Indiana/Minnesota/Boston 3-way

[Klomp]

As much as I like Crowder, and love his contract, I would not give up Isaac for him. You guys have already talked about team control, and price tag which favors Isaac, and it's a testiment to BOS' front office that Crowder's free agent contract can even compete with a rookie scale deal. But let me talk about those chances.

Let's suppose the odds are 3-1 against Isaac ever becoming as good as Crowder, so there is a 75% Crowder is better, and only a 25% chance Isaac is better, However, inside that 25% is maybe a 1-in-5 chance that he is much better, and becomes a star. Stars determine franchises, and these days, your team needs several stars if your goal is to win a ring. And stars are even more valuable under the new CBA, which helps you keep them on your team for several years. We pretty much know Crowder will never be a star, just an excellent complimentary player. If Isaac reached Crowder's level, I'd be happy. But the real value would be if he became a star.

So oretend these are our projections:

25% Isaac busts, Crowder is much better
50% Isaac is worse than Crowder
20% Isaac is better than Crowder
5% Isaac becomes a star?

If those were the projections, and with all the ancillary reasoms, I'd go with Isaac.

In most cases, I would agree with you on the bolded. However, this is one of the few I don't. We already arguably have our stars and are looking to complement them. While Isaac probably could develop into a solid complement, it will take some time. Crowder is already there now. He's young and on a dirt-cheap deal. And your argument about stars being valuable under the CBA is moot because those two five-year max extensions will probably be long gone by the time Isaac's ready for one.

And while I understand the rationale of team control for 8 years, here's some trivia. How many players have played 8 years in Minnesota? Here's a hint: it's 3. Kevin Garnett. Sam Mitchell. Doug West. That's it. Ricky Rubio is going into Year 7 with the team (if he's not dealt) and would be just the fifth player in franchise history to do so (Wally Szczerbiak was the fourth). That also means only three of them did so under the 8 years of team control bit, because West and Mitchell weren't first rounders.

[shrink]

Part of the reason we don't see more stars under the old CBA's is that they made it easier for star players to move and get almost as much money. The new CBA should encourage players to stick with their teams, particularly stars.

[Streakers33]

I'm getting more on board with pick seven for crowder and 2019 Memphis pick


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Texas Chuck]

[
and value is what someone's willing to pay, not the asking price..

I won't argue you with PG specifically any more. But this isn't true either. If the most a team is willing to pay isn't enough then a deal does not happen and thus that is not the value.

[Patsfan1081]

Was Love traded to Cleveland with the idea that he def was going to resign? I'm just asking this because I wonder how you could possibly give up the first pick in the draft for somone who is a expiring contract and is heavily believed to be wanting to test free agency. I could understand maybe being more willing to trade for George if you could get him for two playoff runs at the last deadline but this just seems like way too much of a risk.

[mikestar]

No interest in PG, no interest in trading Fultz.

[Mystical Apples]

[
and value is what someone's willing to pay, not the asking price.

I won't argue you with PG specifically any more.

I had no idea we were arguing or even had a running dialogue. I posted an opinion, you disagreed without solicitation, and I in turn justified the rationale.

But this isn't true either. If the most a team is willing to pay isn't enough then a deal does not happen and thus that is not the value.

Either? OK now I'm convinced you're confusing me with someone else.

And yeah, Indiana can decline but declining doesn't necessarily anchor PG's value to their asking price. To the contrary, actually.

[Texas Chuck]

And yeah, Indiana can decline but declining doesn't necessarily anchor PG's value to their asking price. To the contrary, actually.

I didn't say it did. I said you were incorrect about the buyer setting the price exclusively.

[Mystical Apples]

And yeah, Indiana can decline but declining doesn't necessarily anchor PG's value to their asking price. To the contrary, actually.

I didn't say it did. I said you were incorrect about the buyer setting the price exclusively.

"Exclusively?" I set the price at my estimation of his value....the price that started this unsolicited conversation.

That said, you should review your initial response. It was kinda preachy but I chalked it up to frustration or having a bad day.

[Texas Chuck]

I do come from a family of preachers so...

But more seriously re-reading it I see how it may have come off that way and I do apologize. I just strongly disagree with some thinking that is common on this board about what rentals are worth, and what one year of a superstar specifically is worth and then once we engaged obviously I disagree that the buyer gets to set the price--tho you have walked that back to a point where we agree so all is good.

Cheers.

[shrink]

Was Love traded to Cleveland with the idea that he def was going to resign? I'm just asking this because I wonder how you could possibly give up the first pick in the draft for somone who is a expiring contract and is heavily believed to be wanting to test free agency. I could understand maybe being more willing to trade for George if you could get him for two playoff runs at the last deadline but this just seems like way too much of a risk.

i agree. There are numerous differences between Love and PG's situation. First, The Greatest Player in the Game, on a short deal, demanded they get Love, and CLE couldn't afford to dicker over the price. Next, LeBron believed (correctly) that Love would help them win a ring that year. Paul George does not do that, so the one year he provides is far less valuable. Finally, LeBron seemed confident he could keep Love in CLE. He was right about that too, and many of us were surprised to see Love immediately re-sign with CLE at the start of free agency, without even meeting with any other teams. Perhaps this was arranged after the Olympics? I think there ought to be a line in the CBA that says, "it's not tampering if players do it!"

[Mystical Apples]

Was Love traded to Cleveland with the idea that he def was going to resign? I'm just asking this because I wonder how you could possibly give up the first pick in the draft for somone who is a expiring contract and is heavily believed to be wanting to test free agency. I could understand maybe being more willing to trade for George if you could get him for two playoff runs at the last deadline but this just seems like way too much of a risk.

i agree. There are numerous differences between Love and PG's situation. First, The Greatest Player in the Game, on a short deal, demanded they get Love, and CLE couldn't afford to dicker over the price. Next, LeBron believed (correctly) that Love would help them win a ring that year. Paul George does not do that, so the one year he provides is far less valuable. Finally, LeBron seemed confident he could keep Love in CLE. He was right about that too, and many of us were surprised to see Love immediately re-sign with CLE at the start of free agency, without even meeting with any other teams. Perhaps this was arranged after the Olympics? I think there ought to be a line in the CBA that says, "it's not tampering if players do it!"

I'd add an expanded(ing) salary cap that provides an additional path to accommodating large salaries. That + applicable precedent + evolving analytics departments.

[basketballwacko2]

Was Love traded to Cleveland with the idea that he def was going to resign? I'm just asking this because I wonder how you could possibly give up the first pick in the draft for somone who is a expiring contract and is heavily believed to be wanting to test free agency. I could understand maybe being more willing to trade for George if you could get him for two playoff runs at the last deadline but this just seems like way too much of a risk.

What's the #1 reason a player resigns with the team he's with? Whether he's just been traded there or has been there 7-8 yrs? Winning that's why players resign. Kevin Love wanted to win a title. It's why David West left $12 million on the table to sign with The Spurs 2 yrs ago.

If PG is traded to a team that has a chance to get to the finals he'll resign, the BS about he wanting to play for the lakers is nothing but Bovine Scatology. The Lakers are 3-4 yrs from winning even if PG is there. they'll be lucky to win 30 games in 2017-18 and that pick goes to the Sixers. Why would PG leave a winning team to play for a team that won 30 games last season?

[Spens1]

thats a high price for someone who may not resign.

[asitter]

thats a high price for someone who may not resign.

Why wouldn't he? They'd be a top two (at worst) team in the East for years? He wants to win, and a nearly guaranteed shot at the ECF every year seems good to me.

[Spens1]

thats a high price for someone who may not resign.

Why wouldn't he? They'd be a top two (at worst) team in the East for years? He wants to win, and a nearly guaranteed shot at the ECF every year seems good to me.

don't get me wrong, he should resign but to give up all that, a deal should be done on the premise that he signs an extension immediately.

[Wizop]

would the CBA allow you to trade future picks conditioned upon him signing an extension? it'd probably have to be a 2019 pick though to avoid deferring the extension for the sole purpose of avoiding the condition.

[shrink]

thats a high price for someone who may not resign.

Why wouldn't he? They'd be a top two (at worst) team in the East for years? He wants to win, and a nearly guaranteed shot at the ECF every year seems good to me.

But that's the problem too. It's a catch-22.

Say we believe, "why wouldn't he" is a magic risk eraser. Even if it's true, why would BOS pay much?

If BOS is sure, and PG is sure, and IND is sure he will re-sign with Boston, what team is going to bid against BOS?

You've built a "we lose him for nothing" situation, with only one bidder. He is then only worth a one year rental, in a year where he is not putting any team over GSW or CLE.

[Klomp]

thats a high price for someone who may not resign.

Why wouldn't he? They'd be a top two (at worst) team in the East for years? He wants to win, and a nearly guaranteed shot at the ECF every year seems good to me.

But that's the problem too. It's a catch-22.

Say we believe, "why wouldn't he" is a magic risk eraser. Even if it's true, why would BOS pay much?

If BOS is sure, and PG is sure, and IND is sure he will re-sign with Boston, what team is going to bid against BOS?

You've built a "we lose him for nothing" situation, with only one bidder. He is then only worth a one year rental, in a year where he is not putting any team over GSW or CLE.

Just a couple of years ago, a team gave up a No. 1 pick for a player who may not re-sign. He did, but that wasn't guaranteed at the time of the deal. And I'm pretty sure that No. 1 pick was rated higher than the likely No. 1 pick this year is. And Boston is a slightly more appealing sports market than Cleveland to live in.

If Boston wants to go all-in, I don't think there are many reasons not to do this deal. The only one I can think of is if they don't want to keep Thomas past next year and want Fultz to take over the reigns.

[Klomp]

To be honest, I'm just happy that my trade generated four pages of good discussion. That seems like a rarity on this forum.