The Okafor Trade Revisited

fluffernutter · Post #1 » by **fluffernutter** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:10 pm

Obviously Chandler is a total bust.

Okafor on the other hand... is doing in NO exactly the same as he did here. Almost to the decimal point. Shooting a bit better, rebounding a bit less, but essentially - same guy.

Given the contract disparity, do you approve or disapprove of the trade in hindsight?

countryboi · Post #2 » by **countryboi** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:26 pm

the trade sucks i want meka back we would be over 500 right now

amcoolio · Post #3 » by **amcoolio** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:59 pm

Nah. Currently, we miss Okafor's shotblocking at the rim, but I think this team is the same or worse with Okafor here instead of Chandler, and Okafor has a massive contract left. I doubt NO will even keep him by the deadline.

I also think Chandler will improve and we'll need him post-all star break and playoffs when we go on our run. Chandler has been awful, but he can't get any worse. He'll get better.

BobsBuddy · Post #4 » by **BobsBuddy** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:24 pm

I agree with Amcoolio..Okafor will always be a Buck Williams type center and LB wanted a true 7 footer. TC doesn't put the numbers up that OKafor did but we are getting more production from the other 4 postions now. The 43 Jax had the other night shows what he is capable of with Nazr on the floor. When TC gets back we will even have more paint presence platooning them. Also 2 years from now TC, Nazr or Diop will probably be gone anyway..The move with Okafor was to free up an additional year of salary which allowed us later to bring in JAX's contract. At 17-19 I give the trade a B right now especially if TC gives us 10/10 down the stretch. Now LB lets go after LEE as our power forward and sign him long term. trade Diaw, Diop and Augustine to NYK and then resign Felton?
Felton Flip AC
Jax Hendo
GW Graham
Lee/ Brown/Ajincia :wink:

TC/ Nazr

Rich4114 · Post #5 » by **Rich4114** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:16 am

I'd rather have Okafor and his actual NBA skills Vs Chandler the foul machine with no offensive game what so ever.

Even if he wasn't the best fit on this team, is Chandler (who was going to be traded for cap space but failed a physical) the best we could've got? Now f'n way.

doc.end · Post #6 » by **doc.end** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:18 am

fluffernutter wrote:Obviously Chandler is a total bust.

Okafor on the other hand... is doing in NO exactly the same as he did here. Almost to the decimal point. Shooting a bit better, rebounding a bit less, but essentially - same guy.

Given the contract disparity, do you approve or disapprove of the trade in hindsight?

How is he shooting a bit better?
08-09 CHA 82 81 32.8 0.561 0.000 0.593 3.4 6.7 10.1 0.6 0.6 1.7 1.76 3.01 13.2
09-10 NOH 37 36 30.1 0.529 0.000 0.609 3.5 6.4 9.9 0.5 0.6 1.8 1.41 2.86 11.4

fluffernutter · Post #7 » by **fluffernutter** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:55 am

doc.end wrote:
fluffernutter wrote:Obviously Chandler is a total bust.

Okafor on the other hand... is doing in NO exactly the same as he did here. Almost to the decimal point. Shooting a bit better, rebounding a bit less, but essentially - same guy.

Given the contract disparity, do you approve or disapprove of the trade in hindsight?

How is he shooting a bit better?
08-09 CHA 82 81 32.8 0.561 0.000 0.593 3.4 6.7 10.1 0.6 0.6 1.7 1.76 3.01 13.2
09-10 NOH 37 36 30.1 0.529 0.000 0.609 3.5 6.4 9.9 0.5 0.6 1.8 1.41 2.86 11.4

I meant over career. Sorry. yeah, I guess the Chris Paul effect... isn't there yet.

thruthefire · Post #8 » by **thruthefire** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 4:53 am

HATE IT. We'd easily be the fifth seed right now if Okafor was still here. That certainly beats being stuck with a 12 million dollar player who we play better without.

W_HAMILTON · Post #9 » by **W_HAMILTON** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:23 am

(1) Until I start writing the checks, or Charlotte's NBA franchise uses its cap space to sign someone better than David Wesley/Bobby Phills -- biggest FA signings in almost 20 years worth of basketball? -- I will continue not to care about our payroll.

(2) Okafor doing the same here as he has always done here would put us solidly in the 5th seed, with an outside chance of catching Atlanta for the 4th seed. We're 7 games back of Atlanta now -- if we had Okafor for this entire season, we'd probably be around 2-3 games back. Either way, the possible chance of making the playoffs we have now would be a virtual lock with Okafor.

(3) Except for FT%, Okafor is across-the-board better than Chandler. Literally.

(4) And amcoolio, "cancer" has helped NOH be one of the hottest teams in the NBA lately, and I believe they'd have the longest win streak in the NBA except for a road loss they had the other night. They're above .500 now, and that's with Paul having missed eight games.

(5) If you don't think we'd be better off with Okafor, you're either Robert Johnson's accountant or ignorant.

amcoolio · Post #10 » by **amcoolio** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:01 am

No we wouldn't. Okafor has never been that impact player...when is the last time Emeka Okafor has won us a game? Why is New Orleans shopping him around?

I knew this thread would be a hotbed for Hamilton and folks but sorry, you can't convince me this team would be significantly better with Okafor than Chandler. Maybe 1 game at the most, but thats not enough to make me take the 5 years left vs. 2 with Chandler.

amcoolio · Post #11 » by **amcoolio** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:11 am

And thats not because I think Tyson is a great player. He isn't. At least hasn't been so far this season. Its just how I feel about Okafor's impact on a basketball game. 1 in 100 games

moevil · Post #12 » by **moevil** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:07 am

Well...

Last year there were games I yelled so loud and called him Chokafor instead of Okafor. For real, when he got pushed around like baby by bigger men and we got plenty of them in this eastern league. Shaq, Perkins, Howard... That might be the reason why he was traded besides the hefty contract. Other reason is Okafor lacked sports spirit. He just game to play like some people go to office to earn wage.. just to show up. Diaw has had same effect.. but luckily he is somewhat improving...

I thought about okafor - chandler trade and wallace's 11,5 rebs per game is totally influenced not having okafor here, but i'm not complaining. Okafor wasn't that guy you want to really build franchise around, so we took 2 years off from that huge contract.

Let it be and better support our current cast a.k.a Chandler and cheer for him to get healthy again. He got skills and wish to play and I'll take that.

Fred Williamson · Post #13 » by **Fred Williamson** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:01 am

I don't care. Seriously, if Mek was still here I don't think we would get that much effort from our backup centers, like we get right now. And I also think that the Bell/Radman-Jax trade wouldn't be done if Mek and his 5year contract were still here.

Ray/Jax/Crash/Diaw/Nazr >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ray/Bell/Crash/Diaw/Mek.

W_HAMILTON · Post #14 » by **W_HAMILTON** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:51 pm

amcoolio wrote:No we wouldn't. Okafor has never been that impact player...when is the last time Emeka Okafor has won us a game? Why is New Orleans shopping him around?

And Chandler has? It doesn't matter whether or not someone is an "impact" player. Remember the last time Okafor missed several games with us? We allowed about 120ppg and lost just about every game. Contrast that to Chandler missing these past games, where we are actually comparable or better without him.

Okafor's consistent contributions lulled a lot around here into thinking he wasn't anything special, then we lose him, and we see how valuable he actually was. We now have a center that can't stay on the court, which is probably a good thing, since we suck with him playing.

As for the guy that said we wouldn't have done the Jackson trade if Okafor was here, well, Okafor makes less money than Chandler for this season and the next, so if we can afford Chandler + Jackson, we could have afforded Okafor + Jackson.

moevil · Post #15 » by **moevil** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:55 pm

The meaning is we wouldn't having Okafor long contract and then Jackson's long contract.

To be honest, we thought we may do fine from start of the season with Chandler replacing Okafor (less money committed longterm), but we just sucked so bad that we had to make move. So we took Jackson's long term contract instead.

There is no way we would be having Okafor + Jackson now. It is Okafor and Bell/Radman or Chandler/Jackson. I'll take Chandler/Jackson any time. Let him just be healthy, he is one of the best post-defenders out there, when healthy.

Post #16 » by **BigSlam** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:15 pm

Approve. I think that Okafor got over paid and I didn't want his contract holding us back long term.

Fred Williamson · Post #17 » by **Fred Williamson** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:26 pm

definitely. Just look what kind of impact Jax has on this team. Moevil also mentioned it, Chandler/Jax >>>>>>>>> Okafor/Bell, any day of the week, even twice on sunday.

W_HAMILTON · Post #18 » by **W_HAMILTON** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:37 pm

If we can afford Chandler + Jackson, we can afford Okafor + Jackson, period.

Anything else any of you say is pure speculation. I could just as easily say that the reason we traded Okafor anyway was to make our books look better so Johnson could sell the team, then we got off to such a horrible start with Chandler, that any prospective owner didn't want any part of what was one of the worst teams in the league. If we kept Okafor, we would have gotten off to a better start, Johnson would have sold the team, and the new owner -- wanting to win -- would have still made the Jackson trade because it was a no-brainer. And hell, maybe the new owner would have gotten us more depth at PF by now, so we'd be even better than Atlanta. So there, I can do that, too.

Okafor is much better than Chandler.
If Okafor was here, we'd be a better team.
We have been a better team WITHOUT Chandler.
Chandler makes more money than Okafor this season and next.
Even buying into the argument that Okafor's long-term contract would have limited us somehow, we still would have had two seasons to figure out that problem.

Post #19 » by **BigSlam** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:30 pm

I agree that Okafor is better than Chandler - but Chandler isn't worth his money IMO either. The only advantage in having Chandler though (apart from the extra couple of inches) is the fact that his contract is so much shorter.

That, and the fact he is having some sort of career year as a FT shooter!!

W_HAMILTON · Post #20 » by **W_HAMILTON** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:55 pm

Then trade Okafor for expirings, and sign Ryan Hollins. We'd probably still be better off.

And what are the advantages of his shorter contract? Like I said, where has cap space in FA ever gotten a Charlotte team? Having a lot of money to spend in FA basically gets a small market like Charlotte the ability to overpay a marginal player, or sign a bunch of Flip Murrays.

And, on the contrary, adding Jackson's contract actually negates the so-called positives of Chandler's shorter deal. Assuming we re-sign Felton, we won't have any substantial cap space anyway until 2012 at the earliest. If we had kept Okafor, we would have had a better chance at winning, a lower payroll this year and the next, and his long-term cap effect most likely wouldn't have hurt us until 2012, but guess what? In 2013, he'd be an expiring contract, and he'd be valuable for teams looking to dump salary.

After Chandler expires, the difference between Jackson's contract and Okafor's is ~4m/year. That is not going to get you sh*t on the FA market. My bad, actually, that will get you sh*t on the FA market. People will say, "but Jackson is better at 4m less than Okafor!" but the point is, we could have had them both. Okafor + Jackson >>> Jackson >>>> Chandler + Jackson.

We won't do crap with the so-called cap space, mainly because after trading for Jackson, we don't really have much to begin with, but also because Charlotte has never done anything with cap space in FA.