Another Try-Chi-Den-Port

Moderators: Andre Roberstan, HartfordWhalers, BullyKing, Texas Chuck, MoneyTalks41890, Mamba4Goat, pacers33granger, Trader_Joe, loserX

skywalker33
Nuggets Forum Mock Draft Champ
Posts: 13,709
And1: 5,255
Joined: Jun 02, 2014
       

Re: Another Try-Chi-Den-Port 

Post#21 » by skywalker33 » Sat Sep 27, 2014 8:06 pm

Golabki wrote:
BizGilwalker wrote:
Laimbeer wrote:
I would have asked "Fournier for Afflalo?" not so long ago. He's a rental and no all-star.

Just because one franchise makes a stupid decision it doesn't mean Denver has to

Orl obviously shopped around... we know the market for Afflalo now and it isn't a lot.


When you take into consideration that ORL didn't want to deal with his potential opt out salary demands, that changes the value of the deal IMO, something that isn't recognized very well on this site.
Texas Chuck wrote:I'd like to see Utah, and Denver lose


Exactly as I've been saying all along !!
Golabki
General Manager
Posts: 8,333
And1: 1,058
Joined: Jan 31, 2005

Re: Another Try-Chi-Den-Port 

Post#22 » by Golabki » Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:33 pm

skywalker33 wrote:
Golabki wrote:
BizGilwalker wrote:Just because one franchise makes a stupid decision it doesn't mean Denver has to

Orl obviously shopped around... we know the market for Afflalo now and it isn't a lot.


When you take into consideration that ORL didn't want to deal with his potential opt out salary demands, that changes the value of the deal IMO, something that isn't recognized very well on this site.

what's your point?
skywalker33
Nuggets Forum Mock Draft Champ
Posts: 13,709
And1: 5,255
Joined: Jun 02, 2014
       

Re: Another Try-Chi-Den-Port 

Post#23 » by skywalker33 » Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:19 pm

Golabki wrote:
skywalker33 wrote:
Golabki wrote:Orl obviously shopped around... we know the market for Afflalo now and it isn't a lot.


When you take into consideration that ORL didn't want to deal with his potential opt out salary demands, that changes the value of the deal IMO, something that isn't recognized very well on this site.

what's your point?


Most people are judging the trade and AA's value by what ORL received in the trade, that being the late 2nd and Evan Fournier, it's all they can see. But ORL also didn't have to pay AA when he's ready to opt out (or at least deal with it). It also figures in that opening up minutes for their younger talent is a boon to their overall plan, which AA was not a part of. I think when you take that into consideration, ORL got good value in the long-run, Denver a steal in the short-run.

Thus your statement above is true only to the extent that you want it to be
Texas Chuck wrote:I'd like to see Utah, and Denver lose


Exactly as I've been saying all along !!
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 85,797
And1: 88,807
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: Another Try-Chi-Den-Port 

Post#24 » by Texas Chuck » Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:01 pm

Uh, a player option that he opts out of is no harm to Orlando if they don't want to pay him. They simply don't offer him a contract and that's that. You can't act like that adds value to the Magic. Now if you argued the opposite--that the Magic were worried he would opt in and that would mess up their cap plans for that summer you could argue that as added value for the Magic. Tho typically you would only do so with players not likely to opt out and not being worth their contract, neither of which apply here.

And as far as giving younger players playing time, well they can choose to do that with or without AA on the roster so again you don't get to count that as added value.

A more logical way of looking at it is they have AA under contract for one more year and then he almost certainly opts out. They decided they'd rather look at a player they could control longer and get a 2nd round pick rather than have AA in a year they aren't contending for anything. Denver still wins the value portion of the trade hands down, but you can at least see the logic in it from the Magic perspective.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
skywalker33
Nuggets Forum Mock Draft Champ
Posts: 13,709
And1: 5,255
Joined: Jun 02, 2014
       

Re: Another Try-Chi-Den-Port 

Post#25 » by skywalker33 » Sun Sep 28, 2014 4:42 am

Chuck Texas wrote:Uh, a player option that he opts out of is no harm to Orlando if they don't want to pay him. They simply don't offer him a contract and that's that. You can't act like that adds value to the Magic. Now if you argued the opposite--that the Magic were worried he would opt in and that would mess up their cap plans for that summer you could argue that as added value for the Magic. Tho typically you would only do so with players not likely to opt out and not being worth their contract, neither of which apply here.


Well, in that instance they lose him for nothing, with the trade they got two assets rather than cap space. And if you were just to sit him on a team where he was easily able to help the team win, the team could lose some faith in the direction the team is headed, AA could become a distraction (not that I believe he would, he's a professional). Lessening the potential to diminish chemistry is a plus in my book and moving AA for assets again is a win IMO.

Chuck Texas wrote:A more logical way of looking at it is they have AA under contract for one more year and then he almost certainly opts out. They decided they'd rather look at a player they could control longer and get a 2nd round pick rather than have AA in a year they aren't contending for anything. Denver still wins the value portion of the trade hands down, but you can at least see the logic in it from the Magic perspective.


I can certainly agree with this, many people don't realize the potential Fournier has, I was a bit surprised they trade him, but it was an upgrade to say the least.
Texas Chuck wrote:I'd like to see Utah, and Denver lose


Exactly as I've been saying all along !!

Return to Trades and Transactions