Veto Power

Yesterday afternoon it was being reported that the New Orleans Hornets had traded their star player Chris Paul to the Los Angeles Lakers in a deal that included players coming and going through the Houston Rockets. While everyone focused on the Lakers getting the biggest star in the deal (because they always do), it was quite a coup for the Hornets. You see, Paul is in the last year of his deal and has basically said there is no way he will remain with the team beyond this season, so the Hornets were in a situation where they essentially had to trade Paul before the year ended otherwise he would leave and they would get nothing for him. Everyone knows this, so considering the lack of bargaining power they were dealing with, I actually thought they ended up with a pretty good collection of young, pretty good and cheap players along with some draft picks and a Kardashian's husband. It appears I was the only one who thought that.

Now, this is where it gets complicated: the Hornets are currently without an owner. The previous owner was losing so much money owning the team that he basically couldn't afford to make payroll anymore. And with the league staring down a lockout because small-market teams like New Orleans couldn't manage to be competitive and turn a profit, he couldn't find a buyer. So to try and keep the team going, the remaining NBA owners each ponied up a few millions dollars and the league took control of the Hornets with every owner having an equal share. If you've ever seen a sitcom episode where a group of friends buy an equal share of something valuable you probably know this wasn't going to end well. And when the group of buyers is made up of super-competitive billionaires who aren't used to not getting their way it's a recipe for a full-blown disaster, which is exactly what happened.

After the trade was announced people kept harping on the Lakers getting the biggest name and creating yet another super-team (again, it wasn't nearly as bad for New Orleans as people were making it out to be). But, apparently all this talk of another star leaving a small-market for a glamour team (which was what the lockout was supposed to prevent from happening) wasn't sitting well with the owners of the rest of the small-market teams, because they saw what happened to New Orleans and became convinced that their team was going to be the next one to have a superstar push his way to one of the marquee franchises. And since these people also own a stake of the Hornets, it suddenly occurred to several of them that they should have input on any trades that the Hornets make and let their opinions be known. A few hours later David Stern, the Commissioner of the NBA, vetoed the deal saying it was in the best interest of the team and the league that Paul remain with the Hornets.

This is of course sent professional basketball into a tailspin. How could the Commissioner veto a deal like this? Did he actually have that power? To me it comes down to a very simple question: if the Hornets were owned by one person or group, would he have allowed this deal to go through? Of course he would have, so it should have been approved now. That leads me to wonder just how much was he influenced by the other owners? I mean, it is crazy to think that he would let them have a say in a trade that sends a great player to one of their rivals, regardless of whether they own a stake in the Hornets or not. And at what point does trying to help one team just hurt the rest of the league? By not letting this trade go through Stern not only hurt the Hornets, but the Lakers and Rockets, two teams that actually make money.

I understand that Stern works for all the owners and not the players, but let's not fool ourselves: not every NBA owner is created equal. The League is better off when the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics and 76ers are doing well. It's one thing to say you don't play favorites, it's another to piss off your best money-makers to try and prove it. Now, during the lockout there was talk that New Orleans would be contracted. But considering that would mean all the other owners would lose the millions dollars they spent on their share of the team I can see why they would rather keep the Hornets going and try to sell them to a new owner instead. And there is no disputing a player like Chris Paul would certainly make the team a lot more attractive to a potential new owner. But, a situation like this certainly isn't going to help. At the moment I can't see why anyone would want to buy a stake in this mess.

Currently basketball fans should be super excited that the league is back and getting ready for a new season. Instead right now they are all talking about this debacle. Instead of talking about roster moves and schedules, there is talk of lawsuits and a lot of hurt feelings. Chris Paul is thinking about suing the NBA for blocking his ticket out of New Orleans while Lakers officials had to spend the day trying to explain to a couple of very sensitive power forwards that the trade was nothing personal, it was just business. Meanwhile David Stern has to deal with columnists and other media talking heads wondering if he's on some kind of super power trip. The smartest thing he could do would be to reverse field and allow the trade to go through, but I can't see a guy like David Stern ever admitting he was wrong, especially not about something so public. But, that doesn't change the fact that it's the right thing to do. First off, it might make Stern look a little more human. Secondly, it's not like he could look any worse.