I can understand if people don’t like the Lakers. And, I can definitely understand why people wouldn’t like the deal they orchestrated to obtain Chris Paul. It is a step in helping the Lakers build a dominate team for many years to come. Bad news for teams like Dallas and Miami.
What I can’t understand is how the NBA, the owners, David Stern, or whoever is responsible for nixing the deal, can justify their actions. The deal “isn’t good for basketball.” Really? To me it looked like the NBA was getting tons of publicity when the deal broke. It would only boost the ratings for the Christmas opening to have Chris Paul in a new role with the Lakers.
The deal is “unfair” to the small market teams? Really? There were some great players involved in that trade. I might even argue that the Lakers were giving up too much to obtain Paul. The problem is, the small market teams are always going to have trouble keeping/obtaining big names. Why penalize them by not allowing them to trade their players and get something in return before they walk away as free agents?
There was an email uncovered from one of the owners to Stern calling foul because the deal would help the Lakers move closer to the salary cap, while obtaining a star player. How can you penalize a team for trying to save a little money? Oh, it’s because that would shrink the NBA’s profits generated by the luxury tax fees? Let me cry foul regarding your greedy ways for trying to keep a team well above the luxury tax threshold.
This whole charade stinks. What I don’t get is why anyone would want to play in a league where trades can be rejected because someone doesn’t like it.
I sure hope the league lets the deal go through. I don’t think they can give any real justification for their actions.