Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

Keith Edmonson for Alfredrick Hughes

Accept. Cut Hughes after

Yep

I'm going to preface this by saying that there is significantly less "outrage" behind this than it would probably seem at first glance. Just a thought exercise here to get people's brains firing...

What is the functional difference between this and the Lakers cutting Edmondson, when considering the fact that they weren't allowed to cut him?

Craig wrote:I'm going to preface this by saying that there is significantly less "outrage" behind this than it would probably seem at first glance. Just a thought exercise here to get people's brains firing...

What is the functional difference between this and the Lakers cutting Edmondson, when considering the fact that they weren't allowed to cut him?

This was one of the issues I brought up during the offseason rules discussions. Letting people trade good players for garbage vs. just benching the guy.

In this case though I think this shouldn't be allowed without at least a 2nd. This is worse than cutting Edmondson, since it involves picking a team to benefit where just cutting him gives everyone a shot at him.

There's no guarantee someone will do this trade.

Also, it increases trade activity and GM communication which is always a bonus.

UOducksTK1 wrote:There's no guarantee someone will do this trade.

Also, it increases trade activity and GM communication which is always a bonus.

See this is crazy to me, if a player is not cut eligible then they should not be eligible to be traded for a player who is then cut. Increasing TERRIBLE trades is bad for the league not good.

Cellar-door wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:There's no guarantee someone will do this trade.

Also, it increases trade activity and GM communication which is always a bonus.

See this is crazy to me, if a player is not cut eligible then they should not be eligible to be traded for a player who is then cut. Increasing TERRIBLE trades is bad for the league not good.

What terrible trades? This one is kinda meh cuz it's just a nice favor of ownage. Which is also nice to see, I don't see why that's a bad thing.

Additionally, it helps bad teams get bad and good teams get better. Why is that a problem?

UOducksTK1 wrote:

Cellar-door wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:There's no guarantee someone will do this trade.

Also, it increases trade activity and GM communication which is always a bonus.

See this is crazy to me, if a player is not cut eligible then they should not be eligible to be traded for a player who is then cut. Increasing TERRIBLE trades is bad for the league not good.

What terrible trades? This one is kinda meh cuz it's just a nice favor of ownage. Which is also nice to see, I don't see why that's a bad thing.

Additionally, it helps bad teams get bad and good teams get better. Why is that a problem?

Preventing a team from cutting a player because he is too valuable, and instead encouraging them to gift that player to a good team is a bad rule. If you want to get worse, cut the guy. Then let the good teams fight it out in waivers for him. If the argument for not allowing a cut is that dumping a good player for no value is bad, why is dumping a good player for no value good if you pick which team gets the good player?

There needs to be something of value on both sides of the trade otherwise there is zero difference for the bad team.

Cellar-door wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:

Cellar-door wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:There's no guarantee someone will do this trade.

Also, it increases trade activity and GM communication which is always a bonus.

See this is crazy to me, if a player is not cut eligible then they should not be eligible to be traded for a player who is then cut. Increasing TERRIBLE trades is bad for the league not good.

What terrible trades? This one is kinda meh cuz it's just a nice favor of ownage. Which is also nice to see, I don't see why that's a bad thing.

Additionally, it helps bad teams get bad and good teams get better. Why is that a problem?

Preventing a team from cutting a player because he is too valuable, and instead encouraging them to gift that player to a good team is a bad rule. If you want to get worse, cut the guy. Then let the good teams fight it out in waivers for him. If the argument for not allowing a cut is that dumping a good player for no value is bad, why is dumping a good player for no value good if you pick which team gets the good player?

There needs to be something of value on both sides of the trade otherwise there is zero difference for the bad team.

Both sides are getting value. Better pick = value. Each team is free to leverage as much as they can from the opposition. Tanking teams want to trade their good players. Winning teams want to trade for them.

A team would be dumb if they traded and/or cut a valuable player for nothing. That's their loss. If the player really was valuable then they should be able to extract value from the other teams.

I don’t have a problem with this particular trade but seems like Hornets are mainly pointing out the inconsistency of not letting Edmondson be cut because he was too valuable but allowing him to be traded for nothing. Bad teams choosing which team gets the player versus everyone having a shot at him via waivers.

The only functional difference is that teams are forced to salary match as opposed to go through the waiver process. Not sure which one is preferred, since the salary match is an inhibitor. For instance, I was talking to Lakers for Edmondson but couldn’t afford him without giving up a guy I wanted to keep

In this case letting a valuable player go for a min via waivers seems not ideal as well

dd10snoop28 wrote:

Cellar-door wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:

Cellar-door wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:There's no guarantee someone will do this trade.

Also, it increases trade activity and GM communication which is always a bonus.

See this is crazy to me, if a player is not cut eligible then they should not be eligible to be traded for a player who is then cut. Increasing TERRIBLE trades is bad for the league not good.

What terrible trades? This one is kinda meh cuz it's just a nice favor of ownage. Which is also nice to see, I don't see why that's a bad thing.

Additionally, it helps bad teams get bad and good teams get better. Why is that a problem?

Preventing a team from cutting a player because he is too valuable, and instead encouraging them to gift that player to a good team is a bad rule. If you want to get worse, cut the guy. Then let the good teams fight it out in waivers for him. If the argument for not allowing a cut is that dumping a good player for no value is bad, why is dumping a good player for no value good if you pick which team gets the good player?

There needs to be something of value on both sides of the trade otherwise there is zero difference for the bad team.

Both sides are getting value. Better pick = value. Each team is free to leverage as much as they can from the opposition. Tanking teams want to trade their good players. Winning teams want to trade for them.

A team would be dumb if they traded and/or cut a valuable player for nothing. That's their loss. If the player really was valuable then they should be able to extract value from the other teams.

THat's the point though. Lakers cut Edmondson. He was told that he could not do that. He HAD to trade him. He then traded him for nothing and cut the nothing. That 100% is a terrible rule. It's no better for Lakers, and it is worse for the league as a whole than letting teams compete for players on waivers.

If a player is too good to be cut by rule then by rule you should have to get something back for him. The idea that you can't cut a player, but that if you give him to another team for a bad player then cut that player immediately it's ok is absolutely stupid.

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.

offtheheezy wrote:I don’t have a problem with this particular trade but seems like Hornets are mainly pointing out the inconsistency of not letting Edmondson be cut because he was too valuable but allowing him to be traded for nothing. Bad teams choosing which team gets the player versus everyone having a shot at him via waivers.

The only functional difference is that teams are forced to salary match as opposed to go through the waiver process. Not sure which one is preferred, since the salary match is an inhibitor. For instance, I was talking to Lakers for Edmondson but couldn’t afford him without giving up a guy I wanted to keep

In this case letting a valuable player go for a min via waivers seems not ideal as well

It's an argument of tanking and value. I have no problem with Lakers cutting AC Green. But cutting guys who would likely start for you to only sign poopy guys is cheating. IF you want to get bad, trade down. It's simple. Edmonson put up 16ppg and 6rpg and started last year.

UOducksTK1 wrote: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.

THat's my point. I'd be fine if he got a 2nd, it's still a bad trade, but whatever, teams make bad trades.
He didn't get a 2nd here. He literally was told a player was too good to be cut, so he traded him straight up for a player who was bad enough to be cut.

This deal should be veto'd unless the Warriors' new GM adds a 2nd

Cellar-door wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote: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.

THat's my point. I'd be fine if he got a 2nd, it's still a bad trade, but whatever, teams make bad trades.
He didn't get a 2nd here. He literally was told a player was too good to be cut, so he traded him straight up for a player who was bad enough to be cut.

This deal should be veto'd unless the Warriors' new GM adds a 2nd

I see. Makes a little more sense, but I still feel like there's a huge principle difference of trading a guy vs cutting him. Personally. It requires some work. It also gives other teams to try to beat Warriors offer for him. Any GM could have seen he was attempted to be cut and then offer a 2nd + expirings.

If expirings is all someone is willing to offer, than I don't think the trade should be veto'd. Fair game.