The proposed Chris Paul trade to the Los Angeles Lakers has created a firestorm.

The Hornets, who are owned by the league which acquired it from George Shinn a year ago, realized it was unlikely they would be able to retain Paul with a contract extension or in free agency after he opted out of his contract after this season.

So New Orleans general manager Dell Demps, a respected player personnel man who came from the respected San Antonio Spurs, went to work, hoping to get something for Paul instead of nothing if he left in free agency. Or in Stern’s words, “Getting something more for that player in the event he will leave than if he stays.”

Demps, in his second year as GM of the Hornets, arranged a huge three-team trade with the Lakers and the Houston Rockets: Paul to the Lakers; Los Angeles forward Lamar Odom to the Hornets and Los Angeles forward Pau Gasol to the Rockets, who would have sent forward Luis Scola, guards Kevin Martin and Goran Dragic and a first-round draft pick to New Orleans.

Stern got serious pressure from a number of owners, including Cavs owner Dan Gilbert, who fired off a letter to Stern and other owners calling the trade a travesty.

This trade should go to a vote of the 29 owners of the Hornets.

Over the next three seasons this deal would save the Lakers approximately $20 million in salaries and approximately $21 million in luxury taxes. That $21 million goes to non-taxpaying teams and to fund revenue sharing.

I cannot remember ever seeing a trade where a team got by far the best player in the trade and saved over $40 million in the process. And it doesn’t appear that they would give up any draft picks, which might allow to later make a trade for Dwight Howard.

The teams are still talking in an attempt to salvage the deal and they have appealed Stern’s decision.

Meanwhile, Stern and the NBA are being savaged by commentators everywhere. Here’s Bill Simmons and Micheal Wilbon.

If you haven’t heard already, Bill Simmons and ESPN have launched a new website at Grantland.com. It will feature longer form articles from Simmons along with other writers, including notable scribes like Malcolm Gladwell.

There’s never a shortage of topics for someone as prolific as Simmons, but he must have been thrilled to kick off his new site immediately following the bizarre Game 4 performance by LeBron James. His first column is classic Simmons, as he analyzes the LeBron situation from every possible angle, starting with The Decision:

Fact: The Decision special drew a better rating than the 2008 Finals, became an iconic moment, turned Jim Gray into a punching bag, gave bloggers a month of free shots at ESPN and turned “Taking my talents to South Beach” into a jack-of-all-trades phrase that meant you were about to leave your job, take a dump or pleasure yourself.

I wonder how long he had that line in his pocket . . .

Anyways, he gives his overall assessment of LeBron James, and I agree with most of it:

a. I think he’s one of the greatest athletes who ever lived. I will never forget watching him in person with a full head of steam, blowing through opponents like a Pop Warner running back who’s 30 pounds heavier and three seconds faster than everyone else. I am glad he passed through my life. I will tell my grandkids that I saw him play.

b. From game to game, I think the ceiling for his performance surpasses any other basketball player ever except for Wilt and Jordan.

c. As a basketball junkie, I will never totally forgive him for spending his first eight years in the NBA without ever learning a single post-up move. That weapon would make him immortal. He doesn’t care. It’s maddening.

d. In pressure moments, he comes and goes … and when it goes, it’s gone. He starts throwing hot-potato passes, stops driving to the basket, shies away from open 3s, stands in the corner, hides as much as someone that gifted can hide on a basketball court. It started happening in Game 3, then fully manifested itself in Game 4′s stunning collapse, when he wouldn’t even consider beating DeShawn Stevenson off the dribble. Afterward, one of my closest basketball friends — someone who has been defending LeBron’s ceiling for years — finally threw up his hands and gave up. “It’s over,” he said. “Jordan never would have done THAT.” (Footnote: That’s the third time LeBron opened the door for someone to say that. The first: Game 5 of the Boston series. The second: choosing to play with Wade.)

The only part of the above I disagree with is the following: “In pressure moments, he comes and goes … and when it goes, it’s gone.” This implies that he only has epic meltdowns, but this just isn’t true. Everyone will remember Game 5 last year against Boston and Game 4 against the Mavs, but there have been countless time where LeBron has had serious lapses of judgement in critical moments. It usually involves getting careless and tossing up a senseless three at times when the team desperately needs a bucket without even trying to get into the offense, let alone setting up for a post-up move or other high-percentage shot. As a Cavs fan I saw this repeatedly, to the point where it became hard to root for the guy. Go back and watch the Cavs-Orlando series from 2009. People remember LeBron’s big three to win Game 2, but that was negated by numerous brain farts throughout the series.

I have no idea what LeBron will do tonight. As Simmons points out, he’s capable of having a legendary game, but he’s also capable of wilting under pressure. Anything is possible, and that’s why most fans can’t wait to watch . . .

I have been harping about Russell Westbrook’s play at the point for the last few games and it’s nice to hear that Bill Simmons is seeing the same things I am. Here is his take on the Westbrook/Durant dynamic as part of his salute to “The Wire.”

Sorry, I’m not done with Westbrook yet. Oklahoma City has enough talent to win the 2011 title — it’s sitting right there for them — but it’s going to hinge on how Westbrook runs the show. There’s a game beyond the f**king game and I don’t think he can totally see it yet. He’s learning on the fly. A crash course, if you will. I don’t trust him yet. Stephon Marbury never found that balance between scoring and creating; Allen Iverson only found it when they moved him off the ball. Can Westbrook find it on the fly? Either way, Durant’s unreal fourth quarter in Game 5 was the best reality check possible: He basically hired Brother Mouzone and Omar to shoot Stringer Westbrook. We’ll see if he comes back from the dead.

That reminds me, I thought Chuck and Kenny did a spectacular job of breaking down Westbrook’s struggles in Game 5 — he took some heat for the first time (for Game 4) and it clearly affected him, but as Kenny pointed out (I’m paraphrasing), if you want to be great, you need to learn how to handle being the hero and being the goat. That’s the final stage for a basketball player. Durant struggled earlier in the season, took some heat, questioned himself a little, and ultimately, it made him stronger. Now it’s Westbrook’s turn. To be continued.

The Thunder aren’t going to beat the Grizzlies (who are simply on a mission right now) if Westbrook doesn’t learn how to play point guard on the fly. He seemingly hasn’t learned how to exercise good shot selection or set his teammates up in three years, so it’s doubtful that he’s going to be able to learn it in three games.

In his annual trade value column, Bill Simmons discusses how Andrew Bynum’s first six seasons rank amongst his historical peers.

38. Andrew Bynum
A list of the most memorable centers and power forwards of the past 35 years organized by their first six regular seasons for “games played,” “games missed” and “number of seasons in which they played 90 percent of the games.”

Dwight Howard: 489 — 3 — 6
Karl Malone: 489 — 3 — 6
Tim Duncan: 451 — 9 — 5
David Robinson: 475 — 17 — 5
Kevin McHale: 475 — 17 — 5
Charles Barkley: 472 — 20 — 6
Dikembe Mutombo: 471 –21 — 5
Robert Parish: 469 — 23 — 5
Hakeem Olajuwon: 468 — 24 — 5
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: 467 — 25 — 5
Dirk Nowitzki: 444 — 48 — 5
Kevin Garnett: 442 — 50 — 5
Patrick Ewing: 438 — 54 — 4
Moses Malone: 428 — 66 — 4
Alonzo Mourning: 409 — 83 — 2
Shaquille O’Neal: 408 — 84 — 2
Yao Ming: 404 — 88 — 3
Ralph Sampson: 395 — 97 — 3
Chris Webber: 329 — 131 — 1
Andrew Bynum: 309 — 169 — 1
Bill Walton: 223 — 269 — 0
Sam Bowie: 207 — 285 — 1
Greg Oden: 82 — 266 — 0

What jumps out? First, the durable guys remained durable throughout their careers, with just one exception: McHale, who ruined the second half of his career by bravely (and some would say foolishly) playing on a broken foot in the 1987 playoffs. Second, anyone who missed more than 80 games and couldn’t play in 90 percent of the games in at least four of their first six seasons went on to have injury-plagued careers. (That includes Shaq, who played more than 68 games in a season just six times and missed an average of 18 games per season.) And third, if you can’t stay on the court at your youngest/healthiest/freshest/most energetic, it’s a pretty safe bet that things won’t change as you get older. It’s straight DNA: Some dudes are structurally built for 82-game NBA seasons, others aren’t. So if you make the argument “If Bynum can stay healthy, he’s a franchise center,” just make sure you also mention that we have 35 years of evidence that there’s a tipping point when “If he can stay healthy …” becomes “… he’s not going to stay healthy.” We’re there with Andrew Bynum. He’s not going to stay healthy. If I were the Lakers, I would trade him right now.

(Actually, what am I saying? They should definitely keep him! The guy is built like solid oak!)

I still don’t know why the Lakers are so intent on holding onto Bynum in this scenario unless they are simply convinced that Carmelo wouldn’t fit in with the 2011 Lakers or are going all in, hoping that Bynum’s knees will hold up until the end of June so that Kobe can get his sixth ring.

Bynum doesn’t even finish games, so the Lakers are theoretically passing on a multiple All-NBA forward for a guy who always rides the pine in crunch time. It’s truly ponderous — I don’t care what Jon Barry says.

David Stern visited Bill Simmons’ podcast on Monday and discussed a wide-ranging set of issues, including a potential lockout and the possibility that the Hornets are contracted.

Whether the NBA will try to prevent locked-out players such as Kobe Bryant and Dirk Nowitzki, while still under contract to their NBA teams, from playing abroad during a potential work stoppage

“If, in fact, there’s a lockout, then the player is free during the course of the lockout to do what he wants to do if his contract is in effect. I don’t want to play that game with anybody. … If we have a collective bargaining arrangement with the union and there’s a lockout, then last time around [in 1998] players were free to do what they’re going to do, because they’ve been locked out.”

Conspiracy theories suggesting that one of the league’s motivations in buying the Hornets was to give itself the ability to easily contract one team for leverage in upcoming labor negotiations

“Well, I guess all I would say to that is that wouldn’t be a conspiracy. I know that there are some owners who might share that view. … Anything that we do gets done by a majority of the owners. All you’re stating is a potential third option. But right now we are steaming full speed ahead with every single possible [intent] to make that team successful in New Orleans, and I think we’re going to succeed. So we’re going to make it unattractive to move it or contract it.”

Click here to listen to the entire podcast.

I just listened to Bill Simmons’ post-Super Bowl podcast and he said that if the Giants had held on to beat the Eagles in Week 15, the Packers wouldn’t have made the playoffs. Peter King also said that the Packers have the Eagles to thank for their playoff berth.

Green Bay finished 10-6, the last Wild Card team and sixth seed in the NFC, by virtue of winning tiebreakers with the 10-6 Giants and 10-6 Bucs. We all know the Giants story: Up 31-10 over Philly at home with eight minutes left in the game, the Giants gave up 28 points in the last half of the fourth quarter and lost 38-31. The killer was punter Matt Dodge blowing the game and keeping a punt to DeSean Jackson inbounds with 14 seconds left in a 31-all game. Jackson returned it 65 yards for a touchdown. Who knows what would have happened if that game went to overtime, but that’ll stay a mystery.

Maybe I’m missing something here because, clearly, I’m not in the same league as Bill Simmons and Peter King. It appears that Simmons and King are counting the Giants’ win in Week 15, but aren’t considering the Eagles’ loss. If the Eagles lose that game in Week 15, they don’t win the East. The Giants win it at 11-5. Assuming Philly beats Dallas in Week 17 (a reasonable assumption since they didn’t play many of their starters in a 14-13 loss), the Eagles would have finished 10-6 and would have been tied with Tampa Bay and Green Bay for the 6th and final spot in the NFC. This assumes the Eagles would have still lost to the Vikings in Week 16, which is a fair assumption since they played their starters.

The first tiebraker between three teams is a head-to-head sweep, which isn’t applicable because the Bucs didn’t play either the Packers or the Eagles. The second tiebraker is conference record. The Bucs and Packers went 8-4 while the Eagles would have gone 7-5 (with a loss against NYG but a win against DAL), so the Eagles would have been eliminated at this point.

The next tiebraker is record in common games. Both teams were 2-3 in common games. The Packers beat the 49ers and the Lions, and lost to the Lions, Redskins and Falcons. The Bucs beat the 49ers and Redskins, and lost to the Falcons twice and the Lions.

The next tiebraker is strength of victory. I’m not sure how this is calculated or where I can find it, but acccording to CBSSports.com, that was the tiebraker that gave the Packers the No. 6 seed over the Giants and Bucs:

Green Bay is the No. 6 seed over the N.Y. Giants and Tampa Bay based on strength of victory (.475 to the Giants’ .400 and the Buccaneers’ .344).

So the Packers would have gotten the No. 6 seed over the Bucs. They would have played the Giants in the first round of the playoffs. Maybe they would have won or maybe they would have lost, but either way, they would have made the postseason.

So Bill Simmons and Peter King (and anyone else), please stop talking about the Week 15 Giants/Eagles game with regard to the Packers’ Super Bowl win. Thank you.

In his latest column, which is mostly about how certain NBA players are defying the aging process, Bill Simmons theorizes why stats are so much more important to baseball fans than they are to basketball fans.

For whatever reason, basketball fans don’t care about career NBA numbers like baseball fans care about baseball numbers. I see four reasons for this: (1) baseball has been around almost twice as long as basketball; (2) baseball’s signature threshold numbers are famously identifiable (500, 3,000 and 300), as are the players who broke its major records, whereas your average sports fan would struggle to answer questions like “Who leads the NBA in career scoring?”; (3) statistics matter more in baseball because it’s an individual sport; and (4) we need to throw ourselves into baseball statistics because the sport itself is so f—— boring. If we were eating lunch and I told you, “Johnny Damon has 2,571 hits right now,” that would mean something to you. If you’re a true baseball fan, you would process that information in 0.008 seconds and think, “He needs 429 for 3,000, that’s doable!” But if I told you “Dirk Nowitzki has 21,925 points right now,” you wouldn’t think anything other than, “That’s a lot.”

I agree with all four points. The only basketball stats I really care about are per game or season stats and that’s because I play fantasy hoops. It doesn’t really matter who is the league’s all-time leading scorer or who has dished out the most assists. The number of championships (Kobe potentially passing Michael Jordan in rings) is one that is important to a lot of NBA fans.

Keep in mind that Simmons, a Clippers season ticket holder, made a similar case last year that LeBron should come to L.A. and look how that turned out.

Anyway, here’s his case:

Griffin is the most meaningful in-the-air player since Shawn Kemp. Throw in his competitive streak and he did the impossible — he made Baron Davis care about basketball again. As my friend Tollin said last week, “It’s amazing; it’s like Baron has a purpose again.” He’s Blake’s dunk muse. Now the Clips have the foundation of something special: Griffin, Davis, Eric Gordon (a future All-Star) and enough left to make a legitimate offer for Denver: lottery pick Al-Farouq Aminu, Chris Kaman, expiring contracts and the rights to Minnesota’s unprotected 2012 pick (nearly as valuable a trade chip as Favors) for Carmelo and Al Harrington’s horrendous contract that’s the Carmelo Trade Tax. Mrs. Anthony could live in Hollywood and make her next unwatchable reality show. And her husband could play with Griffin, Gordon, Davis, Eric Bledsoe and DeAndre Jordan … a situation that’s between five and 20 times more appealing than New Jersey. Even when you include Donald Sterling.

From a basketball/quality of living standpoint, you couldn’t do much better than the situation with the Clippers. Anthony-Griffin-Gordon would make an excellent trio to build around and I’ll agree that the building blocks the Clippers could offer (Aminu, Kaman and Minnesota’s unprotected 2012 pick) are almost as good as what the Nets can offer.

But there’s one thing that stands in the way: Donald Sterling. The Nets’ owner, Mikhail Prokhorov, a.k.a. the Russian Mark Cuban, is infinitely more impressive and Simmons notes that LeBron thought that the Nets meeting was right up there with the Heat’s last summer.

It will be nice for Chauncey Billups and Rip Hamilton land in New Jersey with Melo, but only for a year or two, as both players are past their respective primes. It’s really about Brook Lopez and Mikhail Prokhorov versus Blake Griffin, Eric Gordon and Donald Sterling.

Bill Simmons picks the Pats over the Jets in the AFC East this year, and here’s why:

First, I seem to be the only person who remembers that the Jets were 9-7 last year. You’d think they went 19 and minus-3. Second, I don’t trust the Sanchize even a little. Not a smidge. Unless he was trying to get us drinks from a crowded bar and the bartender was a cute female. Third, all the fuss about New England’s admittedly shaky defense obscured its explosive offense: The Pats are loaded at receiver and tight end, they have Brady, they can chuck the ball with anyone and they’re pissed off that nobody is picking them. And fourth, I’m a huge homer. So there.

I forgot that the Jets lost seven games last year…hmm…

Through five or six episodes of “Hard Knocks,” Rex Ryan does seem to be full of bluster, and Sanchez looked fairly brutal in the preseason. They’ll have a strong running game and a good/great defense, but I’m not sure that makes them the Super Bowl favorites that they seem to think they are.

Pats homer Bill Simmons wrote this in his recent column about Tom Brady’s new hairdo…

Important note: A few weeks ago, all Patriots fans made a pact to pretend that Brady’s 2010 hairdo isn’t happening. We’re going to ignore it completely — even if his hair catches fire during a game and a referee puts it out with a challenge flag — and play dumb whenever you bust our balls about it. Which will probably be often. Just know this is the last time I will mention No. 12′s hair in 2010. In fact, what hair? Tom Brady changed his hair? I didn’t notice.

He looks like he should be playing a gym teacher in one of the “Twilight” movies.

See more pictures (with captions!) after the jump…

Read the rest of this entry »