Although the media seems to be getting too much up in arms about Stern's decision, I agree with what appears to be the general consensus. This trade should have happened and the reasons being offered as to why it didn't go down are questionable, to say the least.
New Orleans, given that Paul is about to leave anyway, would have assembled a decent group of players that's more talented than what Denver got earlier this year for Melo. The Lakers would've gotten the best player in the deal while sacrificing two capable and accomplished guys. As far as Houston is concerned, one could argue that Pau and a free agent like Nene, who could have received a nice offer from Houston due to the newfound cap space, are a better duo than Scola and Martin.
All three teams will have to deal with a mess on their hands. Obviously, an owner like Dan Gilbert couldn't care less, yet the NBA has some 'splaining to do. On what grounds can the league veto a reasonable trade between three teams? Because it's the Lakers that would get the best player in the deal from the league-owned Hornets and some owners scream bloody murder? It might indeed be in the best interest of the NBA to not let another super team emerge at the expense of the sought-after competitive balance. However, reaching that goal in this particular fashion with Stern going a little nuts and overruling an agreement between the teams feels like a Pyrrhic victory that's already caused a huge backlash and brought the NBA way too many pro wrestling references.
This decision does have the stench of arbitrariness all over it.
|