Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

Oregon Ownage wrote:

Foxyg1396 wrote:

Oregon Ownage wrote:

Foxyg1396 wrote:

Craig wrote:Thats awfully generous

I mean yes, but then I essentially get a first and some rookies for free

Its not really free as you are giving away cap space to help a conference foe get under the cap. You are hurting your team by accepting that deal and giving away the leverage

And if they don’t get under hardcap, I get those pieces for free instead of giving up Armstrong. How is that hurting my team?

You are trading cap space hence its not free. Free would be dealing away a scrub signed to a one year deal to match salaries. Plus you are taking up roster spots on players who project as best backups? Its not like they are good young players who can develop into something

Now for this comment

Foxyg1396 wrote:Everyone always complains about Grizz getting deals and players but nobody wants to trade anymore. If everyone wasn’t so stingy then maybe there would be a wider spread of talent across the league.

Very few teams try to correct their deficiencies, and then get mad when teams like clippers, and grizzlies correct theirs

I love trading and have been working the phones but when GMs reach out to me, I am very clear in what I value players for and wont accept anything less than what I think they are worth. Do I lose deals b/c of this? Absolutely I do, but more often than not GMs will reach back out again with an improved offer.

Also, if teams are not trading its b/c they do not want to engage with a bad deal and accepting less than ideal offers for players or overpaying for average players. That IMO is healthy for the league. Dealing players for less than their value which you did with Armstrong is not good for the league and only condenses the talent to select teams. I said this previously, why would a GM come to you with an acceptable offer when you have shown in the past to accept less than fair value for your players? You have no leverage in trades and are only doing favors for other teams while not evaluating your team properly and as a result hampering further moves.

In this trade, you dealt the best player and got back a late 1st, backup big (Miller) and wasted cap space for future seasons. How does that help your team moving forward?

It was better to hold onto Armstrong into the off-season for a better offer or continue to construct your roster with Armstrong but instead dealt one of your better assets

lukeyrid13 wrote:Value isn’t terrible. Cap space option definitely changes things

jibbajabba614 wrote:

lukeyrid13 wrote:Value isn’t terrible. Cap space option definitely changes things

The stipulation is crazy cause Nuggets won’t have cap space but Grizz will definitely be over hard cap. So how does Nuggets save the day? That’s the biggest question

dd10snoop28 wrote:also, why is it always grizz/nuggs in the controversial deals???

I bet they are the same person with 2 accounts.

dd10snoop28 wrote:also, why is it always grizz/nuggs in the controversial deals???

I bet they are the same person with 2 accounts.