RealGM

I'd definitely prefer Covington, but I think most GM's would pay more for Barnes. Winning bias along with the initial scouting reports still holding some weight.

The thing with Barnes is, there are people who believe he can play a much larger role than he currently does in GS. These are the people who won't blink at offering Barnes $16m+ per year.

Covington is an ok player, but I don't know if anyone expects more out of him. If anything, he's probably already playing a larger role than he is suited for in Philly.

Covington's contract is a plus, but at the end of the day, talent is key for everything. IMO Barnes projects as a much more talented player, maybe a guy who can be the 2nd or 3rd best player on a contender. Reasonable people can disagree of course.

winter_mute_13 wrote:The thing with Barnes is, there are people who believe he can play a much larger role than he currently does in GS. These are the people who won't blink at offering Barnes $16m+ per year.

Covington is an ok player, but I don't know if anyone expects more out of him. If anything, he's probably already playing a larger role than he is suited for in Philly.

Covington's contract is a plus, but at the end of the day, talent is key for everything. IMO Barnes projects as a much more talented player, maybe a guy who can be the 2nd or 3rd best player on a contender. Reasonable people can disagree of course.

Covington is only 60 games into his career. There's upside there with him as well. Especially defensively

oyoyer wrote:Barnes is a better player by a little, but Covington has the better contract by a lot. Hence Covington has a higher trade value. But the Warriors probably don't care about trade value when they are trying to repeat. On October 1st this would work:

GSW gets Birdman and Covington
MIA gets Canaan
PHI gets Kaman, Chalmers, and Barnes
POR gets JThompson and MIA 2nd

This. Looks. Good. For. Everyone.

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

Trade value wise I think this is Barnes hands down. The sharper GMs may realize the value of Covington's salary but Barnes is a hyped player who probably has at least a few teams out there who think he would be an all-star is given his own team and would be a Joe Johnson from Phoenix to Atlanta pick up. The max offer for Barnes is higher. I think Barnes vs Noel is closer

oyoyer wrote:Barnes is a better player by a little, but Covington has the better contract by a lot. Hence Covington has a higher trade value. But the Warriors probably don't care about trade value when they are trying to repeat. On October 1st this would work:

GSW gets Birdman and Covington
MIA gets Canaan
PHI gets Kaman, Chalmers, and Barnes
POR gets JThompson and MIA 2nd

Why would Portland take on Thompson's guarantee next year for a mid 2nd? Seems Miami should be sending them something else since they haven't been able to give Birdman/Chalmers away, but here they get a prospect back (a meh one, but a prospect nonetheless).

janmagn wrote:

oyoyer wrote:Barnes is a better player by a little, but Covington has the better contract by a lot. Hence Covington has a higher trade value. But the Warriors probably don't care about trade value when they are trying to repeat. On October 1st this would work:

GSW gets Birdman and Covington
MIA gets Canaan
PHI gets Kaman, Chalmers, and Barnes
POR gets JThompson and MIA 2nd

This. Looks. Good. For. Everyone.

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

Looks pretty crappy for Portland, Phi would rather keep Canaan than get Chalmers and Kaman,and GSW has no use for paying Birdman. Just cut out all of the middle men and swap Covington for Barnes, but I think even then Hinkie would rather keep Covington than pay for Barnes.

spearsy23 wrote:

janmagn wrote:

oyoyer wrote:Barnes is a better player by a little, but Covington has the better contract by a lot. Hence Covington has a higher trade value. But the Warriors probably don't care about trade value when they are trying to repeat. On October 1st this would work:

GSW gets Birdman and Covington
MIA gets Canaan
PHI gets Kaman, Chalmers, and Barnes
POR gets JThompson and MIA 2nd

This. Looks. Good. For. Everyone.

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

Looks pretty crappy for Portland, Phi would rather keep Canaan than get Chalmers and Kaman,and GSW has no use for paying Birdman. Just cut out all of the middle men and swap Covington for Barnes, but I think even then Hinkie would rather keep Covington than pay for Barnes.

Frankly..I saw so little of the Sixers, I don't know Covington. The obvious plus, is Covington is cheaper now and for awhile. The minus? GSW just won a Championship and Barnes was a starter.

i'm fine with J Thompson. Not into adding him. If the Sixers were to add a pick... it might work ( minus the various add ons either way). Obviously NOT the Sixer's own #1.

Covington is a great role player with great value on his contract.

Proverbial upside is the difference.

Could Covington go out and guard Zach Randolph in a playoff game. It's not known.

I would do a trade straight up because play good defense and hit open 3s is the requirement for the Warriors 4th option.

I put equal, though from a philly perspective i take Covington 9 out of 10 times. If Covington got as many open looks as barnes got... it'd be unfair.

While I agree barnes has shown flashes and came up big in a playoff series... I just don't see him as a guy I want to pay anywhere close to the money he is going to be asking, never mind giving him the responsibility of being 'the guy' (1st or 2nd guy) for that matter. I wish him the best and hope he gets paid... just don't want it to be by Philly. ideally, we are hoping to keep our role players at role player salaries.

Pretty interesting Zach Lowe article on Barnes. Feels somewhat relevant here and definitely worth a read.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/harrison-barnes-2016-extension-free-agent/?ex_cid=story-twitter

HartfordWhalers wrote:

Masterfully wrote:Over the years I've seen a few players like Covington that benefit from being on a bad team. They fill a void and look better than they really are.

On the other hand, I've also seen players that were surrounded by great talent and got a big lift from having opponents focused on star teammates.

Still, this is Barnes easily for me.

I don't understand that argument against Covington each time someone tries to use it.

He led the team in scoring during his time on the team (MCW was traded). He scored efficiently taking 3's. Is the terrible low scoring bad floor spacing Sixers offense getting more open 3 point looks? Besides the data saying no, common sense would sure as heck say no as well.

Yeah I've never understood this type of cliche thinking either. If anything it would be harder to produce on a terrible team with no help than on the best team with all the help a player can expect.

If I'm trying to win I'd go with Covington. If I'm not planning on winning and instead looking to rebuild by swinging for the fences I'd go with Barnes. Ironic considering that Covington was on a team that wasn't winning a thing and Barnes was on a team that won it all.

Barnes by a little because if his contract status.

moocow007 wrote:

HartfordWhalers wrote:

Masterfully wrote:Over the years I've seen a few players like Covington that benefit from being on a bad team. They fill a void and look better than they really are.

On the other hand, I've also seen players that were surrounded by great talent and got a big lift from having opponents focused on star teammates.

Still, this is Barnes easily for me.

I don't understand that argument against Covington each time someone tries to use it.

He led the team in scoring during his time on the team (MCW was traded). He scored efficiently taking 3's. Is the terrible low scoring bad floor spacing Sixers offense getting more open 3 point looks? Besides the data saying no, common sense would sure as heck say no as well.

Yeah I've never understood this type of cliche thinking either. If anything it would be harder to produce on a terrible team with no help than on the best team with all the help a player can expect.

Cliche thinking? I would call it experienced thinking. I have seen it happen before. Players look good in the absence of surrounding talent but when moved to a better team they fade.

If you have a team with a rotation of players that would typically score 5 to 10 ppg you are going to see some of them get a boost in scoring. It's simple logic. We see similar boosts every year when certain players suffer injuries.

Masterfully wrote:

moocow007 wrote:

HartfordWhalers wrote:
I don't understand that argument against Covington each time someone tries to use it.

He led the team in scoring during his time on the team (MCW was traded). He scored efficiently taking 3's. Is the terrible low scoring bad floor spacing Sixers offense getting more open 3 point looks? Besides the data saying no, common sense would sure as heck say no as well.

Yeah I've never understood this type of cliche thinking either. If anything it would be harder to produce on a terrible team with no help than on the best team with all the help a player can expect.

Cliche thinking? I would call it experienced thinking. I have seen it happen before. Players look good in the absence of surrounding talent but when moved to a better team they fade.

If you have a team with a rotation of players that would typically score 5 to 10 ppg you are going to see some of them get a boost in scoring. It's simple logic. We see similar boosts every year when certain players suffer injuries.

They are talking advanced stats and shooting percentages on contested shots. Not really to affected by being on a bad team. No one is praising Covington over 13 ppg.

Masterfully wrote:

moocow007 wrote:

HartfordWhalers wrote:
I don't understand that argument against Covington each time someone tries to use it.

He led the team in scoring during his time on the team (MCW was traded). He scored efficiently taking 3's. Is the terrible low scoring bad floor spacing Sixers offense getting more open 3 point looks? Besides the data saying no, common sense would sure as heck say no as well.

Yeah I've never understood this type of cliche thinking either. If anything it would be harder to produce on a terrible team with no help than on the best team with all the help a player can expect.

Cliche thinking? I would call it experienced thinking. I have seen it happen before. Players look good in the absence of surrounding talent but when moved to a better team they fade.

If you have a team with a rotation of players that would typically score 5 to 10 ppg you are going to see some of them get a boost in scoring. It's simple logic. We see similar boosts every year when certain players suffer injuries.

Those players are completely different than Covington. That's Dion Waiters, Jrue Holiday, Nick young, early Monta Ellis, etc. they have inflated raw numbers when playing with little talent but just a small bit of digging uncovers them doing it on poor efficiency, having little actual impact while on the floor, or dominating the ball to a detrimental degree. Covington is the type of player who benefits from having better players around him because he has a complimentary skillset.

I'd say their certain instances I'd take Covington over Barnes and vice versa. If I'm a capped out contender like Cleveland, I take Covington the majority of the time. Getting a high level role player locked up on a super cheap deal is every super team's dream. However if I'm a team like Philly 0r even the other 70% of the NBA, I take Barnes all day. Because there is a sliver of a chance (some would say more than that) that Barnes does have Jimmy Butler jump in him. If you're a team that has the aspirations Philly does, you take that chance. So while I get that Covington is a nice player and has potential as well, he just doesn't have that blue chip potential that Barnes has. So if you're trying to hit singles, get Covington. If you're trying to hit a home run, get Barnes.

spearsy23 wrote:

Masterfully wrote:

moocow007 wrote:
Yeah I've never understood this type of cliche thinking either. If anything it would be harder to produce on a terrible team with no help than on the best team with all the help a player can expect.

Cliche thinking? I would call it experienced thinking. I have seen it happen before. Players look good in the absence of surrounding talent but when moved to a better team they fade.

If you have a team with a rotation of players that would typically score 5 to 10 ppg you are going to see some of them get a boost in scoring. It's simple logic. We see similar boosts every year when certain players suffer injuries.

Those players are completely different than Covington. That's Dion Waiters, Jrue Holiday, Nick young, early Monta Ellis, etc. they have inflated raw numbers when playing with little talent but just a small bit of digging uncovers them doing it on poor efficiency, having little actual impact while on the floor, or dominating the ball to a detrimental degree. Covington is the type of player who benefits from having better players around him because he has a complimentary skillset.

Yeah, Wroten is a great example of an 'inflated' stats:

His 'counting' numbers look really good for a young raw guy:
16.9 ppg and 5.2 apg

But just quickly checking under the hood shows:
14.5fga and 3.8 tov pg to get there.

So when you look at the efficiency stats:
49.4% TS% or a 1.39 a:to ratio

You see that the raw numbers aren't impressive, and no good team would allow a guy to get 17 ppg that inefficiently. Similarly, watching the team play its clear its not a skill that can slot into a winning team as a complimentary skill.


You definitely can have bad teams inflate counting stats for some players, but you really don't have bad teams inflating efficiency style stats. Instead, they usually depressing them as if a player has no one else who can score efficiently, an efficient scorer will get more attention, a good passer will get less assists, etc.

If I were a half decent team I would look at Wroten and expect that he has no skills that can help me, despite those gaudy counting numbers.

Covington by contrast, has good efficiency and decent raw stats, as well as a skill that fits very complimentary on a better team. So, unless there is some really great reason (like his defense is so awful no good team would play him), taking the general argument that some players on bad teams have inflated stats and just applying universally is shortsighted and lacks justification.

I got Roco by a fair margin. I don't think there is a lot of difference between them as far as effectiveness but the contract difference is immense.