Pels threaten with lost of draft pick and fines

[Mythrol]

That's fair. I have the same complaint half the time so I get it.

So this is my takeaway, please correct me if I'm wrong:

Zubac, Kuz, Ingram, Ball, 2019 1st, 2021 1st ...that's a terrible offer.

Kuz, Ingram, Ball, 2019 1st, 2021 1st, 2023 1st, and 2025 1st ...that's an offer worth considering.

Getting a 2023 and 2025 1st are therefor significantly better than Zubac. If the Pels call Lakers back on Thursday, they could probably have gotten that 2023 pick and Zubac.

I'm not trying to be annoying, I'm just trying to tease out value.

So you would have considered that a fair trade, and we would have been able to tank which is worth an extra pick just in terms of projected value.

How do you value the Celtics offer that was reported yesterday, considering the costs of the Pelicans losing draft position by keeping AD? Do you still think it is significantly better than the Lakers offer you would have considered?

I view Zubac, Kuzma, Ingram, Ball, and 2 1st a terrible offer *at the deadline*. If we go into the summer and things don't break our way then I'd back and consider it. That's the whole point of waiting. I don't think the Lakers significantly reduce their offer for AD. Even if they pull Ball from it I think that's a risk that is worth taking. Also have to keep in mind how the Lakers pick would change if we traded AD to them.

Yes I consider the 2023 and 2025 1st round picks significantly better than Zubac because he is a RFA this summer and would require us cutting a check to keep him.

I don't believe the Lakers were going to give us a 3rd pick at the deadline and I don't really want Zubac not because he is bad but because of his contract situation.

As far as our tanking goes, if these players are as good as you think they are, do you think our team would be significantly worse than if we kept AD and played just him limited minutes and no back to backs?

I see a chance that our team's record would be the same or even better if we made the LA trade instead of how we are going to handle AD.


I think if the Lakers were willing to give up 4 picks along with all their "young core" it'd be closer to Boston's trade. I personally value Tatum + Smart as better value than Ingram, Kuzma, and Ball. Then it would be 3 1st vs 4 1st. With Boston having Mem 2021 unprotected as probably the best one on the table. It'd be closer but I'd probably lean Boston. I wouldn't be mad with either one especially if we could move Ball to another team.

[Tinman]

Actually. He’s gonna lose more than anyone. If he has a career ending injury who will that hurt more?

It would CRUSH the Pelicans. AD would be on our roster next year if he gets a Boogie Injury. Then, he leaves the following year & we get NOTHiNG. Adam Silver must be castrated .

[Pelicanidae]

I know it would never happen, but I think it's fair that if AD gets a career-changing injury as a result of the league forcing us to play him, we should automatically get the first pick in the draft.

[Mythrol]

No GM is perfect, but that doesn't change the fact that trading for Davis if he's adamant about leaving is a low percentage trade.

1st Rozier is a FA and Harford has a player option so he may not be a option. 2nd you take away Tatum, Smart, and Harford (provided you don't get some better player) that's not a playoff team.

That's not how GMs think. Not for a player like AD and not after we just watched PG stay in OKC. Is there risk? Yes. Of course. But if the Celtics think they can win a championship if they bring AD in why wouldn't they make that trade? A one year rental and a ring is still worth it even if he walks.

I think Kyrie, Brown, Hayward, two 1st, and whoever else they are able to sign in free agency would be a playoff team in the East. Easily.

[P_B_&_G]

I know it would never happen, but I think it's fair that if AD gets a career-changing injury as a result of the league forcing us to play him, we should automatically get the first pick in the draft.

Nah, at that point he would be happy to sign his supermax and the league could just say "see, we helped you keep AD by playing him."

[13 - 3]

Rich Paul cried to NBA. NBA bowed down to him. I agree with this Russia’s guy on SVP last night. The NBA needs to do tell Rich Paul to shut up!

https://deadspin.com/rich-paul-snitc...avi-1832489104

[13 - 3]

Stephen A Smith feels sorry for Rich Paul

https://es.pn/2DTLW6h

[harschman]

I guess we all know who runs the NBA, Lebron James.

[da ThRONe]

That's not how GMs think. Not for a player like AD and not after we just watched PG stay in OKC. Is there risk? Yes. Of course. But if the Celtics think they can win a championship if they bring AD in why wouldn't they make that trade? A one year rental and a ring is still worth it even if he walks.

I think Kyrie, Brown, Hayward, two 1st, and whoever else they are able to sign in free agency would be a playoff team in the East. Easily.

PG was a different situation for a couple of reasons. 1 what OKC gave up wasn't considered major assets. 2. The Lakers actually threw everything reasonable they had to acquire AD and we said no. 3 OKC already had their main guy re-signed. And PG never ruled out OKC in any way sure everybody knew LAL was his top choice but he never eliminated the Thunder before the trade.

The C's won't win anything with Davis and Hayward (even if Horford opts in). So they'll want to have Kyrie or any marquee FA signed before making such a bold offer. Which has been something I've tried to point out. Even if Boston is willing to risk so much they'll have to have somebody else signed 1st. Which means we have to wait longer. Which means other potential suitors may move on. Which is why I preferred Davis gone by the deadline.

[Mythrol]

PG was a different situation for a couple of reasons. 1 what OKC gave up wasn't considered major assets. 2. The Lakers actually threw everything reasonable they had to acquire AD and we said no. 3 OKC already had their main guy re-signed. And PG never ruled out OKC in any way sure everybody knew LAL was his top choice but he never eliminated the Thunder before the trade.

The C's won't win anything with Davis and Hayward (even if Horford opts in). So they'll want to have Kyrie or any marquee FA signed before making such a bold offer. Which has been something I've tried to point out. Even if Boston is willing to risk so much they'll have to have somebody else signed 1st. Which means we have to wait longer. Which means other potential suitors may move on. Which is why I preferred Davis gone by the deadline.

This is the same circle argument over and over. We've been through this a hundred times now. Cheers, it ain't worth it.

[13 - 3]

Were the knicks penalized when they did not play Kanter?

[Pelicanidae]

Were the knicks penalized when they did not play Kanter?

No.

Just like the Suns weren't penalised when they didn't play Bledsoe, just like Houston wasn't penalised when they didn't play Carmelo, and just like Cleveland isn't being penalised for not playing JR Smith.

But apparently, because we're the Pelicans, we don't get to decide how to run our own franchise.

[Mythrol]

https://twitter.com/TheSteinLine/sta...981446657?s=19

NBA spokesman says they DID NOT tell Pelicans they'd be fiend 100k per game if they sat AD.

More to come.

[bahmamamba]

https://twitter.com/TheSteinLine/sta...981446657?s=19

NBA spokesman says they DID NOT tell Pelicans they'd be fiend 100k per game if they sat AD.

More to come.

lol,riiiiiiiiight

Sent from my SM-S903VL using Tapatalk

[Tinman]

https://twitter.com/TheSteinLine/sta...981446657?s=19

NBA spokesman says they DID NOT tell Pelicans they'd be fiend 100k per game if they sat AD.

More to come.

I have a sneaky suspicion that AD's all-Star appearance will be his last game in a Pels uni !

[Mythrol]

https://twitter.com/TheSteinLine/sta...044076544?s=19

The Pelicans were advised that the team had not identified a proper basis for making that determination at this time and league rules governing competitive integrity therefore required that he be permitted to play.



I asked Stein for clarification because I've read it like a dozen times and I don't understand what it means.

"the team had not identified a proper basis for making that determination"

What does that mean?

[Pelicanidae]

https://twitter.com/TheSteinLine/sta...981446657?s=19

NBA spokesman says they DID NOT tell Pelicans they'd be fiend 100k per game if they sat AD.

More to come.

Interesting.

Guess we've got no reason to play him then!

[Pelicanidae]

https://twitter.com/TheSteinLine/sta...044076544?s=19

The Pelicans were advised that the team had not identified a proper basis for making that determination at this time and league rules governing competitive integrity therefore required that he be permitted to play.



I asked Stein for clarification because I've read it like a dozen times and I don't understand what it means.

"the team had not identified a proper basis for making that determination"

What does that mean?

Probably means that, according to the league, the team had not been able to give a convincing enough reason for why they wouldn't want to play him. He's healthy, he wants to play, he's under contract, he's not under investigation, he hasn't committed any crimes, he hasn't broken any league rules aside from the one he was already fined for, so the league thinks there is no good reason for him to sit.

I think.

[kinglio21093]

Stephen A Smith feels sorry for Rich Paul

https://es.pn/2DTLW6h

Guarantee SAS works with LeBron. He was the one who was "praying" that AD gets traded to LA.

[13 - 3]

NBA spokesman Mike Bass tells @NYTSports on the Pelicans and Anthony Davis: “The NBA did not tell New Orleans that it would be fined $100,000 per game if Anthony Davis were held out for the remainder of season ... (QUOTE CONTINUED IN NEXT TWEET)

— Marc Stein (@TheSteinLine) February 11, 2019

More from the NBA’s Mike Bass on New Orleans and Anthony Davis: ”The Pelicans were advised that the team had not identified a proper basis for making that determination at this time and league rules governing competitive integrity therefore require that he be permitted to play.”

— Marc Stein (@TheSteinLine) February 11, 2019

[Mythrol]

Probably means that, according to the league, the team had not been able to give a convincing enough reason for why they wouldn't want to play him. He's healthy, he wants to play, he's under contract, he's not under investigation, he hasn't committed any crimes, he hasn't broken any league rules aside from the one he was already fined for, so the league thinks there is no good reason for him to sit.

I think.

If that's the case then they definitely told them they'd be fined. If it's, "we never told them they'd be fined 100k per game, but we found no grounds for them to not play AD so if they don't play AD then they will be fined 100k per game."

I mean. What in the world. It's such circular speak that I can't comprehend it.

Besides, where was this for Melo, Parsons, and Randolph? What grounds did the Rockets have for keeping Melo from playing when he wanted to?

[Pelicanidae]

If that's the case then they definitely told them they'd be fined. If it's, "we never told them they'd be fined 100k per game, but we found no grounds for them to not play AD so if they don't play AD then they will be fined 100k per game."

I mean. What in the world. It's such circular speak that I can't comprehend it.

Besides, where was this for Melo, Parsons, and Randolph? What grounds did the Rockets have for keeping Melo from playing when he wanted to?

The only POSSIBLE explanation is that (as some others have said) Melo, Parsons, JR Smith, etc, all made their team worse by playing. So it is an understandable coaching decision not to play them.

That said if that's the argument that the league is making, then they're on seriously shakey ground. Since when did the league start directing the exact coaching decisions, right down to lineups? Since when did the league issue official statements on who the best 20 or 30 players are, with a different set of rules applying to those players than others? Since when did the NBA split the rulebook into two, one for superstars and one for 'the others'?

There is no grounds to force us to play AD, but they want us to, so they have to resort to these shady ''well, we didn't SAY we'd fine you, just that if you did that, you would be eligible to receive a fine'' kind of comments.

[SmontySwilliams]

I don't understand why we aren't forcing the NBA to show their hand publicly. Sit him until we are fined with the PR machine locked an loaded. Leak out every email. Set the precedent that the league will protect the integrity of the organizations that put up the financial risk of fielding a team or show that they won't and the league is being run by players and their agents. Expose it for what it is.

"the team had not identified a proper basis for making that determination" WUT does that mean? They hadn't determined the right way to determine sitting him? They did not tell the league a good enough reason?

He publicly demanded a trade mid season. NBA's rules to prevent this are too weak to prevent it, clearly. Team should have the right to protect its interests in a situation where a player has undermined the integrity of team performance specifically by demanding a trade. NBA has to take a stance on players honoring their contracts and not using media to provoke change.

I get the precedent argument and all the hypothetical situations to follow but this is clearly not tanking for a better pick. This is the only logical move to protect the value of the teams asset after that individual, without team consent, made his public appeal for a trade. I'm shocked there is not a vague enough team rule to suspend him. I do think they have missed the opportunity for that now though by playing him at all.


Lastly, where is the no trade clause on max/ supermax deals that protect the team? It must be written in contracts now that damages must be paid for publicly requesting a trade by the player or agent. Make the fine in the contract match the fine of the league so in effect the player would have to pay for the team sitting them for publicly requesting a trade.

[AusPel]

I Slike it Smonty

[new city champ]

As I said before, this is a fight I'd pick with the league, at least after the All-Star break. Does the league really want to be seen coming down on the Pels franchise after what the Lakers, Klutch and Davis pulled trying to strong arm them at the deadline? I don't think so. Our franchise player just requested a trade in the middle of the season. He was fined $50k for this so league has already conceded a violation of league rules has occurred.

I'd sit Davis and tell Silver, by quitting on the team in the middle of the season and publicly requesting a trade in violation of league rules, Davis conduct does cause ongoing harm to the team if he plays. Morale suffers, effort drops his presence in the line-up is detrimental to the longterm health of the squad and the franchise as a whole. I'm not playing him.

Now, I'm sure they might come back and say something like "look a the +/- when Davis is on the floor," but all that takes time. Drag it out. Cite language in his contract about conduct detrimental to the team. Ask for an appeal if your initial basis for sitting him is denied. Be creative. Line up other small market owners to voice support to the league office. I feel certain a half-competent legal team could drag this out to the end of the season.