The Pelicans Have Four Options. Here they Are

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

And this is why I said it was pointless to discuss this stuff with you. You see it fundamentally different than almost everyone else.

---

We find ourselves at the same place. Me giving logic and reasoning and you agreeing to disagree based on what may or may not be the consensus on the forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

I think that if you look at the conference as a whole it looks insane, but if you look at each team individually, you only see 4 teams that are a lock for the playoffs IMO. I can't find a 5th that I would definitely put over us, especially if Gordon is gone and a SF is here

---

That number for me is 6. The bottom 2 spots are up for grabs and we are in the mix IMO. Ultimately I think we are team 9. Again wouldn't be shocked if we ended up as team 7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

That number for me is 6. The bottom 2 spots are up for grabs and we are in the mix IMO. Ultimately I think we are team 9. Again wouldn't be shocked if we ended up as team 7.

---

I got: LAC, SA, OKC, Houston - who else is a lock. Like, bet your car on it lock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

We find ourselves at the same place. Me giving logic and reasoning and you agreeing to disagree based on what may or may not be the consensus on the forum.

---

Yes. And I don't think it's worthwhile wasting my time trying to reason with you. We are at a point where we both have to see how the season plays out. And even then, I doubt you stop beating the drum of "we should have built through the draft".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

Here the problem we never know we can only base opinions on the now. I don't think we are a playoff team even after this Asik deal. So IMO we gave away a lottery pick for a guy we aren't likely to retain next year. Of course we don't know and the pick isn't that big of a deal 20 and up.

So to answer your question of course if everything works out the deal looks different. It is such an obvious concept IMO it's not even worth the discussion. We should be discussing IMO are the chances "it" does go right.

---

the game of GM is sometimes gamble. ok Dell played this game last season, he is playin' now without visible results. but couple months ago Wizards went to play in and send unprotected 1rd pick to Suns for expiring contract. guess what happened? they have found the missing piece

this trade will look different if in next 3 years we will be in the top 5 of west (or top 10 in total) and only thing what we will send to HOU will be 2nd round pick... but I know - for now it is SciFi

You guys mentioned Bobnets (or Horcats?) -
simple trade Henderson, Biyombo and Neal for Gordon plus Ajinca
everyone is happy, we have got 3 expirings and some savings

Hornets are sending 2 unused players plus one which they don't like

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

I got: LAC, SA, OKC, Houston - who else is a lock. Like, bet your car on it lock?

---

Golden State and Portland. Of course all of this is barring any major injuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

Yes. And I don't think it's worthwhile wasting my time trying to reason with you. We are at a point where we both have to see how the season plays out. And even then, I doubt you stop beating the drum of "we should have built through the draft".

---

Likewise I'm sure you'll beat the "whatever Dell did was right" drum even if we are unsuccessful.

Either way you don't want to engage me in logical discussion fine, but playing this game trying to peg me as being unreasonable is the only thing that you are wasting your time doing.

Bottom line is Dell has got to fix the Eric Gordon mistake. He's done a fine job sticking to his plan, but unfortunately like anyone that has taken college classes can attest to, you can't fix Fs with Bs. You need As. Eric Gordon is the test we bombed. Hopefully, we can get a makeup exam this summer in the form of a cap clearing move. If we do that I think even the most pessimistic of us have to see the light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

Golden State and Portland. Of course all of this is barring any major injuries.

---

So, like what Portland experienced last year?

Good luck getting that two years in a row.

A lock means no matter what. OKC makes the playoffs even if Westbrook gets hurt, SA makes it regardless. Clips lose CP3 and were still a playoff team. There are 4 locks in the West. The last 4 will come down to luck and circumstance IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

So, like what Portland experienced last year?

Good luck getting that two years in a row.

A lock means no matter what. OKC makes the playoffs even if Westbrook gets hurt, SA makes it regardless. Clips lose CP3 and were still a playoff team. There are 4 locks in the West. The last 4 will come down to luck and circumstance IMO.

---

So OKC losing Durant makes them a lock? I'd agree the Spurs are really one of the few(if not only) teams that could lose their best player for almost the whole season and still be considered a lock in the West. Yeah Paul missed a decent amount of games but it wasn't like he missed half or more of the season.

Say, aldridge get injured for 60+ games. Do you still see portland making the playoffs? Personally, i don't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

Likewise I'm sure you'll beat the "whatever Dell did was right" drum even if we are unsuccessful.

Either way you don't want to engage me in logical discussion fine, but playing this game trying to peg me as being unreasonable is the only thing that you are wasting your time doing.

---

Yep. I've never criticized this organization at all. Go pull up any number of game threads, fire Monty threads, EG contract threads, the Rolo trade, or anything of the like.

I don't see anything you are saying as necessarily "logical". Opinion yes, but in my view illogical opinion. Which is why I don't care to extend effort in making an argument against your point of view. I don't agree but I also don't care what your opinion is enough to do you the courtesy of laying out a case of what my views are. I've stated them enough and you just reply when I'm not directly talking to you anyway so it's worthless to answer your call to "explain what I disagree with and why".

This Asik trade has just showed me that some people WILL NEVER be happy, and it's tiring to the point that I don't want to engage with them. But for the benefit of understanding my viewpoint: We got a top tier defensive and rebounding center, fixing two of - if not the two biggest holes on our team. We only gave up a mid/late round pick which odds are they won't even receive next year, and if we have continued success might never receive a 1st rounder for him. We were able to pull this trade off with not just a conference rival but a division rival, and we were able to keep Ryan Anderson out of the trade which 12 months ago would have been the only way to get Asik. For us I see no way this was not a winner of a trade, but the extreme negativity which some people have responded with is not only shocking but frustrating. This from the some of the same people who called to trade Ryno for Asik last year, complained about the Rolo trade, and complained about our need for a C because AD "is a PF".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

Yep. I've never criticized this organization at all. Go pull up any number of game threads, fire Monty threads, EG contract threads, the Rolo trade, or anything of the like.

I don't see anything you are saying as necessarily "logical". Opinion yes, but in my view illogical opinion. Which is why I don't care to extend effort in making an argument against your point of view. I don't agree but I also don't care what your opinion is enough to do you the courtesy of laying out a case of what my views are. I've stated them enough and you just reply when I'm not directly talking to you anyway so it's worthless to answer your call to "explain what I disagree with and why".

This Asik trade has just showed me that some people WILL NEVER be happy, and it's tiring to the point that I don't want to engage with them. We got a top tier defensive and rebounding center, fixing two of - if not the two biggest holes on our team. We only gave up a mid/late round pick which odds are they won't even receive next year, and if we have continued success might never receive a 1st rounder for him. We were able to pull this trade off with not just a conference rival but a division rival, and we were able to keep Ryan Anderson out of the trade which 12 months ago would have been the only way to get Asik. For us I see no way this was not a winner of a trade, but the extreme negativity which some people have responded with is not only shocking but frustrating. This from the some of the same people who called to trade Ryno for Asik last year, complained about the Rolo trade, and complained about our need for a C because AD "is a PF".

---

I've already called the pairing of Davis and Asik a good thing. You only take away what you want from my comments. Which is largely the problem you want to find offense with everything I post and you do. You are talking about us keeping Anderson, but considering this deal isn't finalized he could be gone as a result of this trade.

If my comments aren't logical then might I suggest not paying them any mind. You know since they aren't worth your time and all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

I've already called the pairing of Davis and Asik a good thing. You only take away what you want from my comments. Which is largely the problem you want to find offense with everything I post and you do. You are talking about us keeping Anderson, but considering this deal isn't finalized he could be gone as a result of this trade.

If my comments aren't logical then might I suggest not paying them any mind. You know since they aren't worth your time and all.

---

First, if Anderson is traded it is not a result of this trade. If we move him it is because that is where we see the best value. If we want to keep him, we will.

Also, You said this just a few posts back,

"Here the problem we never know we can only base opinions on the now. I don't think we are a playoff team even after this Asik deal. So IMO we gave away a lottery pick for a guy we aren't likely to retain next year. Of course we don't know and the pick isn't that big of a deal 20 and up."

Or this

"At this point I don't even fault Demps he's saving his job. I can't imagine I would be doing anything else in his shoes. I like the fit of Asik next to Davis. The future 1st is terrible in my world, but in his reality what difference does it make? He won't be here to make the pick if we don't make a huge jump in record this year."

You certainly aren't in the clear as your above post makes it apparent you don't like the trade (because in your opinion we will still fail). So am I misreading your posts? Am I only taking away what I want? Have you changed your opinion since posting the above?

But Thats irrelevant because I wasn't just specifically talking about you but multiple people being extremely negative about the trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

First, if Anderson is traded it is not a result of this trade. If we move him it is because that is where we see the best value. If we want to keep him, we will.

Also, You said this just a few posts back,

"Here the problem we never know we can only base opinions on the now. I don't think we are a playoff team even after this Asik deal. So IMO we gave away a lottery pick for a guy we aren't likely to retain next year. Of course we don't know and the pick isn't that big of a deal 20 and up."

Or this

"At this point I don't even fault Demps he's saving his job. I can't imagine I would be doing anything else in his shoes. I like the fit of Asik next to Davis. The future 1st is terrible in my world, but in his reality what difference does it make? He won't be here to make the pick if we don't make a huge jump in record this year."

You certainly aren't in the clear as your above post makes it apparent you don't like the trade (because in your opinion we will still fail). So am I misreading your posts? Am I only taking away what I want? Have you changed your opinion since posting the above?

But Thats irrelevant because I wasn't just specifically talking about you but multiple people being extremely negative about the trade.

---

Like most things in life it's give and take. I think Asik next to Davis is a good fit. However I don't think we'll be able to keep Asik due the cap situation we currently have so I'm not thrilled by the trade. It's a huge low percentage gamble IMO. The same way I felt giving Gordon a max deal was the low percentage move. However given that I think Dell is on the hot seat I can completely understand why trading away a future pick isn't a big deal to him.

I don't see how any of that is a contradiction. Love the Asik/Davis pairing hate Asik is an expiring. Understand what Dell is doing and why I think he's doing it, but would have preferred for it to be done another way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

Like most things in life it's give and take. I think Asik next to Davis is a good fit. However I don't think we'll be able to keep Asik due the cap situation we currently have so I'm not thrilled by the trade. It's a huge low percentage gamble IMO. The same way I felt giving Gordon a max deal was the low percentage move. However given that I think Dell is on the hot seat I can completely understand why trading away a future pick isn't a big deal to him.

I don't see how any of that is a contradiction. Love the Asik/Davis pairing hate Asik is an expiring. Understand what Dell is doing and why I think he's doing it, but would have preferred for it to be done another way.

---

Wait. Why would we ever lose Asik? We can either sign him to a contract within his own cap hold before the season even starts (8.3M increasing), we can make a move and have more cap to offer him a 10M+ increasing before the season starts, or we can use his Bird's Rights to sign him next offseason, which gives us a huge advantage over any other team (7.5% increase each year instead of only 4.5%; and can sign him even over the cap).

I see no scenario where we lose Asik unless we don't want him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

Wait. Why would we ever lose Asik? We can either sign him to a contract within his own cap hold before the season even starts (8.3M increasing), we can make a move and have more cap to offer him a 10M+ increasing before the season starts, or we can use his Bird's Rights to sign him next offseason, which gives us a huge advantage over any other team (7.5% increase each year instead of only 4.5%; and can sign him even over the cap).

I see no scenario where we lose Asik unless we don't want him.

---

Yes Benson has already indicated that he is willing to go into the lux tax to do so.
Otherwise he wouldn't be paying for the other 7M Asik is owed that doesn't go towards the cap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

Wait. Why would we ever lose Asik? We can either sign him to a contract within his own cap hold before the season even starts (8.3M increasing), we can make a move and have more cap to offer him a 10M+ increasing before the season starts, or we can use his Bird's Rights to sign him next offseason, which gives us a huge advantage over any other team (7.5% increase each year instead of only 4.5%; and can sign him even over the cap).

I see no scenario where we lose Asik unless we don't want him.

---

Short answer is he's a UFA. He can go where ever he wants. He's not choosing to sign here like Morrow did we are acquiring him via trade so we don't know if Asik even wants to be on this team for starters.

Provided we aren't trading Gordon or any of the core members how are we going to pay Asik then pay Anderson the following year then Evans and Holiday the next? Oh yeah and fit Davis' already presumed max deal? While still funding a remotely competent bench?

Will Asik like sitting on the bench in the clutch when we go with Davis and Anderson to close the game? He had a problem being benched by Howard he could view not playing when the games matter most as in insult.

There are so many variables that can play out most of which Asik is gone after this year. Again I view it similarly like I viewed giving Gordon a max deal low percentage gamble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AUSSIE_PELICAN

Yes Benson has already indicated that he is willing to go into the lux tax to do so.
Otherwise he wouldn't be paying for the other 7M Asik is owed that doesn't go towards the cap.

---

The other 7 million is dollar for dollar it's not 2 to 1 or whatever the luxury tax is. Also this is not to say that you are wrong but I haven't heard or read anything about Benson being willing to go into the luxury tax if need be. If you could post a link it would be appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AUSSIE_PELICAN

Yes Benson has already indicated that he is willing to go into the lux tax to do so.
Otherwise he wouldn't be paying for the other 7M Asik is owed that doesn't go towards the cap.

---

This isn't baseball. Almost no one willingly goes into the lux tax. 9 times out of 10, if you're in tax territory, you blundered your way there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

The other 7 million is dollar for dollar it's not 2 to 1 or whatever the luxury tax is. Also this is not to say that you are wrong but I haven't heard or read anything about Benson being willing to go into the luxury tax if need be. If you could post a link it would be appreciated.

---

Link where he said he wouldn't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

Link where he said he wouldn't?

---

Why would I post a link about something that may not even exist? When it wasn't me making the statements to begin with. You are better than this MM.

If a person can't back up their comment with actual tangible proof then it's just hearsay. Which is fine and is not meant to discredit what he believe he's heard/read mentioned in the past. But we are all guilty of misremembering things we thought we heard or read. And I'm not going to proceed in a discussion under the assumption Benson will undoubtedly go into the luxury tax until there is tangible proof.

the only possible evidence that we have so far that can predict whether Benson will pay the lux tax or not is the fact that he is willing to pay Asik's poison pill salary of 15 Mill...with that fact, I would think it is more likely than not at this point in time that Benson is willing to pay the lux tax...nothing to contradict that notion so far

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

Why would I post a link about something that may not even exist? When it wasn't me making the statements to begin with. You are better than this MM.

If a person can't back up their comment with actual tangible proof then it's just hearsay. Which is fine and is not meant to discredit what he believe he's heard/read mentioned in the past. But we are all guilty of misremembering things we thought we heard or read. And I'm not going to proceed in a discussion under the assumption Benson will undoubtedly go into the luxury tax until there is tangible proof.

---

His point was that Asik's contract shows that he would be willing to pay a premium to field a winning roster. There is not definitive proof, but there isn't any on the other side either. His assertion that Benson could go into the tax is relevant, because if true, it woud ease some of the worries of the people arguing the other side. Do we know for sure, either way, but between the Asik deal, Dell often saying that he has been given all the resources he needs, Benson spending big with Saints in recent years, and the fact that the franchise is 1.5 to 2.5 times more valuable now than when he bought it - I think there is far more evidence to assume that he would pay it than he wouldnt if we had to guess.

Plenty of reasons to come to the conclusion Benson will spend. He employs the most expensive coach in American professional sports. He owns an NFL team that prints money. He is paying Asik $15M this season despite a much lower cap hit. He paid Rashard Lewis $13.4M to not play for the team in 2012-13. Which absolute fact do you disagree with?

Benson won't pay the max because he's a small market owner is an assumption. It is based on the actions of other small market owners. Do those owners also own NFL teams in the same market? Do we have ample evidence of those owners spending large? No. We do with Benson. Stop ignoring evidence and accepting an assumption based on different circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

His point was that Asik's contract shows that he would be willing to pay a premium to field a winning roster. There is not definitive proof, but there isn't any on the other side either. His assertion that Benson could go into the tax is relevant, because if true, it woud ease some of the worries of the people arguing the other side. Do we know for sure, either way, but between the Asik deal, Dell often saying that he has been given all the resources he needs, Benson spending big with Saints in recent years, and the fact that the franchise is 1.5 to 2.5 times more valuable now than when he bought it - I think there is far more evidence to assume that he would pay it than he wouldnt if we had to guess.

---

This isn't my point I never said Benson would or wouldn't be willing to spend. Somebody made a comment specifically stating that Benson has already "indicated" he would. I just ask for some proof of those comments. If we are going to use deductive reasoning based off of Benson spending history I'm fine with that and we can have a logical debate about it. However if someone is making the case that Benson has already commented on it specifically then that person posting a link should be expected.

Just a couple of random thoughts that I didn't have a thread to start them in.

What is everyone's thoughts on Khris Middelton in Milwaukee. They just drafted Jabari Parker and they also have alphabet at SF. They are talking about playing Parker at PF, but at 6'8 I still think he's going to have to play a lot of SF.

Middelton shot over 41% from three at 6'8 and 22 years old. I would think Austin Rivers would have some value to them.

Also, would anyone trade Ryan Anderson for a sign and traded Gordon Hayward from Utah. Utah just drafted Exum to play guard with Burke, and they also drafted Rodney Hood at SF later in the draft. Favors and Kanter are both playing center now after horrible results on the court together. Seems a stretch four like Ryan would be exactly what that team needs.

Just trying to find a way to complete this lineup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spaniard

Just a couple of random thoughts that I didn't have a thread to start them in.

What is everyone's thoughts on Khris Middelton in Milwaukee. They just drafted Jabari Parker and they also have alphabet at SF. They are talking about playing Parker at PF, but at 6'8 I still think he's going to have to play a lot of SF.

Middelton shot over 41% from three at 6'8 and 22 years old. I would think Austin Rivers would have some value to them.

Also, would anyone trade Ryan Anderson for a sign and traded Gordon Hayward from Utah. Utah just drafted Exum to play guard with Burke, and they also drafted Rodney Hood at SF later in the draft. Favors and Kanter are both playing center now after horrible results on the court together. Seems a stretch four like Ryan would be exactly what that team needs.

Just trying to find a way to complete this lineup.

---

I like Middleton. Not sure how he is as a defender but he can shoot the ball and create space.

As far as Hayward I have no desire to overpay for him and although he'll look for a deal around 14M's per he may require more to come here. No thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

I like Middleton. Not sure how he is as a defender but he can shoot the ball and create space.

As far as Hayward I have no desire to overpay for him and although he'll look for a deal around 14M's per he may require more to come here. No thanks.

---

I completely agree with this and I think I would take my chances with Middleton defensively....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

Short answer is he's a UFA. He can go where ever he wants. He's not choosing to sign here like Morrow did we are acquiring him via trade so we don't know if Asik even wants to be on this team for starters.

Provided we aren't trading Gordon or any of the core members how are we going to pay Asik then pay Anderson the following year then Evans and Holiday the next? Oh yeah and fit Davis' already presumed max deal? While still funding a remotely competent bench?

Will Asik like sitting on the bench in the clutch when we go with Davis and Anderson to close the game? He had a problem being benched by Howard he could view not playing when the games matter most as in insult.

There are so many variables that can play out most of which Asik is gone after this year. Again I view it similarly like I viewed giving Gordon a max deal low percentage gamble.

---

Most variables are that Asik is gone? No. I'm sorry. There's no part of me that believes Dell gave up a pick without having permission to give Asik a top offer next year or to sign him before the season even starts.

You are basing your entire argument around us sucking as a team, Dell being unable to negotiate with Asik's agent, Asik hating it here, and then deciding to turn down a better (7.5% increases instead of 4.5%) to leave NO.

I choose to believe we will be a good team and either extend him this summer or easily next year. I would also imagine that he would love the chance to stick it to Houston multiple times a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

Most variables are that Asik is gone? No. I'm sorry. There's no part of me that believes Dell gave up a pick without having permission to give Asik a top offer next year or to sign him before the season even starts.

You are basing your entire argument around us sucking as a team, Dell being unable to negotiate with Asik's agent, Asik hating it here, and then deciding to turn down a better (7.5% increases instead of 4.5%) to leave NO.

I choose to believe we will be a good team and either extend him this summer or easily next year. I would also imagine that he would love the chance to stick it to Houston multiple times a year.

---

First these aren't assumptions there are possible scenarios. Just like Asik could sign a 4 or 5 year deal with us pretty much averaging similar money he made with Houston. I never said what Asik will or won't do. It's too early to get a good read on Asik and his future plans. Just laying out the possible road blocks in retaining him.

We can offer Asik more, but that certainly doesn't mean we will be the highest bidders. I think trading for a guy with only one year under contract is a huge gamble. If you think it's worth the risk I'm fine with that. However it appears as if you are dismissing all the reasons Asik would leave just to avoid dealing with the fact that this trade could hurt the team.

Even if we don't suck he could still leave. If Asik has a career year (especially if we have good team success) I would say that makes it harder for us to keep him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Fisher

Plenty of reasons to come to the conclusion Benson will spend. He employs the most expensive coach in American professional sports. He owns an NFL team that prints money. He is paying Asik $15M this season despite a much lower cap hit. He paid Rashard Lewis $13.4M to not play for the team in 2012-13. Which absolute fact do you disagree with?

Benson won't pay the max because he's a small market owner is an assumption. It is based on the actions of other small market owners. Do those owners also own NFL teams in the same market? Do we have ample evidence of those owners spending large? No. We do with Benson. Stop ignoring evidence and accepting an assumption based on different circumstances.

---

Da Throne you would do well to address this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coughka

Da Throne you would do well to address this post.

---

What is there to address? He makes a great point. Not sure if his comments are directed at me, and I have no clue why you think I need to refute his post. At no point did I ever say Benson would or wouldn't go into the luxury. I simply asked for verification when a poster said Benson had spoken on the subject.

It doesn't appear you are keeping up with the discussion at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

This isn't my point I never said Benson would or wouldn't be willing to spend. Somebody made a comment specifically stating that Benson has already "indicated" he would. I just ask for some proof of those comments. If we are going to use deductive reasoning based off of Benson spending history I'm fine with that and we can have a logical debate about it. However if someone is making the case that Benson has already commented on it specifically then that person posting a link should be expected.

---

He meant indicated by actions, not by words.

And like David and I pointed out with other actions he has made, the overwhelming evidence is that he likely would. But no, there is no link. There is no quote. But I personally find it safe to assume. You don't. Thats fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

He meant indicated by actions, not by words.

And like David and I pointed out with other actions he has made, the overwhelming evidence is that he likely would. But no, there is no link. There is no quote. But I personally find it safe to assume. You don't. Thats fine.

---

Well there is clearly some misunderstanding on what he might. I was under the impression he was saying that Benson had spoke on his willingness to go into the luxury cap to keep the team together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

What is there to address? He makes a great point. Not sure if his comments are directed at me, and I have no clue why you think I need to refute his post. At no point did I ever say Benson would or wouldn't go into the luxury. I simply asked for verification when a poster said Benson had spoken on the subject.

It doesn't appear you are keeping up with the discussion at hand.

---

You expressed skepticism regarding Benson's willingness to spend as a negative of the trade.

That poster provided a strong inductive argument for Benson's willingness to spend.

You didn't address his post which was entirely pertinent to one of your worries regarding the trade.

And I'm the one not keeping up?

I don't think Benson should be making any comment that he will go into the luxury tax to keep this team together. It is not necessary and the core has yet to prove it can play together (Asik has yet to take the court) or stay healthy.

IF the core works well, there is ample evidence that Benson will spend to field a winner. If the team does not do well, there is no need for him to go into the luxury tax to keep this group of players together. The internet can have nuance. Please, everyone try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coughka

You expressed skepticism regarding Benson's willingness to spend as a negative of the trade.

That poster provided a strong inductive argument for Benson's willingness to spend.

You didn't address his post which was entirely pertinent to one of your worries regarding the trade.

And I'm the one not keeping up?

---

Why would I need to address what he said? It wasn't addressed to me.

Again if I express "skepticism" and somebody make a good point why would I need to express it. You are making it seem like I was making a case that Benson has been cheap as the owner. Saying that I don't know if Benson will go into the lux tax DOES NOT EQUAL Benson will not enter the lux tax. Again follow the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

First these aren't assumptions there are possible scenarios. Just like Asik could sign a 4 or 5 year deal with us pretty much averaging similar money he made with Houston. I never said what Asik will or won't do. It's too early to get a good read on Asik and his future plans. Just laying out the possible road blocks in retaining him.

We can offer Asik more, but that certainly doesn't mean we will be the highest bidders. I think trading for a guy with only one year under contract is a huge gamble. If you think it's worth the risk I'm fine with that. However it appears as if you are dismissing all the reasons Asik would leave just to avoid dealing with the fact that this trade could hurt the team.

Even if we don't suck he could still leave. If Asik has a career year (especially if we have good team success) I would say that makes it harder for us to keep him.

---

I mean assuming that asik chooses not to sign with us means that we have that much more cap space to go after someone that does want to come here. Couple that with the possibility of moving Gordon this season could clear a bunch more cap space. I mean it's a win if asik pans out and if it doesn't we cap space to go sign someone else, another win imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

Why would I need to address what he said? It wasn't addressed to me.

Again if I express "skepticism" and somebody make a good point why would I need to express it. You are making it seem like I was making a case that Benson has been cheap as the owner. Saying that I don't know if Benson will go into the lux tax DOES NOT EQUAL Benson will not enter the lux tax. Again follow the discussion.

---

You didn't merely say you "don't know" if Benson will spend enough to retain Asik. You flat out asserted that it was improbable he would do so! Why are you so quick to revise your opinion now? Since you are big on evidence via quotation, here are your words one page ago:

Quote:

---

So IMO we gave away a lottery pick for a guy we aren't likely to retain next year.

---

Quote:

---

However I don't think we'll be able to keep Asik due the cap situation we currently have so I'm not thrilled by the trade. It's a huge low percentage gamble IMO.

---

In both cases you referred to the low likelihood of Benson retaining Asik. You were expressing skepticism and doubt, not merely "Iunno".

And this is important because the apparently unlikely nature of us retaining Asik is one of the variables you use to denounce the trade. But now you're revising your opinion and saying you merely claimed to not know if Benson would keep him or not!

So if your claim is that you merely don't know (which it wasn't, as I've directly quoted), then what is your argument against the trade now? If you don't know and you found the other poster's inductive argument for Benson's willingness to spend strong (as you said, it was a "great" post), then why oppose the trade?

My best guess would be 3-4 years at 9 -10.5 million is what it would take to re-sign him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

My best guess would be 3-4 years at 9 -10.5 million is what it would take to re-sign him.

---

Yeah I envision something similar to the Splitter contract, maybe SLIGHTLY higher.

Da Throne has a tendency to denounce others arguments that lack factual proof that are seemingly against what he thinks, but when it comes to his own opinions that are based around assumptions in the same manner none is needed. He does the same thing with Davis' projection saying that we don't know if that or this will happen until it actually happens such as that he will be a great player when all the evidence points to that he CAN and most likely be great. Get what Im saying? Very closed minded at times. We're talking about Sports, damn near everything is hypothetical, all we can do is guess based off what are given lol pretty annoying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coughka

You didn't merely say you "don't know" if Benson will spend enough to retain Asik. You flat out asserted that it was improbable he would do so! Why are you so quick to revise your opinion now? Since you are big on evidence via quotation, here are your words one page ago:





In both cases you referred to the low likelihood of Benson retaining Asik. You were expressing skepticism and doubt, not merely "Iunno".

And this is important because the apparently unlikely nature of us retaining Asik is one of the variables you use to denounce the trade. But now you're revising your opinion and saying you merely claimed to not know if Benson would keep him or not!

So if your claim is that you merely don't know (which it wasn't, as I've directly quoted), then what is your argument against the trade now? If you don't know and you found the other poster's inductive argument for Benson's willingness to spend strong (as you said, it was a "great" post), then why oppose the trade?

---

Last time I checked Asik is not the only player on this team. His contract is not the only one we will have to renew in the next 3years.

Besides Asik not staying here may not just come down to his yearly salary as I also pointed out. Again I don't think we'll be able to keep Asik does not equal Benson will not go into the lux tax ever. You are reaching trying to connect dots that that don't connect. You guys are making yourself looking really illogical looking for that "I got'ca" moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

Last time I checked Asik is not the only player on this team. His contract is not the only one we will have to renew in the next 3years.

Besides Asik not staying here may not just come down to his yearly salary as I also pointed out. Again I don't think we'll be able to keep Asik does not equal Benson will not go into the lux tax ever. You are reaching trying to connect dots that that don't connect. You guys are making yourself looking really illogical looking for that "I got'ca" moment.

---

You have yet to provide evidence for your intuition that we won't be able to retain Asik (and further it would be (almost) impossible for you since our roster isn't even set yet).

Provide a list of various roster makeups and demonstrate why most or all imply the retention of Asik as unlikely.

Since you are a fan of logic, underneath each of these possible roster constructions, list and number the premises of a deductive argument whose conclusion is that Asik's retention is unlikely.

Or is it "logical" to merely have a guess about what the entire roster's makeup will be and how that will squeeze out Asik somehow?

Notice how you keep moving the discussion: first it was Benson is unlikely to retain Asik, seemingly ceteris paribus with respect to our roster. Then you said you merely didn't know if Benson would retain him, not that it was unlikely. Now you're claiming that the roster construction on the whole will prevent us from retaining Asik.

In order to support something like the last argument, you need to offer a minimally sufficient set of reasonably probable roster constructions, and demonstrate why the majority of them point to an untenability in keeping Asik.

This would be the logical thing to do, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wuggie

Da Throne has a tendency to denounce others arguments that lack factual proof that are seemingly against what he thinks, but when it comes to his own opinions that are based around assumptions in the same manner none is needed. He does the same thing with Davis' projection saying that we don't know if that or this will happen until it actually happens such as that he will be a great player when all the evidence points to that he CAN and most likely be great. Get what Im saying? Very closed minded at times. We're talking about Sports, damn near everything is hypothetical, all we can do is guess based off what are given lol pretty annoying.

---

Yeah he seems to have a lower standard for judging his own points of view than he does for judging others.

I'm also not sure he knows what logic is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wuggie

Da Throne has a tendency to denounce others arguments that lack factual proof that are seemingly against what he thinks, but when it comes to his own opinions that are based around assumptions in the same manner none is needed. He does the same thing with Davis' projection saying that we don't know if that or this will happen until it actually happens such as that he will be a great player when all the evidence points to that he CAN and most likely be great. Get what Im saying? Very closed minded at times. We're talking about Sports, damn near everything is hypothetical, all we can do is guess based off what are given lol pretty annoying.

---

Everybody here has a tendency of suffering from group think. We are all flawed. So even if what you are saying is true(and I don't believe it is) pointing out my "flaws" means nothing for this discussion as I haven't "denounced" any good points as it pertains to Benson likelihood of going into the luxury.

I mean the two reasons that I could see that Asik wouldn't resign would be:

1) someone throws him a huge contract
2) he isn't happy with his minutes/not finishing the game
But all of that wouldn't matter if we are winning. Bc winning solves everything right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

Everybody here has a tendency of suffering from group think. We are all flawed. So even if what you are saying is true(and I don't believe it is) pointing out my "flaws" means nothing for this discussion as I haven't "denounced" any good points as it pertains to Benson likelihood of going into the luxury.

---

I dont mind your disagreement, but I find the groupthink argument insulting to others. It is not "groupthink" for people to believe AD will be elite. It is "factthink" or at the very least "extremely likely think"

Being a contrarian is great and is needed. But sometimes the sky is just blue. That is not group think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludiculous

I mean the two reasons that I could see that Asik wouldn't resign would be:

1) someone throws him a huge contract
2) he isn't happy with his minutes/not finishing the game
But all of that wouldn't matter if we are winning. Bc winning solves everything right

---

3) we get a shot at a superstar and let him walk for room