Stern's Explanation for Veto Is Weak and Shallow

Chris Paul was a member of the Los Angeles Lakers. For a minute.

That was until David Stern stepped in and vetoed the deal for what he claimed were "basketball reasons."

While he looked bad yesterday and this morning for doing so and put the New Orleans Hornets in an impossible position to deal Paul in the future, what made Stern and the league look even worse was his explanation for his actions today.

His statement is as follows:

"

Since the NBA purchased the New Orleans Hornets, final responsibility for significant management decisions lies with the Commissioner's Office in consultation with team chairman Jac Sperling. All decisions are made on the basis of what is in the best interests of the Hornets.

In the case of the trade proposal that was made to the Hornets for Chris Paul, we decided, free from the influence of other NBA owners, that the team was better served with Chris in a Hornets uniform than by the outcome of the terms of that trade.

"

What he's accomplished by this is he's come off sounding weak and shallow.

The same guy that went toe to toe negotiating with the players for five months during the lockout, basically tucked his head between his legs and ran away at the first signs of criticism.

To his defense though, I guess he couldn't stand up and say "We spent five months trying to avoid this and we've accomplished nothing because the players are still calling the shots."

The problem with the whole situation isn't the trade; it's the way everything was handled afterwards and then Stern allowing the situation to get out of control.

Could they have got a better deal for Paul? Certainly.

But being the fact the NBA is the de facto owner of the Hornets and that they went through a five-month lockout to restore "competitive balance," to the league, what exactly did Stern think would happen with this trade being announced?

But once a deal is announced, going back and vetoing it puts him in a bad spot.

Whether your a small-market franchise or one that resides in a large market, how can anyone take anything that comes out of this guy's mouth seriously again?

What Stern needed to do was get in front of the situation and make a strong claim. Had he said something along the lines that the players won't dictate to the owners when or where they get traded any longer, then that would have been respectable.

What he didn't need to do was release a two-paragraph statement that has him coming off sounding weak and shallow.