Pelicans want Steven Adams

[MichaelMcNamara]

Objectivity is when you agree with me. Being biased is when you disagree with me. I am the king of nuanced discourse.

You know this is false. I disagree with a ton of stuff with you leading up to the draft and never said I was objectively right and if you disagreed with me, you were wrong.

Its easy to paint me like this but if you are honest with yourself, it isn't true. I am all for different opinions but the mental gymnastics I have seen people jump through to justify the cost of Adams have been astounding.

Its okay...the GM of your favorite team can make a misstep and you can call it a misstep. I dont know why thats so hard to do in the offseason but fine to do 4 months later

[Pelicanidae]

You know this is false. I disagree with a ton of stuff with you leading up to the draft and never said I was objectively right and if you disagreed with me, you were wrong.

Its easy to paint me like this but if you are honest with yourself, it isn't true. I am all for different opinions but the mental gymnastics I have seen people jump through to justify the cost of Adams have been astounding.

Its okay...the GM of your favorite team can make a misstep and you can call it a misstep. I dont know why thats so hard to do in the offseason but fine to do 4 months later

What if I don't particularly think it's a misstep? Well, then I'm wrong and just being blinded by optimism, according to you. Not sure what merit anyone should put into that.

We can disagree with some stuff and have a conversation but when you start coming out with

I just don't like the fact that it is so hard to be objective about the offseason

and

it is no doubt an overpay. I cant even wrap my mind around how that is debateable.

Then what's even the point of discourse? You've decided in advance that you're right and that it's beyond debate: your perspective is being ''objective'' and anyone who disagrees is therefore not being objective. Kills the entire conversation dead and makes it pointless. There are some things beyond debate, sure, but this is not one of them. One could just as easily say that you have pessimism bias and that you're pre-judging a player in a new context before you've got any data whatsoever, and that your discussion of contracts has been (as luckyman pointed out) completely off-piste.

[As I See It]

You seem to imply he panic bought

I'm not implying anything; I'm saying it. # 10 is not ready for prime time. That's not panic; that's truth.

[AusPel]

I'm not implying anything; I'm saying it. # 10 is not ready for prime time. That's not panic; that's truth.

You missed my point

[As I See It]

No I didn't. You are trying to paint Griff as a guy who's in a panic and grasping at straws. I see him as a a guy who recognizes a weakness and is smart enough to address the deficiency (this isn't Demps' Omer Asik we're talking about). Now, because you disagree with his fix, you are trashing him without cause. See me in two years to see who was right; you or him

[AusPel]

[MichaelMcNamara]

"This isnt as bad as Asik" does not equal 'this is a good move"

There are levels of bad moves. I have seen many compare this to Dell's move with Asik and imply that it isnt that, it isnt bad. No, there can be levels. Also, yes, Griff did see center as a need, but you can address a need to fix your door by spraying some WD40 and solving the problem for 2 bucks or buying a brand new door at 125% market price.

Lastly, with Pelicanidae - the issue with your view on Adams was always your lack of perspective on his TRUE cost. I told the board from the beginning it would cost our ability to use the MLE and BAE. And even in the most recent pages you said his cost was basically the Denver 1st rounder. No, it was the Denver pick, Hill, two seconds and the guys we would have got with the MLE and possibly BAE. Now, if you think he was worth all that, then sure, you are entitled to have that viewpoint. But that was the cost. You cant change the cost to fit your argument.

Now, I am gonna root like heck for the guy and hope he was worth all that. I am not going to root against him just to get some points on the internet that dont matter.

[AusPel]

"This isnt as bad as Asik" does not equal 'this is a good move"

There are levels of bad moves. I have seen many compare this to Dell's move with Asik and imply that it isnt that, it isnt bad. No, there can be levels. Also, yes, Griff did see center as a need, but you can address a need to fix your door by spraying some WD40 and solving the problem for 2 bucks or buying a brand new door at 125% market price.

Lastly, with Pelicanidae - the issue with your view on Adams was always your lack of perspective on his TRUE cost. I told the board from the beginning it would cost our ability to use the MLE and BAE. And even in the most recent pages you said his cost was basically the Denver 1st rounder. No, it was the Denver pick, Hill, two seconds and the guys we would have got with the MLE and possibly BAE. Now, if you think he was worth all that, then sure, you are entitled to have that viewpoint. But that was the cost. You cant change the cost to fit your argument.

Now, I am gonna root like heck for the guy and hope he was worth all that. I am not going to root against him just to get some points on the internet that dont matter.

Why could Griffin, who has access to all the analytics guys in the world, justify the price it took to acquire him and a fairly hefty extension?

Is it purely tunnel vision/optimism bias? Small market tax? Beating the field premium? Panic buy? Other?

[As I See It]

"This isnt as bad as Asik" does not equal 'this is a good move"

Good, there's some agreement; they are two different moves

Now, does a 'bad move' per MichaelMcNamara actually equal a bad move in reality?

What does Adams really bring THIS team?

--Stability at # 5?
--A Defensive Presence?
--Playoffs?
--Leadership on a extremely young team?
--A moderately, young, desirable asset?
--Durability?
--Physicality?
--Recent Playoff Experience?
--Mentorship for ZW, JAX, NM, and WH?
--A Lunch Pail mentality?

I think we'll get a good idea how successful the trade during this year...two years max. If it is a bad move, I really don't think we'll throw 60MM at him ('Asik' him); do you?

But, it's good to know that in your mind, we haven't crossed the Omer Benchmark...YET!!!

[AusPel]

He's not desirable on that contract, other than an expiring in a couple years. Possibly trade filler before then. There's no way his production is worth 18 mil a year in vaccuum

[pelafanatic]

The MLE and BAE arguments are such nonsense. In order to add a starting center, they would’ve likely needed to use the MLE. That center would’ve probably been Baynes, who can’t stay on the floor. They would’ve had to use and additional one of those assets, probably the 24th pick and likely including Hill to trade up, to add some more insurance in case Baynes got hurt. This was the most likely second option.

This isn’t a plant your flag move imo. If he stays healthy, we’ll all be happy. Asik’s career was completely derailed by injuries, partnered with a horrible lengthy contract.

[pelafanatic]

He's not desirable on that contract, other than an expiring in a couple years. Possibly trade filler before then. There's no way his production is worth 18 mil a year in vaccuum

It’s a good thing these moves don’t happen in a vacuum

[AusPel]

It’s a good thing these moves don’t happen in a vacuum

This one did because it SUCKED

*jokes

[pelafanatic]

This one did because it SUCKED

*jokes

Lol this thread needs a little comic relief

[As I See It]

He's not desirable on that contract, other than an expiring in a couple years. Possibly trade filler before then. There's no way his production is worth 18 mil a year in vaccuum

You nailed it. Congratulations!! You're analyzing like a college professor absent all variables. Hence your words "in vacuum". Life (much less this sport) isn't like that at all; there are always variables which need to be considered. You can't operate a business in a vacuum (or live in one either).

[Pelicanidae]

Lastly, with Pelicanidae - the issue with your view on Adams was always your lack of perspective on his TRUE cost. I told the board from the beginning it would cost our ability to use the MLE and BAE. And even in the most recent pages you said his cost was basically the Denver 1st rounder. No, it was the Denver pick, Hill, two seconds and the guys we would have got with the MLE and possibly BAE. Now, if you think he was worth all that, then sure, you are entitled to have that viewpoint. But that was the cost. You cant change the cost to fit your argument.

For clarification, based on everything I've read, the Pelicans can still use the MLE if they want. Using it would turn the team into a luxury tax team, so they won't, but trading for Adams did not magically take that option away from us. You can say, if you want, that the Adams trade therefore ''cost'' us the MLE, but it's only in the sense that it made us unwilling to use it: not that it actually removed the option.

Thought it would be useful to clear that up, since you seem insistent on the ''Adams cost us the MLE'' angle as part of your argument, and it's not actually true in terms of the cap.

[AusPel]

For clarification, based on everything I've read, the Pelicans can still use the MLE if they want. Using it would turn the team into a luxury tax team, so they won't, but trading for Adams did not magically take that option away from us. You can say, if you want, that the Adams trade therefore ''cost'' us the MLE, but it's only in the sense that it made us unwilling to use it: not that it actually removed the option.

Thought it would be useful to clear that up, since you seem insistent on the ''Adams cost us the MLE'' angle as part of your argument, and it's not actually true in terms of the cap.

Gayle is not paying tax (plus inevitable repeater tax) until the team is somewhere close to contending. So it's only true in the realms of being theoretically possible.

[MichaelMcNamara]

If we have to argue about the difference between can't use it and can use it but certainly won't then all hope is.lost..

The Adams trade prevented us from using the MLE. Just accept it and grant it without trying to hold on to semantics. Its fine, you seem to think Adams is so good that he is well worth that and all the other costs, so whats the big deal about just granting that obvious truth?

[As I See It]

If we have to argue about the difference between can't use it and can use it but certainly won't then all hope is.lost..

The Adams trade prevented us from using the MLE. Just accept it and grant it without trying to hold on to semantics. Its fine, you seem to think Adams is so good that he is well worth that and all the other costs, so whats the big deal about just granting that obvious truth?

Perhaps, but to argue, as you have, that 'losing the MLE' because of the Adams acquisition is an ABSOLUTE is simply wrong. In fact, the Pelicans may never exercise it, but it's still there. And that's the 'obvious truth' (no disrespect intended).

[AusPel]

If we have to argue about the difference between can't use it and can use it but certainly won't then all hope is.lost..

The Adams trade prevented us from using the MLE. Just accept it and grant it without trying to hold on to semantics. Its fine, you seem to think Adams is so good that he is well worth that and all the other costs, so whats the big deal about just granting that obvious truth?

Realistically, you get Adams now or probably not at all, unless you think Adams could have been had for the MLE next year, or we open up enough cap space to sign him out right if he's a bit dearer, or we sign and trade for him at a discounted rate as space under luxury tax will likely be tight.

And none of those outcomes factors in possible competition from other suitors, which also applies if you try again at some other point before the trade deadline

[donato]

Realistically, you get Adams now or probably not at all, unless you think Adams could have been had for the MLE next year, or we open up enough cap space to sign him out right if he's a bit dearer, or we sign and trade for him at a discounted rate as space under luxury tax will likely be tight.

And none of those outcomes factors in possible competition from other suitors, which also applies if you try again at some other point before the trade deadline

I agree. And even if we did have the space, and if what McNamara said earlier were true (that no other team in the league would give Adams $17m/yr next year), there's no reason to believe Adams wouldn't take a slightly lesser deal to play for team he prefers over the Pelicans. Of course it's just speculation anyway that we'll never know.

[Pelicanidae]

If we have to argue about the difference between can't use it and can use it but certainly won't then all hope is.lost..

The Adams trade prevented us from using the MLE. Just accept it and grant it without trying to hold on to semantics. Its fine, you seem to think Adams is so good that he is well worth that and all the other costs, so whats the big deal about just granting that obvious truth?

Because it's literally not true. If I can do something but decide not to, and someone else runs around saying that I *can't* do it, they're wrong.

We could use the MLE. We won't, but we could. Claiming that the option was taken from us is a distortion at best.

[AusPel]

I agree. And even if we did have the space, and if what McNamara said earlier were true (that no other team in the league would give Adams $17m/yr next year), there's no reason to believe Adams wouldn't take a slightly lesser deal to play for team he prefers over the Pelicans. Of course it's just speculation anyway that we'll never know.

Which is why you need to decide if you're in:

A - Camp that wanted Adams or;
B - Camp that didn't want Adams

If you're camp A then you can argue quantifiable things like did we pay too much to acquire him? Did we overpay with the extension?

If you're camp B then you can go nuts with hypotheticals and opportunity costs of what you would have done otherwise.

It is simplifying the argument as a whole, but makes the debate more manageable

[AusPel]

I agree. And even if we did have the space, and if what McNamara said earlier were true (that no other team in the league would give Adams $17m/yr next year), there's no reason to believe Adams wouldn't take a slightly lesser deal to play for team he prefers over the Pelicans. Of course it's just speculation anyway that we'll never know.

That's why I feel like you have less bargaining power with the extension than with the acquisition cost. Adams doesn't need to agree to be traded, all we need to do is convince OKC to trade him to us. And they've been trying to deal him for 18 months

You overpay him to extend, understandable. Short length of the contract mitigates the pain somewhat. But no need to pay OKC for the privilege of taking a vastly overpaid player off their hands. Only leverage OKC has is the expiring contract. A huge one. I feel like that's something fairly valuable coming into the next FA class.

I'm also guessing Presti used the fact that Griffin has been chasing Adams for 18 months as leverage. That smell of desperation is hard to extinguish

[pelafanatic]

Because it's literally not true. If I can do something but decide not to, and someone else runs around saying that I *can't* do it, they're wrong.

We could use the MLE. We won't, but we could. Claiming that the option was taken from us is a distortion at best.

Not only could we do so, but we could do so and still avoid the tax by making a move mid season. Saying we lost the MLE because of the Adams trade is just manipulation