Kid Chocolate
Suspended
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,174
- Likes
- 7
- Points
- 0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 23 2008, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 23 2008, 12:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wow! One sentence responses!
If you think I misunderstood your point, just address that. You go off on so many tangents it's impossible to have a focused discussion with you.</div>
I would be happy to address your misunderstanding of my point if you would refrain from impregnating your responses with insults and sarcastic insinuations that I (or anyone espousing a different view) is ignorant, silly, or just plain stupid. You really have been sounding more and more like cpawfan, and, as Mark Jackson would say, "You're better than that!"
What I'm trying to convey is that the speculative component in any assessment of a draft prospect should (and often does) weigh into the "value" of that prospect. Some players exhibit "can't miss" NBA superstar talent and skill at the time of the draft much more than others. Examples of the former include LeBron James and Shaquille O'Neal. Others, either because of age/experience, level of prior competition, current development, and other factors are not quite as "can't miss". For example, many bright basketball minds felt Orlando would be better served by drafting Emeka Okafur over Dwight Howard because Howard was a high schooler with little basketball skill and elite competition under his belt while Okafur was the premiere player on a big-time college team that had a lot of success. To those people/GM's, before either guy played an NBA game, Okafur had more "value" as a prospect and they would have presumably been willing to give up more in a trade to acquire his draft rights. Their valuations at that time are not necessarily wrong just because Howard turned out to be a far, far more valuable NBA player than Okafur. He might have also turned out to be Michael Olawikandi. So because of the frustrating compenent of speculation and uncertainty, the value of Dwight Howard on draft night was not what his value became after he'd played his first 30 games, and certainly no where near what it is today.
If you doubt that, imagine this time-warped scenario: you run a team that has a 25 year-old Shaq on the roster, but, for whatever reasons (a lot of other bad contracts, lack of depth, personnel conflicts, financial problems, etc.) you entertain trade offers for your franchise center. Another team offers you their 2nd year point guard, Deron Williams, and the draft rights to #1 pick Dwight Howard, fresh out of high school and yet to play even in NBA summer league (forget the CBA for a minute and just assume the numbers work). Do you make that deal at that time? If not, you and I both know it's because you have no idea that Howard will actually turn out to be arguably as good as Shaq. If so, it's at least partly because you already assess Williams to be a terrific NBA point guard and therefore added value to protect you against the risk that Howard will not pan out as anything close to Shaq in the NBA. In both cases, the offer will only be made (and only accepted or rejected) because of the uncertainty of what Howard will become. His VALUE will be fluid (depending upon the prescience of the person performing the valuation and their propensity for risk-taking). That deal would never happen after Howard has played a year because it's obvious after that point that the value given and received is unequal.
Now, how does that relate to the disucssion of Beasely? I made the point that -- based solely on what I have read -- he doesn't seem to be as "can't miss" as some picks are in that range (e.g., James, O'Neal), partly due to repeated questioning of his character (I evidently put a lot more weight on that than you in terms of guaging what ultimate impact a player will have on a team). You may disagree and believe he is "can't miss", that he will have a career along the lines of a KG. That's fine. You've seen him play, so I concede you have a much better basis for your opinion on that point than I do.
Ultimately, however, if there is truth in the reports that Riley would trade the draft rights to Beasley, I conclude that it's because HE (Riley) isn't certain that Beasley is going to be the next KG and would prefer to parlay his draft rights into assets that have a less speculative, more definite value. If his own assessment told him Beasley was "can't miss" as a franchise PF, why (given his team's needs) would he be open to trading him? So if the report is true, he will likely hook up with a trading partner that IS subjectively certain that Beasley is the next KG or who simply is much more comfortable taking risks. And that partner will offer enough certain value to satisfy Riley, and that value may or may not end up looking equal in a couple of years.
That's what I've been saying. If this post taxes your patience, or if you feel its full of terrible digressions, you obviously don't care for nuance and detail and linear argumentation in a discussion, which is your prerogative. In that case, you are best off not engaging me on matters like these. One sentence replies may be your forte, but they are not mine.
</div>
Just a heads up. Your verbosity doesn't give your posts any more substance or make you look smarter.
If you think I misunderstood your point, just address that. You go off on so many tangents it's impossible to have a focused discussion with you.</div>
I would be happy to address your misunderstanding of my point if you would refrain from impregnating your responses with insults and sarcastic insinuations that I (or anyone espousing a different view) is ignorant, silly, or just plain stupid. You really have been sounding more and more like cpawfan, and, as Mark Jackson would say, "You're better than that!"
What I'm trying to convey is that the speculative component in any assessment of a draft prospect should (and often does) weigh into the "value" of that prospect. Some players exhibit "can't miss" NBA superstar talent and skill at the time of the draft much more than others. Examples of the former include LeBron James and Shaquille O'Neal. Others, either because of age/experience, level of prior competition, current development, and other factors are not quite as "can't miss". For example, many bright basketball minds felt Orlando would be better served by drafting Emeka Okafur over Dwight Howard because Howard was a high schooler with little basketball skill and elite competition under his belt while Okafur was the premiere player on a big-time college team that had a lot of success. To those people/GM's, before either guy played an NBA game, Okafur had more "value" as a prospect and they would have presumably been willing to give up more in a trade to acquire his draft rights. Their valuations at that time are not necessarily wrong just because Howard turned out to be a far, far more valuable NBA player than Okafur. He might have also turned out to be Michael Olawikandi. So because of the frustrating compenent of speculation and uncertainty, the value of Dwight Howard on draft night was not what his value became after he'd played his first 30 games, and certainly no where near what it is today.
If you doubt that, imagine this time-warped scenario: you run a team that has a 25 year-old Shaq on the roster, but, for whatever reasons (a lot of other bad contracts, lack of depth, personnel conflicts, financial problems, etc.) you entertain trade offers for your franchise center. Another team offers you their 2nd year point guard, Deron Williams, and the draft rights to #1 pick Dwight Howard, fresh out of high school and yet to play even in NBA summer league (forget the CBA for a minute and just assume the numbers work). Do you make that deal at that time? If not, you and I both know it's because you have no idea that Howard will actually turn out to be arguably as good as Shaq. If so, it's at least partly because you already assess Williams to be a terrific NBA point guard and therefore added value to protect you against the risk that Howard will not pan out as anything close to Shaq in the NBA. In both cases, the offer will only be made (and only accepted or rejected) because of the uncertainty of what Howard will become. His VALUE will be fluid (depending upon the prescience of the person performing the valuation and their propensity for risk-taking). That deal would never happen after Howard has played a year because it's obvious after that point that the value given and received is unequal.
Now, how does that relate to the disucssion of Beasely? I made the point that -- based solely on what I have read -- he doesn't seem to be as "can't miss" as some picks are in that range (e.g., James, O'Neal), partly due to repeated questioning of his character (I evidently put a lot more weight on that than you in terms of guaging what ultimate impact a player will have on a team). You may disagree and believe he is "can't miss", that he will have a career along the lines of a KG. That's fine. You've seen him play, so I concede you have a much better basis for your opinion on that point than I do.
Ultimately, however, if there is truth in the reports that Riley would trade the draft rights to Beasley, I conclude that it's because HE (Riley) isn't certain that Beasley is going to be the next KG and would prefer to parlay his draft rights into assets that have a less speculative, more definite value. If his own assessment told him Beasley was "can't miss" as a franchise PF, why (given his team's needs) would he be open to trading him? So if the report is true, he will likely hook up with a trading partner that IS subjectively certain that Beasley is the next KG or who simply is much more comfortable taking risks. And that partner will offer enough certain value to satisfy Riley, and that value may or may not end up looking equal in a couple of years.
That's what I've been saying. If this post taxes your patience, or if you feel its full of terrible digressions, you obviously don't care for nuance and detail and linear argumentation in a discussion, which is your prerogative. In that case, you are best off not engaging me on matters like these. One sentence replies may be your forte, but they are not mine.
</div>
Just a heads up. Your verbosity doesn't give your posts any more substance or make you look smarter.
