Exclusive |Swept| So it begins - 2017 offseason

[Minstrel]

I think we could even get something decent in return. I mean, Crabbe for Noel was ridiculed at the time but in the end 76ers got less than that for him (Anderson is a poor player and two second round picks mean nothing to Sixers). Turner is also a decent, experienced player.

You're neglecting contracts, though. Crabbe is a better player than Anderson and whatever the second-round picks become, but he's attached to an (in my view) absurd contract. In my opinion, that turns his value from a little positive to negative, which makes him less valuable than the second-round picks and fodder (which aren't negative value). The same is essentially true of Turner--he's a decent player, but way overpaid.

Baseball has a concept of "surplus value," which is how much you are saving on the salary of the player you're trading for versus what you could sign an equivalent player for as a free agent. If his contract is cheaper than he'd get on the open market, he has positive surplus value and is a trade asset. If his contract is more expensive than he'd get on the open market, he has negative surplus value and ranges from "not much of a trade asset" to "liability, need to attach value with him or pay off part of his salary yourself." (This isn't always true if you're talking about a star player--even overpaid star players can be trade assets because it's hard to get stars on the open market, but that doesn't apply here.)

In my opinion, Crabbe, Leonard and Turner have pretty significant negative surplus value. I thought this off-season would be interesting to see if that held true, but Crabbe, at least, probably can't be traded even if I'm wrong due to his injury.

 

[Sarni]

You're neglecting contracts, though. Crabbe is a better player than Anderson and whatever the second-round picks become, but he's attached to an (in my view) absurd contract. In my opinion, that turns his value from a little positive to negative, which makes him less valuable than the second-round picks and fodder (which aren't negative value). The same is essentially true of Turner--he's a decent player, but way overpaid.

Baseball has a concept of "surplus value," which is how much you are saving on the salary of the player you're trading for versus what you could sign an equivalent player for as a free agent. If his contract is cheaper than he'd get on the open market, he has positive surplus value and is a trade asset. If his contract is more expensive than he'd get on the open market, he has negative surplus value and ranges from "not much of a trade asset" to "liability, need to attach value with him or pay off part of his salary yourself." (This isn't always true if you're talking about a star player--even overpaid star players can be trade assets because it's hard to get stars on the open market, but that doesn't apply here.)

In my opinion, Crabbe, Leonard and Turner have pretty significant negative surplus value. I thought this off-season would be interesting to see if that held true, but Crabbe, at least, probably can't be traded even if I'm wrong due to his injury.

But $18M contract means nothing to Philadelphia, during the length of his deal they will not be able to attract much better players. It's a terrible deal for a back up player but if you see him starting, it's fine. There are 3-4 teams in the league that might start Crabbe.

 

[GDiama]

But $18M contract means nothing to Philadelphia, during the length of his deal they will not be able to attract much better players. It's a terrible deal for a back up player but if you see him starting, it's fine. There are 3-4 teams in the league that might start Crabbe.

I think it's 18M+15%, so even more than 18M, around 22?. And the 76ers are supposed to be entering the window where they care about winning. They talk about offers to Lowry or Holiday.

 

[tester551]

But $18M contract means nothing to Philadelphia, during the length of his deal they will not be able to attract much better players. It's a terrible deal for a back up player but if you see him starting, it's fine. There are 3-4 teams in the league that might start Crabbe.

I disagree with that. It's still a very bad deal if you are starting him. Starting vs bench role have no bearing IMO. It's his skill level (or lack thereof) that make it a bad deal.

Would you be willing to pay Gerald Henderson or Aaron Affalo $18-22M per year? That is the level of player AC is.

AC does exactly 1 thing really well. Everything else, he is well below average at.

 

[HailBlazers]

I disagree with that. It's still a very bad deal if you are starting him. Starting vs bench role have no bearing IMO. It's his skill level (or lack thereof) that make it a bad deal.

Would you be willing to pay Gerald Henderson or Aaron Affalo $18-22M per year? That is the level of player AC is.

AC does exactly 1 thing really well. Everything else, he is well below average at.

Jury is still out IMO. Especially with the foot injury.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Jury is still out IMO. Especially with the foot injury.

He was starting to dribble to the hoop more and seemed like he was getting his mid range shot down, ala CJ.
But its a huge ? still.

I disagree with that. It's still a very bad deal if you are starting him. Starting vs bench role have no bearing IMO. It's his skill level (or lack thereof) that make it a bad deal.

Would you be willing to pay Gerald Henderson or Aaron Affalo $18-22M per year? That is the level of player AC is.

AC does exactly 1 thing really well. Everything else, he is well below average at.

Apples to Oranges. Both of those guys are seasoned vets with zero upside.
A Team may think he is overpaid now but will improve with a starting spot and make is contract seem fair. Which is the reason some of us think he is still tradeable.

 

[JDC]

Not gonna lie, I would be disgusted with that draft. Why too high to pick Pasecniks and Dozier.

I also feel like we could get Young+48 for Aminu and 20 or 26. I wouldn't trade 15th for him.

Yeah that'd be great if that's the case and honestly I thought Young had 2 years left on his contract.

As far as Pasecniks and Dozier are concerned, they aren't projected that high right now, but I expect that to change pretty quickly once teams get them in for workouts. Their fluidity and size will stand out in that setting.

 

[BonesJones]

Yeah that'd be great if that's the case and honestly I thought Young had 2 years left on his contract.

As far as Pasecniks and Dozier are concerned, they aren't projected that high right now, but I expect that to change pretty quickly once teams get them in for workouts. Their fluidity and size will stand out in that setting.

Yeah, there will be a couple teams willing to reach on them. That doesn't mean we should outreach them and take 2 early 2nd round talents in the first round.

We got to get the best player available with each pick. Pasecniks won't be the best player available with 20, and Dozier won't be the best player available at 26.

 

[Sarni]

I disagree with that. It's still a very bad deal if you are starting him. Starting vs bench role have no bearing IMO. It's his skill level (or lack thereof) that make it a bad deal.

Would you be willing to pay Gerald Henderson or Aaron Affalo $18-22M per year? That is the level of player AC is.

AC does exactly 1 thing really well. Everything else, he is well below average at.

Crabbe is 25 so he can still get better. There was a reason why Nets offered him the deal that we matched last year and it's not just because it's Nets and they were looking for anybody who was willing to sign for then. I don't think in a league that has Bazemore, Deng, Mozgov, Noah and Biyombo making similar sort of money he will be impossible to move.

Fournier has the same deal at Magic and he is the same tier of a player. I bet Caldwell-Pope, Waiters and maybe even Hardaway Jr get more money in this offseason (although Waiters and KCP are better players).

Contracts like Leonard are only expendable if you are willing to take someone equally bad. I think what could work is Crabbe + Leonard for Kyle O'Quinn and Joakim Noah. Crabbe would start for NY and is a better deal for them than Noah, which is compensated for us by getting O'Quinn for Meyers.

 

[JDC]

Yeah, there will be a couple teams willing to reach on them. That doesn't mean we should outreach them and take 2 early 2nd round talents in the first round.

We got to get the best player available with each pick. Pasecniks won't be the best player available with 20, and Dozier won't be the best player available at 26.

Drafting would be a lot easier for teams if they were as sure of things as you seem to be.

 

[BonesJones]

Drafting would be a lot easier for teams if they were as sure of things as you seem to be.

It's more of a statement to say those two will be the BPAs at those picks. It's not a reach to say they wont. I'm not sure of anything, nobody is... And you pay a lot of attention so your opinion is as valid as mine, if not more so. I actually think it's pretty cool that we both pay a lot of attention to college basketball and both know a lot about college prospects, and have completely different opinions on who the best picks are and what to look for.

I'm not even saying I dislike those players. I'm just saying they'll probably be available in the 2nd round, and if they aren't, that means teams are reaching so a good prospect will be available in the 2nd that shouldn't be there. Think of Deyonta Davis and Skal Labissiere last year. Both are just as good of prospects as Papagiannis, but Sacremento decided to really reach at 13 by picking PapaG.

If you really wanted PapaG, and we're thinking of reaching at 20 to take him, you could've traded down to 28 or 31 and decided to wait for him there (which is still higher than he was projected to go). In the end, you don't land the guy you want because SAC reaches, but instead you're in a position to benefit from that with the guys who fall.

Instead of picking both at 20 and 26, I think you pick a different player at 20 then trade 26+future 2nd to Orlando for 33 and 35. it's likely one (and possibly both) fall to there. So instead of having Dozier and Pasecniks, you could have Dozier, Pasceniks, and another 1st round talent.

There's just so many solid players available form 20 to 40 that I just don't think we should reach at 20 for the ones that will probably go between 28-40. I think you try to get as many picks in that range as possible, and if you really want those guys, you trade down to accumulate assets.

 

[JDC]

It's more of a statement to say those two will be the BPAs at those picks. It's not a reach to say they wont. I'm not sure of anything, nobody is... And you pay a lot of attention so your opinion is as valid as mine, if not more so. I actually think it's pretty cool that we both pay a lot of attention to college basketball and both know a lot about college prospects, and have completely different opinions on who the best picks are and what to look for.

I'm not even saying I dislike those players. I'm just saying they'll probably be available in the 2nd round, and if they aren't, that means teams are reaching so a good prospect will be available in the 2nd that shouldn't be there. Think of Deyonta Davis and Skal Labissiere last year. Both are just as good of prospects as Papagiannis, but Sacremento decided to really reach at 13 by picking PapaG.

If you really wanted PapaG, and we're thinking of reaching at 20 to take him, you could've traded down to 28 or 31 and decided to wait for him there (which is still higher than he was projected to go). In the end, you don't land the guy you want because SAC reaches, but instead you're in a position to benefit from that with the guys who fall.

Instead of picking both at 20 and 26, I think you pick a different player at 20 then trade 26+future 2nd to Orlando for 33 and 35. it's likely one (and possibly both) fall to there. So instead of having Dozier and Pasecniks, you could have Dozier, Pasceniks, and another 1st round talent.

There's just so many solid players available form 20 to 40 that I just don't think we should reach at 20 for the ones that will probably go between 28-40. I think you try to get as many picks in that range as possible, and if you really want those guys, you trade down to accumulate assets.

I'm not sure teams look at that range the same way though. Sure, value at the face of it looks negligible at best, but every team is going to have 2-3 guys that they value considerably over the others, hoping it's the those same 2-3 guys (or more) that vastly outperform their draft position every year.

But if Neil indeed doesn't value many guys much higher than the others in that #20-#40 range, your plan makes more sense, although I'd have to question his ability to evaluate talent if that was his stance on it. You aren't doing your job as a GM if you feel that way. I also think we have enough evidence that he has the tendency to lock in on particular prospects and is aggressive towards getting that guy as long as it makes sense for the organization. Dame, CJ, Crabbe and Layman are all examples of this.

Are Pasceniks and Dozier Neil and Co.'s "guys" at #20 and #26?...who knows, but whoever they are, I think they grab them and are done with it unless they're more than sure they'll be available later in the draft.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

Oh no, we want PapaG back?

 

[JDC]

Oh no, we want PapaG back?

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[Scalma]

No.

 

[Sarni]

Another absolutely pointless signing which solves nothing. Forget about competing next year with this small pointless acquisitions. Aim for 2018-19 or 2019-20.

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[PDXFonz]

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=jhp3986

Could work out in our favor if we can draft Ferguson at 15 and trade one of/our last two picks. Kind of low balling the Knicks, but if they really want melo gone then maybe they will do it?

Phil is still pushing for melo to opt out of his no trade clause.

If the experiment works then maybe we re-sign melo on a cheaper contract next time he hits FA, and have the tools to become the next super team in the league. Once that first domino falls everything fits into place and guys want to come here to win.

Still wouldn't be my first choice of Veteran stars. But I do think Melo is still capable of playing better than he has the past few seasons in NY, and the chances are he would fit well into our system. The primary concern would be "there's only one basketball between Dame, CJ, Nurk, and Melo".

He is a bit of a reach outside of the age trajectory Olshey talks about so much, so I'm not sure we are the most likely candidate should Melo be traded.

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[JDC]

Browsing the Jazz board and it seems like Trey Lyles is pretty gettable. Coming off a forgettable 2nd year, but has some appeal as a stretch 4 off the bench with potential to be more than that.

 

[PDXFonz]

The Knicks might not be the best ran franchise in the league, but even they aren't dumb enough to trade a player like Porzingis with 2 years left on their rookie contract. Doing that would get Steve Mills and Phil Jackson 3 years for criminal negligence.

Also Dames comment and CJ's comment are not one of the same. Dame was asked about Porzingis, CJ came out and mentioned Paul George uninfluenced. The latter carries more weight in my book.

 

[Sinobas]

If we are getting rid of the contracts, it won't be Davis, Aminu and Harkless who we will look at first. They actually have contracts which are worth keeping.

And hence, contracts that should be easy to get rid of. Some people on this forum seem to think Paul won't mind going to the luxury tax, but I don't think that is the case. Look at how he responded after the last financial fiasco, when we had a massively over-paid roster that only played mediocre basketball. He fired the GM and wanted to sell the team. He also stated publically that he wasn't going to do that again.

I'd be very surprised if Ed Davis isn't traded for a 2nd round pick.

 

[Sarni]

And hence, contracts that should be easy to get rid of. Some people on this forum seem to think Paul won't mind going to the luxury tax, but I don't think that is the case. Look at how he responded after the last financial fiasco, when we had a massively over-paid roster that only played mediocre basketball. He fired the GM and wanted to sell the team. He also stated publically that he wasn't going to do that again.

I'd be very surprised if Ed Davis isn't traded for a 2nd round pick.

Ed Davis for a 2nd rounder would be good. I feel like some second rounders this year will have potential to be decent.