Skip to content

Chris Paul to Clippers deal dies, league’s demands too steep

Dec 12, 2011, 2:37 PM EDT

chris-paul-looks-confused Getty Images

Chris Paul is not going to Los Angeles. Not to the Lakers because David Stern killed the deal and now not to the Clippers because he and the league drove the asking price too high, according to Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo and multiple other reports.

And now you have to wonder: Next time a league GM sees Hornets’ GM Dell Demps’ number come up on his phone, will he just send it straight to voicemail? Who is going to want to trade with the Hornets now?

There appear to be several versions of the deal offered but the league — read David Stern — wanted there to be Eric Gordon, Eric Bledsoe, Chris Kaman, Al-Farouq Aminu and a 2012 unprotected first round pick of the Minnesota Timberwolves.

The Clippers were reluctant to part with Gordon and really would not part with Gordon and the pick and Bledsoe. So the Clippers walked away from the table, which is a reasonable thing to do because they are a good team with those guys. It is possible this deal gets revived because the league relents, but for now it is dead.

This is very similar to how the CP3 to the Lakers deal fell apart, in that the league decided it was not enough. The difference was in the Clippers case Demps thought he had the autonomy to make a dead and reached one all sides agreed to. In the Clippers case, the league was dictating terms to Demps and the Clippers from early on, and were driving such a hard bargain they killed the deal. (Sounds a lot like the lockout, doesn’t it?)

There are suggestions that the league doesn’t think it can get as much money in a sale of the Hornets if Paul is not on the team. But no owner who would buy the team is stupid enough not to know that Paul is gone at the end of the year, and any smart owner would want something to start rebuilding on in return. Like either of the Los Angeles deals.

If there is no deal by the trade deadline for Paul, he will leave the Hornets next summer as a free agent and the team will get nothing. He has told them he will will not sign an extension to stay with the franchise. (That is not about the city of New Orleans, it’s about the franchise and ownership.)

There is one other aspect to this: There are rumblings the union may file a collusion lawsuit against the league on behalf of Paul. In the case of the Lakers deal, while the league denies this there was clearly pressure from the other owners that helped kill that deal, they did not want to see the big market, powerhouse Lakers improve right after a lockout about competitive balance.

  1. cowhawkfan - Dec 12, 2011 at 6:18 PM

    I don’t understand the big deal here. The owner’s of many teams veto deals their GM is trying to make. How is this any different? Stern is the de facto “owner” of the Hornets and wants more for a trade to ensure the franchise value stays high. He may be wrong about the trade valule of Paul, but that doesn’t make it collusion or a scheme on the part of the NBA. Perhaps someone will buy the team that can convince Paul to stay? Paul has said its not about the city, its about the “franchise and ownership”. If that’s true, a buyer could conceiveable convince him to stay.

    • paesan59 - Dec 12, 2011 at 7:48 PM

      cowhawkfan, finally someone that sounds reasonable. Great post!!!!!!

  2. gb4ever0811 - Dec 12, 2011 at 6:52 PM

    This is a shame for the Hornets. They’re going to be left with nothing at all when Paul walks to LA in free agency next season. The first deal was by far the best, but now Odom’s been traded already. This is ludicrous!

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 (3271)
  2. D. Rose (3057)
  3. K. Bryant (2599)
  4. L. James (2542)
  5. R. Allen (2120)
  1. K. Irving (2106)
  2. C. Delfino (2029)
  3. T. Mozgov (1923)
  4. D. Waiters (1880)
  5. S. Marion (1783)