The New Orleans Hornets lost again last night, dropping their record to 8-27 before an announced crowd of 14,527.
They are the worst team in the Western Conference, they are about to trade Chris Kaman for whoever ponies up the best bad offer, and all they are going to have to show for Chris Paul is Al-Farouq Aminu, Eric Gordon (if he doesn’t leave as a restricted free agent, and if his knee is ever going to be OK again), along with a draft pick (originally belonging to Minnesota) that is roughly the equivilent of the pick (originally belonging to the Knicks) that they would have gotten in the original three-team trade with Houston and the Lakers that was vetoed squashed by commissioner David Stern (the semantics of exactly what took place were the subject of the above debate between Mr. Stern and Mr. Sheridan at his All-Star Weekend press conference). He ended up ducking the question.
We have been pretty adamant on this site that the veto was a horrible thing for the Hornets franchise, and there are folks in Lakerland who are still quite angry that Paul ended up with the Clippers instead of the gold and purple.
But there are also folks in the Bayou who believe the latter trade was the better trade for the Hornets, as you can see in this entry from the blog Hornets247.
What are your thoughts?
Who made out best?
Who, if anyone, got screwed?
The comments section is open.
I think both the Clippers and the Lakers trades for Paul were/are severely flawed, but what bothers me is what a bully/dictator David Stern has become the last few years. Sheridan couldn’t have been more professional in asking Stern tough but fair questions; but in his answer Stern seems to mock, intimidate, and call out Sheridan for not being professional. And it appears Silver will run the NBA in exactly the same manner Stern did.
What everyone seems to forget about the HORRIBLE Laker trade is that Kobe-Paul-Bynum would be unstoppable for five+ years, not to mention that after this trade, L.A. would have had the cap space to make a run at Dwight Howard. That would have been game, set, match for a fivepeat or more. Regardless, the Hornets would be fools to set up a trade that created a super team they could never get past.
Overall, the trade is not going to help the Hornets in the future. Kaman is likely to be dealt by the trade deadline. Gordon may look for other offers and tell the Hornets that he does not want to return to New Orleans especially if an offer does come up (Indiana).
Aminu may be the only real piece left along with the high draft pick.
Do I hear contraction?
Another moron. And since your head is in your ass, I’ll answer from the bottom up.
Despite the lack of ownership, the Hornets financials are solid. Not sure what you hear but contraction isn’t it.
Gordon was almost extended but Stern did not want to tie the hands of new ownership by offering a fifth year. You can only have one player on a 5-year contract and that is very restrictive. That is a choice the new owner should make. The monetary difference was $5M but Gordon wants the 5th year, in New Orleans.
The intent always to trade Kaman. He’s a huge expiring contract as well as a really solid player. But the intent wasn’t to keep him. Wow…where do these people come from?
Clippers trade was better for the team. Why would The Hornets want aging vets?
The best thing to do in the NBA if you are not competing for a Championship (which the hornets would not have been no matter what trade they made) is to TANK!!!!
TANK for the lottery and hope you get A. Davis.
First of all, thank you for both 1. linking to the Hornets’ “side of the story” and 2. leaving this article open for comments. I appreciate your willingness to make this a two-way discussion. That said…
Sheridan posted in an article (just yesterday I believe) that the Hornets could potentially receive Rondo+O’Neal (expiring)+Pavlovic for Kaman+Jack.
That would effectively make the result of the CP3 trade CP3+Jack for Gordon (who has almost no chance of going anywhere since the Hornets can match any offer)+Rondo+Anthony Davis/Thomas Robinson (depending on the lottery)+a late lottery pick+Aminu.
Tell me how a haul of Martin+Scola+Odom+mid-to-late first round pick+late lottery pick is better than a haul of GORDON+RONDO+DAVIS/ROBINSON+late lottery pick.
Your argument just doesn’t make sense. This trade was never meant to be judged a few months later. You have to look at the next several years.
Thanks for linking to my rebuttal. Nice to see our side of the argument introduced to the public.
I have a comment that jumps off of Charles’ post below mine. He makes a great point that, surprisingly, no one seems to have really addressed yet. Let’s break down how the players that the Hornets would have received in the Lakers/Rockets trade are performing this season:
Martin: 17.14 PER (Gordon is a clear upgrade in both age and talent when healthy)
Scola: 14.20 PER (Identical PER to Kaman’s, and Kaman is 2 years younger)
Odom: 9.75 PER (Similar to Aminu’s 8.51 PER, and Aminu is over a decade younger)
Dragic: 14.20 PER (No player to compare him to from the Clippers’ trade, but I’ll definitely take a mid-1st round pick in this season’s deep draft class over him)
If SheridanHoops.com is going to use this season’s events to argue why the Clippers trade was inferior, than why hasn’t the above data been introduced to argue otherwise?
Also, a quick point about your attendance jab – it was a mid-week game featuring two of the worst teams in the NBA, with each team missing their best player. The NO Arena holds about 18K, meaning the arena was about 80% full with a crowd of 14.5K. I don’t see the reason for you to use that number as evidence in whatever point you were trying to make.
Nobody, has yet to clearly state why the Laker trade was better. *waiting* oh my bad they must be waiting for Lamar Odom to get his act together so they can pretend that a team built around Scola, Odom, and Martin could have actually competed?
You using this to get views is absolutely pathetic. Its no small secret that these articles about Stern and the Hornets eclipse your average viewership for your opinionated articles by three fold. This one doesn’t even bring anything new to the discussion, you are just BLATENTLY bashing the Hornets for views, and that, THAT my freind, is why you are known as one of the more laughable reporters for the NBA.
Clippers trade was way better. Why would the hornets want to be a first round playoff exit for the next two seasons? Why not rebuild and actually have a chance to contend for Championships… not playoff appearances?
David Stern really is a terrible owner. He broke Eric Gordon’s knee, gave Jason Smith a concussion, and hit Carl Landry with his car. The Hornets are as bad as they are due to injuries, not some ownership bumblings. They would be just as bad if they had done the Lakers-Rockets trade and 4 of their top 5 players all missed significant time and Kevin Martin didn’t play at all. Also, I love that the author of this article already knows that the Hornets will get a “bad offer” for Chris Kaman. Kaman is an expiring contract who the Hornets have no interest in long term. He walks for nothing at the end of the season. Getting anything for him is a good. As far as your medical opinion on Gordon’s knee, I’ll pass, and as the Hornets bloggers pointed out, this site’s grasp of how restricted free agency works is tenuous at best. If the Hornets want Gordon, they’ll re-sign him. Simple as that. Move on, or better yet, as the Commissioner said, “buy a ticket and see.”
There are no shortcuts to being an Nba contender for small market franchises. Yes Dallas can blow 10 million a year on J. Kidd but teams like the Horns cannot. They must build through the draft. You must bottom out like Okc and hope you are in position to pick the next Durant. I can’t believe that we are still talking about which trade was better for the Hornets now and in the future. If your goal is to be a 6-8 seed, the laker trade was better. If your goal is to be a 1-4 seed for years to come, the clipper trade was hands down better. The Hornets will have a top 3 pick in a loaded draft and the Minnesota pick will be in the lottery (I don’t understand how the minny pick is equal to the knicks pick when the knicks have a shot to win their division). The Hornets will have plenty of cap space and all the leverage against Gordon. Aminu has been disappointing but I would say Luis Scola (with his contract) has been equally disappointing. The clippers trade allows the Hornets to start building now instead of 3 years from now when the Rockets players are all on the downside of their careers and the bandaid that was the lakers trade finally came off. Personally, as a Hornets fan, I love the clippers trade infinitely more than the lakers trade and I am ready to start with a clean slate. New owner, New lease, New tv deal, 2 exciting lottery picks and cap room.
First, David Stern was acting as the owner of the Hornets, not as commissioner. Fairly simple concept to follow.
Second, the “talent” received from Houston wouldn’t have gotten the Hornets any closer to a championship than they are right now. They would still be in the lottery, just without the ability to greatly improve with a top five pick.
Third, the Hornets would be cap-strapped to hell. Right now, they are in a position to nearly clear the books and start fresh. Contracts like Peja and Posey doomed the Hornets ability to put a team around Paul and West for years (along with other bad decisions by previous management and ownershit). Scola and Martin wouldn’t have done it. And if I remember correctly, Lowry instead of Dragic and a pick from LAL would have gotten Paul to the Lakers.
Judging the Hornets success in the deal two months after it was made based solely on wins (when the star of the deal has only played two games), is irresponsible journalism and shows a lack of understanding for the big picture. The goal wasn’t to win the #8 seed this year. The goal was to be bad enough to net one (and the hope was two at the time) young potential superstar(s) and come back with renewed enthusiasm. If the Hornets walk out of the draft with a future that includes Anthony Davis, Harrison Barnes (lottery win of course), and a healthy Eric Gordon, how will you judge the trade then? Ask OKC and Memphis how quickly a rebuild can happen.
I agree with greg.
Unless the point of all this commish bashing is for self-promotion reasons. If thats the case you are doing just fine.
I think the lakers trade is better if they can find a taker for pau…the players going back to them plus the original assets from the trade could be something to build around…Also at the same time they are gonna be in a dilemma on what to do with gordon… If another team offer him big money they will decide hard to match it and be at risk for that injured knee..
Which the Horents get the number one pick in the draft by so Mircale and that how David Stern will justified it. He is going to rig the lottery so the Horents get the top picks. He know it was a bad deal but cave to pressure. He didn’t think Minnesota would be playing so will and trying to fight for a playoff spot or that Eric Gordon has a history of injury and has yet to play a 82 game season since he been in the league.
Hindsight on the draft pick. No one was predicting that the NY pick would be equal to the Min pick, and it likely still is not going to be when all is said and done.
The Hornets 24/7 article dismantled the entire SheridanHoops piece. If you want to make the argument that building a treadmill team is the right method, then go ahead. But taking Paul and turning him into solid rebuilding pieces (youth and expirings) makes sense. The only thing I would have liked to see the Hornets do is trade away some of their bad contracts along with Paul (a la Magic trading Turk with Howard), but that wasn’t an option in the Lakers deal. The Lakers deal was better short-term return–but long term, the 2nd trade was far better.
I still give lots of credit to Sheridan for questioning Stern (it was appropriate to question him on his methods in such an unorthodox situation) but it’s you can EASILY make the argument that Stern passed through the better deal. He shouldn’t have dodged the question, though. He could have easily said: “The Hornets had to get younger and more cap friendly and we, along with Hornets’ front office, believed that was the best situation.”
While the vetoing of the trade is unethical for me given the NBA’s ownership of the Hornets, they have the right to do so. An owner can (and should) definitely have a say in the transactions of his/her team, it just so happened that the owner is the NBA and the 29 other owners, represented by David Stern.
As for the trade, the Clippers trade is better in my opinion. The link you gave above from Hornets247 sufficiently explains why it is so.
I also read that David Stern had a debate with Brian Schmitz from the Orlando Sentinel regarding Dwight Howard and if the league would require that draft picks be traded in the Howard trade. Stern, unsurprisingly, said no, since the NBA is not the owner of the Magic. The whole NOLA scenario with Stern at the helm as been a disaster and I can’t wait for it/Stern’s dictatorship to end.
Stern blew this one big time. The veto made zero sense. And then the second trade was even worse. I love Gordon, but he was a RFA and the Hornets wont match any offer. Somewhere deep in the weeds, Sterling must have dirt on Stern. No other plausible explanation.
I agree with you, Chris. The Laker trade was better and I think Stern knows it. His dodging of your question only confirms that fact.
Chris, u got balls 😉
Too bad he doesn’t know the hornets at all