The Pelicans Have Four Options. Here they Are

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