dremill24 wrote:Ghost of Kleine wrote:dremill24 wrote:
Granted, they did give up a lot. But its a little disingenuous to act like they got that Coulibaly pick for Beal. Though it was roped into a 3-team deal involving Beal, it was really just Indiana trading the #7 pick to Washington for #8 and a couple 2nds (one of which came from Phoenix).
I get what you're saying that it wasn't detailed in the initial framework of the trade. However, it doesn't happen if they don't get that pick to utilize in that slight trade back scenario.
So for this illustration, it's still legitimate as a factor/ inclusion piece to the ultimate outcome same as with any other trade. Because if those assets aren't present, the chain of sequences leading to that outcome is broken and quite likely doesn't happen? But for me personally, I'm not even focusing on the Coulilaby aspect in my value assessment.
For me I was very oppositional to the Beal trade on the premise of leverage we clearly had but never utilized. We bid against ourselves in an unnecessary overpay and gave up critical value in not having control of our picks in those pick swap years, etc. Our value assessment in trade negotiations was/ is pretty bad obviously.
That was my frustration.
I was more commenting on the X poster who failed to include that context. The Wiz and Pacers would have found a way to get their deal done regardless of the Beal trade, they just roped it all together for cap purposes so giving up that extra 2nd wasn't going to make or break that part of it.
But yes, the Beal trade was not great from a vision standpoint or from an asset management standpoint. That X poster should just not be insinuating that they got the #7 pick (Coulibaly) for Beal.
Good point man! And I do agree.
