Skip to content

New framework in place for Chris Paul to Lakers, pending league approval

Dec 10, 2011, 12:59 PM EDT

chris-paul-lakers-trade

Let’s try this again, from the top, shall we?

ESPN reports:

Just filed to ESPN w/@Chris_Broussard: New trade framework of original three-team CP3 deal has been submitted to league office for approvalSat Dec 10 17:45:00 via UberSocial for BlackBerry

Wait, let me do it for you, since  I know you’re thinking it.

“Yeah, until the league blocks it! Yuck-yuck-yuck!”

“Whatever, they’ll just block it again because the league hates the Lakers! Haters!”

Etc.

The terms of the deal aren’t known, we’ll have more as soon as they come available, which should be within a matter of hours minutes seconds.

The deal does have to include more in the way of younger players and picks, according to the league who owns the Hornets and blocked a previous trade offer. Most people freaked out because Kevin Martin, Luis Scola and Lamar Odom are all good players and no one stops to think about the fact that the Hornets need to plan for sometime after 2013. The Rockets have the players to accommodate that, and it’s not like the Lakers need the picks.

  1. pukpokito - Dec 10, 2011 at 1:08 PM

    I hope the Commissioner stays true to his decision.a decision needs to be consistent.This will look like a make up call if this gets approved.But what the heck.go with the popular decision,right?

    • shutupyoufuckingidiots - Dec 10, 2011 at 4:43 PM

      Yeah so he gets to choose where it’s ok for chris paul to go? I don’t think so.

  2. jmclarkent - Dec 10, 2011 at 1:13 PM

    I hope they ran it by Dan Gilbert. Rumor has it that he has already threatened action up to and including Comic Sans font.

  3. jackntorres - Dec 10, 2011 at 1:14 PM

    How and the hell can David West sign and trade to Boston for a Jermaine O’Neal and a player to be named, while the original Paul deal fell through? Boston got away with murder.

    I am a Hornets fan, but the league is Janus.

    • bparmalee - Dec 10, 2011 at 1:44 PM

      David West was a free agent so it was a different situation (not that I agree with the blocking the Paul trade). The did a sign and trade with David West after he had already agreed to sign with Boston. I am not sure what O’neal can do for the Hornets but its not the same as the Paul trade.

      • jackntorres - Dec 10, 2011 at 1:47 PM

        No its not the same as the Paul trade….

        But it is akin to Bosh and James and what they did last summer…

        I’m not saying West is on their level, but he’s certainly above the level of Jermaine O’Neal at this moment in time, regardless of if you’re trading him under contract or after signing as a free agent.

        The league is hypocritical. Period.

      • jackntorres - Dec 10, 2011 at 1:52 PM

        You don’t have to explain to me that it was a sign and trade… read my post.

        All I’m saying is the West trade had more “basketball reasons” to be denied than the Paul trade.

      • badintentions11 - Dec 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM

        I know O’Neal is an expiring contract that comes off the books after this year.

      • almzor - Dec 10, 2011 at 4:56 PM

        Apparently we do have to explain sign and trades to you… If the Hornets didn’t go along with this then West just walks away and they got nothing back. When your choice is a poor exchange or nothing you take the poor exchange. “Blocking” the West sign and trade would’ve hurt the Hornets (and Stern, if anyone cares about him… No? Didn’t think so.) more than allowing it. Just like blocking the Paul trade did.

      • jackntorres - Dec 10, 2011 at 7:54 PM

        Without signing and trading he doesn’t get the salary he wants, and hence he doesn’t go to Boston. That’s the rules still in the CBA. The owners can’t stop it cause they got too much money back.

        A game of give and take, time to give Gilbert, etc.

        If a player has talent, that is his one bargaining chip.

    • Rish77 - Dec 10, 2011 at 6:52 PM

      The Hornets are lucky to be getting anything in return for West.. I’ve been hearing reports all day about Jermaine saying he will never play for the Hornets, or a possibility of Jeff Green being involved in the deal (not likely, he just officially signed with Boston). If anything the Celtics are like the god damn Salvation Army with this deal.

      • jackntorres - Dec 10, 2011 at 7:57 PM

        “If anything the Celtics are like the god damn Salvation Army with this deal.”

        Your screen name hints at bias. What Boston juice are you sipping son? The Hornets are the one giving the All Star PF up, Jermaine is just as has-been All Star well over the hill.

      • jackntorres - Dec 10, 2011 at 7:58 PM

        i.e. where are the picks and young players (said “basketball reasons”)?

    • bobulated - Dec 10, 2011 at 11:23 PM

      +1 for Ancient Roman theology reference!

  4. nazraq - Dec 10, 2011 at 1:16 PM

    The first decision was stupid, and a knee jerk reaction to appease some owners… This is his chance to make it right, may actually work out better for lakers cause they don’t care about $20 mil and draft picks. Now they’ll probably get paul and good role players NO didn’t want. Way to go stern

    • lakerfanatic - Dec 10, 2011 at 9:49 PM

      Watch the next trade…..multiple players for Dwight Howard. When the rumor that he was only interested in the Nets came out I knew the lakers would get him. The lakers will give up Bynum and 2 or 3 more players. They also will end up with Okafor. This will make for an unbelievable contender. The best point guard, best shooting guard and top defensive center in the game. GO LAKERS!

  5. uclafightfightfight - Dec 10, 2011 at 1:18 PM

    They better let New Orleans get SOMEthing for Chris Paul. If they don’t get to trade him, the league will look real stupid in its effort to keep the Hornets competitive when he walks away next season.

  6. brooklynbulls - Dec 10, 2011 at 1:23 PM

    If this trade goes thru, D12 is next for the Lakers. They’ve had this set up all along. Note there was not a peep out of Dwight until the Paul trade fell through, then he was on to plan b. No way woulf the Lakers have given up 2 7-footers without a second move to secure Dwight.

  7. tampajoey - Dec 10, 2011 at 1:26 PM

    “…and it’s not like the Lakers need the picks.”

    Because we all know the Lakers will eventually just buy the best players anyway so why would they need the draft like small market teams. BTW, Along with Chris Paul, Dwight Howard will be a Laker by next Wednesday.

    • therealhtj - Dec 10, 2011 at 1:46 PM

      And we all know small markets will refuse to either pay the 2nd superstar they scored in the draft or their key role players once they don’t have the luxury of paying them rookie scale.

      • tampajoey - Dec 10, 2011 at 2:06 PM

        In 2008-09, the Cleveland Cavs with Lebron James had the second highest team payroll behind the NY Knicks.

        So go pull your head out of your butt. As you look down the list there are plenty of small market teams that are over the luxury tax limit. Know what you’re talking about before posting a comment or you’ll get called out and look stupid.

        New York Knicks ~ 100
        Cleveland Cavaliers ~ 90.1
        Dallas Mavericks ~ 86
        Portland Trailblazers ~ 81.6
        Boston Celtics ~ 80.3
        Los Angeles Lakers ~ 78.9
        Phoenix Suns ~ 74.5
        Houston Rockets ~ 73.5
        Chicago Bulls ~ 72
        Detroit Pistons ~ 71
        Indiana Pacers ~ 70
        Sacramento Kings ~ 69.4
        Milwaukee Bucks ~ 69
        Miami Heat ~ 68.6
        Toronto Raptors ~ 67.4
        Philadelphia 76ers ~ 67.2
        Denver Nuggets ~ 66.4
        New Orleans Hornets ~ 65.7
        Utah Jazz ~ 65.6
        San Antonio Spurs ~ 64.5

  8. cowhawkfan - Dec 10, 2011 at 1:58 PM

    The “League” did not block the initial trade. The Owner of N.O. blocked the trade. And IMHO, he was right to do so.;however, I don’t believe he did so for any reason other than to give the “appearance” he was looking out for small market teams. Let’s face it… N.O. got players that would be so-so for a year or two, but they would not have made the play-offs, and then those players would be gone and N.O. would be left with what…one draft pick? They would be the worst team in the league and it would take a decade to get out of that funk, meaning they would be out of N.O. in a few years and in another market.

    Paul is worth at least 2 early first rounders in addition to the players they were getting. A late first round pick would be worthless, and none of the teams involved in this trade have an early 1st rounder coming up (at least that I’m aware of). And the players they were getting weren’t that great, in addition to the two early picks, NO should at least get Bynum AND Gasol in the deal. But wait, the Lakers have to keep Bynum to trade for Superman. I personally believe the League wants Paul and Superman in L.A. and therefore will not insist Bynum be included in the trade. That will ensure Superman ends up in L.A. It is a conspiracy, just not one against the Lakers, but in favor of the Lakers.

    • therealhtj - Dec 10, 2011 at 2:04 PM

      IF NO were to insist on a deal like that, they’d likely lose Paul for nothing as a FA next summer. He’s worth it, sure, but it’d never happen.

    • notsofast10 - Dec 10, 2011 at 2:51 PM

      The “League” did not block the trade? And who is it that owns NO? My understanding is the “League” owns NO!!!

    • theBlainetruth - Dec 10, 2011 at 2:53 PM

      If you think that New Orleans was done after this deal, you are wrong. They probably would have traded each of the players for a combination of young players and picks. I think it is the best deal NO can do, given that Paul will commit long-term to the Lakers. We cannot judge this trade until we see what NO does AFTER with the players they have received. I would be surprised if any of them are still there in a year.

    • goforthanddie - Dec 10, 2011 at 6:28 PM

      The League IS the owner of the NBA, which is a situation that should not exist.
      Herr Stern named someone to run the team, inc. trades. When the guy does his job, he’s overruled by 27 people who have no business worrying about the trade. Good way to run a business.

    • Josh Perez - Dec 12, 2011 at 1:56 PM

      OK the league didn’t block the trade. The owner( who happen to be the league) blocked the trade cause they think they will be better with Paul instead of a group of borderline All Stars and the reigning 6th man If the year.

      There is a bias for Paul to go to anywhere but LA or any other team which is already a contender. If I was DWest, after the CP3 trade was denied, I would walk away on purpose leaving NO with nothing in return, just so Stern suffers that one.

  9. darjus13 - Dec 10, 2011 at 2:27 PM

    It’s funny how people think the lakers get all this talent prior to the PAU gift name when was the last time we got a big name ball player

  10. bigtrav425 - Dec 10, 2011 at 2:35 PM

    if Bynum isnt in the deal its not a good deal whatsoever for the Hornets.Draft picks are fine but the Lakers n Rockets are going to be picking 18ish or later.I wonder if the league is sabotaging the Hornets so when they are sold they are going to move???..thats what im thinking of allowing this trade w/o Bynum

  11. urodaddy07 - Dec 10, 2011 at 8:16 PM

    It would be a very bad idea for LA to trade away Bynum, Gasol and Odom. That would be suicidal. It’s close enough ad it is.

  12. chadinkc30 - Dec 10, 2011 at 9:47 PM

    Why does everyone not give credit to Bynum? He’s arguably the 2nd best center in the league, at 24 I’m curious to see what Lakers could get for him, I’d say they should shop him to other teams as well as the Magic just to see what he could command

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Will LeBron get booed Christmas Day in Miami?
Top 10 NBA Player Searches
  1. K. Love (3093)
  2. D. Rose (2737)
  3. K. Bryant (2403)
  4. L. James (2354)
  5. K. Irving (2002)
  1. R. Allen (1849)
  2. C. Delfino (1794)
  3. T. Mozgov (1686)
  4. D. Waiters (1672)
  5. A. Davis (1664)