ImageImageImage

Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C

Moderators: dVs33, Snakebites, theBigLip

User avatar
The Penguin
"Beat The Commish" Champion/Mr. Clean Slate
Posts: 7,225
And1: 4,082
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Columbus
     

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#41 » by The Penguin » Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:46 am

buzzkilloton wrote:
Uncle Mxy wrote:
buzzkilloton wrote:If you have a smart front office you trade T.Harris to the sixers like we just seen. If you have a smart front office you dont trade for Blake like we just seen a smart front office in the clippers do.

The Clippers got 2 first round picks (with Landry Shamet and expiring trade ballast) for Tobi and Bobi (and Mike Scott, who probably would have been a rotation player here). Assume Shamet and Scott and the trade ballast are kind of a wash. Did _anyone_ think a team would give us 2 first round draft picks for the right to make Tobias (who hasn't made an All-Star game or been All=NBA or have a stellar playoff) the $36 million dollar man? And we'd have done this trade in our own division? I think this would've been laughed at.


The sixers were all in for a title they would of easily made a trade with us. The in divison thing doesnt matter when one team is a title contender while the other is at battling for a 1st round exit. We arent even in the same division as the sixers by the way. Look at the pels and rockets they made a in divison trade this isnt football where teams are concerned with division stuff.

Regardless if it wasnt the sixers someone else would of been interested in Harris and we could of got some value. Teams value players who can stretch the floor. I mean he was used to land Blake Griffin and he was used to get that package from the sixers so clearly u see he was a player that could get back alot of value in trades.



Looking at it that way, you are right.

We easily could be sitting with Shament / 2020 Philly pick / 2021 unprotected Miami pick / Bridges or SGA.

But looking at things in hindsight is a pretty slanted viewpoint. If you are willing to go down that rabbit hole, what's to stop someone from saying "we could have taken Greek Freak over KCP / Jokic over Dinwiddie / Booker over Stanley Johnson and now look what we'd have..."
buzzkilloton
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,323
And1: 490
Joined: Feb 20, 2017
 

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#42 » by buzzkilloton » Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:50 am

The Penguin wrote:I still think we should have either 1) HEAVILY protected that 1st round pick or simply not included it or 2) demand the inclusion of Lou Williams in the package.

The Clippers were popping bottles at just getting off Blake's contract. At the point in the season when the trade was made it sure seems like we made them an offer they couldn't refuse, opposed to them waiting it out till the deadline and taking what they could get.


All the media reports were that we were bidding vs ourselves. It wasnt a situation where the clippers were getting multiple offers and trying to use diff teams against each other to leverage bidding.

SVG was just in a rush to land Blake to try to make the playoffs and save his job. As you stated he made them a offer they couldnt refuse. They heard T.Harris/Bradley+a 1st round pick and went "Well no way we get better then that accept right now thats a deal" The trade was similar to his free agent moves where he rushed in guns blazing and went "thats my guy forget the price I gotta get him now!"
Rebuild plz
buzzkilloton
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,323
And1: 490
Joined: Feb 20, 2017
 

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#43 » by buzzkilloton » Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:58 am

The Penguin wrote:
buzzkilloton wrote:
Uncle Mxy wrote:The Clippers got 2 first round picks (with Landry Shamet and expiring trade ballast) for Tobi and Bobi (and Mike Scott, who probably would have been a rotation player here). Assume Shamet and Scott and the trade ballast are kind of a wash. Did _anyone_ think a team would give us 2 first round draft picks for the right to make Tobias (who hasn't made an All-Star game or been All=NBA or have a stellar playoff) the $36 million dollar man? And we'd have done this trade in our own division? I think this would've been laughed at.


The sixers were all in for a title they would of easily made a trade with us. The in divison thing doesnt matter when one team is a title contender while the other is at battling for a 1st round exit. We arent even in the same division as the sixers by the way. Look at the pels and rockets they made a in divison trade this isnt football where teams are concerned with division stuff.

Regardless if it wasnt the sixers someone else would of been interested in Harris and we could of got some value. Teams value players who can stretch the floor. I mean he was used to land Blake Griffin and he was used to get that package from the sixers so clearly u see he was a player that could get back alot of value in trades.



Looking at it that way, you are right.

We easily could be sitting with Shament / 2020 Philly pick / 2021 unprotected Miami pick / Bridges or SGA.

But looking at things in hindsight is a pretty slanted viewpoint. If you are willing to go down that rabbit hole, what's to stop someone from saying "we could have taken Greek Freak over KCP / Jokic over Dinwiddie / Booker over Stanley Johnson and now look what we'd have..."


The point is people keep saying "we would of paid Harris a huge contract and had Harris instead of Blake " and using that as a reason we won the trade. My point is no we wouldnt a smart front office would of traded Harris.

The sixers giving Harris a huge contract to be a number 3 or 4 best player on a good team with 2 stars is WAY different then a lotto level pistons team locking him up. It makes NO SENSE for a bad team to pay him that much. For a team thats trying to win a title I get why they would pay him because they cant fill his shoes with a better player and they cant afford to let talent go. Some times title chasing teams have to overpay guys that another team wouldnt because they are all in for a title window.
Rebuild plz
User avatar
The Penguin
"Beat The Commish" Champion/Mr. Clean Slate
Posts: 7,225
And1: 4,082
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Columbus
     

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#44 » by The Penguin » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:02 pm

buzzkilloton wrote:
The Penguin wrote:
buzzkilloton wrote:
The sixers were all in for a title they would of easily made a trade with us. The in divison thing doesnt matter when one team is a title contender while the other is at battling for a 1st round exit. We arent even in the same division as the sixers by the way. Look at the pels and rockets they made a in divison trade this isnt football where teams are concerned with division stuff.

Regardless if it wasnt the sixers someone else would of been interested in Harris and we could of got some value. Teams value players who can stretch the floor. I mean he was used to land Blake Griffin and he was used to get that package from the sixers so clearly u see he was a player that could get back alot of value in trades.



Looking at it that way, you are right.

We easily could be sitting with Shament / 2020 Philly pick / 2021 unprotected Miami pick / Bridges or SGA.

But looking at things in hindsight is a pretty slanted viewpoint. If you are willing to go down that rabbit hole, what's to stop someone from saying "we could have taken Greek Freak over KCP / Jokic over Dinwiddie / Booker over Stanley Johnson and now look what we'd have..."


The point is people keep saying "we would of paid Harris a huge contract and had Harris instead of Blake " and using that as a reason we won the trade. My point is no we wouldnt a smart front office would of traded Harris.

The sixers giving Harris a huge contract to be a number 3 or 4 best player on a good team with 2 stars is WAY different then a lotto level pistons team locking him up. It makes NO SENSE for a bad team to pay him that much. For a team thats trying to win a title I get why they would pay him because they cant fill his shoes with a better player and they cant afford to let talent go. Some times title teams have to overpay guys that another team wouldnt because they are all in for a title window.




We haven't been a "smart FO" in 15 years. The way every other player we've had has gone, we would have either given him that contract or watched him walk in free agency, or held him until his value was completely gone and sold him for peanuts.
buzzkilloton
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,323
And1: 490
Joined: Feb 20, 2017
 

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#45 » by buzzkilloton » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:05 pm

The Penguin wrote:
buzzkilloton wrote:
The Penguin wrote:

Looking at it that way, you are right.

We easily could be sitting with Shament / 2020 Philly pick / 2021 unprotected Miami pick / Bridges or SGA.

But looking at things in hindsight is a pretty slanted viewpoint. If you are willing to go down that rabbit hole, what's to stop someone from saying "we could have taken Greek Freak over KCP / Jokic over Dinwiddie / Booker over Stanley Johnson and now look what we'd have..."


The point is people keep saying "we would of paid Harris a huge contract and had Harris instead of Blake " and using that as a reason we won the trade. My point is no we wouldnt a smart front office would of traded Harris.

The sixers giving Harris a huge contract to be a number 3 or 4 best player on a good team with 2 stars is WAY different then a lotto level pistons team locking him up. It makes NO SENSE for a bad team to pay him that much. For a team thats trying to win a title I get why they would pay him because they cant fill his shoes with a better player and they cant afford to let talent go. Some times title teams have to overpay guys that another team wouldnt because they are all in for a title window.




We haven't been a "smart FO" in 15 years. The way every other player we've had has gone, we would have either given him that contract or watched him walk in free agency, or held him until his value was completely gone and sold him for peanuts.


The front office traded Bullock this season because we werent going to resign him. They shipped him out in the midst of a playoff chase Why would they not do the same thing with Harris who has even more value?

The new front office hasnt done anything stupid yet they just got here. You cant blame them for the past 15 years. We didnt go all in for Mike Conley. We didnt offer a huge package for Russ. I like the draft picks so far. Most people like the free agent signings with how little we've had to work with.
Rebuild plz
thesack12
General Manager
Posts: 7,825
And1: 777
Joined: Jun 06, 2008
Location: N DA NAP
     

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#46 » by thesack12 » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:08 pm

buzzkilloton wrote:
The Penguin wrote:I still think we should have either 1) HEAVILY protected that 1st round pick or simply not included it or 2) demand the inclusion of Lou Williams in the package.

The Clippers were popping bottles at just getting off Blake's contract. At the point in the season when the trade was made it sure seems like we made them an offer they couldn't refuse, opposed to them waiting it out till the deadline and taking what they could get.


All the media reports were that we were bidding vs ourselves. It wasnt a situation where the clippers were getting multiple offers and trying to use diff teams against each other to leverage bidding.

SVG was just in a rush to land Blake to try to make the playoffs and save his job. As you stated he made them a offer they couldnt refuse. They heard T.Harris/Bradley+a 1st round pick and went "Well no way we get better then that accept right now thats a deal" The trade was similar to his free agent moves where he rushed in guns blazing and went "thats my guy forget the price I gotta get him now!"


What media reports?

The Blake trade came completely out of the blue. Hell, even Blake himself said he was shocked and knew nothing about it prior. If Clippers were actively shopping Blake, I would think they would have made him aware of such things.
thesack12
General Manager
Posts: 7,825
And1: 777
Joined: Jun 06, 2008
Location: N DA NAP
     

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#47 » by thesack12 » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:11 pm

buzzkilloton wrote:
The Penguin wrote:
buzzkilloton wrote:
The point is people keep saying "we would of paid Harris a huge contract and had Harris instead of Blake " and using that as a reason we won the trade. My point is no we wouldnt a smart front office would of traded Harris.

The sixers giving Harris a huge contract to be a number 3 or 4 best player on a good team with 2 stars is WAY different then a lotto level pistons team locking him up. It makes NO SENSE for a bad team to pay him that much. For a team thats trying to win a title I get why they would pay him because they cant fill his shoes with a better player and they cant afford to let talent go. Some times title teams have to overpay guys that another team wouldnt because they are all in for a title window.




We haven't been a "smart FO" in 15 years. The way every other player we've had has gone, we would have either given him that contract or watched him walk in free agency, or held him until his value was completely gone and sold him for peanuts.


The front office traded Bullock this season because we werent going to resign him. They shipped him out in the midst of a playoff chase Why would they not do the same thing with Harris who has even more value?

The new front office hasnt done anything stupid yet they just got here. You cant blame them for the past 15 years. We didnt go all in for Mike Conley. We didnt offer a huge package for Russ. I like the draft picks so far. Most people like the free agent signings with how little we've had to work with.


Sure they did... The Tony Snell trade. It was a shortsighted move for a barely marginal upgrade, on a guy with a bad contract. The corresponding moves they made on draft night, made it even worse.
buzzkilloton
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,323
And1: 490
Joined: Feb 20, 2017
 

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#48 » by buzzkilloton » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:22 pm

thesack12 wrote:
buzzkilloton wrote:
The Penguin wrote:I still think we should have either 1) HEAVILY protected that 1st round pick or simply not included it or 2) demand the inclusion of Lou Williams in the package.

The Clippers were popping bottles at just getting off Blake's contract. At the point in the season when the trade was made it sure seems like we made them an offer they couldn't refuse, opposed to them waiting it out till the deadline and taking what they could get.


All the media reports were that we were bidding vs ourselves. It wasnt a situation where the clippers were getting multiple offers and trying to use diff teams against each other to leverage bidding.

SVG was just in a rush to land Blake to try to make the playoffs and save his job. As you stated he made them a offer they couldnt refuse. They heard T.Harris/Bradley+a 1st round pick and went "Well no way we get better then that accept right now thats a deal" The trade was similar to his free agent moves where he rushed in guns blazing and went "thats my guy forget the price I gotta get him now!"


What media reports?

The Blake trade came completely out of the blue. Hell, even Blake himself said he was shocked and knew nothing about it prior. If Clippers were actively shopping Blake, I would think they would have made him aware of such things.


https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22258759/zach-lowe-blake-griffin-trade-future-la-clippers-detroit-pistons

"There just wasn't a lot of demand for Griffin, according to sources around the league. Some good teams with big dreams were turned off by his contract. Most good teams are already too expensive to absorb it without sending out their best or second-best players.

The half-dozen or so worst teams are so far away from contention that flipping their best picks and young players for an almost 29-year-old doesn't make any sense. The Lakers loom as a possible exception, only because they have clear and immediate free agency ambitions. We all know they need cap space to sign two max-level free agents, and Griffin would obviously cannibalize that. But there has long been another avenue: Get one star in the door now, and use him as bait for the second.

It took a franchise like Detroit: middling, desperate to win, desperate for relevance, content with being a pretty good playoff team as long as Griffin and Drummond stay together."

Not going to go search all the stuff I read about this trade at the time but it was talked about multiple times that there wasnt a market. If there was a market you would of seen them holding on until the deadline and trying to get a better deal.
Rebuild plz
User avatar
The Penguin
"Beat The Commish" Champion/Mr. Clean Slate
Posts: 7,225
And1: 4,082
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Columbus
     

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#49 » by The Penguin » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:30 pm

thesack12 wrote:
Sure they did... The Tony Snell trade. It was a shortsighted move for a barely marginal upgrade, on a guy with a bad contract. The corresponding moves they made on draft night, made it even worse.



Bingo.

They nuked their cap space (as it stands, certainly they have plenty if Drummond opts out and walks) next summer for what amounted to $5 mil quick cash and a bunch of bad 2nd round picks.
buzzkilloton
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,323
And1: 490
Joined: Feb 20, 2017
 

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#50 » by buzzkilloton » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:39 pm

The Penguin wrote:
thesack12 wrote:
Sure they did... The Tony Snell trade. It was a shortsighted move for a barely marginal upgrade, on a guy with a bad contract. The corresponding moves they made on draft night, made it even worse.



Bingo.

They nuked their cap space (as it stands, certainly they have plenty if Drummond opts out and walks) next summer for what amounted to $5 mil quick cash and a bunch of bad 2nd round picks.


They traded for a player whos going to be starting for us. Not sure if you've seen next years free agent class but its historically bad. Cap space isnt going to have much value like this season. Drummond could very well be the top free agent next season.

Regardless its not a deal that proves they were going to lock up T.Harris to some mega deal. Seeing them move Bullock when he was one of our better players shows they werent thinking short term with the moves.

I'm not saying this front office has proven to be great im saying they havent done anything that deserves to compare them to the padt 15 years So going "we've made bad decisions the past 15 years so this front office will too" isnt fair when they havent had a chance to work. This front office came in a bad situation we should give them a few years before proclaiming them failures like past regimes.
Rebuild plz
thesack12
General Manager
Posts: 7,825
And1: 777
Joined: Jun 06, 2008
Location: N DA NAP
     

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#51 » by thesack12 » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:40 pm

buzzkilloton wrote:
thesack12 wrote:
buzzkilloton wrote:
All the media reports were that we were bidding vs ourselves. It wasnt a situation where the clippers were getting multiple offers and trying to use diff teams against each other to leverage bidding.

SVG was just in a rush to land Blake to try to make the playoffs and save his job. As you stated he made them a offer they couldnt refuse. They heard T.Harris/Bradley+a 1st round pick and went "Well no way we get better then that accept right now thats a deal" The trade was similar to his free agent moves where he rushed in guns blazing and went "thats my guy forget the price I gotta get him now!"


What media reports?

The Blake trade came completely out of the blue. Hell, even Blake himself said he was shocked and knew nothing about it prior. If Clippers were actively shopping Blake, I would think they would have made him aware of such things.


https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22258759/zach-lowe-blake-griffin-trade-future-la-clippers-detroit-pistons

"There just wasn't a lot of demand for Griffin, according to sources around the league. Some good teams with big dreams were turned off by his contract. Most good teams are already too expensive to absorb it without sending out their best or second-best players.

The half-dozen or so worst teams are so far away from contention that flipping their best picks and young players for an almost 29-year-old doesn't make any sense. The Lakers loom as a possible exception, only because they have clear and immediate free agency ambitions. We all know they need cap space to sign two max-level free agents, and Griffin would obviously cannibalize that. But there has long been another avenue: Get one star in the door now, and use him as bait for the second.

It took a franchise like Detroit: middling, desperate to win, desperate for relevance, content with being a pretty good playoff team as long as Griffin and Drummond stay together."

Not going to go search all the stuff I read about this trade at the time but it was talked about multiple times that there wasnt a market. If there was a market you would of seen them holding on until the deadline and trying to get a better deal.


From the same article.

Blake Griffin is an exquisitely skilled player in his prime. When you read that the LA Clippers traded him for (mainly) a lightly protected first-round pick and a younger power forward they might have some interest in re-signing in July 2019, your reaction was probably: That's it? That's all they get for Blake freaking Griffin?

But right now, this is probably the very best deal the Clippers could have gotten for Griffin

For the Clippers, it's tempting to compare this deal to the trades for Paul George and Jimmy Butler over the summer. The Bulls got more for Butler, and that was clear at the time, before Kris Dunn blossomed and Lauri Markkanen started cramming all over fools. The Pacers probably got more for George on an expiring contract, though no one -- not even the Pacers -- knew it then. Butler and George are barely younger than Griffin, who turns 29 in March. So the Clippers sold low on Griffin, right?

Not really. That contract is locked in. A lot of Griffin's injuries have been flukes, but flukes add up as a player ages. Recurring knee issues preceded some of those flukes. Griffin's athleticism has already declined some.

Griffin is a power forward who can't protect the rim, and only began really shooting 3s this season. Without that 3-pointer, he's an antique in the modern NBA -- a casualty of math. George and Butler are multi-positional wings who can shoot, pass and defend at a high level. They are the modern NBA.


The "right now" quote is especially interesting to me. To me that says they were very eager to shed Blake and kickstart their rebuild. Once they started making/taking calls it was in their best interest to move quickly on a deal. If not, word would have gotten out, and Blake would not have been happy and only bad things come from that.

Also, those last 2 paragraphs haven't aged well at all. Its definitely more valuable to have stars locked into long term contracts, than being on shorter term deals. Player movement and leverage is at an all time high. The culture of the NBA has changed.

Blake has absolutely transformed his game from being athleticism based to being skill based. He's also added a very solid 3 ball to his regular repertoire.
thesack12
General Manager
Posts: 7,825
And1: 777
Joined: Jun 06, 2008
Location: N DA NAP
     

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#52 » by thesack12 » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:43 pm

buzzkilloton wrote:
The Penguin wrote:
thesack12 wrote:
Sure they did... The Tony Snell trade. It was a shortsighted move for a barely marginal upgrade, on a guy with a bad contract. The corresponding moves they made on draft night, made it even worse.



Bingo.

They nuked their cap space (as it stands, certainly they have plenty if Drummond opts out and walks) next summer for what amounted to $5 mil quick cash and a bunch of bad 2nd round picks.


They traded for a player whos going to be starting for us. Not sure if you've seen next years free agent class but its historically bad. Cap space isnt going to have much value like this season. Drummond could very well be the top free agent next season.

Regardless its not a deal that proves they were going to lock up T.Harris to some mega deal. Seeing them move Bullock when he was one of our better players shows they werent thinking short term with the moves.

I'm not saying this front office has proven to be great im saying they havent done anything that deserves to compare them to the padt 15 years So going "we've made bad decisions the past 15 years so this front office will too" isnt fair when they havent had a chance to work. This front office came in a bad situation we should give them a few years before proclaiming them failures like past regimes.


So in other words, a shortsighted move. There is no upside to Tony Snell getting minutes on this team. Every minute he plays sacrifices potential development of all of Sekou/Svi/Brown/Kennard/Thomas.
buzzkilloton
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,323
And1: 490
Joined: Feb 20, 2017
 

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#53 » by buzzkilloton » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:45 pm

thesack12 wrote:
buzzkilloton wrote:
thesack12 wrote:
What media reports?

The Blake trade came completely out of the blue. Hell, even Blake himself said he was shocked and knew nothing about it prior. If Clippers were actively shopping Blake, I would think they would have made him aware of such things.


https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22258759/zach-lowe-blake-griffin-trade-future-la-clippers-detroit-pistons

"There just wasn't a lot of demand for Griffin, according to sources around the league. Some good teams with big dreams were turned off by his contract. Most good teams are already too expensive to absorb it without sending out their best or second-best players.

The half-dozen or so worst teams are so far away from contention that flipping their best picks and young players for an almost 29-year-old doesn't make any sense. The Lakers loom as a possible exception, only because they have clear and immediate free agency ambitions. We all know they need cap space to sign two max-level free agents, and Griffin would obviously cannibalize that. But there has long been another avenue: Get one star in the door now, and use him as bait for the second.

It took a franchise like Detroit: middling, desperate to win, desperate for relevance, content with being a pretty good playoff team as long as Griffin and Drummond stay together."

Not going to go search all the stuff I read about this trade at the time but it was talked about multiple times that there wasnt a market. If there was a market you would of seen them holding on until the deadline and trying to get a better deal.


From the same article.

Blake Griffin is an exquisitely skilled player in his prime. When you read that the LA Clippers traded him for (mainly) a lightly protected first-round pick and a younger power forward they might have some interest in re-signing in July 2019, your reaction was probably: That's it? That's all they get for Blake freaking Griffin?

But right now, this is probably the very best deal the Clippers could have gotten for Griffin

For the Clippers, it's tempting to compare this deal to the trades for Paul George and Jimmy Butler over the summer. The Bulls got more for Butler, and that was clear at the time, before Kris Dunn blossomed and Lauri Markkanen started cramming all over fools. The Pacers probably got more for George on an expiring contract, though no one -- not even the Pacers -- knew it then. Butler and George are barely younger than Griffin, who turns 29 in March. So the Clippers sold low on Griffin, right?

Not really. That contract is locked in. A lot of Griffin's injuries have been flukes, but flukes add up as a player ages. Recurring knee issues preceded some of those flukes. Griffin's athleticism has already declined some.

Griffin is a power forward who can't protect the rim, and only began really shooting 3s this season. Without that 3-pointer, he's an antique in the modern NBA -- a casualty of math. George and Butler are multi-positional wings who can shoot, pass and defend at a high level. They are the modern NBA.


The "ri[b]ght now" quote is especially interesting to me. To me that says they were very eager to shed Blake and kickstart their rebuild. Once they started making/taking calls it was in their best interest to move quickly on a deal. If not, word would have gotten out, and Blake would not have been happy and only bad things come from that.
[/b]
Also, those last 2 paragraphs haven't aged well at all. Its definitely more valuable to have stars locked into long term contracts, than being on shorter term deals. Player movement and leverage is at an all time high. The culture of the NBA has changed.

Blake has absolutely transformed his game from being athleticism based to being skill based. He's also added a very solid 3 ball to his regular repertoire.


Right now as in before the deadline which was two weeks away from when we traded for him. You of course talk to every nba team when you're moving a big name player. You want to get the best deal possible. It doesnt matter if Blake isnt going to be happy. Any smart GM wants multiple teams to bid on a player to get the best deal. The clippers called every team and found little interest across the league. We could of easily held out and got a better deal as no other teams were bidding.
Rebuild plz
buzzkilloton
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,323
And1: 490
Joined: Feb 20, 2017
 

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#54 » by buzzkilloton » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:48 pm

thesack12 wrote:
buzzkilloton wrote:
The Penguin wrote:

Bingo.

They nuked their cap space (as it stands, certainly they have plenty if Drummond opts out and walks) next summer for what amounted to $5 mil quick cash and a bunch of bad 2nd round picks.


They traded for a player whos going to be starting for us. Not sure if you've seen next years free agent class but its historically bad. Cap space isnt going to have much value like this season. Drummond could very well be the top free agent next season.

Regardless its not a deal that proves they were going to lock up T.Harris to some mega deal. Seeing them move Bullock when he was one of our better players shows they werent thinking short term with the moves.

I'm not saying this front office has proven to be great im saying they havent done anything that deserves to compare them to the padt 15 years So going "we've made bad decisions the past 15 years so this front office will too" isnt fair when they havent had a chance to work. This front office came in a bad situation we should give them a few years before proclaiming them failures like past regimes.


So in other words, a shortsighted move. There is no upside to Tony Snell getting minutes on this team. Every minute he plays sacrifices potential development of all of Sekou/Svi/Brown/Kennard/Thomas.


Snell can play the 3. Luke and Brown arent 3s. SVI/Thomas(another 2) havent shown they even have NBA games yet. Sekou isnt going to produce for a few years hes raw.
Rebuild plz
thesack12
General Manager
Posts: 7,825
And1: 777
Joined: Jun 06, 2008
Location: N DA NAP
     

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#55 » by thesack12 » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:50 pm

buzzkilloton wrote:
thesack12 wrote:
buzzkilloton wrote:
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22258759/zach-lowe-blake-griffin-trade-future-la-clippers-detroit-pistons

"There just wasn't a lot of demand for Griffin, according to sources around the league. Some good teams with big dreams were turned off by his contract. Most good teams are already too expensive to absorb it without sending out their best or second-best players.

The half-dozen or so worst teams are so far away from contention that flipping their best picks and young players for an almost 29-year-old doesn't make any sense. The Lakers loom as a possible exception, only because they have clear and immediate free agency ambitions. We all know they need cap space to sign two max-level free agents, and Griffin would obviously cannibalize that. But there has long been another avenue: Get one star in the door now, and use him as bait for the second.

It took a franchise like Detroit: middling, desperate to win, desperate for relevance, content with being a pretty good playoff team as long as Griffin and Drummond stay together."

Not going to go search all the stuff I read about this trade at the time but it was talked about multiple times that there wasnt a market. If there was a market you would of seen them holding on until the deadline and trying to get a better deal.


From the same article.

Blake Griffin is an exquisitely skilled player in his prime. When you read that the LA Clippers traded him for (mainly) a lightly protected first-round pick and a younger power forward they might have some interest in re-signing in July 2019, your reaction was probably: That's it? That's all they get for Blake freaking Griffin?

But right now, this is probably the very best deal the Clippers could have gotten for Griffin

For the Clippers, it's tempting to compare this deal to the trades for Paul George and Jimmy Butler over the summer. The Bulls got more for Butler, and that was clear at the time, before Kris Dunn blossomed and Lauri Markkanen started cramming all over fools. The Pacers probably got more for George on an expiring contract, though no one -- not even the Pacers -- knew it then. Butler and George are barely younger than Griffin, who turns 29 in March. So the Clippers sold low on Griffin, right?

Not really. That contract is locked in. A lot of Griffin's injuries have been flukes, but flukes add up as a player ages. Recurring knee issues preceded some of those flukes. Griffin's athleticism has already declined some.

Griffin is a power forward who can't protect the rim, and only began really shooting 3s this season. Without that 3-pointer, he's an antique in the modern NBA -- a casualty of math. George and Butler are multi-positional wings who can shoot, pass and defend at a high level. They are the modern NBA.


The "ri[b]ght now" quote is especially interesting to me. To me that says they were very eager to shed Blake and kickstart their rebuild. Once they started making/taking calls it was in their best interest to move quickly on a deal. If not, word would have gotten out, and Blake would not have been happy and only bad things come from that.
[/b]
Also, those last 2 paragraphs haven't aged well at all. Its definitely more valuable to have stars locked into long term contracts, than being on shorter term deals. Player movement and leverage is at an all time high. The culture of the NBA has changed.

Blake has absolutely transformed his game from being athleticism based to being skill based. He's also added a very solid 3 ball to his regular repertoire.


Right now as in before the deadline which was two weeks away from when we traded for him. You of course talk to every nba team when you're moving a big name player. You want to get the best deal possible. It doesnt matter if Blake isnt going to be happy. Any smart GM wants multiple teams to bid on a player to get the best deal. The clippers called every team and found little interest across the league. We could of easily held out and got a better deal as no other teams were bidding.


Okay, to that I say whats the big rush in not waiting 2 weeks then? If Detroit/Stan was as desperate for Blake as you claim, are we going to act like that same deal wouldn't have been on the table for LAC at the deadline.

"It doesn't matter if Blake isn't going to be happy?"... Say what, I know you have been paying attention the NBA the last few years. So you should be well aware that Your star's happiness is absolutely paramount in today's NBA. \

I don't doubt that Detroit made the best offer. But that definitely doesn't mean that Detroit overpayed for Blake.
thesack12
General Manager
Posts: 7,825
And1: 777
Joined: Jun 06, 2008
Location: N DA NAP
     

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#56 » by thesack12 » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:53 pm

buzzkilloton wrote:
thesack12 wrote:
buzzkilloton wrote:
They traded for a player whos going to be starting for us. Not sure if you've seen next years free agent class but its historically bad. Cap space isnt going to have much value like this season. Drummond could very well be the top free agent next season.

Regardless its not a deal that proves they were going to lock up T.Harris to some mega deal. Seeing them move Bullock when he was one of our better players shows they werent thinking short term with the moves.

I'm not saying this front office has proven to be great im saying they havent done anything that deserves to compare them to the padt 15 years So going "we've made bad decisions the past 15 years so this front office will too" isnt fair when they havent had a chance to work. This front office came in a bad situation we should give them a few years before proclaiming them failures like past regimes.


So in other words, a shortsighted move. There is no upside to Tony Snell getting minutes on this team. Every minute he plays sacrifices potential development of all of Sekou/Svi/Brown/Kennard/Thomas.


Snell can play the 3. Luke and Brown arent 3s. SVI/Thomas(another 2) havent shown they even have NBA games yet. Sekou isnt going to produce for a few years hes raw.


Kennard played the 3 a lot last season. Sekou while raw, should get some minutes at the 3. Svi/Thomas will never be "ready" if they never see the floor.

Also, a lot of teams are going to positionless basketball. There is no reason why Detroit can't run out lineups with Brown/Kennard on the floor together.
buzzkilloton
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,323
And1: 490
Joined: Feb 20, 2017
 

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#57 » by buzzkilloton » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:54 pm

thesack12 wrote:
buzzkilloton wrote:
thesack12 wrote:
From the same article.



The "ri[b]ght now" quote is especially interesting to me. To me that says they were very eager to shed Blake and kickstart their rebuild. Once they started making/taking calls it was in their best interest to move quickly on a deal. If not, word would have gotten out, and Blake would not have been happy and only bad things come from that.
[/b]
Also, those last 2 paragraphs haven't aged well at all. Its definitely more valuable to have stars locked into long term contracts, than being on shorter term deals. Player movement and leverage is at an all time high. The culture of the NBA has changed.

Blake has absolutely transformed his game from being athleticism based to being skill based. He's also added a very solid 3 ball to his regular repertoire.


Right now as in before the deadline which was two weeks away from when we traded for him. You of course talk to every nba team when you're moving a big name player. You want to get the best deal possible. It doesnt matter if Blake isnt going to be happy. Any smart GM wants multiple teams to bid on a player to get the best deal. The clippers called every team and found little interest across the league. We could of easily held out and got a better deal as no other teams were bidding.


Okay, to that I say whats the big rush in not waiting 2 weeks then? If Detroit/Stan was as desperate for Blake as you claim, are we going to act like that same deal wouldn't have been on the table for LAC at the deadline.

"It doesn't matter if Blake isn't going to be happy?... Say what, I know you have been paying attention the NBA the last few years. So you should be well aware that Your star's happiness is absolutely paramount in today's NBA. \

I don't doubt that Detroit made the best offer. But definitely doesn't mean that Detroit overpayed for Blake.


They can wait two weeks to get the best deal its not a rush. The reason it doesnt matter about Blake being happy is because hes already pissed. He just signed a contract because he wanted to play in LA. If they wanted to make Blake happy they would of discussed where he was getting traded with him. This trade had literally ZERO to do with Blakes happiness.

If a team feels they have to trade someone "right now" then its smart to hold out. The pistons could of through some protections on that pick or maybe not even gave them it who knows.

The reason they overpaid is nobody else was offering anything near what they did. This is exactly why the clippers didnt wait.
Rebuild plz
thesack12
General Manager
Posts: 7,825
And1: 777
Joined: Jun 06, 2008
Location: N DA NAP
     

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#58 » by thesack12 » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:56 pm

buzzkilloton wrote:
thesack12 wrote:
buzzkilloton wrote:
Right now as in before the deadline which was two weeks away from when we traded for him. You of course talk to every nba team when you're moving a big name player. You want to get the best deal possible. It doesnt matter if Blake isnt going to be happy. Any smart GM wants multiple teams to bid on a player to get the best deal. The clippers called every team and found little interest across the league. We could of easily held out and got a better deal as no other teams were bidding.


Okay, to that I say whats the big rush in not waiting 2 weeks then? If Detroit/Stan was as desperate for Blake as you claim, are we going to act like that same deal wouldn't have been on the table for LAC at the deadline.

"It doesn't matter if Blake isn't going to be happy?... Say what, I know you have been paying attention the NBA the last few years. So you should be well aware that Your star's happiness is absolutely paramount in today's NBA. \

I don't doubt that Detroit made the best offer. But definitely doesn't mean that Detroit overpayed for Blake.


They can wait two weeks to get the best deal its not a rush. The reason it doesnt matter about Blake being happy is because hes already pissed. He just signed a contract because he wanted to play in LA. If they wanted to make Blake happy they would of discussed where he was getting traded with him. This trade had literally ZERO to do with Blakes happiness.


Blake wasn't pissed until he got traded. The reason he was so upset is because he was left out of the loop.
thesack12
General Manager
Posts: 7,825
And1: 777
Joined: Jun 06, 2008
Location: N DA NAP
     

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#59 » by thesack12 » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:59 pm

buzzkilloton wrote:
thesack12 wrote:
buzzkilloton wrote:
Right now as in before the deadline which was two weeks away from when we traded for him. You of course talk to every nba team when you're moving a big name player. You want to get the best deal possible. It doesnt matter if Blake isnt going to be happy. Any smart GM wants multiple teams to bid on a player to get the best deal. The clippers called every team and found little interest across the league. We could of easily held out and got a better deal as no other teams were bidding.


Okay, to that I say whats the big rush in not waiting 2 weeks then? If Detroit/Stan was as desperate for Blake as you claim, are we going to act like that same deal wouldn't have been on the table for LAC at the deadline.

"It doesn't matter if Blake isn't going to be happy?... Say what, I know you have been paying attention the NBA the last few years. So you should be well aware that Your star's happiness is absolutely paramount in today's NBA. \

I don't doubt that Detroit made the best offer. But definitely doesn't mean that Detroit overpayed for Blake.


They can wait two weeks to get the best deal its not a rush. The reason it doesnt matter about Blake being happy is because hes already pissed. He just signed a contract because he wanted to play in LA. If they wanted to make Blake happy they would of discussed where he was getting traded with him. This trade had literally ZERO to do with Blakes happiness.

If a team feels they have to trade someone "right now" then its smart to hold out. The pistons could of through some protections on that pick or maybe not even gave them it who knows.

The reason they overpaid is nobody else was offering anything near what they did. This is exactly why the clippers didnt wait.


If we are talking could haves, The Clippers could have demanded Kennard. They could have said we're not taking Boban's bad contract.

More with the "coulds". LAC "could" have highly valued Avery Bradley, due to the Doc Rivers connection. Detroit "could" have been offering the best perceived pick because they were a lottery team at the time.
User avatar
Uncle Mxy
Head Coach
Posts: 7,395
And1: 743
Joined: Jul 14, 2004
Location: I plead the Fifth Dimension

Re: Who got the better end of trade DET or LA.C 

Post#60 » by Uncle Mxy » Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:29 pm

buzzkilloton wrote:The sixers were all in for a title they would of easily made a trade with us. The in divison thing doesnt matter when one team is a title contender while the other is at battling for a 1st round exit. We arent even in the same division as the sixers by the way.

Conference! I meant conference! Doh! And yeah, within the same conference can matter.

The Sixers were a 51-win team with young kids, not a serious title contender this year. They made big moves trying to take it to the next level and got as far as a second round exit, and couldn't keep the core together after that. We'll see how it goes...

Regardless if it wasnt the sixers someone else would of been interested in Harris and we could of got some value. Teams value players who can stretch the floor. I mean he was used to land Blake Griffin and he was used to get that package from the sixers so clearly u see he was a player that could get back alot of value in trades.

Some value, sure. 2 first round picks for an unsigned Harris, if he continued to play like he did as a Piston? I'm not buying it.

Return to Detroit Pistons