Opinion on Gomes contract

[Saltine]

LOL!

[Krapinsky]

For your pure satisfaction:

Instead of the record, let me just quote myself:

You said that Webster has maintained his full value to POR from the previous year, when they signed him to the contract.

1. Webster is a year older. Does that raise or lower his value? No effect

2. Webster did not show some great leap in performance last year. Does that raise or lower his value? No effect

3. Webster lost his starting job to Batum, and isn't getting it back. Does that raise or lower his value? No effect

4. POR doesn't have as many minutes available for Webster's development. Does that raise or lower his value?

No effect

5. Oh -- and are you saying that Webster's contract last year WASN'T higher at all because of the chance he would show greater improve? It seemed like you were argueing this in your other post.

I'm sure it was factored into the contract he signed. Neither of us can say how much of a factor. I would assume that's why he gets raises every year though. I'd still argue he is an asset and they would not give him away unless they were getting an asset they like more in return. You think the $ savings is an asset enough. I disagree. Simple as that.

[Dewey]

Rambis wanted Martell, not Babbit. Kahn got him.

I'm not sure why you want to pretend anyone on this board has a better idea of what Rambis needs more than he does. Or the theoretical value of a cheap little contract or unproven rookies. The coach wanted Martell Webster.

I think you guys should save it for bitching about whatever happens with Al. If this Gomes thing has you guys this tweaked out, I can't wait to see what happens when a real deal goes down

This.

I think this whole topic needs to be kept in perspective ... management determined Webster was a better route versus the players left on the board (Babbit, specifically). Babbit is a horrible defender and his overall NBA game will be limited due to his lack of speed, but he does shoot well from long-range.

Rambis was open to his familiarity wiuth Websters game and clearly developed some real interest in his style of play. If I remember correctly, he mentioned Webster had low turnovers, defensive capabilities at SG/SF, and was finally learning how to apply himself as a scorer.

Screw Gomes contract debate ... if Webster is maturing as a player, we have to feel fortunate. Gomes was a great lockerroom guy, but dead weight moving forward with trying to improve team speed and athleticism.

[Breakdown777]

Best Thread Ever!

We all now know Shrink's "hot button" (as if some of us didn't know before)

I hope I get flamed for this as bad as every other person who has made a joke in the last 4 pages (except for the red font bit, that actually got a positive response).

This sort of proves that some people need to be right. It's pretty clear that there is no convincing either party to sway their views. And both arguments actually have strong points and "ehhh, well I guess you could say that" points.
I think that both arguements are based on stats/notions/numbers that are different, so naturally, there are opposing views. You could almost turn the arguement into what numbers, statistics, questions, and perceptions of value are most important when evaluating trades, players, and contracts.

I really do admire the work some do for our benefit. I don't pretend to know a fraction as much as some of the more distinguished posters, so these conversations really help me get a grasp of the ins and outs of NBA economics.

Also, I'll 2nd Saltine's post and say that I think it's sort of based on personal value to a degree. Did Kahn get Shrinks value for Gomes and the 16, not even close. Did Kahn get Kahns/Rambis' value for Gomes & 16? Yes. We will see who is correct in a year or two.
For the record, I don't hate the trade as much as I did at first, and am more neutral now, but I still think Babbitt could be the next Wally, and that Webster won't turn out to be as significant.

[Saltine]

This thread is hilarious, I just don't think it's a big enough trade to really get emotionally involved with

Here's a fun one we could post on the Phoenix board to see if someone goes nuclear.
http://www.realgm.com/src_checktrade.ph ... id=5597296

Steve Nash for Sessions, Brewer, and Hollins.

Why for Minnesota;
Steve Nash can mentor Flynn this year, and Rubio next year. Steve can also be much closer to his homeland, Canada, which we can see from here. It's really perfect for both sides.

Why for Phoenix;

They lost Amare, they are pretty much doomed now. Might as well rebuild.
Hollins has essentially unlimited upside, he really can only get better. Brewer has only %27 less upside than Hollins, he's that good. And Sessions is a good, cheap, young point guard. Who can easily score over 40 points in a game every couple years. All perfect fits for a rebuilding team. This deal also saves Phoenix 310 Thousand dollars, you can buy a really nice car with that cash.

[Breakdown777]

If we kept Gomes and waived him ourselves, we lose 1 mil/ 1 mil / and 750 k. - 2,750,000.

If we trade Gomes to another team as a "deal breaker" addition, we don't pay the buyout. 0.

If we trade Gomes to another team for an asset (as his deal potentially could've attainted), we don't pay the buyout AND get an asset. I can't put a number on this, but it's a positive. +

It looks like Kahn landed in the middle, and we don't know if any +positive+ trades were researched/attempted. At least we don't pay the buyout (I'm in agreement that perhaps the timing of moving Gomes was a poor chioce, and I agree that 2,750,000 isn't that much $ in the grand scheme of things, yet every little bit does help). Can't we give Kahn a "C" and move on?

Is that correct? It's my understanding that not including Gomes in the deal for Webster would've COST the wolves more money that we didn't want to spend, so how is moving Gomes a bad deal if we didn't want him? Moving Gomes was only a bad deal if there was a better asset on the table, and I believe that Kahn would not have turned that down if there was a better deal on the table.

[Saltine]

You are correct.

[shrink]

To compare apples-to-apples, the only way we lose $2.75 mil by including Gomes is if we are comparing it to an alternate offer of raw cap space + #16, which would be even worse.

Its a bad, relative, comparison. Look at it this way. Suppose POR said they wanted raw cap space + #16, and we "stuck them" with Kevin Love + #16. The fact that the additional asset isn't raw cap space doesn't make it a bad asset.

Was Gomes worth raw cap space? No, because he had partially guaranteed money on his deal. However, that doesn't make him a negative asset.

============================

But the major problem in this way of thinking is setting the baseline at "POR wanted raw cap space + #16" (a horrible deal for us) and we "stuck them" with Gomes' lesser raw cap space + #16 (a less horrible deal for us).

With the Paris Hilton analogy for the handbag worth $500, suppose the seller wanted Hilton to pay $4000, but she insisted on paying $3500, "sticking them" with $500 less. The fact that its less doesn't mean its still not overpaying.

[C.lupus]

This thread makes my head hurt. Also, the world would be a much better place without Paris Hilton and handbags.

that is all.

[Krapinsky]

This thread makes my head hurt. Also, the world would be a much better place without Paris Hilton and handbags.

that is all.

This.

[Krapinsky]

Travis Outlaw = $35M/5
Wesley Matthews = $34M/5

Martell Webster ($11M/2) for Luke Babbit and Ryan Gomes = Bargain

[Worm Guts]

It wasn't a steal and you should have let this thread die.

[Krapinsky]

It wasn't a steal and you should have let this thread die.

Not sure why this matters?

[Klomp]

Not sure why this matters?

With all the backseat modding you do, you should know why it matters.

[Krapinsky]

I just try and help out. Apparently I've been overstepping my bounds.

I thought the Matthews signing was relevant and just wanted to put it somewhere without starting a new thread. This was only on page 2.