|
Post by Grizzlies GM (Max) on Mar 10, 2014 2:20:12 GMT
Wait, Tiago you are trying to pass off Gay, Kanter, and Anderson as equal to Budinger and Dudley? That is laughable!
You cannot make that comparison! The players I receive are literally worth nothing. I informed you in my PM that their 2 per game averages combined are less than Deng's per game stats in CLE in the PPG, RPG, and APG categories. They are utterly useless
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 17:35:45 GMT
I think the whole purpose of this team was completely missed. There should never be a veto unless someone is ruining the chance of a team getting better. Losing those picks doesn't do that to ORL and clearing cap would have made him able to add some valuable pieces in FA next year. Now he can't
Also Thiago I get the point you were trying to make, but you were AWFULLY far off the mark with the example you used. Kanter alone has better value than Budinger and Dudley. Kind of a ridiculous comparison
Sent from my Nexus 5 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Mar 10, 2014 18:51:21 GMT
I know that english is not my first language, but i thought that you guys understood that I was using a mix of analogy and hyperbole, as a mixed figure of speech. Not a plain comparison (even Ant knows Kanter and Gay are better than Dudley and Budinger)...
I see now, that the message didn't pass. Maybe I need to try in a more basic way.
I hope everyone agrees that there has to be a value of the assets being traded above which, the solely argument of losing cap in the deal is not enough. That was what I was trying to exemplify with my example.
For you guys, what ORL was sending in this trade didn't reach that value. For me it did.
But we can make an exercise, maybe I would understand your side of it (so far, I don't). What would ORL have to add for you guys to think this is a veto? Another first would be enough? In everything you have wrote, I can't see nothing that tells me you would veto if he added two more firsts? 3 more??? what about players? If he added Jeremy Evans, was that a veto?
I really want to know...
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Mar 10, 2014 19:51:24 GMT
The easiest way to explain this is simply just trading picks for future cap. The players really are non factors. Deng is an expiring on a non playoff team and the Grizzlies were just looking for some future assets. Basically he pays me 5m next year for the 14 1st and 5m next year for the 15 1st and a little extra for the 2nd. There have been many pick for cash scenarios. As well as that I got to dump 2 absolutely horrid contracts in Budinger and Dudley (if you don't think it's bad you must be stupid).
I never actually even considered getting a veto on this deal. If the tc members actually bothered to take a look at my roster and how tough it was to make deals (over both cap and roster limit) maybe they would have realised that it really was worth giving up 2 mid to late first rounders and a 2nd to give my roster some flexibility which I simply don't have know and won't even be able to improve over the offseason with no cap and only 1-2 roster spots available.
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Mar 10, 2014 21:06:27 GMT
The most disappointing thing is the timing of this trade. I understand the frustration. (but nobody on the TC should ever be called "stupid")
Just to add another unsolicited opinion: I actually like what Jay did here. If the picks weren't included, I would've wondered if it would be vetoed. But the uncertainty of the 2015 first rounder could make it worthwhile to take those contracts.
I understand there may be different opinions about allowing salary dumps, but Luol Deng would've seemed like he had a big enough name/track record to meet the criteria of giving a balanced appearance at both ends of the equation.
|
|
|
Post by Grizzlies GM (Max) on Mar 11, 2014 3:18:57 GMT
I have petitioned for a review and possible revote on this trade and heard no response back, which is fine considering the nature of the trade
I will remain silent until then, although I have a number of arguments I can present (in case anyone was doubting my desire for the trade to still go through)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 3:22:59 GMT
I think the one place I can say that sways me to veto on this (if I even had a say) is that it was ORL only 2014 1st. That is a bummer cause he needs future here. If he had another 1st (cough cough MIA 1ST) then this would be no problem. The fact that Jay has a lot of '15 first makes it no problem. So I can see the fact that he traded his last asset of '14 draft as negative.
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Mar 11, 2014 15:22:50 GMT
Memphis is not a Playoff team, so he can drop Dudley and Budinger if he feels they are negatives, and absorb the 75% of both contracts in this year.
So, in fact, the cap penalty is 5,25M next season and under 2M for the next two years.
I think we all agree that under 2M in 2 and 3 years time is close to negligible, but let's call the 2nd round a fair compensation for it (I think that even if you think it's worth more, surely is not a lot more).
So, we are talking about (or close to) 2 first for a 5M cap hit next year alone.
I ask you to look at some trades where 5M was sent in a part of the deal, and replace it with 2 firsts. I'm betting almost every one that passed will now turn into an easy veto.
|
|
|
Post by Grizzlies GM (Max) on Mar 11, 2014 16:38:11 GMT
Memphis is not a Playoff team, so he can drop Dudley and Budinger if he feels they are negatives, and absorb the 75% of both contracts in this year. So, in fact, the cap penalty is 5,25M next season and under 2M for the next two years. I think we all agree that under 2M in 2 and 3 years time is close to negligible, but let's call the 2nd round a fair compensation for it (I think that even if you think it's worth more, surely is not a lot more). So, we are talking about (or close to) 2 first for a 5M cap hit next year alone. I ask you to look at some trades where 5M was sent in a part of the deal, and replace it with 2 firsts. I'm betting almost every one that passed will now turn into an easy veto. You can't just assume I will drop them. That's not how it works. You have to look at the deal on the surface for what it is worth now, not all these possibilities. Because, possibly, those 2 1sts could become Royce White 2.0 and 3.0 and Deng could score 40 points the next 5 games in the playoffs for ORL
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Mar 11, 2014 17:01:13 GMT
The cost of dropping those players is:
2013/14: $7.85 2014/15: $5.55 2015/16: $1.88 2016/17: $2.07
If we don't include the present year, the total equation is $9.5m for 2 first rounders (one of which is guaranteed to be a late pick) and one second rounder. It could also be argued that deferred salary is more valuable than present salary. (Plenty of teams would trade $9.5m for 2 first rounders of any value, but it becomes a little harder decision if that salary is being paid out in yearly installments.)
Again, no problems with the TC, or individual decisions. But it's terrible timing for a trade with such a razor thin margin of defeat.
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Mar 11, 2014 17:20:44 GMT
Max, I was just replying to the math that Jay used in his last post about the value of picks and salary moving.
I'm not saying you will drop them, I'm just saying that IF you think they are as bad as anyone else is saying (I agree partially) you can drop them now, and take the 75% part when it doesnt mean anything. If you don't plan on dropping them, than they have positive value and the trade is even worse.
"You can't just assume I will drop them. That's not how it works. You have to look at the deal on the surface for what it is worth now, not all these possibilities. Because, possibly, those 2 1sts could become Royce White 2.0 and 3.0 and Deng could score 40 points the next 5 games in the playoffs for ORL"
All the discussion is about IF the cap ORL sabes justifies all that he's giving. Because if we start to think that maybe Deng is worth anything around those numbers then it becomes even worse. The money part I agree that can be debatable, if we just look what the deal "is worth now" and not all the possibilities, then I don't think it is even close to being a talk.
The only thing I agree with most of you guys, is that the timing is terrible, and it's even worse because it went 48 hours without enough votes, and the minute it's vetoed, everyone arrives to say they would approve. that's a bummer, really.
I would veto this deal 100 times out of 100, but that doesn't mean the trade couldn't pass (i usually take my time when I'm vetoing a deal). That's why we like to have TC members a lot different from another. The Giannis saga is a proof of that.
PS: The picks can turn out to be Royce White 2.0 and 3.0 but they can also turn out to be Paul George 2.0 and Kenneth Faried 2.0
|
|
|
Post by Nuggets GM (Joe) on Mar 11, 2014 17:26:58 GMT
the reason that we have so many TC members because we all have our own opinion and see things our way, and normally when a trade is vetoed, unless it is really really bad, most of the time we would give a suggestion on what goes wrong and so the parties can fix it for another attempt, but this one, like Adam said, it's more of a timing problem. If this trade present earlier, then things can go differently. The fact that you guys wait until last minutes cannot blame anyone. Sorry, i approved the deal, but i totally object a re-vote.
|
|
|
Post by Lakers GM (Renato) on Mar 11, 2014 20:51:54 GMT
I agree with Joe here. There's no need to re-vote on the existing trade because I would still veto as long as those two firsts were included. Re-working the deal to include less picks is not an option as well because we're past the trade deadline and you waited until the deadline to present the deal, leaving no margin for a new deal based on the TC's suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by Grizzlies GM (Max) on Mar 13, 2014 0:13:18 GMT
I'm just upset it took so long and then enough TC members to pass the deal came on and said they would pass the deal. Sounds a bit out of line to me
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Mar 18, 2014 5:11:25 GMT
The Orlando magic decide to forfeit the draft picks that were to be involved in this trade.
14 1st LAL 15 1st LAC 15 2nd ATL
|
|