Venting

Some people might not believe this, but LA might have a bit more to offer a multi millionaire young black man than Portland does.

 

Primarily, more money and more years as a UFA, just like any other team holding a player's Bird Rights, as Portland will with Roy.

 

Then why bring it up? It didn't state who was on the table or that Portland was the one that nixed the deal. So what was in the article that you feel is pertinent to your contention that Portland did, in fact, decline a deal to send those Portland players to DAL for Harris?

Again that article also didn't state that it was Portland that declined a deal to send those Portland players to DAL for Harris.

No where does it show that Pritchard declined a deal to send those Portland players to DAL for Harris.

Ah. I get it. Now that you realize that those articles don't at all convincingly prove your logical assumptions, you're going to connect the dots for me. So we're agreed that those articles don't, at all, prove that it was Pritch that declined the package, something you promoted and then posted several links to prove? Cool.

Disagreed. Dallas has an incentive to move Harris out of the WC. I do agree that they're not likely to have been the culprit though. But, they could be.

Lost me. I thought it was just Jack, Outlaw and Frye. Now we're also offering draft picks and cash? Which draft picks? How much cash? I guess I should go back and read, but I won't 'cause I'm lazy, I don't remember it being THAT substantial of an offer, but even if it was, that doesn't help convince me. If I'm NJ, I want the best player in the deal, not an infinite number of lesser players.

Here's what Stein wrote:

So, come again?

I'm done looking through the articles. You're coming up with your own conclusions based off of hearsay, assumptions and smoke screens. I don't do that unless I feel sure of it. Let's just say, after what you've presented, I'm even more sure that NJ was more interested in Harris than what we could offer.

You vilify Pritchard all you want. At this point, I don't care. I vented. I'm good now.

You keep saying this. That's not the crux of my argument, no.

Ok.

 

Those I'm willing to believe, yes. Talks happen all the time, often to no end. It's not hard to believe that Pritchard got involved with talks and that at least those three Portland players were part of the talks.

It's not a logical leap, first of all. It's a leap of complete speculation. The fact that the best, most famous player involved (Kidd) and the best young asset (Harris) ended up traded isn't at all hard to believe. That doesn't logically imply that Portland (offering three mediocre at best players) was also involved in a finished deal.

Portland's contribution to the deal is the least valuable...the obvious logical assumption is not that the entity offering the least (Portland) rejected the deal, but that the entity offering the least was cut out of the deal. Or that the entity offering the least was requested to up their offer (for example, add in Aldridge who had somewhat less value then than now), and that made it too much.

You're free to believe that New Jersey was ready to trade Harris for Outlaw, Frye and Jack (I'm leaving out Dallas since they'd be unaffected by that and that's what the deal would boil down to in effect for New Jersey and Portland). I don't believe that New Jersey would consider such a deal and I don't find the reports that "talks took place" compelling that New Jersey was prepared to do just that.

 

Welcome into the light. That darkness must have been scary

 

How long did it take for Kobe's negotiations? Was it quick an easy? I don't know. I remember LA and Kobe being at odds for different reasons over the years. Could one of those reasons be related to his contract? I'm not sure. In the end Kobe got his player-option. In the end Brandon might get his. Does that mean we shouldn't attempt to negotiate against that? Or, was this not really a negotiation, but Roy's receivership of a blank check.

It's a negotiation. He's asking for more than his contemporaries from last year. That requires some thought.

So because Utah did it, we should? They also dragged their feet and then low-balled Millsap. Was that a good move? Look, player options are just that, they're for the benefit of the player. All I'm saying is that Portland should explore all of their options and the ramifications of those options. That is all.

I'm saying that being under contract for 4-years is more beneficial to the team than being under contract for a 4-year w/PO for 5th. There's uncertainly on our part as to what will happen with the PO. There's less uncertainty without the PO.

 

A trade speculation that made sense for both teams or one of the GMs involved saying that that deal was available but Portland decided not to do it. Even then (in the first case, not the second), I still wouldn't consider it a fact, but I'd be more willing to believe that it may have happened.

You can think any bitter, passive aggressive thing you like in frustration over not having your speculations validated as fact.

I don't think Pritchard is anything like perfect, I just find it silly to use a trade rumour as a strike against him. Suppose the reason he was "reluctant" was because New Jersey ultimately wanted Aldridge to be added in to the package, but that didn't get leaked (leaks are surprisingly non-thorough at news reporting, oddly enough). Would Pritchard still have been silly to be resistant?

And no, I'm not saying Aldridge WAS involved, I'm saying that there is far too much unknown to use that as evidence one way or the other. You can speculate to your heart's content. I'm simply not willing to accept your speculations as fact.

 

Not really, unless you don't plan on keeping him for more than 4 years since his "contemporaries" got a 4th year PO. Again, you're not making sense.

Chris Paul - 3 years with a 4th year PO
Deron Williams - 3 years with a 4th year PO

Are there other "contemporaries" you were talking about from last season?

What other options are there?

And I'm saying offer him a 5th year with no PO and call his bluff. That said, I'm done with this. Your grasp of why his "contemporaries" signed what they signed, as well as what they actually signed, is an indication about the seriousness of your viewpoint.

 

I didn't realize that they had POs. I'm not sure why I didn't notice that.

I would be down with that, unless the sticking point is the fifth year, which it sounds like it is. I thought it was that he wanted a PO for that fifth season.

 

So say you. I watched Richard Jefferson get traded for a stale bag of popcorn which is going to be cut. I watched Vince Carter get traded for a good first round draft pick and a few role players. It is obvious that we could have made a deal but didn't. Because Outlaw or some other easily replaceable player was over valued.

As for your statement about recruiting you bet your ass they did recruit. I can guarantee you that Kobe had say in the Artest deal and talked with him, and I can guarantee you that Phil Jackson (Who IS a respected recruiter) talked to him too. Team leaders are always brought in to recruit players to come on board in almost every situation, the one situation they are not is when there are no team leaders with credibility left on the team. Do you honestly believe that any players are brought into LA without Kobe being brought into it?

Trevor Ariza didn't need recruited for Houston because he was alrady pissed that Ron Artest was picked over him. He spoke with his contract, and probably way too soon. Secondly, Trevor Ariza isn't a star. When recruiting stars you work at it. When recruiting role players, you don't have to go so far. It helps, but lets face it, role players are easily replaceable.

And yes, KP looked like shit when he went to meet Hedo. Why the fuck would I make that up? What do I have to gain from it? I am sure the media clips are still out there, so if you are going to refute it, go watch the tape and then you will see. He looked like he just walked out of hell. When you want your organization to appear professional, it starts from the top down.

 

For New Jersey. The media may have talked up Outlaw's value, but to anyone who looked at slightly sophisticated statistics, it was clear that he was nothing special. Three mediocre players (Jack and Frye arguably sub-mediocre) do not equal a highly-valued young point guard.

"You don't agree with me, thus you must be a blind KP lover!!!11!1111"

Sounds bitter to me. The "passive aggressive" part came by not explicitly saying it like that, but implying it by saying "Wow, I guess MM was right...etc etc." Hope that clears it up.

I'm not. I just don't think a trade rumour that none of us know (but some of us pretend to know) was actually true is a solid piece to your "case."

You're incorrect. I wasn't arguing with your overall "case" (though I don't agree with it, but I've argued it enough in the past that I don't feel like going through it again). I simply inquired about a few things you mentioned that I wanted to discuss in more detail. In other words, I wasn't trying to "latch on" to a small part to distract from your fancy, grand case. I was simply debating the parts I actually found a little interesting, for one reason or another.

You don't wear "poor, put-upon victim" well. I'm not out to get you or try to use tricks to discredit your precious case. Nor am I trying to "absolve" Pritchard. I think his accomplishments in team-building to this point speak for themselves and he'll ultimately by judged by how much his teams win. I have no vested interest in whether Pritchard is seen as a success or failure. I simply disagreed with some of your "points." Don't get angry at me if you can't defend them.

Because "leaks" by their very nature, are unpredictable and unreliable. All sorts of pertinent information can be left out by "leaks."

I didn't say you speculated about the roster. I'm saying your analysis of Portland's involvement in the Kidd/Harris deal is speculation. About that, you do need to speculate because we don't have the facts.

The rest seems directed at Crimson, because it doesn't relate to anything I have said.

 

Odd, my post got half-eaten. I'll re-post the full version:

I agree that that's pretty solid evidence that "talks" happened. Where we apparently diverge is whether those talks materialized into a Harris for Outlaw/Frye/Jack deal that Pritchard walked away from. It's possible, but not the likeliest scenario in my opinion, and thus I am not willing to string Pritchard up for it.

If I really did believe that Pritchard had that deal available and turned it down, I'd definitely say he fucked up. Badly. I don't say, "Well, he knows more than us" to excuse decisions that make no sense. I simply don't think that talks and speculation about what those talks yielded equals a known bad decision. He may have made a bad decision, but I don't believe we know what was ultimately presented to him if anything.

I haven't necessarily made that contention. My position has been that I don't see the point in evaluating Pritchard on deal we think he could have made, since we can't know whether they were even options. I absolutely believe in evaluating him by decisions we know he did make.

Maybe I should be more expansive on how I believe an executive or leader should be evaluated. I believe that there's a micro and macro level that need to be considered.

The micro level is looking at each decision he makes and determining whether you like the process illustrated by those decisions and whether you think that, based on the information at the time, they were rational decisions. A classic example of "process rather than results" is blackjack: if a person (not the dealer, who knows what she needs to beat) is dealt two face cards (20) and hits...that's bad process, because it's clear that the odds are overwhelmingly against him. He may get an ace, a fantastic result, but it was still bad decision-making...at least on that micro level. You want to see good process, because if you have that, the results will tend to reflect that over the long-term.

The macro level is what the person accomplishes over the time you're evaluating her. This is the bottom line analysis and, ultimately, the only thing that counts...but hard to use over short stretches of time, which is why it isn't the only important analysis. If you are ultimately unsuccessful, it doesn't really matter if your "process" is throwing darts or careful research and cold logic. If you fail over the long-term, it means your process, good as it may have seemed, left something crucial out.

So, applying this to Pritchard: on the micro level, I've liked his process. I think he's valued superior talent over reaching for need, he's chosen to accept risk for higher reward and he's largely tried to optimize his assets. The main exception to this (and one I criticized him for) was the Zach Randolph deal. I don't believe he maximized that asset. The main perceived exception is RLEC, but I don't share that perception. I think Pritchard did try to maximize it and use it in a deal, but it turned out to be less valuable than he hoped. We have "reports" of his trying to work all sorts of deals, from Stoudemire to Shaq to Carter, etc. The result wasn't good, but without knowing precisely what deals he had available, I have no quarrels with the process.

On the macro level, he's taken arguably the worst roster in basketball and re-made it into arguably the best (when factoring in both the present and future value), and it took him only a few years. This kind of transformation in team fortunes is pretty remarkable and uncommon. So far, on the macro level, he's a massive success. Of course, when it comes time to evaluate his entire career (whenever he leaves Portland), how much these teams won and how many, if any, titles were won will be the bottom line. But we aren't there yet. For now, the macro level analysis definitely looks really positive for him.

So that is my "big picture" look at Pritchard. I think he's been very successful and his process, so far, suggests to me that it wasn't luck, so I predict continued success for him. But, obviously, he needs to continue to show good process and continued overall results. I don't claim Pritchard is a good GM because I like him. I like him because I think he's a good GM. So there's nothing blind about it, to me. My view of him is favourable because I think he's earned it. If he starts making mistakes, my view of him will change accordingly.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, but you missed some basic facts aligned to why people may be upset about the Roy negotiations.

 

I hear this a lot, but I don't know if I buy it. Last year at the trade deadline, we were on pace to win something like 49 games and lots of people were saying we needed to make a trade if we wanted to vault ourselves into a team that could get home court, and maybe just to make the playoffs. Well, we stayed with the same team, continued to gel, and finished tied for 2nd in the West.

Adding more talent doesn't always result in a better outcome. This team clearly had a great understanding of their roles and a good amount of chemistry, adding a guy like VC could have really shaken that all up. Not to mention, that we would have had to given up a young contributor to rent out his services for a couple years.