Which was the better deal

theman · Post #1 » by **theman** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:34 pm

Isiah's crying about how he "Needs to wait for Dumars" got me thinking. Isiah got a pretty good deal this summer when he traded a washed up Steve Frachise and a never was (never will be?) Channing Frye for Zack Randolph. The Knicks also got Fred Jones in the deal.

As great as KG is and has been for the Celtics they did have to give up quite at bit in two draft picks, Al Jefferson (who is blossoming into quite a player), Sabatian Telfair (averaging 6 assists), blue collar Ryan Gomes (12/5), potetial stud Gerald Green and a big expiring contract in Theo Ratlif.

So that said, ON TALENT ALONE, which as the better deal? Yes, the Celtics have the best record in the league and NY's is worse than last year, but it is not like Isiah was unable to make a deal and being in NY he has the ability to take on contracts no one else would touch.

Post #2 » by **gswhoops** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:46 pm

The KG deal made Boston contenders, so I go with that one.

You forget that Boston was worse than NY by a considerable margin last year and that deal put them in the elite of the NBA.

WarFan · Post #3 » by **WarFan** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:55 pm

This is a joke right?

The Z-bo trade was a huge mistake. I don't care if Zeke gave up nothing valuable, he got something worse in return.

Devilzsidewalk · Post #4 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:00 pm

MN got a good deal compared to the alternative, but ultimately Al Jefferson is good offensive player, but not dominating and he's a bad defender. Gomes is a free agent, Gerald Green is NOT a potential stud, Telfair is a sub 40% shooter and beyond awful defender unfortunately, and the 2 firsts - one is Bostons that will be low, and the other one was MN's in the first place from the deal when Boston traded the legendary Ricky/Blount/Banks triumvirate for Wally, which they then turned into Ray Allen.

The whole situation wasn't designed to work out this way, but ultimately everything came together perfectly for Boston.

b_roy7 · Post #5 » by **b_roy7** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:13 pm

If you mean by how much the Z-Bo trade made Portland better, that would work. But Zach making NY better? ........... :lol:

theman · Post #6 » by **theman** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:20 pm

Like I said, boviously KG made Bosotn better. The same can not be said about Randolph. But Boston actually gave up something to get KG, New York really didn't give up anything. Then again, maybe WarFan is right.

hermes · Post #7 » by **hermes** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:37 pm

kg trade was better

Jack wore plaid · Post #8 » by **Jack wore plaid** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:42 pm

Portland trade was the best. Now if Boston's wins a championship in the next year or two that obviously was.

Portland REALLY ended up with Frye, Francis, James Jones, Rudy Fernandez from that deal. It was a two parter. Portland got a gazillion dollars in a trade exception from the Knicks in that deal which they shipped to Phoenix for Janoes..(the price for getting their pick to draft Fernandez)

Jones is the leading 3pt shooter in the NBA. Nice price to pay.

NY ended up with the worst of any of those teams. Minn did good as well to get Al Jefferson and a bunch of young talent.

Post #9 » by **moocow007** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:59 pm

Jack wore plaid wrote:Portland trade was the best. Now if Boston's wins a championship in the next year or two that obviously was.

Portland REALLY ended up with Frye, Francis, James Jones, Rudy Fernandez from that deal. It was a two parter. Portland got a gazillion dollars in a trade exception from the Knicks in that deal which they shipped to Phoenix for Janoes..(the price for getting their pick to draft Fernandez)

Jones is the leading 3pt shooter in the NBA. Nice price to pay.

NY ended up with the worst of any of those teams. Minn did good as well to get Al Jefferson and a bunch of young talent.

And yet is still far worse a team than the Knicks. Interesting.

Post #10 » by **moocow007** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:02 pm

Devilzsidewalk wrote:MN got a good deal compared to the alternative, but ultimately Al Jefferson is good offensive player, but not dominating and he's a bad defender. Gomes is a free agent, Gerald Green is NOT a potential stud, Telfair is a sub 40% shooter and beyond awful defender unfortunately, and the 2 firsts - one is Bostons that will be low, and the other one was MN's in the first place from the deal when Boston traded the legendary Ricky/Blount/Banks triumvirate for Wally, which they then turned into Ray Allen.

The whole situation wasn't designed to work out this way, but ultimately everything came together perfectly for Boston.

All Jefferson is a good offensive player and a great rebounder, but he is not dominating and he isn't leading his team to anything. And as you said, defensively he's not stud. Zach Randolph is a very good offensive player and a very good rebounder, but he's also not dominating and he isn't leading his team to anything either. And as everyone knows, defensively he's not a stud. Randolph's leaving has made the Blazers better and made the Knicks worse. But then again, Jefferson's leaving has made the Celtics far better and made the Wolves even worse than the Knicks. Hmm.

candy for lunch · Post #11 » by **candy for lunch** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:29 pm

Proud to be the current solve vote of the Blazers trade being better

Devilzsidewalk · Post #12 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:39 pm

moocow007 wrote:
All Jefferson is a good offensive player and a great rebounder, but he is not dominating and he isn't leading his team to anything. And as you said, defensively he's not stud. Zach Randolph is a very good offensive player and a very good rebounder, but he's also not dominating and he isn't leading his team to anything either. And as everyone knows, defensively he's not a stud. Randolph's leaving has made the Blazers better and made the Knicks worse. But then again, Jefferson's leaving has made the Celtics far better and made the Wolves even worse than the Knicks. Hmm.

Stop pretending to be an anti-Wolves, Knicks homer Shrink, I already told you I'm on to you

theman · Post #13 » by **theman** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:01 pm

moocow007 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

And yet is still far worse a team than the Knicks. Interesting.

But which team Minn or NY is in a better position to be good 3 years from now?

shrink · Post #14 » by **shrink** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:16 pm

moocow007 wrote: And yet is still far worse a team than the Knicks. Interesting.

Well, in Minnesota we value having a team with a future, but I don't expect you to understand.

Post #15 » by **moocow007** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:26 pm

theman wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

But which team Minn or NY is in a better position to be good 3 years from now?

So won-loss records are not indicators of value of a deal is what you're saying? I was just trying to prove this point.

Post #16 » by **moocow007** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:26 pm

shrink wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Well, in Minnesota we value having a team with a future, but I don't expect you to understand.

Please don't assume what I do and do not understand. If you want to make this personal I'll make sure I get you off this board. You want that? Read my response to 'theman's post before being an ass.

KyleCleric · Post #17 » by **KyleCleric** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:29 pm

theman wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

But which team Minn or NY is in a better position to be good 3 years from now?

The Knicks are stuck being a crappy team for several more years, lousy players under long contracts. At least they'll start getting lottery picks once again.

The Wolves suddenly are in a tenable salary situation with the ability to pick up decent players through the draft. What happens when they add Mayo or Rose or Beasley or Jordan or Gordon to Al Jefferson, Randy Foye, and Corey Brewer? They're in good shape in terms of current talent and the ability to add talent. The Knicks are not.

Post #18 » by **moocow007** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:45 pm

KyleCleric wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

The Knicks are stuck being a crappy team for several more years, lousy players under long contracts. At least they'll start getting lottery picks once again.

The Wolves suddenly are in a tenable salary situation with the ability to pick up decent players through the draft. What happens when they add Mayo or Rose or Beasley or Jordan or Gordon to Al Jefferson, Randy Foye, and Corey Brewer? They're in good shape in terms of current talent and the ability to add talent. The Knicks are not.

???

So the Wolves are in a better position to pick up "decent players through the draft" but the Knicks are not? That's because the Knicks have a lot of bad contracts right? Even though one has nothing to do with the other, and, in the Knicks case, one (the contracts) is actually helping the other (getting lottery picks).

And NY can just as well add "Mayo or Rose or Beasley or Jordan or Gordon". Al Jefferson is the only young player that can be considered distinguishable amongst the young players on both teams (and both teams have plenty of nice looking young players that don't have superstar potential) and Al Jefferson is not a young Kevin Garnett.

What you may mean is that the Wolves are in a preferable situation because they may actually be able to use their projected capspace (which actually won't be avaiable until after the 2008-2009 season and which, if you use that type of general logic NY will be under the cap as well after the 2009-2010 season) to lure a free agent to play in Minnesota. Of course, we need to consider that the top tier free agents usually will push for a sign-and-trade to maximize dollars and years on their new contracts and rarely do you see anymore a straight free agent signing of top tier free agents. Is that what you mean?

And then you need to discuss how many of these "top tier" free agents are out there to be had and whether they'd be interested in foregoing sign-and-trades for greater dollars per year and more years to be a Timberbwolf. If the discussion viers torwards sign-and-trade then it's likely a pre-requisite that you have the contracts (usually expiring) to match along with young talent to give at which point timing and a look at "what would be left after a sign-and-trade" for whatever that top tier free agent to even consider going to Minny.

Point being, if the magic of NBA GMship was as easy as dumping salarys and looking at lottery picks and free agents ESPECIALLY for someone like Kevin McHale (who is right there with Isiah Thomas in terms of GM brilliance) then a lot of teams would be in a lot better positions then they are. Fact of the matter is, it's not that easy at all. The Wolves are over the cap the next 2 seasons, just like the Knicks will be. The fact that the Knicks will be $30 million over and the Wolves a couple million is a non-factor in terms of which team is in better position...over is over.

Champipple · Post #19 » by **Champipple** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:20 pm

So let me understand,

You are asking to compare a trade by Boston that made them instant contenders versus a trade by New York that made them even worse than they were, but ignore the results of the trade. :roll:

KyleCleric · Post #20 » by **KyleCleric** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:21 pm

The Wolves are under the cap after next season are right at the cap next year or perhaps a little bit below it.

The Knicks are over the cap the next 4 seasons. You're taking out player options and there is no way that Crawford, Richardson, Randolph, James, and/or Jeffries would leave that money.

The Wolves have Jefferson, Brewer, and Foye.

The Knicks have Lee.