|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Feb 5, 2017 3:53:20 GMT
Pelicans trade: 77 Festus Ezeli $5,550,000 $6,160,500(TO) $6,838,155(TO) 82 Brandon Knight $17,993,668 $16,014,364 $17,775,944 $19,731,298 $21,901,741 Total: $23,543,668
Pacers trade: 78 Al Jefferson $20,514,465 $22,700,000 IND 2018 1st round pick Total: $20,514,465
My experiment doesn't seem to be working. I'm currently the 6th worst team in the league and my starting lineup isn't jelling. I hoped with my acquisitions this offseason I'd be in the playoff chase but the fit isn't right between my players and I got to shake things up. I'm sad to see Brandon Knight go. He was one of my first pickups as a GM but its futile to keep running out a lineup that is getting killed.
I accept.
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
Dec 16, 2022 11:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Feb 5, 2017 3:59:47 GMT
Mark another free agent that is being shipped. Excel free agency here my post comes!
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 5, 2017 7:11:13 GMT
Mark another free agent that is being shipped. Excel free agency here my post comes! This is probably the most justified, fwiw. However, gotta let this sink in a minute.
|
|
Larry Bird
Indiana Pacers
Starter
Posts: 1,672
Mar 5, 2024 13:29:26 GMT
|
Post by Larry Bird on Feb 5, 2017 7:20:49 GMT
I accept this deal.
I think Knight is still a good point guard. Bledsoe just got the starting nod and now Knight is backing him up. With a change of scenery I think he'll be back to his old self. He is still young, just being 25.
I do have to trade my 1st which could be a good pick and Al Jeff who has been close to the tops all year in rebounding.
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Feb 5, 2017 12:51:57 GMT
FWIW, Knight is going to be high 70s as soon as someone posts a thread. He might actually be a worse player than Al Jefferson tbh. Giving up a 1st seems both unnecessary and dangerous to the Pacers future
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 20, 2024 10:07:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 13:15:21 GMT
How many times will Larry repeat the same mistake?
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 5, 2017 14:54:54 GMT
I've barely watched the Suns this year but Knight is struggling statistically at least. I never like Larry Bird's trades, I'm afraid to say Larry Seems like your roster is just a revolving door. Al Jefferson kinda sucks now but it seems clear that the Pelicans win this deal long-term. I'm willing to accept though, the Pelicans have been the most underachieving team in the league this year.
|
|
Vlade Divac
Former Kings GM
Sophomore
Posts: 629
Feb 23, 2024 23:40:50 GMT
|
Post by Vlade Divac on Feb 5, 2017 15:03:45 GMT
How many times will Larry repeat the same mistake? Hopefully until 2019 when my "measley" second round pick is insanely high!
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
Dec 16, 2022 11:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Feb 5, 2017 17:39:29 GMT
Mark another free agent that is being shipped. Excel free agency here my post comes! This is probably the most justified, fwiw. However, gotta let this sink in a minute. You're right, I just think it is funny is all. I would get rid of knight too.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Feb 5, 2017 21:30:24 GMT
Mark another free agent that is being shipped. Excel free agency here my post comes! If I am a shitty team trying to take a jump up in the standings, and I go out and sign an above average guy, over pay a little, and then am not succeeding in the following year, it makes perfect sense for me to trade the player that I just signed. Free agents coming to your team add value. And if it isn't going to add value in wins, it needs to add value in trade. In real life, players sign with a team and are traded before the next year's trade deadline. It's going to happen again this year. To have it happen in here is no different.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 5, 2017 22:35:34 GMT
Mark another free agent that is being shipped. Excel free agency here my post comes! If I am a shitty team trying to take a jump up in the standings, and I go out and sign an above average guy, over pay a little, and then am not succeeding in the following year, it makes perfect sense for me to trade the player that I just signed. Free agents coming to your team add value. And if it isn't going to add value in wins, it needs to add value in trade. In real life, players sign with a team and are traded before the next year's trade deadline. It's going to happen again this year. To have it happen in here is no different. I THINK what Kevin may be saying is, if it seems to be a pattern with certain managers, it should at least be considered. At least in the manner that said managers shouldn't be able to act like they really care about the player as part of their pitch. Put it out there straight up - we think you're good but will trade you if someone else thinks you're better.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Feb 5, 2017 23:14:35 GMT
Will I receive that argument KH if I trade Cole Aldrich?
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
Dec 16, 2022 11:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Feb 6, 2017 0:12:48 GMT
Will I receive that argument KH if I trade Cole Aldrich? I really only care about big contracts high rated players. My point is exactly what Walt said. If gms keep doing it over and over then it should be held against them soon or later. I would assume player agents receive bid offers on some free agents saying we are loyal etc to our players and then contradict their negotiation standards: again, it is an assumption, but I would be willing to be it happens.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Feb 6, 2017 3:13:02 GMT
If I am a shitty team trying to take a jump up in the standings, and I go out and sign an above average guy, over pay a little, and then am not succeeding in the following year, it makes perfect sense for me to trade the player that I just signed. Free agents coming to your team add value. And if it isn't going to add value in wins, it needs to add value in trade. In real life, players sign with a team and are traded before the next year's trade deadline. It's going to happen again this year. To have it happen in here is no different. I THINK what Kevin may be saying is, if it seems to be a pattern with certain managers, it should at least be considered. At least in the manner that said managers shouldn't be able to act like they really care about the player as part of their pitch. Put it out there straight up - we think you're good but will trade you if someone else thinks you're better. But it isn't that someone else thinks the player is better. Look at this trade. Scal had an ambitious off-season free agency. Made some big moves. His team is not performing the way that he though they would. What is Scal supposed to do? Just sit on these guys as his team sits in mediocrity? No, he's going to trade them, dump them off, and continue his rebuild. Why? Because we don't get credit in here for snagging the 8th seed and being dumped in the first round of the playoffs. There's no owner telling us what to do, no fans being pissed, no profit to worry about. For this exact reason is why we have a talent disparity in this league. There's no benefit for being in the middle. And in order to be on top, where everyone wants to be, you need 3 bonafide superstars. And, the Player Agents aren't helping on that subject either. It would be different if recognition were given to a GM for making the playoffs. Or if there was even a slight chance at succeeding with one superstar. But that just isn't the world we live in. And, sadly, if I'm keeping it a buck, it isn't just all the PA's faults. Plenty of GMs make dumb trades with not enough foresight and trade away young players for a semi-star that they think can get them over the hump. This league's talent disparity is a result of the league's cyclical player movement. My team is a middle of the road 6-8 seed, there's no way I am beating 3 top seeded teams in a row without 3 studs. So, I trade my guys and move on. I rebuild. Maybe I get lucky two years in a row and now have two young stars. And it's heading in to year 4 of the rebuild and the FA crop looks good. I'll sign a few guys. My team stinks still and there's no point in having these players on my team. So I trade them. Or, there's the problem where my team, with the 2 young stars, and the free agents, is now performing decent. And I think I can really compete with just one more semi-star level guy. I make a trade. And I give up a young guy on my roster who I had from the tanking. That guy becomes a star. And that team that traded me the semi-star level player, only traded me that player because for one reason or another, it just wasn't his year. He knew that he'd be back, and in the meantime, didn't need that guy. I guess what I am saying is very simple: the way the league is structured currently, it is going to take A LOT of luck, sprinkled in with some stupid/short-sighted moves by other GMs, to move from the have-not's to the have's.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 6, 2017 3:23:42 GMT
I THINK what Kevin may be saying is, if it seems to be a pattern with certain managers, it should at least be considered. At least in the manner that said managers shouldn't be able to act like they really care about the player as part of their pitch. Put it out there straight up - we think you're good but will trade you if someone else thinks you're better. But it isn't that someone else thinks the player is better. Look at this trade. Scal had an ambitious off-season free agency. Made some big moves. His team is not performing the way that he though they would. What is Scal supposed to do? Just sit on these guys as his team sits in mediocrity? No, he's going to trade them, dump them off, and continue his rebuild. Why? Because we don't get credit in here for snagging the 8th seed and being dumped in the first round of the playoffs. There's no owner telling us what to do, no fans being pissed, no profit to worry about. For this exact reason is why we have a talent disparity in this league. There's no benefit for being in the middle. And in order to be on top, where everyone wants to be, you need 3 bonafide superstars. And, the Player Agents aren't helping on that subject either. It would be different if recognition were given to a GM for making the playoffs. Or if there was even a slight chance at succeeding with one superstar. But that just isn't the world we live in. And, sadly, if I'm keeping it a buck, it isn't just all the PA's faults. Plenty of GMs make dumb trades with not enough foresight and trade away young players for a semi-star that they think can get them over the hump. This league's talent disparity is a result of the league's cyclical player movement. My team is a middle of the road 6-8 seed, there's no way I am beating 3 top seeded teams in a row without 3 studs. So, I trade my guys and move on. I rebuild. Maybe I get lucky two years in a row and now have two young stars. And it's heading in to year 4 of the rebuild and the FA crop looks good. I'll sign a few guys. My team stinks still and there's no point in having these players on my team. So I trade them. Or, there's the problem where my team, with the 2 young stars, and the free agents, is now performing decent. And I think I can really compete with just one more semi-star level guy. I make a trade. And I give up a young guy on my roster who I had from the tanking. That guy becomes a star. And that team that traded me the semi-star level player, only traded me that player because for one reason or another, it just wasn't his year. He knew that he'd be back, and in the meantime, didn't need that guy. I guess what I am saying is very simple: the way the league is structured currently, it is going to take A LOT of luck, sprinkled in with some stupid/short-sighted moves by other GMs, to move from the have-not's to the have's. Honestly Charles I didn't read all this yet. The point I made that was missed by you is, if this becomes a pattern, the GM can't pretend he cares about the player that much. He's just adding value. Which is fine, but there are managers who use the "we really want him and he'll love it here because we love him" thing in their pitch. Maybe there is no overlap but if there is, those managers need called out on it. If they really love the guy they'll keep him and trade away others. Or, something isn't adding up. Will read the rest shortly.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 6, 2017 3:26:20 GMT
So basically, I don't really disagree with most of your points, I just think we're arguing separate points.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 6, 2017 5:22:20 GMT
This trade is absolute garbage. Every time someone screws up a signing they come to Larry and trade rape the shit out of him.
Why is Indiana paying New Orleans a lottery pick for the right to help him out from under the Knight contract?
Knight lost minutes to Booker. That's the risk you take when you sign average guys to decent contracts.
He's also getting Festus Ezeli who looks like he might not ever play again?
Just trade Knight for Jefferson straight up and it's fair. That first round pick is easily worth 3 or 4 Festus caliber players.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Feb 6, 2017 11:22:13 GMT
Tanking is overrated in this league...
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Feb 6, 2017 15:09:53 GMT
So basically, I don't really disagree with most of your points, I just think we're arguing separate points. I know that, but I can't argue against the point you're making. Of course everyone is going to say they want a player and need him and would love for him to be there. But what I am saying is that you can't penalize a GM for trading a player they just signed because it is too subjective. You could sit there and say, "well you traded your last FA you signed, so we aren't going to sign with you," even though they're offering the most money and a starting spot. It just doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Feb 6, 2017 15:46:54 GMT
Idk if you guys realize but Knight's per 36 are almost exactly the same this year as before, when he got stockwatched to an 82.
Can we get some votes on this?
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
Dec 16, 2022 11:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Feb 6, 2017 16:00:08 GMT
So basically, I don't really disagree with most of your points, I just think we're arguing separate points. I know that, but I can't argue against the point you're making. Of course everyone is going to say they want a player and need him and would love for him to be there. But what I am saying is that you can't penalize a GM for trading a player they just signed because it is too subjective. You could sit there and say, "well you traded your last FA you signed, so we aren't going to sign with you," even though they're offering the most money and a starting spot. It just doesn't make sense. Because you can as it is very rarely done in the NBA. Does it happen? Yes. But the frequency it happens in here is 20 times more often. Even the bucks have held on to shit hole Monroe for this long.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 6, 2017 16:31:02 GMT
Larry's team is too volatile for me to accept this. The 1st could be way too good of a pick. It does seem unnecessary to include, as Knight's value just isn't high enough to warrant it.
Reject.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 20, 2024 10:07:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2017 16:39:23 GMT
This trade is absolute garbage. Every time someone screws up a signing they come to Larry and trade rape the shit out of him. Remember when I owned Mirotic, my one and only FA signing? xD
|
|
|
Post by Danny Longley on Feb 6, 2017 18:29:50 GMT
I don't hate it enough to reject. Al Jefferson's alright but is probably a negative at $20m. Yeah, Ezeli's value is shaky but he's an expiring at worst.
I'm not super down on Knight, don't think he's a negative quite yet. Yeah the numbers aren't pretty right now, but he's 25 and it feels like a Greg Monroe-type fit problem situation - I don't think the talent's just suddenly disappeared.
Sooo yeah, Larry's behind, but I don't think that Knight is dead value. Accept.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 6, 2017 18:31:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Feb 6, 2017 18:35:03 GMT
I reject too. I agree with Ian that the Pacers team has been like a revolving door over the last few seasons. There doesn't seem to be any consistent direction. That makes trading away that 2018 pick very dangerous. If Larry was in the habit of keeping all of his picks he'd currently have Ben Simmons on his roster. It's too likely that a similar situation could play out with this pick that I can't accept. Knight just doesn't have enough value.
|
|
|
Post by Bryan Colangelo on Feb 6, 2017 18:52:49 GMT
I reject too. I agree with Ian that the Pacers team has been like a revolving door over the last few seasons. There doesn't seem to be any consistent direction. That makes trading away that 2018 pick very dangerous. If Larry was in the habit of keeping all of his picks he'd currently have Ben Simmons on his roster. It's too likely that a similar situation could play out with this pick that I can't accept. Knight just doesn't have enough value. I'm also going to agree with alex and Walt on this I reject
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Feb 6, 2017 19:38:25 GMT
Seriously?? A guy rated 82 overall with the same per 36 stats as last year who is locked up at a contract that tons of GMs were complaining about over the summer as being too cheap isn't worth 1 first round pick??
Dumping Al Jefferson alone is worth a high 2nd at least. I cannot fathom how this could be reject worthy.
There's also no way the INDY 18 1st is a high pick since he's in the East, has Gallo, Lou Williams and other decent players and he's not actively tanking. Its pretty much guaranteed to be in the teens or later. Hell Larry is prob gonna make the playoffs this year and if he got Knight on his team he'd be a lock.
I'd ask the trade committee members who rejected, if dumping Jefferson and getting Knight locked up for a value contract isn't worth one 1st round pick, what is it worth??
These rejects just make no sense to me
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
Dec 16, 2022 11:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Feb 6, 2017 20:01:00 GMT
As they said, b cause Larry could have a whole new team in a weeks time, that pick could certainly be a lotto pick easily.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Feb 6, 2017 21:37:50 GMT
As they said, b cause Larry could have a whole new team in a weeks time, that pick could certainly be a lotto pick easily. That wasn't my question. If a single first round pick is too much compensation is too much for Brandon Knight and relieving him of Al Jefferson's monstrosity of a deal then what's the correct price? I'm giving him a 80+ rated player who is just 25 years old, locked up on a cheap long term deal and taking on 20+ mil in pretty much dead salary for next year. That's not worth a first round pick? What's it worth then? only a 2nd rounder? Would any of you guys do this deal for only a 2nd? I sincerely doubt it. This really confuses me, I can't see any logical reasoning for a reject.
|
|