Hornets Exec: "No Deals for Paul"

Portland and OKC could afford to do that, because they were pretty well burned down when they started. They didn't really have a talented core that they liquidated. In Portland's case, their best player was Zach Randolph who's trade didn't do a ton to kick-start the rebuilding process.

By and large, though, I think teams that purposely destroy their talent base in order to build up draft picks, non blue chip prospects (since no team trades those, the John Wall/Tim Duncan/etc types) and cap flexibility tend to wander in the wilderness for quite a while.

If New Orleans truly cannot convince him to stick around, they might be justified in trading him for prospects and cap flexibility. But I'm still skeptical. Unless you luck into a blue chip prospect (like Denver did with Carmelo Anthony or Cleveland did with LeBron James)...burn downs tend to put teams in extended periods of being bad. OKC would not be a team on the rise without the fortune of getting the #2 pick in 2007. If they had ended up at #3, they might have a decent young core but nothing special.

In some sense, New Orleans got their stroke of luck in Chris Paul...I'm not sure they can count on another.

 

I think Maxie's got it about right. As it is, even with Paul the Hornets are locked in to being, at best, one of the lower half of the Western Conference playoff teams or, at worst, one of the near-miss teams that has a mid-level draft pick unlikely to bring in another star. They probably can use an expiring contract to bring in a decent player, but they're not going to get another star. Paul will walk for sure in two years and, even with a sign-and-trade deal, the Hornets aren't going to get equal value for him. In the NBA, being a mid-level team is the worst position you can have.

 

I see your point certainly, but two things come to mind. One how do they keep Paul past 2012? Two, what choice do they have other than rebuilding? That's really just one point disguised as two.

 

Seattle/OKC had Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis when they decided to break it all down. They aren't of Paul's caliber, but it's not like they were starting with crap.

 

They'll need to make good decisions over the next two years. If they can't make good team-building decisions, rebuilding is useless also. If the team is headed upward, even if it's not a title contender yet, I think they'll be the heavy favourites to re-sign Paul. This off-season featured two superstars switching teams in free agency, but that's not the norm. Generally, max contract caliber players stay at home, because their team can offer them the most. Unless Paul has grown to hate it there, I think he'll stay in New Orleans if the team has upgraded the talent at least a bit over the next two seasons.

You overestimate what they're risking here. They're not getting any blue chip offers. Portland's offer of Batum and Bayless is nice, but those two players are hardly make-or-break for a franchise. They're much better off, IMO, holding onto their once-a-generation point guard for one-two seasons (depending on what the lockout eats) and hoping they're able to retain him. If they can't, I don't think they'll be crushed as a franchise for not having Batum and Bayless. And I say that as a charter member of the Batum fanclub.

 

Oh yeah? Well what accomplishments did Ray Allen have after leaving the Sonics? ...Oh right.

Good point RR7.

 

You don't think NYK and NJN among others will make moves to clear cap for Paul? Or do you think the CBA will restrict it somehow?

 

Hmm, I suppose it depends on when you feel they decided to break it all down. My perception was they did when they lost Lewis to free agency. That is, I don't feel they made a conscious decision to get rid of Lewis as part of a "burn down." They offered him a fairly large contract, but it was blown away by the overpriced offer Orlando made. At that point, with Allen and not much else, they decided to liquidate their one remaining major player.

 

Except that timeline isn't correct. They got rid of Allen first. The decision was made to break it all down when they got the #2 pick.

 

They might. How did that work out for New York/New Jersey this off-season? Again, if New Orleans has made no strides by then...it's possible they might lose him. Of course, if they can't make any strides in two seasons, what chance do they have of successfully doing a slash-and-burn rebuild? Either way, they have to believe that they can make good basketball moves. I think if they make good basketball moves over the next year or two, they (with their "larger max" offer than New York/New Jersey can offer) will be more attractive to Paul than a largely undeveloped New York/New Jersey (if they build normally, it will be hard [though not impossible] to have cap room for a max deal).

 

Ah okay. I thought they lost Lewis first. So, I agree then that they weren't destitute of talent when they liquidated. Of course, they already had their "good fortune" in hand when they made the decision. They knew they were getting Oden or Durant. That's still quite different than burning it all down and then hoping to get a blue chip draftee.

 

This reminds me of when Drexler left. There was supposedly no deal on the table then either.

 

Just as one example, CP3 and Lopez is a hell of a core and a second best to teaming up with Howard. If Favors pans out and NJN deals Harris for SG or SF they easily trump NOH. Also, Paul wants to win and a couple of Million more may not be enough to retain him.

 

The dream season was the year before when they won 56 games and made it to the second round of the play-offs. That is the season they were a dark horse. They only averaged 82.4% capacity that season, in spite of being in 1st place in the SW division from pretty much start to finish. In fact, it took a huge late season push (something like selling out the last 16 or 17 home games) just to just barely average enough attendance to keep Shinn from opting out of his stadium lease and moving the team.

Of course, the big bump in attendance was the following season. As a young team that was perceived to be up and coming. They sold a lot more season tickets that off season. That's why they were at 98.7% capacity the following season.

Unfortunately, their performance regressed, season ticket sales plummeted and capacity was back down to 88.5% and headed south.

Here's another potential scenario where trading Chris Paul may actually help George Shinn sell the team. NO is a horrible market for basketball. As long as the team is there, they will struggle financially. As I mentioned above, there is a clause in the stadium lease that allows the team to get out of their stadium lease and move the team if attendance drops below a certain level (I think it's something like 14,140, I'd have to look it up to be sure, but I know they barely made it in 2008 - the year they won 56 games!).

Trading Paul would surely kill attendance short term. In which case the team would be free to move to a more lucrative market. So, trading Chris Paul could actually make the team more valuable to a new owner as they would no longer be locked into a long term stadium lease in a maret that will always struggle finanacially.

BNM