Chris Paul Trade Rumors: Why Deal with Los Angeles Lakers Was Killed off by NBA

The "basketball reasons" explanation aside, it's not a big mystery why the NBA put the nix on the Chris Paul trade to the Lakers—the small-market teams simply couldn't palate the notion of yet another Lakers dynasty being formed around Chris Paul. 

Now there's been a ton of criticism, both of the NBA and of Dan Gilbert, the leader of the small-market owners who wrote the letter that allegedly killed the deal. While some of that criticism is fair, it also seems that the conversation is a bit one-sided. 

The deal that the Lakers put together was fair, and it was fair for all parties involved, and the truth of the matter is that it probably wasn't just about this deal, but the expected follow-up punch that was to come.

There was a feeling that the follow-up punch was going to be shortly delivered that could send Dwight Howard to the Lakers. 

Therein, as they say, lies the rub. The Howard deal, if it occurred, the league would in a far more precarious position to block. 

After the lockout, which was as much about the so-called "small market" teams being able to retain competitive balance with the superpowers like Boston and Los Angeles, this is the worst possible situation. 

It goes without saying that they can't do that if every time a superstar hits the preseason of their seventh year in the league, they stomp their feet, pout and demand a trade. 

It's apparent to everyone that this isn't so much about the return in the trade as it is the team that's getting the superstar. 

There is a provision in the CBA which is there to help protect the small-market teams. It stipulates that players can't make as much money or for as many years unless they re-sign with their present team.

It's why players, like Carmelo Anthony did last year, try to push a sign-and-trade to their preferred destination. 

It's in their best interest to get traded before their contract expires. 

It's also normally presented that it's in the teams' best interest to trade the player and "get something for him" rather than wait for the contract to expire. In the new CBA, the most years a player can sign for as a free agent with a new team is four years. He can sign for five if he signs with an existing team. 

Simply put, if Chris Paul wants to take less money, and supposedly he is willing to, to go somewhere else and play he can, but the NBA, the owners of the Hornets, aren't obligated to trade him so that he can both go where he wants and make more money. 

The NBA could be willing to just push this issue rather than see Paul force his way into a trade. 

Let's be clear here. Chris Paul was not wronged. That's not to say he was wrong, either. However, he did sign a contract with the Hornets, and he is under contract with them for this year. The Hornets, and their owner, are not contractually obligated to trade him. He is contractually obligated to play for them. 

At this point, no team is even going to want to talk to New Orleans about a trade. Chris Paul, if he plays this year, will have to do so as a Hornet unless something happens (which is unlikely) that forces the trade to go through. 

You could argue that the Hornets were wronged, and they could challenge the ruling, but the owners of the Hornets were the ones who nixed the trade, so it's unlikely that is going to happen.

The problem is that Paul doesn't really have a case because the Hornets are not legally obligated to trade him and if worse comes to worse, Stern can just argue that as the owners, they did not approve the actions of the GM. 

If Gar Forman worked out a trade that Jerry Reinsdorf nixed, there's nothing the players involved would be able to do about it. 

The bottom line is it looks like the NBA has decided to make Paul the "example" to NBA superstars, telling him, "No, you don't get to force a trade. Stay here and finish your contract." And that's the bottom line.

The NBA has a rule in place that gives them an incentive keep their stars, and they are going to implement that. 

Now, it's fair to say that should have been their position from the beginning rather than making it known he could be dealt. This isn't so much about a conspiracy against the Lakers (as though the entire NBA has been stacked against LA for all these years!) as it is about the lockout and the fallout from it.