He's not "the owner", but he represents "the owners" in terms of the league's interests. "The owners" need to vote on things that are being collectively bargained, but they certainly don't vote on all of the league's decisions. They can certainly provide influence, but I imagine (key word here, since I'm just speculating) that Stern can act unilaterally in many instances.
If Leslie Alexander (quick--how many people knew the name of the Rockets' owner?) were against the trade, he could have vetoed the whole thing from his end; he didn't need to have the league kill it.
I knew that was the Rockets owners name. The issue is that his vote is only 1 Of the group that owns the team.
Gilbert is mad because his Cav's lost Lebron for nothing, he wants the same to happen to the Hornets.
If the Lakers want to fleece a team in a trade they a free to do so. Just make a deal with a team that's not owned by the rest of the NBA franchises.
His vote is only 1 of the group that owns the Hornets, sure. But he also controls the third team in this deal. Without his approval, the deal doesn't go through.
Also, this isn't the fist time Hornets management has pissed off the NBA. Then they traded Thornton for Landry they threw in cash to make the deal more palatable to the Kings. That obviously pissed a lot of owners off at the time. I know Dale Demps wants to run the Hornets like it's not currently owned by the rest of the NBA, but that's simply not reality.
Remember, like, 3 days ago, when everyone on creation was saying that there's no way the L*kers have enough assets to get both CP3 and Howard while keeping K*be? That it would be competitively disadvantageous to allow machinations that would let the L*kers trade the crap on their roster This isn't like the Artest suspension, where the vote was "unanimous. 1-0, Stern." It's a set of owners saying "no, we're not going to let that happen." Just like when Shinn didn't trade CP3 to us last year. Just once, I'd like to see Hollinger, Stein, Broussard--any of them--actually try to refute the stuff in Gilbert's letter. I keep seeing "NOH made out great in this deal!! HOU's been trying for three years to get Gasol!! etc." No one's mentioning why owners wouldn't do this as a business deal--whether allowing a L*ker superteam that actually takes money out of their pockets, while also removing the marquee name from their franchise. Luis Scola and Kevin Martin aren't selling tickets or getting them Christmas Day games, folks. And it's disingenous for people to not bring up the business side that Gilbert brought up in the calculus of this trade.
Who's getting fleeced? The general consensus is that the Hornets were getting a very good haul for a superstar with a bad knee (or two).
I see what you're saying, but maybe it hadn't been brought up. Maybe from the HOU perspective it was great. But when you look at what Gilbert's talking about in the letter, what's the response to that? "Yeah, I get Pau Gasol, but I drop NOH franchise value, I take away lux tax sharing money out of my pocket (and others'), etc."
The Hornets were getting a lot of salary back and inferior talent IMHO. Lakers were getting the 2nd best PG in the game, large trade exception and dumping their worst contract in Pau.
What I meant is that the Houston-side of the deal is the problematic one as I see it! The Hornets are getting 4 good-to-very-good players and while they wouldn't do this trade normaly, it's better than losing Chris Paul for nothing (and it's not like they're championship contenders this year, with him...). The Rockets trade Dragic, Martin and Scola for the aging Gasol when they're not that deep anyway. If Les Alexander approves this and the has-to-be objective NBA front-office denies it, it looks bad.
You have to amend that. "The general consensus is that, in terms of talent coming back, the Hornets were getting a very good haul for their superstar." You neglect to mention that they're also "taking on an additional 50M in long-term salary" for a team that couldn't support the payroll they had before, in a town where they rarely sell out the stadium and who has little business base. You don't mention that their two best players now play the same position. You don't mention that they are getting older and more expensive in this deal, not younger and cheaper. There's plenty that smells about this trade.
If the Rockets want to tank it for a top pick, they should get involved with a deal that doesn't facilitate CP3 dictating where he wants to go.
The other team has to agree in order to consummate the deal. The other team doesn't have to agree in order to cancel the deal.
I think players should not be forced to play in small markets long term, but also think there are five or six teams that should be contracted. The NBA owners paid equal money, but they were paying in hopes of finding another owner and has went on far too long. Every trade usually only makes the teams involved happy. CP3 is now at the mercy of the league and it is a shame.
