Nuggets - Grizzlies

[Foxyg1396]

Nuggets Timeline:
- Suck
- Draft Barkley
- Surround Barkely with other young stars
- Make WCF
- Acquire old Bird
- Slow start to season
- Trade Barkley and Drexler for "more leverage"

Can someone please make this make sense to me?

I think everyone is looking at the picks and not the players I got back. None of them are “bad” players, we will see how everything pans out

[Oregon Ownage]

Vetoed as currently constructed

Nuggets are dealing the best player in the deal for lesser assets when not owning their own picks for many years

[The Bean Regime]

Ok... We're getting a little ridiculous here. Magic's veto, sure, I get it. How is this one even in the realm of?

"Nuggets are dealing the best player in the deal for lesser assets." Yeah, no s***, that's what a package deal is. Because he traded future picks, he's only allowed to assemble packages for players and not take them? With what?

Second, y'all are overstating Barkley. Stop sucking his name-value dick for a second. His best season is 18 PPG on terrible percentages. He's not a Tarpley or McHale offensively. Cliff's not that far behind him and even managed seasons of 14 and 16 PPG when not used in a very fast outside offense (at SF before this season as well). The difference between the two is a bpg (substantial. Goes from good to great rim protecting) and a non-option to a third option on offense. Those are big deals (and hence why it's worth a million 1sts) but y'all are acting like he's receiving s*** players in return. That's not even mentioning Banks, a legitimate #2 option as is. I even told Grizzlies that I thought if he managed to keep his current production (obviously not guaranteed) consistent (no improvement, no decline) over 5 years, he'd be worth the 11.5M max he'd be eligible for.

I'd mention Drexler but really no one cares about him in this deal.

Whatever.

[dd10snoop28]

Ok... We're getting a little ridiculous here. Magic's veto, sure, I get it. How is this one even in the realm of?

"Nuggets are dealing the best player in the deal for lesser assets." Yeah, no s***, that's what a package deal is. Because he traded future picks, he's only allowed to assemble packages for players and not take them? With what?

Second, y'all are overstating Barkley. Stop sucking his name-value dick for a second. His best season is 18 PPG on terrible percentages. He's not a Tarpley or McHale offensively. Cliff's not that far behind him and even managed seasons of 14 and 16 PPG when not used in a very fast outside offense (at SF before this season as well). The difference between the two is a bpg (substantial. Goes from good to great rim protecting) and a non-option to a third option on offense. Those are big deals (and hence why it's worth a million 1sts) but y'all are acting like he's receiving s*** players in return. That's not even mentioning Banks, a legitimate #2 option as is. I even told Grizzlies that I thought if he managed to keep his current production (obviously not guaranteed) consistent (no improvement, no decline) over 5 years, he'd be worth the 11.5M max he'd be eligible for.

I'd mention Drexler but really no one cares about him in this deal.

Whatever.

You are right in saying that this is not veto worthy but you are absolutely underselling Barkley's value.

1987 Nuggets 76 35.7 499 1179 .423 402 641 .627 4 23 .174 13.0 1.5 1.3 3.1 2.4 5 18.5

These are his stats from a full season last year. That's elite. Only thing where he is deficient is that his %'s are low, but every other part of his game is at the highest level in the league for his position. Additionally, all you need to do is plug a couple of +5's to his scoring and you have the making of an MVP-type player. Also consider the qualitative aspect of Barkley which contributes to his extremely high value:
- 25yrs old
- improves nearly each TC since in the league (still B pot)
- stats are not inflated (played for team that won WCF)
- locked into a max deal
- league is devoid of PF talent


I'd argue that Barkley is top 10 player in terms of value for the reasons above.

[offtheheezy]

I’ll try to be as unbiased as I can be since I just want to get clarity over the veto decision.

Usually I’ve noticed that vetoes are more defense oriented, as in done when a team seems to be mortgaging their future for little gain. For contenders getting players for cheap, this seems to be fine since the giving team is only losing the player itself.

In this scenario, I would’ve thought if there was a veto it would be for me not for the Nuggets . I was beginning to question whether I made the right move.

Here’s my thoughts in terms of the situation.

1. Nuggets, for whatever bizarre reason, are not good this year. Even when fully healthy they just lost to the Sonics and the freaking Magic. They have no way to improve from here, and every year it will only get worse. Next year their starting five is $60M cap hold, and they’ll be without Freeman. You can say the Bird trade caused this and was a bad move, but Nuggets tried to steer their team back to contention with a risky move, and safe to say the early results are not very promising. This plus Sabonis their only legitimate big besides Barkley on the roster expiring and they can max give him $3M a year.

2. This trade gave the Nuggets an opportunity to take 1 step back, 2 steps forward with some moves. Barkley is freaking good and he’s young. That’s obviously why I would do this trade. But let’s not kid ourselves into thinking he’s anything more than an elite defender and an elite rebounder right now. He’s entering year 6 and it’s not realistic that he makes huge strides besides articles and some luck. He has horrible percentages indicating a poor jumpshot, he has an A rebounding which may indicate more of a Laimbeer where his inside is based more on his athleticism and not scoring abilities. All to say that a 3 year older Cliff also locked in for 4 years is a pretty comparable player. (Literally only is off by a half grade in rebounding in terms of ratings themselves)

3. Drexler is a bit overpaid and somethings gotta go for the Nuggets. Nobody is gonna touch that Bird contract. He needs to move one of the other three and every year he waits their value depreciates. Stockton I know personally doesn’t have as much value as he should. If Barkley doesn’t make offensive strides this upcoming year, perception begins to swing.

4. Nuggets made WCF last year. Let’s not forget though that they were still a 7th seed that played well in the playoffs. There is not a history of consistent success.

All to say, Nuggets getting Eaton, Banks, Cliff Robinson, Wolves 89, Lakers 92 (the two potential lottos) would be pretty amazing value for Barkley. I would even say it may be close to an overpay. Not like any of those three are even expiring this year and they all have bird rights.

Then you evaluate whether Drexler is worth 89 Mavs, 90 Jazz, 91 Grizz, 92 Grizz. Drazen expires in ‘91. Picks are unprotected and Barkley and Drexler have shown they can’t win in the West. Nuggets get off the 6 year max of Drexler. Seems good to me. Now Nuggets have Eaton - Cliff - Bird - Banks/Freeman - Stockton and 6 picks to improve their squad. Future seems brighter.

Obviously this comes off super biased bc if I’m saying this why did I do the trade? I’ve been looking to consolidate my pieces for quite some time now. I’m not gonna be closer to winning by picking more mid rounders. I have too many players that need minutes and not enough stars. This is my attempt at starpower. Barkley is elite, but this package I feel is pretty damn good and not sure if anyone could even produce one better for Barkley right now.

I’m ok with the veto because I started being on the edge of this trade after I accepted. Just think the reasons for veto are a little rushed and not really thought out.

Curious to hear why people think it should be vetoed. Maybe I am overvaluing my players or something. I genuinely just want to know

[Craig]

This is not the Barkley trade I would make if I were the Nuggets but we process far worse once or twice per season.

[dd10snoop28]

Quality > quantity.

Nugs are getting lot of average-value assets for one extremely high-value asset.

Lakers '92 probably holds the most value and that pick is still 4yrs off so there is no telling what will happen between now and then.

You HAVE to get at least one asset that you know will pan out (prospect or pick).

w/ that being said, I still don't think it's veto-worthy.

[Boom]

This is not the Barkley trade I would make if I were the Nuggets but we process far worse once or twice per season.

Agreed, but I believe he's a new GM.

[vincent1469]

Would it be possible to hold this to a vote? It seems there are several arguments for both sides.

[Boom]

I’ll try to be as unbiased as I can be since I just want to get clarity over the veto decision.

Usually I’ve noticed that vetoes are more defense oriented, as in done when a team seems to be mortgaging their future for little gain. For contenders getting players for cheap, this seems to be fine since the giving team is only losing the player itself.

In this scenario, I would’ve thought if there was a veto it would be for me not for the Nuggets . I was beginning to question whether I made the right move.

Here’s my thoughts in terms of the situation.

1. Nuggets, for whatever bizarre reason, are not good this year. Even when fully healthy they just lost to the Sonics and the freaking Magic. They have no way to improve from here, and every year it will only get worse. Next year their starting five is $60M cap hold, and they’ll be without Freeman. You can say the Bird trade caused this and was a bad move, but Nuggets tried to steer their team back to contention with a risky move, and safe to say the early results are not very promising. This plus Sabonis their only legitimate big besides Barkley on the roster expiring and they can max give him $3M a year.

2. This trade gave the Nuggets an opportunity to take 1 step back, 2 steps forward with some moves. Barkley is freaking good and he’s young. That’s obviously why I would do this trade. But let’s not kid ourselves into thinking he’s anything more than an elite defender and an elite rebounder right now. He’s entering year 6 and it’s not realistic that he makes huge strides besides articles and some luck. He has horrible percentages indicating a poor jumpshot, he has an A rebounding which may indicate more of a Laimbeer where his inside is based more on his athleticism and not scoring abilities. All to say that a 3 year older Cliff also locked in for 4 years is a pretty comparable player. (Literally only is off by a half grade in rebounding in terms of ratings themselves)

3. Drexler is a bit overpaid and somethings gotta go for the Nuggets. Nobody is gonna touch that Bird contract. He needs to move one of the other three and every year he waits their value depreciates. Stockton I know personally doesn’t have as much value as he should. If Barkley doesn’t make offensive strides this upcoming year, perception begins to swing.

4. Nuggets made WCF last year. Let’s not forget though that they were still a 7th seed that played well in the playoffs. There is not a history of consistent success.

All to say, Nuggets getting Eaton, Banks, Cliff Robinson, Wolves 89, Lakers 92 (the two potential lottos) would be pretty amazing value for Barkley. I would even say it may be close to an overpay. Not like any of those three are even expiring this year and they all have bird rights.

Then you evaluate whether Drexler is worth 89 Mavs, 90 Jazz, 91 Grizz, 92 Grizz. Drazen expires in ‘91. Picks are unprotected and Barkley and Drexler have shown they can’t win in the West. Nuggets get off the 6 year max of Drexler. Seems good to me. Now Nuggets have Eaton - Cliff - Bird - Banks/Freeman - Stockton and 6 picks to improve their squad. Future seems brighter.

Obviously this comes off super biased bc if I’m saying this why did I do the trade? I’ve been looking to consolidate my pieces for quite some time now. I’m not gonna be closer to winning by picking more mid rounders. I have too many players that need minutes and not enough stars. This is my attempt at starpower. Barkley is elite, but this package I feel is pretty damn good and not sure if anyone could even produce one better for Barkley right now.

I’m ok with the veto because I started being on the edge of this trade after I accepted. Just think the reasons for veto are a little rushed and not really thought out.

Curious to hear why people think it should be vetoed. Maybe I am overvaluing my players or something. I genuinely just want to know

I think the biggest issue is he's a new GM and he traded away all of his picks. This trade makes him worse and doesn't help him moving forward.

Drexler is definitely not worth his contract. He's just average.... but so are all of those picks you sent him.

[dd10snoop28]

Quality > quantity.

Nugs are getting lot of average-value assets for one extremely high-value asset.

Lakers '92 probably holds the most value and that pick is still 4yrs off so there is no telling what will happen between now and then.

You HAVE to get at least one asset that you know will pan out (prospect or pick).

w/ that being said, I still don't think it's veto-worthy.

eek. didn't see that lakers pick was top 5 protected so it probably doesn't have the most value.

what is the highest value asset that nugs receive in this trade? probably wolves '92 which is fringe lottery pick. mehhhh

[the goat]

Quality > quantity.

Nugs are getting lot of average-value assets for one extremely high-value asset.

Agreed.

1. Barkley is the best player in the trade by far. Nuggets are giving up a two-dollar bill for some quarters and a bunch of dimes that could turn out to be a dollar.

2. IMO the Nuggets basically cut their contending/competitive window in half. Bird's got 3-4 good years in him, but Barkley was locked up through his prime.

3. As mentioned, PF is a thin position and Barkley is the best one. And he hasn't even peaked.

[dd10snoop28]

Moral of the story is don't be impatient if your team is off to a slow start. The consequences of a deal made in haste could impact team for years to come.

Nuggets were in a great position w/ Barkley, Stockton, and Sabonis but then put themselves in a very bad cap situation by making a hasty trade for Bird. Now they have 3 max players with Sabonis expiring in two years which is/was problematic.

[Craig]

This is not the Barkley trade I would make if I were the Nuggets but we process far worse once or twice per season.

Agreed, but I believe he's a new GM.

Did he get newer since the Vlad trade or when giving up a 1st four years out for Bird?

[Craig]

Also Bean Regime with the strong stance! Love it