[woj] - Hauser extended 45/4

[165bows]

But you are using that to say he has no value. That’s your argument. This last finals even though he only played in 3 games he was a difference maker. Celtics probably win without him still, but he was amazing in game one and very solid in game 2. He wasn’t completely absent. He helped his team win a title.

I'm actually saying he is negative value, you need to pay to dump him, not that he has no value, and again, he was amazing also in his 1st year in Dallas, and he had great games in his 3rd year when he had enough time to rehab, they still dumped him.
KP had an injury missed the 1st 3 rounds, came back 2 games and was injured again, he will miss the start of 2024 season unclear for how long, I don't think anyone is trading positive value for him.

For sure no one is trading for him while he is injured.
If he has negative value the Cs won’t trade him anyway, since he clearly has value to them, even as a part time player.
We disagree on his trade value assuming he recovers and that’s fine. I believe you have some built in Bias from your experience of him as a Mavs fan. I probably have some recency bias because he was absolutely amazing last season and the he helped my team get banner 18.

In his 100 RS games in Dallas he was a net negative TS added guy, he was over a hundred positive TS added in his 57 regular season games in Boston and similar year prior in WAS. Totally different leagues in terms of categories of performance and it’s silly to disregard that.

Boston traded for him knowing his history and treated him as such, they knew exactly what they were getting in to. A team like OKC eg would be crazy not to pony up for 60 RS+playoff games for him if opportunity arose. It’s just not a compelling argument nor one based on relevant data because he’s not the same guy he was in Dallas at all.

[BK_2020]

If 57 games played makes you a negative player despite your skills then what do we think about:
Lively (55 games played)
Embiid (39 games played)
Towns (62 games)
Sengun (63 games)
Jalen Duren (60 games)
Mark Williams (19 games)
Mobley (50 games)
Just looking at some centers/center-adjacent players?

[Texas Chuck]

If 57 games played makes you a negative player despite your skills then what do we think about:
Lively (55 games played)
Embiid (39 games played)
Towns (62 games)
Sengun (63 games)
Jalen Duren (60 games)
Mark Williams (19 games)
Mobley (50 games)
Just looking at some centers/center-adjacent players?

I don't think KP is negative fwiw, but obviously its one a one year blip for KP. As has been mentioned he's never had a healthy post-season and yes that factors into his value. Embiid is a major exception because he's an MVP level player and none of these other guys are close to that.

Looks like you just randomly grabbed some centers who didn't play 75+ games and threw them in a pile. No real relevance to KP's value.

For me the bottom line is really simple -- Boston needs him. They don't have a replacement on the roster and as a 2nd apron team no super easy path to get one. So if they started shopping him, its likely teams are very concerned about his medicals because Boston must be to move a guy who fits so well and has played well when available for them.

So from that standpoint his real-life trade value might well be negative. But his theoretical trade value is probably slightly above neutral? I mean he's been traded multiple times in recent times for low returns. So no reason to think his trade value is significant. But in a world where teams weren't worried about Boston's motivation in trading for him, I think neutral value could be had.

But Mark Williams and Joel Embiid have nothing to do with it.

[BK_2020]

If 57 games played makes you a negative player despite your skills then what do we think about:
Lively (55 games played)
Embiid (39 games played)
Towns (62 games)
Sengun (63 games)
Jalen Duren (60 games)
Mark Williams (19 games)
Mobley (50 games)
Just looking at some centers/center-adjacent players?

I don't think KP is negative fwiw, but obviously its one a one year blip for KP. As has been mentioned he's never had a healthy post-season and yes that factors into his value. Embiid is a major exception because he's an MVP level player and none of these other guys are close to that.

Looks like you just randomly grabbed some centers who didn't play 75+ games and threw them in a pile. No real relevance to KP's value.

For me the bottom line is really simple -- Boston needs him. They don't have a replacement on the roster and as a 2nd apron team no super easy path to get one. So if they started shopping him, its likely teams are very concerned about his medicals because Boston must be to move a guy who fits so well and has played well when available for them.

So from that standpoint his real-life trade value might well be negative. But his theoretical trade value is probably slightly above neutral? I mean he's been traded multiple times in recent times for low returns. So no reason to think his trade value is significant. But in a world where teams weren't worried about Boston's motivation in trading for him, I think neutral value could be had.

But Mark Williams and Joel Embiid have nothing to do with it.

Was going for 65+ games, if the cut off is 75+ then maybe Jokic and Sabonis make the cut.

Porzingis in 2022 was considered injury prone, far closer to his ACL tear, and largely ineffective next to Luka, and brought back Dinwiddie and long-term salary relief, probably a neutral value trade for Dallas. Porzingis has been healthier, much better, and makes less money. He also showed that he can be tremendously effective in the playoffs. Not see a reason why he should be considered less valuable now than in 2022, as a much better player with better health making less money.

55-60 with playoff health upside isn't so unusually bad health that it will scare teams off. For instance you have to go back to 2018-19 for instance to find a season where Kyrie played more than 60 games.

[165bows]

If 57 games played makes you a negative player despite your skills then what do we think about:
Lively (55 games played)
Embiid (39 games played)
Towns (62 games)
Sengun (63 games)
Jalen Duren (60 games)
Mark Williams (19 games)
Mobley (50 games)
Just looking at some centers/center-adjacent players?

I don't think KP is negative fwiw, but obviously its one a one year blip for KP. As has been mentioned he's never had a healthy post-season and yes that factors into his value. Embiid is a major exception because he's an MVP level player and none of these other guys are close to that.

Looks like you just randomly grabbed some centers who didn't play 75+ games and threw them in a pile. No real relevance to KP's value.

For me the bottom line is really simple -- Boston needs him. They don't have a replacement on the roster and as a 2nd apron team no super easy path to get one. So if they started shopping him, its likely teams are very concerned about his medicals because Boston must be to move a guy who fits so well and has played well when available for them.

So from that standpoint his real-life trade value might well be negative. But his theoretical trade value is probably slightly above neutral? I mean he's been traded multiple times in recent times for low returns. So no reason to think his trade value is significant. But in a world where teams weren't worried about Boston's motivation in trading for him, I think neutral value could be had.

But Mark Williams and Joel Embiid have nothing to do with it.

Was going for 65+ games, if the cut off is 75+ then maybe Jokic and Sabonis make the cut.

Porzingis in 2022 was considered injury prone, far closer to his ACL tear, and largely ineffective next to Luka, and brought back Dinwiddie and long-term salary relief, probably a neutral value trade for Dallas. Porzingis has been healthier, much better, and makes less money. He also showed that he can be tremendously effective in the playoffs. Not see a reason why he should be considered less valuable now than in 2022, as a much better player with better health making less money.

55-60 with playoff health upside isn't so unusually bad health that it will scare teams off. For instance you have to go back to 2018-19 for instance to find a season where Kyrie played more than 60 games.

The ability of people to overlook just how much better he’s been since he was in Dallas (and that his most recent trade was a FA situation) is sort of perplexing.

[Mavrelous]

)

He also showed that he can be tremendously effective in the playoffs.

KP was better in 2020 with Dallas in the PO than with Boston this year, but he didn't have Lively trying to injure him on every play in 2020, I'll give you that.

[Texas Chuck]

I don't think KP is negative fwiw, but obviously its one a one year blip for KP. As has been mentioned he's never had a healthy post-season and yes that factors into his value. Embiid is a major exception because he's an MVP level player and none of these other guys are close to that.

Looks like you just randomly grabbed some centers who didn't play 75+ games and threw them in a pile. No real relevance to KP's value.

For me the bottom line is really simple -- Boston needs him. They don't have a replacement on the roster and as a 2nd apron team no super easy path to get one. So if they started shopping him, its likely teams are very concerned about his medicals because Boston must be to move a guy who fits so well and has played well when available for them.

So from that standpoint his real-life trade value might well be negative. But his theoretical trade value is probably slightly above neutral? I mean he's been traded multiple times in recent times for low returns. So no reason to think his trade value is significant. But in a world where teams weren't worried about Boston's motivation in trading for him, I think neutral value could be had.

But Mark Williams and Joel Embiid have nothing to do with it.

Was going for 65+ games, if the cut off is 75+ then maybe Jokic and Sabonis make the cut.

Porzingis in 2022 was considered injury prone, far closer to his ACL tear, and largely ineffective next to Luka, and brought back Dinwiddie and long-term salary relief, probably a neutral value trade for Dallas. Porzingis has been healthier, much better, and makes less money. He also showed that he can be tremendously effective in the playoffs. Not see a reason why he should be considered less valuable now than in 2022, as a much better player with better health making less money.

55-60 with playoff health upside isn't so unusually bad health that it will scare teams off. For instance you have to go back to 2018-19 for instance to find a season where Kyrie played more than 60 games.

The ability of people to overlook just how much better he’s been since he was in Dallas (and that his most recent trade was a FA situation) is sort of perplexing.

Odd response considering I said nothing of the sort. I was clear my concerns were all injury related and spoke positively about his play as a Celtic.

What is getting overlooked is what I am actually posting.



And since we've now included Kyrie for some reason--absolutely his unavailability hurt his value. Why else was Dallas able to get a player as talented as him for so cheap? Odd to use a guy who makes my point as an argument against my point lol.

[165bows]

Was going for 65+ games, if the cut off is 75+ then maybe Jokic and Sabonis make the cut.

Porzingis in 2022 was considered injury prone, far closer to his ACL tear, and largely ineffective next to Luka, and brought back Dinwiddie and long-term salary relief, probably a neutral value trade for Dallas. Porzingis has been healthier, much better, and makes less money. He also showed that he can be tremendously effective in the playoffs. Not see a reason why he should be considered less valuable now than in 2022, as a much better player with better health making less money.

55-60 with playoff health upside isn't so unusually bad health that it will scare teams off. For instance you have to go back to 2018-19 for instance to find a season where Kyrie played more than 60 games.

The ability of people to overlook just how much better he’s been since he was in Dallas (and that his most recent trade was a FA situation) is sort of perplexing.

Odd response considering I said nothing of the sort. I was clear my concerns were all injury related and spoke positively about his play as a Celtic.

What is getting overlooked is what I am actually posting.

No it's not odd in that it relates to what you are missing in the part I already bolded from your first post for that specific purpose.

Typically the biggest factor increasing or decreasing trade value is level of play so if one is willing to avoid that then the bolded statement works.

[brackdan70]

If 57 games played makes you a negative player despite your skills then what do we think about:
Lively (55 games played)
Embiid (39 games played)
Towns (62 games)
Sengun (63 games)
Jalen Duren (60 games)
Mark Williams (19 games)
Mobley (50 games)
Just looking at some centers/center-adjacent players?

Going beyond Centers we have Mitchell, Randle, OG, and on and on.

[Texas Chuck]

The ability of people to overlook just how much better he’s been since he was in Dallas (and that his most recent trade was a FA situation) is sort of perplexing.

Odd response considering I said nothing of the sort. I was clear my concerns were all injury related and spoke positively about his play as a Celtic.

What is getting overlooked is what I am actually posting.

No it's not odd in that it relates to what you are missing in the part I already bolded from your first post for that specific purpose.

Typically the biggest factor increasing or decreasing trade value is level of play so if one is willing to avoid that then the bolded statement works.

Again, he has been traded for minimal returns. This is factual. The reason he kept getting traded was because he is a talented player with a highly desired combination of being able to protect the rim and stretch the floor(and more beyond that). The reason he doesn't return much value is because teams know they can't depend on him to be on the court.

You seem to believe he's become a totally different player in Boston and teams will overlook the injury concerns thinking he's a much better player. I think its unlikely teams think that. They realize he's much more effective as a 3rd option surrounded by the most shooting in the league. His efficiency likely goes down if moved back to Washington as Poole/Kuzma scare exactly zero defenses.

So again, my point remains the same-- good player. Health hurts value.

[165bows]

Odd response considering I said nothing of the sort. I was clear my concerns were all injury related and spoke positively about his play as a Celtic.

What is getting overlooked is what I am actually posting.

No it's not odd in that it relates to what you are missing in the part I already bolded from your first post for that specific purpose.

Typically the biggest factor increasing or decreasing trade value is level of play so if one is willing to avoid that then the bolded statement works.

Again, he has been traded for minimal returns. This is factual. The reason he kept getting traded was because he is a talented player with a highly desired combination of being able to protect the rim and stretch the floor(and more beyond that). The reason he doesn't return much value is because teams know they can't depend on him to be on the court.

You seem to believe he's become a totally different player in Boston and teams will overlook the injury concerns thinking he's a much better player. I think its unlikely teams think that. They realize he's much more effective as a 3rd option surrounded by the most shooting in the league. His efficiency likely goes down if moved back to Washington as Poole/Kuzma scare exactly zero defenses.

So again, my point remains the same-- good player. Health hurts value.

Sure, but that's just not good analysis, reasons I've stated above. If you think he's the same value player he was the two times he was actually traded it's just demonstrably inaccurate.

Edit - let me put it this way, I could care less what Porzingis' trade value is. But the rationale is awful. He is demonstrably better as a player than he was two years ago and his last trade wasn't remotely the same as the first two. Feel free to draw whatever conclusion you like but don't expect me to give it any merit if it is based on clearly faulty premise.

And again, I really could care less what people think his current value is, Dallas posters can feel free to go on silly like this about it in here I'll leave it at that.

[Texas Chuck]

Oh and now dismissing me thinking I have a bone to pick with KP because I'm a Mav fan. I;m sure you have receipts of that. Oh no you don't because I don't trash ex-Mavs like that.

Shame we can';t discuss this on the merits. I can handle a different opinion. It's what the board is for. Telling me I am intentionally devaluing him because he was once a Mav is just pointless and insulting. I didn't once suggest you valued him because he was a Celtic. You deserve and got more respect than that.

[Homerclease]

What does any of this have to do with Sam Hauser?

[brackdan70]

What does any of this have to do with Sam Hauser?

I think it started with some uninformed person commenting on the cap implications and that the Cs may need to trade Porzingis…morphed into Mavs fans saying he has minimal to negative trade value and Cs fan saying he won’t get traded and he has huge value because he is the Unicorn.

[Mavrelous]

What does any of this have to do with Sam Hauser?

It's Zimpy's fault, like always.

[Mavrelous]

No it's not odd in that it relates to what you are missing in the part I already bolded from your first post for that specific purpose.

Typically the biggest factor increasing or decreasing trade value is level of play so if one is willing to avoid that then the bolded statement works.

Again, he has been traded for minimal returns. This is factual. The reason he kept getting traded was because he is a talented player with a highly desired combination of being able to protect the rim and stretch the floor(and more beyond that). The reason he doesn't return much value is because teams know they can't depend on him to be on the court.

You seem to believe he's become a totally different player in Boston and teams will overlook the injury concerns thinking he's a much better player. I think its unlikely teams think that. They realize he's much more effective as a 3rd option surrounded by the most shooting in the league. His efficiency likely goes down if moved back to Washington as Poole/Kuzma scare exactly zero defenses.

So again, my point remains the same-- good player. Health hurts value.

Sure, but that's just not good analysis, reasons I've stated above. If you think he's the same value player he was the two times he was actually traded it's just demonstrably inaccurate.

Edit - let me put it this way, I could care less what Porzingis' trade value is. But the rationale is awful. He is demonstrably better as a player than he was two years ago and his last trade wasn't remotely the same as the first two. Feel free to draw whatever conclusion you like but don't expect me to give it any merit if it is based on clearly faulty premise.

And again, I really could care less what people think his current value is, Dallas posters can feel free to go on silly like this about it in here I'll leave it at that.

That's an interesting linguistic choice, you keep insisting that "you could care less" instead of the original phrase of "couldn't care less", to emphasize that you clearly could, and should IMHO, care less.
"Dallas posters" are very frequent on this board, discuss valuation of all players, they can have opinions that vary a lot from what's popular, though in KP's case, I don't think I'm really being over the top.

[165bows]

Oh and now dismissing me thinking I have a bone to pick with KP because I'm a Mav fan. I;m sure you have receipts of that. Oh no you don't because I don't trash ex-Mavs like that.

Shame we can';t discuss this on the merits. I can handle a different opinion. It's what the board is for. Telling me I am intentionally devaluing him because he was once a Mav is just pointless and insulting. I didn't once suggest you valued him because he was a Celtic. You deserve and got more respect than that.

I'd respectfully suggest slowing your roll on the whole "you didn't even see what I said/strawman accusation" schtick. Ie, I literally bolded the exact statement I was referring to ahead of time for that precise reason but out it comes regardless.