<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 23 2008, 09:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ May 23 2008, 09:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You're not understanding what he's saying -- and believe me, I have nothing against you or want to get in the middle of your little ladies' fight. If Miami trades Beasley plus Banks and Blount for RJ, they still take on the same amount of salaries but simply lose Beasley. It makes no sense. If they keep Beasley they have a player that's better than RJ and roughly the same in salaries (-Beasley's rookie deal). That's why that trade is just absolutely stupid on Miami's part.</div> You just did what ghoti did repeatedly: characterize a trade that includes a 10th and 21st pick plus RJ for Beasley, Blount, and Banks as a trade of "Beasley for RJ". Do I assume from that that both of you feel there is NO VALUE in the 10th and 21st picks? If so, shouldn't we just give them away and save ourselves a few million in salaries this year? The deal proposed helped rid the team of dead weight -- players earning money that are not productive -- and netted them a quality starting SF and two first round draft picks, one of which is top 10. They get at least two and possibly three rotation players in exchange for one, and one of them is a vet with finals experience who is just entering his prime. I'm lost at why the possible value in that is being so casually and completely dismissed. </div> It doesn't matter what kind of money Miami carries, dead weight or a productive player. They still have to pay that amount of money. No matter who they have, RJ or Banks+Blount, they still have to pay someone $14M per season for the next 3 seasons. If we assume that Banks and Blount are complete dead weights and are absolutely useless for Miami, what this deal comes down to is RJ +10th +21st vs. Beasley in skill. And I say in skill again, because the salaries are the same. About 9/10 people will pick Beasley, who is seen as a Franchise player, over RJ and whoever they can possibly draft at the 10 slot. Again, I understand what you mean by unproductive money. But for the sake of this deal, the money doesn't matter. Even if Miami waives Blount and Banks and still has to pay their salaries for the 3 years, it will be the same amount of money they would pay if RJ was here. When you realize the money is not actually saved, all this comes down to is Beasley vs. RJ + 10th + 21st. Almost every GM will take a chance on the possibly Franchise player who dominated NCAA.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ May 23 2008, 11:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 23 2008, 09:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ May 23 2008, 09:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You're not understanding what he's saying -- and believe me, I have nothing against you or want to get in the middle of your little ladies' fight. If Miami trades Beasley plus Banks and Blount for RJ, they still take on the same amount of salaries but simply lose Beasley. It makes no sense. If they keep Beasley they have a player that's better than RJ and roughly the same in salaries (-Beasley's rookie deal). That's why that trade is just absolutely stupid on Miami's part.</div> You just did what ghoti did repeatedly: characterize a trade that includes a 10th and 21st pick plus RJ for Beasley, Blount, and Banks as a trade of "Beasley for RJ". Do I assume from that that both of you feel there is NO VALUE in the 10th and 21st picks? If so, shouldn't we just give them away and save ourselves a few million in salaries this year? The deal proposed helped rid the team of dead weight -- players earning money that are not productive -- and netted them a quality starting SF and two first round draft picks, one of which is top 10. They get at least two and possibly three rotation players in exchange for one, and one of them is a vet with finals experience who is just entering his prime. I'm lost at why the possible value in that is being so casually and completely dismissed. </div> It doesn't matter what kind of money Miami carries, dead weight or a productive player. They still have to pay that amount of money. No matter who they have, RJ or Banks+Blount, they still have to pay someone $14M per season for the next 3 seasons. </div> $9M of that comes off after two seasons. Just in time for the summer of 2010.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ May 23 2008, 10:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It doesn't matter what kind of money Miami carries, dead weight or a productive player. They still have to pay that amount of money.</div> Is the object to have simply the lowest payroll possible? If so, I agree with your point. If Miami is going through a Memphis-like crisis and needed to get rid of salary, I understand, although this is the first I've heard that that franchise has any such financial problems. On the other hand, if the object is to build a quality team without wasting salary and roster spots on players that won't actually play, I don't agree, at least not if I adjudge Blount and Banks to be useless and RJ to be a quality starter. It still comes down to 2 and possibly 3 quality players for one possible franchise player. For those that don't feel the need to qualify Beasley as "possible" franchise player, then it doesn't look like a good deal for Miami, though I would vehemently disagree that it is in any way as ridiculous or insulting as some are trying to paint it. Look at the number of star players -- where speculation on value is no longer an issue -- who wind up being traded for essentially two first round draft picks and a solid player (or less). Pretty standard going rate.
Sure Miami might draft some good players at 10 and 21, but at what cost? They are actually making their salary situation worse while giving up an extremely, extremely valuable player. If you are going to give up a major piece like Beasley to move contracts, it's completely asinine to take back more than you move. This is not their last chance to get rid of Blount and/or Banks, and they are under no obligation to deal Beasley before they get a look at him. They don't absolutely have to guess how good he will be. It would be different if they were making a deal for a player who they believed would have the effect KG had on the Celtics or even Gasol had on the Lakers, but they are trading for RJ! He's nowhere in the same universe as that kind of difference maker. He's extremely likely to be a DOWNGRADE from Beasley on day one!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 23 2008, 11:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ May 23 2008, 10:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It doesn't matter what kind of money Miami carries, dead weight or a productive player. They still have to pay that amount of money.</div> Is the object to have simply the lowest payroll possible? If so, I agree with your point. If Miami is going through a Memphis-like crisis and needed to get rid of salary, I understand, although this is the first I've heard that that franchise has any such financial problems. On the other hand, if the object is to build a quality team without wasting salary and roster spots on players that won't actually play, I don't agree, at least not if I adjudge Blount and Banks to be useless and RJ to be a quality starter. It still comes down to 2 and possibly 3 quality players for one possible franchise player. For those that don't feel the need to qualify Beasley as "possible" franchise player, then it doesn't look like a good deal for Miami, though I would vehemently disagree that it is in any way as ridiculous or insulting as some are trying to paint it. Look at the number of star players -- where speculation on value is no longer an issue -- who wind up being traded for essentially two first round draft picks and a solid player (or less). Pretty standard going rate. </div> Ah, but the way I see it, that's the problem. We know that RJ is a quality player. We're pretty much guaranteed that Beasley will at least be a quality player. But just as we aren't sure about whether or not Beasley becomes a Franchise player, there is no way we can possibly say that the #10 pick turns into a quality player. You're saying that it's 2 or 3 quality players vs potential franchise player. In actuality, it's 1 quality player + 1 possibly quality player + 1 hopefully not a bust player vs. a possible franchise player. To follow basic rules of math, if we assume that Beasley at least turns into a borderline All-Star like RJ has, what we're left with is.. Quality player with Potential to become a franchise player = Quality player + 1 possibly quality player + 1 hopefully not a bust player. Subtract "Quality player" from both sides, and we end up with Beasley's potential to be a superstar = roughly 2 possibly quality players. Which would you pick? A chance that your #2 draft pick who averaged 26/12 in NCAA as a freshman turns into a Superstar on the next level, or the chance that your #10 and #21 picks turn into something good? Look at the recent drafts. In 2007, #8 was Brandan Wright, #9 was Noah, #10 was Spencer Hawes, #11 was Acie Law.. #20 was Jason Smith, #21 was Daequan Cook, #22 was Jared Dudley In 2006, #8 was Rudy Gay, #9 was Patrick O'Bryant, #10 was Saer Sene, #11 was JJ Redick, #12 was Hilton Armstrong... #20 was Renaldo Balkman, #21 was Rondo, #22 was Marcus Williams.
look, you don't know what another team is thinking about; you can only speculate based on available information. You all are making judgments and assumptions based on your own judgment of what RJ, Beasley, and the #10 picks are worth (as well as the value of gaining cap space). You have no idea what Miami values, or doesn't value. You don't know what their roster will look like. For all we know, Marion has informed them that he will opt out, and the Heat have a deal in place to S&T him for a PG and a center, leaving them with just a hole at SF, and that RJ would make them an instant contender. Maybe for some reason they are just not high on Beasley. You just don't know. It's fine to speculate all you want, but personally I get pretty disgusted when the insults start flying. You're all better than that. Well, most of you are.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 23 2008, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 23 2008, 12:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wow! One sentence responses! If you think I misunderstood your point, just address that. You go off on so many tangents it's impossible to have a focused discussion with you.</div> I would be happy to address your misunderstanding of my point if you would refrain from impregnating your responses with insults and sarcastic insinuations that I (or anyone espousing a different view) is ignorant, silly, or just plain stupid. You really have been sounding more and more like cpawfan, and, as Mark Jackson would say, "You're better than that!" What I'm trying to convey is that the speculative component in any assessment of a draft prospect should (and often does) weigh into the "value" of that prospect. Some players exhibit "can't miss" NBA superstar talent and skill at the time of the draft much more than others. Examples of the former include LeBron James and Shaquille O'Neal. Others, either because of age/experience, level of prior competition, current development, and other factors are not quite as "can't miss". For example, many bright basketball minds felt Orlando would be better served by drafting Emeka Okafur over Dwight Howard because Howard was a high schooler with little basketball skill and elite competition under his belt while Okafur was the premiere player on a big-time college team that had a lot of success. To those people/GM's, before either guy played an NBA game, Okafur had more "value" as a prospect and they would have presumably been willing to give up more in a trade to acquire his draft rights. Their valuations at that time are not necessarily wrong just because Howard turned out to be a far, far more valuable NBA player than Okafur. He might have also turned out to be Michael Olawikandi. So because of the frustrating compenent of speculation and uncertainty, the value of Dwight Howard on draft night was not what his value became after he'd played his first 30 games, and certainly no where near what it is today. If you doubt that, imagine this time-warped scenario: you run a team that has a 25 year-old Shaq on the roster, but, for whatever reasons (a lot of other bad contracts, lack of depth, personnel conflicts, financial problems, etc.) you entertain trade offers for your franchise center. Another team offers you their 2nd year point guard, Deron Williams, and the draft rights to #1 pick Dwight Howard, fresh out of high school and yet to play even in NBA summer league (forget the CBA for a minute and just assume the numbers work). Do you make that deal at that time? If not, you and I both know it's because you have no idea that Howard will actually turn out to be arguably as good as Shaq. If so, it's at least partly because you already assess Williams to be a terrific NBA point guard and therefore added value to protect you against the risk that Howard will not pan out as anything close to Shaq in the NBA. In both cases, the offer will only be made (and only accepted or rejected) because of the uncertainty of what Howard will become. His VALUE will be fluid (depending upon the prescience of the person performing the valuation and their propensity for risk-taking). That deal would never happen after Howard has played a year because it's obvious after that point that the value given and received is unequal. Now, how does that relate to the disucssion of Beasely? I made the point that -- based solely on what I have read -- he doesn't seem to be as "can't miss" as some picks are in that range (e.g., James, O'Neal), partly due to repeated questioning of his character (I evidently put a lot more weight on that than you in terms of guaging what ultimate impact a player will have on a team). You may disagree and believe he is "can't miss", that he will have a career along the lines of a KG. That's fine. You've seen him play, so I concede you have a much better basis for your opinion on that point than I do. Ultimately, however, if there is truth in the reports that Riley would trade the draft rights to Beasley, I conclude that it's because HE (Riley) isn't certain that Beasley is going to be the next KG and would prefer to parlay his draft rights into assets that have a less speculative, more definite value. If his own assessment told him Beasley was "can't miss" as a franchise PF, why (given his team's needs) would he be open to trading him? So if the report is true, he will likely hook up with a trading partner that IS subjectively certain that Beasley is the next KG or who simply is much more comfortable taking risks. And that partner will offer enough certain value to satisfy Riley, and that value may or may not end up looking equal in a couple of years. That's what I've been saying. If this post taxes your patience, or if you feel its full of terrible digressions, you obviously don't care for nuance and detail and linear argumentation in a discussion, which is your prerogative. In that case, you are best off not engaging me on matters like these. One sentence replies may be your forte, but they are not mine. </div> Don't be condescending. All value at this point is speculative because none of these prospects have played in an NBA game yet. All prospect values are subjective. Okafor had more value before the draft because he played in college, Howard had more value after playing in the NBA, because he dominated. If you had a 25 year old Shaq, and someone offered Deron Williams and the #1 pick (D-Ho), it all depends on the subjective value of how Howard will turn out. No one knows how he will turn out, so you need to gauge the value of that pick before he plays in a game. Beasley's character is an issue, and that could diminish his value. The Heat could trade the rights to Beasley for RJ, because they'd rather get the definite value and play it safe, than take a risk in Beasley. If you don't want to read long, wordy posts, don't read this, because that's how I always post and always will. Thanks!
All that post really says is that NBA teams have to evaluate players in the draft and the value of each player varies depending on each team's situation. It's not exactly earth-shattering insight, and it really doesn't have much to do with the discussion about the specific trade Netted proposed.
