Pelicans want Steven Adams

[GuardianAngel25]

Blows my mind people don?t like this Adams trade. The guy literally does everything we want except shoot 3s and that?s the problem? Well news check most good centers don?t shoot 3s. We have other lineups we can run to get more spacing on the floor. Zion can fit freely next to Adams and since he?s capable of shooting 3s along with the rest of the roster it?s not a huge need to have Adams shooting 3s. I think this is a great move and gives us a defensive anchor who sets a tone for the way we play.

[AusPel]

Blows my mind people don?t like this Adams trade. The guy literally does everything we want except shoot 3s and that?s the problem? Well news check most good centers don?t shoot 3s. We have other lineups we can run to get more spacing on the floor. Zion can fit freely next to Adams and since he?s capable of shooting 3s along with the rest of the roster it?s not a huge need to have Adams shooting 3s. I think this is a great move and gives us a defensive anchor who sets a tone for the way we play.

What if he wants 15 mil+ to re-sign? That's too expensive to have tied up in the centre position.

There was a lot of opportunity cost in getting him how we did

[Pelicanidae]

What if he wants 15 mil+ to re-sign? That's too expensive to have tied up in the centre position.

There was a lot of opportunity cost in getting him how we did

Would it be too expensive? $15m a year is the ballpark that Clint Capela, Cody Zeller, Domantas Sabonis, and Brook Lopez are all making. It's on the higher end of the centre spectrum, but it's not insane. Now, if we're talking $20m+ a year, that's a different story.

It also depends on years and options and such. Obviously signing him to something like 4yrs/$100m again would be absurd, especially with another big trade kicker or a player option or something. But if you could get him for something like 3yrs/$50m (around $17m a year) on a declining contract - those are becoming more common it seems - then I'd be totally for it. Assuming this year goes alright.

[MichaelMcNamara]

Blows my mind people don?t like this Adams trade. The guy literally does everything we want except shoot 3s and that?s the problem? Well news check most good centers don?t shoot 3s. We have other lineups we can run to get more spacing on the floor. Zion can fit freely next to Adams and since he?s capable of shooting 3s along with the rest of the roster it?s not a huge need to have Adams shooting 3s. I think this is a great move and gives us a defensive anchor who sets a tone for the way we play.

If it really "blows your mind" then you are either not listening to or not understanding the argument.

The issue isnt that he cant shoot 3's as you state. It is opportunity cost.

In the world where they dont make Adams part of the trade, they have a hole at center, yes, but still have the following things to help improve the roster:

George Hill, 2023 Nuggets pick, two second round picks, the MLE, and the BAE

THAT was the cost of trading for Adams. And maybe you think all that is worth it. But it shouldnt "blow your mind" that others dont think that is worth it. You could sign Baynes with the MLE. Or you couldve signed Crowder with the MLE and gone cheap, gone center by committee by signing Dedmon and Hernangomez for instance. Your forwards would be better, center would be fine, and you would still have Hill to trade and gain more assets or another player.

It has nothing to do with Adams, and liking him or not. It is the fact that you basically traded what could have turned into 3-4 solid players, a pick, and two seconds for him and his 29 million dollar cap hit. And for that to be worth it, he not only has to be really good this year but he has to re-sign on a reasonable deal - both with regard to salary and years - after the season. And could that happen? Sure. Is it likely that he is both good enough to be worth all that AND re-sign for the contract that works for us? No, I dont think that is likely.

[johnpagenola]

Some questions on this:

Don't we still have the MLE and BAE?

Was there a market for George Hill where we didn't have to give up assets to move him?

Didn't the Adams trade free up the George Hill salary to be used elsewhere?

Seems to me the picks were traded for Adams and to dump the Hill salary. Am I wrong?

[Pelicanidae]

If it really "blows your mind" then you are either not listening to or not understanding the argument.

George Hill, 2023 Nuggets pick, two second round picks, the MLE, and the BAE

We still have the MLE and the BAE. Using them puts us into the tax, but we do have them: acquiring Adams has not cost us that ability.

[MichaelMcNamara]

We still have the MLE and the BAE. Using them puts us into the tax, but we do have them: acquiring Adams has not cost us that ability.

If you are not going to use them because you wont pay the tax, then yes, you have effectively lost them even though you still do technically have them.

In the world in which you dont make the trade, you use them - at least the MLE or a large part of it. In this world, we will not....so it was part of Adams acquisition cost indirectly

[MichaelMcNamara]

Some questions on this:

Don't we still have the MLE and BAE?

Was there a market for George Hill where we didn't have to give up assets to move him?

Didn't the Adams trade free up the George Hill salary to be used elsewhere?

Seems to me the picks were traded for Adams and to dump the Hill salary. Am I wrong?

Several of these things are wrong.

Yes, Hill was a positive asset in the sense that you could get similar salary back and some 2nds. The first was not necessary to get off him. It was necessary to get OKC to take Miller, Kenrich, and Zylan -- which we could have just let go for free. We only had to include them because we wanted to go after Adams.

And yes, we still have the MLE and BAE but wont use it now because it will put us into the tax

Look -- I have been through this before we I said the Asik signing or the Hill signing were bad the day after. Fans hate that. They want to be all optimism right now. Talk about why this makes sense (we would have lost Asik for nothing and couldnt have replaced him was the argument for that signing, for instance)....but objectively the Pels paid a ton in opportunity cost for Adams. That is undeniable. The only argument to make is that he will be worth it....not that the Pelicans didnt give up a lot for him

[luckyman]

The calculus around how and when to use the exceptions are not complicated. If they want or need to use them, they will. Most likely without having to pay the tax.

Matter of fact they probably had all of this stuff worked out weeks ago.

[MichaelMcNamara]

The calculus around how and when to use the exceptions are not complicated. If they want or need to use them, they will. Most likely without having to pay the tax.

Matter of fact they probably had all of this stuff worked out weeks ago.

This is just plain incorrect. Look, do you guys want optimism and to hear what you want to hear or do you genuinely want the truth about the current situation the Pelicans are in after the Adams deal?

Genuinely asking. Because it is really easy to say a bunch of optimistic stuff. But the reality is that we are going to sign two more guys for the minimum (or a few hundred K at most if it takes that to get him), and that will keep them just below the tax.

And thats fine. You can argue that roster is perfectly adequate. But we wont be spending the MLE or the BAE any more because even spending a portion of either would put us in the tax and that isnt happening this year

[luckyman]

Ok. Because the folks that post on pelicansreport and other internet sites are always so accurate about this stuff.

I yield.

[Biasvasospasm]

Several of these things are wrong.

Yes, Hill was a positive asset in the sense that you could get similar salary back and some 2nds. The first was not necessary to get off him. It was necessary to get OKC to take Miller, Kenrich, and Zylan -- which we could have just let go for free. We only had to include them because we wanted to go after Adams.

And yes, we still have the MLE and BAE but wont use it now because it will put us into the tax

Look -- I have been through this before we I said the Asik signing or the Hill signing were bad the day after. Fans hate that. They want to be all optimism right now. Talk about why this makes sense (we would have lost Asik for nothing and couldnt have replaced him was the argument for that signing, for instance)....but objectively the Pels paid a ton in opportunity cost for Adams. That is undeniable. The only argument to make is that he will be worth it....not that the Pelicans didnt give up a lot for him

Great post. I’m an optimistic dude, but saying this is some kind of no-brainer is nuts. It significantly limits the flexibility of the team this year, and to a smaller extent in the future.

I just hope they can accept the sunk cost if it doesn’t work out the way they hope (or even if it does and he is more expensive than they want to pay on that next contract). History says teams that trade picks for players on expiring deals overpay for those players (Hi, Marcus Morris, Omer Asik and Tobias Harris!)

[MichaelMcNamara]

Haha...great minds. I have an article about that exact thing you put in your last paragraph coming out soon

[Wowowowow]

What?s missing in all this opportunity cost mumbo jumbo and counting pennies in the back room while we poke holes in our belt is that I think Griff and the front office learned a lot about our players and our team last season. We are all sharing opinions here so I?m going to speak frank, we need a Steven Adams (even if it?s for 1 season) in our locker room more than the capologist bang for your buck signing that we could have gone with.
The veterans COMPLETELY let us down last season - twice and I?m saying that because I don?t personally put all the blame on Alvin.

You can even smell it in the air now. Favors, Jrue...they left like a Mayflower truck in the middle of the night and are depending on ?it?s just a business? to be their saving grace.

If we are losing even 5 games in a row; trust me...I believe Steven Adam?s will be heard. If our body language looks like we quit, trust me...I know Adam?s will be heard.

At some point, you have to inject something in the team to really know what you have mentally. Adam?s is that guy, I look at him more or less a testing benchmark that Griff has applied here so he can get some early answers.

Knowing those answers early is worth the opportunity cost in my opinion.

[da ThRONe]

Seeing the full details of the Adams acquisition I have to say I like it less now then when I originally commented, but I don't think this will be a defining moment in the current future of the franchise in a negative way. As been stated as long as we don't feel the need to double down on Adams if it doesn't work the team IMO will be just fine.

[Freyfamilyreuni]

Several of these things are wrong.

Yes, Hill was a positive asset in the sense that you could get similar salary back and some 2nds. The first was not necessary to get off him. It was necessary to get OKC to take Miller, Kenrich, and Zylan -- which we could have just let go for free. We only had to include them because we wanted to go after Adams.

And yes, we still have the MLE and BAE but wont use it now because it will put us into the tax

Look -- I have been through this before we I said the Asik signing or the Hill signing were bad the day after. Fans hate that. They want to be all optimism right now. Talk about why this makes sense (we would have lost Asik for nothing and couldnt have replaced him was the argument for that signing, for instance)....but objectively the Pels paid a ton in opportunity cost for Adams. That is undeniable. The only argument to make is that he will be worth it....not that the Pelicans didnt give up a lot for him

The initial Asik signing was fine. At the time we needed someone like that to give us muscle underneath, and it kind of fit into Monty's plodding defensive philosophy. It was Asik's resigning that was nuts. I can't imagine that Demps actually discussed this with Gentry, because Asik completely didn't fit into Gentry's gameplan. And while injuries had a lot to do with it, even when healthy Gentry just wouldn't play him.

As for Adams, I think he's going to help us win games. Zion doesn't play quite as big as I thought he would on the defensive end. I was kind of hoping for a jacked up Charles Barkley, and at least reboundwise I'm not seeing it. We also have two subpar defensive forwards who are going to be primary offensive options, so we need someone to get rebounds, set picks and do the dirty work. And Adams is perfect for that. It would be nice if Adams had an outside shot, but if he did, we couldn't have gotten him for the price we did.

But we are kind of sending mixed messages. Trading Jrue makes me think we're in rebuild mode, but trading for Steven Adams is a move being made by a team who desperately wants to make the playoffs.

[MichaelMcNamara]

No, Adams is about the culture. Its not about trying to make the playoffs or bust.

The question is: Can you get culture guys without sending out picks and spending 29 mil, thereby preventing you from getting other guys?

I think the answer is yes. Taj Gibson can help your culture. Delay can help your culture and toughness. James Johnson....I can name tons of guys who can bring those traits that wouldn't cost a fraction of what Adams does...again, preventing you from getting other guys.

[msusousaphone]

The problem with the opportunity-cost argument is that, as it's being used, isn't factoring in how many picks and assets we still have.

The argument is essentially: we could have used Hill, Nuggets pick, two 2nds to find solid players, exemptions......

Which is a fine argument from just that one cherry picked side of "this is what we could have used". The other side of that capitalistic coin is that we couldn't have used half of our assets to do that. At some point you have to cash in or those assets expire. In fact, we still have too many assets that we need to cash in but they do have a 2 to 6 year expiration date.....so we can take our time with the rest of it.

Opportunity-cost is a great argument for limited resources. When your resources have an overabundance if quantity but not enough quality, it becomes very debatable.

EDITED: Because my original wording was too extreme. It's not that the overabundance of assets negates opportunity-cost completely, more that it lessens it's importance.

[pelafanatic]

The question is: Can you get culture guys without sending out picks and spending 29 mil, thereby preventing you from getting other guys?

I may have missed this answer earlier in the thread, but can't we sign guys to the MLE and BAE now and move players later in the year to avoid the tax?

I'm comfortable with what we gave up for Adams. It's by no means a homerun move, but it's a necessary move when you consider the current landscape of the west. Gobert, Nurkic, Jokic, Gasol, Valanciunas, etc. You really need a guy to bang with those guys for 25 minutes a game if you want to keep Zion healthy. Personally, I think it was between Adams and Baynes, and I don't think they trusted Baynes health in the end.

As long as Adams stays healthy this season, it was a fine move. And he's a 27 year old with no major health issues in the past, so I have moderate confidence there. Was it the best possible move available? Probably not. I would've preferred a similar deal centered around Zach Collins, but who knows if he was on the market or if his ankle will be healed by the start of the season.

All in all, I give this specific move a C+, with the potential to become a B- if Adams plays a majority of games. Only way it becomes a D for me is if we re-sign Adams for more than about 16 million following the season. I don't think this moves the needle on the Jrue trade for me, which is still an A

[luckyman]

None of this "opportunity cost" argument makes any sense. This is a young, developing, very fluid roster. So what's the other alternative? Sign a player like Baynes and use the exceptions on who? Wilson Chandler? To go after another player later this season?

Neither of those kinds of players are long term. And these aren't players that will get the Pelicans over the top to make a deep playoff run, when that isnt the main goal for this year to begin with.

And as I said, the Pelicans front office and capologists know more than people on this board, and didn't sign Adams without knowing their alternatives weeks before hand. There is no way I can imagine they decide to sign Adams knowing full well they'd be hamstrung from going after another player they clearly want NOW, if not later in the season. Or that it would limit their flexibility to do something else. That makes zero sense.

If they want to use the exceptions, they'll maneuver a way to do so. If they dont use them now, they never intended to in the first place.

[PaKwAn]

I think the front office values both the future and current team especially the building blocks of this team... they want the pels to be able to still compete for a playoff spot while securing the future with assets... it also gives the younger guys that winning or at least playing hard mentality rather than obviously tanking which can leave a lasting stench to the youngins...

We have a special player in Zion and we know how the media goes gaga positive or negative that happens with him... blatant tanking/losing will just add to all those nasty things that get thrown at this young guy...winning cures that and then some.

[AusPel]

The acquisition and opportunity cost of Adams alone is frickin insane:

29 mill cap hit
Can't use MLE or BAE
Hill
1st
2 very good seconds
Buh bye Kenny

For an expiring guy at a position OKC has a log jam. For a team having a huge fire sale.

And then there's the huge black cloud over what lines in our future with him

This has potential to be worse than the Asik move.

[Snarly]

Demps isn’t running things anymore. You gotta let it go. There has nothing Griffin has done up to this point that has came anywhere near close to hamstringing the team.

[Pelicanidae]

The acquisition and opportunity cost of Adams alone is frickin insane:

29 mill cap hit
Can't use MLE or BAE
Hill
1st
2 very good seconds
Buh bye Kenny

For an expiring guy at a position OKC has a log jam.

And then there's the huge black cloud over what lines in our future with him

This has potential to be worse than the Asik move.

$29m cap hit is largely irrelevant because it's not like we would have had use for that space anyway, we are not a FA destination and this was a poor FA class anyway, plus at least a good chunk of that was taken up by Hill and co, so it's not like it cost us that much.

We can technically still use the MLE and BAE. It would just turn us into a tax team. Not sure where this idea that we're suddenly forbidden from using the MLE comes from.

Hill: you can't list him and the cap hit both as losses, because keeping Hill would have incurred cap hits to the tune of at least his contract. Pick something to complain about, you can't go with both.

The first is a 2023 Denver FRP. You can't just say ''a first'' in the abstract because the difference in value between like, the first overall pick in 2021 and the 25th pick in 2023 is massively different.

2 seconds are 2 seconds.

Kenny is great and fun but he should never be a lynchpin guy in any trade. You move him when you need to move him, it's not some great loss.

I honestly think we're at the point where people are just looking for something to complain about. Like, was it an overpay? Probably. Was it ''worse than the Asik move''? Absolutely not, don't be absurd. It was a slight overpay for a very good player using mostly scrap assets. The only thing we gave up of significant value was Hill, and it was to acquire a starter at a position of need when Hill was already at a logjam spot for us as a guard. It's so far from the end of the world that it's unbelievable, yet it's being discussed as if we should all be quaking in our boots at the future of the franchise.

If Griff resigns Adams for another $27m a year contract, then you can start comparing it to the Asik deal.

[Primetime]

$29m cap hit is largely irrelevant because it's not like we would have had use for that space anyway, we are not a FA destination and this was a poor FA class anyway, plus at least a good chunk of that was taken up by Hill and co, so it's not like it cost us that much.

I wouldn't assume this. And I think it's this piece that's important to viewing the Adams deal.

What are the chances we head into FA next season with 2 all-stars under the age of 25?