Official Summer 2024 Magic Free Agency and Trade Ideas Thread 3.0

[eyriq]

Man, you can't sell low on picks in their rookies seasons. Calling them sunk costs is just way too premature. Both AB and Jett could easily end up among the ten best players from this draft in five seasons.

No one is calling them sunk costs my guy.

Did I misread the post I was replying to?

[Knightro]

Man, you can't sell low on picks in their rookies seasons. Calling them sunk costs is just way too premature. Both AB and Jett could easily end up among the ten best players from this draft in five seasons.

No one is calling them sunk costs my guy.

Did I misread the post I was replying to?

I think you did.

"It doesn't matter where a player is drafted if they're ultimately not good" is not the same thing as "Player X and Player Y aren't good"

Personally... I absolutely do not think Black or Jett are sunk costs.

But at the same time, I certainly wouldn't just give them minutes or roles over potentially better players just because of where they were drafted.

[Skybox]

Once you drive those picks off the Adam Silver meet n greet stage...they're all just players. Sunk Costs only get worse if you double down on something that's just NOT happening (yet-at least). Doesn't matter where they came from...

EXHIBIT A: Mr. Markelle Fultz (consensus overall #1 - other than Danny Ainge).

You're right about them being assets...they all are and all have a value to ORL and, maybe, even more to other teams.

*seriously, do the math...let's say, optimistically, Black improves 15% by next season and you replace WCJ with Claxton...that's a dismal offense, worse than today...and I believe Black WILL improve but not so much as an offensive generator. He could be a very useful rotation player but there's no viable evidence to confidently project that he'll suddenly look like an NBA starting PG anytime soon. I love the idea of him coming off the bench to maintain the defensive intensity that Suggs laid down.

Man, you can't sell low on picks in their rookies seasons. Calling them sunk costs is just way too premature. Both AB and Jett could easily end up among the ten best players from this draft in five seasons.

who's selling? I like them, I want them to be good and do it in ORL. They are a sunk cost immediately after you pick them - that doesn't mean they're not good - it's just that their draft position is no longer relevant in any decisions going forward...that's all the concept of "sunk cost" means...you can't get subjective about the asset just because you're heavily invested. Hopefully, they'll anchor the best bench in the league next year and greater things beyond that.

[Skybox]

"sunk cost" is not a negative term...it just means the previous investment in the asset shouldn't affect ongoing decisions. Where you pick a guy is not a factor in their place in the lineup, etc...doesn't mean or even imply good or bad.

Just "Here's where we are. What should we do"

[eyriq]

"sunk cost" is not a negative term...it just means the previous investment in the asset shouldn't affect ongoing decisions. Where you pick a guy is not a factor in their place in the lineup, etc...doesn't mean or even imply good or bad.

Just "Here's where we are. What should we do"

Ok, so sunk costs refer to resources (money, time, draft capital) spent on a player that can't be recovered, while the sunk cost fallacy relates to focusing decisions on recovering that value in the context of that value being unrecoverable.

It's ridiculous to conclude that the investment we've made in AB and Jett is unrecoverable. Further, it's ridiculous to imply that a player development strategy focused on recovering the investment falls in the "sunk cost fallacy" category.

[Skybox]

"sunk cost" is not a negative term...it just means the previous investment in the asset shouldn't affect ongoing decisions. Where you pick a guy is not a factor in their place in the lineup, etc...doesn't mean or even imply good or bad.

Just "Here's where we are. What should we do"

Ok, so sunk costs refer to resources (money, time, draft capital) spent on a player that can't be recovered, while the sunk cost fallacy relates to focusing decisions on recovering that value in the context of that value being unrecoverable.

It's ridiculous to conclude that the investment we've made in AB and Jett is unrecoverable. Further, it's ridiculous to imply that a player development strategy focused on recovering the investment falls in the "sunk cost fallacy" category.

there's no "fallacy", hypothesis, recoverability, theory or spreadsheet at work here. Put your slide rule away...

the picks are gone. The players are here...that's it. You don't play them or not play them because of where they were picked or what you gave up to get them. You play them or don't play them because they're good enough or you don't care about winning vs getting them reps, or the GM says he'll fire the coach if he doesn't play the guy and it makes the FO look bad, etc.

[eyriq]

"sunk cost" is not a negative term...it just means the previous investment in the asset shouldn't affect ongoing decisions. Where you pick a guy is not a factor in their place in the lineup, etc...doesn't mean or even imply good or bad.

Just "Here's where we are. What should we do"

Ok, so sunk costs refer to resources (money, time, draft capital) spent on a player that can't be recovered, while the sunk cost fallacy relates to focusing decisions on recovering that value in the context of that value being unrecoverable.

It's ridiculous to conclude that the investment we've made in AB and Jett is unrecoverable. Further, it's ridiculous to imply that a player development strategy focused on recovering the investment falls in the "sunk cost fallacy" category.

there's no "fallacy", hypothesis, recoverability, theory or spreadsheet at work here. Put your slide rule away...

the picks are gone. The players are here...that's it. You don't play them or not play them because of where they were picked or what you gave up to get them. You play them or don't play them because they're good enough or you don't care about winning vs getting them reps, or the GM says he'll fire the coach if he doesn't play the guy and it makes the FO look bad, etc.

You're the one parroting knightro about sunk costs. Don't use the term if your real motivation is pivoting from a decision making framework focused on win-now vs player development.

If you want to switch our strategy to a win-now focus given our current heavy investment in lotto talent, have at it. It's a terrible take though that is short sighted and screams NBA 2K culture.

[Skybox]

Ok, so sunk costs refer to resources (money, time, draft capital) spent on a player that can't be recovered, while the sunk cost fallacy relates to focusing decisions on recovering that value in the context of that value being unrecoverable.

It's ridiculous to conclude that the investment we've made in AB and Jett is unrecoverable. Further, it's ridiculous to imply that a player development strategy focused on recovering the investment falls in the "sunk cost fallacy" category.

there's no "fallacy", hypothesis, recoverability, theory or spreadsheet at work here. Put your slide rule away...

the picks are gone. The players are here...that's it. You don't play them or not play them because of where they were picked or what you gave up to get them. You play them or don't play them because they're good enough or you don't care about winning vs getting them reps, or the GM says he'll fire the coach if he doesn't play the guy and it makes the FO look bad, etc.

You're the one parroting knightro about sunk costs. Don't use the term if your real motivation is pivoting from a decision making framework focused on win-now vs player development.

If you want to switch our strategy to a win-now focus given our current heavy investment in lotto talent, have at it. It's a terrible take though that is short sighted and screams NBA 2K culture.

I'm not parroting anything...Paolo's only 2 years in the league - let's send him to the G League for development then. We're moving too fast and skipping steps.

[eyriq]

there's no "fallacy", hypothesis, recoverability, theory or spreadsheet at work here. Put your slide rule away...

the picks are gone. The players are here...that's it. You don't play them or not play them because of where they were picked or what you gave up to get them. You play them or don't play them because they're good enough or you don't care about winning vs getting them reps, or the GM says he'll fire the coach if he doesn't play the guy and it makes the FO look bad, etc.

You're the one parroting knightro about sunk costs. Don't use the term if your real motivation is pivoting from a decision making framework focused on win-now vs player development.

If you want to switch our strategy to a win-now focus given our current heavy investment in lotto talent, have at it. It's a terrible take though that is short sighted and screams NBA 2K culture.

I'm not parroting anything...Paolo's only 2 years in the league - let's send him to the G League for development then. We're moving too fast and skipping steps.

Respectfully, I get your angle and I think it's worth debating and I'm sure there's a voice for this in the org but you have to realize it's a bold pivot. Also, you can't justify the pivot by calling investments in AB and Jett sunk costs, implying that investments are unrecoverable. We are way too early in their careers to say that.

The organic path is working wonders and Claxton is a perfect free agent target to invest our pre-extension cap space in. The synergy is perfect and we have evidence that paint protection works for this build.

[Skybox]

You're the one parroting knightro about sunk costs. Don't use the term if your real motivation is pivoting from a decision making framework focused on win-now vs player development.

If you want to switch our strategy to a win-now focus given our current heavy investment in lotto talent, have at it. It's a terrible take though that is short sighted and screams NBA 2K culture.

I'm not parroting anything...Paolo's only 2 years in the league - let's send him to the G League for development then. We're moving too fast and skipping steps.

Respectfully, I get your angle and I think it's worth debating and I'm sure there's a voice for this in the org but you have to realize it's a bold pivot. Also, you can't justify the pivot by calling investments in AB and Jett sunk costs, implying that investments are unrecoverable. We are way too early in their careers to say that.

The organic path is working wonders and Claxton is a perfect free agent target to invest our pre-extension cap space in. The synergy is perfect and we have evidence that paint protection works for this build.

I don't think we really disagree (that much) but sunk cost is not, in any way, a negative label on an asset. The investment is unrecoverable...you can't have your 2023 draft pick back anymore...or your 2022, or anything already spent. It doesn't mean it's wasted or perfectly utilized or anything in between...it only means "what's done is done". If you buy a maggot-infested hamburger at a drive-thru and bring it home, your decision about whether to eat it shouldn't be affected by the money you spent.

*I didn't just call AB a maggot-infested hamburger

[OnlyFranz22]

Would you guys look to add Lamelo in offseason to this core and what do you think it would take?

[Skybox]

Would you guys look to add Lamelo in offseason to this core and what do you think it would take?

It would take Franz + a fair amount, imo...not interested and CHA fans probably say the same.

[eyriq]

Would you guys look to add Lamelo in offseason to this core and what do you think it would take?

It would take Franz + a fair amount, imo...not interested and CHA fans probably say the same.

Franz is worth significantly more than Lamelo my guy. Simmons has Lamelo ranked 54th, Franz 30th, in trade value.

[Skybox]

Would you guys look to add Lamelo in offseason to this core and what do you think it would take?

It would take Franz + a fair amount, imo...not interested and CHA fans probably say the same.

Franz is worth significantly more than Lamelo my guy. Simmons has Lamelo ranked 54th, Franz 30th, in trade value.

Wow...I wouldn't have guessed that

[AaronB]

I am generally not that enthusiastic about trades unless they are obvious. Same with signing FAs.

With Fultz looking more and more like he is on his way out of the league, and Harris probably hurt too often to count on, I would not mind seeing D Russell playing for the Magic.

He is wildly inconsistent (him and Franz would drive the coach to tears), but his defense seems to have improved some (at least it is not "Simons level"), and he has a pretty good track record of being a score-first PG. Playing with LBJ means he is used to not having the ball in his hands.

He will probably opt out but will be had for something like 3/57, basically replacing Fultz with Russell.

[pepe1991]

It would take Franz + a fair amount, imo...not interested and CHA fans probably say the same.

Franz is worth significantly more than Lamelo my guy. Simmons has Lamelo ranked 54th, Franz 30th, in trade value.

Wow...I wouldn't have guessed that

Does trade value includes salary?

Franz makes like $9M a year, Lamelo like $45 M


Lamelo is really good when healthy, but much like Lonzo, injuries seem to be big problem for him.

[p0peye]

I am generally not that enthusiastic about trades unless they are obvious. Same with signing FAs.

With Fultz looking more and more like he is on his way out of the league, and Harris probably hurt too often to count on, I would not mind seeing D Russell playing for the Magic.

He is wildly inconsistent (him and Franz would drive the coach to tears), but his defense seems to have improved some (at least it is not "Simons level"), and he has a pretty good track record of being a score-first PG. Playing with LBJ means he is used to not having the ball in his hands.

He will probably opt out but will be had for something like 3/57, basically replacing Fultz with Russell.

Yeah, that's the name that our FO most probably has on the radar. I didn't want to be one bringing it up as most on the board will scoff at this.

[The-Stallion70]

Would you guys look to add Lamelo in offseason to this core and what do you think it would take?

I have considered this myself and I love his fit on the team basketball wise but I just don't see how we could fit two supermax contracts and one regular max on the cap.

Regardless, it may take a move and risk like this in order to thrust the Magic into contender status. He would be the best guard the team has had since McGrady.

The size and defenders we have could also help Lamelo stay healthy if he doesn't have to expend as much energy on defense, focus on staying healthy and work his magic on offense.

If we could add Lamelo in the later years and convince him to take less money(which may be possible because of his injury history), we could become a contender then.

With that said, if Lamelo can't figure out how to stay on the court for at least 60 games a year or so then I dont think he is worth pursuing at all.

It is this type of big thinking move that it would take to take us to the next level, like Minnesota trading for Gobert.

[Knightro]

Respectfully, I get your angle and I think it's worth debating and I'm sure there's a voice for this in the org but you have to realize it's a bold pivot. Also, you can't justify the pivot by calling investments in AB and Jett sunk costs, implying that investments are unrecoverable. We are way too early in their careers to say that.

The organic path is working wonders and Claxton is a perfect free agent target to invest our pre-extension cap space in. The synergy is perfect and we have evidence that paint protection works for this build.

We literally did not say this.

We said a player's draft position alone is not enough of a reason to play them, especially when the team A. may have better options and B. is no longer rebuilding/not putting an emphasis on winning basketball games.

[Knightro]

Would you guys look to add Lamelo in offseason to this core and what do you think it would take?

It would take Franz + a fair amount, imo...not interested and CHA fans probably say the same.

Oh gosh no it wouldn't cost Franz

Also that defeats the whole purpose of the trade.

It would be the standard 3+ unprotected firsts and non-essential rookie contract players.

Aka not Paolo, Franz or Suggs.