NBA fans everywhere have been curious what exactly the league office meant when they vetoed the Laker/Hornets/Rockets trade involving point guard Chris Paul. Here is a statement issued by commissioner David Stern explaining why the trade was nixed, per SB Nation:
“Since the NBA purchased the New Orleans Hornets, final responsibility for significant management decisions lies with the Commissioner’s Office in consultation with team chairman Jac Sperling. All decisions are made on the basis of what is in the best interests of the Hornets. In the case of the trade proposal that was made to the Hornets for Chris Paul, we decided, free from the influence of other NBA owners, that the team was better served with Chris in a Hornets uniform than by the outcome of the terms of that trade.”
We may be beating a dead horse here (excuse the expression) but the NBA surely has to realize that, if forced to remain a member of the Hornets this season,Chris Paul will surely bolt after the season and the franchise would get absolutely nothing in return. But we’re making too much sense. This IS the NBA we’re talking about here. Could the NBA be keeping Chris Paul in New Orleans to make the team more attractive for a potential buyer? Possibly, but wouldn’t the threat of CP3 leaving after the season scare away said potential buyer, so why not restock the roster with decent talent? Again, that would make too much sense, from both a business and basketball prospective.
Welcome back, NBA.
Powered by Sidelines