|
Post by Jay on Jul 21, 2014 12:26:40 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 12:34:01 GMT
There are no Picks involved in this trade. Looks completely different.. Imo.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jul 21, 2014 13:11:14 GMT
I direct your attention to this particular quote from tiago
'That i wrote after the other part. The $ is not a valid justification for me, so only if the expiring was making a difference I would approve it. This way is a no-no for me.
someone is overpaid if they earn too much for their production. It can be a 1M guy or a 20M guy.'
Seems pretty relevant to this deal for me
|
|
|
Post by Nuggets GM (Joe) on Jul 21, 2014 13:19:30 GMT
Jay, come on, be fair, these are 2 totally different trade. You can't compare this one with the one vetoed.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jul 21, 2014 13:27:19 GMT
I totally think this deal should be passed, both teams get exactly what they want. I'm just saying that based on at least 3 tc members positions on this clear cap dump for drastically less production deals, this deal should be similarly vetoed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 16:45:15 GMT
I agree with Jay. His best chance of getting rid of some shit contracts. I don't think it was completely similar but I see the point he makes.
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jul 21, 2014 18:39:38 GMT
Jay is right. The basic concept is the same: paying for salary relief.
I really feel bad that the other trade ended up getting vetoed ... and at the deadline when nothing could be done about it.
At the heart of the matter is whether we believe players can have negative value relative to their contracts. Chase Buddinger and Jared Dudley were alleged to be in that situation, and obviously now I'm indirectly claiming the same about Deron Williams by essentially trading him for Boris Diaw. We've had this same discussion from year one, when Joe Johnson was dumped for his large contract, then turned around and traded for Al Jefferson I believe. If it makes any difference, D-Will was traded for Amare Stoudemire's expiring contract last year.
I'm sure we all agree that contract value has a big place in trades. There will be inconsistencies.
Personally, I'm willing to concede that D-Will may come out of the gate strong and get flipped for a top of the line player. In exchange for that, I'm taking a safer route. Maybe I'll have enough saved up to pry Ricky Rubio away next year. Who knows?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 18:58:40 GMT
I think the root issue is the trade panel is being used more as a gauge of "fairness" which is relative anyways, instead of just preserving the integrity of the league and teams.
For instance I can't look @ that trade last year with ORL and say, this is going to ruin this team and it will never get turned around. He was giving away draft picks that shouldn't even be that great and guys on contracts that could actually ruin a team. Had he cleared that cap space he would have like over 12M I believe to shop for a new player or 2 this year. It was a slight over pay for Jay, but no one was going to pay much less for those contracts and that's what the market demanded. I was not a fan of the ruling.
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jul 21, 2014 20:52:52 GMT
Everyone keeps forgetting the other side of the trade.
Someone receives A LOT for nothing.
If that's not against the integrity of the league, I'm not sure what is.
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jul 21, 2014 21:48:17 GMT
How is this even controversial? Those who have vetoed these trades base their own decisions on contract value as well.
|
|
|
Post by Pistons GM (Anthony) on Jul 21, 2014 22:00:27 GMT
hey hold everything ....... in the DWill for Amare trade the difference was that two injured players were being swapped. Granted one had a shorter contract than the other but by no means can we say that was a blatant salary dump.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jul 21, 2014 23:20:37 GMT
It's pathetic that they aren't even gonna vote and just let it approve
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jul 21, 2014 23:29:38 GMT
If you ever paid any attention, you see that whenever I veto a trade I will always give some time.
I've done it in every single veto, and will do unless its obvious collusion.
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jul 21, 2014 23:45:30 GMT
It's my hope that this isn't considered a salary dump. Diaw is absolutely a useful piece to have, and when combined with Marcus Thornton probably can approximate or exceed what Amar'e was doing last year. Then again, in the other trade I would've thought that Luol Deng balanced the scale well enough too.
Having served on the TC, I realize that every situation is a judgement call, every player is evaluated differently, and consistency is absolutely impossible. No one is to blame. I've been extremely inconsistent and doubtless will continue to be. I have confidence that the individuals on the TC are just doing what is best for the league as they see it. You can't ask for more ... or even stipulate guidelines for voting. The system works.
Having said that, sometimes I wish we were a little more lenient. Or that we would ask ourselves "What would I personally give up for Chase Buddinger? Joe Johnson? or D-Will?" The answer is probably not far off from what the actual trade is.
One other thing I'd like to add: Sometimes we don't give all the reasons for a trade in the explanation. Maybe there's a stat, or a reference, or a matchup we'd like to exploit, or scheduling reasons. I don't think anyone likes making a trade and then hearing the other party insult their players or brag about their catch. So, sometimes explanations are given that can help the TC see a team's basic point of view while avoiding negative statements. Too often I don't realize how much scrutiny these trades get. I could write a whole article about D-Will, Diaw, and Thornton, but it never occurred to me that it would even be in question.
I truly appreciate the work of the TC. Thanks for taking it seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jul 21, 2014 23:53:15 GMT
Adam, I have nothing wrong at all with this trade, I just think the tc need to show consistency and set some precedents. Neither if these deals should've been vetoed but considering mine was I just don't that much difference between the two, which should theoretically mean the votes are similar.
|
|