lilfishi22 wrote:Ghost of Kleine wrote:....
1. Not assets worth giving up Allen AND a 1st. Also Olynyk would've been fine/good if we didn't already use a 2nd to get Nick RIchards. To also give up a 1st to get another big is an incredible waste. I don't care about Mogbo, dude's been out of the rotation for the past month and he's just not moving the needle for me. Value might be more balanced if there's no draft capital attached but even then, Olynyk isn't the C I'd part ways with Allen for and adding Mogbo doesn't change the calculus
2. Even though you say Harris is a primarily filler, you then went on a spiel about who he is and what he can do when I already know that, which is exactly why I don't want him. These last couple of season Harris shot under 37% from the arc, averaged 1.3 assist and has his own injury concerns to deal with. I'm not giving up Grayson for a better defender at the same position. Give me Allen over Harris 10/10. You are right, Allen is the one of the few valuable assets we have left which is why I said in the offseason I don't want to trade him but we may have to. But not for this. If we're trading him, it should be someone who can help us and at least be on the same tier at Allen. Also Jett? What has he done in the NBA? He came into the league as knockdown 3PT shooter and he's shooting it at a 32% clip...PASS
So if we're going down the blow it route and you're selling this to me as a Allen for a 1st kind of deal then yeah I like that value. But if we're not blowing it up, why are we dumping one of our productive players for draft capital?
3. I'm not giving up Allen and a 1st for a tougher voice in the team that's gone after this season, plain and simple. Champayne, filler and a second rounder be damned.
You've really only shared a lot of your personal opinions and perspectives on how you view the value of these premises which is of course fine as I've already said you're entitled to have differing opinions and we don't have to agree on contextual value here. But still, allow me to respectfully give my counter opinions and perspectives in response with the hop that you might understand my views as I understand yours...................................................
1. Not assets worth giving up Allen AND a 1st. Also Olynyk would've been fine/good if we didn't already use a 2nd to get Nick RIchards. To also give up a 1st to get another big is an incredible waste.
Your assertion that no assets are worth giving up Allen and a 1st is highly subjective because it's heavily influenced by your individual interpretation of the value in the premise. I'd argue that it's a matter of perspective and the outcomes are scalable and indeterminable at the time of original acquisition due to a variety of factors that have not yet played out. But I don't know how you can genuinely say that we couldn't use a player like Olynyk because we have Richards when Olynyk and Richards are two entirely different archetype players at their size. So essentially, they'd play different roles but could very possibly complement each other due to their respective oppositional skill sets.
And in general saying that w couldn't use another frontcourt big, especially one that can pick n pop and playmake when all of Plumlee, Oso, and even Richards can't effectively space the floor is counterproductive to your argument around trying to be competitive rather than going the blow it up route. Lastly, calling adding legit size and actual positional versatility to our frontcourt when even with Dunn and Oso on the court we've still been having issues with rebounding, floor spacing and the opposition scoring in the paint is just puzzling to me considering Olynyks' versatility and skillset. But I guess to each their own!
I don't care about Mogbo, dude's been out of the rotation for the past month and he's just not moving the needle for me.
You do of course realize that Jonathan Mogbo is a rookie and likely hasn't gotten much burn not because he isn't good or impactful, but rather because for a while now, Toronto just hasn't been able to figure out whether they are competing or tanking and have been dysfunctional and inconsistent in their approach to what they even want to do. But it's OK that you don't value young prospects or rookies given our stated goals. For many people, a "known commodity" is just a more comfortable choice. But it might be important to reflect on how such a discounted rookie prospect option similarly significantly impacted our team and even became a starter when so many including yourself predetermined that he'd offer little to no impact! Only to find an entirely different outcome that only a very few anticipated and no one would have witnessed had he not fallen into opportunity. If you are familiar with Mogbo, then you might envision a more similar potential outcome.
Value might be more balanced if there's no draft capital attached but even then, Olynyk isn't the C I'd part ways with Allen for, and adding Mogbo doesn't change the calculus
Olynyk wouldn't be playing center man! He'd be playing as an interchangeable backup 4/5 to complement Ighodaro with his size, setting screens playing with physicality, and most importantly his ability to hit the three, hit from midrange, and be a pick-n-pop big allowing Oso to focus more primarily on his rebounding and shot-blocking around the rim wherein he excels. It's his versatility at his size that'd bring significant value to our frontcourt schemes. And again, If you are at all familiar with Mogbos' defensive versatility and playmaking, and defensive intelligence, you might feel differently. especially getting him as a throw-in salary filler offset in this premise.
2. Even though you say Harris is a primarily filler, you then went on a spiel about who he is and what he can do when I already know that, which is exactly why I don't want him. These last couple of season Harris shot under 37% from the arc, averaged 1.3 assist and has his own injury concerns to deal with. I'm not giving up Grayson for a better defender at the same position.
But Harris is a salary filler unless you see another player at/near Allens' salary that they'd be more willing to include? Yes, you are right that he struggled with his shooting during a time when he was working through injuries, how many players working through injuries that you know of have actually shot better and been statistically better while trying to come back from injuries?? But again, he's a necessary salary filler unless you really believe that Allens' value could pull Bidatze or even Anthony Black in his place?
But again, And with his (TO) next season, He'll represent a 7 million expiring contract for us to leverage in trades along with Nurkics' 19 million. BOTH would be expirings we could flip in trades around the deadline next season. Giving us more salary matching ranges/flexibility that we currently don't possess. By the way, remind me what his career three-point percentage is again? He'll be fine as a defensive backup guard option who can space the floor while playing BESIDE Of Beal off the bench which would actually kind of allow Beal to focus a bit more on his potent scoring off the bench. Basically a Morris replacement ballhandler in case we happen to lose him. Lastly, you're not giving up Grayson for Harris alone value to value. You're trading him for the cumulative value altogether, That's the difference!
Give me Allen over Harris 10/10. You are right, Allen is the one of the few valuable assets we have left which is why I said in the offseason I don't want to trade him but we may have to. But not for this. If we're trading him, it should be someone who can help us and at least be on the same tier at Allen. Also Jett? What has he done in the NBA? He came into the league as knockdown 3PT shooter and he's shooting it at a 32% clip...PASS
Again, It isn't an Allen for Harris straight-up trade, It's for the total cumulative value and what you might do with it that'll determine the full value or lack therof for this trade. So portraying it as simply a 1 for 1 value exchange would be disingenuous man. And the very reason that w happen to agree upon in that he's one of the very few valuable assets that we have left is precisely why he and not someone else is in these exploratory theoretical premises. In fairness to your concerns, I keep asking for you to share any realistic alternative or better and more equitable trade suggestions, but have yet to see any. And of course, you're not going to pull the same tier value in a trade wherein you are sending out the valuable player because you'd as a fan value that player higher than the team giving up assets to receive that player. Simply because each team values its own assets above the other teams. Also yes, Jett! Again, I get that you don't value rookies at all as evidenced by your early assessments of our own in Dunn.
But I'll point this out again if necessary. Jett is still a rookie who only has 1 year so far in the league and was only getting minutes of playing time in that 1st year. Furthermore, only 11 minutes so far this year. So he hasn't really gotten much if any opportunity to show anything or develop his game much. Yet if you look at his college performances and production, it tell of clear untapped potential. He's a 6'8 wing/forward with a smooth scoring package/jumpshot and a really good handle and impressive playmaking/versatility.
https://www.si.com/nba/draft/newsfeed/jett-howard-is-the-orlando-magic-s-x-factor#:~:text=He%20showed%20all%20of%20this,off%2Dthe%2Ddribble%20scorer.
So if we're going down the blow it route and you're selling this to me as a Allen for a 1st kind of deal then yeah I like that value. But if we're not blowing it up, why are we dumping one of our productive players for draft capital?
3. I'm not giving up Allen and a 1st for a tougher voice in the team that's gone after this season, plain and simple. Champayne, filler and a second rounder be damned.
You're again moving him because our current condition that our own has unfortunately left us in has resulted in us not having much if any assets left, no legitimate flexibility within our roster, or being able to salary match for needed positional upgrades through trades. You do this move to generate more assets, more varied salary range options, and young prospects with PERCIEVABLE upside potential that you can leverage in trades as inclusionary sweeteners, or develop as cost-controlled impactful depth pieces that we'd have contractual discretion over for multiple years to help begin a measure of cap reduction to start moving in the right direction towards actual flexibility. Lastly, you've seen the benefits of youth infusion and athleticism on aging teams like ours. These smaller movs of youth infusion can help transition our sustainability in the right direction without significantly altering our core starting rotations too much. But even possibly giving us a more healthy mix of aging stars supported by youth, athleticism and high motor energy. You can understand the value in that can't you man?
