nate33 wrote:DCZards wrote:montestewart wrote:Agree that they might have gotten a better deal, and don't want the new front office to get a reputation as suckers (as I think EG had), but they also might get a reputation of being good to players, and I'm happy that apparently good guy Porzingis went straight to a champion.
I don’t doubt that KP would have likely been a good soldier if they had not traded him. OTOH, I’m sure he didn’t want to be on a rebuilding team and when the Celts deal came up the Zards FO could have hung on for a better deal but they did KP and his agent a solid by working out a deal.
That could indeed earn the FO a good rep with agents and benefit them in the future.
That’s just the point. Earning a “good reputation” never actually pays off. It’s better to be ruthless and earn a reputation as not being a pushover.
The bottom line is Porzingis on an expiring contract would have been much more valuable than Tyus on an expiring contract. It was foolish to make that trade.
Every party to a deal has the option to "be ruthless." Hence, we can't really discount the possibility that KP would have opted out.
Truth is, "ruthless" doesn't enter into it: of course, any GM wants to do well in any trade, but that has nothing to do with "ruthless." If you get the reputation for wanting to screw people, pretty soon no one will work with you on any kind of deal.
In fact, these guys all talk to each other every few days & deal with each other repeatedly. They have a huge interest in an overall sense of "fairness" -- a level playing field & a wide range of possibilities. Nor do they succeed by being ruthless. They succeed by being smart. By having good ideas about what's going to work, what goes together, etc.
On top of which, they are all colleagues as well as competitors, because of the overarching structure of the NBA as a whole. Everybody is working together on growing a huge entertainment business.
KP wanted to leave. We know that. & he had the leverage to be able to leave. We know that. 2 + 2 = 4.
