I think it's much easier to believe that Stern nixed the trade because there was at least one better one out there. Given that's become obvious as time went along, I'm not sure that we need to rely on an anonymous source to create a conspiracy. IMO. Ed O.
I'm not saying I believe the supposed anonymous leak. I am saying that was the genesis for Stern taking some criticism for nixing the deal. Without that anonymous leak, and the letter from Gilbert, there would be no criticism. Cowherd allowed Stern a forum to tell his side of the tale. Stern used that time to blast 'anonymous sources' and to belittle a radio host who was merely advancing the argument raised by the 'anonymous source'. Cowherd never accused Stern of any nefarious plot to screw the Lakers; he did give the complete story as to why Stern was taking some criticism. I found the interview to be typical of Stern. Mocking those who don't completely buy his story, and coming off as arrogant and self-righteous. I find it much easier to believe that Stern was fishing for the best deal for NO, and without the anonymous leak, there would be no issue at all.
I love the "source" who heard something from some unknown third person gag. If I hear some bullshit speculation, repeat it to Sly as a rumor, and he repeats it to Cowherd, there's an hour of talk radio right there.
Well, that's not what happened. Cowherd wasn't involved at all in the sourcing of the leak; he was merely giving Stern a chance to put those rumors to rest. The Houston Chronicle was supposedly given the leak first-hand from someone in the Hornet organization. If the HC writer made it up, then Stern should be calling him out, and not Cowherd, who had literally nothing to do with it. You could probably read up on the entire timeline, and the 'leak', and come across as somewhat educated on the subject. Or, you could continue to make silly analogies that are so far offbase, they are actually embarrassing to read.
A detailed account of the Lakers/Paul deal. Note that Stern has been vehement in denying he had any knowledge of this deal prior to having to approve it, and now at least three sources call bullshit. http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/12/19/chris-paul-controversy-isnt-going-away/
Yeah, I saw all that in the press. Seems complicated and overly conspiratorial. More likely scenario: Demps calls NYC office (not Stern directly, he is home sleeping after the CBA overtime work): Hey, I am working on a deal with the Lakers. Man they are going to give up a TON of talent to get this deal done - Pau and Odom are involved. I want to run by all the gory details with you... NYC brass: Let me stop you right there. Have you talked to every team for all possible partners and scenarios? Is this the best deal out there for the future of the Hornets? Demps: Yes and Yes. But, I need to make sure Stern is good with it. NYC brass: I expect to see Stern tommorrow and will fill him in. But, bottom line is if this is the best that can be done and real talent is involved - not Kwame Brown - then the league office acting as owners of the team will approve. Deal get pushed ahead. Stern doesn't know all the details. Stern finds out details and blows his top at such a mediocre deal for the Hornets getting as far as it did. Poor communication during a very compressed free agent period seems far more plausible notion.
I might also suggest that it's not improbable that the league office was looking at the players/picks involved, and perhaps didn't look at the actual financial impact until it was sent to them for approval. I would not be surprised if they were reviewing it to make sure salaries matched up, and someone said, "Holy $#!%--how much additional salary are we taking back here?!", causing it to be "killed" after it had already been "approved".
OR... it was sent to the "League" for approval, much the same way as the Pau-for-Kwame trade or KG-for-stuff gift McHale gave...checking to make sure it worked under the cap, which exceptions went where, if draft picks were actually still available for them to trade, etc. From that front, the "League" approved it (it met all of the legal requirements for a trade). Then, when guys like Gilbert saw what happened, they (rightfully, imo) flipped out. I don't much believe Demps' (and writers' embellishment of Demps') complete autonomy over trades. There's not a GM in the league that can trade away the star player without ownership's involvement and buy-off. What makes Demps (or anyone else) think that he's different? In this case, this probably could've all been avoided had Demps just submitted the trade as a prospective one to the Board of Governors or Competition Committee (or in an email to Stern on behalf of the owners, if it came to that) for approval, just like he would've done with Shinn last year. But that doesn't seem to be what happened. And, again imo, he should've been fired for that. Not just making a trade completely contrary to the owners' philosophy ("get the team in a position to sell and to get my $300M back!")
I have 2 theories as to why Stern and his League Office appeared to reverse themselves. 1. Stern would make a great GM or owner. He knows what he's doing, and caught details that would escape you or me. 2. Stern was a rookie at doing this, caught details late, and embarrassed himself.
