|
Post by yourkers15 on Sept 7, 2016 18:00:56 GMT -6
Bulls Trade:
#13 pick Warriors 96 Bulls 95
Nuggets Trade:
#4
Do not get this trade at all for the nuggets. Yes this is a nice draft but at 4 you can get a superstar type player and doubt you get one at 13. Also the 2 picks he gets will not have high value at all. Highway robbery by the bulls.
|
|
|
Post by bucksetball00 on Sept 7, 2016 20:46:02 GMT -6
This is another trade I do not necessarily have a problem with but I dont think any of those picks will be as good as the #4
|
|
|
Post by Keyser Soze on Sept 7, 2016 22:20:55 GMT -6
Would've loved to see bluechips reaction if I made this trade.
|
|
|
Post by Keyser Soze on Sept 7, 2016 22:25:53 GMT -6
Seriously though. Right now nuggets are at a position where they need some homerun prospects to build around. At 4 they were guaranteed 1 of those 3 big time C/PF prospects. Now things are a little murky.
|
|
|
Post by bluechips23 on Sept 8, 2016 0:29:14 GMT -6
1. New gm? No 2. One sided fraternization? No 3. Presumed winner a frequent and recent championship winner to further build monopoly upon? No 4. Hurting league parity? No 5. No chance for "losing" team to prosper from trade? Nope 6. Did the "losing team" ruin its current path (to contend or rebuild)? No
Other notes: who knows if 36 year old team leader jrich retires on me (non playoff team)? Or if jameer wants to resign. Which would mean I have 1 20 ppg player from a non playoff team as my leader. So my 95 isn't a lock to be bad. Also, despite the warriors meteoric and arrestinu like .500 "magic run", warriors will only have cooper on their roster, for sure, in 96 season. As for the #13th pick, it isn't a #4 talent of course, but there are 9 A potential players in this draft, leaving a 4th best B potential player for nuggets at the worst. And most the b potential players in this draft are worth having and investing in.
All in all, nuggets deferred a relatively safe A potential (most likely 22 yr old) big, for a Legitimate b potential player to go along with 2 picks that could go 6-16th-ish in drafts with an upcoming 2 NCAA class and 2000 draft classes. Sure they could've: kept it and got a semi older rookie big with A potential, got more concrete assets, or an established player and cash, but i don't see that as a huge win to massively dwarf this move. Especially if no one offered him.
I am welcome to dialogue with converse opinions, but I won't respond to buffoonery to allow vendettas to obscure real discussions.
|
|
greeme
Starting player
Posts: 9,172
|
Post by greeme on Sept 8, 2016 0:57:44 GMT -6
1. New gm? No 2. One sided fraternization? No 3. Presumed winner a frequent and recent championship winner to further build monopoly upon? No 4. Hurting league parity? No 5. No chance for "losing" team to prosper from trade? Nope 6. Did the "losing team" ruin its current path (to contend or rebuild)? No Other notes: who knows if 36 year old team leader jrich retires on me (non playoff team)? Or if jameer wants to resign. Which would mean I have 1 20 ppg player from a non playoff team as my leader. So my 95 isn't a lock to be bad. Also, despite the warriors meteoric and arrestinu like .500 "magic run", warriors will only have cooper on their roster, for sure, in 96 season. As for the #13th pick, it isn't a #4 talent of course, but there are 9 A potential players in this draft, leaving a 4th best B potential player for nuggets at the worst. And most the b potential players in this draft are worth having and investing in. stop it you know you ripped him off but this trade like most of the ones you complain about shouldn't be voted just bc it makes no sense
|
|
greeme
Starting player
Posts: 9,172
|
Post by greeme on Sept 8, 2016 0:59:06 GMT -6
side point - the ridiculously high draft ratings have pretty much killed the league from my standpoint
|
|
|
Post by bluechips23 on Sept 8, 2016 1:05:21 GMT -6
side point - the ridiculously high draft ratings have pretty much killed the league from my standpoint I do kinda agree with this. But I see it as more of an abrupt change we all have to get use to, quickly.But it could actually inadvertantly help the league parity by giving talent to jump spark perrenial lotto teams into playoff contention and hopefully eliminate habitual tankers. For your first comment, what did I say that was false? If you want to honestly discuss it, I will. I was going to keep quiet and have people voice their objective opinions and let this pass, but people want to provoke me.
|
|
|
Post by lynchcats on Sept 8, 2016 1:37:04 GMT -6
So the same reasons that you declined my trade offer for the #1 pick, you use for this trade?? hmmm...
|
|
|
Post by lynchcats on Sept 8, 2016 1:38:07 GMT -6
Not that I'm complaining about this trade, you made a trade that was good for you. Just odd that you'd use the same reasoning to justify this trade as you did to decline mine...
|
|
|
Post by bluechips23 on Sept 8, 2016 1:46:37 GMT -6
So the same reasons that you declined my trade offer for the #1 pick, you use for this trade?? hmmm... Not sure what you mean. I don't like to throw private offer details out on the board. So I won't unless you want to. I am welcome to discuss this in PMS if you want. With that said, Durant is a #1 pick in the likes of a lebron/bird echelon, and on an entirely different tier than an A potential big, which seem to be way more abundant. I certainly never expected danny schayes to be an impact big in this league.
|
|
|
Post by Keyser Soze on Sept 8, 2016 4:04:59 GMT -6
1. New gm? No 2. One sided fraternization? No 3. Presumed winner a frequent and recent championship winner to further build monopoly upon? No 4. Hurting league parity? No 5. No chance for "losing" team to prosper from trade? Nope 6. Did the "losing team" ruin its current path (to contend or rebuild)? No Other notes: who knows if 36 year old team leader jrich retires on me (non playoff team)? Or if jameer wants to resign. Which would mean I have 1 20 ppg player from a non playoff team as my leader. So my 95 isn't a lock to be bad. Also, despite the warriors meteoric and arrestinu like .500 "magic run", warriors will only have cooper on their roster, for sure, in 96 season. As for the #13th pick, it isn't a #4 talent of course, but there are 9 A potential players in this draft, leaving a 4th best B potential player for nuggets at the worst. And most the b potential players in this draft are worth having and investing in. All in all, nuggets deferred a relatively safe A potential (most likely 22 yr old) big, for a Legitimate b potential player to go along with 2 picks that could go 6-16th-ish in drafts with an upcoming 2 NCAA class and 2000 draft classes. Sure they could've: kept it and got a semi older rookie big with A potential, got more concrete assets, or an established player and cash, but i don't see that as a huge win to massively dwarf this move. Especially if no one offered him. I am welcome to dialogue with converse opinions, but I won't respond to buffoonery to allow vendettas to obscure real discussions. Why do you get so defensive? Why is it so hard to say "yeah, I think I won this trade". I was able to say I got good value in the Malone trade. Instead you run down this whole checklist defending every point. And you call me the snake oil salesman.
|
|
|
Post by Keyser Soze on Sept 8, 2016 4:08:18 GMT -6
Real discussion. Horford, Oden, Gasol for a bunch of question marks. A 17 win trading their shot at a young franchise building block. Yeah you care so much about league parity. Especially after snatching the 1st overall pick from a inactive lotto team.
|
|
|
Post by yourkers15 on Sept 8, 2016 4:19:33 GMT -6
side point - the ridiculously high draft ratings have pretty much killed the league from my standpoint U always seem to complain bout the draft ratings. Either they are not good enough or they too good. How bout u do them then since I am sure u know what to do.
|
|
greeme
Starting player
Posts: 9,172
|
Post by greeme on Sept 8, 2016 6:23:46 GMT -6
side point - the ridiculously high draft ratings have pretty much killed the league from my standpoint U always seem to complain bout the draft ratings. Either they are not good enough or they too good. How bout u do them then since I am sure u know what to do. huh? i never said they were too low. we used to never have ratings above B.
|
|
|
Post by yourkers15 on Sept 8, 2016 7:01:25 GMT -6
U always seem to complain bout the draft ratings. Either they are not good enough or they too good. How bout u do them then since I am sure u know what to do. huh? i never said they were too low. we used to never have ratings above B. Why is that the problem? In all honesty players should have high ratings if they deserve it. Now what u should complain bout is that the camping is too high. You can turn any player good if you ate willing to put the camps into them. This the reason why someone like FDA stays on top. He is willing to camp the shit out of someone knowing that's the best way to make someone great. N look how you turned mo Williams into stud. So I think its more bout camps being outrageous more than the ratings they come in with.
|
|
|
Post by yourkers15 on Sept 8, 2016 7:15:04 GMT -6
There is only 1 guy with B+ shooting. He also has C inside. The only other attributes that are above a B are defense(something that was heavily complained about). Rebounding(which if I start too low the players most likely become legit rebounds when we know they are). N last is handling and I think there are like 2 players at a B+. You are really making a huge deal out of nothing. But as I said if u can do a better job u can take over the job.
|
|
greeme
Starting player
Posts: 9,172
|
Post by greeme on Sept 8, 2016 7:52:40 GMT -6
huh? i never said they were too low. we used to never have ratings above B. Why is that the problem? In all honesty players should have high ratings if they deserve it. Now what u should complain bout is that the camping is too high. You can turn any player good if you ate willing to put the camps into them. This the reason why someone like FDA stays on top. He is willing to camp the shit out of someone knowing that's the best way to make someone great. N look how you turned mo Williams into stud. So I think its more bout camps being outrageous more than the ratings they come in with. yes it is a combination. if you start guys out lower with the camps that is fine or if you start guys out higher with less camps that is fine. fyi - mo was a stud when i signed him in fa. he only had 2 camps
|
|
hunt54
College Starter
Posts: 1,613
|
Post by hunt54 on Sept 8, 2016 8:21:25 GMT -6
I think with the more current players their ratings especially outside will be a lot higher in that rating than older players. But other than that if you start players off high the only way to weed out is to give some players bad potentials. But if you give everyone bad potentials it kinda divides the players into good decent and trash
|
|
|
Post by John1974 on Sept 8, 2016 8:50:25 GMT -6
Nuggets should have kept the pick as they are in need of a star, and this draft has a good top to it.
|
|