Build a Franchise Season 4 Offseason- Commish Update pg. 93

[Context]

I mean would deeez trading Giannis for Draymond be subjectively bad or objectively bad?

if it led to him having a line up of:
donic
embidd
lebron


then no

again, "YOU" know what "your" plan is but YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT bone's plan is...
just like you said that kork's expiring status sways the deal away from me because milton is locked up...
not in my situation, because if i want to sign him i have the ability to out bid any gm...context-the most important piece in any deal...

you are leaving out the context and in order for you to get the "context" you need-you must get in the gms head first...

i believe in well informed opinions not uninformed opinions...those get you in trouble bro...

Facts. If the GM himself is happy with what he is doing then that’s all that matters. The Korkmaz one was a great example. Here’s another one, remember when NewEra traded Steph for Westbrook and we all questioned the move? Guess what, he won a ring and proved us wrong.

exactly melo

[wackbone]

Here’s my reasoning since I seem to be the main talking point. In the past I traded most of my long term assets to try to win-now. That didn’t work. I’ve been a 6-8 seed in the playoffs every year - a perennial treadmill team. Unfortunately with the moves I made I was super short on draft picks. Going into this summer, I was super short on assets. If you just look at the before and after - where I started this off-season and where I am now - I think I have done well as a whole with obtaining more assets. I have wayyyy more picks now than I did before.

I am not going to be a contender this year or next, so why settle for being a 6-8 seed twice more? I think it makes more sense to completely blow it up and acquire long term assets (picks) to try to compete in the future.

Same mentality goes for Draymond. I waived Draymond in order to get a first round pick. I don’t think there was anyone who would give me value to trade Draymond to them, and again I’m not going to compete, so he has no use on my team. Perhaps he could’ve been a nice asset as a $440 expiring next offseason, but with so many players expiring I don’t think the value would be there. And I’m not looking to necessarily sign players long term at big contracts this year or next, so I’m fine eating his salary. And by chance someone decides to claim him, all the better.

Since I tried to go all in on win-now in the past, I unfortunately don’t own a lot of my own picks. Which is unfortunate. But just because I don’t own my pick doesn’t mean I should keep on the treadmill with no real hope for big success.

That’s my reasoning. I wasn’t going to be contending, so I decided to blow it all up.

After all my moves so far this offseason, still the only one I regret was trading away WCJ

[3toheadmelo]

if it led to him having a line up of:
donic
embidd
lebron


then no

again, "YOU" know what "your" plan is but YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT bone's plan is...
just like you said that kork's expiring status sways the deal away from me because milton is locked up...
not in my situation, because if i want to sign him i have the ability to out bid any gm...context-the most important piece in any deal...

you are leaving out the context and in order for you to get the "context" you need-you must get in the gms head first...

i believe in well informed opinions not uninformed opinions...those get you in trouble bro...

Facts. If the GM himself is happy with what he is doing then that’s all that matters. The Korkmaz one was a great example. Here’s another one, remember when NewEra trades Steph for Westbrook and we all questioned the move? Guess what, he won a ring and proved us wrong.

yes correct those are subjective opinions. I never said otherwise. But there are deals that could be considered "objectively" bad.

As I said above...it was my opinion you got a good deal for the Kork trade. I never said it was an awful trade from Contexts POV. But if you trying to tell me someone can't make an "objectively" bad trade I'm sure I can find a fake trade that the league would consider objectively bad for the league.

You talking bout hypotheticals though. Like in the very extremes. That hasn’t happened yet and most likely never will. Like a Lebron for Josh Jackson deal. Lol

[mpharris36]

Here’s my reasoning since I seem to be the main talking point. In the past I traded most of my long term assets to try to win-now. That didn’t work. I’ve been a 6-8 seed in the playoffs every year - a perennial treadmill team. Unfortunately with the moves I made I was super short on draft picks. Going into this summer, I was super short on assets. If you just look at the before and after - where I started this off-season and where I am now - I think I have done well as a whole with obtaining more assets. I have wayyyy more picks now than I did before.

I am not going to be a contender this year or next, so why settle for being a 6-8 seed twice more? I think it makes more sense to completely blow it up and acquire long term assets (picks) to try to compete in the future.

Same mentality goes for Draymond. I waived Draymond in order to get a first round pick. I don’t think there was anyone who would give me value to trade Draymond to them, and again I’m not going to compete, so he has no use on my team. Perhaps he could’ve been a nice asset as a $440 expiring next offseason, but with so many players expiring I don’t think the value would be there. And I’m not looking to necessarily sign players long term at big contracts this year or next, so I’m fine eating his salary. And by chance someone decides to claim him, all the better.

Since I tried to go all in on win-now in the past, I unfortunately don’t own a lot of my own picks. Which is unfortunate. But just because I don’t own my pick doesn’t mean I should keep on the treadmill with no real hope for big success.

That’s my reasoning. I wasn’t going to be contending, so I decided to blow it all up.

After all my moves so far this offseason, still the only one I regret was trading away WCJ

So I think we got clarity you. You received compensation to waive him. Seems fine by me.

If Smash wants to take the risk of getting to bid on a player for a pick he has no use for of course he can do that.

But I guess that would prevent you from agreeing to a waiver trade claim of Draymond because the deal is contingent on him having the opportunity to sign him in FA.

[Smash3]

MPH is being a bozo, never gets anything done, but like's to yap all day about hypotheticals and speaking on other GM's behalf like he knows their long-term plans.

[mpharris36]

Facts. If the GM himself is happy with what he is doing then that’s all that matters. The Korkmaz one was a great example. Here’s another one, remember when NewEra trades Steph for Westbrook and we all questioned the move? Guess what, he won a ring and proved us wrong.

yes correct those are subjective opinions. I never said otherwise. But there are deals that could be considered "objectively" bad.

As I said above...it was my opinion you got a good deal for the Kork trade. I never said it was an awful trade from Contexts POV. But if you trying to tell me someone can't make an "objectively" bad trade I'm sure I can find a fake trade that the league would consider objectively bad for the league.

You talking bout hypotheticals though. Like in the very extremes. That hasn’t happened yet and most likely never will. Like a Lebron for Josh Jackson deal. Lol

correct but the same hypothetical was brought up that "if" trading giannis from draymond led to acquiring the 3 best players in the league then it would be fine. Which has nothing to do with the giannis for draymond trade.

I brought up a hypothetical to point out there can be objectively bad trades...and let me be clear I don't think we have had many objectively bad trades.

To your point I think many thought the Curry/Westbrook trade wasn't a great deal for New but he proved a lot of people wrong. But no one was saying that was a veto worhy trade people just had a differing of opinion.

I agree that most deals makes sense. But I was just trying to point out even how rare and random they are the point was a deal can be objectively bad...which was my argument when context is suggesting that as long as the two GM's are ok with it...its fine. Which I think I have given a scenario where the league would have an issue if we consummated a Tatum for Frank trade

btw if you want to do that we can

[Context]

if it led to him having a line up of:
donic
embidd
lebron


then no

again, "YOU" know what "your" plan is but YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT bone's plan is...
just like you said that kork's expiring status sways the deal away from me because milton is locked up...
not in my situation, because if i want to sign him i have the ability to out bid any gm...context-the most important piece in any deal...

you are leaving out the context and in order for you to get the "context" you need-you must get in the gms head first...

i believe in well informed opinions not uninformed opinions...those get you in trouble bro...

Facts. If the GM himself is happy with what he is doing then that’s all that matters. The Korkmaz one was a great example. Here’s another one, remember when NewEra trades Steph for Westbrook and we all questioned the move? Guess what, he won a ring and proved us wrong.

yes correct those are subjective opinions. I never said otherwise. But there are deals that could be considered "objectively" bad.

As I said above...it was my opinion you got a good deal for the Kork trade. I never said it was an awful trade from Contexts POV. But if you trying to tell me someone can't make an "objectively" bad trade I'm sure I can find a fake trade that the league would consider objectively bad for the league.

If we agree to a Frank Ntlikina for Jayson Tatum trade straight up...that isn't objectively horrible for you?

if you didn't send "future considerations"

you got some highway robery

I love that you have dragen bender on your team too

thats what you said and it was uninformed too- you didnt even know Melo had bender two days ago
I dont care but im just making a point...you need to get in a gms mind and know all of the facts surrounding a trade before you
give these opinions...

[mpharris36]

MPH is being a bozo, never gets anything done, but like's to yap all day about hypotheticals and speaking on other GM's behalf like he knows their long-term plans.

a bozo huh...ok nice touch.

[mpharris36]

Facts. If the GM himself is happy with what he is doing then that’s all that matters. The Korkmaz one was a great example. Here’s another one, remember when NewEra trades Steph for Westbrook and we all questioned the move? Guess what, he won a ring and proved us wrong.

yes correct those are subjective opinions. I never said otherwise. But there are deals that could be considered "objectively" bad.

As I said above...it was my opinion you got a good deal for the Kork trade. I never said it was an awful trade from Contexts POV. But if you trying to tell me someone can't make an "objectively" bad trade I'm sure I can find a fake trade that the league would consider objectively bad for the league.

If we agree to a Frank Ntlikina for Jayson Tatum trade straight up...that isn't objectively horrible for you?

if you didn't send "future considerations"

you got some highway robery

I love that you have dragen bender on your team too

thats what you said and it was uninformed too- you didnt even know Melo had bender two days ago
I dont care but im just making a point...you need to get in a gms mind and know all of the facts surrounding a trade before you
give these opinions...

why do I need to get into another GM's mind to give my opinion? I never said context shouldn't of made the trade. IMO I think Melo got a great deal for him. I never said the trade should be vetoed or context is a dope. I was respond to melo specifically that I loved the trade for him. I am not entitled to my opinion?

[bringbackhoffa]

i think whoever strikes out on Sabonis will get Draymond as there second option, i wouldnt mind throwing a somewhat large offer at draymond for 1 year term, wouldnt be a bad back up big

[swisscheeseD]

[bringbackhoffa]

i think we should be all allowed to voice our opinions on any trade, otherwise this would get quite boring

[Smash3]

MPH is being a bozo, never gets anything done, but like's to yap all day about hypotheticals and speaking on other GM's behalf like he knows their long-term plans.

a bozo huh...ok nice touch.

I mean one post, maybe two posts, but you've been spewing your uninformed takes for pages now... Shoving down bad deals down other GM's throats every other page, you really think Phish Tank is going to take on $440? Draymond had the worst contract in the league, it was toxic and you know it. You're just being petty, get creative, think outside of the box and put together a real team instead of worrying about selling your consultancy services to other teams.

[3toheadmelo]

yes correct those are subjective opinions. I never said otherwise. But there are deals that could be considered "objectively" bad.

As I said above...it was my opinion you got a good deal for the Kork trade. I never said it was an awful trade from Contexts POV. But if you trying to tell me someone can't make an "objectively" bad trade I'm sure I can find a fake trade that the league would consider objectively bad for the league.

You talking bout hypotheticals though. Like in the very extremes. That hasn’t happened yet and most likely never will. Like a Lebron for Josh Jackson deal. Lol

correct but the same hypothetical was brought up that "if" trading giannis from draymond led to acquiring the 3 best players in the league then it would be fine. Which has nothing to do with the giannis for draymond trade.

I brought up a hypothetical to point out there can be objectively bad trades...and let me be clear I don't think we have had many objectively bad trades.

To your point I think many thought the Curry/Westbrook trade wasn't a great deal for New but he proved a lot of people wrong. But no one was saying that was a veto worhy trade people just had a differing of opinion.

I agree that most deals makes sense. But I was just trying to point out even how rare and random they are the point was a deal can be objectively bad...which was my argument when context is suggesting that as long as the two GM's are ok with it...its fine. Which I think I have given a scenario where the league would have an issue if we consummated a Tatum for Frank trade

btw if you want to do that we can

Context is right though. If the GM’s themselves are satisfied with what they doing then its fine. It’s their teams. Again, you trying to bring up hypotheticals to prove your point when nothing like that has ever happened. There’s no deal that has been “objectively bad for the league” so far in BAF and needed to get vetoed by the commish.

Now I am not saying we should stop the commentary and discussions about moves that teams make but I think everyone here will agree that it is all subjective opinions.

[Smash3]

i think we should be all allowed to voice our opinions on any trade, otherwise this would get quite boring

I love the takes on trades, it's what makes making trades fun IMO, but you go pages on pages talking nonsense you have to expect some pushback.

[mpharris36]

You talking bout hypotheticals though. Like in the very extremes. That hasn’t happened yet and most likely never will. Like a Lebron for Josh Jackson deal. Lol

correct but the same hypothetical was brought up that "if" trading giannis from draymond led to acquiring the 3 best players in the league then it would be fine. Which has nothing to do with the giannis for draymond trade.

I brought up a hypothetical to point out there can be objectively bad trades...and let me be clear I don't think we have had many objectively bad trades.

To your point I think many thought the Curry/Westbrook trade wasn't a great deal for New but he proved a lot of people wrong. But no one was saying that was a veto worhy trade people just had a differing of opinion.

I agree that most deals makes sense. But I was just trying to point out even how rare and random they are the point was a deal can be objectively bad...which was my argument when context is suggesting that as long as the two GM's are ok with it...its fine. Which I think I have given a scenario where the league would have an issue if we consummated a Tatum for Frank trade

btw if you want to do that we can

Context is right though. If the GM’s themselves are satisfied with what they doing then its fine. It’s their teams. Again, you trying to bring up hypotheticals to prove your point when nothing like that has ever happened. There’s no deal that has been “objectively bad for the league” so far in BAF and needed to get vetoed by the commish.

Now I am not saying we should stop the commentary and discussions about moves that teams make but I think everyone here will agree that it is all subjective opinions.

I agree with you. I don't think I have called for any trade to be vetoed. So that means I'm just giving my opinion on a trade...like hoffa said if there wasn't opinions on moves then why even have a discussion board? Again if I'm changing someone's mind about something then people are giving me too much credit

[Context]

Facts. If the GM himself is happy with what he is doing then that’s all that matters. The Korkmaz one was a great example. Here’s another one, remember when NewEra trades Steph for Westbrook and we all questioned the move? Guess what, he won a ring and proved us wrong.

yes correct those are subjective opinions. I never said otherwise. But there are deals that could be considered "objectively" bad.

As I said above...it was my opinion you got a good deal for the Kork trade. I never said it was an awful trade from Contexts POV. But if you trying to tell me someone can't make an "objectively" bad trade I'm sure I can find a fake trade that the league would consider objectively bad for the league.

You talking bout hypotheticals though. Like in the very extremes. That hasn’t happened yet and most likely never will. Like a Lebron for Josh Jackson deal. Lol

exactly...

[Smash3]

correct but the same hypothetical was brought up that "if" trading giannis from draymond led to acquiring the 3 best players in the league then it would be fine. Which has nothing to do with the giannis for draymond trade.

I brought up a hypothetical to point out there can be objectively bad trades...and let me be clear I don't think we have had many objectively bad trades.

To your point I think many thought the Curry/Westbrook trade wasn't a great deal for New but he proved a lot of people wrong. But no one was saying that was a veto worhy trade people just had a differing of opinion.

I agree that most deals makes sense. But I was just trying to point out even how rare and random they are the point was a deal can be objectively bad...which was my argument when context is suggesting that as long as the two GM's are ok with it...its fine. Which I think I have given a scenario where the league would have an issue if we consummated a Tatum for Frank trade

btw if you want to do that we can

Context is right though. If the GM’s themselves are satisfied with what they doing then its fine. It’s their teams. Again, you trying to bring up hypotheticals to prove your point when nothing like that has ever happened. There’s no deal that has been “objectively bad for the league” so far in BAF and needed to get vetoed by the commish.

Now I am not saying we should stop the commentary and discussions about moves that teams make but I think everyone here will agree that it is all subjective opinions.

I agree with you. I don't think I have called for any trade to be vetoed. So that means I'm just giving my opinion on a trade...like hoffa said if there wasn't opinions on moves then why even have a discussion board? Again if I'm changing someone's mind about something then people are giving me too much credit

@ you changing someone's mind, you're just being disingenuous and being called out, where was this much concern and hypothetical trades for trades like Kyrie for a draft pick or Curry for Russ?

[mpharris36]

MPH is being a bozo, never gets anything done, but like's to yap all day about hypotheticals and speaking on other GM's behalf like he knows their long-term plans.

a bozo huh...ok nice touch.

I mean one post, maybe two posts, but you've been spewing your uninformed takes for pages now... Shoving down bad deals down other GM's throats every other page, you really think Phish Tank is going to take on $440? Draymond had the worst contract in the league, it was toxic and you know it. You're just being petty, get creative, think outside of the box and put together a real team instead of worrying about selling your consultancy services to other teams.

are you having an issue with me discussing a move or me potentially ruining a deal you set up? Because if its the latter how am I suppose to know that there was an agreed to give him a 1st round pick to waive a player. That isn't a move typically made. To my understanding Draymond was a FA I had no idea it was a this for that...how could I?

You are taking the risk that by giving him a 1st round pick to waive him you can then use your FA rating to get him for much cheaper. Its a solid move on your part and never suggested otherwise. Once Wack suggested he received compensation I said it now made sense but how am I suppose to know that, im not in peoples business about what they are trying to do.

Theres nothing in the rules to suggest you can't do what you did.

[3toheadmelo]

correct but the same hypothetical was brought up that "if" trading giannis from draymond led to acquiring the 3 best players in the league then it would be fine. Which has nothing to do with the giannis for draymond trade.

I brought up a hypothetical to point out there can be objectively bad trades...and let me be clear I don't think we have had many objectively bad trades.

To your point I think many thought the Curry/Westbrook trade wasn't a great deal for New but he proved a lot of people wrong. But no one was saying that was a veto worhy trade people just had a differing of opinion.

I agree that most deals makes sense. But I was just trying to point out even how rare and random they are the point was a deal can be objectively bad...which was my argument when context is suggesting that as long as the two GM's are ok with it...its fine. Which I think I have given a scenario where the league would have an issue if we consummated a Tatum for Frank trade

btw if you want to do that we can

Context is right though. If the GM’s themselves are satisfied with what they doing then its fine. It’s their teams. Again, you trying to bring up hypotheticals to prove your point when nothing like that has ever happened. There’s no deal that has been “objectively bad for the league” so far in BAF and needed to get vetoed by the commish.

Now I am not saying we should stop the commentary and discussions about moves that teams make but I think everyone here will agree that it is all subjective opinions.

I agree with you. I don't think I have called for any trade to be vetoed. So that means I'm just giving my opinion on a trade...like hoffa said if there wasn't opinions on moves then why even have a discussion board? Again if I'm changing someone's mind about something then people are giving me too much credit

There’s nothing wrong with giving your opinions on moves. The commentary is what makes BAF great. But I am just saying you can’t say any move so far has been objectively bad. Everything is subjective.