(04-10-2025, 01:02 PM)F Gump Wrote: The Chris Paul trade is often cited as a precedent of the league voiding a trade for arbitrary reasons, but it was not. The NBA did not step in and reject that deal (even though many mistakenly believed that was what happened). Instead, it was the ownership of NO who decided they did not want to do it.
This bit is not fully accurate. The Hornet were owned by the 29 other NBA teams at that time. This is why David Stern was the Commissioner of the League while also serving as the de facto owner of the Hornets.
So you can not say that, "the NBA did not step in and reject that deal". Or say that, "it was the ownership of NO who decided they did not want the trade and not the NBA", like as if it was a separate or different entity or group who owned them.
Stern nullified the trade because other team owners did not want it to happen and protested the trade to the league. The other owners thought that the Lakers would once again win multiple championships with a back-court of Kobe and CP3. Stern provided a reason/excuse of, “we thought it was in the best interests of the Hornets that CP3 stay in a Hornets uniform”. Yet 6 days later, CP3 got traded to the Clippers for what turned out to be a worse (?) haul. Goran Dragic was part of the package the Hornets were meant to receive from the Lakers and Houston. He was better than the players they received: Eric Gordon, Al Farouq Aminu, Chris Kaman and Austin Rivers.
Anyway, I agree with you, it’s naive to think that the league can nullify this Luka-AD trade, especially after what Nico and Dumont have been saying. Also, Nico should have definitely pushed to get Austin Reaves as part of the deal. I can't imagine anyone saying no, lol. That would have given the Mavs another play-maker and trade asset, and weakened the Lakers too.