I reckon the 2 seconds have even more value than the late first considering they're from bad teams and they're unguaranteed contracts. Likely super early second rounders.
3 of them was too much
Printable View
Funny how the draft night trade to get the Denver pick was great. When we trade it away it is practically worthless. I like Adams the player. I do not like the cost to acquire him in both assets and salary. If we signed him as a FA for about 3/$45 or less, I would be ok with it.
Not sure what you're talking about honestly, I did not praise the trade to get the Denver pick really at all. I thought there was value on the board for us and would have preferred that we made the pick. Obviously knowing now what the Denver pick was used for, I'm fine with what we did, but at the time I did not think the move to get the Denver pick was great.
Your comment about the trade-
Quote:
I like how we're collecting a lot of distant picks. The value in this, at least a part of the value in this (other than trade tools) is that just as guys like Zion are hitting their extension and our cap space starts to get squeezed, we have a way to filter in more talent on the team. Super important.
https://www.pelicansreport.com/showt...-Thread/page23
Fair enough, I don't remember having said that but there it is.
In any case, my point remains that ultimately as long as we have picks long term (doesn't have to be the Denver pick specifically, as you know) the idea of having in a way to filter in cheap talent remains viable.
And I would rather have Adams than the 27th pick in 2024.
Can't look at things in a vacuum. Plenty of teams would pay that and more for him. Unless you have leverage in your geographical location or are a championship contender, you aren't gonna get him for 3/45. GMs are aware that his value exceeds the box scores fans tend to judge players by.
If it wasn't for the circumstances with covid and season... That draft pick trade looks worse. I could understand if the pick went to OKC straight up, because a 2023 pick is infinitely more valued than this year.
Back on topic on people disliking the move. Especially, when people really like Turner when the dude is a defensive liability while Adams has advanced metrics to be a proven +++ player on both sides of the court.
Granted... You can't just have culture just be built over night with rookies. You're gonna have to spend money on someone outside of that core.
Again, it wasnt just a late 1st and some 2nds for Adams
It was that PLUS George Hill, plus the ability to use the MLE and the BAE
If you guys are gonna debate the trade, debate the true cost to acquire Adams.
Hill will probably net OKC at least another good second or two and the MLE and BAE looks like it could have been players much better than Hernangomez, Gabriel, or Thornwell
You can pick whatever sides of the arguments you want, just debate the true cost
So Hill's salary was ~10 mil as opposed to Adams' salary which was ~30mil
The difference is the full MLE and BAE with a lot left over under the tax line, but can't really be used other than for trades and minimum guys.
We don't know what we could have got from those exceptions, so that opportunity cost isn't directly quantifiable
We always have to overpay for free agents anyway, (except Redick somehow), so we probably wouldn't have got anyone great with the MLE.
How many suitors did Adams have? Were we bidding against ourselves only, Dell style? In that case, we massively overpaid to get him, which is my main bugbear.
The extension is a decent sized elephant in the room, also.
Again, you can't sit here and debate the "true cost" without offering what that exact alternative is. You cant duck that responsibility by saying "it looks like" they could have signed players better than who they did while not naming anybody, and also leaving out signing Steven Adams. Who exactly would you have used the MLE and/or BAE on? Who replaces Adams?
AGAIN, front offices worth a damn do not make these moves in a vacuum. There is a 100/100 chance that Griff and his team laid out these alternatives, and decided the bottom of the scrap heap of FAs were not worth pursuing at this time. Especially when you can lock up Steven Adams. If they wanted to use the MLE/BAE right now, they would have.
Nevermind the fact there will be trades later. JJ Redick will not just walk off his contract here. I also believe Lonzo and/or Bledsoe will also be moved at some point for other players or more draft capital. I honestly believe they could have moved any of those players right now if they wanted to.
So what EXACTLY is your alternative so we can truly measure this cost? What player moves do you offer? That's the only way we'll know if this "true cost" is a Burger King taco or a Company Burger.
Exactly. A significant chunk of the "true cost" of the trade is the opportunity cost which is a fluid thing.
We could have used the MLE on anybody, it could have even been a Steven Adams!
That's why I'm lousy on the acquisition cost, which is directly quantifiable.
Also not thrilled with the extension, but it's in no way an albatross in terms of years/total cost.
So, if we dont know the absolute, 100% for certain guys that we would have gotten, then we cant say the other path could have been better. We can only say this path was best because we know every player we did get.
I mean, if thats the case, then the moves we did make are always the best moves so no need to ever debate.
I will throw one example -- there was talk of Hill for Kelly Olynyk. Lets say we do that. And then will you guys allow me to sign Kris Dunn for 2/12 (since he went to ATL for 2/10) and then I get Harry Giles for 1/3.5 (he signed for min)
So, instead of Adams, we now have Olynyk, Giles, and Dunn. Still have BAE to spend if we want, still have the Denver pick and the 2nds. Are sitting about 8 million under the lux tax to make uneven trades if we want, use BAE, sign more minimum guys, etc
That is an example of the true cost. And then if you really, really want Adams, you can still get him next offseason when I am positive nobody is gonna offer him 17.5 mil per.
I know for a fact that the Pels wanted the consistency of Steven Adams (health, contract, mentality) around Jax for the next 2-3 years. All this talk about opportunity cost is a waste of time. They wanted a center that Jax could sit behind and learn from. They were never going to go into the season with a guy on a one year deal.
Thats fine. And thats their logic and priority setting.
It is still worthy of debate as to whether the things they prioritized were the right things or if another path would have been more optimal.
And I have a strong feeling we will do that in a few years with the benefit of hindsight.
I have been through all the bad moves before and believe me, fans always like them or at least justify them and say they aren't that bad in the moment. Every single one of them.
I was all for trading Gordon instead of matching Phoenix, and was told you can't trade the centerpiece of the CP3 deal this soon. I saw people justify the Asik contract and the Hill contract (cap is rising)
In the moment, fans will claim almost any move is good or at least "not that bad"....it is only with years of hindsight of a bad move that everyone universally becomes a genius and the GM is an idiot
ingram,,zion and adams are a solid front court today with alot of positives in the future....the backcourt should be easy to fix this season or in the future with jj,,lonzo and bledsoe plus picks to make that happen.......im just a regular fan that love it when my team make the 8th seed...my thing is,,once you are in the dance then you have a chance......
so im good with everything the team has done....looking forward to see if we can get the 8th seed or higher this season...go pels..
I think another angle to the Adams trade (there are seemingly endless angles) is Griff valuing some stability on the roster and building on our current foundation rather than a ton of churn like making 3 or 4 separate signings like Mac laid out.
I'm fine with the overpay because of what Adams brings to the locker room and his on court mentality. I also don't mind the extension, even though that was also probably an overpay as well, because it shows 1) that the Pels value the players they bring in and 2) that they have no intention of churning the entire roster around Zion and BI every season. However, I fully understand someone valuing the flexibility we gave up by making this trade and signing. Fun move and I can't wait to see how it turns out.
SVG's hire, in part, was predicated on his track record of developing Big Men (O'Neil, Howard). At 27 year old, do you think that Steven Adams can be further developed?
And there is always rationale for any move. GMs don't just make crazy, absurd moves that don't make sense from a particular point of view. But many moves play out poorly. Most because when you justified the move, you assumed optimistic outcomes of particular parts of the move that never came to fruition
The Adams deal could end up being well worth it. Its possible. It would just require a lot of variables that can break one way or the other breaking right
Between Adams and Williamson, with the proper coaching, you are looking at well over 500 lbs. of man that the opposition will have to go around or over (doubtful they can go through it) in order to clean the glass. Rebounding: that's where I really think the team will take a major step forward this year.
Also, I wished someone would create a video of all the uncontested layups the team gave up last year in the half-court set (it would probably run for an hour). I'd be willing to bet that bank that this aspect of the game improves also under SVG also.
If we get the good version of Adams, I agree that it will be a nightmare for opponents. But again - see how that assumes the positive? It is also very likely Adams gradually decline physically continues and we see him having less of a physical impact, being exposed more regularly, even starting to miss games.
When you pay a lot for one thing, you need that one thing to be very good to get the value. If you spread that same payment over multiple things, you could still get value even if one thing gives you none.
Adams has to stay healthy and perform very well to.provide the value we gave up. Its possible. But its.much more risky to rely on him than to spread it over multiple players
I disagree on the risk. I?m a quarter is better than 2 dimes and a nickel guy. Sure it might not pan out of he gets hurt but you have to bet on a guy that basically never gets hurt. It?s a lot easier to bet on Adams health than most centers on the market.
Based on his past, it?s more of a stretch to say that Adams will not stay healthy than to say that he will.
I just never saw anybody calling Adams a quarter (if by comparison Olynyk or Baynes are a dime) before we got him.
But suddenly, once we get him, he is all of a sudden a very good player, a great leader, and worth the money.
I just wish I had put an Adams trade idea on here a month ago because I know the take on him would have been that he was a negative asset and we would take him if OKC gave us a pick to take him. I would bet anything that would have been the consensus
Show me one post where someone said he would be a positive value. I agree.....some might have said to get him if he was free or (more likely) came with a pick, as many assumed he would a year ago.
But positive value given up for him, show me one post of one person clamoring for that
There is nothing wrong with Adams the player. I like the guy and love that he is on the team.
But I also love the car I drive. But if I had to pay well over retail for it, I would have an issue with that --- the cost, not the car.
I feel like some believe that when you attack the cost of the player, you are attacking the player. To me, it is two clear separate things.
Adams, the player, I love. If we got him for expirings, or even if we gave up the picks and still were able to use the MLE and BAE, I would grade it a solid deal. But the picks, Hill, and the MLE.... it is no doubt an overpay. I cant even wrap my mind around how that is debateable.
Very small market teams will ALWAYS pay over retail, that is just reality and will never change.
I was a hardcore Lakers fan since '99, and they always acted like stars were lucky if the Lakers were even interested in them and the peanuts they would receive based on the team's winning heritage and location (many times management was embarassingly wrong). Tiny market teams must do more and better work in the draft than others, and have the opposite mindset: we will be lucky if even desirable role-players decide to sign with us.
It's fine to have the opinion we overpaid for Adams (though I diasgree), but you ain't getting him to New Orleans for 'retail'.
For difference makers, I agree. Overpay. You need to.
I guess the debate here is if Adams is a difference maker. And that might be the core of our disagreement. I have put out names like Olynyk. Others have said Baynes. We could have had Whiteside or center by committee where you get like Len and Noel to couple with Hayes.
So thats the question:
Same exact roster, same exact injuries, luck, etc. Only difference is in world A, you have Adams at center. World B you have Olynyk. World C, you have Whiteside or Baynes. World D you go center by committee. I would say that you might win 1-2 more games with Adams than you would in the other worlds. Maybe occassionally you do better in other worlds because Whiteside has a chip on his shoulder or Olynyk has a monster shooting season, whatever. But on average, you win 1-2 more games with Adams than the other options we had that had almost no cost/didnt require an overpay.
Or do you guys disagree? Are you expecting like 4-6 more wins with Adams versus those other options?
Actually they did just get Adams to New Orleans for "retail." That extension he (voluntarily) signed for is very much "retail" price for a center his caliber.
Pelicans are getting Adams for less than Capela, Vucevic, Myles Turner, and Sabonis. And obviously FAR less than Adebayo, Embiid, Horford, Drummond, and Gobert.
Pelicans got Adams for slightly more than Memphis has to pay Gorgui Dieng (expiring) and Valanciunas each next season. Slightly more than Cody Zeller. Seems about right to me.
That is cherry picking contracts, many signed a while ago.
This offseason Serge Ibaka, Harrell, and Thompson - three guys in or around his tier signed for 9.5 mil
You will be hard pressed to find centers sign with another team for more than the MLE. If Adams was a free agent this summer or next, he signs for the MLE...just like Drummond will next summer. There are 6 or 7 centers that would get more than the MLE if they were free agents next summer and Adams wouldn't be one of them
MM mentioned difference-makers, of which I agree there are only a few. Will Adams be a difference-maker worth his cost? Who knows? IMHO the powers-that-be determined that we would not be able to trade for or get in FA an obvious difference-maker in the next 3 years. Adams will allow the Pelicans to establish an offense with the C at the high post (as the Pistons ran with SVG and Adams ran at OKC) and an SVG "********ing wall" for defense. If and when we start getting into the playoffs and perhaps winning a series, then the difference-makers at that time could sign on to be the difference between a second series exit and a conference championship and the owner could be willing to pay the luxury tax. Will this work? Who knows? In general, in the NBA a team does not win with mediocrities, no matter how many the team has and no matter how little they get paid.
It's not "cherry picking" contracts any more than you "cherry picked" players to compare him to. Harrell is not a center and has come off the bench most of his career. Serge Ibaka and Tristan Thompson are both at or past 30 years old and on the downward slope of their careers.
And those other contracts were signed "a while ago" you say? The oldest one of the bunch was Capela.
Clint Capela - July 2018
Myles Turner - October 2018
Nikola Vucevic - July 2019
Damontas Sabonis - October 2019
So half of those literally LAST season and the others just 2 seasons ago. So if you want a comparable center to Adams, you'd be paying them slightly more for the same (or a year more) than Adams' extension. The only centers I see becoming a free agent at or below Adams worth in 2021 is Jarret Allen, Javale McGee, Robin Lopez, and Cody Zeller.
Secondly, you'd also be comparing Adam's worth before his current contract is up. Literally determining his free agent value for 2021 based on 2019 play. He'd have a whole 2020 contract year to determine his worth. Nothing I'm responding to makes any sense.
This discussion has turned into boredom filler at best. There are a lot more moving parts in our roster that has much more concerned than Adams and his trade repercussions/value that has little cause for concern.
All I know is we traded one of our better players and actually got immediately better on paper IMO. That doesn’t happen too often.
Adams is an upgrade to Favors. Bledsoe might not be an upgrade to Jrue, but I think he is to Lonzo running the point. We don’t lose a ton on defense either cause Bledsoe is above average defensively. We may lose some offense, but I think Bledsoe, an improved 2nd year NAW & an extremely fast rookie Kira can possibly better what Jrue gave us by himself lol
Not to be pedantic, but, if Adams is an unrestricted free agent on the open market at this point in time instead of a part of a trade deal, he has many choices and I doubt we sign him outright for his extension price (he probably picks a playoff team, big city, or sunny beach for the same price or higher). But hey, maybe he's got a major beignet or jambalaya addiction and I am wrong.
Now if some other team traded for him and he wants to extend, then yeah, its probably the same price. But you have to give up assets to get that opportunity to extend him instead of overpaying an unrestricted free agent to come to your tiny market town, is my point.
I agree. There is no more juice to be squeezed from this fruit. I just don't like the fact that it is so hard to be objective about the offseason. Optimism bias reigns Supreme. But then when we lose during the season, it is then so clear to identify the roster building mistakes.
To me its pretty easy to identify them when they happen if you remove hope and optimism bias and think more objectively. Like, if Grizzlies had taken Zion and then traded assets to put Steven Adams next to him, there is no way the majority of Pels fans would have called it a really good move. Because we would have no reason to see all the unlikely but possible outcomes. We would see it like almost every outsider has seen this Pels move - questionable at best, bad at worst.
I have been through nearly two dozen offseasons with this franchise and the same number with the Raiders and its always the same positive leaning bias which leads to frustration when the season is played because then reality hits.
The extension part was purely his decision. He was not compelled to do that now. He had every choice to just wait until next summer and play where he wanted. Especially if he bets on himself this year and could possibly command even more money.
And there are many factors that go into a FA/extension decision. Just location wise, I'm sure SoCal and NYC are nice (I've been to both--NYC more), but the cost of living and taxes are astronomical. Let alone in L.A. I assume many of the players live hours away from Staples. I dont' want to get side tracked into this conversation, but every locale has its pros and cons and nola isn't exactly Cleveland or OKC. You might be going a bit overboard with that.
And food wise there are lots of health food options in nola now. City Greens is a good local chain to help Steven and Zion's 500 lbs stay in shape. :hihi:
Yes of course. The only way to show how non-biased you are is to be contrary and/or negative. Anybody that pokes holes in that contrarian view, and presented evidence to back that up, just suffers from "optimism bias."
I mean, most everyone on here has pointed out Adam's limitations as a player. I already said he cannot guard in space.
But ok..."optimism bias." It's a message board foundation. I'm done.
Because for him he thinks he is worth it. That simple. And he also thought Hayes was worth the 8th pick. Favors worth two seconds and some decent opportunity cost.
He obviously values that position far more than most. And I dont mind him wanting to get guys to play that position. But he can get similar players for lesser costs and I think when we look back in 4 years the mistakes will be clear. We are just in this honeymoon phase with him currently