PDA

View Full Version : To Judge a Trade



topdog
05-28-2010, 06:12 PM
How do you judge a trade of a superstar?
We've seen McGrady, Shaq, Garnett and A.I. all moved over the last few years for various "pieces." So how do we judge these trades and what is the cut-off for attributing players to a trade i.e. it has been a popular move for sports writers to attribute Pau Gasol to the Shaq trade via the Caron Butler trade. Is that stretching it too far? And, who got the best deal for their superstar?

SteveNash
05-28-2010, 06:31 PM
LA got the steal of the century, but I wouldn't say it was a result of the Shaq trade.

igPay atinLay
05-28-2010, 06:39 PM
Has to be Shaq and Garnett second.

McGrady deal is irrelevant and I would not call him a superstar at this point.

Iverson deal is an incomplete...the Iverson to Denver deal got us Young and Speights and indirectly Holiday and Turner if that's who we draft this year. I say indirectly because we may have ended up with draft picks that did not get us Holiday or the second this year if we didn't trade him. Unlike Mcgrady, AI was a superstar when traded.

Kakaroach
05-28-2010, 06:48 PM
I think there will never be a true return in value for a superstar.

For example, people say the Garnett deal was bad but they got a lot of draft picks and now a great big man in Al Jefferson. But the star is the much better player so I think from a fan perspective, its pretty hard to get true value for a superstar.

The Final Boss
05-28-2010, 06:56 PM
Garnett wasn't gonna do **** in Minyy, so Minny was smart in trading him.

SteveNash
05-28-2010, 07:11 PM
I think there will never be a true return in value for a superstar.

For example, people say the Garnett deal was bad but they got a lot of draft picks and now a great big man in Al Jefferson. But the star is the much better player so I think from a fan perspective, its pretty hard to get true value for a superstar.

Philadelphia got superior players in Andre Miller and Joe Smith plus 2 draft picks once that got rid of AI.

Denver got a superior player in Billups + McDyess who they "bought out" when they traded AI, so it is possible.

Kakaroach
05-28-2010, 07:14 PM
Philadelphia got superior players in Andre Miller and Joe Smith plus 2 draft picks once that got rid of AI.

Denver got a superior player in Billups + McDyess who they "bought out" when they traded AI, so it is possible. Allen Iverson at that stage in his career I would not consider a superstar player, especially with the Detroit deal, but you make a good point. By true I meant equal value.

SteveNash
05-28-2010, 07:20 PM
Allen Iverson at that stage in his career I would not consider a superstar player, especially with the Detroit deal, but you make a good point. By true I meant equal value.

He came in 6th for the all star vote in 2007 ahead of KG. And was voted as an All Star starter in 2009.

Iodine
05-28-2010, 07:21 PM
You base it off thw NSW
National Swag Index

Kakaroach
05-28-2010, 07:22 PM
He came in 6th for the all star vote in 2007 ahead of KG. And was voted as an All Star starter in 2009. Did you just use the All-Star vote as a reason for him being a superstar? Point is, equal value is pretty hard to retain for a superstar. Your either going to overpay or underpay.

JordansBulls
05-28-2010, 07:22 PM
Philadelphia got superior players in Andre Miller and Joe Smith plus 2 draft picks once that got rid of AI.

Denver got a superior player in Billups + McDyess who they "bought out" when they traded AI, so it is possible.

:speechless:

SteveNash
05-28-2010, 07:28 PM
Did you just use the All-Star vote as a reason for him being a superstar? Point is, equal value is pretty hard to retain for a superstar. Your either going to overpay or underpay.

Is Jordan not a superstar even though he'd suck if he stepped onto the court again?

Is Miley Cyrus not a superstar even though she can't sing worth a damn?


:speechless:

Come on JB you know it's true.

Kakaroach
05-28-2010, 07:31 PM
Is Jordan not a superstar even though he'd suck if he stepped onto the court again?

Is Miley Cyrus not a superstar even though she can't sing worth a damn?
Ah I see where you misunderstood me lol. My bad, I meant "elite player".

SteveNash
05-28-2010, 07:39 PM
Ah I see where you misunderstood me lol. My bad, I meant "elite player".

Hmm, well I guess you could list Grant Hill even though it was debatable whether or not he was an elite player.

Hawkeye15
05-28-2010, 08:21 PM
it depends on the trade. If you send away an aging franchise player for young players and picks, it takes until those players and picks develop to judge the trade.
If you trade a star for a star, easy, you see who does better or which team does better essentially.
If you trade an all star because you just can't over the hump for picks and players, it is judged similar to the first trade.
KG is the first trade. Can anyone here really tell me what Minnesota has done with all the assets at this point? Nope. They are still developing those assets thru players and picks.
A star for star trade is easy to gauge. Whichever player fits better with their new team and enjoys sustained success wins
Gasol is trade #3. He was never going to be the #1 option on a contender, but he makes a great second option on a deep team. Memphis is now developing the assets they got. They didn't get as robbed as people think.

Then there is the trade that looks ridiculous, and doesn't matter. The Lakers trading Butler would be this.

Sixerlover
05-28-2010, 08:24 PM
When is the last time a hands down star was traded for another hands down star?

Kevj77
05-28-2010, 09:05 PM
It is impossible to get equal value if you're talking about trading a true superstar. LA did OK in the Shaq trade, but I don't consider Pau as part of that trade. You usually can't judge a huge trade that involves draft picks and expiring contracts as well as players. Not until you know who teams sign in FA with the cap space or draft with picks.

It's like giving draft grades out in the NFL the week after the draft. It takes a few years to know the results of a draft class.

TrueFan420
05-28-2010, 09:30 PM
yes we all know your prob not gonna get equal value but it all depends on what the teams goals are through the trade.

with the lakers griz trade the lakers needed a good player to play with kobe in pau. while the griz needed a fresh start because they couldnt go far with just pau. they got an expiring some young players and draft picks. while this trade didnt turn out as bad as people first thought lets just pretend it did. say the young players were all busts, well critt was but not lil gasol. the griz still would have gotten everything they needed out of the deal. they got cap space and picks they gained the chance to turn it around. where as if they had kept pau then they would have been stuck in limbo. not being able to get big free agents cuz no cap space or assets. the trade took the team out of limbo and gave them a direction which is very important. it also helps that the players paned out and the gamble worked.

take the garnett trade they were not winning rings with him and didnt have enough assets to make something happen around an aging super star. they were not gonna get a player of equal value cuz if boston had that then they wouldnt trade that player. the wolves got what they needed to give them direction they wanted to rebuild with young players cap space and draft picks. while this traded didnt work out for the wolves in the long run that has more to do with the fact that they messed up with the picks. their front office killed them not the trade they got everything they needed to turn the corner and be good again but the players just didnt all pan out. the gamble didnt work but remember if they had kept garnett they would be stuck in limbo. they wouldnt be winning rings either way

guess all im saying is the trades dont bring fair value at first but if used right it does because it gives them a fresh start with the assets to turn the team in the right direction it just comes down to the team making the right choices after the trade.

Hawkeye15
05-29-2010, 10:29 AM
^The Wolves are still using the assets gained man, not sure how their front office killed them in that regard, as you suggest.

Mplsman
05-29-2010, 12:29 PM
KG trade brought back Al Jefferson who filled his shoes scoring and rebounding wise immeadiatly(obviously not defensively) but didn't change the outcome of win totals for the better... So kind of a plus minus.

Hawkeye15
05-29-2010, 03:47 PM
^it also brought Gomes, Telfair, Green, Ratliff, a 1st round pick, and the Wolves pick back to them that they traded to Boston previously. So not only did they get a 25 year old 20/10 PF, But they got tons of salary cap relief, a contributor in Gomes, a pick that turned into this year's #16 basically, and Telfair was used to acquire even more cap relief after he was traded to LA, then Richardson traded to Miami for Blount, and that space is just being realized.
That is my point. A trade for an aging superstar for young players/picks, can not be determined as a win/loss until all those assets mature which they have not yet.

lets say the Wolves use the #4, #16 to move up and get Turner. That would be part of the KG trade is my point.

LTS
05-29-2010, 05:52 PM
Garnett won championship so far and is real leader
Shaq helped MIA get 1
Gasol deal is just rotten inside & out but it worked good for LA