Exclusive Woj - Anthony Davis has Requested a Trade.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Of course but Nik Stauskus does not Equal Anthony Davis.
Click to expand...
Of course not. I just found it odd that their would be criticism of players trying to control their destination, but not ownership controlling it. Sign a contract, honor it, but I might send you... from LA to fucking Detroit. And that's cool, because you're under contract. But if you ask for the reverse it's bad?
 
RR7 said:
And fucked us. If he demanded out, we could have started the rebuild a year early and traded him, Matthews, Lopez and batum.
Click to expand...
What LMA did sucked, but I my opinion is that Matthews injury is what doomed that team and was what also pushed LMA out. Matthews, Afflalo, Even LMA dont get hurt that year maybe they go to the WCF or something and LMA stays, who knows.
 
hoopsjock said:
I'm actually kind of glad KD went to GS because it showed his true colors of being mentally weak and needing to take the easiest possible path to a title. I will never consider him a champion unless he wins one somewhere else.
Click to expand...
Don’t you ever wish life would give you an easy path though?

Don’t get me wrong scaling the side of a mountain can be fun. But a helicopter would be nice...
 
RR7 said:
Of course not. I just found it odd that their would be criticism of players trying to control their destination, but not ownership controlling it. Sign a contract, honor it, but I might send you... from LA to fucking Detroit. And that's cool, because you're under contract. But if you ask for the reverse it's bad?
Click to expand...
I think making it public having your agents out in the media speaking things into existence driving down what your current team can get trying to trade for you sucks.

I awknoledged that Blake got screwed by the clippers. Id even say Derozan got screwed by Toronto. It sucks, in both ways. I didnt ever say one was better than the other.
 
Fonzthecpt1 said:
Don’t you ever wish life would give you an easy path though?

Don’t get me wrong scaling the side of a mountain can be fun. But a helicopter would be nice...
Click to expand...
In life sure, but in sports it's about competition to me. I wouldn't ever join forces with the 3 on 3 team that beat us in the championship. It would feel cheap. I'd rather go down with my squad giving all that I had instead of winning because we stacked our roster.
 
RR7 said:
Nik wanted to be traded to Cleveland? Baldwin? The teams agreed, sure. But it's funny to demand loyalty to a contract from players when the expectation isnt there from the teams as long as its beneficial for each of them.
Click to expand...

I generally agree.

That being said, you sign a contract, honor it. These guys are getting paid big bucks to play a game. Let the market determine your value. You sign a contract knowing you might get traded. Teams don’t expect you to intentionally kill your value. There’s a market based on your play. When you’re a FA, you’re free to sign as you please. AD, and others that demand trades, harm their teams, the league, the market, etc by demanding trades and diminishing their trade value.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
What LMA did sucked, but I my opinion is that Matthews injury is what doomed that team and was what also pushed LMA out. Matthews, Afflalo, Even LMA dont get hurt that year maybe they go to the WCF or something and LMA stays, who knows.
Click to expand...
Also not sure what blowing it up a year earlier would have actually gotten the Blazers, anyone you shipped LMA out for would have likely been the defacto face of the team, and likely worse in that role than Dame.
 
BLAZINGGIANTS said:
I generally agree.

That being said, you sign a contract, honor it. These guys are getting paid big bucks to play a game. Let the market determine your value. You sign a contract knowing you might get traded. Teams don’t expect you to intentionally kill your value. There’s a market based on your play. When you’re a FA, you’re free to sign as you please. AD, and others that demand trades, harm their teams, the league, the market, etc by demanding trades and diminishing their trade value.
Click to expand...
Well he’s right in the sense that it sucks for the players too when they get traded, after signing a contract I wish teams / players were more into honoring their commitments! I just find a guy and his ‘team’ making things public while they force themselves out kills their value to a franchise and for the fans it really sucks. If Dame wanted out, Id be totally ok with him going privately and saying it to the FO and letting them get the best deal they could. Id be bothered if it was public he doesnt want to play here, he wants to go to one or two teams that dont have any good assets, that stuff sucks to me...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
Fonzthecpt1 said:
Don’t you ever wish life would give you an easy path though?

Don’t get me wrong scaling the side of a mountain can be fun. But a helicopter would be nice...
Click to expand...
Also, the Thunder could've still traded for PG13 last year if KD stayed. Despite how stacked that team would've been they still would've been seen as doing it the right way because they didn't choose to team up that way.
 
BLAZINGGIANTS said:
I generally agree.

That being said, you sign a contract, honor it. These guys are getting paid big bucks to play a game. Let the market determine your value. You sign a contract knowing you might get traded. Teams don’t expect you to intentionally kill your value. There’s a market based on your play. When you’re a FA, you’re free to sign as you please. AD, and others that demand trades, harm their teams, the league, the market, etc by demanding trades and diminishing their trade value.
Click to expand...
But again, why do they have to honor the contract they signed, but the team does not? Why allow trades then at all? It's like saying hey, Neil, you signed nik and baldwin to those deals expecting them to contribute, so honor those deals you signed, even if things didnt work out the way you planned. Oh, theres a better option out there? Sorry, you uprooted those guys to your city with a guaranteed contract, you should honor it.
 
hoopsjock said:
Also, the Thunder could've still traded for PG13 last year if KD stayed. Despite how stacked that team would've been they still would've been seen as doing it the right way because they didn't choose to team up that way.
Click to expand...
The KD thing man, my problem with that, is he had that team beat and people can play WB all they want but KD choked hard too the last 3 games of that series. Then after HE choked it away said whelp I cant beat em so ill join em.
 
RR7 said:
But again, why do they have to honor the contract they signed, but the team does not? Why allow trades then at all? It's like saying hey, Neil, you signed nik and baldwin to those deals expecting them to contribute, so honor those deals you signed, even if things didnt work out the way you planned. Oh, theres a better option out there? Sorry, you uprooted those guys to your city with a guaranteed contract, you should honor it.
Click to expand...

The contract is being honored. It’s been traded. They’re still getting the full consideration of the contract. You know that going in. When a guy demands a trade, he’s not really fulfilling his side of things. He’s not living up to the expectations and performance of the contract by killing his value.
 
RR7 said:
But again, why do they have to honor the contract they signed, but the team does not? Why allow trades then at all? It's like saying hey, Neil, you signed nik and baldwin to those deals expecting them to contribute, so honor those deals you signed, even if things didnt work out the way you planned. Oh, theres a better option out there? Sorry, you uprooted those guys to your city with a guaranteed contract, you should honor it.
Click to expand...
Id actually be sort of ok with that. Make GM’s think before offering guys 4-5 year deals. I generally think you should honor a deal, with few exceptions I was never implying the teams shouldnt need to either.
 
BLAZINGGIANTS said:
The contract is being honored. It’s been traded. They’re still getting the full consideration of the contract. You know that going in. When a guy demands a trade, he’s not really fulfilling his side of things. He’s not living up to the expectations and performance of the contract by killing his value.
Click to expand...

well sure, players can demand no-trade clauses but no team would sign them. Teams could demand that players keep their mouths shut till the end of their contract, but no player would sign that. So then legally the contract allows for the team to trade players, and the same contract doesn't prohibit players from asking to be traded. Teams can jerk the player around by shopping him in a trade. Players can jerk the team around by asking to be traded and hurting a team's leverage. Seems like a fair balance because neither side has to strictly adhere to the original intent
 
At some point, players figured out that it was in their selfish interest to sabotage their own trade value.

If AD gets traded to Portland for CJ, Nurk, and several 1sts he is no closer to winning a ring than he was in NO. He doesn't want the team he is traded to to weaken themselves! He wants them to give up the least amount of talent possible.
 
wizenheimer said:
well sure, players can demand no-trade clauses but no team would sign them. Teams could demand that players keep their mouths shut till the end of their contract, but no player would sign that. So then legally the contract allows for the team to trade players, and the same contract doesn't prohibit players from asking to be traded. Teams can jerk the player around by shopping him in a trade. Players can jerk the team around by asking to be traded and hurting a team's leverage. Seems like a fair balance because neither side has to strictly adhere to the original intent
Click to expand...

The difference is that teams let the players’ performance and related contract determine the value in the marketplace. A player demanding a trade is similar to a team shitting on a player publicly so nobody wants to sign him. The latter doesn’t happen nearly as much as the former.
 
RR7 said:
And fucked us. If he demanded out, we could have started the rebuild a year early and traded him, Matthews, Lopez and batum.
Click to expand...

100% this.

LMA royally fucked us. He set the franchise back equally as bad as any of Neil’s contracts, maybe more, considering small market teams REALLY can’t let players of that caliber walk for nothing.

He left us holding the bag, big time. We could’ve got a huge return for him.

I believe this is why some people on this very forum at the time were screaming to trade his ass before we got screwed.
 
JoshuaHall said:
100% this.

LMA royally fucked us. He set the franchise back equally as bad as any of Neil’s contracts, maybe more, considering small market teams REALLY can’t let players of that caliber walk for nothing.

He left us holding the bag, big time. We could’ve got a huge return for him.

I believe this is why some people on this very forum at the time were screaming to trade his ass before we got screwed.
Click to expand...
Gotten just as far in the playoffs without him as they did with him. Did he really set the franchise back? Were they WCF or championship bound with him?
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Gotten just as far in the playoffs without him as they did with him. Did he really set the franchise back? Were they WCF or championship bound with him?
Click to expand...

Yes, they did, which is exactly why him leaving held us back. Because we would’ve had a fuck ton more assets if he told us his true intentions, which makes it easier to build a quality team or swing deals.

Losing him, as a player, was beneficial in my opinion. Too negative. Weak mind. But say we just had TWO additional first round picks... you don’t think that makes a HUGE difference, particularly given the state of the franchise now? 1) Could’ve hit on that pick. 2) could’ve attached pick to get out of bad contract.

Losing him as an ASSET, was not beneficial and certainly held us back. We could’ve accumulated serious assets instead of...nothing.

There is no doubt in my mind if we traded him at the deadline, we would’ve gotten SERIOUS assets to help shape our roster moving forward.

Probably would’ve made some other trades on top of that.
 
JoshuaHall said:
Yes, they did, which is exactly why him leaving held us back. Because we would’ve had a fuck ton more assets if he told us his true intentions, which makes it easier to build a quality team or swing deals.

Losing him, as a player, was beneficial in my opinion. Too negative. Weak mind. But say we just had TWO additional first round picks... you don’t think that makes a HUGE difference, particularly given the state of the franchise now? 1) Could’ve hit on that pick. 2) could’ve attached pick to get out of bad contract.

Losing him as an ASSET, was not beneficial and certainly held us back. We could’ve accumulated serious assets instead of...nothing.

There is no doubt in my mind if we traded him at the deadline, we would’ve gotten SERIOUS assets to help shape our roster moving forward.

Probably would’ve made some other trades on top of that.
Click to expand...
Yes and no, losing a guy doesn't mean you got nothing for them. Especially if they were going to demand a huge contract. Neil for all the crap he takes did a great job that summer of using the cap space free'd up by LMA to get decent young players and assets. What they got was like 25M to use to sign guys.

I get that it sucks what LMA did, but it's kind of impossible to know what happens if they trade LMA what they would have gotten if that would've been better or worse. Lots of 1st round picks end up being busts. I get your point. I think what he did saying he wanted to be here, be the best Blazer ever and then leaving. I just don't think it turned out all that bad and I have no way of knowing if trading him would've turned out "better", do I think it may have? Yeah I suppose.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Yes and no, losing a guy doesn't mean you got nothing for them. Especially if they were going to demand a huge contract. Neil for all the crap he takes did a great job that summer of using the cap space free'd up by LMA to get decent young players and assets. What they got was like 25M to use to sign guys.

I get that it sucks what LMA did, but it's kind of impossible to know what happens if they trade LMA what they would have gotten if that would've been better or worse. Lots of 1st round picks end up being busts. I get your point. I think what he did saying he wanted to be here, be the best Blazer ever and then leaving. I just don't think it turned out all that bad and I have no way of knowing if trading him would've turned out "better", do I think it may have? Yeah I suppose.
Click to expand...

They would’ve still had that 25 million PLUS assets.

Trade LMA for expiring contracts + picks.

Also, any Blazer fan knows damn well cap space isn’t worth a damn in this market.

Yes, it’s impossible to know exactly what we would’ve gotten for him, but given he didn’t publicly demand a trade, we could’ve at LEAST gotten one singular pick. I’d wager a lot more.

For me, it’s impossible for it to turn out worse. In my opinion, you’re pretty much arguing that New Orleans should just say, “eh... we’ll keep AD and let him walk so we can have cap space.”

They would be quite stupid to not trade him for at least one pick, even straight up, if that were the case.
 
JoshuaHall said:
They would’ve still had that 25 million PLUS assets.

Trade LMA for expiring contracts + picks.

Also, any Blazer fan knows damn well cap space isn’t worth a damn in this market.

Yes, it’s impossible to know exactly what we would’ve gotten for him, but given he didn’t publicly demand a trade, we could’ve at LEAST gotten one singular pick. I’d wager a lot more.

For me, it’s impossible for it to turn out worse. In my opinion, you’re pretty much arguing that New Orleans should just say, “eh... we’ll keep him and let him walk so we can have cap space.”

They would be quite stupid to not trade him for at least one pick, even straight up, if that were the case.
Click to expand...
If they traded LMA the only way they get that 25m + assets is if they had traded for expirings. They wouldve had to take back salary?

I mean i get what you’re saying. I just dont think it was all that devastating. Mightve been.
 
PS. Am I the only one who thinks New Orleans playing hardball is gonna completely screw them?

All Anthony Davis needs to do is tell Boston this summer he won’t play there. They won’t offer a treasure trove for someone who refuses to take a physical, for instance.

-> Pretty sure Austin Rivers told Phoenix he wasn’t showing up. What’s preventing AD from doing the same?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top