Pelicans want Steven Adams

[AusPel]

Again, just saying ''a first'' misrepresents the value of the pick because not all firsts are equal. It was about as low a value first round pick as you can get: multiple years in the future, belonging to a team that will very probably still be very good at that point if not better than they are already, and protected. So it's really not a high value loss.

Secondly, not many teams are investing that much in centres at all, but when you look at the going market rate for non-superstar centres, you find that Adams' contract (particularly the extension) is very much in line for what starter calibre centres go for: the extension years, for example, are cheaper than Myles Turner, Domantas Sabonis, and Clint Capela, and only slightly more than someone like Jonas Valanciunas or Brook Lopez. It's very much an average market price: exactly the sort of money teams are investing in centres. And, frankly, he's better than several of those guys: I would rather have Adams than Turner, Capela, or Valanciunas, for example.

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

[PELICANSFAN]

Again, just saying ''a first'' misrepresents the value of the pick because not all firsts are equal. It was about as low a value first round pick as you can get: multiple years in the future, belonging to a team that will very probably still be very good at that point if not better than they are already, and protected. So it's really not a high value loss.

Secondly, not many teams are investing that much in centres at all, but when you look at the going market rate for non-superstar centres, you find that Adams' contract (particularly the extension) is very much in line for what starter calibre centres go for: the extension years, for example, are cheaper than Myles Turner, Domantas Sabonis, and Clint Capela, and only slightly more than someone like Jonas Valanciunas or Brook Lopez. It's very much an average market price: exactly the sort of money teams are investing in centres. And, frankly, he's better than several of those guys: I would rather have Adams than Turner, Capela, or Valanciunas, for example.

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.

[Pelicanidae]

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.

[PELICANSFAN]

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-

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

[Pelicanidae]

Your comment about the trade-

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.

[SoCal4Pels]

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.

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.

[Taker597]

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.

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.

[AusPel]

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.

The pick has value before it's used

[Pelicanidae]

The pick has value before it's used

It does! The value of a trade chip, to acquire talent. Which is what we did with it.

[AusPel]

It does! The value of a trade chip, to acquire talent. Which is what we did with it.

True.

Those seconds were as good as seconds you're gonna get tho.

Anyway, I'm super tired of arguing about the trade

[MichaelMcNamara]

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

[AusPel]

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.

[luckyman]

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.

[AusPel]

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.

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.

[MichaelMcNamara]

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.

[pelafanatic]

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.

[MichaelMcNamara]

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

[6warddude]

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..

[Nola3]

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.

[As I See It]

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?

[MichaelMcNamara]

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

[As I See It]

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.

[MichaelMcNamara]

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

[pelafanatic]

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.

[MichaelMcNamara]

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