The"Crap, it didn't happen..but it was awesome to think of" thread

[sefant77]

"Basketball reasons"

[sefant77]

[LonghornDub]

NetsDaily is hilarious.

[b_o_r]

Originally Posted by untitled

With my 1000th post, I'd like to welcome Deron Williams to the Mavericks organization.

LOL
Portland has the 6th/11th pick they could swing for quality veterans on a cap squeezed team. People also forget Deron is friends with Wesley Matthews and was upset when he wasn't resigned in Utah..

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Nets got the 6th pick, which means they lose it. Portland will pick 11th and 6th. Lol @ Brooklyn.

Do you think that gives Portland a legit shot at Williams?

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by b_o_r

LOL
Portland has the 6th/11th pick they could swing for quality veterans on a cap squeezed team. People also forget Deron is friends with Wesley Matthews and was upset when he wasn't resigned in Utah..

I don't think people "forget" that, I think people realize it's pretty irrelevant.

[sefant77]

If Deron want to live in Portland and blow his knees

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

not only does that mean they don't have a top pick this year, it also means that if they trade a future first rounder that team won't see any benefit until at least 2014 with all likelihood. Trading a card like Drummond, Davis or Kidd-Gilchrist is very appealing. Its quick and its certain. Trading a pick that won't likely be honored for two seasons in a draft that no one knows anything about is much much worse. Maybe it'll be another 1998 draft, but to a GM its less appealing to wait 2 years for a rebuild, particularly on how unknown it is.

Now Dallas has to turn 17th and 55th pick into something more appealing than New Jersey can with its 57th and Lopez.

They do have Houston's first rounder in 2013. It's not like they have no trade ammunition at all.

But I don't see how they have enough to get Dwight.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by jthig32

They do have Houston's first rounder in 2013. It's not like they have no trade ammunition at all.

But I don't see how they have enough to get Dwight.

I believe Houston's 2013 pick is lottery protected. Maybe you were accounting for that, though.

[Thomas86]

I wouldn't be shocked if Stern told the new Hornets owner if he buys the team he will give him the #1 pick...I see you Stern

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

I believe Houston's 2013 pick is lottery protected. Maybe you were accounting for that, though.

Yeah, I meant to mentioned that. Top 14 protected through 2016.

[sefant77]

Originally Posted by Thomas86

I wouldn't be shocked if Stern told the new Hornets owner if he buys the team he will give him the #1 pick...I see you Stern

And the ASG

But Hornets had like 15%.

[mavs777]

I don't believe in the conspiracy theories when it comes to the draft, as bad as the NBA gets is the refs with their obious agendas imo. Hornets had a decent chance of getting number 1 pick either way. I can't wait to hear from nets fans how they trade for dwight with the trade assets they don't have.

[mavs777]

Originally Posted by b_o_r

LOL
Portland has the 6th/11th pick they could swing for quality veterans on a cap squeezed team. People also forget Deron is friends with Wesley Matthews and was upset when he wasn't resigned in Utah..

Nope, people just realize it is irrelevant.

[mavs777]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

NetsDaily is hilarious.

any direct links?

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by mavs777

any direct links?

http://www.netsdaily.com/2012/5/30/3...ttery#comments

Just start at the top.

[mavs777]

hilarious "Wallace is highly likely to be better than every player in this draft other than Anthony Davis." Rumor is they will resign wallace to a 3 year 30 million dollar deal. Even if you take contracts out of it I would rather have Anthony Davis, Bradley Beal, Thomas Robinson, Andre Drummond, Jarred Sullinger, Damian Lillard, and Jeremy Lamb once you consider rookie contracts compared to what gerald wallace would get there are about 15 players i would rather have.

[sefant77]

retards still not getting it.

And another huuuuge think for us: King is getting called out everywhere for this trade. deron will read this. And thats the GM he has to trust to build a team that is able to beat the Heat and Bulls the next years...just in the east.

[SMC0007]

Originally Posted by sefant77

Who's the fat chic?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by SMC0007

Who's the fat chic?

Giggle. Those are pretty high standards!

[rabbitproof]

She likes him because she has no eyebrows.

Oh, nice lotto ball work, Mavs!

[GhostFace]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

She likes him because she has no eyebrows.

Oh, nice lotto ball work, Mavs!

LOL glad I wasn't the only one eyein' them eyebrows thinking what in the f.

[mac222b]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

She likes him because she has no eyebrows.

Oh, nice lotto ball work, Mavs!

Lol'd

If a decisive factor in Deron going to Portland is really Wesley Freaking Matthews then oh well. That would make him sort of like the Billy King
of players, decision making wise.

[mac222b]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Giggle. Those are pretty high standards!

A.Davis' or SMC's??

[mac222b]

Originally Posted by mavs777

hilarious "Wallace is highly likely to be better than every player in this draft other than Anthony Davis." Rumor is they will resign wallace to a 3 year 30 million dollar deal. Even if you take contracts out of it I would rather have Anthony Davis, Bradley Beal, Thomas Robinson, Andre Drummond, Jarred Sullinger, Damian Lillard, and Jeremy Lamb once you consider rookie contracts compared to what gerald wallace would get there are about 15 players i would rather have.

Whats most strange is they couldve kept the lottery pick and gone out and overpaid Wallace this summer anyway. #6 pick is one expensive rental for a team not likely to make the playoffs anyhow. Quite baffling.

[Scott McGuire]

Originally Posted by jthig32

None of what you said does anything to disprove Dub's point. He's absolutely unproven, and while he's a good bet to be wildly valuable relative to his contract, his floor is still way, way, WAY, WAY lower than the players you say you would prefer him over.

I'm saying that despite the indisputable "unproven" term you and LDub can slap on him, he IS more valuable than Bynum at 18mill/year. If the Hornets have enough to cap space and the Lakers offer Bynum straight up for Davis, the Hornets say no.

Would you rather bank on Bynum at nearly 1/3 your cap, or on Davis on a rookie contract? Dwight is a different story. I only said maybe. If I were rebuilding a team with cap space I'd take Davis and then use the rest of the money I'd be spending on Dwight to go towards other players.

"unproven" is just a negative way of saying "rookie" and "young" and "potential".

I actually listened to the BS report after writing this and heard Chad Ford and Bill Simmons saying the same thing I was saying. They were saying that if the Nets won they should keep Davis and build around him. They said that the Nets should say no if they were offered Dwight straight up for only Davis. They also said that the Nets don't think through things enough and they'd probably take Dwight over him, but Ford and Simmons would take Davis and consider it the smart thing.

I know using Ford and Simmons as support for my view is weak, but I'm not alone in thinking Davis on his rookie contract never having played a game is more valuable than almost every player in the NBA(save the top 15 or so). Especially if you're rebuilding. If you only care about THIS year then yes you take Dwight/Bynum.

[mac222b]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Look, you've made clear that you love Anthony Davis, and that's fine, but just like every other player ever who's never played in the NBA, he is totally unproven at the relevant level.

Plenty of fantastic college basketball players--all positions, all varieties--have been absolute busts in the NBA. Would I bet on that from Davis? Certainly not. But until he realizes his potential in the league (and I do think he has tons of potential), he is most certainly "unproven."

He does possess more than a passing resemblance to
"Never Nervous" Pervis

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Scott McGuire

I'm saying that despite the indisputable "unproven" term you and LDub can slap on him, he IS more valuable than Bynum at 18mill/year. If the Hornets have enough to cap space and the Lakers offer Bynum straight up for Davis, the Hornets say no.

The Lakers would also say no. Because you're leaving a variable out of your hypothetical. Where the team is positioned matters, and not just for next season. A team wanting to compete for a championship over the next four seasons is going to take Bynum every single time, imo. And Dwight is an absolute no brainer.

I listened to that Simmons podcast, and it was classic Chad Ford, overrating prospects and talking about them as if they're already proven NBA players. Chad Ford is a worthless analyst who's never added anything to my knowledge of basketball. He's awful.

If the Nets are choosing between Deron/Howard or Deron/Davis, then the answer is CLEARLY Deron/Howard. If they're going to rebuild without Deron then I can maybe see the argument for keeping Davis rather than flipping him for Howard.

You can cite contract efficiency and outplaying your salary all you want (and I'm not saying it's not important, it is) but the most important asset in the NBA is superstars, and there's nothing close to a guarantee that Anthony Davis will be that.

[SMC0007]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Giggle. Those are pretty high standards!

I'd hit it..but I wouldn't date it.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Mahahahaha!

http://i46.tinypic.com/ay1zk8.jpg

[EricaLubarsky]

money is going to have to be tighter all around. Rookie contracts are going to only be one element of that.

I think teams will be willing to overspend for a year or two until they realize just how much it hamstrings the rest of their teams. The good is that there will eventually be fewer guys with max and near-max contracts that arent absolute superstars.

In the mean time, it will be interesting to see what happens in free agency. I could see us offering a guy like Gordon 10m and having a more desperate team steal him away by offering a max at the last minute. I could also see the Mavericks land a guy at the max and regret it later.

Ultimately the average player has to come down to 4-6m, A few stars should get 7-10m and only the top crust of all-star should get a max deal. There are a lot of guys out there that are paid way more than they should be right now and I think a lot of agents will be looking for the biggest payday for their guys. I can also see a lot of desperate teams making unwise moves that will inflate the cost of this free agency period, despite the new CBA.

I could see a lot of teams with a history of dumb moves offering star contacts like Haywood has to average players and max contracts like Amare's going to players that are only borderline stars.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Scott McGuire

"unproven" is just a negative way of saying "rookie" and "young" and "potential".

It's not "negative," as I'm not implying that he'll fail.

[EricaLubarsky]

Unproven does mean rookie" and "young" and "potential".

It just also means that they aren't a bird in the hand, so to speak. Some will be superstars and hall-of-famers. Many will flame out after their rookie contract.

2007 lottery
1) Greg Oden
2) Kevin durant
3) Al hartford
4) Mike Conley
5) Jeff Green
6) Yi Jianlan
7) Corey Brewer
8) Brandan Wright
9) Jaokim Noah
10) Spencer Hawes
11) Acie Law
12) Thaddeus Young
13) Julian Wright
14) Al Thornton

There are some hall-of-famers in there, a lot of above-average guys, a few that are hanging in the league and a few that are falling out of it. Its not saying there isnt the next Kevin Durant in the 2012 draft, just that its not a sure thing-- yet.

[SMC0007]

ahh. Al Hartford! He's a great.

[Kidd Karma]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

money is going to have to be tighter all around. Rookie contracts are going to only be one element of that.

I think teams will be willing to overspend for a year or two until they realize just how much it hamstrings the rest of their teams. The good is that there will eventually be fewer guys with max and near-max contracts that arent absolute superstars.

In the mean time, it will be interesting to see what happens in free agency. I could see us offering a guy like Gordon 10m and having a more desperate team steal him away by offering a max at the last minute. I could also see the Mavericks land a guy at the max and regret it later.

Ultimately the average player has to come down to 4-6m, A few stars should get 7-10m and only the top crust of all-star should get a max deal. There are a lot of guys out there that are paid way more than they should be right now and I think a lot of agents will be looking for the biggest payday for their guys. I can also see a lot of desperate teams making unwise moves that will inflate the cost of this free agency period, despite the new CBA.

I could see a lot of teams with a history of dumb moves offering star contacts like Haywood has to average players and max contracts like Amare's going to players that are only borderline stars.

This is what Cuban has said is the market correction that is coming next summer. Best option is to keep flexibility until 2013, if 3D is not possible now. We still have options with the amnesty, and the 17th pick to rid ourselves of long term deals. Toronto is sitting on 12 million, we make their selection and package it with either Marion or Haywood to clean one contract off the books, then amnesty the other.

[Scott McGuire]

Originally Posted by jthig32

The Lakers would also say no. Because you're leaving a variable out of your hypothetical. Where the team is positioned matters, and not just for next season. A team wanting to compete for a championship over the next four seasons is going to take Bynum every single time, imo. And Dwight is an absolute no brainer.

I listened to that Simmons podcast, and it was classic Chad Ford, overrating prospects and talking about them as if they're already proven NBA players. Chad Ford is a worthless analyst who's never added anything to my knowledge of basketball. He's awful.

If the Nets are choosing between Deron/Howard or Deron/Davis, then the answer is CLEARLY Deron/Howard. If they're going to rebuild without Deron then I can maybe see the argument for keeping Davis rather than flipping him for Howard.

You can cite contract efficiency and outplaying your salary all you want (and I'm not saying it's not important, it is) but the most important asset in the NBA is superstars, and there's nothing close to a guarantee that Anthony Davis will be that.

You are correct in that superstars are the highest denomination of NBA currency. I don't think Bynum is a superstar. He's not "proven" to be dependable and takes up 1/3 of the cap.

You are saying that every team in the NBA wanting to win a championship in the next 4 years would choose
A) Bynum at $16,473,002 18mill 20mill 22mill
over
B) Davis at $4,286,900 $4,479,800 $4,672,700 $5.8mill

Every GM trying to win a championship in a window of 4 years?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Scott McGuire

You are correct in that superstars are the highest denomination of NBA currency. I don't think Bynum is a superstar. He's not "proven" to be dependable and takes up 1/3 of the cap.

You are saying that every team in the NBA wanting to win a championship in the next 4 years would choose
A) Bynum at $16,473,002 18mill 20mill 22mill
over
B) Davis at $4,286,900 $4,479,800 $4,672,700 $5.8mill

Every GM trying to win a championship in a window of 4 years?

I think you're a little off on your raise calculations. Max is 7.5%

But to your overall point, I think a GM that needs a center and a cornerstone of a team that must contend over the next four years would choose Bynum over Davis, yes.

[Popeye]

Bynum's not a superstar and at $16mm/year he's not a bargain. Anthony Davis is the more valuable player at $4 million a year.

[Scott McGuire]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I think you're a little off on your raise calculations. Max is 7.5%

But to your overall point, I think a GM that needs a center and a cornerstone of a team that must contend over the next four years would choose Bynum over Davis, yes.

Davis is a 4 so I'd pick Bynum if I had an entrenched 4 that didn't have enough bulk to be the man defender at the 5. Davis isn't a center, but he blocks shots like one.

The situation you describe doesn't fit every GM looking to win over the next 4 years. Plus salary cap situations would change the answer if choosing Davis gave you an extra 12million to spend on another player.

I'm asserting that most GMs in the situation they currently are in (some in win-now mode and some in rebuild mode) would pick Davis over Bynum.

Sorry about the 10% raise instead of the 7.5%. I wasn't trying to make it look worse by lying. I looked up Coon's FAQ and you are correct.

Bynum's 4 years should be
16.4 17.7 19.0 20.4

[Kidd Karma]

Originally Posted by Popeye

Bynum's not a superstar and at $16mm/year he's not a bargain. Anthony Davis is the more valuable player at $4 million a year.

Davis is a bargain now, and probably a Laker in 5 years.