Raptors/Suns/Hornets: Agreed on Draft Day, July 1st Deal

[rsavaj]

The difference in PER between Jose Calderon and Steve Nash this past year was .8

What do you think the "marketability" difference is between the two? (And yes, I might have just coined that term.)

What do you think will be the marketability of that team a few years down the road? Teams take that into consideration as well, you know.

Also, add into that equasion: team success. Do you believe that a few years down the road, the Suns would be more successful with Steve Nash or Jose Calderon?

Yeah, actually I do believe that a few years down the road, the Suns would be more successful with an ancient Steve Nash than Calderon.

[Kerrsed]

Honestly i quit reading after

wait so your valuing nash on past years? Im sure than Allen Iverson is worth a whole bunch or Tracey Mcgrady i hate how people view players from past accomplishments what did nash win THIS SEASON?

Then followed up

how is Humphries bad at all, i hate how people just look at his stats THIS SEASON.

So its OK for you to look at past years, but not OK for a 2 time MVP. What you've got is BALLS! Blah blah Caldrone is better then Nash, blah blah Nash is old blah blah. If your point guard is sooooo good, and sooooo much younger, then why are you trying to trade him for a declining slow old man? If you want to be taken seriously then you cant talk s**t about how Nash sucks and is old and how Caldrone is the next coming of Christ himself! If that was so then you wouldnt be trying to trade him in the first place. I hate when you tell a person how your team would not accept a deal, so they automatically go into "Our player is way better then the trash your team is sending us". BS. When Suns fans on Real GM tell you what they think their team would/wouldnt do, what makes you think that you know more then them? Do you watch ALL the Suns games? Do you read the AZ newspapers? Do you search the interwebs for any Suns news you can get your hands on? I DO! I am a suns fan and take my word, Suns would not do this trade. As stated before by other Suns fans who know more,

NASH > JOSE
NOTHING > HUMPHRIES
A #14 pick to a rebuilding team> HUMPHRIES

The reason you post trade ideas is to get the other teams input. If they say "no", then find a new trade to work with, dont get all bitchey thinking you know more then them.

[Alfred]

It's irrelevant which one it's about. The sentiment is the same. Think about it. You're saying "Oh, why would you give that player up in a trade if he's so much better than what you're getting back?"

That is actually not at all what I'm saying about Humphries. Is that what you believe? Because if so I'm a little bit flabbergasted as to where you might have gotten that from.

I believe that you've changed your tune. You've shifted the goalposts and are now trying to pretend that you knew what you were saying all along. That's basically what I've been saying this entire argument, so it shouldn't be flabbergasting in the slightest.

Let's analyse what you're saying for a moment. This argument has two premises and a conclusion:

Premise #1:
Humphries does not need to be in the deal for it to work.
Premise #2:
Humphries has negative value.
Conclusion:
The Suns would not agree to the above trade if it was forced on them.

The premises do not support the conclusion! Humphries can have both negative value, and not need to be in the deal, and the Suns COULD STILL ACCEPT THE DEAL if the Raptors required that Humphries be included.

YES THEY COULD. BUT I AM SAYING THAT THEY LIKELY WOULD NOT.

They could? That's interesting, because you tried to offer that argument as a proof why the Suns wouldn't do the deal. As I just showed, and you agree(!) that that argument isn't valid.

You've changed your argument now so that it is valid. My point is that your original argument was flawed, and apparently you agree.

The conclusion, as phrased by you yourself, is whether they would. How exactly do the premises support your conclusion that the Suns would do this? Your argument appears to be this:

Premise #1:
Humphries does not need to be in the deal for it to work.
Premise #2:
Humphries has negative value.
Conclusion:
I personally don't care, so the Suns can suck it.

That is not my argument not in the slightest. My argument is very simple. I'm saying that the Suns would accept a deal of Calderon/Humphries/Cash for Nash and the #14 pick.

You said "Humphries doesn't need to be in the deal, therefore, the Suns decline."

I replied "Him not NEEDING to be in the deal doesn't make the deal UNABLE TO GO THROUGH. It's a moot point."

Now you obviously disagree with me on my conclusion, but you were doing a very, very poor job of attacking my premises. The points you were using didn't directly attack my argument.

Imagine for a second that Humphries was a throw-in with Chris Paul. Humphries could both have negative value and not NEED to be included in the deal and the Suns would still be all over it.

So what? When Paul and Calderon have equivalent value, that might be relevant. Paul would be worth taking Humphries. Calderon would not be.

It's called an example. I was using that as an example of proving why your Premise #1 + Premise #2 did not equal the conclusion that you drew.

Again, I'll rephrase my argument so that you understand it:

Me: "The Suns would accept a deal consisting of Calderon/Humphries/Cash for Nash/#14."
You: "But Humphries doesn't need to be in the deal for it to work."
Me: "That's irrelevant to my argument. They would accept it either way."

Me: "No, they wouldn't, because Humphries has negative value to them at his cost. They might however accept the same deal if it did not include Humphries."

There. Now are we on the same page?

We've been on the same page for a while now. You obviously now understand what I'm saying and that's great. What I'm trying to do is hold you accountable for the things you said earlier in this thread.

This part of the debate has been discussing how your original point didn't directly attack any of my points. It now does, because you've changed it. Which is fine. However, it is absolutely true what I said at first: which was that your point did not directly apply to mine.

To defend yourself, you've been see-sawing between the two points in an attempt to make them work with one another, and adding extra arguments that were not present in your original point.

[Alfred]

What do you think will be the marketability of that team a few years down the road? Teams take that into consideration as well, you know.

Also, add into that equasion: team success. Do you believe that a few years down the road, the Suns would be more successful with Steve Nash or Jose Calderon?

Yeah, actually I do believe that a few years down the road, the Suns would be more successful with an ancient Steve Nash than Calderon.

What kind of contract do you believe Steve Nash will get in free agency next year?

[bcortell]

Guys, you need to realize that Alfred and Rapsobsessed will not understand. They haven't gotten it for 2 hours of loserx trying to explain it to them. Raps- please stop posting that trade in this thread. Everyone sees it. Alfred, you don't build- or rebuild- around Calderon. They could look for a better trade for Nash or just let him expire and get a PG through the draft at a cheaper price.

[loserX]

It's irrelevant which one it's about. The sentiment is the same. Think about it. You're saying "Oh, why would you give that player up in a trade if he's so much better than what you're getting back?"

That is actually not at all what I'm saying about Humphries. Is that what you believe? Because if so I'm a little bit flabbergasted as to where you might have gotten that from.

I believe that you've changed your tune. You've shifted the goalposts and are now trying to pretend that you knew what you were saying all along. That's basically what I've been saying this entire argument, so it shouldn't be flabbergasting in the slightest.

I would like you to cite me a single instance of when I might have implied that "if Humphries is so good, why don't you keep him". A single one. All I've said is that the Suns don't want him at his cost...if that's how you've been interpreting my statement, then I'm afraid you really are confused.

They could? That's interesting, because you tried to offer that argument as a proof why the Suns wouldn't do the deal. As I just showed, and you agree(!) that that argument isn't valid.

I think I may have misinterpreted what you meant by "could". If you meant "would", then I disagree. If you meant, "it is possible under the rules of the CBA", then I agree.

That is not my argument not in the slightest. My argument is very simple. I'm saying that the Suns would accept a deal of Calderon/Humphries/Cash for Nash and the #14 pick.

You said "Humphries doesn't need to be in the deal, therefore, the Suns decline."

I replied "Him not NEEDING to be in the deal doesn't make the deal UNABLE TO GO THROUGH. It's a moot point."

Are you arguing whether the deal is "able to go through"? Or whether the Suns would do it? Because those can be very different. Lots of deals are "able to go through", but it doesn't mean that either team would accept it. The Jazz could offer Matt Harpring for Calderon and it is "able to go through". This whole disagreement may be one of semantics, unless you are the one now moving the goalposts.

We've been on the same page for a while now. You obviously now understand what I'm saying and that's great. What I'm trying to do is hold you accountable for the things you said earlier in this thread.

This part of the debate has been discussing how your original point didn't directly attack any of my points. It now does, because you've changed it. Which is fine. However, it is absolutely true what I said at first: which was that your point did not directly apply to mine.

To defend yourself, you've been see-sawing between the two points in an attempt to make them work with one another, and adding extra arguments that were not present in your original point.

My original point (apart from the admitted sidetrack on Calderon, which was my fault) is and has always been this:

- the Raptors can offer a deal that includes Calderon and Humphries for Nash and the rights to #14
- the Raptors can also offer a deal that includes only Calderon for Nash and the rights to the player selected with #14
- therefore Humphries does not need to be in the deal for it to be "able to work" under the provisions of the CBA
- therefore the Suns agreeing to take him as negative value would be more unlikely since there is a legal deal available where they do not have to do so...we disagree on whether the Suns would do it anyway
- I think the Suns ought to consider the second variant; I do not think they ought to consider the first variant when the second is so easily accomplished.

Anyway, I am just as bored of this as I'm sure everyone else is. I apologize to the posters and readers in this thread for my part in dragging it out.

[Kerrsed]

What kind of contract do you believe Steve Nash will get in free agency next year?

Honestly i believe Nash would take a pay cut @ 8 mill a year for 2 years to go to a team that has a shot at a title. I could see him signing with the Blazers for that, I think if he went to NY there would be a good chance LeBron would join him, i could see him joining Toronto as a FA, but i could not see the Suns trading him for Caldrone. I think the Suns would rather let him go and use that 13 mill to sign a player they could re-build around instead of Caldrone. People forget that the Suns will be in a good place for the 2010 FA with Nash's 13 mill, Shaq's 20 mill and possibly Stats 16 mill coming off the books. If we cant get a good trade for Nash, let him walk and use the cap space to get the player we want at the price we want.

[rsavaj]

What kind of contract do you believe Steve Nash will get in free agency next year?

Honestly i believe Nash would take a pay cut @ 8 mill a year for 2 years to go to a team that has a shot at a title. I could see him signing with the Blazers for that, I think if he went to NY there would be a good chance LeBron would join him, i could see him joining Toronto as a FA, but i could not see the Suns trading him for Caldrone. I think the Suns would rather let him go and use that 13 mill to sign a player they could re-build around instead of Caldrone. People forget that the Suns will be in a good place for the 2010 FA with Nash's 13 mill, Shaq's 20 mill and possibly Stats 16 mill coming off the books. If we cant get a good trade for Nash, let him walk and use the cap space to get the player we want at the price we want.

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/ar ... h0520.html

Sucks for us

[Rapsobsessed7]

Honestly i quit reading after

wait so your valuing nash on past years? Im sure than Allen Iverson is worth a whole bunch or Tracey Mcgrady i hate how people view players from past accomplishments what did nash win THIS SEASON?

Then followed up

how is Humphries bad at all, i hate how people just look at his stats THIS SEASON.

Should have kept reading then because if you notice i said he hasnt played enough games to really gauge his value this season only 29 compared to last season where he played 70. Thats why i used his previous stats because his injury kept him out all season so how can you really determine his value then?

[Kerrsed]

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/ar ... h0520.html

Sucks for us

Yeah just read it. I'm kind of glad actually, makes it 72.5% more likely that we trade Nash before next season.

[Kerrsed]

Should have kept reading then because if you notice i said he hasnt played enough games to really gauge his value this season only 29 compared to last season where he played 70. Thats why i used his previous stats because his injury kept him out all season so how can you really determine his value then?

How can you determine Nash's true value last year when for the past 5 seasons he has been a absolute stud, then we switch to a slow pace no-offese defensive coach in Porter. Porters system KILLED Nash. He slowed Nash down, made him less creative, took away his 2 best friends, and told the team to deal with it.

[Rapsobsessed7]

He would take a pay cut to come play for toronto and traino

[Alfred]

That is actually not at all what I'm saying about Humphries. Is that what you believe? Because if so I'm a little bit flabbergasted as to where you might have gotten that from.

I believe that you've changed your tune. You've shifted the goalposts and are now trying to pretend that you knew what you were saying all along. That's basically what I've been saying this entire argument, so it shouldn't be flabbergasting in the slightest.

I would like you to cite me a single instance of when I might have implied that "if Humphries is so good, why don't you keep him". A single one.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=906158&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30#p19540074

Hell, Humphries isn't even bad.

Again, then the Raptors should keep him.

Right here

They could? That's interesting, because you tried to offer that argument as a proof why the Suns wouldn't do the deal. As I just showed, and you agree(!) that that argument isn't valid.

I think I may have misinterpreted what you meant by "could". If you meant "would", then I disagree. If you meant, "it is possible under the rules of the CBA", then I agree.

I'm simply doing the math. You gave me your argument, I showed you why it was flawed, and you agreed that it was flawed. I don't know exactly what else you want me to do here? Your argument was invalid, I showed you multiple ways that it didn't make sense, and then you just agreed with me.

We've been on the same page for a while now. You obviously now understand what I'm saying and that's great. What I'm trying to do is hold you accountable for the things you said earlier in this thread.

This part of the debate has been discussing how your original point didn't directly attack any of my points. It now does, because you've changed it. Which is fine. However, it is absolutely true what I said at first: which was that your point did not directly apply to mine.

To defend yourself, you've been see-sawing between the two points in an attempt to make them work with one another, and adding extra arguments that were not present in your original point.

My original point (apart from the admitted sidetrack on Calderon, which was my fault) is and has always been this:

- the Raptors can offer a deal that includes Calderon and Humphries for Nash and the rights to #14
- the Raptors can also offer a deal that includes only Calderon for Nash and the rights to the player selected with #14
- therefore Humphries does not need to be in the deal for it to be "able to work" under the provisions of the CBA
- therefore the Suns agreeing to take him as negative value would be more unlikely since there is a legal deal available where they do not have to do so...we disagree on whether the Suns would do it anyway
- I think the Suns ought to consider the second variant; I do not think they ought to consider the first variant when the second is so easily accomplished.

Anyway, I am just as bored of this as I'm sure everyone else is. I apologize to the posters and readers in this thread for my part in dragging it out.

Firstly, here is what I was trying to do when I called you out the second time regarding the Humphries comment:

Hell, Humphries isn't even bad.

Again, then the Raptors should keep him. He poses negative value to the Suns, and doesn't need to be in the trade at all.

I was basically having an argument with another person where I said that Jose Calderon, Humphries and Cash were worth Nash and the #14 pick. Saying things like "if he's so good the Raptors should just keep him" and "Humphries doesn't need to be in the deal" are red herrings, because the argument is whether JC/Humphries/Cash is worth Nash/#14. How on earth does telling me to take Humphries out of the deal, or "if he's so great the Raptors should just keep him" settle that?

That's basically what it boils down to; it just seemed like a very strange way of arguing against me.

[loserX]

Hell, Humphries isn't even bad.

Again, then the Raptors should keep him.

Right here

What I said is totally legitimate. Humphries has negative value to the Suns in this trade. If he doesn't have negative value to the Raptors, then they should take him out of the deal and keep him. It makes the deal more palatable to Phoenix without hurting the Raptors. What's wrong with that?

Hell, Humphries isn't even bad.

Again, then the Raptors should keep him. He poses negative value to the Suns, and doesn't need to be in the trade at all.

I was basically having an argument with another person where I said that Jose Calderon, Humphries and Cash were worth Nash and the #14 pick. Saying things like "if he's so good the Raptors should just keep him" and "Humphries doesn't need to be in the deal" are red herrings, because the argument is whether JC/Humphries/Cash is worth Nash/#14.

Right. And I say it isn't. A JC/Cash package is worth more to the Suns. So taking Humphries out is not a red herring.

How on earth does telling me to take Humphries out of the deal, or "if he's so great the Raptors should just keep him" settle that?

Deal 1: Calderon/Humphries/cash for Nash/#14. In my opinion, not good enough.
Deal 2: Calderon/cash for Nash/#14. In my opinion, worth consideration.

Deal 2 is much better for the Suns than deal 1. Therefore, telling you to take Humphries out of the deal is perfectly relevant in determining the value of the trade. If the Raptors don't see him as a negative (which the Suns do), then they should keep him. That's all.

[Alfred]

Right here

What I said is totally legitimate. Humphries has negative value to the Suns in this trade. If he doesn't have negative value to the Raptors, then they should take him out of the deal and keep him. It makes the deal more palatable to Phoenix without hurting the Raptors. What's wrong with that?

It's the exact same form as the prior comment that you admit was a red herring. Saying "if Player X is so good, why don't you keep him" isn't a legitimate argument. You admitted as much yourself when you asked me to find anything that even implied that (regarding Humphries), and when you said the same thing about Calderon, you apologized for misunderstanding the argument.

Of course you can read meaning into something after the fact. The question is ambiguous and follows the same mode of dismissal as the Calderon example you apologized for. Why? Because it assumes that I want the trade to go through rather than simply evaluating the trade from value standpoint.

Any sort of argument that supposes that I "am" the Raptors organization, or uses language that says that Humphries is "more valuable to the Raptors than to the Suns" is missing the point. My argument has always been that this package is enough to secure the Suns' package.

I was basically having an argument with another person where I said that Jose Calderon, Humphries and Cash were worth Nash and the #14 pick. Saying things like "if he's so good the Raptors should just keep him" and "Humphries doesn't need to be in the deal" are red herrings, because the argument is whether JC/Humphries/Cash is worth Nash/#14.

Right. And I say it isn't. A JC/Cash package is worth more to the Suns. So taking Humphries out is not a red herring.

In that statement, you didn't say "take Humphries out of the deal". First you mentioned that if Humphries is good, then the Raptors should keep him (this presupposes that I want the deal to go through), then you said that Humphries wasn't needed in the deal in order to make it work (basically irrelevant to my argument). Even if he had negative value to the Suns, I was comparing the two packages, one of which included Humphries in them. Saying that Humphries isn't needed is besides the point.

You disagree with me that Humphries/JC/Cash is worth Nash/#14. That's fine. I know you do. I'm merely saying that the method in which you were attacking my points was poor.

How on earth does telling me to take Humphries out of the deal, or "if he's so great the Raptors should just keep him" settle that?

Deal 1: Calderon/Humphries/cash for Nash/#14. In my opinion, not good enough.
Deal 2: Calderon/cash for Nash/#14. In my opinion, worth consideration.

Deal 2 is much better for the Suns than deal 1. Therefore, telling you to take Humphries out of the deal is perfectly relevant in determining the value of the trade. If the Raptors don't see him as a negative (which the Suns do), then they should keep him. That's all.

I was never arguing Deal 1 versus Deal 2! That never happened! I was saying Deal 1 was more than enough to secure Nash/#14. If you disagree with me, that's fine. That's why saying "Humphries isn't needed" is a red herring. Because you're talking about the benefits of Deal 2, and I'm talking about Deal 1.

Saying Deal 2 is better for Pheonix is not a legitimate argument against Deal 1 being worth it for Pheonix. That's been my argument all along.

I'm saying "Deal 1 works for Pheonix."
You're saying "But what about Deal 2?"
And I'm saying "What about it?"

[bcortell]

Deal 1 is not worth it for PHX. Can we move on now?

[Alfred]

Deal 1 is not worth it for PHX. Can we move on now?

You have a lot of determination in your posts, but you haven't really been able to rebutt any of my arguments. Here, I'll lay them out for you again:

-The difference in PER between Calderon and Nash is .8
-The age difference between the two is 8 years
-Jose Calderon is signed to a long, reasonable contract
-Steve Nash is an UFA next year
-Steve Nash has back issues and has been declining for a few years and will be 35

Calderon is worth more at this point in time.

[bcortell]

I'm not going to debate with you. You can go back through the thread an reread my posts. Most of them have been rhetorical questions that you seemed to answer seriously.

[Alfred]

I'm not going to debate with you.

Then stop speaking authoritatively if you aren't going to back it up with rhetoric.

[Kerrsed]

Deal 1 is not worth it for PHX. Can we move on now?

You have a lot of determination in your posts, but you haven't really been able to rebutt any of my arguments. Here, I'll lay them out for you again:

-The difference in PER between Calderon and Nash is .8
-The age difference between the two is 8 years
-Jose Calderon is signed to a long, reasonable contract
-Steve Nash is an UFA next year
-Steve Nash has back issues and has been declining for a few years and will be 35

Calderon is worth more at this point in time.

I think you forgot to add :

-Steve Nash is a multi-year allstar
and
-Steve Nash is a former MVP........wait.....make that a 2 TIME MVP!

How may years has Calderon been a all-star??? uhhh yeah.....How many MVP's has he won??? yeahhhh.....um how many play-off games dose he have under his belt??? Well, you dont say.

We can "rebutt" all day and keep coming up with reasons why and why not this would work, but nothing is going to change. in the end, Phoenix stills says no, and isnt that what REALLY maters here.