Would you rather trade LMA or Amare if we trade with Suns

[barfo]

Not one that could leave in 2010.

1. Some teams think shorter term contracts are good, not bad.
2. If he leaves in 2010, then they have a chance to replace him in the 2010 free agent derby.
3. The player he might be traded for could also leave in 2010, depending on who it is.
4. Why would he leave if they are trading a star away to get him - suggests that they are going to make him the focus, which is what he wants.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

Not one that could leave in 2010.

Could, but quite unlikely to. Whichever team got him would get his Bird rights, too. Which means they can pay him more than anyone else. Unlike in baseball, free agency in the NBA doesn't mean bidding wars for elite players. The player's current team can offer the most and that's it.

It's possible Amare could go elsewhere for less, but it's extremely unlikely. Money is almost always the main factor. Maybe a Memphis might have to worry but if, say, Portland dealt him to a good hoops market like New Jersey or Indiana, it's unlikely he'd leave for less cash.

 

[B-Roy]

1. Some teams think shorter term contracts are good, not bad.

Would you rather Amare leave, or have Aldridge locked up for the next 5 years?

2. If he leaves in 2010, then they have a chance to replace him in the 2010 free agent derby.

What if that team has more than one long contract? (Like most teams)

3. The player he might be traded for could also leave in 2010, depending on who it is.

Highly unlikely

4. Why would he leave if they are trading a star away to get him - suggests that they are going to make him the focus, which is what he wants.

Because they want to test the free agent market? They'd be stupid not to.

 

[Natebishop3]

Man.... tough question. I'm leaning towards Amare honestly, but Aldridge would be fine too. I guess whichever one would yield the most talent in return.

 

[Minstrel]

Because they want to test the free agent market? They'd be stupid not to.

"Test" what? Testing the free agent market means seeing what value you can get. That's not possible in the NBA, because the max value is set...and the highest value is with your current team.

In baseball and football, players test the market because there's no maximum and bidding wars can break out. Elite free agents rarely change teams in basketball because that possibility doesn't exist. Leaving via free agency means taking less money.

 

[Nikolokolus]

If Amar'e could be parleyed into a B+ point guard and an A- small forward I'd trade him, if there aren't those kind of deals out there and say you could trade LMA + whomever to get a very good point guard or a very good small forward (I'd prefer the former) then that is something I'd look long and hard at.

I don't think there really is a right or wrong answer to either possibility, it would all just boil down to what you could back in trade for either player, but from a "fit" perspective I'd lean toward keeping LMA not only because I think he's still got a lot of untapped potential, but also because I think Amar'e has a higher potential to be traded for multiple pieces that fill big holes on this roster

 

[B-Roy]

"Test" what? Testing the free agent market means seeing what value you can get. That's not possible in the NBA, because the max value is set...and the highest value is with your current team.

In baseball and football, players test the market because there's no maximum and bidding wars can break out. Elite free agents rarely change teams in basketball because that possibility doesn't exist. Leaving via free agency means taking less money.

It's not just about money. Say Cleveland is stinking, would LeBron rather stay in Cleveland or get paid a little less and go play for a contender?

 

[Nikolokolus]

"Test" what? Testing the free agent market means seeing what value you can get. That's not possible in the NBA, because the max value is set...and the highest value is with your current team.

In baseball and football, players test the market because there's no maximum and bidding wars can break out. Elite free agents rarely change teams in basketball because that possibility doesn't exist. Leaving via free agency means taking less money.

Yup, players "test" free agency when they aren't completely happy with their team's direction or perhaps they place a higher value on bigger markets or nicer weather, or don't like local tax laws (Canada's high personal income tax rate is much higher than it is in the U.S. for instance).

 

[barfo]

Would you rather Amare leave, or have Aldridge locked up for the next 5 years?

I'd rather trade Amare for a SF or a PG, and keep LMA. But I'm spending Paul's money here, and he's got lots of it. An owner that doesn't have the cash has a different perspective.

What if that team has more than one long contract? (Like most teams)

Lots of teams are trying to get into position for 2010. In a sense, Amare fits those teams better if he walks in 2010.

Highly unlikely

It doesn't seem highly unlikely to me. A large number of NBA players have contracts expiring in 2010. As a random example, (I happened to have their salary page up) the Spurs have 7 players expiring in 2010.

Because they want to test the free agent market? They'd be stupid not to.

Who is they? Amare, or his new team? I'm not sure what you are saying here. If you mean Amare and his agent, then they'd be stupid not to if they were pretty sure they could get more $$. They'd be stupid to opt out of his contract if his value wasn't higher than the contract. Will Amare be worth more than $17.7 million in 2011? I'm not sure that's completely obvious at this point.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

It's not just about money. Say Cleveland is stinking, would LeBron rather stay in Cleveland or get paid a little less and go play for a contender?

It's almost always about money. I agree that occasionally another factor can make the difference, but it's really incredibly rare.

The three star/superstar players (I'm defining that as players who command max deals) to sign a free agent contract with a different team in the past decade and a half or so were Shaquille O'Neal, Elton Brand and Steve Nash. But Nash changed teams only because the Mavericks were unwilling to max him out. Had they been willing to, he'd have stayed in Dallas. So he moved on due to necessity. Which leaves only Shaquille O'Neal and Elton Brand in close to 15 years.

Grant Hill was signed-and-traded, so didn't leave Detroit for nothing. Tracy McGrady wasn't yet a star when he left Toronto.

I may be missing someone, but the point is that very, very, very few proven, elite players ever switch teams in the NBA. And the reason is because the financial issues don't encourage it. Short of Amare being traded to an awful team in a tiny market (Memphis, for example), the team acquiring Amare from us (in this hypothetical situation) doesn't have a lot to worry about. It's always possible that he could leave, but very unlikely.

 

[alex42083]

thats only your guess. For all we know Joel is not happy about his current role or pleased about whats going to happen to his minutes as Greg matures. Do you really think he'll be pleased about spending his prime riding the pine for all but 10-15 MPG?

I think it would as a shock to a lot of fans if Joel started admitting he wasn't happy being here and wants to move on. Of course, we don't know what's going on in his head but he's shown to be anything but a selfish player during his tenure here.

On the other hand, since LA can guard either 4s or 5s they could conceivably split the 96 minutes available at the Big spots evenly which is 32 MPG each. 32 MPG on a contender isn't the sort of role guys usually complain about.

Sure, that sounds good. But fourth-quarter time, one of Greg, LMA and Amare would still be sitting. That's just an abundance of talent IMO that's sitting on the bench when you can trade Amare for a position of need in upgrade with an SF or PG.
I'd rather have a guy like Joel backing up Greg, and a bruising enforcer-type PF backing up LaMarcus.

again, your opinion and not one I agree with. Remind me who is the Wiz's starting 5? I know they've Antawn Jamison at the 4. We'll just have to agree to disagree because I think you're way off.

That's fine if you think I'm way off. Man, I'm just trying to state my opinion, that's all. I just think you stand a better chance of getting Butler if you offer Amare rather than Joel Przybilla.....

 

[STOMP]

I think it would as a shock to a lot of fans if Joel started admitting he wasn't happy being here and wants to move on. Of course, we don't know what's going on in done he his head but he's shown to be anything but a selfish player during his tenure here.

you dodge my questions after I answer yours. Again, do you really think Joel will be satisfied being that rare pro who will be satisfied playing marginalized backup role 10-15 MPG starting next year which happens to be the prime years of his career? If Greg's really a soon-to-be star player thats the most he'll be looking at. Again thats an abundance of talent on the bench for a majority of the game.

Sure, that sounds good. But fourth-quarter time, one of Greg, LMA and Amare would still be sitting. That's just an abundance of talent IMO that's sitting on the bench when you can trade Amare for a position of need in upgrade with an SF or PG. I'd rather have a guy like Joel backing up Greg, and a bruising enforcer-type PF backing up LaMarcus.

96 minutes per night covered by 3 studs with substantial roles. Oh the horror! Real talent has value and thats doubly true with talented size. It's value doesn't go away overnight. If you're able to trade for a talent like Amare for as cheap a rate as RLEC + scraps you get that bird in hand and figure out the mix later. There is no question that Amare Greg LA >>> Joel Greg LA. If thats possible guess who is the obvious odd man out?

That's fine if you think I'm way off base, I'm just trying to state my opinion, that's all. I just think you stand a better chance of getting Butler if you offer Amare rather than Joel Przybilla.....

sure and I'm just trying to state my opinion. If you think trading Roy for Mark Madsen is the way to go, you're welcome to yours.

STOMP

 

[alex42083]

you dodge my questions after I answer yours. Again, do you really think Joel will be satisfied being that rare pro who will be satisfied playing marginalized backup role 10-15 MPG starting next year which happens to be the prime years of his career? If Greg's really a soon-to-be star player thats the most he'll be looking at. Again thats an abundance of talent on the bench for a majority of the game.

I don't know how I didn't answer your question. I said it'd be a big shock if Joel came out and said he's unhappy and wants to leave. That means, yes I think he would be satisfied being the backup to Greg. He's going to be 30 years old this year, he's had injuries, he's never played 82 games in a season.
I think Joel is one of those guys that's made Portland his home. He was loyal to us when he re-signed here after we gave him a chance when Nash signed him. I think he'd want to stick through with this and want to help win us a championship.

96 minutes per night covered by 3 studs with substantial roles. Oh the horror! Real talent has value and thats doubly true with talented size. It's value doesn't go away overnight. If you're able to trade for a talent like Amare for as cheap a rate as RLEC + scraps you get that bird in hand and figure out the mix later. There is no question that Amare Greg LA >>> Joel Greg LA. If thats possible guess who is the obvious odd man out?

It's just a difference of philosophy then. I didn't say I didn't want studs on this team. I just said I'd rather try to get studs at each position rather than stockpiling studs at one position. One of LMA/Greg/Amare will still be sitting in crunch time, which will leave one unhappy while a stud SF or PG would be nice to have.

sure and I'm just trying to state my opinion. If you think trading Roy for Mark Madsen is the way to go, you're welcome to yours.

STOMP

Roy for Mark Madsen? What? I guess what it boils down to is you think we can get a guy like Caron Butler for Joel+RLEC or whatever, while I think it'd take Amare to get Caron here in some sort of three-way deal.

 

[STOMP]

I don't know how I didn't answer your question. I said it'd be a big shock if Joel came out and said he's unhappy and wants to leave. That means, yes I think he would be satisfied being the backup to Greg. He's going to be 30 years old this year, he's had injuries, he's never played 82 games in a season.
I think Joel is one of those guys that's made Portland his home. He was loyal to us when he re-signed here after we gave him a chance when Nash signed him. I think he'd want to stick through with this and want to help win us a championship.

JP has many homes including one in PDX. When he was a FA, he signed the largest $$$ per year deal with the most years. You're free to call that loyalty but don't expect others to agree. Dude took care of #1/business and I'm not daydreaming that it's anything else. Dude will be 30 someday, but he's 28 until next October. Like every player ever, he's had injuries. I'm sure he'd rather win a championship then not... any other non-sequiturs you want to throw into the mix?

It's just a difference of philosophy then. I didn't say I didn't want studs on this team. I just said I'd rather try to get studs at each position rather than stockpiling studs at one position. One of LMA/Greg/Amare will still be sitting in crunch time, which will leave one unhappy while a stud SF or PG would be nice to have.

good grief. You're the one proposing stockpiling a single position over guys who can shift between a few. It's a whole lot more likely a player will be happier playing a 30+ minutes a night role and playing some of the stretch time then 10-15 and not playing any.

Roy for Mark Madsen? What? I guess what it boils down to is you think we can get a guy like Caron Butler for Joel+RLEC or whatever, while I think it'd take Amare to get Caron here in some sort of three-way deal.

if you're going to dishonestly misrepresent my views why should I be expected to be reasonable with yours?

STOMP

 

[alex42083]

Joel's 28 years old? I see him being listed as being born on Oct. 10, 1979.
It's 2009. Isn't he going to be 30 this year?

 

[STOMP]

Joel's 28 years old? I see him being listed as being born on Oct. 10, 1979.
It's 2009. Isn't he going to be 30 this year?

my math was off a year. It doesn't change my points about him (or anyone) being unlikely to being agreeable about sitting out the prime years of his career

STOMP