Fake Trade Thread #3

[yosemiteben]

The argument that "$9M in cap space doesn't matter" is absolutely an outlier opinion that I'm not interested in investing much time and energy responding to. In my view, it's not all that different from someone arguing that we should trade first round picks because we'll be so good that they won't be high picks and we won't need them. IMO only someone absolutely convinced there is no downside risk could support the idea.

[MasterIchiro]

The argument that "$9M in cap space doesn't matter" is absolutely an outlier opinion that I'm not interested in investing much time and energy responding to. In my view, it's not all that different from someone arguing that we should trade first round picks because we'll be so good that they won't be high picks and we won't need them. IMO only someone absolutely convinced there is no downside risk could support the idea.

Cap has different value for different teams. I can acknowledge the downside risk of lowering cap 9 million these next 3 years. But people are having a hard time apparently putting a face on that 9 million so I can see some concrete loss. Until that happens it's an imagined loss. I'd like more certainty. We missed out on a 9 million dollar player Harrell. He's quite valuable. A valuable player who plays for only 9 million is finding value in being on a championship club. He's obviously not coming here for 9 million. It's the MLE. That's just not a needle mover in today's game. But people are crying. Wah wah wah.

[yosemiteben]

I can acknowledge the downside risk of lowering cap 9 million these next 3 years. But people are having a hard time apparently putting a face on that 9 million so I can see some concrete loss. Until that happens it's an imagined loss. I'd like more certainty.

You want us to put a face on how we could use $9M in cap space each of the next two seasons (not to mention this season)? There are obviously very many different ways that space could be used. If our FO can't figure that out, that's really on them. You don't throw away future tools to build the team because today you aren't certain how you would specifically use them.

This seems like the exact same argument that could be used to toss in future first round picks. They probably won't be good, and where we sit today I don't even know who we'd use them on. Who cares?

[JMAC3]

The argument that "$9M in cap space doesn't matter" is absolutely an outlier opinion that I'm not interested in investing much time and energy responding to. In my view, it's not all that different from someone arguing that we should trade first round picks because we'll be so good that they won't be high picks and we won't need them. IMO only someone absolutely convinced there is no downside risk could support the idea.

Cap has different value for different teams. I can acknowledge the downside risk of lowering cap 9 million these next 3 years. But people are having a hard time apparently putting a face on that 9 million so I can see some concrete loss. Until that happens it's an imagined loss. I'd like more certainty. We missed out on a 9 million dollar player Harrell. He's quite valuable. A valuable player who plays for only 9 million is finding value in being on a championship club. He's obviously not coming here for 9 million. It's the MLE. That's just not a needle mover in today's game. But people are crying. Wah wah wah.

This is not the way you should be looking at it... it is 9 million that we can use however we want it doesn't have to be one player. We could have 9 million in cap space and 9 million in dead cap. So instead of being able to offer somebody 18 million we will be stuck only adding these "MLE Players who have little value to us".

[MasterIchiro]

The argument that "$9M in cap space doesn't matter" is absolutely an outlier opinion that I'm not interested in investing much time and energy responding to. In my view, it's not all that different from someone arguing that we should trade first round picks because we'll be so good that they won't be high picks and we won't need them. IMO only someone absolutely convinced there is no downside risk could support the idea.

Cap has different value for different teams. I can acknowledge the downside risk of lowering cap 9 million these next 3 years. But people are having a hard time apparently putting a face on that 9 million so I can see some concrete loss. Until that happens it's an imagined loss. I'd like more certainty. We missed out on a 9 million dollar player Harrell. He's quite valuable. A valuable player who plays for only 9 million is finding value in being on a championship club. He's obviously not coming here for 9 million. It's the MLE. That's just not a needle mover in today's game. But people are crying. Wah wah wah.

This is not the way you should be looking at it... it is 9 million that we can use however we want it doesn't have to be one player. We could have 9 million in cap space and 9 million in dead cap. So instead of being able to offer somebody 18 million we will be stuck only adding these "MLE Players who have little value to us".

I agree 9 million is one tool towards improvement but it's more useful if it's the only tool towards improvement. Mitch has multiple tools remaining in the toolbox, young players on cheap contracts and all our picks. Some of the GM's that have the tool of no dead cap also owe a first to other teams, using picks to improve. Some GM's owe multiple picks. Some GM's are hard capped having spent fully on players. Some are paying taxes on talent. Some teams have aging stars and no way of improving internally.

Would I like to have this tool. Sure. But I appreciate we have multiple other tools in the toolbox.

[yosemiteben]

I mean it's ok to say paying a top of market contract + $9M per year for three years in dead cap is not good. I have no idea why you are trying so hard not to view that as a negative.

[TBri1974]

The other way you can look at that 9 million is the cost of the Heyword contract. I am not sure how you feel about paying him 30 million a year for 4 years - I wouldn't want that contract but I am kinda pulling for you and for him - but with the 9 million to Batum over 3 years to free up space, it essentially becomes a 147 million dollar contract with Heywood at 39 million per year the first three years.

[MasterIchiro]

I mean it's ok to say paying a top of market contract + $9M per year for three years in dead cap is not good. I have no idea why you are trying so hard not to view that as a negative.

Opportunity cost.

[yosemiteben]

I mean it's ok to say paying a top of market contract + $9M per year for three years in dead cap is not good. I have no idea why you are trying so hard not to view that as a negative.

Opportunity cost.

That's a reason not to do this, not a reason to do it.

[MasterIchiro]

I mean it's ok to say paying a top of market contract + $9M per year for three years in dead cap is not good. I have no idea why you are trying so hard not to view that as a negative.

Opportunity cost.

That's a reason not to do this, not a reason to do it.

Hayward opted out early. That's a reason, if he were a target originally for next FA class. Apparently our GM really likes Hayward.

He's better than Batum when Batum was signed. His TS% was higher than Tatum's, Brown's and Kemba's.

[yosemiteben]

Opportunity cost.

That's a reason not to do this, not a reason to do it.

Hayward opted out early. That's a reason, if he were a target originally for next FA class. Apparently our GM really likes Hayward.

He's better than Batum when Batum was signed. His TS% was higher than Tatum's, Brown's and Kemba's.

Ok? Not clear to me what that has to do with opportunity costs or why effectively paying Hayward $40M makes sense.

[MasterIchiro]

That's a reason not to do this, not a reason to do it.

Hayward opted out early. That's a reason, if he were a target originally for next FA class. Apparently our GM really likes Hayward.

He's better than Batum when Batum was signed. His TS% was higher than Tatum's, Brown's and Kemba's.

Ok? Not clear to me what that has to do with opportunity costs or why effectively paying Hayward $40M makes sense.

What is so hard to understand? We wanted to sign Hayward all along. He was our guy. Does it matter we originally planned on him becoming available next class, giving us one more season to position for a high draft pick?

He destroyed our plan but does that mean we should just dismiss our target? He opted out of 34 million dollars and everyone thought he was crazy for that. How could we plan for that?

His talent commanded multiple offers with his hometown preferred destination rumored to offer 110 million, just 10 million less than the Hornets.

Are we bitter we had to overpay to get our guy?

Life's not fair.

The Magic lost Isaac so we were in danger of getting the 8th seed with LaMelo and improvement from our core, without Hayward. So the Hawks had a spectacular off-season but how could we account for that if the goal is to just be the best team you can be?

[MasterIchiro]

On that note. I'm taking a break from this board. I will be reading but not commenting. I remain positive and optimistic and quite frankly just talking about any of this stuff right now is draining.

Not everybody gets what they want.

[yosemiteben]

Well, it was hard to understand at first because you suggested a down side to the deal was the reason we did it.

I also think there is no universe in which Hayward is worth $40M.

I'm not sitting here arguing that $9M in cap space is worthless and $70M in cap space is too much for our FO to handle.

[JMAC3]

I have faith we won't end up stretching Batum, especially after finding out OKC has this trade exception he can fit into. I realize OKC probably wants to get a first rounder, but what other team has a contract they want to dump that is this large and is expiring? (under 27.5 million)

Sure they could use it on someone else, but likely they would be giving up assets along with TPE (they are hardcore tanking so not fitting timeline) or they would be taking on future money which isn't all bad, but has its negatives.

I think this is a great situation for OKC too, so hopefully we can get them to agree to something where Boston and Hornets can keep both their picks and any previous lottery picks. Maybe even agreeing to swap rights could be enough to help facilitate the trade.

[Braggins]

We had a -6.7 point differential last season, which was fourth worst in the entire league. The two lowest point differentials of teams that made the playoffs were -1.0 and -1.1. The 8th seed in the East had 2 fewer losses than us despite playing 8 more games even though we massively over performed our point differential in terms of wins. We weren't going to make the 8th seed this season without Hayward and its going to be a struggle to make it with him. We should be about 9th-11th in the conference and most likely the best chance of actually making the playoffs is either getting hot for the play-in tournament, or a team above us having injury issues.

[JMAC3]

We had a -6.7 point differential last season, which was fourth worst in the entire league. The two lowest point differentials of teams that made the playoffs were -1.0 and -1.1. The 8th seed in the East had 2 fewer losses than us despite playing 8 more games even though we massively over performed our point differential in terms of wins. We weren't going to make the 8th seed this season without Hayward and its going to be a struggle to make it with him. We should be about 9th-11th in the conference and most likely the best chance of actually making the playoffs is either getting hot for the play-in tournament, or a team above us having injury issues.

This is assuming no teams above us have regression and we don't have progression- which makes no sense. We have a young team that should have 5-6 guys that COULD take the next step and really help us improve rapidly.

Where as there are teams ahead of who are older and have injuries like:

Orlando are without Isaac, Vuc and Aminu are 30 now.
Toronto lost Ibaka and Gasol, Lowry will be 35- Siakam was booty in playoffs.
Outside of Giannis the Bucks are kind of Old Holiday is 30, Middleton 29 and Lopez will be 33, so even if it is not this year it could happen fast with a decline around Giannis.

Of course teams can always get hit with injuries too, so I am not a big component of well there are 7 teams better than us last year so at best we will be 8th seed.


Cavs, Knicks, Pistons, Bulls and Wizards are not better than us in my mind so we were probably going to be close to range of outcomes anyways, but this team has more upside than last years team.

[Braggins]

We had a -6.7 point differential last season, which was fourth worst in the entire league. The two lowest point differentials of teams that made the playoffs were -1.0 and -1.1. The 8th seed in the East had 2 fewer losses than us despite playing 8 more games even though we massively over performed our point differential in terms of wins. We weren't going to make the 8th seed this season without Hayward and its going to be a struggle to make it with him. We should be about 9th-11th in the conference and most likely the best chance of actually making the playoffs is either getting hot for the play-in tournament, or a team above us having injury issues.

This is assuming no teams above us have regression and we don't have progression- which makes no sense. We have a young team that should have 5-6 guys that COULD take the next step and really help us improve rapidly.

Where as there are teams ahead of who are older and have injuries like:

Orlando are without Isaac, Vuc and Aminu are 30 now.
Toronto lost Ibaka and Gasol, Lowry will be 35- Siakam was booty in playoffs.
Outside of Giannis the Bucks are kind of Old Holiday is 30, Middleton 29 and Lopez will be 33, so even if it is not this year it could happen fast with a decline around Giannis.

Of course teams can always get hit with injuries too, so I am not a big component of well there are 7 teams better than us last year so at best we will be 8th seed.


Cavs, Knicks, Pistons, Bulls and Wizards are not better than us in my mind so we were probably going to be close to range of outcomes anyways, but this team has more upside than last years team.

- I have us as probably ahead of Orlando.
- Toronto's winning percentage was over 40% better than ours last season and their point differential was +13 compared to ours.
Losing a couple role players isn't coming close to making up that difference.
- The Bucks had the best w/l record in the league and their point differential was +16.8 compared to ours. They actually improved their roster from last season. I have no reason why you would even bring them up.
- Atlanta's point different was only -1.2 compared to ours and they made massive improvements to their roster.
- Washington's point differential was +2 compared to ours and they have John Wall returning.

I also think we are better than the Cavs, Pistons, Knicks and Bulls and we could be somewhere around the level of Washington. That still doesn't mean we are a playoff team. The Bucks, Raptors, Celtics, Pacers, Heat, 76ers, Nets, and Hawks, all clearly have significantly better rosters.

[316Hornets]

It's weird how everybody thinks the team sucks, yet love Monk and Miles.

The reason we have such a putrid point differential is mostly due to Monk, Miles, Bacon. Some of this boards favorite players.

[Braggins]

It's weird how everybody thinks the team sucks, yet love Monk and Miles.

The reason we have such a putrid point differential is mostly due to Monk, Miles, Bacon. Some of this boards favorite players.

I don't think anyone on the forum thinks Monk or Miles are actually good players right now. People want to keep them around because they are young and talented enough to try to develop.

You compared LaMelo Ball to Luka Doncic, so I don't really think you can criticize anyone for overrating young players.