PDA

View Full Version : Will Paul Sue?



iggypop123
12-11-2011, 02:02 PM
The Nbapa and he have suggested unless he is traded by the end of today they will look at litigation with the argument being collusion (see Dan Gilbert letter)

flea
12-11-2011, 02:02 PM
He'll lose. The owners rejected a bad trade. It happens countless times every offseason, you just don't hear about it.

Sportfan
12-11-2011, 02:05 PM
No, lakers traded odom anyway

thekmp211
12-11-2011, 02:07 PM
He'll lose. The owners rejected a bad trade. It happens countless times every offseason, you just don't hear about it.

the unanimous opinion of far-more-knowledgeable-than-us basketball journalists was the exact opposite of this opinion.

i get the "young player/draft picks" argument. but the trade didn't load up or destroy anyone. far within the bounds of reason, considering the circumstances.

i don't think he'll sue. a solution will arise before that action is really on the table. but i think he would have a case.

whitesoxfan83
12-11-2011, 02:11 PM
Its the Lakers who need to sue...

Ripper Gein
12-11-2011, 02:14 PM
Come on man you can't reason with crazy people, it'll give you a headache and flea a hardon...

flea
12-11-2011, 02:14 PM
the unanimous opinion of far-more-knowledgeable-than-us basketball journalists was the exact opposite of this opinion.

i get the "young player/draft picks" argument. but the trade didn't load up or destroy anyone. far within the bounds of reason, considering the circumstances.

i don't think he'll sue. a solution will arise before that action is really on the table. but i think he would have a case.

Hahahahaha invoking Michael Wilbon to make a point. Look dude, just think it out for yourself. There's no way from a financial standpoint or a competitive one that this is good for the Hornets.

ESPN liked it because it benefited one of their largest markets. Think about how much ESPN has benefited from the superstar "big 3" trend in the last few years. Think they don't want more of that? Do you think their journalism is going to be objective in the face of huge amounts of money? No.

I've yet a to see a credible reason why this was good for the Hornets. Everyone just says "well they're 3 pretty good players." No, they're 3 complementary role players. If you already have Derrick Rose and Kevin Durant then maybe this is a good trade. If you have Emeka Okafor and Marco Belinelli it's bad. Plus they're all 3 old and will be out of the league long before the Hornets are competitive again.

Ripper Gein
12-11-2011, 02:16 PM
See Insane!

flea
12-11-2011, 02:17 PM
I'm probably one of 5 Hornets fans on this forum. If I don't think it's a good trade, but every Lakers fan does, shouldn't that tell you something?

Davidgta1
12-11-2011, 02:20 PM
Well if Paul is realy gonna sue he an the Nbapa MUST KNOW SOMETHING WE DON'T.

BKLYNpigeon
12-11-2011, 02:20 PM
I hate the idea of the super teams coming together, but the NBA is completely wrong and went way too far.

I hope Howard, Cp3 or Deron Williams teams up together in LA or NY to stick it to the NBA.

GREATNESS ONE
12-11-2011, 02:23 PM
I think he will Sue but we'll find out tomorrow.

thekmp211
12-11-2011, 02:25 PM
Hahahahaha invoking Michael Wilbon to make a point. Look dude, just think it out for yourself. There's no way from a financial standpoint or a competitive one that this is good for the Hornets.

ESPN liked it because it benefited one of their largest markets. Think about how much ESPN has benefited from the superstar "big 3" trend in the last few years. Think they don't want more of that? Do you think their journalism is going to be objective in the face of huge amounts of money? No.

I've yet a to see a credible reason why this was good for the Hornets. Everyone just says "well they're 3 pretty good players." No, they're 3 complementary role players. If you already have Derrick Rose and Kevin Durant then maybe this is a good trade. If you have Emeka Okafor and Marco Belinelli it's bad. Plus they're all 3 old and will be out of the league long before the Hornets are competitive again.


i stopped reading here. if you don't value the opinion of guys like david thorpe and larry coon, then maybe you don't have a great feel for the game of basketball.

i don't care who the work for. they are right. maybe you should widen your horizons and not judge someone's opinion based solely on who they work for.

not even going to argue the validity of three all-star caliber players and fourth young rotation guy.

point being, if paul ended up suing, he would have the vast majority of basketball minds supporting his claim that the "bball reasons" claim was bogus.

flea
12-11-2011, 02:26 PM
I don't know what to tell you man. If you don't bother thinking it through for yourself then I suppose I have nothing to say.

gotoHcarolina52
12-11-2011, 02:26 PM
This will end up in arbitration before it ends up in court.

flea
12-11-2011, 02:27 PM
What is there to arbitrate? Paul doesn't have a claim.

Matrix3132
12-11-2011, 02:27 PM
the unanimous opinion of far-more-knowledgeable-than-us basketball journalists was the exact opposite of this opinion.

i get the "young player/draft picks" argument. but the trade didn't load up or destroy anyone. far within the bounds of reason, considering the circumstances.

i don't think he'll sue. a solution will arise before that action is really on the table. but i think he would have a case.

If you follow the rumors, the "unanimous opinion of far-more-knowledgeable-than-us-basketball journalists" changes by the hour and someone on psd makes a new thread for each and every one of these changes of opinion as if its set in stone

smith&wesson
12-11-2011, 02:35 PM
well chris paul is under contract with the hornets for another year. if the hornets dont want to trade him and lose him for nothing in free agency isnt that really their choice ?? i just dont see how paul can sue. the team that has you under contract has a right to reject offers if they dont feel the offers are good enough.

odom, scola, & martin arent exactly younge assets. they are good solid players but maybe the hornets just want to rebuild with picks and young pieces.

gaughan333
12-11-2011, 02:42 PM
See Insane!

I have not seen you make a single good point about why the trade was a good idea. The hornets were set to take on a bunch of money and the owners (who pay that money) didn't want to do that. Also, raising the payroll of that hornets team with players who are good, but not great makes that franchise all the harder to sell.

Ripper Gein
12-11-2011, 03:12 PM
I don't need to MOST people agree it was a win for the hornets, only people that are opposed to the Lakers getting CP3 are calling it a bad trade. I don't argue with unreasonable people it just ends up in angry posts, Lakers were unreasonably targeted for there past success and well see what happens.to the NBA once he is traded to the Knicks, c's or (insert favorite team here).

Better-Than-You
12-11-2011, 03:22 PM
he should sue even if he knows he will lose; it would create bad publicity for nba and stern if he's that pissed.

gaughan333
12-11-2011, 03:25 PM
I don't need to MOST people agree it was a win for the hornets, only people that are opposed to the Lakers getting CP3 are calling it a bad trade. I don't argue with unreasonable people it just ends up in angry posts, Lakers were unreasonably targeted for there past success and well see what happens.to the NBA once he is traded to the Knicks, c's or (insert favorite team here).

I actually have no problem with him going to LA, I'd like to see it. That trade just doesn't really make sense for NO. If the lakers gave back someone like Bynum I would see it making more sense for NO

thekmp211
12-11-2011, 03:29 PM
I don't know what to tell you man. If you don't bother thinking it through for yourself then I suppose I have nothing to say.

please. i can agree with them while coming to an independent conclusion. i understand it wasn't the 'perfect' trade but you know what it wasn't a perfect circumstance. you can't just throw that argument away because people you've somehow deemed unreliable have the same opinion.

show me some respected minds of the game who thought that NOLA got fleeced.

thekmp211
12-11-2011, 03:30 PM
If you follow the rumors, the "unanimous opinion of far-more-knowledgeable-than-us-basketball journalists" changes by the hour and someone on psd makes a new thread for each and every one of these changes of opinion as if its set in stone

i'd love to see some respected journalists who thought that this was a fleecing.

re: what new orleans wanted to do, the new orleans "front office" WANTED this trade. this was the decision they're team made. they don't WANT to lose paul for nothing.

flea
12-11-2011, 03:34 PM
I don't read NBA writers because the majority are trash. The only reason you've given so far is that it would be hard for the Hornets to get much for him. As I explained, doing nothing and letting him walk after a year is better than this deal. You've yet to explain why that isn't the case.

Gaughan knows what he's talking about. I agree with him. I'm a Hornets fan and a Paul fan. I don't care where Paul goes and I hope he can contend where ever he ends up. But my team getting the shaft just to have that happen is not something I'd condone.

gwrighter
12-11-2011, 03:38 PM
lol what is he going to ask for as a remedy? that he's traded to the Lakers?(Unlikely to be mandated) Money? A judge will tell him to get the money using the next best alternative which would be to sign an extension with his own damn team.

Collusion? interesting argument there but the owners of the NO Hornets have an economical argument as to why they wanted to veto the trade. they don't want additional salary for losing a franchise player, simple as that. CP3's entourage needs to settle down and encourage him to play out the contract until a deal is struct that benefits all parties.

thekmp211
12-11-2011, 03:44 PM
I don't read NBA writers because the majority are trash. The only reason you've given so far is that it would be hard for the Hornets to get much for him. As I explained, doing nothing and letting him walk after a year is better than this deal. You've yet to explain why that isn't the case.

Gaughan knows what he's talking about. I agree with him. I'm a Hornets fan and a Paul fan. I don't care where Paul goes and I hope he can contend where ever he ends up. But my team getting the shaft just to have that happen is not something I'd condone.

that's fine, and you're ultimately entitled to your opinion. i disagree, as do many other people who do know their stuff, whether you want to admit it or not. and even in it's worst context the trade was not in any way a "shafting". there have been so many more lopsided trades in the scope of the nba that chosing this one as the breaking point seems absurd.

but it's one thing to think the trade was a bad move, and another to veto it on the basis of basketball. the nba "shafted" the sovereignty of the hornets front office and made a sham of the entire process. all this, a day after signing a new cba. it's just a disastrous situation for everyone involved, and if you think this isn't hurting the hornets you're mistaken. they were already handcuffed before this fiasco. they will have a hard time making moves and more importantly attracing new ownership.

Tony_Starks
12-11-2011, 03:46 PM
He wouldn't win the case but the mere spectacle of it would be a huge embarrassment to the league and send a message that the stunt they pulled was completely unethical and unacceptable......

ManningToTyree
12-11-2011, 03:47 PM
He has no case

Ripper Gein
12-11-2011, 03:49 PM
Once again you are looking at what the Lakers gave up and not the trade as a whole wasn't NO getting scola, Martin, l.o and a pick??

gaughan333
12-11-2011, 03:57 PM
i'd love to see some respected journalists who thought that this was a fleecing.

re: what new orleans wanted to do, the new orleans "front office" WANTED this trade. this was the decision they're team made. they don't WANT to lose paul for nothing.

I understand this argument that the FO was trying to make this trade so it should be allowed. The issue with this, is that the front office isn't the one paying this bill. Since the hornets are currently funded by the other owners in the league, the money that was coming from the lakers would then be coming out of the pockets of these owners who are funding the Hornets.

The trade was a good idea for the short term. It would make the hornets mediocre for a few years. There in lies the problem though. They are a team that would be stuck in mediocrity, which may be hard to sell to someone buying the team.

If you just let Paul walk at the end of the season then you have more money for that team to work with, and probably less for someone interested in the franchise to spend up front in the purchase.

Personally, like I said, I have no issue with CP3 going to LA. I'd actually like to see how he plays with Kobe. I would also be happier watching LA win again then seeing the heat win (sorry heat fans, no offense). It just makes no sense for the future of the hornets to really allow this trade to go down from the league and the other owners standpoint.

The main issue with all of this is my opinion is the conflict of interests that existed the second the league took over another team. This never should have been allowed, and I think something like this was sorta foreseeable. Was Dan Gilbert butt hurt about this trade and that is why he blocked it? Perhaps it was. Was there a legitimate reason for this to be blocked? I think so, but I guess that is just my personal opinion on this situation.

thekmp211
12-11-2011, 04:13 PM
I understand this argument that the FO was trying to make this trade so it should be allowed. The issue with this, is that the front office isn't the one paying this bill. Since the hornets are currently funded by the other owners in the league, the money that was coming from the lakers would then be coming out of the pockets of these owners who are funding the Hornets.

The trade was a good idea for the short term. It would make the hornets mediocre for a few years. There in lies the problem though. They are a team that would be stuck in mediocrity, which may be hard to sell to someone buying the team.

If you just let Paul walk at the end of the season then you have more money for that team to work with, and probably less for someone interested in the franchise to spend up front in the purchase.

Personally, like I said, I have no issue with CP3 going to LA. I'd actually like to see how he plays with Kobe. I would also be happier watching LA win again then seeing the heat win (sorry heat fans, no offense). It just makes no sense for the future of the hornets to really allow this trade to go down from the league and the other owners standpoint.

The main issue with all of this is my opinion is the conflict of interests that existed the second the league took over another team. This never should have been allowed, and I think something like this was sorta foreseeable. Was Dan Gilbert butt hurt about this trade and that is why he blocked it? Perhaps it was. Was there a legitimate reason for this to be blocked? I think so, but I guess that is just my personal opinion on this situation.

right. it was just a poorly handled situation and an embarrassing way to consummate the legitimacy of the new CBA.

from the owners' perspective, i'm not sure the veto will help. this franchise, minus paul next year, is about as unattractive as an NBA franchise can be.

i just think when you revisit other superstar trades throughout nba history, recent and not, that this one is far from the stinkiest. not the one you make your stand on, imo.

we can both agree that the league has done an abysmal job hadnling the situation and thats what im mad about. i want my favorite league to look professional.

gaughan333
12-11-2011, 04:16 PM
The reason no stand has been taken, I believe, is because all of the teams have been owned by a private party(ies).

Is there anything that is stopping anyone from moving this team, should they buy it? I know with some sales, like that of the Jags in the NFL Mr. Khan will not be allowed to move that team right away.

IndyRealist
12-11-2011, 04:21 PM
I'm probably one of 5 Hornets fans on this forum. If I don't think it's a good trade, but every Lakers fan does, shouldn't that tell you something?

Heh. QFT.

jrm2054
12-11-2011, 04:23 PM
He should but i dont know what he can sue for

flea
12-11-2011, 04:30 PM
that's fine, and you're ultimately entitled to your opinion. i disagree, as do many other people who do know their stuff, whether you want to admit it or not. and even in it's worst context the trade was not in any way a "shafting". there have been so many more lopsided trades in the scope of the nba that chosing this one as the breaking point seems absurd.

but it's one thing to think the trade was a bad move, and another to veto it on the basis of basketball. the nba "shafted" the sovereignty of the hornets front office and made a sham of the entire process. all this, a day after signing a new cba. it's just a disastrous situation for everyone involved, and if you think this isn't hurting the hornets you're mistaken. they were already handcuffed before this fiasco. they will have a hard time making moves and more importantly attracing new ownership.
The people saying it was a good trade are saying it was good for the NBA because they like this superstar pairing crap. Ancillary to that they say, "Oh, the Hornets get some good players too." This doesn't even address the primary concern: money. If anyone thought Kevin Martin, Scola, and Odom would bring a competitive team they'd probably be okay with it. Rather, the Hornets were just getting rejected complementary players that had become too expensive and expendable.

The NBA didn't veto the trade as the NBA - they did it as the owners of the Hornets franchise. It wasn't about what's good for basketball, it was about what's good for the Hornets franchise. It was the right decision for the franchise, and one the owners had a legitimate right to make because the NBA owners own the Hornets (David Stern doesn't own the Hornets, he's their agent).