Odin 137 Report post Posted August 3, 2016 yeah, Brooklyn is the cautionary tale of ownership meddling with a mandate to win at the expense of long term goals. What the heck were they thinking? Yep. Brooklyn is sort of my go to example of bad ownership and bad team building. I live in NJ, and actually am friends with a Nets fan. (I didn't even know they existed when I lived in Orlando). One time a group of us were talking about our respective teams and how they were all not going to be all that good, and he said something along the lines of "at least they aren't the Nets". Poor guy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CTMagicUK 1,483 Report post Posted August 3, 2016 yup. I can't imagine it was anything but a skiles move. or else we'd go for assets instead of just a straight salary dump. My tinfoil hat theory is that Rob thought Skiles was trying to get personnel power by going over his head and complaining to Martins about lack of vets being the reason we weren't winning so Rob made the trade not really because it was what Skiles wanted but to sort of throw him under the bus by demonstrating that, even with vets he knew very well, Skiles couldn't win. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Franchero MVP 391 Report post Posted August 3, 2016 Harris wasn't a great asset -- ppl need to stop overvaluing our mediocre players who didn't prove anything while they were here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheNameIsOrlando 310 Report post Posted August 3, 2016 My tinfoil hat theory is that Rob thought Skiles was trying to get personnel power by going over his head and complaining to Martins about lack of vets being the reason we weren't winning so Rob made the trade not really because it was what Skiles wanted but to sort of throw him under the bus by demonstrating that, even with vets he knew very well, Skiles couldn't win. Hinder his job to prove a point? I dont see it. Think it was more likely to appease Skiles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CTMagicUK 1,483 Report post Posted August 3, 2016 Hinder his job to prove a point? I dont see it. Think it was more likely to appease Skiles. Not really to prove a point, to save his own job. In my tin foil hat scenario it's kind of a Skiles goes or Rob goes scenario. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted August 3, 2016 Harris wasn't a great asset -- ppl need to stop overvaluing our mediocre players who didn't prove anything while they were here. Harris was a fantastic asset. he was a 23 year old forward averaging 15 ppg and making 10% less than what Kent Bazemore and Evan Turner made this summer. You can say "the magic aren't going to miss harris" and simultaneously say "he was a great asset". They aren't mutually exclusive statements. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted August 3, 2016 Not really to prove a point, to save his own job. In my tin foil hat scenario it's kind of a Skiles goes or Rob goes scenario. yeah, your deal doesn't really make sense. Its more likely: Skiles demanded more veteran players Hennigan wanted to move harris anyway (reports say we were shopping him in December due to roster constraints and problems with him integrating into the roster). We wanted a pick plus veterans on expiring contracts other teams wanted us to take on long term contracts for them to part with a pick Hennigan decided it was better to get less than what he wanted in order to foster a positive relationship with skiles and made the trade that he made Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheNameIsOrlando 310 Report post Posted August 3, 2016 yeah, your deal doesn't really make sense. Its more likely: Skiles demanded more veteran players Hennigan wanted to move harris anyway (reports say we were shopping him in December due to roster constraints and problems with him integrating into the roster). We wanted a pick plus veterans on expiring contracts other teams wanted us to take on long term contracts for them to part with a pick Hennigan decided it was better to get less than what he wanted in order to foster a positive relationship with skiles and made the trade that he made Hypothetically how different would we be if we took a long term guy on and recieved a mid lotter pick? In hindsight it might of been worth it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
magicblue 315 Report post Posted August 3, 2016 Hypothetically how different would we be if we took a long term guy on and recieved a mid lotter pick? In hindsight it might of been worth it. Would depend on the amount and length of the contract but potentially it could have prevented us from signing Biyombo this summer (if we wanted to maintain flexibility for next summer), or impacted our ability to potentially sign a max FA next summer, even after signing Biyombo, which at the moment is still at least possible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CTMagicUK 1,483 Report post Posted August 3, 2016 Would depend on the amount and length of the contract but potentially it could have prevented us from signing Biyombo this summer (if we wanted to maintain flexibility for next summer), or impacted our ability to potentially sign a max FA next summer, even after signing Biyombo, which at the moment is still at least possible. Yea I don't think it would have hindered us this summer unless we really wanted Jeff Green. Next summer it would have though definitely. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
magicblue 315 Report post Posted August 3, 2016 Yea I don't think it would have hindered us this summer unless we really wanted Jeff Green. Next summer it would have though definitely. My thought was that we might not have stepped up and offered what we did to Biyombo, potentially allowing him to sign elsewhere, if we wanted to maintain the ability to sign a max FA next summer. This is of course assuming the hypothetical veteran contract we would have picked up for a draft pick in the Harris trade even extended into next season. Jeff Green's contract has no bearing on next summer as it is expiring, we could have paid him max money this season if we felt like it and overpaid at $15M as it stands now Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted August 3, 2016 Hypothetically how different would we be if we took a long term guy on and recieved a mid lotter pick? In hindsight it might of been worth it. depends on what the salary was. we had 49 million in cap space prior to the meeks and ibaka trades with no draft pick cap holds included. we cant make the Ibaka trade without ilyasova since it was made prior to the new year. who knows if he's still available 12 days later. hypothetically, if we just added a 10 million contract to this roster we'd be in the luxury tax. Where it hurts us is next offseason. We're currently ~12 million under the projected 102 cap. we can free up another 4 million by cutting Watson. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
