The future of the Atlantic divsion (Butler now a Sixer)

[gradyandrew]

1) Kyrie Irving demanded a trade; Cavs obliged. Cleveland didn't wake up one day and say let's trade our All-NBA point guard. He was under contract, so they didnt have to trade him.

Shakes, by all accounts thats EXACTLY what they did and that was the day they realized PG was available. And it was when Irving found out about that that he requested a trade. As have many players, some of which were traded, some of whom weren't.

You make those 3 trades appear like they were simultaneously offered. They weren't. By all accounts Kyrie was unhappy that LBJ is the guy running the Cavs. But it was the Cavs decision to trade him that made Kyri request a trade, basically saying I'll leave you before you can dump me.

Were there any protections on the Nets pick? Because I think that fits all the criteria, future pick, unprotected, the Nets are probably a lottery team. Boston did the trade because Ainge felt the sure thing in Kyrie was worth it. I think this proves taowave's point, the trader is the key factor not the assets.

And, let's be honest, that Nets trade for PP and KG was a business move, not a basketball move. Prokhorov wanted to make a splash in the Nets first year, stoke a rivalry with the Knicks, and sell tickets and sponsorships. C'mon Jay Z probably won't be sitting courtside to watch Deron and Brook lose by 30. Any conversation that slams Billy King needs to at least acknowledge that back ground.

[shakespeare]

1) Cleveland never attempted to trade Kyrie Irving beforehand. He demanded to be traded. Although he's never really given a reason, most believe he wants his own team https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.c ... _leave.amp

2) LeBron has a no-trade clause https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnati ... -cavaliers

[spree#8]

Tao. I feel you. But give me an example of an actually NBA trade that occurred. You're telling me what YOU would've done. Tell me what an actual GM did.

I would,but Spree will just add a new constraint and present the 2 worst traders in history to validate his point.

You guys didn't like the Parrish trade which involved swapping the number 1 pick for the number 3, which turned out to be McHale.

Here is an article that supports your cause....

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/nba-p ... ades-ever/

The moral of the story is to make the picks protected unless you are getting a talent like Kyrie..Or maybe,dont trade number 1's for guys over 28..Im sure we can paint any picture we like

Tao, you should really work on your game. Instead of arguing with yourself about an argument that was never made, simply saying "I was wrong", "I misunderstood", "Got you now" would help. Also insulting other posters by twisting their words or saying "you are idiotic" just because you seemingly don't understand what they wrote about is bad style.

I said, that a guideline for a good GM is to never trade first round picks while being bad. To decipher this for you: that implies 1) that I'm talking about the own picks of that team (because otherwise being bad doesn't matter) and 2) that I'm talking about future first-round picks (because once again only then "being bad" represents a risk at the moment of a trade). Because you didn't understood that initially, I clarified (even though I shouldn't have to, having posted this argument multiple times since 2006), that what I talk about are four criteria: the three mentioned before - future, first-round-picks, while being bad - and adding unprotected to have a clearer picture, because a protection that at some point converts the debt of a first-round pick into a second-rounder for example could be OK.

Your examples - and that is really funny after you say again and again that you know what I'm talking about - doesn't qualify for anything I said.

Swapping the no. 1 to the no. 3 and a player on the eve of the draft? Has nothing to do with future first-round picks of which you don't know the value yet and BTW, the Celtics came of a 61 win season when they traded down the Pistons pick in 1980. So that example is a fail on the two main criteria (future own and while being bad). Fail 1 in regard to the guideline.

The Irving trade: the Celtics are coming of being the no. 1 regular season team in 2017 and didn't even trade an own first round pick. Again. Fail 2.

The Celtics trading down on draft night this year. Not "future", not their "own", not "while being bad". Mega fail 3.

Miami in 2010: coming of a 47 win season and adding LeBron/Bosh and others. They traded those picks just to put themselves into a better cap situation, not because they needed to trade those picks to get LeBron. Not "while being bad". Fail 4.

Did you have other examples? But anyways, own, future and "while being bad" should be there, otherwise we are simply not talking about my guideline. Also accusing me of searching for examples for my argument (which I BTW didn't even do) is silly, when that guideline is a way to strategically rate trades when they are made and before you know whether they work out or not. That's exactly where I was going with that argument and I made that over and over again in the last 11 years since I joined this site.

So of course you can believe that a good GM doesn't behave according to this guideline, but please, please take the time to understand what it is even about before making comments that are besides the theme at hand.

[Nononsense]

Oh wow, I had no idea this thread existed. I just posted this in the Toronto game thread:

I fear two teams in the East, and neither one of them is Cleveland. I only fear Boston & Toronto. What's really disheartening is that both are in the Atlantic Division with us. Add in the thought of Philly being an up and coming powerhouse with a core of Joel Embiid, Ben Simmons, and Markelle Fultz, we've got our competition cut out for us moving forward. If our beloved Knicks continue to emerge, the Atlantic Division (the gutter division for a long time now) could become the toughest division in the league in the near future.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=40052

[spree#8]

1) Kyrie Irving demanded a trade; Cavs obliged. Cleveland didn't wake up one day and say let's trade our All-NBA point guard. He was under contract, so they didnt have to trade him.

Shakes, by all accounts thats EXACTLY what they did and that was the day they realized PG was available. And it was when Irving found out about that that he requested a trade. As have many players, some of which were traded, some of whom weren't.

...

Grady, I wrote about why the Kyrie trade has nothing to do with what I was talking about above (not their own, not while being bad), but wanted to add another, different point here. What I took out of the Cleveland/Kyrie situation was this:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2723 ... -cavaliers

The Indiana Pacers reportedly pursued Kyrie Irving in a potential trade for Paul George before they shipped George to the Oklahoma City Thunder.

On Monday's episode of The Lowe Post, ESPN.com's Brian Windhorst disclosed the Pacers unsuccessfully attempted to nab Irving in advance of the NBA draft as buzz started to build that George was being shopped.

"I know that around the draft and in the Paul George talks, the Cavs were not willing to make Kyrie Irving available for Paul George," Windhorst said.

"The Pacers offered Paul George for Kyrie Irving," ESPN.com's Zach Lowe added. "That's a thing that happened, according to people that we've talked to."

That's why I also thought (we don't know if this is true), that the Cavs didn't want to trade Irving before he demanded a trade.

[spree#8]

One last thought on GM guidelines (we really got off topic here, but I don't want to edit the other post that was for clarification a second time): they are just that, guidelines. So of course there will be special circumstances in which someone not acting according to this guideline can be successful (to every rule there are exceptions) - and I even know of examples... I just mentioned one of my general rules earlier in this thread, because more often than not it didn't work out in NBA history when you traded your future while being bad and instead it bit you in the ass. Often big time.

[nazrmohamed]

It made perfect sense for me the first time. In fact I'd take it a step further and say you should be out there looking for additional picks. We need more picks right now. You have the possibility of increasing the amount of players you are developing next season, or they can be package together to move up a pick or two. Lastly, and my least favorite one can land you a player in a trade, while the other mitigates your loss. But picks give you options.

[taowave]

Spree, maybe I am losing my mind,but didn't you make a post illustrating the Boston/Nets trade? I can't find it anywhere,but that was what I thought I was responding to

As for trading,Grady summed it up best.Its the trader,not the assets. There is no question that any trader in any field needs a method to his madness,but there is no universal rule.

Your rule is don't trade unprotected picks if your team is bad. That's you rule,so be it,but it makes little sense to say Trading the Nets unprotected pick is justifiable as it's not their own pick. I don't get that..

There his much better argument as to why you shouldn't trade a draft pick while you suck,but no one has brought it up...

Tao, you should really work on your game. Instead of arguing with yourself about an argument that was never made, simply saying "I was wrong", "I misunderstood", "Got you now" would help. Also insulting other posters by twisting their words or saying "you are idiotic" just because you seemingly don't understand what they wrote about is bad style.

I said, that a guideline for a good GM is to never trade first round picks while being bad. To decipher this for you: that implies 1) that I'm talking about the own picks of that team (because otherwise being bad doesn't matter) and 2) that I'm talking about future first-round picks (because once again only then "being bad" represents a risk at the moment of a trade). Because you didn't understood that initially, I clarified (even though I shouldn't have to, having posted this argument multiple times since 2006), that what I talk about are four criteria: the three mentioned before - future, first-round-picks, while being bad - and adding unprotected to have a clearer picture, because a protection that at some point converts the debt of a first-round pick into a second-rounder for example could be OK.

Your examples - and that is really funny after you say again and again that you know what I'm talking about - doesn't qualify for anything I said.

Swapping the no. 1 to the no. 3 and a player on the eve of the draft? Has nothing to do with future first-round picks of which you don't know the value yet and BTW, the Celtics came of a 61 win season when they traded down the Pistons pick in 1980. So that example is a fail on the two main criteria (future own and while being bad). Fail 1 in regard to the guideline.

The Irving trade: the Celtics are coming of being the no. 1 regular season team in 2017 and didn't even trade an own first round pick. Again. Fail 2.

The Celtics trading down on draft night this year. Not "future", not their "own", not "while being bad". Mega fail 3.

Miami in 2010: coming of a 47 win season and adding LeBron/Bosh and others. They traded those picks just to put themselves into a better cap situation, not because they needed to trade those picks to get LeBron. Not "while being bad". Fail 4.

Did you have other examples? But anyways, own, future and "while being bad" should be there, otherwise we are simply not talking about my guideline. Also accusing me of searching for examples for my argument (which I BTW didn't even do) is silly, when that guideline is a way to strategically rate trades when they are made and before you know whether they work out or not. That's exactly where I was going with that argument and I made that over and over again in the last 11 years since I joined this site.

So of course you can believe that a good GM doesn't behave according to this guideline, but please, please take the time to understand what it is even about before making comments that are besides the theme at hand.

[gradyandrew]

Yeah, spree, nothing but love for you, but why should it matter if it's your own or someone else's pick? the point is that nets pick was projected to be in the lottery.

The Cavs did not make Irving untouchable in trade talks in late June and early July, multiple sources told ESPN. Cleveland was not inserting him into deals but listened when teams inquired about him. None of those trade proposals became serious enough to the point that Irving's representatives were contacted to sign off on the potential swap, sources told ESPN.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/2012 ... -cavaliers

We can argue back and forth, point is Kyrie was NOT considered untouchable. Sure, Kyrie wanted his own team, but Griffin was able to assuage those concerns. Dan Gilbert, not so much. It was an organizational failure.

[gradyandrew]

Funny thing is, spree if I remember your origin story, 'not trading picks when you're bad' was what led you to the nykfanpage.

Of course I agree, but only 99% of the time. And I think because of the Knicks and Nets and the general failure of teams that have flipped picks for proven players that perhaps picks have become overvalued. so yeah a good GM has to always be aware that that.

[taowave]

Dan Gilbert is problematic...

And yes,there should be no difference if a pick was your own or a pick contingent on another teams success/failure(especially in the Nets case). Its an asset,and quite possibly a very valuable one.

Yeah, spree, nothing but love for you, but why should it matter if it's your own or someone else's pick? the point is that nets pick was projected to be in the lottery.

The Cavs did not make Irving untouchable in trade talks in late June and early July, multiple sources told ESPN. Cleveland was not inserting him into deals but listened when teams inquired about him. None of those trade proposals became serious enough to the point that Irving's representatives were contacted to sign off on the potential swap, sources told ESPN.

We can argue back and forth, point is Kyrie was NOT considered untouchable. Sure, Kyrie wanted his own team, but Griffin was able to assuage those concerns. Dan Gilbert, not so much. It was an organizational failure

[spree#8]

Spree, maybe I am losing my mind,but didn't you make a post illustrating the Boston/Nets trade? I can't find it anywhere,but that was what I thought I was responding to...

No.

[spree#8]

Yeah, spree, nothing but love for you, but why should it matter if it's your own or someone else's pick? the point is that nets pick was projected to be in the lottery.
...

The big part of all I wrote about is "while being bad". Celtics were great and just used a very valuable asset to get Irving - an all-NBA type of point guard. That's why I'm on board with this trade from day one. And why not? Has nothing to do with my comment, which is a guideline for a GM of a bad team. Why does it matter if it's your own pick? Because you only influence your own pick, so the risk of trading an own pick while being bad is that you don't improve as envisioned and give up a more valuable pick for a worse player than you thought and not being able to capitalize on staying bad. Not being able to chose to go through the lottery when you want.

You can be wrong in your evaluation of a pick you own from another team, but being wrong on another one's pick never hampers your options going forward. It is just an asset that you can use however you see fit.

[taowave]

Spree, it certainly appears you are on board with a good team trading a most likely lottery pick for an all NBA PG who happens to be 25.
But that would not apply for a "bad team". Hypothetically,you would not approve of the Knicks trading Kanter/filler plus #1 pick for Anthony Davis..

You are completely losing me with your logic and "the influence your own pick"..At the end of the day,if you trade your pick or another teams pick,if you dont improve as envisioned,and you get a worse player,you screwed up regardless...

Are you suggesting that if we had the Nets pick,its OK to trade that,but not our own pick?

The big part of all I wrote about is "while being bad". Celtics were great and just used a very valuable asset to get Irving - an all-NBA point guard. That's why I'm on board with this trade from day one. And why not? Has nothing to do with my comment, which is a guideline for a GM of a bad team. Why does it matter if it's your own pick? Because you only influence your own pick, so the risk of trading an own pick while being bad is that you don't improve as envisioned and give up a more valuable pick for a worse player than you thought.

The Irving trade: the Celtics are coming of being the no. 1 regular season team in 2017 and didn't even trade an own first round pick. Again. Fail 2.

[spree#8]

... Why does it matter if it's your own pick? Because you only influence your own pick, so the risk of trading an own pick while being bad is that you don't improve as envisioned and give up a more valuable pick for a worse player than you thought and not being able to capitalize on staying bad. Not being able to chose to go through the lottery when you want.

You can be wrong in your evaluation of a pick you own from another team, but being wrong on another one's pick never hampers your options going forward. It is just an asset that you can use however you see fit.

[spree#8]

We are talking GM strategy here. Trading another teams' pick is just like trading a player, while trading your own picks is directly influencing what you can do going forward. We couldn't tank when we should have, the Nets couldn't the last few years - as the prominent examples everyone is aware of. You take yourself out of the lottery at a moment when that is your best and easiest route to improve, because when you are bad you are not attractive to free agents and don't have many attractive assets for trades.

That's why it is strategically the most riskiest thing you can do in the NBA and often times you got screwed searching for the quick fix.

Knicks fans should know.

[shakespeare]

Knicks fans should know.

[taowave]

Ahhh,I thought you may have been talking about tanking and "controlling your destiny",i.e the process..

What's interesting in Philly is,despite 2 seemingly bad first round selections in Okafor and Noel,they also got 2 possible All World players due to crappy draft picks not delivering and "fortuitous" injuries which kept the gravy train rolling.

We are talking GM strategy here. Trading another teams' pick is just like trading a player, while trading your own picks is directly influencing what you can do going forward. We couldn't tank when we should have, the Nets couldn't the last few years - as the prominent examples everyone is aware of. You take yourself out of the lottery at a moment when that is your best and easiest route to improve, because when you are bad you are not attractive to free agents and don't have many attractive assets for trades.

That's why it is strategically the most riskiest thing you can do in the NBA and often times you got screwed searching for the quick fix.

Knicks fans should know.

[taowave]

But that is a sad state of Dolan and Zeke and not to be confused with any particular GM approach.

[quote="shakespeare]

Knicks fans should know.[/quote]

[gradyandrew]

taowave, it's the double down aspect which spree is opposed to. as long as you're trading players, you're still able to capitalize on however things work out on the court. But once you start trading future draft picks, you're really rolling the dice, because if you do suck, you'll be sucking for even longer. my guess is gm spree would be cool with trade deadline pick trades because at that point at least the range would be more limited.

His point is that no one is that much of a savant that they should be doubling down. (Unless it's Isiah). There is only so long you should theoretically suck for if you're drafting the likes of lamarcus Aldridge, joakim Noah, gordan Hayward and so on.