The Chris Paul Trade Debacle Explained - Why David Stern is Right

It comes as a surprise that seemingly every basketball analyst, television, radio or otherwise, seems to have completely missed what Commissioner David Stern's decision to veto the initial proposed three team trade that would send Chris Paul from the Hornets to the Lakers was all about.

This decision was about money, plain and simple.

Read on after the break to see how...
The league and it's 29 owners expect at least a $300 million payday when the NBA, which currently owns the Hornets, sells the team to a new owner.  The veto of the trade was made in the interest of making the Hornets as attractive an asset as possible to a potential owner.  Would you want to buy a team that just sent away its lone superstar and fan favorite in return for "serviceable" players.  The truth is, the League wants at least some "star-power" in New Orleans to attract a new big-money owner.  Commissioner Stern would gladly sign off on a trade that brought in a household name or two in exchange for Paul.  As the seller of an extremely high priced commodity, the league made the sensible business decision.

Are Luis Scola, Goran Dragic, Kevin Martin and Lamar Odom going to excite the fans enough to pay $150 for tickets, never mind a businessman to lay down $500 mil for the franchise?

The answer is clearly no.  If the Hornets don't get any star power i.e. at least Pau Gasol in return for Paul, then the Commissioner is not going to make the deal happen.

The only way that the NBA approves a trade without any star headed back to New Orleans is if they get very young, talented players with small contracts as well as draft picks.

It would be a much more attractive option to buy a team with even an unhappy superstar in Chris Paul and plenty of cap space to try and convince him to stay than it would be to be weighed down by contracts for mediocre to decent role players.

The argument against this seems to be that "if Chris Paul were to walk away at the end of the season, the Hornets get absolutely nothing for him in return."

Exactly!

Why, as a new owner with say a net worth of over $1 billion, would you want to be stuck with the contracts of players like Odom, Dragic, Martin and Scola?  These are guys who you may not even want, guys who won't generate enough excitement to sell tickets, guys who aren't the foundation of a perennial playoff contender.  You would want to have all the $$ to spend to make a team over in your image.  New owners want to build a team according to their plan, so why would the league take away the option of spending as much money possible on assets that an owner actually wants?