DETROIT THREAD ON T&T

Blkbrd671 · Post #1 » by **Blkbrd671** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 7:56 am

One of the OKC poster knuckleheads quoted one of my post, in our forum, regarding the RJ trade. Having been invited to their board and read how they think its funny some us think we got a steal in the trade, i decided to respond. My main premise was, OKC should have gotten more for RJ, of course this wasn't well accepted. To make a long story short, i am pretty sure i got them to admit that Detroit should have given up their pick instead of OKC, which in a sense is them stating "they should have got more". If you'd like to read for yourself

viewtopic.php?f=334&t=1373790

At the end, Bondom locked it up, but proposed a poll on the T&T Board. Thought you'd guys like to know, and vote.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1375334

*Disclaimer: Bondom's pretty level headed, so i got to give him some props.

Laimbeer · Post #2 » by **Laimbeer** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:00 pm

We should have given more, but not our first. It's a bit too much. Our first is worth more than OKC's.

Ghost · Post #3 » by **Ghost** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:07 pm

I voted we probably should have gave up our first (protected), but I'm not up for debate.. obviously both sides are going to say they won.

Kilo · Post #4 » by **Kilo** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:27 pm

What would have OKC got for Reggie if they traded him last off-season? I bet more than Singler and Augustin. They thought enough of RJ to offer him 48M over four years - we signed DJ for 6M over two years in the same off-season. /end debate.

OKC did well mostly because of what Utah added to the traded. They got Kanter for a future late first rounder with the intent on keeping him - that's why they like the trade on their end so much.

Post #5 » by **bondom34** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:32 pm

Hey guys, more votes are welcome whenever, thanks Blkbrd!

ImHeisenberg · Post #6 » by **ImHeisenberg** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:41 pm

Don't try to illicit this board to back up your point of view. It's a done deal.

Only point in quibbling is for people's fragile egos that are tied to a team that they technically have zero affiliation with beyond being a consumer of their products.

spearsy23 · Post #7 » by **spearsy23** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:47 pm

Kilo wrote:What would have OKC got for Reggie if they traded him last off-season? I bet more than Singler and Augustin. They thought enough of RJ to offer him 48M over four years - we signed DJ for 6M over two years in the same off-season. /end debate.

OKC did well mostly because of what Utah added to the traded. They got Kanter for a future late first rounder with the intent on keeping him - that's why they like the trade on their end so much.

Knucklehead here!

This is basically my stance. You guys got a great deal, but we did too, it's Utah that screwed up.

Post #8 » by **dVs33** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 4:16 pm

spearsy23 wrote:
Kilo wrote:What would have OKC got for Reggie if they traded him last off-season? I bet more than Singler and Augustin. They thought enough of RJ to offer him 48M over four years - we signed DJ for 6M over two years in the same off-season. /end debate.

OKC did well mostly because of what Utah added to the traded. They got Kanter for a future late first rounder with the intent on keeping him - that's why they like the trade on their end so much.

Knucklehead here!

This is basically my stance. You guys got a great deal, but we did too, it's Utah that screwed up.

This is it.
Both Detroit and OKC got a decent deal ( i'm still on the fence about RJ, but the potential is there), it's the Utah return that i don;t understand.

Laimbeer · Post #9 » by **Laimbeer** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:32 pm

Someone in that thread suggested it would have been closer if we had absorbed Novak instead of OKC. That's probably a reasonable adjustment.

spearsy23 · Post #10 » by **spearsy23** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:47 pm

Laimbeer wrote:Someone in that thread suggested it would have been closer if we had absorbed Novak instead of OKC. That's probably a reasonable adjustment.

We actually didn't view Novak as a negative. Prior to the trade we literally had 3 players who could consistently hit a three and one was injured half the year. We were EXTREMELY hard up for shooting.

Post #11 » by **Cowology** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 7:24 pm

spearsy23 wrote:
Kilo wrote:What would have OKC got for Reggie if they traded him last off-season? I bet more than Singler and Augustin. They thought enough of RJ to offer him 48M over four years - we signed DJ for 6M over two years in the same off-season. /end debate.

OKC did well mostly because of what Utah added to the traded. They got Kanter for a future late first rounder with the intent on keeping him - that's why they like the trade on their end so much.

Knucklehead here!

This is basically my stance. You guys got a great deal, but we did too, it's Utah that screwed up.

yeah, feels like we both leeched value from Utah.

DocRI · Post #12 » by **DocRI** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:27 pm

spearsy23 wrote:
Kilo wrote:What would have OKC got for Reggie if they traded him last off-season? I bet more than Singler and Augustin. They thought enough of RJ to offer him 48M over four years - we signed DJ for 6M over two years in the same off-season. /end debate.

OKC did well mostly because of what Utah added to the traded. They got Kanter for a future late first rounder with the intent on keeping him - that's why they like the trade on their end so much.

Knucklehead here!

This is basically my stance. You guys got a great deal, but we did too, it's Utah that screwed up.

I actually don't mind the return for Utah, either. I definitely agree they got the worst deal of the three teams, but I think it was the rarely seen win-win-win situation. Or, rather, it was win (UTA), bigger win (OKC), biggest win (DET).

UTA — Got a late first for an RFA they weren't gonna re-sign; in that situation, and for a rebuilding team, something is always better than nothing.
OKC — Got a much-needed offensive big man for an RFA they were barely playing and weren't gonna re-sign and a late first; again, gave pieces that barely effected their team to address a significant need.
DET — Got a potential long-term starting PG for spare parts; gave the least (literally next to nothing) for an asset with crazy upside.

You know who lost the trade? Brooklyn! I have to imagine Presti broke their heart when he left them at the altar on deadline day and worked this deal with SVG/Bowers instead. Have fun paying Brook Lopez $16M next season; just make sure you send the checks to the physical therapy center where he'll be rehabbing his latest injury!

Manocad · Post #13 » by **Manocad** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 10:07 pm

ImHeisenberg wrote:Don't try to illicit this board to back up your point of view. It's a done deal.

Only point in quibbling is for people's fragile egos that are tied to a team that they technically have zero affiliation with beyond being a consumer of their products.

Yeah, I'm not sure what arguing over who got the better deal accomplishes. You got the better deal! Yaaaaaay, good for you! :roll:

Blkbrd671 · Post #14 » by **Blkbrd671** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:04 pm

Kilo wrote:What would have OKC got for Reggie if they traded him last off-season? I bet more than Singler and Augustin. They thought enough of RJ to offer him 48M over four years - we signed DJ for 6M over two years in the same off-season. /end debate.

OKC did well mostly because of what Utah added to the traded. They got Kanter for a future late first rounder with the intent on keeping him - that's why they like the trade on their end so much.

So Detroit fleeced OKC
OKC Fleeced UTH
UTH got a first rounder for a player they weren't going to match and becoming disgruntled