Grizzlies / Nuggets

[offtheheezy]

Grizzlies Send:
Frederic Weis
Brad Miller
Damon Stoudamire
Jonathan Mikkelsen
Grizzlies '01 1st

Nuggets Send:
Darrell Armstrong
Jazz '00 2nd

*Grizzlies have the option to tradeback Armstrong for Stoudamire in the offseason to get under hard cap if need be.

[offtheheezy]

Nuggets cut Eschmeyer, Kornet, Sundov prior to deal

[Foxyg1396]

Accept I essentially get Miller, Weis, Mikkelson, and a first for a mid round second if he can't get under cap

[Craig]

How long are you holding foxy's cap space hostage for?

[Foxyg1396]

How long are you holding foxy's cap space hostage for?

It's dependent on when/if he can get under hardcap by season start. So the offseason

[Craig]

Thats awfully generous

[Foxyg1396]

Thats awfully generous

I mean yes, but then I essentially get a first and some rookies for free

[Oregon Ownage]

Thats awfully generous

I mean yes, but then I essentially get a first and some rookies for free

Its not really free as you are giving away cap space to help a conference foe get under the cap. You are hurting your team by accepting that deal and giving away the leverage

[Oregon Ownage]

Done

Give the Grizz the title already

[Foxyg1396]

Thats awfully generous

I mean yes, but then I essentially get a first and some rookies for free

Its not really free as you are giving away cap space to help a conference foe get under the cap. You are hurting your team by accepting that deal and giving away the leverage

And if they don’t get under hardcap, I get those pieces for free instead of giving up Armstrong. How is that hurting my team?

[Foxyg1396]

Everyone always complains about Grizz getting deals and players but nobody wants to trade anymore. If everyone wasn’t so stingy then maybe there would be a wider spread of talent across the league.

Very few teams try to correct their deficiencies, and then get mad when teams like clippers, and grizzlies correct theirs

[Oregon Ownage]

Thats awfully generous

I mean yes, but then I essentially get a first and some rookies for free

Its not really free as you are giving away cap space to help a conference foe get under the cap. You are hurting your team by accepting that deal and giving away the leverage

And if they don’t get under hardcap, I get those pieces for free instead of giving up Armstrong. How is that hurting my team?

You are trading cap space hence its not free. Free would be dealing away a scrub signed to a one year deal to match salaries. Plus you are taking up roster spots on players who project as best backups? Its not like they are good young players who can develop into something

Now for this comment

Everyone always complains about Grizz getting deals and players but nobody wants to trade anymore. If everyone wasn’t so stingy then maybe there would be a wider spread of talent across the league.

Very few teams try to correct their deficiencies, and then get mad when teams like clippers, and grizzlies correct theirs

I love trading and have been working the phones but when GMs reach out to me, I am very clear in what I value players for and wont accept anything less than what I think they are worth. Do I lose deals b/c of this? Absolutely I do, but more often than not GMs will reach back out again with an improved offer.

Also, if teams are not trading its b/c they do not want to engage with a bad deal and accepting less than ideal offers for players or overpaying for average players. That IMO is healthy for the league. Dealing players for less than their value which you did with Armstrong is not good for the league and only condenses the talent to select teams. I said this previously, why would a GM come to you with an acceptable offer when you have shown in the past to accept less than fair value for your players? You have no leverage in trades and are only doing favors for other teams while not evaluating your team properly and as a result hampering further moves.

In this trade, you dealt the best player and got back a late 1st, backup big (Miller) and wasted cap space for future seasons. How does that help your team moving forward?

It was better to hold onto Armstrong into the off-season for a better offer or continue to construct your roster with Armstrong but instead dealt one of your better assets

[Foxyg1396]

Thats awfully generous

I mean yes, but then I essentially get a first and some rookies for free

Its not really free as you are giving away cap space to help a conference foe get under the cap. You are hurting your team by accepting that deal and giving away the leverage

And if they don’t get under hardcap, I get those pieces for free instead of giving up Armstrong. How is that hurting my team?

You are trading cap space hence its not free. Free would be dealing away a scrub signed to a one year deal to match salaries. Plus you are taking up roster spots on players who project as best backups? Its not like they are good young players who can develop into something

Now for this comment

Everyone always complains about Grizz getting deals and players but nobody wants to trade anymore. If everyone wasn’t so stingy then maybe there would be a wider spread of talent across the league.

Very few teams try to correct their deficiencies, and then get mad when teams like clippers, and grizzlies correct theirs

I love trading and have been working the phones but when GMs reach out to me, I am very clear in what I value players for and wont accept anything less than what I think they are worth. Do I lose deals b/c of this? Absolutely I do, but more often than not GMs will reach back out again with an improved offer.

Also, if teams are not trading its b/c they do not want to engage with a bad deal and accepting less than ideal offers for players or overpaying for average players. That IMO is healthy for the league. Dealing players for less than their value which you did with Armstrong is not good for the league and only condenses the talent to select teams. I said this previously, why would a GM come to you with an acceptable offer when you have shown in the past to accept less than fair value for your players? You have no leverage in trades and are only doing favors for other teams while not evaluating your team properly and as a result hampering further moves.

In this trade, you dealt the best player and got back a late 1st, backup big (Miller) and wasted cap space for future seasons. How does that help your team moving forward?

It was better to hold onto Armstrong into the off-season for a better offer or continue to construct your roster with Armstrong but instead dealt one of your better assets

What value would you have assigned to Armstrong? Literally everyone that I reached out to was saying late first or in some cases expirings. I think you highly overvalue specific players. You may be okay with being mediocre year after year, but I am not so trading away good players for something is better than sitting on nothing and getting nowhere. You have a unique position because you have had absolutely insane TC's but take for example the pistons, who have notoriously bad TC's. If they just hold onto aging guys who are good they don't get anywhere. I mean you literally had 2 players get +4 or more this last TC. Not to mention your great TC's in the past, if everyone got TC's like that, yeah I would agree hold onto your players because eventually everyone will be all stars. Not everyone has that kind of luck so we have to trade our good guys in order to get better picks

[the goat]

IMO Armstrong would still have enough value in the offseason or even after FA/TC to net back a late 1st and change. A couple of FA signings and good TCs could sway other GMs into giving up a better pick.

When you have a good player you want to trade but no one is biting, sometimes it's better off to just wait

[Foxyg1396]

IMO Armstrong would still have enough value in the offseason or even after FA/TC to net back a late 1st and change. A couple of FA signings and good TCs could sway other GMs into giving up a better pick.

When you have a good player you want to trade but no one is biting, sometimes it's better off to just wait

For what purpose? And at what point is the value of the players abilities outweigh the cost?