sunk cost fallacy
if poodle is priced out and derozan ends up being a terrible fit, you move on
Knowing the fo, they will probably outbid themselves like they did with gasol and mills and give the kid a 4 year $45 mil contract...but now that Wright is the gm, maybe things will change.
sunk cost fallacy
if poodle is priced out and derozan ends up being a terrible fit, you move on
Nah - you trade them if you know they aren’t in future plans to ensure you optimize your ROI. It’s what good teams do a la Clippers with Harris last year.
im just sayin, ur decision to trade them or not to trade them, sign them or not sign them, shouldn't be based on the fact that you got them for kawhi
its an independent decision.
In theory but in business and with fans that pay to support you optics does come into play. Fallacy or not, it does.
I agree with what you are saying in a bubble, but this franchise and it’s direction is still being shaped by that very trade and you don’t let the assets you have just walk. It’s really inexcusable actually. If you know you aren’t keeping them, you absolutely are obligated to get something for them.
Having one extra season of them is not an acceptable ROI. The part of what you are saying that’s true for sure is regarding re-signing them. If they aren’t a good fit, you don’t do that just because you traded Kawhi for them.
But the other part? Trading them if that is true? That is not some fallacy and is in fact part of the actual equation.
you dont keep them just because you traded for them. you keep them because it is the right decision with respect to the roster, cap, etc., period.
as soon as your decision making factors in that you traded for them and therefore...., you are no longer being rational.
Yeah - that’s what I’m agreeing with. The decision to keep them or re-sign them has nothing to do with Kawhi. But the decision to trade them? It does.
thats not being rational
if you're going to be making sub-optimal decisions because "well, the fans will be pissed about that trade we made in 2018" then you should be fired
I am lost; how is trading someone that you know doesn’t fit and that you don’t want to re-sign “sub optimal”
And forget the fans; a good GM never misses an opportunity to squeeze every drop of value. Letting a guy walk vs getting an asset when you know they are walking is BAD GMing
im saying if your decision of whether or not to trade ddr/poodle is influenced by the fact that they were part of the kawhi trade, you're thinking backwards instead of forward
you cited fans and optics as reasons why that should be a consideration... i dont see how any of that is rational
I cited fans as part of the equation; not the entire equation. I thought I was pretty clear on the fact that letting Poeltl/DeRozan go if you know you don’t want them after next season and being left with Keldon only for Kawhi is bad GM’ing and the trade is still an active part of shaping the franchise as this point.
It’s not some sunk cost with zero control; the trade is still being fleshed out in terms of ROI over the years with the assets ac ulated.
Pretty much how every trade is valued/gauged. No different than trading Kawhi for a future pick. DeRozan/Poeltl are the future picks and it would be like just electing not to pick someone with those picks if you don’t trade them and just let them walk.
once they're on your team, whether its the right move to trade them, re-sign them, or let them walk, is 100% independent of who you traded to get them.
Let’s just disagree and it does not really matter. Kawhi or no Kawhi, its bad GM’ing to let them walk for nothing instead of trading them IF you know you don’t want them.
i agree with that. thats why im all for trading DDR. im just sayin you dont need to factor in kawhi deal to reach that conclusion
I get what you are saying; I just disagree. But really at the end of the day that aspect is not what is important.
I never said he's a bad passer, I said he's not a great one. How many high-lows did he have with LaMarcus last season? 0. The high-low pass is not a difficult thing. Same with the hammer play. How many times has he passed the ball to the 3-point shooter in the corner?
So you are picking specific plays to undermine the Value of Poeltl. Especially the second point with passes to three pointers is even a false one. He has made many passes to 3- Pointers (does not matter if corner or not, they have to be open), there were even some pretty ones.
General rule of thumb, with NBA players if by Year 3 they generally are who they are.. Not much can be done to improve a player after year 3, most analysts say they have reached their full potential by that point.
Is that part of the CBA? Interesting.
Big men aren't fully developed in 3 years. Maybe guards, not big men.
Yes I believe it is. I thought it was only one player then looked it up and looked like it was two for rookie. Someone with better CBA knowledge can correct me if wrong.
CBA looks like only one which is what I originally thought. Guess the other article I read was wrong. they were saying only one could be traded for but could have 2 on your team. Here is a better link that explains the CBA. Also extensions has to be as much as salary in rookie contract.
https://basketball.realgm.com/analys...ayer-Provision
Last edited by talkspurs; 07-26-2019 at 06:51 AM.
Compared to losing Kawhi for nothing, that's not a bad deal.
That goes for Big men as well.. By Yr 3 coaching staff know what they have or dont have in a player, and what they can expect.
There have been plenty of players that become very good much later on.
I wouldn't agree with that, not for big men. They tend take longer to reach their full potential, he's only 23, still has a way's to go before reaching his full potential.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)