The soonest the NBA could sell the team is summer 2011. Paul would be an expiring contract the 2011-12 season. So I doubt anyone buying the Hornets will expect Chris Paul to stick around for rebuilding.

martin wrote:Paul expires 2 summers from now. And no way they move Paul away from team before they sell it.

Chris Paul "expires" Summer 2012 because he has a player option for the 2012-13 season.

Anyone who buys the team isnt going want to deal with a Carmelo like situation with Chris Paul next year.

So the next best thing to making the team appealing is dumping as much long term salary as possible and collecting drafts in the process. Think Seattle Sonics before they moved to Oklahoma. They let Rashard Lewis go and traded Ray Allen. The Sonics then proceeded to tank.

martin wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:

martin wrote:Paul expires 2 summers from now. And no way they move Paul away from team before they sell it.

Chris Paul "expires" Summer 2012 because he has a player option for the 2012-13 season.

within your first post you wrote that Paul expire this summer, which is not right. He does indeed have an option after 2 summers.

AnubisADL wrote:Anyone who buys the team isnt going want to deal with a Carmelo like situation with Chris Paul next year.

So the next best thing to making the team appealing is dumping as much long term salary as possible and collecting drafts in the process. Think Seattle Sonics before they moved to Oklahoma. They let Rashard Lewis go and traded Ray Allen. The Sonics then proceeded to tank.

all of this is your assumption, which I disagree with. If you are an owner, you wont want to guy a team without a star on it, or rather, you would rather have Paul then NOT have him.

- I apologize. I wasnt clear the way I worded it.

- If your an owner you aren't going to pay more for a team with Chris Paul on it if he might not be their in 12 months.

martin wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:

martin wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:

martin wrote:Paul expires 2 summers from now. And no way they move Paul away from team before they sell it.

Chris Paul "expires" Summer 2012 because he has a player option for the 2012-13 season.

within your first post you wrote that Paul expire this summer, which is not right. He does indeed have an option after 2 summers.

AnubisADL wrote:Anyone who buys the team isnt going want to deal with a Carmelo like situation with Chris Paul next year.

So the next best thing to making the team appealing is dumping as much long term salary as possible and collecting drafts in the process. Think Seattle Sonics before they moved to Oklahoma. They let Rashard Lewis go and traded Ray Allen. The Sonics then proceeded to tank.

all of this is your assumption, which I disagree with. If you are an owner, you wont want to guy a team without a star on it, or rather, you would rather have Paul then NOT have him.

- I apologize. I messed up.

- If your an owner you aren't going to pay more for a team with Chris Paul on it if he might not be their in 12 months.

here is the reality of the situation: the Hornets are draining money. Shinn is a douchebag owner who has like zero management skills, NBA front office is probably glad to be rid of him.

If you are a prospective owner and buyer, you need to fill seats and create energy for the team, and there is no way better then having a star like Paul on the team, he still has 1 solid year after this summer.

Forget about the Melo situation, that has little barring on a buys willingness to purchase a team, it's the VALUE of the team that an owner looks at, and it's better with Paul than without.

Just to clarify Im looking at this from the POV of the NBA. The Hornets are DEAD last in attendance with Chris Paul and losing money. Trading Paul to a larger market helps the NBA Brand and will likely raise another teams attendance. That also means $$$ in the NBA's pocket.

Source: http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance

cheers wrote:just checked the link clippers are 15th WOW those are loyal fans.

It's similar to the situation with the Mets: Despite that there's a great team in the same area, not everyone will root for a winner with a great history. Some people are just masochistic and have to root for a loser franchise with no hope. There's a lot of people there, so it's probably much easier to get tickets for a loser franchise.

We've obtained audited financial data for David Stern's new prize, the New Orleans Hornets. The statements cover 2008 and 2009, and among other things they paint a picture of a team already in hock to the NBA.

Two things jump out, at least to this layman's eyes: the team's operating income, which in 2008 was a $6.4 million loss and in 2009 was a $5.9 million gain (slide 11), though that latter figures includes $3.4 million in revenue assistance from the NBA (slide 28); and the team's net cash in operating activities, which represents the "measurement of money [owner George Shinn] is being asked to take out of his pocket to keep operations going," according to sports economist Andrew Zimbalist. In 2008, that amount was $7.4 million; in 2009, $1.4 million (slide 13). Zimbalist points out that "things got much more problematic for the franchise" the following year.

Also of note: As of June 30, 2009, the partners' deficit totaled $83 million (slide 14). The team's share of national broadcast rights payments was $26 million in 2008 and $28 million in 2009 (slide 28). And in 2008, the Hornets were told they had received revenue-sharing money in error for the 2005-06 season — $2.8 million, by the looks of it (slide 27). The money was paid back in 2009.

We'll have more on this later.

Source: http://deadspin.com/5708313/the-new-orleans-hornets-sad-financial-documents/gallery/

A more detailed analysis can be found at http://www.nola.com/hornets/index.ssf/2010/12/audit_shows_losses_by_george_s.html

From what I gather the NBA essentially foreclosed on the Hornets. So selling the team could just be a potential buyer paying off the teams debt.