(11-02-2020, 05:44 PM)Scott41theMavs Wrote: [ -> ]You're both probably right. So Mavs, and so bad. Green is terrible, I have a sense that the Mavs are out on Dipo, and Schroder comes with a lot of baggage off the court and in the locker room that the Mavs will want to avoid (and have dynamically avoided in the past, it was so bad).
I'd rather have another year of Wright than see our last FRS before Luka's extension completely flushed down the toilet on the rotting corpse of Danny Green. Just put me out of my misery if that happens. Edit: I still haven't stated it strongly enough - ***as important as it is to get out from under Wright's contract, since Green probably gets rotation minutes if he comes here, and because he is so abominably bad at this stage of his career that he dynamically costs us wins in 2020-21, I would be angry if the Mavs traded Wright for Green straight up, much less Wright and 31, far less Wright and 18***. Vomit, vomit, vomit. I'd rather we paid Courtney Lee a big one year deal and gave him rotation minutes than acquiring Green. So terrible.
You have such a negative perspective... Green is a starter on the NBA Champion. Green has won it all with three teams, being starter for every one of them. He is also a wing defender we desperately lack. Wright couldn't get on the court for us in the playoffs. As much as Green is declining, he is still twice the player Wright is and would bring a ton of experience this team doesn't really have. I hope it would not cost FRP to get him, but I could accept it assuming this is best they could get.
(11-02-2020, 07:08 PM)Mavsfan12 Wrote: [ -> ]I see... hmmm. I don't see Hayward leaving enough salary on the table this season to take the kind of salary that I think the mavs would want him to take to make it happen. They aren't going to finish off the cap situation with a long term Gordon Hayward contract.
Not going to lie, I could root for him, but I would be disappointed.
Looking from his perspective. What if Mavs offer him 4 years at 100 million. Can he be sure he will get at least 3 years and 65 mil next season? What if he has another injury plagued season? What if his peak player days are gone and next season proves that? I think a number like that would be a reasonable compromise for both sides. Of course he can always bet on himself.
(11-02-2020, 07:09 PM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2020, 05:44 PM)Scott41theMavs Wrote: [ -> ]You're both probably right. So Mavs, and so bad. Green is terrible, I have a sense that the Mavs are out on Dipo, and Schroder comes with a lot of baggage off the court and in the locker room that the Mavs will want to avoid (and have dynamically avoided in the past, it was so bad).
I'd rather have another year of Wright than see our last FRS before Luka's extension completely flushed down the toilet on the rotting corpse of Danny Green. Just put me out of my misery if that happens. Edit: I still haven't stated it strongly enough - ***as important as it is to get out from under Wright's contract, since Green probably gets rotation minutes if he comes here, and because he is so abominably bad at this stage of his career that he dynamically costs us wins in 2020-21, I would be angry if the Mavs traded Wright for Green straight up, much less Wright and 31, far less Wright and 18***. Vomit, vomit, vomit. I'd rather we paid Courtney Lee a big one year deal and gave him rotation minutes than acquiring Green. So terrible.
You have such a negative perspective... Green is a starter on the NBA Champion. Green has won it all with three teams, being starter for every one of them. He is also a wing defender we desperately lack. Wright couldn't get on the court for us in the playoffs. As much as Green is declining, he is still twice the player Wright is and would bring a ton of experience this team doesn't really have. I hope it would not cost FRP to get him, but I could accept it assuming this is best they could get.
(11-02-2020, 07:08 PM)Mavsfan12 Wrote: [ -> ]I see... hmmm. I don't see Hayward leaving enough salary on the table this season to take the kind of salary that I think the mavs would want him to take to make it happen. They aren't going to finish off the cap situation with a long term Gordon Hayward contract.
Not going to lie, I could root for him, but I would be disappointed.
Looking from his perspective. What if Mavs offer him 4 years at 100 million. Can he be sure he will get at least 3 years and 65 mil next season? What if he has another injury plagued season? What if his peak player days are gone and next season proves that? I think a number like that would be a reasonable compromise for both sides. Of course he can always bet on himself.
You kind of just highlighted the case against signing that guy to a long term deal... He was a feel good story last season while he was healthy, but its been a long time since he has been worth 25M/yr. He's now on the other side of 30. He isn't going to get more healthy.
Would you be happy signing him for $100M?
(11-02-2020, 07:41 PM)Mavsfan12 Wrote: [ -> ]Would you be happy signing him for $100M?
I think I would, it is a reasonable number to mitigate between risk and gain. It would end with his age 34 season. Of course it can go wrong, but he could also have 4 great seasons for us. Or just 4 average seasons like last one. Which I am also quite fine with. As I said, I think the number is a fair compromise for both sides.
From Mavs perspective, it would be great if we could get rid of some long(er) term salary in the SnT. Kleber and Curry would probably be interesting for them.
This would mean we are one Powell and Wright trade from max space in 2021. I really have a problem putting a fair price for this SnT. Problem is we have to send salary somewhere if we want to execute the deal.
If I have a look at recent SnT examples. Philly took Richardson for their troubles in Butler SnT. Milwaukee took 1 FRP and a couple of seconds (and no salary!) to let Brogdon go. Dallas paid two second rounders for the Wright privilege. I really don't see Boston sending us picks (or pick swaps), but perhaps Curry+Kleber would be enough with some additional salary going somewhere else. Would they pay #26 to someone to take Powell while we take their bad salary in Kanter and Poirier?
(11-02-2020, 08:03 PM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2020, 07:41 PM)Mavsfan12 Wrote: [ -> ]Would you be happy signing him for $100M?
I think I would, it is a reasonable number to mitigate between risk and gain. It would end with his age 34 season. Of course it can go wrong, but he could also have 4 great seasons for us. Or just 4 average seasons like last one. Which I am also quite fine with. As I said, I think the number is a fair compromise for both sides.
From Mavs perspective, it would be great if we could get rid of some long(er) term salary in the SnT. Kleber and Curry would probably be interesting for them. This would mean we are one Powell and Wright trade from max space in 2021. I really have a problem putting a fair price for this SnT. Problem is we have to send salary somewhere if we want to execute the deal.
If I have a look at recent SnT examples. Philly took Richardson for their troubles in Butler SnT. Milwaukee took 1 FRP and a couple of seconds (and no salary!) to let Brogdon go. Dallas paid two second rounders for the Wright privilege. I really don't see Boston sending us picks (or pick swaps), but perhaps Curry+Kleber would be enough with some additional salary going somewhere else. Would they pay #26 to someone to take Powell while we take their bad salary in Kanter and Poirier?
I am in pain thinking of sending out curry/klieber for the "privilege" to pay Hayward $100M. Wow. Then knowing that we are going to have to come up with draft capital to get someone to take wright AND Powell off our hands if GA wants to come here. OMG. I'd rather just stick with Curry/Klieber, tbh. Hayward, for me, would be a target of opportunity. If it makes sense, sure. But that is a ton to give up for a guy who has had 2/3 of a good season in the last three years and then to be married to him for the next four. I would feel like we are setting ourselves up to be Memphis in the Chandler Parsons ordeal. Although to be fair, I don't know that Hayward actually has a specific chronic issue like Parsons' knee. The dude is just always hurt.
(11-02-2020, 08:46 PM)Mavsfan12 Wrote: [ -> ]I am in pain thinking of sending out curry/klieber for the "privilege" to pay Hayward $100M. Wow. Then knowing that we are going to have to come up with draft capital to get someone to take wright AND Powell off our hands if GA wants to come here. OMG. I'd rather just stick with Curry/Klieber, tbh. Hayward, for me, would be a target of opportunity. If it makes sense, sure. But that is a ton to give up for a guy who has had 2/3 of a good season in the last three years and then to be married to him for the next four. I would feel like we are setting ourselves up to be Memphis in the Chandler Parsons ordeal. Although to be fair, I don't know that Hayward actually has a specific chronic issue like Parsons' knee. The dude is just always hurt.
Here we are again at a point of discussion, where you ("you" meaning in a broader sense of people on this forum) would not do it. So what WOULD you do? Again it seems like the only scenario you (again in a broader sense of people on this forum) are willing to contemplate is to add Giannis to this team next season. Good players cost money and it is quality that it counts, not quantity. Hayward, as long as he is reasonably healthy, is a much better player than Curry and Kleber. Sign Burke and Giles for MLE and we partially cover the bench loss. Who cares about 2 draft picks needed to dump Powell/Wright if Giannis decides to come to Dallas? We would have Luka, KP, Gianis, Hayward, DFS and Brunson as our core. Not even counting 2020 rookies.
For me it is very simple. Current team is not good enough to contend imho. We are actually quite far away. This means we will have to improve. Since there is no other really good max player but GA pipedream realisticaly available in 2021, we might as well make the moves this year, when there will be certainly less competition than next season.
(11-02-2020, 08:46 PM)Mavsfan12 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2020, 08:03 PM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2020, 07:41 PM)Mavsfan12 Wrote: [ -> ]Would you be happy signing him for $100M?
I think I would, it is a reasonable number to mitigate between risk and gain. It would end with his age 34 season. Of course it can go wrong, but he could also have 4 great seasons for us. Or just 4 average seasons like last one. Which I am also quite fine with. As I said, I think the number is a fair compromise for both sides.
From Mavs perspective, it would be great if we could get rid of some long(er) term salary in the SnT. Kleber and Curry would probably be interesting for them. This would mean we are one Powell and Wright trade from max space in 2021. I really have a problem putting a fair price for this SnT. Problem is we have to send salary somewhere if we want to execute the deal.
If I have a look at recent SnT examples. Philly took Richardson for their troubles in Butler SnT. Milwaukee took 1 FRP and a couple of seconds (and no salary!) to let Brogdon go. Dallas paid two second rounders for the Wright privilege. I really don't see Boston sending us picks (or pick swaps), but perhaps Curry+Kleber would be enough with some additional salary going somewhere else. Would they pay #26 to someone to take Powell while we take their bad salary in Kanter and Poirier?
I am in pain thinking of sending out curry/klieber for the "privilege" to pay Hayward $100M. Wow. Then knowing that we are going to have to come up with draft capital to get someone to take wright AND Powell off our hands if GA wants to come here. OMG. I'd rather just stick with Curry/Klieber, tbh. Hayward, for me, would be a target of opportunity. If it makes sense, sure. But that is a ton to give up for a guy who has had 2/3 of a good season in the last three years and then to be married to him for the next four. I would feel like we are setting ourselves up to be Memphis in the Chandler Parsons ordeal. Although to be fair, I don't know that Hayward actually has a specific chronic issue like Parsons' knee. The dude is just always hurt.
I think that Hayward might be a "target of opportunity" in the sense of a guy who is willing to be here. I have negative interest in Haywood if his contract and the ways he was obtained prevents us from going after Giannis or Kawhi (I'm not saying it's probable that we get them, but I am saying that our odds are better than at any other time in franchise history if we have the cap room for them). If it is done in a way that permits us to get one of those two, then why not if the Mavs are convinced that that's their best option now.
My biggest concern with targeting Hayward is less his injury history and more that you have a core that consists of all white dudes, led by a white Euro, and including a white guy who isn't a Euro (who tend to be viewed a bit differently, socially speaking). That might make it harder to bring in an African-Euro or African-American player who is reluctant to be the Sammy Davis Jr. of the Mav Pack. I get the reactions that might engender on the board, but I also think it's a real thing.
Curry had a lot of injuries during his career. What makes you think this will not repeat? Kleber lost two seasons due to injuries. Can't happen while he is in Dallas? Same as Oladipo discussion - the player coming in is a injury risk and no one seems to think that injuries can also happen to our guys. Perhaps some of them can't repeat career years they had in 2019/20.
So @"omahen" I think you're making a really valid point. To make moves that bring good things onto the roster, you'll almost always have to give up some things, and usually they are things you'd prefer not to give up. You're absolutely right about that. We all draw those lines differently based on our own perceptions, but in general, fans tend to overvalue their teams' players.
But, I'll restate what I was saying the first week I found this place: I believe the Mavs are in the rare situation where they don't have to do anything unless they think it's a good idea. They could conceivably bring this entire team back and expect improvement because the entire core just got a huge dose of experience all at once. Every team gets better the longer they play together, but in the Mavs' case that effect is compounded by the fact that almost all of them were playoff virgins. I fully expect them to understand the "why" of things more during the regular season this time around when there's time to get reps. They'll understand more clearly what they're working towards, and consequently, I believe they'll be more ready when the playoffs come back around.
And honestly, I think there's a chance that a large amount of continuity is their BEST chance to improve, given the fast turnaround, shortened camp and condensed season. But that's a separate conversation than the one you're having about value.
Anyway, despite my thinking on the above, there IS a level of risk I could be enticed into taking. I'd do Hayward, if the price tag and swap is reasonable, for example. I'd do OPJ if Hardaway wasn't outgoing. Etc, etc. But, the team's arrow is pointing up, the cap is in great shape, and you've got a lot of potential over the next 12 months to find a home run of a deal, or a triple, or at least an off the wall double. Those possibilities, as a one-time, temporary fall back, would make me feel justified in being extra cautious in the short term. I think one version of them winning the transaction game this off-season (and again, ONLY this off-season) is to simply not LOSE the transaction game.
(11-02-2020, 10:37 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]So @"omahen" I think you're making a really valid point. To make moves that bring good things onto the roster, you'll almost always have to give up some things, and usually they are things you'd prefer not to give up. You're absolutely right about that. We all draw those lines differently based on our own perceptions, but in general, fans tend to overvalue their teams' players.
But, I'll restate what I was saying the first week I found this place: I believe the Mavs are in the rare situation where they don't have to do anything unless they think it's a good idea. They could conceivably bring this entire team back and expect improvement because the entire core just got a huge dose of experience all at once. Every team gets better the longer they play together, but in the Mavs' case, that effect is compounded by the fact that almost all of them were playoff virgins. I fully expect them to understand the "why" of things more during the regular season this time around when there's time to get reps. They'll understand more clearly what they're working towards, and consequently, I believe they'll be more ready when the playoffs come back around.
And honestly, I think there's a chance that a large amount of continuity is their BEST chance to improve, given the fast turnaround, shortened camp and condensed season. But that's a separate conversation than the one you're having about value.
Anyway, despite my thinking on the above, there IS a level of risk I could be enticed into taking. I'd do Hayward, if the price tag and swap is reasonable, for example. I'd do OPJ if Hardaway wasn't outgoing. Etc, etc. But, the team's arrow is pointing up, the cap is in great shape, and you've got a lot of potential over the next 12 months to find a home run of a deal, or a triple, or at least an off the wall double. Those possibilities, as a one-time, temporary fall back, would make me feel justified in being extra cautious in the short term. I think one version of them winning the transaction game this off-season (and again, ONLY this off-season) is to simply not LOSE the transaction game.
Great post. This was a much more elegant way of saying what I've been mulling over today. We have a beautiful opportunity tree in front of us. Just don't hack it to bits this offseason. Be opportunistic, but remain flexible - unless that moment comes to lock in the final answer. This next 2 years of transactions could mean the difference between being a contender and being THE contender for the foreseeable future. Just don't mess it up.
I doubt OPJ opts out, but if Hayward might opt out to orchestrate a S&T why wouldn’t OPJ try the same thing? He’d be worth money money than Hayward because in 4 years he won’t be as old as Hayward so age wouldn’t be as big of a factor.
(11-02-2020, 10:37 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]So @omahen I think you're making a really valid point. To make moves that bring good things onto the roster, you'll almost always have to give up some things, and usually they are things you'd prefer not to give up. You're absolutely right about that. We all draw those lines differently based on our own perceptions, but in general, fans tend to overvalue their teams' players.
But, I'll restate what I was saying the first week I found this place: I believe the Mavs are in the rare situation where they don't have to do anything unless they think it's a good idea. They could conceivably bring this entire team back and expect improvement because the entire core just got a huge dose of experience all at once. Every team gets better the longer they play together, but in the Mavs' case that effect is compounded by the fact that almost all of them were playoff virgins. I fully expect them to understand the "why" of things more during the regular season this time around when there's time to get reps. They'll understand more clearly what they're working towards, and consequently, I believe they'll be more ready when the playoffs come back around.
And honestly, I think there's a chance that a large amount of continuity is their BEST chance to improve, given the fast turnaround, shortened camp and condensed season. But that's a separate conversation than the one you're having about value.
Anyway, despite my thinking on the above, there IS a level of risk I could be enticed into taking. I'd do Hayward, if the price tag and swap is reasonable, for example. I'd do OPJ if Hardaway wasn't outgoing. Etc, etc. But, the team's arrow is pointing up, the cap is in great shape, and you've got a lot of potential over the next 12 months to find a home run of a deal, or a triple, or at least an off the wall double. Those possibilities, as a one-time, temporary fall back, would make me feel justified in being extra cautious in the short term. I think one version of them winning the transaction game this off-season (and again, ONLY this off-season) is to simply not LOSE the transaction game.
I agree in general. I am not pushing to trade because of a trade itself. All the trades I propose are making us better imho. But I am trying to put realistic price it would take to get players. And here we quickly find out every trade idea we have on the table in this forum is in the end rejected, because you don't want to give up ANYTHING to make a deal. You say you'd do Hayward if the price is reasonable. Well, "reasonable" is Curry and Kleber, because Boston will not take Wright and Powell and you have to switch salary to trade for him. "Reasonable" is dumping Wright, Powell and Jackson to create cap space, which of course would cost several draft picks. And then all of these are show stoppers for you. So the only conclusion I can take is, that (other some minor tweaks) the only acceptable scenario for you is waiting for Giannis pipedream.
You are right we have two offseasons to build a team. But time is also ticking away and all options are theoretical. If you have one option on the table, you can reject it and wait for another or you can accept it. But number of possibilities will shrink as time will go by and you will be rejecting offers. Everything you are writing is leading me to believe, your plan is actually plan Giannis. Because you would do something else only if it would be an offer impossible to reject. An offer that is highly unlikely to appear. So I really wish you good luck, if Giannis says no. I think in this case you will be ovepaing average players in 2021 FA just to get something. All of a sudden you would be pressed to offer "max contract to Hayward" because there will be no one else around and because 5 other "loosers" with cap space will be competing for him. Just like Mavs did in all those years after 2011.
I am not saying we have to go after Harris. But if Powell, Wright and THJ for Harris, Thybulle and FRP trade is on the table, I would be inclined to take it, because I think it makes us better in the long run. I am not saying we have to go after Hayward, but if Kleber + Curry for him (at 100 million for 4 years) is on the table, I would be inclined to do it, because it makes us better in the long run. If Oladipo is available for Wright, Kleber and picks, I would be inclined to do it, because I think it makes us better in the long run.
For once, I would really like to hear a reasonable trade you WOULD do. Not just put limits to players you think are interesting that the other team would never found acceptable.
(11-03-2020, 01:27 AM)SamStetz Wrote: [ -> ]I doubt OPJ opts out, but if Hayward might opt out to orchestrate a S&T why wouldn’t OPJ try the same thing? He’d be worth money money than Hayward because in 4 years he won’t be as old as Hayward so age wouldn’t be as big of a factor.
I think, if you are prepared to offer him a contract in the range of 80 mil for four seasons, he would consider it. Are you prepared to offer that?
(11-03-2020, 03:36 AM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]I agree in general. I am not pushing to trade because of a trade itself. All the trades I propose are making us better imho. But I am trying to put realistic price it would take to get players. And here we quickly find out every trade idea we have on the table in this forum is in the end rejected, because you don't want to give up ANYTHING to make a deal. You say you'd do Hayward if the price is reasonable. Well, "reasonable" is Curry and Kleber, because Boston will not take Wright and Powell and you have to switch salary to trade for him. "Reasonable" is dumping Wright, Powell and Jackson to create cap space, which of course would cost several draft picks. And then all of these are show stoppers for you. So the only conclusion I can take is, that (other some minor tweaks) the only acceptable scenario for you is waiting for Giannis pipedream.
First thing. I really enjoy your trade proposals. They are on on the edge of being reasonable. They give me perspective. They give me something to think about. That´s fun.
But you are playing the advocatus diaboli for us. You are chosing a trade target and then use the POV of the other team to find a price they like.
Normally that is just the point we say: ok, that is to much.
(11-03-2020, 03:36 AM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]You are right we have two offseasons to build a team. But time is also ticking away and all options are theoretical. If you have one option on the table, you can reject it and wait for another or you can accept it. But number of possibilities will shrink as time will go by and you will be rejecting offers. Everything you are writing is leading me to believe, your plan is actually plan Giannis. Because you would do something else only if it would be an offer impossible to reject. An offer that is highly unlikely to appear. So I really wish you good luck, if Giannis says no. I think in this case you will be ovepaing average players in 2021 FA just to get something. All of a sudden you would be pressed to offer "max contract to Hayward" because there will be no one else around and because 5 other "loosers" with cap space will be competing for him. Just like Mavs did in all those years after 2011.
You say the possibilities are going to shrink. And this is true, but also for every other player. If the time is ticking desperation will pile up.
We are in a comfortable position. We will be compete for the 4-8 rang as we are constructed now with minor tweeks. Our point of desperation will not occur befor next FA. Until then - or if we know we will fail there, we are looking for trades with the things we are fine giving up or trades we win because something else than player value press a price.
(11-03-2020, 03:36 AM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]For once, I would really like to hear a reasonable trade you WOULD do. Not just put limits to players you think are interesting that the other team would never found acceptable.
I´d swap Cory Joseph for Wright. Saves them some cash. We are both not happy about their performances. But that is a trade if nothing else is possible.
I think there will be a trade we can win in player value, because there will be other aspects to other teams. Could be money or an expiring contract, a trade wish, could be an injury or just any player underperforming on his current team.
Another point is most trades are kinda "fair" both teams are swapping players to gain by better fit.
At this point all our pieces are fitting, except Wright. And if we propose him in a trade you use his surpressed value on our side but the expected value for the player coming in.
This said please keep up. I appreciate your creativity and effort.
(11-02-2020, 10:18 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2020, 07:42 AM)DanSchwartzman Wrote: [ -> ]John Hollinger at The Athletic has a series out this week on Free Agents. He's combining PIPM, Raptor and PER on a weighted multi-year basis to come up with a single rating and then applying 20/21 dollars to that rating. Luka as a free agent, for instance, would be the second most valuable player in the league and worth a contract of $55 million per (the metric is age based). Gallinari is worth $19mm (he was named in the piece explaining the metric). Hollinger thinks there will be a larger than normal number of one year deals this time around.
Today he started with PG's.
Thanks for sharing this!
Please keep bringing highlights here please. I am super intrigued about balancing those three advanced stats and seeing the outcomes.
Today is the SG crop of FA's projected at or above the MLE:
$15.1mm D'Anthony Melton
$13.4mm Bogdan Bogdanovic
$13.0mm Evan Fournier
$12.8mm THJ
$12.3mm Kris Dunn
$11.4mm Jordan Clarkson
$8.8mm Shaq Harrsion
Here is the comment about THJ:
"As with Fournier above, Hardaway is a 28-year-old shooting guard coming off a career year. And like Fournier, he’s probably better off opting in and taking advantage of another year shooting wide open 3s next to Luka Doncic."
He really gave the largest write-ups to Melton, Dunn and Harrison. He described all three as "high energy undersized shooting guards with shooting questions, but graded out as far above the norm in terms of defense, rebounding and overall impact". It is hard to picture Memphis letting go of the best of the bunch...Melton. He thinks Dunn probably tops out at the MLE because he could be "Dorted" in a playoff series. Still, the role he plays could be incredibly valuable.
I've thought about what we might do with the MLE if we somehow get in on a more offensively oriented Forward like Gallinari/Hayward/Tobias. We would have plenty of O at that point and DFS doesn't hurt your offense any more. Could you afford a lock down guy like Dunn or Harrison ?
Courtney Lee and Antonius Cleveland make the list at the minimum. Pretty thin class here. If you want perimeter D, some 3 point shooting and a little play making from the SG spot, you may have to draft it yourself, which is part of why I'm more drawn to the guard prospects at 18 than the wing prospects. I've called this position a 3&D PG, something not every team can afford. But, a team with a primary ball handler the size of Luka can.
(11-03-2020, 07:50 AM)DanSchwartzman Wrote: [ -> ]$13.4mm Bogdan Bogdanovic
$12.3mm Kris Dunn
$8.8mm Shaq Harrsion
Definitely interested in those threes guys in the right scenario.
Why would I want to pay a guy who is 6'2" and shoots 29% from three, $15M a year (referring to Melton)? D alone?
(11-03-2020, 06:19 AM)Mapka Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2020, 03:36 AM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]I agree in general. I am not pushing to trade because of a trade itself. All the trades I propose are making us better imho. But I am trying to put realistic price it would take to get players. And here we quickly find out every trade idea we have on the table in this forum is in the end rejected, because you don't want to give up ANYTHING to make a deal. You say you'd do Hayward if the price is reasonable. Well, "reasonable" is Curry and Kleber, because Boston will not take Wright and Powell and you have to switch salary to trade for him. "Reasonable" is dumping Wright, Powell and Jackson to create cap space, which of course would cost several draft picks. And then all of these are show stoppers for you. So the only conclusion I can take is, that (other some minor tweaks) the only acceptable scenario for you is waiting for Giannis pipedream.
First thing. I really enjoy your trade proposals. They are on on the edge of being reasonable. They give me perspective. They give me something to think about. That´s fun.
But you are playing the advocatus diaboli for us. You are chosing a trade target and then use the POV of the other team to find a price they like.
Normally that is just the point we say: ok, that is to much.
So, only homer-based trades need apply?
I feel similarly to Omahen. As a generalization, the board tends to focus on the warts of incoming players and completely ignores those kinds of issues with the players being sent out. "We" think one more season with Luka will fix this or that, but rarely credit the benefit of playing with Luka that will accrue to the incoming player.
It might help to have a discernible standard to work from. The recent Top 125 series by The Athletic doesn't take salary or fit into account, but it is at least a standard to work from. They rated Curry, Maxi and THJ in the 116-125 range. The board seems to have coalesced recently around Gallinari, Hayward, Harris, Dipo and OPJ as trade targets. Gallo is the 41st rated player. Hayward is 49, Harris is 60, Dipo is 61 and an injured OPJ is 76. So, what should it cost to get the 41st best player in the league? Does 125 + 121 do it? Do you have to add a pick? We need a value chart (like pick 18 + pick 31 equals Pick 14).
I realize the real world doesn't work like this. Salary and fit and age matter. But Maxi is a nice 5th/6th man who is a little above average and a little above Replacement Value. If you have a shot at a 3rd starter (even an overpaid one), you give up a 5th/6th guy all the time. You can find another Maxi. Finding a Gallo or Hayward or Harris is much harder to do.
Edit: I spent some time reading up on Hayward rumors. Man, there are a bunch of teams out there seemingly interested in him. He'd have to really want to come here and Boston (Stevens) would have to be willing to "do right" by Hayward to get him here. One technique we (the board) seem to routinely forget is the possibility of an Extend-and-Trade. But, even with that there will be a ton of teams willing to play along.
I personally think Gallo might be the easier get. He's totally free and him taking a one year MLE deal is much more credible than Hayward opting out. OKC doesn't totally control the situation and a "fair" trade isn't required. We just have to give them something more valuable than letting Gallo walk for nothing. But, that value can't have a negative value contract.
(11-03-2020, 08:22 AM)DanSchwartzman Wrote: [ -> ]If you have a shot at a 3rd starter (even an overpaid one), you give up a 5th/6th guy all the time. You can find another Maxi. Finding a Gallo or Hayward or Harris is much harder to do.
Man, that post and some of the work Omahen has been putting in on this board have totally resonated with me. I've been trying to basically say what you just said all offseason. The quoted is especially true too. I sometimes wonder if people would give Kleber and Curry for PG13 because "playoff shrinking PG". Nevermind the warts that Kleber and Curry possess.
I've also been using my gauge as to what is realistic and fair by if I think it's basically fair and some of the posters say it's too much, that's when I believe I got it just about right.
I also know I got it dead on when posters are saying the above and Omahen comes in and says the other team will not accept it!!!
(11-03-2020, 08:22 AM)DanSchwartzman Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2020, 06:19 AM)Mapka Wrote: [ -> ]First thing. I really enjoy your trade proposals. They are on on the edge of being reasonable. They give me perspective. They give me something to think about. That´s fun.
But you are playing the advocatus diaboli for us. You are chosing a trade target and then use the POV of the other team to find a price they like.
Normally that is just the point we say: ok, that is to much.
So, only homer-based trades need apply?
That´s the exact opposite of what I said? Except hat I know, I´m a homer.
(11-03-2020, 08:22 AM)DanSchwartzman Wrote: [ -> ]I feel similarly to Omahen. As a generalization, the board tends to focus on the warts of incoming players and completely ignores those kinds of issues with the players being sent out.
Might be true. It´s hard to know how off I am on my own valuation.
But maybe that´s because we know which warts our players have and how good we can handle them and warts of players on other teams include added risk.
(11-03-2020, 08:22 AM)DanSchwartzman Wrote: [ -> ]"We" think one more season with Luka will fix this or that, but rarely credit the benefit of playing with Luka that will accrue to the incoming player.
Can´t remember anything like this with our own players, only with proposed trade targets.
(11-03-2020, 08:22 AM)DanSchwartzman Wrote: [ -> ]It might help to have a discernible standard to work from. The recent Top 125 series by The Athletic doesn't take salary or fit into account, but it is at least a standard to work from. They rated Curry, Maxi and THJ in the 116-125 range. The board seems to have coalesced recently around Gallinari, Hayward, Harris, Dipo and OPJ as trade targets. Gallo is the 41st rated player. Hayward is 49, Harris is 60, Dipo is 61 and an injured OPJ is 76. So, what should it cost to get the 41st best player in the league? Does 125 + 121 do it? Do you have to add a pick? We need a value chart (like pick 18 + pick 31 equals Pick 14).
we´d need a team chemistry scale too.
(11-03-2020, 08:22 AM)DanSchwartzman Wrote: [ -> ]I realize the real world doesn't work like this. Salary and fit and age matter. But Maxi is a nice 5th/6th man who is a little above average and a little above Replacement Value. If you have a shot at a 3rd starter (even an overpaid one), you give up a 5th/6th guy all the time. You can find another Maxi. Finding a Gallo or Hayward or Harris is much harder to do.
Feels telling you can name "3rd starters" but no "other Maxi". I would find N. Bjelica. He would cost ~ Wright + FRP. That´s what we should get Gallo for (+JJax). So why shuffling chairs we like?
(11-03-2020, 08:22 AM)DanSchwartzman Wrote: [ -> ]Edit: I spent some time reading up on Hayward rumors. Man, there are a bunch of teams out there seemingly interested in him. He'd have to really want to come here and Boston (Stevens) would have to be willing to "do right" by Hayward to get him here. One technique we (the board) seem to routinely forget is the possibility of an Extend-and-Trade. But, even with that there will be a ton of teams willing to play along.
That´s the kind of situation we all are hoping for.
(11-03-2020, 08:22 AM)DanSchwartzman Wrote: [ -> ]But, that value can't have a negative value contract.
We don´t know what value a player has to anyone else.
Our trash might be someone elses treasure. We just have to find this idiot.
p.s. just found the view source button, please don´t mind me for overquoting and answering.
(11-03-2020, 08:18 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]Why would I want to pay a guy who is 6'2" and shoots 29% from three, $15M a year (referring to Melton)? D alone?
The value is of course a valuation. And as with all models, it is not perfect in individual numbers. Luka for example, has a value of 55 million. But it gives a good overview and comparison. The model is also taking into account age of players.That is why 22 year old non shooting Melton is valued higher as 26 year old non shooting Dunn. There is still hope for Melton.
Based on the Hollinger math made easy BURP$ rating, THJ is only a tiny bit below Bojan. Really nothing exciting in that group.
So "we" could pay Luka max and still have an extreme bargain contract.