Warriors / Lakers

[lukeyrid13]

It also benefits teams who are smart with their cap and properly using bird rights to acquire talent

[Craig]

So should Warriors be allowed to cut Kevin McHale and Tim McCormick?

That's blatant tanking. At least taking the time to trade them for matching expirings + a 2nd rounder shows the effort to properly rebuild.

It's the same argument for starting your best players. If we could just cut them all, then it opens the doors to tanking. Not healthy.

I guess I brought up the question to ask why cutting him is blatant tanking but trading him for a guy crappy enough to cut isn't.

I didn't mean to trigger cellar-door into a spiral though lol I was just kinda trying to figure out where the spirit of "anti-tanking" starts/ends. These exact players probably aren't worth the investment in discussion lol just was thinking about the general concept.

[UOducksTK1]

So should Warriors be allowed to cut Kevin McHale and Tim McCormick?

That's blatant tanking. At least taking the time to trade them for matching expirings + a 2nd rounder shows the effort to properly rebuild.

It's the same argument for starting your best players. If we could just cut them all, then it opens the doors to tanking. Not healthy.

I guess I brought up the question to ask why cutting him is blatant tanking but trading him for a guy crappy enough to cut isn't.

I didn't mean to trigger cellar-door into a spiral though lol I was just kinda trying to figure out where the spirit of "anti-tanking" starts/ends. These exact players probably aren't worth the investment in discussion lol just was thinking about the general concept.

Cuz cutting starters is just silly. Why do we then require you to start your best players? We could argue that rule too.

I probably would have asked for a 2nd if I was the Warriors. IF you want to get mad, get mad at the guys who take on guys for free. But if that's the way the market is, that's the way the market is. Blame the market, not the rule. The rule makes sense.

[Cellar-door]

So should Warriors be allowed to cut Kevin McHale and Tim McCormick?

That's blatant tanking. At least taking the time to trade them for matching expirings + a 2nd rounder shows the effort to properly rebuild.

It's the same argument for starting your best players. If we could just cut them all, then it opens the doors to tanking. Not healthy.

I guess I brought up the question to ask why cutting him is blatant tanking but trading him for a guy crappy enough to cut isn't.

I didn't mean to trigger cellar-door into a spiral though lol I was just kinda trying to figure out where the spirit of "anti-tanking" starts/ends. These exact players probably aren't worth the investment in discussion lol just was thinking about the general concept.

Cuz cutting starters is just silly. Why do we then require you to start your best players? We could argue that rule too.

I probably would have asked for a 2nd if I was the Warriors. IF you want to get mad, get mad at the guys who take on guys for free. But if that's the way the market is, that's the way the market is. Blame the market, not the rule. The rule makes sense.

The rule makes no sense. The league shouldn't be able to tell you that you can't cut a guy, but then tell you that you can trade that guy straight up for a worse player and cut the worse player. It's nonsensical and it's bad for the league.

If the league is going to determine which players you can and can't cut (and that's fine) then the league should also require that you get something in a trade for them.

[Craig]

So should Warriors be allowed to cut Kevin McHale and Tim McCormick?

That's blatant tanking. At least taking the time to trade them for matching expirings + a 2nd rounder shows the effort to properly rebuild.

It's the same argument for starting your best players. If we could just cut them all, then it opens the doors to tanking. Not healthy.

I guess I brought up the question to ask why cutting him is blatant tanking but trading him for a guy crappy enough to cut isn't.

I didn't mean to trigger cellar-door into a spiral though lol I was just kinda trying to figure out where the spirit of "anti-tanking" starts/ends. These exact players probably aren't worth the investment in discussion lol just was thinking about the general concept.

Cuz cutting starters is just silly. Why do we then require you to start your best players? We could argue that rule too.

I probably would have asked for a 2nd if I was the Warriors. IF you want to get mad, get mad at the guys who take on guys for free. But if that's the way the market is, that's the way the market is. Blame the market, not the rule. The rule makes sense.

Ok we'll try again lol. Why is cutting starters or benching your best players silly but trading your starters for garbage you cut is any less silly?

Again I couldn't give a f*** about Keith freakin Edmundson lol. I'm just more interested in practices/habits more than the specifics of this trade.

[UOducksTK1]

So should Warriors be allowed to cut Kevin McHale and Tim McCormick?

That's blatant tanking. At least taking the time to trade them for matching expirings + a 2nd rounder shows the effort to properly rebuild.

It's the same argument for starting your best players. If we could just cut them all, then it opens the doors to tanking. Not healthy.

I guess I brought up the question to ask why cutting him is blatant tanking but trading him for a guy crappy enough to cut isn't.

I didn't mean to trigger cellar-door into a spiral though lol I was just kinda trying to figure out where the spirit of "anti-tanking" starts/ends. These exact players probably aren't worth the investment in discussion lol just was thinking about the general concept.

Cuz cutting starters is just silly. Why do we then require you to start your best players? We could argue that rule too.

I probably would have asked for a 2nd if I was the Warriors. IF you want to get mad, get mad at the guys who take on guys for free. But if that's the way the market is, that's the way the market is. Blame the market, not the rule. The rule makes sense.

Ok we'll try again lol. Why is cutting starters or benching your best players silly but trading your starters for garbage you cut is any less silly?

Again I couldn't give a f*** about Keith freakin Edmundson. I'm just more interested in practices/behavior more than results.

Because it's tanking and unrealistic. Teams don't just cut 2-3 starters on their team. And teams don't just bench those healthy players for crap players.

It's inherently tanking, I don't know how much more I can explain it. And while I agree trading starters for flat out expirings is a little lame. The relative talent of starters for Lakers is pretty low value, so trading them for expirings makes sense.

I think the more underlying principle is you need to work at it if you want to get worse. And also, there may be value in it for the Lakers. I promise you if the Lakers asked for a 2nd rounder for Edmonson, there would have been a taker. But if he just wants to go the quick, cheaper route. Go for it.

There are so many pros to trading him:
-Make you work for it
-Makes you enter the market to have other GMs send offers, potentially leveraging value
-Makes you have to discuss with GMs, increasing overall league communication and activity which is healthy and good
-And it's not inherently tanking. In can be, and if Lakers trade Michael Jordan for expirings, commish will veto

[UOducksTK1]

So should Warriors be allowed to cut Kevin McHale and Tim McCormick?

That's blatant tanking. At least taking the time to trade them for matching expirings + a 2nd rounder shows the effort to properly rebuild.

It's the same argument for starting your best players. If we could just cut them all, then it opens the doors to tanking. Not healthy.

I guess I brought up the question to ask why cutting him is blatant tanking but trading him for a guy crappy enough to cut isn't.

I didn't mean to trigger cellar-door into a spiral though lol I was just kinda trying to figure out where the spirit of "anti-tanking" starts/ends. These exact players probably aren't worth the investment in discussion lol just was thinking about the general concept.

Cuz cutting starters is just silly. Why do we then require you to start your best players? We could argue that rule too.

I probably would have asked for a 2nd if I was the Warriors. IF you want to get mad, get mad at the guys who take on guys for free. But if that's the way the market is, that's the way the market is. Blame the market, not the rule. The rule makes sense.

The rule makes no sense. The league shouldn't be able to tell you that you can't cut a guy, but then tell you that you can trade that guy straight up for a worse player and cut the worse player. It's nonsensical and it's bad for the league.

If the league is going to determine which players you can and can't cut (and that's fine) then the league should also require that you get something in a trade for them.

Why can't the league say no to cutting starters? We have a similar rule for setting depth charts.

To me if they are starter material on your team, you shouldn't be able to cut them. Simple. And if that's the case, I'd cut my whole team if I was rebuilding and sign undrafted FAs with all Cs and Ds. Gross. It'll ruin integrity of the league.

[Craig]

I give up lol forget I said anything.

[Cellar-door]

So should Warriors be allowed to cut Kevin McHale and Tim McCormick?

That's blatant tanking. At least taking the time to trade them for matching expirings + a 2nd rounder shows the effort to properly rebuild.

It's the same argument for starting your best players. If we could just cut them all, then it opens the doors to tanking. Not healthy.

I guess I brought up the question to ask why cutting him is blatant tanking but trading him for a guy crappy enough to cut isn't.

I didn't mean to trigger cellar-door into a spiral though lol I was just kinda trying to figure out where the spirit of "anti-tanking" starts/ends. These exact players probably aren't worth the investment in discussion lol just was thinking about the general concept.

Cuz cutting starters is just silly. Why do we then require you to start your best players? We could argue that rule too.

I probably would have asked for a 2nd if I was the Warriors. IF you want to get mad, get mad at the guys who take on guys for free. But if that's the way the market is, that's the way the market is. Blame the market, not the rule. The rule makes sense.

The rule makes no sense. The league shouldn't be able to tell you that you can't cut a guy, but then tell you that you can trade that guy straight up for a worse player and cut the worse player. It's nonsensical and it's bad for the league.

If the league is going to determine which players you can and can't cut (and that's fine) then the league should also require that you get something in a trade for them.

Why can't the league say no to cutting starters? We have a similar rule for setting depth charts.

To me if they are starter material on your team, you shouldn't be able to cut them. Simple. And if that's the case, I'd cut my whole team if I was rebuilding and sign undrafted FAs with all Cs and Ds. Gross. It'll ruin integrity of the league.

Read my post again. It's fine for the league to stop you from cutting good players. HOWEVER... you should not then be able to trade those guys for terrible guys who you cut and nothing else. Why is it better for the integrity of the league if instead of cutting my good players I pick a team and trade him all of them for his scrubs then cut the scrubs?

[DrBradBuss]

I have a lot to say, but I'll stay out of most of it cause I think most of the points have been made.

However, I'm not sure how I see that this trade increased any owner involvement or discussion.
These trades typically are directed to the 6 or 7 teams that are on this site most frequently because there is some unknown rush to make the deal.
I honestly think these are the types of deals that discourage other owners. If I miss something and I've been off the site for more than 24 hours that's my bad. If I miss something cause I feel like I didn't have an opportunity, then I don't feel included.

I had no idea the Lakers were attempting to drop Edmonsson until I read this thread.

PS. Not saying this has to be vetoed or anything. These have been allowed as long as I've been in the league.

[the goat]

This has been an interesting thread to read through...

Look, I offered Edmonson+2nd to some teams, but nobody wanted him. If he's on my team, I have to play him (according to the rules). I don't want to play him, so I got rid of him. Could I have tried to squeeze a 2nd out of him? Sure. But I didn't want to wait around.

Would you rather have me do what the Rockets did one year and just not play my best players and hope nobody notices?

[UOducksTK1]

I have a lot to say, but I'll stay out of most of it cause I think most of the points have been made.

However, I'm not sure how I see that this trade increased any owner involvement or discussion.
These trades typically are directed to the 6 or 7 teams that are on this site most frequently because there is some unknown rush to make the deal.
I honestly think these are the types of deals that discourage other owners. If I miss something and I've been off the site for more than 24 hours that's my bad. If I miss something cause I feel like I didn't have an opportunity, then I don't feel included.

I had no idea the Lakers were attempting to drop Edmonsson until I read this thread.

Meh, that is a general problem even for trading stars. GMs trade guys quickly, and often times it's to the most active GMs. You can't really fix that problem other than to tell that GM you would have given more if they would have waited and been patient.

Again, I would have gotten a 2nd out of Edmonson. But that is again a general problem, unrelated to trading vs cutting.

[UOducksTK1]

So should Warriors be allowed to cut Kevin McHale and Tim McCormick?

That's blatant tanking. At least taking the time to trade them for matching expirings + a 2nd rounder shows the effort to properly rebuild.

It's the same argument for starting your best players. If we could just cut them all, then it opens the doors to tanking. Not healthy.

I guess I brought up the question to ask why cutting him is blatant tanking but trading him for a guy crappy enough to cut isn't.

I didn't mean to trigger cellar-door into a spiral though lol I was just kinda trying to figure out where the spirit of "anti-tanking" starts/ends. These exact players probably aren't worth the investment in discussion lol just was thinking about the general concept.

Cuz cutting starters is just silly. Why do we then require you to start your best players? We could argue that rule too.

I probably would have asked for a 2nd if I was the Warriors. IF you want to get mad, get mad at the guys who take on guys for free. But if that's the way the market is, that's the way the market is. Blame the market, not the rule. The rule makes sense.

The rule makes no sense. The league shouldn't be able to tell you that you can't cut a guy, but then tell you that you can trade that guy straight up for a worse player and cut the worse player. It's nonsensical and it's bad for the league.

If the league is going to determine which players you can and can't cut (and that's fine) then the league should also require that you get something in a trade for them.

Why can't the league say no to cutting starters? We have a similar rule for setting depth charts.

To me if they are starter material on your team, you shouldn't be able to cut them. Simple. And if that's the case, I'd cut my whole team if I was rebuilding and sign undrafted FAs with all Cs and Ds. Gross. It'll ruin integrity of the league.

Read my post again. It's fine for the league to stop you from cutting good players. HOWEVER... you should not then be able to trade those guys for terrible guys who you cut and nothing else. Why is it better for the integrity of the league if instead of cutting my good players I pick a team and trade him all of them for his scrubs then cut the scrubs?

First of all, it would take a lot of work to trade all of his players for scrubs. If he wants to be bad, then he's gonna have to earn it. So I think it's better integrity for the teams who want to be bad to work at it. Just like I have to work at being good. Plus it punishes teams who don't just cut everyone because they also know that's unrealistic and blatant tanking.

If Lakers wants to trade him and not get the 2nd, that's on him. I would have traded him and got the 2nd. Difference in GM philosophy. The goat makes trades happen fast, it's his style.

[UOducksTK1]

This has been an interesting thread to read through...

Look, I offered Edmonson+2nd to some teams, but nobody wanted him. If he's on my team, I have to play him (according to the rules). I don't want to play him, so I got rid of him. Could I have tried to squeeze a 2nd out of him? Sure. But I didn't want to wait around.

Would you rather have me do what the Rockets did one year and just not play my best players and hope nobody notices?

[Craig]

This has been an interesting thread to read through...

Look, I offered Edmonson+2nd to some teams, but nobody wanted him. If he's on my team, I have to play him (according to the rules). I don't want to play him, so I got rid of him. Could I have tried to squeeze a 2nd out of him? Sure. But I didn't want to wait around.

Would you rather have me do what the Rockets did one year and just not play my best players and hope nobody notices?

The lottery gods shall smite you!