Thread Tools

Display Modes

B-Roy · 07-11-2008, 05:44 PM

Quote:

You keep making conclusory statements as if they are some sort of fact or evidence.

You saying that they won't get more than capspace is your opinion, but it's not a fact. I hate to guess about your mindset, but I bet if I had asked you yesterday if the Knicks could get instant cap relief for Zach you'd have said "no".

It appears that that (hypothetical) opinion has been proven incorrect. I believe that your latest "they will get nothing more than capspace" prediction will prove inaccurate, as well.

If Portland couldn't get more than what they got for 23/10 Randolph, what makes you think the Knicks can get more for 17/10 Randolph?

Quote:

Two lottery picks is enough to lure LeBron? Wow. Too bad you didn't tell the Clippers. They'd have like a dozen LeBrons by now.

The thought of LeBron joining the Knicks is stupid anyways imo, with or without Randolph. If they're dead set on getting him, this is the direction I'd go. Besides, they won't be able to offer LeBron the amount of money he needs if Randolph doesn't leave by then.

Quote:

Where did I admit he has bad value? He's a good player and his play sets a baseline for his value to a team... as a good player he has value.

You reasoning as to why Portland couldn't get more value was because we were dead set on trading him. That doesn't really make sense to me. You would think a 23/10 PF could net more than a broken down Steve Francis, Channing Frye, and a TE.

ABM · 07-11-2008, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed O

...as a good player he has value.

Ed O.

IMO, As a good player, he has perceived value, perhaps. As a good teammate?, he probably has a lot less than that.

Hence, the GM dilemma. Dare I trade for this guy? Is he "really" a cancer"? If so, is my team strong enough to withstand that aspect?

andalusian · 07-11-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed O

Uh. OK.

What WAS a bad trade, in your mind? Has any title-winning team made a bad trade in NBA history?

Many, in my opinion, including, and not limited to, the Randolph trade for Francis/Frye from NY's POV.

Even if the Bassy/Ratliff for #7/Raef trade did not directly impact the ability to get KG one year after that trade happened - it was still not a bad trade, at worst a lateral move.

Foye/Raef for Bassy/Ratliff/$12m (or whatever the difference in salaries for Theo's earlier expiring is) is not a bad trade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed O

Any bad trade you offer up by a team that wins a championship within three years will be, by your line of reasoning, instantly forgiven because it arguably somehow, some way contributed to the title.

Sure, why not change the facts and make it 3 years instead of 1 year, which is what happened with this trade... - this trade enabled the KG trade within 1 year (and a month, to be exact), not 2 years, not 2 years, 4 months and 12 minutes nor 3 years.

Ed O · 07-11-2008, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Roy

If Portland couldn't get more than what they got for 23/10 Randolph, what makes you think the Knicks can get more for 17/10 Randolph?

#1: they don't have to get more. They can just let him play as a Knick until/unless a good deal comes along.

#2: the Blazers didn't get a good deal. They made a mistake by moving Zach for what they did, and that the Knicks won't compound that mistake should not be a strike against them.

#3: the primary component of Zach's trade value is his contract. His contract is now a year shorter, and so the negative that is attached to him is becoming less with time, which will increase his trade value.

Quote:

You reasoning as to why Portland couldn't get more value was because we were dead set on trading him. That doesn't really make sense to me. You would think a 23/10 PF could net more than a broken down Steve Francis, Channing Frye, and a TE.

Would YOU think that? Or would I think that?

I certainly would think it, but I would also think that the team and franchise would have been best served to let him keep playing and producing as a Blazer until we got a better offer. We could have brought Aldridge along more slowly, like we did with the best Blazer-produced players of times past (with Bonzi playing behind established vets and Zach behind Rasheed).

Ed O.

Ed O · 07-11-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andalusian

Many, in my opinion, including, and not limited to, the Randolph trade for Francis/Frye from NY's POV.

Even if the Bassy/Ratliff for #7/Raef trade did not directly impact the ability to get KG one year after that trade happened - it was still not a bad trade, at worst a lateral move.

Foye/Raef for Bassy/Ratliff/$12m (or whatever the difference in salaries for Theo's earlier expiring is) is not a bad trade.

You're ignoring how easily Boston could have parlayed Foye into Roy. Doing that makes the trade look less offensive, of course, which is why you're doing it.

Quote:

Sure, why not change the facts and make it 3 years instead of 1 year, which is what happened with this trade... - this trade enabled the KG trade within 1 year (and a month, to be exact), not 2 years, not 2 years, 4 months and 12 minutes nor 3 years.

It was two years after the trade. One year before the KG deal and one year after it. They did not win a championship within one year of making the deal, so it therefore cannot be a single year.

I made it three because I am challenging you to come up with a bad trade within three years that I can't strain the same way that you have with the terrible Bassy deal.

Ed O.

e_blazer1 · 07-11-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed O

There is the value of keeping him. If we knew that the team HAD to trade him, then we would have nothing to compare the deal to except rumor or speculation. Since we know what Zach is worth to a team when he plays, getting less than that makes it a bad deal.

Ed O.

Unlike some, I agree that Zach has value as a player. In the right situation, the guy is close to a 20-10 player. There are certainly negatives to his game that, even absent his off-court issues, would argue that he's not the kind of player that you want to build around at the PF spot. That said, I agree with you that he has value.

From the standpoint of a basketball GM in KP's position, there are two ways of looking an asset like Zach:

1. The guy has value and you're not going to trade him until you get equivalent or better talent.

2. You believe that Aldridge is the future and that he needs to start playing in a starting role with the other core players in order to develop the nucleus of a contending team. Given that Zach has starting-level talent and isn't likely to relish the role of a bench player, it's better to move him, even without equivalent talent in return, for the longterm betterment of the team.

I get that you believe that 1. is the correct management strategy. I think that time will prove that 2. was the more effective decision.

B-Roy · 07-11-2008, 05:56 PM

Quote:

#1: they don't have to get more. They can just let him play as a Knick until/unless a good deal comes along.

His deal runs past 2010. If they want Lebron, he must go. (Or just about every other player will have to) You would expect him to be gone if a good deal has already come up, no? So what makes you think he's going to increase his value in the next few years? Especially playing under a new coach and a new system.

Quote:

#2: the Blazers didn't get a good deal. They made a mistake by moving Zach for what they did, and that the Knicks won't compound that mistake should not be a strike against them.

Alright, that's your opinion I guess. I wasn't a fan of the trade when it happened, but it made us better, so whatever.

Quote:

#3: the primary component of Zach's trade value is his contract. His contract is now a year shorter, and so the negative that is attached to him is becoming less with time, which will increase his trade value.

3 years/ 48 million isn't a good contract no matter how you look at it.

Quote:

I certainly would think it, but I would also think that the team and franchise would have been best served to let him keep playing and producing as a Blazer until we got a better offer. We could have brought Aldridge along more slowly, like we did with the best Blazer-produced players of times past (with Bonzi playing behind established vets and Zach behind Rasheed).

The Blazers were heavily shopping him. If there was more value on the table, we would have taken it, but there wasn't. Hence the bad trade value.

andalusian · 07-11-2008, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed O

You're ignoring how easily Boston could have parlayed Foye into Roy. Doing that makes the trade look less offensive, of course, which is why you're doing it.

Please, what you are doing now is trivializing how much work KP and his crew put into this, knowing of the proposed deal between Houston and the Wolves and having the balls to go for it anyway to force a deal.

This was not an easy move by KP - and we have no idea how close it was for Portland to end with Foye/Aldridge instead of Roy/Aldridge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed O

It was two years after the trade. One year before the KG deal and one year after it. They did not win a championship within one year of making the deal, so it therefore cannot be a single year.

Well, the move that put them over the top was one year and one month after thw first deal - and even if Boston were to lose to the Lakers - it was still a good move. One deal enabled another deal thanks to the very specific issue of expiring contracts. The fact that they actually had to play for a year after the move was made really should not be judged in the context you are trying to present it.

I think I am done with this specific discussion, however. I still can not see how it was a bad deal for the Celts. You might disagree, which is OK - but I do not think there is any reason to go around out tails any more with this subject.

Ed O · 07-11-2008, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Roy

So what makes you think he's going to increase his value in the next few years?

I feel like I'm caught in a weird loop here. You keep asking the same question different ways.

How many times do you want me to answer it, really?

Ed O.

yuyuza1 · 07-11-2008, 06:05 PM

The hate for Zach on this board is crazy. I certainly would not trade him for just cap space. The dude can be a ball hog, but he can also play. Use him a right situation with the right coach, and he's a handful. Just watch him next year with D'Antoni.

**Oldmangrouch** · 07-11-2008, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET

Why? He's a pig- both on & off the court. His 365 days per year hotel room where women are abused, his thug posse intimidating and beating up people, his near pure selfishness on the court.......

I'm not inclined to flower his name with love.

"Pure selfishness"?? Can you say "hyperbole"?

As for the rest of your comments - you have no clue if there is *any* truth to any of that crap. Why would you even say stuff like that? That kind of hate toward a random stranger is unhealthy. Seriously.

ABM · 07-11-2008, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldmangrouch

"Pure selfishness"?? Can you say "hyperbole"?

As for the rest of your comments - you have no clue if there is *any* truth to any of that crap. Why would you even say stuff like that? That kind of hate toward a random stranger is unhealthy. Seriously.

My gosh, man, quit being a grumpy pragmatist.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes