No, I'm saying that if a Murray, Mills, Green, Anderson perimeter wins the same number of games than a DeRozan led perimeter, then the logical conclusion could be that DeRozan might not be as irreplaceable as you seem to think he is.
Dude, really? I don’t know what is disingenuous at all. We aren’t talking about Duncan led teams. It’s a very specific LMA/Murray type team.
Green/Anderson/Manu/TP/Pau are now White/Forbes/Lonnie/Poeltl/Carroll. I don’t think it’s at all a stretch to say the latter is more talented and it’s most certainly not disingenuous
He’s a depreciating asset. You sell when you can get the most value for him.
You can get value by using your car. That doesn’t mean riding out a depreciating asset until it’s broke down and worthless is somehow a smart move. You’re eventually going to have to buy new - or - trade in and hopefully maximize value.
Your analogy doesn’t even work that well for SA since it presumes that the value of cap space for a small market is the same as at a place like Houston or golden state. Yes, using DDR now provides value in the near term. That doesn’t mean that letting his contract expire maximizes value for the franchise in the long term.
Spurs get Andre Drummond , Otto Porter JR
Chicago gets Mills , Metu and 2020 first from spurs and pistons
Pistons get DDR , Marco
This. More to the point, they haven’t made moves that suggest that Derozan is in their long term plans. Quite the opposite. Why hold on to a car that you don’t want to even drive?
You really can keep a car its whole life without selling it. I know a lot of people who have cars for 20 years or more and make out just fine. And that's in a world where cars get better, which isn't a concern in the NBA. Newer cars are inherently better than older cars, but newer players aren't necessarily better than older ones.
The point is that no one really cares about "value" except for folks like Morey and Hinkie. Like sure, if you're going to trade him, you want the most you think you can get. But what determines if you trade someone isn't how much they're worth. That's bull moneyball logic that doesn't work in a sport where team dynamics matter. DeRozan is a person, not just an "asset". His value is in what he can give, not in what he'd go for on EBay. Teams that win the trade war rarely win anything of consequence on the court. SA has long not been that kind of team, and their record speaks for itself.Your analogy doesn’t even work that well for SA since it presumes that the value of cap space for a small market is the same as at a place like Houston or golden state. Yes, using DDR now provides value in the near term. That doesn’t mean that letting his contract expire maximizes value for the franchise in the long term.
pro derozan posters are ed in the head
Unfair. The other team had TP and Manu. Derozan didn't have Muray. Infact of those players Derozan had Mills. This would be the year you really evaluate what a DD team could do, but with so many young prospects, trading DD is a viable option if the return is good enough.
So two things; You sound like you think trading DeRozan would be a mistake, is that accurate?
Also, you said LAC was not comparable, is that because of market? Because market had nothing to do with the logic of trading Harris; teams like PHI don’t give up more to LAC because Harris plays there vs SA.
And I dont understand the bas izing of my logic. I’m not saying SA made the playoffs because they didn’t have DeRozan. I said they were good enough to make it without him.
Yes, SA has made the playoffs without LMA too; but saying “trade LMA” because SA made the playoffs without him too is not what I am talking about.
I can definitely see the Bulls as a legit trade partner. I’m sure they’re dying to make the playoffs, they got some nice young core pieces too. I’d take Porter, and Wendell Carter
DeRozan for Beal!
This. This right here is disingenuous. It wasn't an Aldridge/Murray team. It was an Aldridge team with tremendous defensive core in a league where three teams that missed (DEN, LAC and LAL) are practically playoff locks and one other (DAL) may well make it, against only two obvious drops (OKC and MIN) who theoretically could still make it. It's not the same. It's not even close to the same. Murray was a JAG on that team. He was a piece of a core, but simply having him in there isn't going to make up for everyone else they've lost.
It's certainly not straight-forward. You have four le-winning vets (and three HoFers) and an actualize Anderson versus a bunch of unproven guys or guys who were solid role-players. Based on pure talent, maybe you could argue. But based on track record and recent ability, you really can't.Green/Anderson/Manu/TP/Pau are now White/Forbes/Lonnie/Poeltl/Carroll. I don’t think it’s at all a stretch to say the latter is more talented and it’s most certainly not disingenuous
Well yeah, but TP/Manu weren’t prime players. Them being HOF helped them sustain value but they aren’t more talented and I don’t see what is disingenuous about saying talent > other factors when projecting wins/losses.
I didn’t say it was a LMA/Murray-led team; I was using an example of who was on that team and would be on this team with large roles. They were the main two then and now.
What will make up for what is lost from then and now (not including DeRozan since he wasn’t there) is White is much better than he was then, Carroll and Poeltl are here and Lonnie is now talent wise available.
Plus whatever you get for DeRozan is now added to that mix. It’s not some stretch to call that more talented and able to make the playoffs just like before.
You can keep a car until it doesn’t run anymore. That doesn’t mean that it’s the smart thing to do, particularly where the goal is to have the best car out of 30. That the spurs can hold onto DDR doesn’t mean they should. It sounds like you’re answering a question that hasn’t been asked.
Every team is concerned with value. Otherwise, no team would make a trade for team-betterment purposes. Why do you think the Spurs sent Kawhi away? They still had him under contract for one more year. Using your logic, the Spurs were supposed to hold onto him and get that last $20MM of value.
And yes, obviously, DDR is a person. No one suggested otherwise. That doesn’t mean what he can give the Spurs is necessarily the best that the team can get. That’s why trades happen.
Market totally had to do with why they're "just fine" rather than a mediocre directionless team. Regardless, the Clippers waited until the deadline to deal Harris. They didn't move him early. They used him to win games and then dealt him. That's not what you're advocating. There isn't an obvious offer from a desperate team we're debating. You want the Spurs to try to get the most for him now because you believe it will only go down hill from here. West didn't do that.
The dynamics are different; it’s known now that DeRozan is not getting an extension. That was not the case with Harris hence they could wait because he was not expected to walk. DeRozan is. That drives the value down.
Lot of revisionism in here. 2017-2018 with Murray/Green/Anderson and a healthy Gasol was probably the best defensive Spurs team of the past ten years.
Parker and Ginobili were also on that perimeter and that makes a big difference. I understand though, your hatred for DeRozan blinds you.
Also, this team doesn't have the roster spots to even take back hardly anyone without getting a third team involved.
That’s how a good percentage of trades go down, quite common actually
One point some of you seems to undervalue is the fact that Murray is the big time bet that patfo was thinking to have won since last year...to the point they were said willing to play him a lot (till his injury). LW4 game looks like very very similar to DDR one...if PATFO wants to put him on court from the start this probably means DDR is on the trade block just like an obvious consequence. The summer league and the way LW4 has been used, played and then took out of games seems to comfort this perspective...the fact that the back court roles are full (White, Forbes, DJM, Belli, Walker, Quindary, Mills) put DDR out of his preferred role. In few words, he'a actually a good fit for our team if he plays at the three all time long...because with Murray back, White playing well and Walker needing the ball in his hands (and Mills in case of emergency) his secondary play making skills are not so needed anymore.
I understand Chinook point, and I partially agree with the fact that without DDR we were out of play offs...that said, every player is also a market asset and if the signs are that he's not gonna be a long term player for your team you better watch out and make some deal.
Frankly that's what patfo did with n° 2 but did it too late...and don't tell me that what we received was his actual trade value...or that last season was not put in danger of being a non play offs team.
If you let a contract of an important player expire you have a problem and you better find out some solutions...but this don't mean that replacing him before his expiring can't be the best solution.
TP was one of the worst players in the NBA at that point.
DeRozan didn't have Murray, but he had White: a better player that fit DeRozan's game better too.
If you go player by player it's pretty much imposible to come up with the conclusion that the 2018 roster was better than the 2019 one.
Parker was one of the worst NBA players at that time
Manu was Nice. Not better than White though.
If you have a car for 20 years and then just buy a newer version of that car, it's fine. Cars get better, so older cars become less valuable faster than their mere age implies. If cars stayed the same, the basic math behind when you should buy a new one would look completely different.
Nah. You took the analogy into a different place. The point of the argument is that the car having less trade-in value alone isn't a reason why you should sell then. Let's say you'd get $1000 bucks less in trade-in if you sold it two years later. You could totally get $1000 worth of value just by not having to make car payments during those years or avoid an insurance hike. In that same way, DeRozan's value is that he can win the Spurs games while Murray, White and Walker prove themselves. Once they do, then you can consider a DeRozan trade, and if you get less then, it was still worth it because you had him winning games for you during that time.It sounds like you’re answering a question that hasn’t been asked.
Nah. Kawhi said he didn't want to be there anymore. That completely changes the calculus. If DeRozan also wanted out, of course they should move him.Every team is concerned with value. Otherwise, no team would make a trade for team-betterment purposes. Why do you think the Spurs sent Kawhi away? They still had him under contract for one more year. Using your logic, the Spurs were supposed to hold onto him and get that last $20MM of value.
You're missing the point. Rather, you're making a point we weren't arguing. Are there possible DeRozan trades that would benefit the team? Yes. But should they look to trade him now simply because teams may offer less later? No. You jumped into this discussion when I was arguing over if DeRozan's depreciating value meant you should try to trade him ASAP. If you want to just say there are possibly good DeRozan trades that PATFO should consider, that's really not the point we were discussing when you came in.And yes, obviously, DDR is a person. No one suggested otherwise. That doesn’t mean what he can give the Spurs is necessarily the best that the team can get. That’s why trades happen.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
