Nuggets - Grizzlies

[offtheheezy]

Sorry was driving

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.

This I generally agree. One thing here is that I'm under the impression that the Nuggets are not, or at least right now are not planning to rebuild. If they were planning on rebuilding, then yes, this proposal is not the one to take. I believe they still want to re-tool and make improvements elsewhere.

Picks down the line are generally the difference makers for teams and for the exact reason why you were saying it's a potential asset and not a guaranteed one, the other future firsts have a similar attribute. We've had trades like Wallace Bryant for Michael Jordan. John Drew for Drazen Petrovic. Phil Ford for Patrick Ewing. There are trades that are done for the hope that the future assets will pan out. Understand about the Lakers protection but it's unprotected the year after. But these are great points.

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.

I think this trade makes him worse right now but provides him with actual avenues to improve instead of slowly rotting away while he waits for '93 is the main thing. He may be a new GM but he has a strong support network here and has generally talked a lot of trade with his so-called "agents"

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.

This. If the Nuggets didn't send out '91 and '92 for Freeman and Bird, then this trade is awful for them. Fact of the matter is, they did and right now their team isn't that good. So they have the choice of either rotting away for 4 years and hoping that some magic DC change will make them from late lottery to contenders, rebuilding fully and trying to get as many picks back as possible (which is tough since rebuilding teams now have some of them, besides the Celtics ones that only the '90 one is probably the valuable one), or re-tooling. IDK how they will dump the Bird contract, so might as well try to re-tool and utilize him while he's good is what I was thinking.

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.

#1 is true that Barkley is the best player, although I disagree on by how much I think. I think he has some good assets coming back his way.
#2 yes. But also, they will be over the hard cap with their 4 players in 2 years. I still think the Bird trade is the root cause for all of this.
#3 It's thin but people are winning championships playing their centers at PF.

[dd10snoop28]

Well, now all the Nets' conspiracy theorist GM's can focus their energy on magic/nuggets trades. One good thing has come out of this.

[offtheheezy]

Well, now all the Nets' conspiracy theorist GM's can focus their energy on magic/nuggets trades. One good thing has come out of this.

Magic/Nuggets will die down soon enough, and Nets' conspiracies will regain strength and last forever as I see your team demolishing everybody

[Skyhooker]

I don't know where to start.

[DrBradBuss]

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

So the gist of what you posted here is that you did everything you could to help the Nuggets and in fact overpaid for two guys in Drexler and Barkley that have proven they can't win in the West? And you play in the West.

No, this doesn't come across as biased at all.

But I will say we've had much worse approved and I'm against this veto.

[UOducksTK1]

I don't know where to start.

Lol

[offtheheezy]

So the gist of what you posted here is that you did everything you could to help the Nuggets and in fact overpaid for two guys in Drexler and Barkley that have proven they can't win in the West? And you play in the West.

No, this doesn't come across as biased at all.

But I will say we've had much worse approved and I'm against this veto.

Edit: Pretty much yes. I actually do think I overpaid for two guys that have proven they can't win in the West as they are right now alone. Barkley at this point in his career is closer to a Larry Smith than he is to a Sampson. Nets bring up a lot of good points about youth, contract, and article upgrades that would help him get better. Career highs of 44.1% FG as a PF-locked player, and 62.6% FT. That proving the point that if Drazen walks my '91 and '92 1sts may be more valuable than people think. (hopefully not though...)

I'm merely trying to list out the reasons why Nuggets may want (or more like have to) trade Barkley, regardless of whether it's this specific deal vs. not. The best deal would be to at least the '91 and '92 back along with another top prospect (#1-#3 in this upcoming draft or something) and just completely rebuild, slowly dumping their contracts and staying steady in '89/'90.

I think there's a legitimate argument to be made that the Nuggets should not trade Barkley at all and should do anything in their power to just salary dump one of the other max guys on their squad even if it means that they give them up for free. (Because the league has been pretty stingy with trades in general recently and he's not going to get full value out of any of his guys). That trade using the same logic here would also get vetoed then. Or that they are giving up way too early in the season. If that's the way people want to look at it that's totally fine IMO. See a lot of merit to that argument. It's just team building concepts that differ at this point. I like making a shitload of trades so gaining assets and trying to make lots of trades with small marginal increases every time is how I view it. Would love to hear what people thinks he should do instead though as a viable alternative - things should be treated as sunk cost and make the best out of the current situation and not regret old trades.

Don't think the Magic-Suns was a veto, and personally don't think this is close to a veto either. All in all, I understand the need for vetoes as well though even if sometimes I disagree, since I think Ownage/TK/this league does a good job in protecting new GMs and making sure things don't get too ridiculous in the league. But it's surprising to me that this trade is considered lopsided enough for a veto, especially with some trades that get passed through without a single thought. Seems like the general thought is that the majority of people may not agree with the trade, but also don't think it's a veto.

If Nuggets GM counts as a newcomer, I'm good with that as the reason. Should probably clarify as what counts as a newcomer though as it doesn't seem to be time-based, since I didn't view Magic GM as a newcomer either. Just didn't think this or the Magic/Suns trade fell into that bucket.

[lukeyrid13]

I'll give my 2 cents since I spoke with both of the GMs during their talks

- Short term
Grizzlies win the trade and become the clear favorites in the West for the next 2-3 seasons.

Nuggets also arguably improve. They get a shot blocker in Eaton and Cliff fills in decently in the Barkley spot at PF. They also stay neutral/upgrade at the 2 with Banks

Long Term
This is where most people will have complaints I think. The Nuggets still have work to do after this trade. On paper: Stockton, Bird, Eaton, Cliff, Banks, freeman etc should for sure be a playoff team. Add in 6 picks and the Nuggets have some pieces to work with.

The main thing I noticed/pointed out to the Nuggets, is that the 6 picks themselves aren't especially great. He would need to work to flip those picks. If he had another deal in place to flip 2-3 picks for an all-star or work to move up in upcoming drafts etc that would be fine. The Nuggets have ZERO salary fillers though if this trade goes through as processed. They almost have to sit on the 6 picks and just hope that they pan out



Overall, I think people are overvaluing Barkley a little bit (he's top 10-20 to me, not top 10) and undervaluing Cliff. There's an argument for both sides on the veto/not veto