DG's twitter reaction to trade veto

by pacerfan20o8 on Dec 9, 2011 10:42 AM EST

I'm sure you have all seen it already but I just wanted to post a link http://m.tmi.me/j9xgT to Granger's comments about Stern nixing the trade of Chris Paul to the Lakers. What do you guys think of his reaction? Agree? Disagree? I think its a little weird considering DG plays for a small market team which is what Stern is trying to protect with this move i assume, but maybe he's just good friends with CP3...Your thoughts...

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Heh.

That would be pretty funny if he could do that… could you imagine the poor uniform guy.

“…. LARRYRYYYYYY!!!”
“What?”
“I don’t know what to do.”
’About what?"
’just look" (points to legal document)
“… God damn it Danny.”

"A champion is someone who gets up when he can't."
- Jack Dempsey

by infinityzero.systemerror on Dec 9, 2011 11:04 AM EST reply actions

I think he was trying to be funny.

by VERNON HOWELL on Dec 9, 2011 11:59 AM EST via mobile reply actions

i suspect a huge fine coming grangers way

by pacers4life on Dec 9, 2011 12:03 PM EST reply actions

pretty childish in my opinion

Sup Jello Shot?

by IndyPacers on Dec 9, 2011 12:13 PM EST reply actions

I know he said he was joking shortly after, but when you have to say you are joking…the joke didn’t work. Just a dumb statement that he should have just told his friends in person and kept away from the internet.

The tubes carry far.

And it's now my sig
by Bronn on May 17, 2011 4:56 PM EDT

by Sparhawk on Dec 9, 2011 12:31 PM EST reply actions

Hehe, I agree with him and I think it's hilarious

David Stern has proven himself to be an absolute tool. The rejecting of this trade is a huge “SCREW YOU” to small market teams.

I am a college student that sleeps with a St. Louis Cardinals Fredbird Pillow Pet, and I am proud of it.

by Sir Sci on Dec 9, 2011 1:24 PM EST reply actions

I'm glad the trade was stopped!

The whole point of the new CBA was to avoid the Lakers, Knicks, Mavs, and other teams from doing to teams what LeBron and company did to theirs. Isn’t there suppose to be a point where the NBA says, enough is enough. Finally, Stern did it!! I’m sure he did it under pressure cause we all know he’s a Knicks, Lakers, Heat kind of guy. Whatever is good for the Big Time teams, is usually of with him. Screw the small market teams. And if DG was serious, then I’m tired of him, and ready for the Pacers to send him somewhere else.

by RVANDY9 on Dec 9, 2011 1:39 PM EST reply actions

I'm confused

How is the rejecting of the trade a big “SCREW YOU” to SMALL market teams? To me, it’s the other way around…He was protecting the small market teams by not allowing the Miamis and LAs of the world to get all the big name stars

by pacerfan20o8 on Dec 9, 2011 1:52 PM EST reply actions

he stopped NO from getting 3 starter caliber players

and now ther eis no chance Paul will get traded

how did that help NO and small markets? He will just leave next year and leave NO with nothing

My Blog on lifting, movies, fish, and some mma: www.themindofshadow.blogspot.com

by dbcb on Dec 9, 2011 2:13 PM EST up reply actions

Mmhmmmmm

Chris Paul is going to play 66 games with the Hornets and then leave either way. This trade would have allowed them to actually get something out of it.

I am a college student that sleeps with a St. Louis Cardinals Fredbird Pillow Pet, and I am proud of it.

by Sir Sci on Dec 9, 2011 3:22 PM EST up reply actions

Because this trade was in the benefit of a small market team

They were getting the best deal. Three quality starters and a first round pick just by giving up one, albeit one great, but still one player. This was a fair trade that honestly was going to benefit New Orleans as a team more so than it was going to help LA, not to mention that Houston was going to get a quality guy too (although I think they were going to get the short end of the stick in the trade).

This blocking of the trade is a bogus move that is keeping the Hornets from being competitive. If I was the NO fan base I’d be outraged.

I am a college student that sleeps with a St. Louis Cardinals Fredbird Pillow Pet, and I am proud of it.

by Sir Sci on Dec 9, 2011 3:17 PM EST up reply actions

Only reason it didn't go through

Is because the league will make more money with Chris Paul in a Hornets uniform with them owning the team. Fans won’t put out the same money to see Odom, Scola and Martin. While it was a good basketball move for them (Hornets), it wasn’t good money wise for the league. It shouldn’t of been blocked. Until there is revenue sharing the big market teams will always have an advantage.

by Oden_Favre_28 on Dec 9, 2011 2:29 PM EST reply actions

I have no problem with CP3 going to LA.

NO was receiving pretty good players in return. CP3 going to LA is no big deal, he will in free agency next year anyways. What bothered me is the fact that the Lakers were getting him AND 20 million in cap relief. Maybe I’m missing something here, but don’t the salaries hafta match up for a trade to work? Hasn’t that been a long standing NBA policy? Did the fact that it’s a three team deal somehow change that? If Jerry Buss or any other owner wants a super team, that’s their choice. They will pay the price via the luxury tax. But to have a league owned team broker a deal to clear 20 million in cap space, AND give the best point guard in the NBA to LA is unacceptable. Let LA deal with their big contract on aging players like every other team. Don’t give them a star and let them get out of two deals they don’t think are a good value any longer…That’s all I’m saying. Paul can go in 2012, play with Gasol and Odam, and Buss can pay his luxury tax.

"Winning isn't everything, but it beats anything that comes in second."

--Paul "Bear" Bryant

by BigBlackRichard on Dec 9, 2011 2:56 PM EST reply actions

the rule is the salaries you send out have to match or exceed, unless you're under the cap

I think Houston is under the cap and therefore able to absorb Gasol’s salary. The Lakers, being a luxury tax team, just have to ship out equal or more salary than they take in, same with the Hornets. It’s the same reason Indiana was considered as a facilitator in a possible Paul trade with Boston.

by full sail on Dec 9, 2011 7:19 PM EST up reply actions

Or

They could rework the deal so LA is taking enough players in return so the salaries match, thus not giving them a competitive advantage. LA could at that point use their amnesty to get rid of one of the salaries.

"Winning isn't everything, but it beats anything that comes in second."

--Paul "Bear" Bryant

by BigBlackRichard on Dec 9, 2011 3:00 PM EST reply actions

oohhh

I see..thanks for clearing that up

by pacerfan20o8 on Dec 9, 2011 3:29 PM EST reply actions

It was blocked because a star player (CP3) was forcing a trade and the lockout was about owner control – nothing more, nothing less. The league is on the owners side, not the players’ side and they own the Hornets, so there is only one way this could have played out once the owners started yelping about this deal…

by FortWayneKarl on Dec 9, 2011 3:29 PM EST reply actions

Is Stern The Right Commish For NBA?

Maybe it’s just the way he comes across, but he seems somewhat oblivious.

I’d like to know if this Blocked Trade was more Owner Pushed or strictly from Stern himself. Either way it’s a terrible precedent to set and this trade should be allowed as long as it fits the Salary Criteria.

If the NBA has any concerns about it’s near and long-term future for ALL TEAMS (not just the Major Markets), then I suggest serious consideration for replacing Stern as Commish of the NBA.

On a side note: Replace Selig too.

Proudly banned from Stampede Blue
Naptown Tees: http://www.naptowntees.us/

by XLI on Dec 9, 2011 4:03 PM EST reply actions