Did the Suns really get better?

[andalusian]

I don't believe in making moves with the intention of becoming a worse team on the idea that it will increase your chances of getting lucky. From my observation, it doesn't work that way. Teams that attempt that are usually bad for a long time. Even the recent benefactors of lucky strikes (like the Cavs and Nuggets) were terrible for years before they got James and Anthony.

The Caveat is that many of Portland's good players (Miller, Camby, Joel) are old and close to the end of their contract. Running another year at close to .500 with them is an exercise in futility. All you do is start the suckness one year later.

I do not see any point in shipping LMA, Nic or Wes just to blow it up - but the older vets with some trade value have a shelf life - and keeping them around to stay at .500 for another year is a waste.

 

[Minstrel]

but the older vets with some trade value have a shelf life - and keeping them around to stay at .500 for another year is a waste.

Assuming you get something worthwhile for them. I'd rather hold onto them and make another playoff than trade them for a bench spare part (say, a Martell Webster type).

I've always been open to trading Miller, Camby or Przybilla...but you need to get their net present value back. It can be more weighted toward future value, but trading them for pennies on the dollar just because they're not part of the future doesn't make sense either, IMO. And when you put it in those terms (needing to get their NPV back), there stops being a divide between Miller/Camby/Przybilla and anyone else on the roster. Anyone could be traded for equal NPV...how much that NPV should be weighted to the present or the future depends on how close you are to contention.

Ultimately, I think fans tend to overrate the NPV of first round picks and cap space.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Assuming you get something worthwhile for them. I'd rather hold onto them and make another playoff than trade them for a bench spare part (say, a Martell Webster type).

I've always been open to trading Miller, Camby or Przybilla...but you need to get their net present value back. It can be more weighted toward future value, but trading them for pennies on the dollar just because they're not part of the future doesn't make sense either, IMO. And when you put it in those terms (needing to get their NPV back), there stops being a divide between Miller/Camby/Przybilla and anyone else on the roster. Anyone could be traded for equal NPV...how much that NPV should be weighted to the present or the future depends on how close you are to contention.

Ultimately, I think fans tend to overrate the NPV of first round picks and cap space.

You always want to try and get fair value for players, but letting them expire is the worst possible move. The last pick in the second round is more valuable that an allstar player you let expire and don't hold the rights to any longer.

 

[Minstrel]

You always want to try and get fair value for players, but letting them expire is the worst possible move. The last pick in the second round is more valuable that an allstar player you let expire and don't hold the rights to any longer.

Sure, but the chance to get something better by holding onto the player til the last possible second before the trade deadline has value. I'd rather risk losing out on a bad return (like a second-round pick) to have that chance.

And I think making the playoffs has a non-zero value. In terms of team-building, I like to aim for championship, not mere playoff qualification, but that doesn't mean I think playoff qualification means nothing. More meaningful games, more fan interest, avoiding a culture of losing around the franchise...I think they have value to fans and the franchise.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Sure, but the chance to get something better by holding onto the player til the last possible second before the trade deadline has value. I'd rather risk losing out on a bad return (like a second-round pick) to have that chance.

And I think making the playoffs has a non-zero value. In terms of team-building, I like to aim for championship, not mere playoff qualification, but that doesn't mean I think playoff qualification means nothing. More meaningful games, more fan interest, avoiding a culture of losing around the franchise...I think they have value to fans and the franchise.

Portland made the playoffs for over 20 straight years, and still went through a culture of losing not very long ago.

As for waiting, I see your point. I just can't get the RLEC out of my head.

 

[MickZagger]

Portland made the playoffs for over 20 straight years, and still went through a culture of losing not very long ago.

As for waiting, I see your point. I just can't get the RLEC out of my head.

What about the SAEC, or the VEEC?

We never do anything with EC's.

 

[Mediocre Man]

What about the SAEC, or the VEEC?

We never do anything with EC's.

RLEC = "Best trade chip in the history of the NBA."

While I realize it wasn't that great, it was pretty damn good, and the I consider it the "one that got away"

 

[RR7]

RLEC = "Best trade chip in the history of the NBA."

link?

 

[Minstrel]

Portland made the playoffs for over 20 straight years, and still went through a culture of losing not very long ago.

I'm not saying that making the playoffs makes you immune from ever enduring a "culture of losing." I'm saying that you want to spend as little time, as a franchise, in that state. I'm usually the last to talk about intangibles, but I think there are drawbacks to a franchise going into each season with a history of being bad. It saps attendance, it makes players more likely to slide into bad habits or attitudes and it makes players outside the franchise less willing to come to the team and/or extend contracts with the team.

This is not my main concern, but I think it's part of why a team shouldn't throw away a possible playoff appearance, even if they have essentially no hope of going deep in the playoffs.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Minstrel, make no mistake I'm not talking about blowing the team up to point where there is no talent left on the roster and I would certainly wait until the deadline approaches to try and make the most impactful trade, but when I say tear it down and rebuild I mostly mean identifying those younger players you think are worth keeping (LMA, Matthews, Batum probably) and getting the most value you can for your older vets like Miller, Camby and Przy -- whether that's picks, players or some combination of both. But I'm not naive enough to think that this team is going to sustain their current win totals of the last couple of years if they go younger, because almost without exception, youth is not served in the league.

The upside to a tear down and rebuild in this circumstance vs. the Jailblazers era or the early KP years is that we don't have a massive collection of knuckleheads that we'd be lucky to get 10 cents on the dollar for them and we don't have the glut of non-performing contracts we had during those years. Presumably, teams on the cusp of a title run or teams that feel like they're maybe a veteran big man or point guard away from a title push, would want Miller, Camby and/or Joel.

My only point is that if I had to pick between holding on too long, getting mired in mediocrity (ie. borderline luxury tax team winning 40 games a year and just missing the playoffs) and falling into the early lottery and having a shot at at a real franchise player then I'd go with the latter. Hopefully blowing it up down to bedrock isn't called for in this situation.

 

[Mediocre Man]

link?

A link to 3 years ago when KP said this in a radio interview?

 

[Minstrel]

A link to 3 years ago when KP said this in a radio interview?

What? Pritchard, marketing something he hoped to trade, tried to make it sound better than it was in actuality?

That's outrageous.

 

[RR7]

Sure. I'd love to hear him say it's the best trade chip in the history of the NBA.

 

[RoyToy]

How about this for a running lineup

PG - whoever
SG - Matthews
SF - Batum
PF - A. Randolph
C - Aldridge

Now, that team would have about a 0% chance of being a team that would go deep into the playoffs(well, unless the PG was CP3 or something), but it'd be a fun ass team to watch while hovering around .500 and being an 8th seed at best.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I'm not a big fan of whoever's game, but he is better than whatever or anybody

 

[Ed O]

I am sorry as well.

Phoenix will only be carrying one large contract (Nash's) after this season.
And he is still their best player.
And he makes the guys around him better.

The rest of their pieces will be tradable to one degree or another.
They have a collection of nice young players I wish Portland had.

On the other hand, Portland's largest contract is very long term and will be a financial albatross around the teams neck for the next 4 years minimum.
Portland's highest paid player can't make anyone better (and makes them arguably worse if the last two games is any indication).
Portland has a couple of nice players but they don't make enough to even be packaged together reasonably.

Sorry man, but the Suns future is actually brighter then Portland's right now.

An empty team is a brighter one than the Blazers' team?

That's way over the top.

Phoenix is not only not a good team, but not even a YOUNG team.

Robin Lopez is 22. Dragic is 24.

No one else on the team is under 25.

That's the future? Two borderline starters and some cap space?

How often does that work out for teams?

As for Nash: the guy is gonna be 37 in February. If he's a significant part of the future, then they're in real trouble.

I'll take the Blazers' core (Aldridge, Batum, Matthews) and potential (Oden, Babbitt) any day... Roy or no Roy.

Ed O.

 

[MickZagger]

I don't buy into the line of thinking that you need to toil around in the playoffs to get that experience to eventually grow from that and go farther in the playoffs. Its all about talent. Look at the Celtics a few years back. They were nobodies when they just had Pierce. Then bam, they're in the finals.

Essentially what I'm getting at is:

High lottery > 8th seed.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't buy into the line of thinking that you need to toil around in the playoffs to get that experience to eventually grow from that and go farther in the playoffs.

I don't buy that either. The Celtics traded high lottery picks and young players for extremely talented veteran players. They aren't a good example of building through "impact draft picks." They're a good example of keeping the talent you have (Pierce) and finding some way to augment it.

The tear-it-down approach would have been to say "We have young players like Al Jefferson, Gerald Green and Sebastian Telfair and a high lottery pick...let's trade Paul Pierce for more draft picks and maybe a good young player or two and look forward to a bright future. After all, Pierce and kids aren't going to take us anywhere special."

 

[MickZagger]

I don't buy that either. The Celtics traded high lottery picks and young players for extremely talented veteran players. They aren't a good example of building through "impact draft picks." They're a good example of keeping the talent you have (Pierce) and finding some way to augment it.

The tear-it-down approach would have been to say "We have young players like Al Jefferson, Gerald Green and Sebastian Telfair and a high lottery pick...let's trade Paul Pierce for more draft picks and maybe a good young player or two and look forward to a bright future. After all, Pierce and kids aren't going to take us anywhere special."

My point is that I don't think playoff experience is as important as people think. If you have fire in your belly and you're good, than you will do good in the playoffs. Its definitely important, but just not as important as I think people make it out to be.