The veto of Houston-Philly Trade
Jun 20, 2018 13:45:49 GMT 2
Miami Heat, Philadelphia 76ers, and 1 more like this
Post by Minnesota Timberwolves on Jun 20, 2018 13:45:49 GMT 2
I am writing this message as a manager, not a commissioner.
More than half of the managers vetoed the trade. If we count out Houston and Philly, that is about 2/3 of the remaining.
I am really having hard time to understand your train of thoughts that led you to veto this trade. To be able to make good offers/trades in the future, I really need to understand how you guys think.
In every message, the trade was vetoed due to being lopsided, which means highly unbalanced, greatly favoring one side (which is Philly I suppose). So let's just look what Philly gives and gets:
He receives: LaMarcus Aldridge (72 million / 4 year contract) and Chinanu Onuaku (1.5 million / 1 year contract)
He gives: 16th rookie pick
Let's keep Onuaku out of this for a while as he's not that important. The 2/3 of the league believes that LMA (72/4) is a lot more valueable than a late 1st round pick.
So I'll have a few questions, hoping a few of the managers who vetoed will answer:
1. How high of a pick do you believe LMA is worth? Which rookie pick do you believe wouldn't be lopsided? Would Atlanta get vetoed if he made the same trade with the 11th pick? How about me with my 10th pick? How do you draw this line?
2. Houston has been actively shopping LMA for a few weeks, especially mentioning his rebuild plan and ability of a discount. He also explicitly wrote "Don't be the guy who says he's worth more, I'd give more". Did you make better offers for LMA, if not why?
3. Are you guys thinking of making a lot better offers for LMA? If not, does Houston have to rebuild with LMA on his roster because you just believe he's worth a lot more while nobody is giving more?
4. If you check the Kings' trading block, he agrees to trade Beal on a similar discount in exchange for a top-8 pick. That means if someone offers 8th rookie pick for Beal (60 million / 3 year contract), he'll probably take it. Will you veto that deal? If not, do you really believe a 32-year old LMA for 16th pick is lopsided and 24-year old Beal for 8th pick is balanced enough?
I'm not looking to argue your thoughts, I just want to understand them.
Thanks in advance to whoever answers any of my questions!
More than half of the managers vetoed the trade. If we count out Houston and Philly, that is about 2/3 of the remaining.
I am really having hard time to understand your train of thoughts that led you to veto this trade. To be able to make good offers/trades in the future, I really need to understand how you guys think.
In every message, the trade was vetoed due to being lopsided, which means highly unbalanced, greatly favoring one side (which is Philly I suppose). So let's just look what Philly gives and gets:
He receives: LaMarcus Aldridge (72 million / 4 year contract) and Chinanu Onuaku (1.5 million / 1 year contract)
He gives: 16th rookie pick
Let's keep Onuaku out of this for a while as he's not that important. The 2/3 of the league believes that LMA (72/4) is a lot more valueable than a late 1st round pick.
So I'll have a few questions, hoping a few of the managers who vetoed will answer:
1. How high of a pick do you believe LMA is worth? Which rookie pick do you believe wouldn't be lopsided? Would Atlanta get vetoed if he made the same trade with the 11th pick? How about me with my 10th pick? How do you draw this line?
2. Houston has been actively shopping LMA for a few weeks, especially mentioning his rebuild plan and ability of a discount. He also explicitly wrote "Don't be the guy who says he's worth more, I'd give more". Did you make better offers for LMA, if not why?
3. Are you guys thinking of making a lot better offers for LMA? If not, does Houston have to rebuild with LMA on his roster because you just believe he's worth a lot more while nobody is giving more?
4. If you check the Kings' trading block, he agrees to trade Beal on a similar discount in exchange for a top-8 pick. That means if someone offers 8th rookie pick for Beal (60 million / 3 year contract), he'll probably take it. Will you veto that deal? If not, do you really believe a 32-year old LMA for 16th pick is lopsided and 24-year old Beal for 8th pick is balanced enough?
I'm not looking to argue your thoughts, I just want to understand them.
Thanks in advance to whoever answers any of my questions!
