a strong fan base no matter what, and they just want a superstar to cheer for. Sure, they want to win, but as long as there is a West, a Magic, a Kareem, a Shaq, a Kobe, a Paul or Howard in a Laker uniform, they will still sell tickets and always have “a chance”.

There was a shit-storm when LAL got Gasol for basically nothing. However, having Kobe and some of the other players helped Gasol perform even better. Without Kobe or a similar player, he isn’t as good or effective….Thus, my reasoning for saying they are dumping expensive junk on NO or Houston. The Lakers can live without those players, especially at those prices, because Kobe and Paul can make above-average players look like stars in this league. AND NOBODY wants to help the Lakers get better while they take a dump on a team held hostage by its star player.

4) Well, the bottom line on his last point is contained in the last sentence. That deal would have become outcome #3 on the list. You can be a shitty decision-maker but still a wonderful analyst. I’m pretty sure Stern heard it from the other owners more than any input from Stu Jackson…lol THIS scenario is precisely the kind of thing the lockout was about.

I don’t believe the deal made sense for all parties…I believe the Hornets found themselves in a worse situation and IF they made the playoffs, it was partly due to the fact that Houston got shittier in the deal also. I think all of the F.O. people are smart, but that has NEVER stopped them from making bad trades, bad signings or just flat out bad decisions.