Ibn Battuta 127 Report post Posted January 2, 2014 The Nuggets received a bunch of roleplayers with limited to no upside and a very valuable draft pick. Not a bad return but not anywhere close to equal value. If the Knicks could make that trade today for the exact same pieces they would do so in a heartbeat. In hindsight, I bet the Nuggets hold out for a better deal. The Jazz trade is closer to equal value primarily due to the fact that Favors still has some upside left. If he develops into a good big man then that trade ends up pretty good for them. As of now though, Deron Williams is better than Favors and a couple of picks. You said we got as close to superstar return as possible. do you agree with me that Anthony and Williams are lesser players than Dwight? Because what those players returned for their old teams, is much closer to their actual value (even if it is still pennies on the dollar) than Dwight got us (i'll explain below). The Magic received a 22 year old center that is averaging a double double, a shooting guard that is playing at an allstar level, a young player with some upside, shed Jason Richardson, Chris Duhon, and Earl Clarks salaries, and got 3 first round picks. To steal a line from Bill Simmons, if that package was offered to the Rockets today for Dwight Howard, they probably wouldn't trade Dwight but they would hold a 3 hour meeting to discuss it. was Vuc this good in his rookie season? Afflalo was nowhere close to this level, even last season. The 3 first round draft picks we receive, will NOT be lottery picks. We'll be extremely lucky if even one of them are (not to mention they are heavily, heavily protected). That means, we are picking #16 and above for all of them (which probably means role players, guys like Nicholson). We shed some salary, but that was almost a given in any scenario. The Nuggets shipped Billups too, for salary purposes. So did we really get the return you are saying? it's easy to look back now, but at the time the trade was made and in comparison to other big trades, we didn't get as much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Secretly Space Jesus 670 Report post Posted January 2, 2014 I made the same point Ibn is making last season, and I got an angry mob after me for it on this board. Player values change all the time, so you have to judge a trade based on what the various pieces involved's values were at the time of the trade. The fact that Dwight's value has gone down, while the value of Vucevic and Afflalo has gone up has no bearing on what their values were when the trade was made. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted January 2, 2014 You said we got as close to superstar return as possible. do you agree with me that Anthony and Williams are lesser players than Dwight? Because what those players returned for their old teams, is much closer to their actual value (even if it is still pennies on the dollar) than Dwight got us (i'll explain below). was Vuc this good in his rookie season? Afflalo was nowhere close to this level, even last season. The 3 first round draft picks we receive, will NOT be lottery picks. We'll be extremely lucky if even one of them are (not to mention they are heavily, heavily protected). That means, we are picking #16 and above for all of them (which probably means role players, guys like Nicholson). We shed some salary, but that was almost a given in any scenario. The Nuggets shipped Billups too, for salary purposes. So did we really get the return you are saying? it's easy to look back now, but at the time the trade was made and in comparison to other big trades, we didn't get as much. Nuggets pick will likely be a lotto pick. Lakers pick has a good chance of being a lotto pick. The thing about trading superstars is you never get equal value in return. Williams and Anthony at the time were not coming off of back surgery. You're shifting the perspective of the trade to fit your narrative. You can't ignore the players performance now and say "Vuc, afflalo, etc weren't supposed to be this good therefore the trade sucked". What we received was a stockpile of solid young players. Vuc is a top 10 center ( though that isn't saying much) and probably our most valuable player right now. Harkless is at the very least an nba player. Our frustrations with him comes from our high expectations. Even if he never improves he's going to have a 10 year career as an end of the bench defender. He's better than Dominic McGuire and he carved out a 6 year career that way. The deal was better than the McGrady deal. It's not an even trade at all for 2010 Dwight. It might end up being a fantastic trade if Dwight continues to regress. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted January 2, 2014 I made the same point Ibn is making last season, and I got an angry mob after me for it on this board. Player values change all the time, so you have to judge a trade based on what the various pieces involved's values were at the time of the trade. The fact that Dwight's value has gone down, while the value of Vucevic and Afflalo has gone up has no bearing on what their values were when the trade was made. But isn't "value" a subjective term anyway (at least in sports)? Isn't value always determined in hindsight as a player's value is determined by his production post trade? Let's use Harris as an example. At the time of the trade we viewed his value differently than Milwaukee did. He was getting limited minutes and had lower trade value than JJ. We trade for him and his performance shows we received substantial value. I understand that certain elements of value are objective. Rashard Lewis wasn't great value because we bid against ourselves. Signing Grant Hill was the right move at the time. If hennigan thinks vucevic will become an elite player and he eventually becomes an elite player, doesn't that mean he evaluated him properly? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Secretly Space Jesus 670 Report post Posted January 2, 2014 If hennigan thinks vucevic will become an elite player and he eventually becomes an elite player, doesn't that mean he evaluated him properly? No, it means he projected him properly. If I pay 750 dollars for 500 dollars worth of gold because I expect the value of gold to double, and it does, I still made a terrible deal on value because with what I had, I should have gotten more gold. The situation isn't perfectly comparable, because we don't know whether or not we could have gotten closer to equal value than we did, but that doesn't change that the value we did get wasn't equal, even if stock prices go up after the fact. Edit note: I just realized I wrote "is perfectly comparable" initially when I meant the complete opposite of that. It's fixed now. Whoops. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
magicblue 315 Report post Posted January 2, 2014 But isn't "value" a subjective term anyway (at least in sports)? Isn't value always determined in hindsight as a player's value is determined by his production post trade? Let's use Harris as an example. At the time of the trade we viewed his value differently than Milwaukee did. He was getting limited minutes and had lower trade value than JJ. We trade for him and his performance shows we received substantial value. I understand that certain elements of value are objective. Rashard Lewis wasn't great value because we bid against ourselves. Signing Grant Hill was the right move at the time. If hennigan thinks vucevic will become an elite player and he eventually becomes an elite player, doesn't that mean he evaluated him properly? This is the exact discussion we had last year that DoM was referring to. I argue yes, but others disagreed citing Vuc hadn't shown that potential his rookie season (even though his per 36 numbers say otherwise) and therefore his value at the time of the deal was much lower. The discussion also centered around how valuable an asset future picks really are when you don't know where they will be and what they will ultimately yield (although first rd draft picks always seem to be relatively valuable assets). Whether or not it was a good deal then it certainly looks like a very good deal now considering the player Vuc has become and the way AA has been playing, so I think Henny deserves some credit for the foresight...or I suppose it could be argued he was really lucky. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
magicblue 315 Report post Posted January 2, 2014 No, it means he projected him properly. If I pay 750 dollars for 500 dollars worth of gold because I expect the value of gold to double, and it does, I still made a terrible deal on value because with what I had, I should have gotten more gold. The situation is perfectly comparable, because we don't know whether or not we could have gotten closer to equal value than we did, but that doesn't change that the value we did get wasn't equal, even if stock prices go up after the fact. If it were as simple as market value of gold you'd be right, but in this case there were so many intangibles including Dwight's injury, his short list of teams, and just his general douschiness leading up to the summer that had an unknown, yet certainly negative, impact on his value. Not trying to re-hash this btw Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted January 2, 2014 No, it means he projected him properly. If I pay 750 dollars for 500 dollars worth of gold because I expect the value of gold to double, and it does, I still made a terrible deal on value because with what I had, I should have gotten more gold. The situation is perfectly comparable, because we don't know whether or not we could have gotten closer to equal value than we did, but that doesn't change that the value we did get wasn't equal, even if stock prices go up after the fact. Right, but in that case we have a defined value in gold. In sports we have a vague range of value based on past production, reasonable future production, market value of a player compared to league average replacement, a players fit in a system, etc. We know Rashard was poor value because there was documented evidence and a reasonable expectation that we could sign him for 25% or whatever. It was impossible to get equal value for Dwight because of superstar scarcity (especially in regards to centers). Based on the market available we ended up getting a good deal, not the best deal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ibn Battuta 127 Report post Posted January 2, 2014 Nuggets pick will likely be a lotto pick. Lakers pick has a good chance of being a lotto pick. the Knicks will make the playoffs. As horrible as they've been they are only behind 3.5 games of the #8 spot. They'll make it kicking and screaming. The Lakers pick...too far out to tell. Because it is so heavily protected, even if the Lakers are horrible, they won't have to convey the pick to us. We could end up with two 2nd round picks. None of the picks the other teams got had such strict protections. You're shifting the perspective of the trade to fit your narrative. You can't ignore the players performance now and say "Vuc, afflalo, etc weren't supposed to be this good therefore the trade sucked". I'm not ignoring them. Vuc was the 16th pick, and Harkless 15th. What's the normal expectation (and value) of guys picked in that range? It's not as high as #3 pick Derrick Favors for example. Or as high as the potential Galinari showed in 1.5 seasons of play. We didn't get that level of talent in this trade. What we received was a stockpile of solid young players. Vuc is a top 10 center ( though that isn't saying much) and probably our most valuable player right now. Harkless is at the very least an nba player. Our frustrations with him comes from our high expectations. Even if he never improves he's going to have a 10 year career as an end of the bench defender. He's better than Dominic McGuire and he carved out a 6 year career that way. The deal was better than the McGrady deal. It's not an even trade at all for 2010 Dwight. It might end up being a fantastic trade if Dwight continues to regress. You can't say that i'm shifting the narrative when you type something like this. Outside of Afflalo, NOBODY knew who or what the other players were. Vuc was a backup center (nothing special), and Harkless played C in college. Afflalo was the best player in the trade! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
For the love of the game 56 Report post Posted January 2, 2014 Right, but in that case we have a defined value in gold. In sports we have a vague range of value based on past production, reasonable future production, market value of a player compared to league average replacement, a players fit in a system, etc. We know Rashard was poor value because there was documented evidence and a reasonable expectation that we could sign him for 25% or whatever. It was impossible to get equal value for Dwight because of superstar scarcity (especially in regards to centers). Based on the market available we ended up getting a good deal, not the best deal. What would have been the best deal? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted January 2, 2014 What would have been the best deal? Dwight for Lebron Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
For the love of the game 56 Report post Posted January 2, 2014 Dwight for Lebron Oh, well compared to that, the Magic got screwed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
