ImageImageImage

Trevor Ariza and 16. Official Woj

Moderators: dVs33, Snakebites, theBigLip

User avatar
vege
RealGM
Posts: 15,015
And1: 1,492
Joined: Jul 18, 2008
Location: Fire Troy Weaver

Re: Trevor Ariza and 16. Official Woj 

Post#81 » by vege » Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:09 pm

Good, at least I am not the only one who understand how bad this trade was for us. That's a relief.
Billl
Veteran
Posts: 2,714
And1: 1,122
Joined: Sep 06, 2013

Re: Trevor Ariza and 16. Official Woj 

Post#82 » by Billl » Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:22 pm

vege wrote:Good, at least I am not the only one who understand how bad this trade was for us. That's a relief.


I don't think it is necessarily bad, but it has the potential to be bad. If it turns out we swapped 2 second rounders for #16 and ariza, that would be a solid trade. If we end up swapping a pick slightly worse than #16, then it's neutral. If it's better than #16, then it's a bad trade. Just seems like a lot of risk for very little reward. Especially considering how we used the pick.
ducler
Cold Hard Gameday Facts
Posts: 10,996
And1: 7,560
Joined: Jun 15, 2008
Location: France
Contact:
   

Re: Trevor Ariza and 16. Official Woj 

Post#83 » by ducler » Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:31 pm

To me, that 4-years top 16 protected is quite good. If the retooling is going well, we'll give Rockets a pick in the 20's. Fine for me.
Image
chrbal
RealGM
Posts: 18,262
And1: 559
Joined: Mar 02, 2001
Contact:

Re: Trevor Ariza and 16. Official Woj 

Post#84 » by chrbal » Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:20 pm

vege wrote:Good, at least I am not the only one who understand how bad this trade was for us. That's a relief.


I understand some of your issues with it, but your problem seems more with the worst case scenario.

Houston is in a bad cap situation. If harden leaves, they should get a good return. But they would be trading him to a team like the Nets (most likely) or say the raptors. Toronto has it’s own picks for the next 5 seasons or so. New Jersey has its own and some heavily protected 2nds.

So if harden is gone. Westbrook would need to go, that would cost them or result in them getting back a pretty minuscule package. Pj tucker should/could net them something, but it’s not going to be some amazing return. Beyond that, they pretty much have nothing.

As it stands, their next 3 seasons payroll is roughly this; $108,679,827 $124,689,651 $113,225,101 so they don’t really have a ton of room to work with.

I’m thinking Detroit could acquire some other teams late 1st and settle up. BEFORE CRYMSON shoots this down this is all hypothetical and I don’t have any examples to base this on.

I get your issues, I just don’t get why you think this is awful.
User avatar
Liqourish
RealGM
Posts: 14,159
And1: 1,845
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
       

Re: Trevor Ariza and 16. Official Woj 

Post#85 » by Liqourish » Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:40 pm

This was a great trade for Detroit. But as I said, no matter what Weaver did, some would not be happy. This is what rebuilding teams do.
User avatar
vege
RealGM
Posts: 15,015
And1: 1,492
Joined: Jul 18, 2008
Location: Fire Troy Weaver

Re: Trevor Ariza and 16. Official Woj 

Post#86 » by vege » Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:50 pm

Billl wrote:
vege wrote:Good, at least I am not the only one who understand how bad this trade was for us. That's a relief.


I don't think it is necessarily bad, but it has the potential to be bad. If it turns out we swapped 2 second rounders for #16 and ariza, that would be a solid trade. If we end up swapping a pick slightly worse than #16, then it's neutral. If it's better than #16, then it's a bad trade. Just seems like a lot of risk for very little reward. Especially considering how we used the pick.


Nope, my problem is with the value. We gave up raw cap space, and we got nothing in return, we swapped picks. The issue got even worse with what we got with that pick.

Let me give an example. I don't remember the team, but someone traded the #24 for a future lotto protected 1st. That's not a great trade, but it's ok value. The guy we took at #16 would've been available at #24. I would've been fine with this trade.

I am not fine giving up raw cap space (which is valuable) for absolutely nothing, and that's how I view this trade.
Billl
Veteran
Posts: 2,714
And1: 1,122
Joined: Sep 06, 2013

Re: Trevor Ariza and 16. Official Woj 

Post#87 » by Billl » Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:32 am

vege wrote:
Billl wrote:
vege wrote:Good, at least I am not the only one who understand how bad this trade was for us. That's a relief.


I don't think it is necessarily bad, but it has the potential to be bad. If it turns out we swapped 2 second rounders for #16 and ariza, that would be a solid trade. If we end up swapping a pick slightly worse than #16, then it's neutral. If it's better than #16, then it's a bad trade. Just seems like a lot of risk for very little reward. Especially considering how we used the pick.


Nope, my problem is with the value. We gave up raw cap space, and we got nothing in return, we swapped picks. The issue got even worse with what we got with that pick.

Let me give an example. I don't remember the team, but someone traded the #24 for a future lotto protected 1st. That's not a great trade, but it's ok value. The guy we took at #16 would've been available at #24. I would've been fine with this trade.

I am not fine giving up raw cap space (which is valuable) for absolutely nothing, and that's how I view this trade.


That may be how you view it, but that doesn't make it reality. We might have traded cap space plus future 2nds for #16, That would be reasonable value. The problem is that we just don't know.
User avatar
vege
RealGM
Posts: 15,015
And1: 1,492
Joined: Jul 18, 2008
Location: Fire Troy Weaver

Re: Trevor Ariza and 16. Official Woj 

Post#88 » by vege » Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:36 am

Billl wrote:
vege wrote:
Billl wrote:
I don't think it is necessarily bad, but it has the potential to be bad. If it turns out we swapped 2 second rounders for #16 and ariza, that would be a solid trade. If we end up swapping a pick slightly worse than #16, then it's neutral. If it's better than #16, then it's a bad trade. Just seems like a lot of risk for very little reward. Especially considering how we used the pick.


Nope, my problem is with the value. We gave up raw cap space, and we got nothing in return, we swapped picks. The issue got even worse with what we got with that pick.

Let me give an example. I don't remember the team, but someone traded the #24 for a future lotto protected 1st. That's not a great trade, but it's ok value. The guy we took at #16 would've been available at #24. I would've been fine with this trade.

I am not fine giving up raw cap space (which is valuable) for absolutely nothing, and that's how I view this trade.


That may be how you view it, but that doesn't make it reality. We might have traded cap space plus future 2nds for #16, That would be reasonable value. The problem is that we just don't know.


The odds of it turnig into 2 2nds is almost 0
User avatar
Liqourish
RealGM
Posts: 14,159
And1: 1,845
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
       

Re: Trevor Ariza and 16. Official Woj 

Post#89 » by Liqourish » Sat Nov 21, 2020 4:01 am

According to Twitter, Pistons haven’t announced this deal yet because Wood is being included in it. Let’s see how it goes.

Return to Detroit Pistons