Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Why did the NBA not veto the Cousins trade?

Eazy-E

By Eazy-E,
in Charlotte Hornets

Recommended Posts

Eazy-E Mentor

Eazy-E

Posted
Posted

I was thinking back to when the Lakers were set to acquire Chris Paul and the NBA veto'ed the trade because "it wasn't fair for all parties involved". The Cousins trade is the worst trade I can remember off the top of my head. I know Stern and Silver go about business a bit differently but holy poo they let the Kings fug them selves hard.

Tinfoil hat time: fug New Orleans. The NBA blocked the CP3 trade saying teams needed to give NO more value in return. Didn't bring up Houston really who were also involved in the deal. The deal that the Clippers offered many argue was a worse deal for NO besides the financial side of things. The Lakers were apparently dumping 40mill in contracts while still getting CP3. Add in the fugery of after losing CP3 in 2011 the NBA gifted NO the number 1 pick in the 2012 draft after Charlotte just suffered through the worst record in NBA history. Now, Charlotte loses All Star weekend and the NBA gives it to NO (this Allstar weekend was terrible imo). While All star weekend is going on the NBA allows one of the most lopsided trades in NBA history to go through. WTF NBA, go fug yourselves. What is your fuging love affair with New Orleans and why do you hate Charlotte so much.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SOJA Veteran

SOJA

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, The Lobo said:

Anthony Davis should be ours. F New Orleans.

really fug the nba- they were SELLING the team and magically new orleans ends up with the number one pick and the best prospect in decades

that was rigged New Orleans was getting the top pick no matter what that year, it was a race to number two.....which actually means we would have gotten that top pick had the nba not rigged it

 

shinn just had to fug us one more time 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Lobo Grand Master

The Lobo

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, SOJA said:

really fug the nba- they were SELLING the team and magically new orleans ends up with the number one pick and the best prospect in decades

that was rigged New Orleans was getting the top pick no matter what that year, it was a race to number two.....which actually means we would have gotten that top pick had the nba not rigged it

 

shinn just had to fug us one more time 

We had the worst record in NBA history (even with a strike to start the season) we should have had number 1 pick. That's why I hate the lottery. How can bad teams get better if the worst one doesn't pick first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Omega Atrocity Newbie

Omega Atrocity

Posted
Posted

The NBA can't block trades, the only person you have to blame for Boogie being in NOLA is Vivek and Vlade. That being said, I still really doubt they'll be any good, they have like 5 NBA players on their roster. Just because 2 out of the 5 are incredible doesn't really mean much, you need some depth.

Oh and the NBA blocked the Chris Paul trade because they owned the team at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...