Just a business? Malik vs. Malone

[ShoogarBear]

A lot of folks use the argument that trading Malik was just a business decision for the good of improving the team, and that emotion shouldn't play a role in it.

Some of those same people were also adamant about NOT signing the Mailman, because he was the power forward for the Axis of Evil or somesuch, even though that would also have been a decision made purely for the good of improving the team.

Addressing this question ONLY to those of you who a) were against Malone AND b) were for trading Malik (and I realize this isn't everyone): how do you reconcile that it's "just a business" in the latter, but a highly emotional decision in the former.

I ask strictly out of curiosity. (For the record, I was against trading Malik but leaned in favor of getting Malone, since it wasn't going to cost us anything.)

[DuncanMVP]

Rose needed to go but it had to be done

I really like Rose but hasnt done shit in a while on the court

[maxpower]

I wonder what effect Malone would have had? Would the Spurs have been less likely to be open to offers or making offers??

[ShoogarBear]

If Malone had signed, this trade wouldn't have happened.

[whottt]

I'd have rather had Malone with Malik than trade Rose for Mohammed.

[Dre_7]

Id rather have Malone too, but the trade was a good one. On the court, its a good trade, its just too bad that they hada give up such a great person. But Malik will be alright.

[Blazer16]

I was for trading Rose if we got a good deal. I don't know if Mohammed and Brewer counts...but aside from that- I was completely against getting Malone. I didn't mind him with the Jazz, hated him with the Lakers, and would have detested it if he had joined the Spurs.

[DuncanMVP]

I loved Malone as a Jazz

Hated Malone with a passion as a Laker

Wanted Malone to sign as Spur

[Useruser666]

I think this trade still goes down with or with out Malone. It still clears salary.

[spurster]

Why against the Evil El Bow? Should I be for Evil or against Evil? Tough Q.

On trading Malik: Many of us felt that his contract would become unreasonable as the pay raises kicked in. Sentimentally, he is hard to let go (only Duncan is left now from the 99 title team), but in reality, a future trade was in the cards the day that contract was signed. Of course, without that contract, he would have gone to the Lakers, so it has worked out for the best. The Spurs kept Malik around for a few more years than they might have, and he was a significant contributor to the 03 title.

Nothing is forever in the NBA, especially for a bench player.

[ShoogarBear]

Why against the Evil El Bow? Should I be for Evil or against Evil? Tough Q.

On trading Malik: Many of us felt that his contract would become unreasonable as the pay raises kicked in. Sentimentally, he is hard to let go (only Duncan is left now from the 99 title team), but in reality, a future trade was in the cards the day that contract was signed. Of course, without that contract, he would have gone to the Lakers, so it has worked out for the best. The Spurs kept Malik around for a few more years than they might have, and he was a significant contributor to the 03 title.

Nothing is forever in the NBA, especially for a bench player.

Thanks for actually answering. But you just underscored my point.

Your answer about Malone was strictly emotional. Your answer about Malik was businesslike.

How come you couldn't be businesslike about signing Malone? Nothing is forever in the NBA.

[GhostofAlfrederickHughes]

This is a great thread. However, it's a little bit of mixing apples and chimichangas to compare the two situations. But what the hell, I'll weigh in with my 2 cents....

I was anti-Malone, but am OK with the Malik deal. For the record, I don't think anyone is 'FOR' the Malik deal inasmuch as we all hate to see Malik the person go. That interview with Don Harris was pretty heartbreaking, I don't think any of us don't feel for Malik.

But the fact is this: as much as Malik worked hard, gave back to the community, and was important to the Spurs, he's still an expendable player. That is to say---despite the huge contract----he's not a 'franchise' player, or part of the overall nucleus that the Spurs are setting in place. The 'nucleus' of this team---that Pop, R.C., and Holt have invested in for the next 6-7 years, consists of exactly THREE players: Manu, Tim, and Tony. Everyone else fits in around that scheme. Malik Rose is a guy with a lot of heart, a tough scrapper who fits in well on ANY team. But he's also getting paid waaay too much money for just 'intangibles' like being loved by the fans.
(And you can fault the same Spurs' brass for giving him that contract in the first place, but that's another issue to visit later). The fact is, his contract prevents the Spurs from making moves like bringing in a potential sharpshooter like Luis Scola, or signing the 'next' Brent Barry, or maybe keeping Udrih around in a couple of years when some team throws just a little extra cash his way that the Spurs can't match (remember Speedy Claxton)?

So the 'pro-Malik trade' boils down to this. It frees up $$$ for the future, and also gives you a little muscle up front for this season (and presumably next, since Mohammed is under contract at a reasonable 5.5 million for next year). Yes, you give up a solid citizen, but it's not like the Spurs locker room is going to fall apart just because of this deal. We didn't suddenly become Portland, for God's sake.

Now let's look at Malone. My problem with Malone was not that he once clocked David Robinson in the head, or bashed a pinata in the hallway of the 'Dome. Basically, the problem with Malone was, he was more interested in padding his own resume with its missing piece (a championship ring) than really contributing to the team. I don't really think he would have affected team chemistry---any more than Malik going will----but just the thought of him coming in with the season 2/3 over and getting to enjoy a championship?
I think that would have been a slap in the face to the guys who have toiled for the Spurs over the years (including Malik!)

Sorry to go on, but anyway, that's how this fan sees it....

[spurster]

Your answer about Malone was strictly emotional.
I guess I was too subtle.

Your answer about Malik was businesslike.
Ok, here's how rational decision-making works. You factor in all your values (emotional, moral, ethical, business, whatever) and you make the best decision under those assumptions. WIth Malone, one might have a level of disgust so high that it simply outweighs all the other factors (or maybe you might figure out someday that having personal villians (and heroes) is part of the entertainment). With Malik or any other NBA player, good citizenship is not going to outweigh so-so play on the court. As morally good as, say, the Pope is, it would be insane to sign him now for $10M/year.

[ShoogarBear]

Your points on Malik are very thoughtful and reasonable, but what still gets me is that neither of you could bring yourself to write the slightest acknowledgment of the ways that signing Malone would have made the Spurs better!

Now that's hate!

:lol