CP3 Denied: In Hindsight, Who Had the Better Offer?

Moderators: penbeast0, trex_8063, PaulieWal, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier

Which offer would you take?

Lakers
7
44%
Clippers
9
56%
 
Total votes: 16

User avatar
oaktownwarriors87
RealGM
Posts: 13,727
And1: 4,349
Joined: Mar 01, 2005
 

CP3 Denied: In Hindsight, Who Had the Better Offer? 

Post#1 » by oaktownwarriors87 » Wed Jul 1, 2015 6:14 pm

Would Anthony Davis and the Pelicans be better off with the Lakers offer, or has history reinforced David Stern's decision to step in and force a trade with the Clippers?

Clippers: Eric Gordon, Chris Kaman, Al Farouq Aminu, 40th pick in 2012 draft
Lakers: Goran Dragic, Kevin Martin, Lamar Odom, Luis Scola, 16th pick in the 2012 draft

I'm a big Aminu fan, but no way do I take the Clippers offer. Stern was a fool then and he's a fool now.
cdubbz wrote:Donte DiVincenzo will outplay Poole this season.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,307
And1: 2,998
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: CP3 Denied: In Hindsight, Who Had the Better Offer? 

Post#2 » by Owly » Wed Jul 1, 2015 6:39 pm

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:Would Anthony Davis and the Pelicans be better off with the Lakers offer, or has history reinforced David Stern's decision to step in and force a trade with the Clippers?

Clippers: Eric Gordon, Chris Kaman, Al Farouq Aminu, 40th pick in 2012 draft
Lakers: Goran Dragic, Kevin Martin, Lamar Odom, Luis Scola, 16th pick in the 2012 draft

I'm a big Aminu fan, but no way do I take the Clippers offer. Stern was a fool then and he's a fool now.

It depended on what they then flipped Odom, Scola and Martin into. Assuming the Hornets management weren't idiots they knew that besides Paul their team wasn't up to that much. Thus they would have to be rebuilding. If the thinking was lets try to compete with that package then as against it as I was at the time, Stern might actually have saved them from themselves (not a great idea to get stuck on the low-mid 30s treadmill then extend poorly-aging players because you can't let the pieces you got for Chris Paul walk -- even then though Stern shouldn't have stepped in, it made basketball look bush-league; heck it looked like someones fantasy league). But I would think (and certainly hope) the players were assets to be re-flipped, and Odom was coming off a great season and I think maybe Scola still had some buzz about him (I recall having the impression he was overrated for quite a while). Plus Kevin Martin is just as good as James Harden and could replace him perfectly. We tend to say "a future first" as though that's one specific thing with a specific value rather than a vast range of possibilities. But could they, say, have gotten a middle of the round first pick (or equivalent young player) for each of those three (or as an average result with Odom netting more than the others)? Obviously you need the right team (who want your players) with the right assets and/or cap room to make such deals work. But if they could, or could come fairly close, even factoring in that Dragic may have been a rental, it's hard not to see that as a lot better than a deal which was mostly the right to overpay Eric Gordon (even if a bit of that is monday morning quarterbacking wrt Gordon's injuries, they were always going to have to overpay Gordon so that the Paul trade wasn't "for nothing").
NinjaSheppard
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,775
And1: 1,404
Joined: May 18, 2012
 

Re: CP3 Denied: In Hindsight, Who Had the Better Offer? 

Post#3 » by NinjaSheppard » Wed Jul 1, 2015 7:16 pm

The Clippers. It isn't even close. Not even worth discussing.

There is not a single Pelicans fan that thinks the Laker offer was better.
Shot Clock
RealGM
Posts: 14,316
And1: 17,443
Joined: Aug 20, 2009
   

Re: CP3 Denied: In Hindsight, Who Had the Better Offer? 

Post#4 » by Shot Clock » Wed Jul 1, 2015 7:23 pm

Clippers. I doubt Anthony Davis is on the team if they went the other route
anyone involved in that meddling to justice”. NO COLLUSION

- DJT
User avatar
bondom34
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 66,580
And1: 50,199
Joined: Mar 01, 2013

Re: CP3 Denied: In Hindsight, Who Had the Better Offer? 

Post#5 » by bondom34 » Wed Jul 1, 2015 7:23 pm

You're missing the part about the Lakers deal meaning they're not bad enough to get the pick that became Davis. That kinda changes things.
MyUniBroDavis wrote: he was like YALL PEOPLE WHO DOUBT ME WILL SEE YALLS STATS ARE WRONG I HAVE THE BIG BRAIN PLAYS MUCHO NASTY BIG BRAIN BIG CHUNGUS BRAIN YOU BOYS ON UR BBALL REFERENCE NO UNDERSTANDO
NinjaSheppard
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,775
And1: 1,404
Joined: May 18, 2012
 

Re: CP3 Denied: In Hindsight, Who Had the Better Offer? 

Post#6 » by NinjaSheppard » Wed Jul 1, 2015 7:25 pm

Also the first post didn't include the Austin Rivers pick which was Minnesota's unprotected first rounder.
Krodis
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,876
And1: 599
Joined: Nov 28, 2009

Re: CP3 Denied: In Hindsight, Who Had the Better Offer? 

Post#7 » by Krodis » Wed Jul 1, 2015 7:28 pm

Yeah, this looks different in hindsight because Gordon fell apart, the Wolves did better than expected (AND the Pelicans badly botched the pick anyway), and Goran Dragic inexplicably turned into a much better player. It doesn't make much sense to evaluate trades in hindsight unless you have reason to believe those teams knew something the general public didn't. I don't think that's the case here...
Shot Clock
RealGM
Posts: 14,316
And1: 17,443
Joined: Aug 20, 2009
   

Re: CP3 Denied: In Hindsight, Who Had the Better Offer? 

Post#8 » by Shot Clock » Wed Jul 1, 2015 8:02 pm

Krodis wrote:Yeah, this looks different in hindsight because Gordon fell apart, the Wolves did better than expected (AND the Pelicans badly botched the pick anyway), and Goran Dragic inexplicably turned into a much better player. It doesn't make much sense to evaluate trades in hindsight unless you have reason to believe those teams knew something the general public didn't. I don't think that's the case here...


That's the thing. At the time it wasn't even viewed as a good trade and their main targets were Gordon and Curry.

The Hornets had to dump Paul, and quickly. They had to attempt to get something for the All-Star before training camp started on Friday, before the questions rolled in and before Paul had to sit through media day on Sunday. Yahoo! Sports first reported last week that Paul's agent informed the Hornets (as of Thursday afternoon, players were still allowed to speak to team officials) that he would not be signing a contract extension, essentially a non-request trade request because asking for a trade publicly would result in a fine for Paul.

From there, the Hornets got to work. Ignoring New York, thinking about Boston and considering offers from the Los Angeles Clippers and Golden State Warriors. When the Clippers and Warriors wouldn't budge on sending Eric Gordon or Stephen Curry to New Orleans, the Hornets just about ran out of good options.

But this? New Orleans just traded for one of the most versatile big men in the game, but Odom has to go and quickly. Scola, perhaps just as soon -- if not sooner -- and I have unending respect for those two as players. Still, you don't start a rebuilding process by trading for two guys in their 30s making nearly $9 million a year.
anyone involved in that meddling to justice”. NO COLLUSION

- DJT
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,307
And1: 2,998
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: CP3 Denied: In Hindsight, Who Had the Better Offer? 

Post#9 » by Owly » Wed Jul 1, 2015 8:20 pm

The thing with including Davis is
1) It's part of the cause of a [small] chance at Davis, not the cause of getting Davis
2) It's [like Gordon's injury history] more than was known at the time.
3) It assumes the Laker's package aren't then going to be flipped for younger pieces or picks, which puts you back into tank mode.

The exclusion of the Rivers pick in OP was an error, and the value of the pick shouldn't be dismissed just because it was later wasted on Rivers (I thought the Clippers package out looked a bit slender). That said those who say Minnesota's pick was worse than expected are aguably in error or at least should be clear that the Timberwolves shouldn't have been expected to do as badly again as they had the year prior. Firstly they were rid of Kurt Rambis and had replaced him with Rick Adleman, an enormous upgrade. Then too you look at how the '11 T'Wolves were giving minutes to some dreadful players.

It's difficult to upgrade when you're okay everywhere, because good players cost a lot. It's easy to upgrade on very weak, because replacement level can be an improvement and that's super-cheap. It was also known they had their number 2 pick arriving and Rubio. Admittedly Pekovic, though his Euro numbers projected a decent player, wasn't expected to suddenly flower, after being very poor his first year.

The falloffs of Scola and Odom in particular make that package look bad (Odom's in reality, Scola more perception falling back into line with reality), but if they were trade chips (and as before I assume they were, because getting them to keep them in New Orleans would have been dumb) then that doesn't matter - and means no alteration to the chance at Davis.

It might depend on how you read the value of Dragic, but he had done well in Houston (albeit in only 378 minutes).

Long term the value of each package depends what you do with it. New Orleans did the wrong thing with the Clippers package (overpaid Gordon - which they sort of had to which was a problem with that package; let Aminu walk and punted the pick) but whilst I've been making a case for the Laker's package based on what I think could/should have been done, there's a fair chance they screw that package up too (and as acknowledged, it wouldn't be too hard to do, just keep them on and overpay).
magicmerl
Analyst
Posts: 3,226
And1: 830
Joined: Jul 11, 2013

Re: CP3 Denied: In Hindsight, Who Had the Better Offer? 

Post#10 » by magicmerl » Wed Jul 1, 2015 9:43 pm

It's clearly the Clippers.

The Lakers offer brought in more NBA talent, but would have turned them into a treadmill team. They would be far worse today if they had taken it.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 50,604
And1: 19,355
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: CP3 Denied: In Hindsight, Who Had the Better Offer? 

Post#11 » by Doctor MJ » Wed Jul 1, 2015 10:08 pm

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:Stern was a fool then and he's a fool now.


Thing is I don't actually thing he's a "fool". I think his action could not possibly be justified by any honest, rational means, but I think he knew that. In the end Stern did what he did so often: Chose the appearance of fairness over actual fairness.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
NO-KG-AI
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 42,927
And1: 17,884
Joined: Jul 19, 2005
Location: The city of witch doctors, and good ol' pickpockets

Re: CP3 Denied: In Hindsight, Who Had the Better Offer? 

Post#12 » by NO-KG-AI » Wed Jul 1, 2015 10:11 pm

Stern, as a stand in owner for the team, did what was best for the team. It's not even a discussion that having Lamar Odom, Scola, Dragic, etc is better than getting young players and entering the AD sweepstakes. Mission accomplished.
Doctor MJ wrote:I don't understand why people jump in a thread and say basically, "This thing you're all talking about. I'm too ignorant to know anything about it. Lollerskates!"
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,307
And1: 2,998
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: CP3 Denied: In Hindsight, Who Had the Better Offer? 

Post#13 » by Owly » Wed Jul 1, 2015 10:37 pm

NO-KG-AI wrote:Stern, as a stand in owner for the team, did what was best for the team. It's not even a discussion that having Lamar Odom, Scola, Dragic, etc is better than getting young players and entering the AD sweepstakes. Mission accomplished.

2 seperate points here

1) Stern wasn't publically "stand in owner" for the team, as that would represent a massive conflict of interests. The Hornets franchise had a management structure, and if Stern was to be the decision maker, that should at least have been made public when they took on the team.

2) Everyone is talking as though players aren't "assets" (+ or -) that can be moved. Now it didn't turn out great for either package, but the Lakers-Rockets package was full of stuff considered flippable that were considered to have positive value (at least until Odom went into a funk), and then keepers in a pick and Dragic. Davis was neither a fait acompli, nor something which required poor short term assets. Why? Teams can move on players. I don't dislike teams committing to rebuilds (I encourage it), but the Gordon package demanded giving him too much money even if he got healthy (and health was already a concern); the Hornets could have been just as bad and had more picks.
magicmerl
Analyst
Posts: 3,226
And1: 830
Joined: Jul 11, 2013

Re: CP3 Denied: In Hindsight, Who Had the Better Offer? 

Post#14 » by magicmerl » Thu Jul 2, 2015 1:19 am

Owly wrote:
NO-KG-AI wrote:Stern, as a stand in owner for the team, did what was best for the team. It's not even a discussion that having Lamar Odom, Scola, Dragic, etc is better than getting young players and entering the AD sweepstakes. Mission accomplished.

2 seperate points here

1) Stern wasn't publically "stand in owner" for the team, as that would represent a massive conflict of interests. The Hornets franchise had a management structure, and if Stern was to be the decision maker, that should at least have been made public when they took on the team.

You are wrong. The NBA did publicly own the Hornets, and Stern was the head of the NBA.
carlquincy
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,747
And1: 1,140
Joined: Dec 13, 2011

Re: CP3 Denied: In Hindsight, Who Had the Better Offer? 

Post#15 » by carlquincy » Thu Jul 2, 2015 1:51 am

They could have taken the Lakers offer and still tank.

LA had the better offer in hindsight.
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,813
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: CP3 Denied: In Hindsight, Who Had the Better Offer? 

Post#16 » by HeartBreakKid » Thu Jul 2, 2015 2:03 am

Owly wrote:
NO-KG-AI wrote:Stern, as a stand in owner for the team, did what was best for the team. It's not even a discussion that having Lamar Odom, Scola, Dragic, etc is better than getting young players and entering the AD sweepstakes. Mission accomplished.

2 seperate points here

1) Stern wasn't publically "stand in owner" for the team, as that would represent a massive conflict of interests. The Hornets franchise had a management structure, and if Stern was to be the decision maker, that should at least have been made public when they took on the team.


This knowledge was public.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,307
And1: 2,998
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: CP3 Denied: In Hindsight, Who Had the Better Offer? 

Post#17 » by Owly » Thu Jul 2, 2015 7:07 am

magicmerl wrote:You are wrong. The NBA did publicly own the Hornets, and Stern was the head of the NBA.


HeartBreakKid wrote:
Owly wrote:
NO-KG-AI wrote:Stern, as a stand in owner for the team, did what was best for the team. It's not even a discussion that having Lamar Odom, Scola, Dragic, etc is better than getting young players and entering the AD sweepstakes. Mission accomplished.

2 seperate points here

1) Stern wasn't publically "stand in owner" for the team, as that would represent a massive conflict of interests. The Hornets franchise had a management structure, and if Stern was to be the decision maker, that should at least have been made public when they took on the team.


This knowledge was public.

Short version because I don't have a lot of time right now
NBA took over Hornets in public is true.
Stern is head of NBA is true.
That doesn't equate to Stern is acting owner and decision maker (because it would be a clear conflict of interests). The company he ran had some duty of care to the Hornets.

He had an interest in them being run well and thus upon taking on the Hornets "he"/the NBA had choices whether to continue with the present management structure, replace elements of it, bring in a third party as replacement or oversight/management or perhaps have an internal (NBA) oversight manager/team. But that's different from Stern taking on the role at the top of the decision making tree in New Orleans, which he couldn't be because it would be, say it with me, a conflict of interests.

And that Stern would act in this way wasn't public knowledge (all use of the phrase "Stern acting owner of the Hornets" comes both 1) on forums and 2) after the trade) or even known within the Hornets heirarchy, hence the trade going public [then suddenly being vetoed].

Return to Player Comparisons