Sources said that the Hornets have actually been trying to convince the Warriors to part with Curry since before last season's trade deadline in February.
On the surface, Chris Paul for Stephen Curry sounds like a no brainer trade. But before people think this is another Speedy Claxton for Baron Davis, there are some big pitfalls involved. First, Stephen Curry is a much better player than Speedy Claxton ever was and at 23, he's yet to reach his prime. Second, the market for Baron Davis circa 2004 was limited. Remember this was the disgruntled, slightly overweight Baron Davis who clashed with Byron Scott, a coach who had taken the Nets to back-to-back NBA Finals. The Warriors knew they could sign Davis to an extension with not too many suitors out there. Chris Paul on the other had is one of the Top 3 point guards in the league. Every team with cap room will make a run at him and he knows it so why sign an extension when you can play for a year and get the gold rush in the summer of 2012? Curry for a one year rental of Paul is not a good move.
Paul has stated he would be more willing (though not guaranteed) to sign an extension with a team that acquired his buddy Tyson Chandler. The Warriors are pushing towards that and he would be an upgrade over Biedrins - some offense, good defense/rebounding, veteran leadership, playoff experience. Still, I don't see a starting 5 of Paul/Ellis/Wright/Lee/Chandler as anything more than the 4th or 5th best team in the West. Definitely an improvement but nowhere near what it would take to be a contender.
News came today that Byron Scott was fired from the 3-6 Hornets. Kind of a surprise but it's indicative of what elite teams are willing to do to right the ship. Contrast that with mediocre teams like the W's or Clippers who stick by inept coaches and GM's far too long. In the end, I think all big decisions start with ownership. Donald Sterling and Chris Cohan are too stubborn/stupid to realize they are the reasons their teams aren't good.