Wiz open for business

[Nikolokolus]

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/63738/20091231/wizards_open_to_making_moves/

Wizards president Ernie Grunfeld has resisted offers for forwards Caron Butler and Antawn Jamison in recent years, but that could change due to the team's struggles.

A person with knowledge of the situation told the Washington Post that no player is untouchable. Recently deceased owner Abe Pollin was against breaking up the trio of Gilbert Arenas, Butler and Jamison, but no such restrictions remain.

"It depends on how things go and what opportunities present themselves," Grunfield said when asked about potential moves on Wednesday.

It's time for KP to earn his money.

 

[Luther]

I would be down for Jamison.....Butler is injury prone and Agent Zero's contract is terrible even though he is a great player when healthy. Nobody else on that team is worth trading for.

 

[donkiez]

exciting stuff, but Butler wont be cheap. And with all the injurys do we even have the pieces to do something? I bet its Bayless or no deal, and at this point I couldnt do that. Maybe something like Fernandez, Webster, and Outlaw?

 

[The Sebastian Express]

Jamison would be nice - a big man who can spread the floor but also will take it inside with some drives and has experience.

 

[Minstrel]

I still desire Caron Butler.

I just wonder exactly how available Butler is. Anyone may be technically available, but they may be very expensive.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Arenas has BY FAR the worst contract in the NBA.

 

[jlprk]

It's time for KP to earn his money.

I saw this Wizards information elsewhere too, I think on ESPN. Everyone knows now about their change of mind. So we would have to overpay, competing against every other team.

A skilled GM creates a trade where no player was available until he talked the other GM into it. At the end of the process, the other GM puts word around the league for any other quick offers, but our GM has an "in" by then and will often get a bargain. Going only after the best-known players, like Hedo, produces failure from too much competition. The GM needs to have the skill to discover talent that others don't see. Pritchard has yet to pull a rabbit out of a hat. It's time for him to earn his money.

 

[Minstrel]

A skilled GM creates a trade where no player was available until he talked the other GM into it. At the end of the process, the other GM puts word around the league for any other quick offers, but our GM has an "in" by then and will often get a bargain.

This doesn't sound likely. Once a GM has been persuaded to trade a player, I doubt he's going to suddenly become so desperate to trade that player that he doesn't wait around very long. And if the deal is a bargain, once the deal is nosed around for other offers, other GMs will bid the price up. What "in" exists? The deep bond with the first guy to call you about a player?

Essentially, there's no reason for a GM not to explore the open market, which is why outright bargains are rare. You can, of course, take on risk, have it pan out and retroactively dub it a bargain...but it's rare that industry-wide recognized value goes cheaply. The Pau Gasol deal is noteworthy precisely because he seemed to be proven value that somehow didn't generate a market...that's very rare.

 

[jlprk]

Really? So many trades in history have been quickies. The giving GM is secretive and doesn't want his players knowing what's up, and he pulls the trigger before word gets out to them. So he puts out word to other GMs that he's been talked into a trade, waits a week or so while they stumble to react, and if nothing better appears, he goes for it. Many trades have been like that for decades. Often it's more important to the giving GM to get rid of the problem than to maximize his return, especially if the getting GM convinces him that the offer has an expiration date.

You seem to think that this is like a store or a stock market, with objective prices and a patient seller, and lots of time to mull over a decision. Much of a GM's success hinges upon his personal relationships with those with whom he negotiates, which is why Pritchard is hurt in the long term by his 1) warning to other GMs about Miles, 2) trying to screw the Jazz by front-loading the Milsap offer, and 3) in general all Pritch-slaps, like his attempts last February with LaFrentz to get something for nothing and embarrass someone.

 

[Minstrel]

Really? So many trades in history have been quickies. The giving GM is secretive and doesn't want his players knowing what's up, and he pulls the trigger before word gets out to them. So he puts out word to other GMs that he's been talked into a trade, waits a week or so while they stumble to react, and if nothing better appears, he goes for it. Many trades have been like that for decades.

Examples?

Often it's more important to the giving GM to get rid of the problem than to maximize his return, especially if the getting GM convinces him that the offer has an expiration date.

If the player in question is a "problem," then it doesn't make sense that the "giving GM" needs to be persuaded. Problem players are pretty much announced as available for a long period.

You seem to think that this is like a store or a stock market, with objective prices and a patient seller, and lots of time to mull over a decision.

Yes, I think that the NBA trade market is largely an efficient market...that is, everyone basically has the same information about who's available, similar medical information on players and similar scouting information. I don't really buy the idea that many deals are done hush-hush, based on personal relationship bonds and/or charm. These guys are all trying to do their jobs as well as possible, not trying to make friends.

Much of a GM's success hinges upon his personal relationships with those with whom he negotiates, which is why Pritchard is hurt in the long term by his 1) warning to other GMs about Miles, 2) trying to screw the Jazz by front-loading the Milsap offer, and 3) in general all Pritch-slaps, like his attempts last February with LaFrentz to get something for nothing and embarass someone.

Sounds more like wishful thinking from a fan with an axe to grind, to be honest. I don't think very many GMs think to themselves something like the following: "Well, let's see...I can get the best deal for my team by trading with Portland but, man...I hate that Pritchard fella. Thinks he's so big. You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to hurt my team and my own professional standing by taking a worse deal from someone else! That will show him, and perhaps teach him some manners."

 

[jlprk]

Examples?

Bonzi Wells for Wesley Person.

If the player in question is a "problem," then it doesn't make sense that the "giving GM" needs to be persuaded. Problem players are pretty much announced as available for a long period.

Yes, I think that the NBA trade market is largely an efficient market...that is, everyone basically has the same information about who's available, similar medical information on players and similar scouting information. I don't really buy the idea that many deals are done hush-hush, based on personal relationship bonds and/or charm. These guys are all trying to do their jobs as well as possible, not trying to make friends.

What if he's only 20% a problem and 80% an asset? You leave out all gray space between the 2 extremes of problem and non-problem. A GM may "kind of" want to dump a player, but not be totally eager about it. Depends upon the offer. Often, the GM can live with keeping the guy forever if offers aren't good enough. That's probably why we have half our roster, like Outlaw and Blake. The world is not black and white, it's gray, in between, as for how badly we want to trade various players. But if a GM gets an offer for someone he had given up on trading, he (or his owner) may jump at it. Personal conversations are not an efficient market.

I don't think very many GMs think to themselves something like the following: "Well, let's see...I can get the best deal for my team by trading with Portland but, man...I hate that Pritchard fella. Thinks he's so big. You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to hurt my team and my own professional standing by taking a worse deal from someone else! That will show him, and perhaps teach him some manners."

Personal compatibility lubricates a conversation. If a GM hates talking to another, it will decrease both the quantity and quality of negotiations. The product may be damaged, such as the likelihood of a trade happening. For example, let's say that your lack of social skills makes me treat you more roughly in this thread and you get your feelings hurt and run away crying. Now, you have lost the argument. Do you want that?? Noooo!!!! "You catch more flies with sugar than with salt." It behooves you to avoid a thrashing from my logic and come out of this dusty skirmish with your dignity intact, by having some personality. Being nice works. By your logic, Pritchard can yell, cuss, abuse, and Pritchslap the GM with whom he's hoping to make a trade, and it won't affect the outcome. That's the Law of the Jungle.

 

[Natebishop3]

Man, at this point, we need a big.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/63738/20091231/wizards_open_to_making_moves/



It's time for KP to earn his money.

Honestly, can you tell me that you don't think KP has earned his money thus far? I guess time will tell, but I feel like the guys KP has brought in has built up our depth to the point where anyone can step up and fill-in without a significant dropoff in performance. I know we haven't won any titles, but that's how some of the best teams are built, like San Antonio during their supreme years. The performance of our 2nd rounders, like DC and JP, is clear proof of this.

Oh, and wait 'til Mills gets his chance.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Man, at this point, we need a big.

McGee seems kind of nice, but at this point I'd probably take Haywood on a 3 month rental if they were willing to give him up -- it might even be nice to have his bird rights if Joel's injury is going to push his availability out more than a year.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Honestly, can you tell me that you don't think KP has earned his money thus far? I guess time will tell, but I feel like the guys KP has brought in has built up our depth to the point where anyone can step up and fill-in without a significant dropoff in performance. I know we haven't won any titles, but that's how some of the best teams are built, like San Antonio during their supreme years. The performance of our 2nd rounders, like DC and JP, is clear proof of this.

Oh, and wait 'til Mills gets his chance.

You clearly don't understand how the Spurs were built if you believe this.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

You clearly don't understand how the Spurs were built if you believe this.

Seriously?? I'd like to say the same about you by your response. I probably have a different perception than you, living in SA for the last 21 years, growing up here, gaining understanding for basketball here, and reading the daily media.

But until I see your reasoning, we'll have to agree to disagree, cuz SA relied on TD. More than I'm sure you realize. Other than that, they're a team built with role players surrounding TD, filling in and doing everything possible to keep the team at the top. One guy goes down, another guy steps up and fills in. The main guy does his thing, and you have smart BASKETBALL players step up and fill in every remaining role. Not saying Portland is on SA's level, but the general build to the team, Portland is trying to mimic SA.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Oh and as far as Portland is concerned, they're trying to find their TP. I know it for a fact. My examples of this is J-Bay and P. Mills. My proof, well, some message board jerk-off ain't worth revealing my knowledge over.

Oh and you clearly don't understand nor appreciate the work KP has put in if you're going to flame with this post.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Seriously?? I'd like to say the same about you by your response. I probably have a different perception than you, living in SA for the last 21 years, growing up here, gaining understanding for basketball here, and reading the daily media.

But until I see your reasoning, we'll have to agree to disagree, cuz SA relied on TD. More than I'm sure you realize. Other than that, they're a team built with role players surrounding TD, filling in and doing everything possible to keep the team at the top. One guy goes down, another guy steps up and fills in. The main guy does his thing, and you have smart BASKETBALL players step up and fill in every remaining role. Not saying Portland is on SA's level, but the general build to the team, Portland is trying to mimic SA.

The Spurs were mostly built with a rotisserie of veteran role players, not rookie scale young guys that are playing for their next contract and guys that aren't very defensive minded. I agree SA found guys to step up and fill roles, but I disagree that the current Blazers role players are much like the SA role players that rotated through that franchise for the past 10 years or so.

Oh and as far as Portland is concerned, they're trying to find their TP. I know it for a fact. My examples of this is J-Bay and P. Mills. My proof, well, some message board jerk-off ain't worth revealing my knowledge over.

Oh and you clearly don't understand nor appreciate the work KP has put in if you're going to flame with this post.

You think I'm flaming you? I disagree that KP has assembled a roster that resembles the San Antonio championship teams. nothing more nothing less.

 

[Minstrel]

Bonzi Wells for Wesley Person.

Okay. Illustrate how that was an example of a trade where the "giving GM" was secretive and only opened bidding up furtively for a week before taking the original offer.

What if he's only 20% a problem and 80% an asset? You leave out all gray space between the 2 extremes of problem and non-problem.

Well, you were the one who used the words "getting rid of the problem." That made it sound like the "taking GM" was almost doing the poor "giving GM" a favour. Sure, players can be partially problems, partially assets. Those types of players are generally pretty available, too. You have to do a good job of persuading someone to trade a player who's really not a problem.

But if a GM gets an offer for someone he had given up on trading, he (or his owner) may jump at it. Personal conversations are not an efficient market.

That doesn't really make sense. I'd like it to make sense, so I could either agree with it or refute it, but it just seems like some random phrases strung together. Personal conversations can happen in efficient or inefficient markets...one is not indicative of the other.

It's a bit like saying, "Sergio Rodriguez isn't a basketball player. He had tapas the other day. Tapas is not basketball." It's English (other than the Spanish name and word), but doesn't actually mean or say anything.

Personal compatibility lubricates a conversation. If a GM hates talking to another, it will decrease both the quantity and quality of negotiations. The product may be damaged, such as the likelihood of a trade happening. For example, let's say that your lack of social skills makes me treat you more roughly in this thread and you get your feelings hurt and run away crying. Now, you have lost the argument. Do you want that?? Noooo!!!!

Posting here isn't my job. If it were, I wouldn't have let you hurting my feelings get in the way of my crushing your poorly constructed arguments. I still find myself skeptical that GMs are more interested in good manners and compatibility with other GMs than in succeeding at their fairly lucrative jobs.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

The Spurs were mostly built with a rotisserie of veteran role players, not rookie scale young guys that are playing for their next contract and guys that aren't very defensive minded. I agree SA found guys to step up and fill roles, but I disagree that the current Blazers role players are much like the SA role players that rotated through that franchise for the past 10 years or so.



You think I'm flaming you? I disagree that KP has assembled a roster that resembles the San Antonio championship teams. nothing more nothing less.

Rookies or not, SA found random players to step up and fill open roles. Several of these role players were SHIT before SA rode them for everything they could provide. That's my point. You can argue over the semantics, but I'm not gonna argue at that level til the Blazers bring another one home. If you can't understand my general point, then keep arguing. I won't argue back at that level, don't have that time to waste.

But your original point, that it's KP's time to earn his money, is FUCKING BULLSHIT. Compared to his peers in this game, far as I'm concerned, he's in the top as far as GM's. Prove it otherwise.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Rookies or not, SA found random players to step up and fill open roles. Several of these role players were SHIT before SA rode them for everything they could provide. That's my point. You can argue over the semantics, but I'm not gonna argue at that level til the Blazers bring another one home. If you can't understand my general point, then keep arguing. I won't argue back at that level, don't have that time to waste.

But your original point, that it's KP's time to earn his money, is FUCKING BULLSHIT. Compared to his peers in this game, far as I'm concerned, he's in the top as far as GM's. Prove it otherwise.

We seem to have gone sideways at some point. You seem to be taking my criticism of KP awfully personally.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

We seem to have gone sideways at some point. You're seem to be taking my criticism of KP awfully personally.

Yes, that's cuz I'm KP.

I guess my question for you is whether or not you've feel KP's earned the money he's made running the Blazers. Your original post says "It's time for KP to earn his money."

My question is whether or not you really feel this way. KP turned this organization around from shit. And if you really feel he hasn't earned his money to date, my opinion is to shit on you. Nothing personal, but do you really think KP hasn't earned his money to date, YES or NO????

 

[jlprk]

Happy New Year, Giants!

<hiccup>

Pritchard sucks!!

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Happy New Year, Giants!

<hiccup>

Pritchard sucks!!

I agree. So does jlprk!!!

 

[jlprk]

Okay. Illustrate how that was an example of a trade where the "giving GM" was secretive and only opened bidding up furtively for a week before taking the original offer.

Thank you for your request. First, I request that you illustrate a representative sample of trades that had no secrecy. Please show links to witnesses who say that no one witnessed it. Then I will comply with the written paperwork you require in triplicate.

Well, you were the one who used the words "getting rid of the problem." That made it sound like the "taking GM" was almost doing the poor "giving GM" a favour.

That's how they act in your country, eh? Here, they say that's just your take on it, matey.

That doesn't really make sense. I'd like it to make sense, so I could either agree with it or refute it, but it just seems like some random phrases strung together. Personal conversations can happen in efficient or inefficient markets...one is not indicative of the other.

It's a bit like saying, "Sergio Rodriguez isn't a basketball player. He had tapas the other day. Tapas is not basketball." It's English (other than the Spanish name and word), but doesn't actually mean or say anything.

You say you want it to make sense, and that is the first step toward your dawn of understanding. Take my hand and I'll help you through the mist. In an efficient market, commodities are priced using concepts of scarcity and demand. But in a conversation, one negotiator can push the buttons of another and get a hurried, or even panicked, price. Maybe the owner is having a cash call that month (frequent to the Sonics owners, which is why they sold) and a cash infusion would alleviate the GM's current fiscal unpopularity with the boss. Maybe the GM wants to start his vacation and doesn't wait for some initial offers to get whittled down into counter-offers and counter-counter-offers. He just wants to finish the process so his wife won't yell at him about delaying the vacation. I can imagine more scenarios, and if you use your imagination you can too. Let's say someone truncates a post because he's going to have a drink at midnight for New Year's. It can happen. There are bargains in this inefficient world.

Posting here isn't my job.

You had me fooled. I thought you moderators post this much to keep threads alive and the hits just keep rolling in.

I still find myself skeptical that GMs are more interested in good manners and compatibility with other GMs than in succeeding at their fairly lucrative jobs.

The two are not incompatible, in fact, the former leads to the latter. The latter depends on the former. Apparently you want our Chief Negotiator to lack negotiating skill. Happy New Year!

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Links. Witnesses.

Witnesses. Links. Witness some more. Nobody understands the gibberish you typed, especially on NYE.

 

[Minstrel]

Thank you for your request. First, I request that you illustrate a representative sample of trades that had no secrecy. Please show links to witnesses who say that no one witnessed it. Then I will comply with the written paperwork you require in triplicate.

So, no examples, then? Fair enough.

The two are not incompatible

You're being vague here. Which two GMs are not incompatible? You just said "the two."

Clearly, compatibility is an important thing to you. I think the real compatibility issue here is between you and Kevin Pritchard. Maybe a nice retreat would get you guys on good terms?

Apparently you want our Chief Negotiator to lack negotiating skill.

I want him to have negotiating skill, which means being good at negotiating with other professionals who are primarily interested in getting themselves the best deal, rather than teaching each other about their innermost feelings. In such a case, there doesn't need to be personal compatibility.

Happy New Year!

Merry New Year to you, too!

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

And Fez jumps in with ALL the answers!!!

 

[MIXUM]

lets just hope butler and jamison don't get shot before they are traded.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4787825

good god