Trade ideas

[infection]

A couple ideas I’d try to work with is unloading some of our value to improve some of our picks. What I mean is something like getting Clarkson to LA for them to drop the protections on the pick. It’d have to include a third team because there’s nothing we’re taking back from them. Then if we could send out anything of value to Minnesota, or route something elsewhere with something else to Minnesota, to drop the protections on the last pick.

 

[HermanG]

Probably a bit off on my part... but you selected a sample. I was referring to the history of star trades... not just the last few.

Once they knew they were not getting a star they absolutely prioritized capspace so it for sure counts. By that logic I can throw Portland in there because they preferred no salary back... so 5/10.

Oh brother. Wrong again but go ahead and look it up for yourself.

I said 9 out of 10... which is off... I did not say 9 of the last 10. A sample you handpicked and still didn't get it right. Over a bigger sample it probably isn't 90% but its still a majority. It isn't always possible because the "preferred destinations" don't always have the perfect matching salary.

Dude.... "Selected/handpicked a sample" when I used the last 10? Really? The most honest, current and relevant sample you could use. I dont know why you keep scrambling and try to throw shade at me here. I'm not "truthtelling" here, you are. I simply questionned your point, and you already admitted it was valid criticism.

My larger point still stands. If you acquired Collins to use him as a component of a star trade you are doing it wrong. None of those examples represent John's individual trade value accurately. All of the players included in those deals had first round value or damn close to it or the trading team did not have expiring salary to substitute in for the player (Brogdon, Williams, Sexton would fit here). John does not have first round value.

I dont disagree with the notion that its a bad idea if DA traded Collins to use him as a pawn. They were celebrating the amount of tradable contracts we have last spring, which has now transpired into having too many guys who need minutes. So if Collins is just another tradable contract then its a really bad look. I personally think Collins was acquired as a true reclamation project. But if he rehabs his value to any extent Danny will for sure take calls on him and abandon that project as soon as he sees dollar signs. Collins is not looking like a building block, at least not at the moment.

Also Collins acquisition is not looking much worse as it appears Hendricks actually might be as ready as advertised.... which is also why I didn't love the trade despite advocating it during last season.

 

[HermanG]

I guess if we are just going to make **** up and count how we want then we shouldn't discuss. The subsequent deals don't matter, what the team wanted doesn't matter... what matters is what happened. Like when Portland flips Brogdon for an expiring contract are you going to throw that one back in my column?

What the seller wanted doesnt matter? Wow. Thats rich from a Jazz fan. Maybe Lakers fans can say that. Like we would ever have the leverage the Clippers had where we can say "No, we are not giving up our 4th best player Terance Mann".

Also you said:

Harden - Expiring salaries were a priority

Priority as a word implies its what the seller wanted. But it wasnt. Priority was actually players, and they settled for expirings because the situation was inflating and escalating quickly.

 

[HermanG]

Oh brother. Wrong again but go ahead and look it up for yourself.

Also had to return to this point, since you are obviously counting Beasley as an expiring contract despite the team option. To say that DA wanted him as an expiring is just pure specualation.

The FO clearly wanted young talent under team control which makes sense when you are entering the rebuild as the Utah Jazz. It is also apparent by the Sexton sign-and-trade being part of the Cavs package. I'm pretty sure Cavs had expiring money to give. I mean didnt they have Kevin Love in the books for a 25M or something expiring? Vando and Beasley were both under team control for 2 years, Lauri for 3 and Sexton for 4.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

What the seller wanted doesnt matter? Wow. Thats rich from a Jazz fan. Maybe Lakers fans can say that. Like we would ever have the leverage the Clippers had where we can say "No, we are not giving up our 4th best player Terance Mann".

Also you said:

Priority as a word implies its what the seller wanted. But it wasnt. Priority was actually players, and they settled for expirings because the situation was inflating and escalating quickly.

They knew they wouldn’t get a star. It was reported they wanted cap space. It was second on the list like if I told Santa I want a billion dollars and then he says try again… and I say I’ll have some new basketball shoes.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Also had to return to this point, since you are obviously counting Beasley as an expiring contract despite the team option. To say that DA wanted him as an expiring is just pure specualation.

Beasley had the exact type of contract I was saying you go get if you want to make deals (big or small). There is a reason he was able to be moved twice in 6 months. Yes he counts as an expiring… his deal ended up expiring… the TO was a feature that increased his value and trade ability.

The FO clearly wanted young talent under team control which makes sense when you are entering the rebuild as the Utah Jazz. It is also apparent by the Sexton sign-and-trade being part of the Cavs package. I'm pretty sure Cavs had expiring money to give. I mean didnt they have Kevin Love in the books for a 25M or something expiring? Vando and Beasley were both under team control for 2 years, Lauri for 3 and Sexton for 4.

Kevin would mean they had to take back even more salary. They also wanted the flexibility. Sexton was not required in that trade but he was adequate.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Dude.... "Selected/handpicked a sample" when I used the last 10? Really? The most honest, current and relevant sample you could use. I dont know why you keep scrambling and try to throw shade at me here. I'm not "truthtelling" here, you are. I simply questionned your point, and you already admitted it was valid criticism.

You selected a sample… current or past you limited the sample… when you expand it the percentage of star or big trades that included expirings and salary flexibility gets more pronounced.

I dont disagree with the notion that its a bad idea if DA traded Collins to use him as a pawn. They were celebrating the amount of tradable contracts we have last spring, which has now transpired into having too many guys who need minutes. So if Collins is just another tradable contract then its a really bad look. I personally think Collins was acquired as a true reclamation project. But if he rehabs his value to any extent Danny will for sure take calls on him and abandon that project as soon as he sees dollar signs. Collins is not looking like a building block, at least not at the moment.

Also Collins acquisition is not looking much worse as it appears Hendricks actually might be as ready as advertised.... which is also why I didn't love the trade despite advocating it during last season.

Whatever man… so argue and bend things to agree with me? You win… cap flexibility is not something needed in star trades. Teams prefer mid-*** players on ginormous contracts most of the time.

 

[infection]

the TO was a feature that increased his value and trade ability.

When you say “trade ability” instead of “tradability,” in my mind it puts a much larger emphasis on the “ability” portion and I believe there’s someone here to collect his royalties.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

When you say “trade ability” instead of “tradability,” in my mind it puts a much larger emphasis on the “ability” portion and I believe there’s someone here to collect his royalties.

View attachment 15524

It autocorrected me and I didn’t want to change it lol.

 

[infection]

It autocorrected me and I didn’t want to change it lol.

Patent-ability lawsuit against Apple incoming.

 

[HermanG]

You selected a sample… current or past you limited the sample… when you expand it the percentage of star or big trades that included expirings and salary flexibility gets more pronounced.

Whatever man… so argue and bend things to agree with me? You win… cap flexibility is not something needed in star trades. Teams prefer mid-*** players on ginormous contracts most of the time.

I dont want to fight with you. I just think while expirings are good for trades in general, the star player prices have been picks ++ for a while.

The analysts keep blaming the CBA rules for killing the FA markets, where the sign-and-trade especially plays a huge part. It protects the small clubs as well giving them return for their stars that dont want to re-sign and stay, but it makes rebuilding a lot tougher if you arent a destination.

However getting Collins is comparable to FA signing. Overpay on the salary, but use cap to add talent. People who hate it would have hated it even if it wasnt a trade.

 

[infection]

However getting Collins is comparable to FA signing. Overpay on the salary, but use cap to add talent. People who hate it would have hated it even if it wasnt a trade.

I believe people would have liked it less because they would have seen it for what it really was: tying up the cap. Instead it was seen as JC > Gay + second rounder.