On the Clippers Trade, Two Months On
by Rohan on Feb 14, 2012 10:36 AM CST
in Columns
Email
PrintThe Hornets announced yesterday that Eric Gordon will have surgery and sit out at least another six weeks. If this timeline somehow escapes the errancy of each that preceded it, Gordon would be in line for an April return with anywhere from 5 to 15 games left in the season. The alternative -- that Gordon played his last game of the season on January 4th, 2012 -- feels, at this point, just as likely.
What this means for Gordon's future is unclear. I won't speculate on it too much. Will he return to his previous levels of athletic ability? Can he? I don't know. I'm optimistic because of his age, the (as far as we know) relative lack of severity of the injury, the recovery history of professional athletes from similar (and more complex) surgeries, and, I'll be frank, a sense of vague desperation on my own part. But I simply don't know. Will gave the best summary I've seen of the situation on Twitter last night:
Beyond those points, we don't know enough to talk with confidence about Gordon himself. But the timing is perfect to revisit the original Clippers trade, amidst the dozens of "ha ha, David Stern vetoed an awesome trade for this disaster, ha ha" jokes flying around Twitter since news of Gordon's surgery broke.
I was a big fan of the original veto. To refresh, the Hornets passed on this:
1. Lamar Odom
2. Luis Scola
3. Kevin Martin
4. Goran Dragic
5. New York's 2012 1st round pick (currently #13, but not lottery)
in order to pick up this:
1. Eric Gordon
2. Chris Kaman
3. Al-Farouq Aminu
4. Minnesota's 2012 1st round pick (currently #12, lottery)
Even though Minnesota will likely end up in the lottery and New York, in the lightweight East, will not, the picks won't be too drastically different. In terms of draft value, both the Lakers' and Clippers' deal offered New Orleans a very similar outcome. The trades really differed in terms of the long-term rebuilding plan the Hornets would end up with. It's true the Clippers offered the best overall player (factoring in age), but the Lakers' deal essentially gave the Hornets an immediately playoffs contending team. A lineup of Jarrett Jack - Kevin Martin - Trevor Ariza - Luis Scola - Emeka Okafor with a bench featuring one of the league's better backup points in Goran Dragic as well as the reigning NBA sixth man of the year in Lamar Odom probably would have made the postseason in a strange, strange year for the Western conference.
The problem, of course, was the ceiling of that team. Between Martin, Ariza, Scola, and Okafor, the Hornets would have locked in long term to a core with extremely minimal opportunity for growth. A 7th or 6th seed could have provided a shot at perhaps a wobbly Spurs team, maybe a fun revenge series against Chris Paul's Clippers. But come the summer, the Hornets would add something akin to the 22nd pick from the draft, nothing else (cap and tax considerations) and that would have been that. Off to 2012, maybe another 7th seed. Rinse and repeat. The Hornets would have been "competitive" but not competitive, the lamb that reigned supreme amongst its fellow sheep, elated to be satueed in its own juices for the NBA's lions.
It's always puzzled me why NBA fans are satisfied with this kind of existence. And I say this as a fan of a team that's never sniffed a Finals appearance. If a team's current 5 or 10 year road-map doesn't include at least a tiny opportunity to contend for a title at some point (any point!), blow it up. It's cynical, but as much as I want to replace "blow it up" with "switch to a road that works," the two concepts are synonymous in professional basketball. It's sad. It's what makes basketball below the uppermost level, below the HEAT and the Thunder and the Bulls and the other contenders du jour, so damn tough to watch. There's an enervating sense of emptiness that inevitably accompanies "competitive" but not competitive basketball; this is a sport that takes cinderellas, grinds them down into a powder, and smokes their remains, sneering in the knowledge that if Game 1 didn't do the trick, Games 2 through 7, and the next series, and the next series after that most certainly will.
The Clippers' deal didn't offer the raw talent of the Lakers' deal. In any sense of the word. The Hornets were getting more players, they were getting better players, and they were getting a better team. But they were also getting a team condemned to basketball purgatory.
The Clippers' deal offered a chance to vault past that purgatory in the best case scenario and a chance to put some devastatingly bad teams on the floor in the worst case. But therein lies the irony; the latter, for a small market, hilariously low budget team, is the only method of generating the former. A devastatingly bad team, in this comically warped league, is far more valuable than a merely good one if the end goal is a title. It's hardly a sure way -- the Hornets could strike out in 2012, again in 2013, again in 2014, fold in 2015, have all their former fans banished by the US government to North Korea in 2016 -- but it's the only way.
And it's why the most important aspect of the Clippers' deal was not Eric Gordon; rather, it was the opportunity to be terrible. To play painful basketball, to construct a .300 team and then take away its starting point guard, its starting shooting guard, its starting power forward, its starting center, and its backup power forward, to start players that came off the bench in the D-League, to make God himself turn away in horror.
The Lakers offered a mid-1st draft pick and a shot at being perennial first and second round fodder. The Clippers offered a mid-1st draft pick and, via Eric Gordon and the Hornets' own pick, a significantly lower shot at being something so much more. That hasn't changed today; if anything. it only enhances the original sentiment if Gordon is healthy in the long term.
David Stern's veto still makes perfect sense because his league decidedly does not.
50 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good post
Thanks Rohan. That was a good and balanced breakdown.
Still, I have to note my disagreement with the following points:
1. I agree that winning a title is the end goal but I also think that teams face a range of success outcomes. Doing well in the regular season and winning one or two playoff series are also important success. Certainly, winning it all is the ultimate success, but I don’t think it’s all or nothing. Being competitive, getting into the playoffs and having success in the playoffs (even if it means just winning a couple of games) is important for fans but also for the financial fortune of the team, which is ultimately also a factor in deciding how much a team will have available to spend on making the team better (maybe a little less so under the new rules, but we’ll see how teams respond to the new rules, and in any case, player salaries are not the only cost factor). In this sense, success builds on itself in a virtuous spiral. Therefor, I reject an all or nothing view on the championship.
2. I think once a team is competitive and a potential playoff team, although the league has a way of weeding out unfit teams through 82 game regular season and brutal 7 game series as you pointed out, the situation may be more fluid and less predetermined than some people believe. For starters, being a playoff team can really change perceptions. Look at Memphis. They were considered perennially mediocre until they made the playoffs last year. Nobody really expected they would do anything there but they made it to 2nd round and stretched that series to 7 games. Today, they’re considered one of the up and coming teams (with their best player out this season, they’re in the playoff hunt), even though they haven’t really changed from 2 years ago. Look at the Phoneix team a couple of years ago that failed to make the playoffs then lost Shaq (who was supposed to have been the piece that puts them over the top). Nobody expected that next year they’d be playing in the Western Conference Finals. The Houston Rockets won a championship from the 5th seed in the West. The future isn’t completely set in stone. What IS certain, is that you can’t win a championship if you don’t make the playoffs.
3. I don’t know whether we’d be only a 6th or 7th seed. I think Houston right now is the 6th seed among a bunch of teams (it’s amazing they didn’t psychologically collapse after trying to trade away their core). I’d argue that a supporting cast of Odom, Jack, Okafor, Ariza, is a better supporting cast for Martin/Scola than what the Rockets currently have (Lowry, Dalembert, Chandler Parsons, Budinger etc.). OKC is clearly the best in the West, but you have to admit that the rest of it is pretty much wide open. In all fairness, I think that 6th or 7th seed sounds “about right”, but it would be hardly set in stone. This year, we could have finish anywhere from 2nd to 8th (or even miss the playoffs if the chemistry exploded in the worst case scenario, though that seems unlikely). As for next year? Who knows. Future is wide open. We’d still have had 2 first round picks in an allegedly deep draft to add to a pretty solid core. We wouldn’t necessarily been doomed to be 1st round playoff casualties.
4. I disagree with the statement that “And it’s why the most important aspect of the Clippers’ deal was not Eric Gordon; rather, it was the opportunity to be terrible.” I think that being “terrible” is not really a good strategy. That’s a strategy that doesn’t require any skill, thought or planning. Further, since the draft lottery system was devised, which only gives a 25% chance to the worst team to get the top pick, it’s a particularly bad strategy. Not only that but, players coming out of the draft are increasingly worse each year than in the past (in the sense that they are younger, less developed, and more speculative than in the past). Even the best rookies have huge holes in their games which require time seasoning to resolve. Only 2 or 3 players from last year’s draft are currently playing at the level of average NBA starters or above (e.g., Rubio, the 2nd best player, is good and will be fantastic, but for now the Wolves still have to deal with his 38% shooting and turnover sprees). Once players from a draft start getting their act together and are poised to start breaking out, they’re typically 70% of the way through their rookie contract requiring teams to pony the cash up if they want to keep them.
5. It’s worthwhile to evaluate the two scenarios from time to time, but I think we’re barely beginning our rebuild. It will take several years and while I have no doubt we’ll be better next year (simply because it’s hard to imagine how we could be worse), I’d like to gauge sentiment once we’ve had a few lousy seasons under our belt with no playoffs. It’s been abysmal this year, but honestly, we’re barely 1/3 of the way through this quagmire this season and I don’t see us making the playoffs next year either. I think the playoffs are nowhere in sight for the forseeable future and, despite how bad things have been, I can’t help but think that we’re still under the influence of romantic notions about the “virtues” of crash rebuilding like this (not you personally, but the average fan). As I mentioned at the beginning of the season, rebuilding projects like this look best on day 1 when they are just starting (and might still look not too bad on day 50 or so which is where we are) but I’d like to see people’s opinions about this path once we are in day 568 and mediocrity continues to take its toll.
6. Finally, I think the NBA rejected the Lakers trade partly because of financial considerations and not “basketball reasons”.
For the foregoing reasons, I think the Lakers trade was our best option and I’m still quite bitter that we got shafted into this mess.
1. I agree, there are more outcomes on a yearly basis than title or no title. My point is more than if over the lifetime of a team core you can look ahead and say there is zero chance of a title (which I’d say is true of the Lakers trade core), then you reset. If within the lifetime of your core you can say there is some chance, then yes, outcomes like 2nd round or conference finals are great building blocks. But there was minimal opportunity for growth with that core, either through young players (none) or FA additions (cap space tied up to Scola/Martin/Okafor/Ariza etc).
2. There is variation in the 3ish to 8ish region. Agreed. But that Memphis core is never winning a title. I don’t think the Houston example is good… they were a great team with a legitimate superstar that just happened to finish 5th that year. (they won the Finals the previous year!)
3. 2 first round picks, but both would be out of the lottery. Sure, we can quibble whether they would be 6 or 7 or 4, but it would take a serious upgrade to make that core a finals contender. One that you’re simply not going to get from non-lottery picks.
4. It doesn’t matter that it requires no skill – I agree with you there. You’re thinking of it from a logical standpoint, but the fact is the NBA is not a fair system. It’s a very, very flawed league setup right now; if you look back at virtually every non-LA/Miami/Boston team that has clawed its way to contender status, they’ve done it by being really terrible. Seattle, pre-Durant. San Antonio, pre-Duncan. Chicago, pre-Rose. Minnesota, pre-Love/Rubio. And the process will repeat itself.
I also agree that it’s a bad strategy because the odds are so low. But the point is there is no other strategy. None. You cannot win a title as a small market team (especially as the Hornets) without winning the draft. If you want to look to things other than titles, that’s definitely your right as a fan. But to contend, you have to be terrible. That’s simply the way this league works, fair or not.
5. You’re right. The odds are that we fail in the 2012 draft. The odds, bluntly, are that we suck beyond this season, beyond next season. It’s the dark side of the NBA. Can you as a front office, a franchise, a fanbase hold out for long enough to be put on a contending track? Or do you build up your perennial 1st/2nd round loser, which given a good GM, is actually not that tough to do? Tough question, especially in NOLA.
6. I’d hope so. Scola’s contract is gigantic and I’m glad we didn’t take it on.
Ding Ding Ding
I also agree that it’s a bad strategy because the odds are so low. But the point is there is no other strategy. None. You cannot win a title as a small market team (especially as the Hornets) without winning the draft.
As most will probably remember, I was also a fan of the LA/HOU deal. My main thought process was to avoid an epically bad season or two so that New Orleans would not have to face the real possibility of losing the team. However, looking back, that thought process was wrong. New Orleans best chance at keeping the team is to make it as an enticing buy as possible for prospective owners. The NBA most certainly doesn’t want to own us “infinitely.”
1. I would be more convinced if I thought we actually had a core which we could compare to the Lakers trade core. Our future core is currently Gordon (assuming he’s resigned and discontinues his injury issues), Vasquez, Ayon, Aminu, Henry, Smith. Hard to imagine that that’s a future championship team. Further, I don’t agree that there’s 0 chance for the Lakers core to win a championship. I think it’s much more likely that we could have drafted or developed players to complete the Lakers core than for us to make a championship team from the core that we have. Note that the Lakers trade DID include young players (Dragic is playing like a starting quality point this season), and we would have had draft picks + there was further consideration which was added at the end to sweeten the deal the specifics of which we will never know.
And if simply sucking was the end goal, we could have always just continued to trade. I’m sure we could have gotten plenty of promising young players/draft picks for Martin/Scola/Odom. Had we traded them away, I’m quite confident that we could have ended up with a better mix of young players and draft picks than we currently have — don’t you think?
2. Ok.
3. Not yet certain that the Knicks pick will be out of the lottery. As miraculous as Lin has been, that team continues to have major questions and issues, the biggest knock being that Carmelo anthony teams have never done anything of note without a venteran leader. I agree that the Lakers core would have required a serious upgrade to make it a championship contender, but I think it would have been easier to find that serious upgrade (even though that chance might oinly be 10 – 20%) than to find upgrades to the current core that we are building, which is not really even a core because it’s based on so many assumptions and best case scenarios to actually imagine it as a definite future core.
4. Every team has at one point been bad. No team has always been good. But I don’t think that proves much. San Antonio is not a good example because pre-Duncan is like 15 years ago and they were already very good with David Robinson. That’s actually a great example of a team that didn’t become really bad to become really good—they’ve been various stages of good. Some of the great teams are put together through drafts primarily (Seattle), others are manufactured through trades/FAs (Miami/Boston). Yet others are hybrids of the two approaches (current Chicago team and the Kobe-Shaq Lakers teams with Kobe being a not very high draft pick that was actually acquired in a trade, making this arguably a primarily manufactured team rather than a team that "clawed its way up after being really terrible). There is no defiite right or only way to do it. Both approaces have merit. In fact, I think ppl have easily forgotten that arguably our best period in Hornets history was the period of “manufactured” teams in the late 90s—the first was the core of Glen Rice, Anthony Mason, Divac, etc. which won something like 53 games and could have potentially been a super team if it hadn’t run into the Bulls in the 2nd round. That was followed by our arguably most talented team of Coleman, Eddie Jones, Anthony Mason, Elden Campbell, Wesley, Bobby Phills. Those were fantastic “manufactured” teams. I definitely see the Lakers core as potentially following in that “manufactured” mold of pretty good overnight without needing to be built up from being really bad. This is something I may explore in further detail in a separate post or FanPost. But anyway, from that perspective, I disagree that clawing your way up by developing young players after being really bad is the “only” strategy.
5. Yep, tough questions. I’m going to remain a fan (obviously) but i’m not terribly optimistic.
6. Scola’s contract is fair relative to production. He had the same averages last year as David West, and was paid $8 million. We agreed that David West was underpaid last year, so there’s no reason to think that Scola wasn’t underpaid. This year, Scola’s numbers are down slightly at 16ppg/6rpg. Still, he only gets a modest pay raise to $8.5 million (compare to West’s 12ppg/7rpg for $10 mill). If Scola improves slightly to around 17/18ppg and 7rpg this year (which I think is quite likely), that’s definityely fair value for $8.5 mill. Eventually, he’ll be paid around $10 million or so at the end of his contract, by which he will be overpaid slightly. But that’s just the price of having him fairly paid/underpaid last season/now. Scola’s contract was a very fair and balanced contract relative to the production that he provides/will provide. Further, Scola has consistently played 82 games each year of his 5 year career except one year when he missed a few games. Compare that to a potentially maxed out Gordon for $14 million who we may soon be hoping he can can at least play half a season even though we have strong evidence that this may be too much to ask.
1. The odds of us drafting not only a productive player but a player that put the core from borderline playoffs to championship level outside of the lottery is tiny. Dragic is at his peak as a player (his peak is a backup/borderline starter).
Scola’s contract is un-tradable. The Lakers offered Odom to all 30 teams before moving him onto Dallas for a mid-to-late first round pick (not too valuable). And you have to keep in mind that the 60 day restriction would have applied here. We wouldn’t have been able to move those guys on for two months, improving our own record, and deflating our bargaining position.
2. :)
3. They’re 8th now and their closest competitors are the Cavs (10-16) and Bucks (12-16). I hear you about their Melo problems, but the East is so, so, so bad.
4. I picked those specific examples because sucking in those cases explicitly led to the players mentioned. Spurs only get Duncan because they went 20-62. Ditto Sonics Durant. I don’t think you can compare the Lakers Kobe/Shaq situation to ours. We can’t do that, even on a small scale. And while I loved those Rice and Curry and Jones/Mason teams, they were never going to contend for titles. I mean, I’d like to think otherwise. I’d love to read your FanPost on this. I really * want * to be convinced otherwise (which is why I’m rooting so hard for Denver now). But the evidence simply isn’t there.
5. Yup.
6. Yeah, * right now * it’s fair. When he’s a 34 year old, 35 year old making $10M and $11M? Not so much. Nobody wants that contract.
just a side note
I think Denver has the chance to compete for a championship because of how Gallo has progressed. What’s most important for a championship team besides talent depth is a player who can get you easy points. Because in the playoffs when the games get slower, resulting into fewer possessions and play the game in a more half court setting, players who can get you easy points become so much valuable than what advanced stats would like to imply. It is in this regard that Gallo’s 1 month injury will hurt them the most. Gallo’s meteoric rise to superstardom was put to a screeching halt when it was announced that he had a chip fracture on his foot.
Before that? Gallo had a PER of 20, not much to see. But he had a WS/48 of .191, percentage points from what I consider a superstar based only on WS/48 of .200. Not only that, Gallo drew fouls on 16.5% of his FGs for a FTR of 0.49 – nearly as much as Lebron and Love. Plus, he was shooting a career low 31% from 3s(career 37%). And he was limited his counterpart SF to a PER of 9.2.
What I’m trying to say is that, Denver might be an exception rather than the norm of how manufactured teams can succeed in this league. Because Gallo/Lawson are still young players who haven’t reached their fullest potential. Hence that Denver team isn’t really a team of established production players, but rather established production players who still have room to grow (as evidenced by Gallo’s surge. Lawson has pretty much stayed the same since his rookie season). So Denver is more of a “claw your way back” type of a team rather than “assemble a team of established players” type of a team. With the Lakers trade, there was no room to grow. It was pretty much an impossibility to find a player who can give a playoff contender a boost to championships by picking in the late teens – which is what would have happened had the Lakers trade gone through. Odom, Scola and Martin are pretty much established players – there was no room for them to grow more. Only Dragic had room to grow. In fact, Odom and Scola are regressing this season. I won’t even talk about how bad an Okafor/Odom/Scola trifecta would have been. And even if Martin could have been flipped to a team for a player similar to Gallo (an established player that still has room to grow), how many of those players could there have been? Looking around the league, I can only find one player in a similar boat to Gallo – the illustrious Paul George. And it was highly unlikely that IND would have traded Martin for George, seeing as how Bird has a man crush on the guy (for good reason).
What am I trying to say? I think Rohan had it wrong when he said “the most important aspect of the LAC trade was not Eric Gordon, but the opportunity to be terrible.” Rather, it is “the opportunity to have that right combination of established veterans, developing young players and a special young player while offering the ability to remain terrible”. Why do I say this?
With the LAL trade, what we had was just one – a group of established veterans. It didn’t offer us ANY significant developing players, it didn’t offer us the ability to be terrible. Plus, do you think, had the LAL trade gone through, Demps would have swung those deals for Henry and Vasquez? I think he would have gone for more established veterans such as Jefferson, Kaman etc..
With the LAC trade, you had that right combination of all 3 – similar as to what Denver currently has. A good group of established players (Jack, Ariza, Okafor) vs. (Smith, Felton,Nene), a host of developing players (Henry, Aminu, Vasquez) vs. (Chandler, Lawson) and a special young player(Gordon vs. Gallo). The only difference is that Den had Lawson. We didn’t have ANYONE close to Lawson pre-CP3 trade. A player we CAN get with two lottery picks in the deep 2012 draft.
With the LAL trade, we would have had such a small window for contendership that you needed a microscope to see it – good trades (doable because of Demps), signings that would put us over the top (harder because of the dearth of such players and the market that we are in).
With the LAC trade, the window is much bigger – albeit farther. It is there, and its bigger, but it’s farther.
Agree with Rohan, there is no evidence to support that a group of established players can win a championship, besides DET circa 2003/04.
1. Disagree. If we really want to compare apples to apples, we would need to consider whether what we got in Clips trade in terms of draft picks and players is what we could have gotten if we continued to trade the Lakers core. Odom “trade” was just a salary dump that was laughed out of town around the NBA. Of course we could have gotten better than that. And we would not have been in any hurry to trade either—having 60 days to look at the options would in fact have been great for us. No rush—when you’re a playoff bound team, there’s no pressure to trade at all. And that still leaves Scola and Martin (and Dragic). Of course we could have done better than an unjury prone undersized Gordon a 12th pick, Aminu and Kaman. I think there’s no doubt in my mind. Honestly, do you think we would have done worse? Scola’s contract is untradable? He was all but traded earlier this season until Stern’s veto.
3. We’ll see about the Knicks. It’s a bad bad team, with luck on their side that they’re in the East.
4. You think those teams could nejver conceivably contend for a championship? Ok, give me an example in NBA history where a team built a title contender around a 6’3" SG who had major injury issues. Or at the very least, name the berst 6’3" and under SG in NBA history. There’s absolutely no, none, zero chance of building a contender around Gordon. There’s no precedent for it. If championship is the end goal, we should be again blowing up the team, because we are going down a poath which has never been tread before.
6. Again, Scola was almost traded. And he’s probably underpaid now. Being overpaid later just balances it out.
1. No, I don’t think you could have gotten a player of Gordon’s caliber, and you’re forgetting the pumped up value of our own pick.
3. They’re really not that terrible. League average to a bit above average at full health.
4. Dwyane Wade is 6’4", smaller, less strong, and less quick than Eric Gordon. So yes, there’s a precedent. And again, as I’ve outlined before, the “build around Gordon” concept is a misnomer. The next Hornets contender will be built around defense and two borderline stars. A healthy Gordon fits both the former and the latter to a tee.
6. Traded to us! Ha, that’s a very circular argument you’re making here.
1. Gordon’s caliber? He was the 2nd best player on his team. A player who has played for 56 games at an All-Star level in his career who was injury prone before we got him. Surely, Martin/Scola/Odom could be traded for a player like Gordon. Just pretend that Clippers still had Gordon. You don’t think they wouldn’t trade Gordon for Martin/Scola/Odom? I think the answer is very obvious—of course they would. Those players were the core of a package that was set to be traded for Chris Paul (in a 3 team trade). Why wouldn’t they be traded for a Gordon-type player?
3. Knicks – a team that is structurally flawed and will never win a championship. Building around 2 scoring forwards who don’t play defense is a really really bad idea. It wouldn’t surprise me if they still miss the playoffs despite the continuing heroics and miracle play of Lin. You know, they’re only 8th in the East despite all the miracles.
4. Where are you getting these stats from? Wade is an inch taller and 5 pounds heavier. That to me sounds like he’s bigger and taller. Not only that, but Wade is in a category of his own. Gordon would need to immediately begin doing 25-30 ppg, 6rpg, 6apg year after year to begin catching up. And yes, if we give him the max, then we’re definitely “building” around him. Building around defense? You have to play defense regardless of what team you have.
6. I don’t see any circularity. So what if they were set to be traded to us? That was an independent decision on the part of their respective GMs. No different than any other independent decision.
That's Like Saying
That because James Posey was given 24 million dollars by the Hornets, that other teams would have gladly payed him that money.
All it takes is one but that doesn’t mean we could have gotten someone else to take Scola.
Knicks – a team that is structurally flawed and will never win a championship. Building around 2 scoring forwards who don’t play defense is a really really bad idea. It wouldn’t surprise me if they still miss the playoffs despite the continuing heroics and miracle play of Lin. You know, they’re only 8th in the East despite all the miracles.
Ummmm, nobody’s talking about them winning a championship. Rohan even said that they’re an average team in the league. You’ve long maintained that the Knicks are worse than the Timberwolves and that’s no longer the case.
Seasoned by Zatarains
by MrWayneKeller on Feb 15, 2012 10:30 AM CST up reply actions
see my response below
It’s not “like saying” anything. If a player has been traded, then he’s not untradable. That’s exactly what I’m saying. I don’t know what James Posey has to do with it.
You’ve long maintained that the Knicks are worse than the Timberwolves and that’s no longer the case.
I maintained that the Knicks are a lot worse than people understood at the beginning of the season. I also maintained that the Timberwolves may be a lot better than people had them figured at the beginning of the season. I think I was right at the beginning of the season. If I was right at the beginning of the season, the fact that Knicks happen to be 0.500 while Timberwolves happen to be 1 game below 0.500, doesn’t suddenly make me wrong.
Lin’s surge has been wonderful and miraculous. Some people have even said it’s a miracle. In fact, according to one source, Lin’s points in his 5 starts were the most ever by a player. In that sense, it really is a miracle. Yes, it’s a miracle that Lin has rescued to Knicks when they were headed for a deep deep lottery and it’s a miracle that the Knicks are 0.500 ,adn they’re definitely very lucky to be playing in the East where their mediocre record is enough for the last playoff berth. But that doesn’t make my analysis wrong. On the other hand, there’s nothing miraculous about Minnesota’s near 0.500 record, in fact they’re probably unlucky to have kept on losing all those games by 2 points at the beginning of the season. The fact that they happen to be playing in the tougher West where it’s harder to win games, probably actually makes my argument even more right since it makes the Wolves record all the more respectable and the Knicks miracles against the Washingtons and Toronto’s all the more dubious.
And the funny thing is that, I’m still not completely convinced that despite all the miracles, the Knicks will finish in the playoffs and the Wolves will finish out of the playoffs. The Wolves for one, could mortgage some of their future upside by trading for the third good player they desperately need and vault themselves into the playoffs that way. One can only hope as a Hornets fan that they don’t decide to do that, but they could if they wanted to.
Haha
You know I love discussing with you, but the strawmen are getting a bit ridiculous.
1. They might… because they have Blake Griffin! The Clippers trading for that package and us trading for that package are totally, totally different. It’s pointless to make this comparison unless you want to ignore all underlying context.
Also, I’ve never understood the "he’s the 2nd best player… ON HIS OWN TEAM!" line of putting someone down. Dwyane Wade is the second best player on his own team. So is Russell Westbrook. So was Kobe Bryant on the 2010 champions. So was Paul Pierce on the 08 champions. So was Ginobili on the 07 champions. I could go on, but I won’t because being worse than some great players (in this case, being worse than one of the three best rookie seasons of the past 20 seasons) isn’t an automatic strike against a player.
2. Why are we talking about the Knicks winning a championship?
4. Pre-draft measurements. They’re similar now, and when Miami first started up, they were absolutely building around a small player. That’s the point.
And no, giving a guy a mini-max does not mean you’re automatically making him the centerpiece. (A) At this point, that looks unlikely anyway, and (B) keep in mind that the Hornets will still have the "real" max (6 years) to offer, both in terms of ability under the new CBA as well as cap space.
6. There are no “independent decisions” by “respective GMs” here. There’s one team that almost took on a bad contract, and you’re extrapolating that out to mean that not only should /other/ teams take on bad contracts because one team did, you’re saying that those other teams should give away valuable pieces in the process. (and not only valuable pieces – a piece that would take a 7th/8th pick and make it a Finals contender).
1. Bottom line is would a team trade a Gordon for Martin/Scola/Odom +/- whatever throw ins to make that trade work on either side. I don’t think there is any argument, whether Gordon is 1st, 2nd or 3rd best player on the team. I mentioned 2nd only because I don’t think Gordon has really been even that great—56 games at an All-Star level on a mediocre team doesn’t prove he’s great yet. There’s no comparing Gordon to Kobe or Wade.
2. Honestly Rohan, I don’t think you’ve ever acknowledged that your initial assessment of the key draft aspects of the two trades was incorrect. Remember your analysis at the beginning was that the Lakers trade wouldn’t land us any good young players while the Clippers trade gives us Minnesota pick and it’s so great we’re going to get Minnesota’s unprotected pick (“possibly a top 5 pick”), which is so much better than whatever we’ll get in the Lakers trade. I pointed out at the time that the Knicks pick could be a lot more valuable that people understood, but nobody even acknowledged that argument, I guess it was considered just too outlandish. Today you just dismiss those arguments with “HaHa” and write that it’s all just strawmen arguments.
Even with the almost nightly miracles being performed by Jeremy Lin, the Knicks have pretty much the same record as Minnesota and the 8th position in East. Now you’re saying the picks are going to be “about the same”. That’s a BIG change from your previous position where you focussed on the fact that Minnesota’s pick is unprotected while barely acknowledging that the Knicks pick is included in the Lakers trade.
The draft picks we’d get in either trade were CRITICAL parts of the trades and I think your analysis of that aspect of the trades was wrong. You overestimated the value of the Minnesota pick and badly underestimated the value of the Knicks pick. Of course it makes a huge difference whether or not we’re getting a high lottery pick or a low lottery/out of lottery pick in return when we trade away our franchise player.
Now the big thing that helps to justify the trade is suddenly not that Minnesota’s pick is unprotected. It’s the fact that the Clippers trade gives us a chance to be really bad and pump up the value of our own pick. The problem with that argument is that a big part of the reason why we are so bad is that we got a lot of trash in return for CP. Players who aren’t helping us much in the short term (other than Kaman) and about whom we’re not sure how much help they’ll give in the long term for various reasons.
It’s almost like saying the less we get for CP, the better off we will be in the long run because having nothing “gives us a chance to be really bad”. I’m not a fan of that logic.
Honestly, the trade was bad to begin with and has just gotten worse and worse and I’m not a fan of trying to justify it no matter what.
4. Show me a link where Wade is smaller than Gordon. I checked the pre-draft measurements on DraftExpress.com. http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Eric-Gordon-328/ According to that source, Gordon is 6’2" . My original question was can you name any great SG 6’3" or less tall. You provided Wade. According to DraftExpress, Wade is above 6’4" (6’5" in shoes) and he’s almost 2 inches taller and has 2 inch longer wingspan than Gordon. http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Dwyane-Wade-4726/
6. I don’t get it. You said Scola is untradable. I gave an example of where he was traded for valuable consideration. What else is there to say? I never said that other teams necessarily “should” trade for Scola. That’s what you said I said, but I never said that. I just noted that he can’t be untradable if he’s already been effectively traded. A player doesn’t need to be traded every season to prove that he’s “tradable”. The circumstances of each trade or decision not to trade differ. I don’t think Houston needs to be in any hurry to trade him. Last year he put up borderline All-Star numbers for $8 million. A bargain to say the least and his game isn’t showing signs of falling off a cliff. You make it sound like he’s the next Eddie Curry. Hardly the case.
1. Again, it depends on the team. A team looking to start again will not want Scola’s contract and Odom’s disgruntled attitude. With the Clippers’ deal the Hornets decided to clear the slate. If you personally were in favor of building a mildly contending team for a couple years and go from there (a completely, completely reasonable opinion, as I’ve long maintained), that’s fine. But don’t pretend like no other point of view can possibly have any validity and that we should ignore that context.
2. As I said in the post, the pick has minimal relevance in analyzing the two trades at this point. Wolves will be in the 10-14 range, Knicks will be in the 15-19 range (as they already are right now). What sets these two deals apart is the philosophical approach to rebuilding – tread water for a few years and go from there or blow it all up because — and this is important — there was a very good opportunity to refuel a good rebuild.
I know you keep harping on "blowing up isn’t a strategy." The problem lies in the fact that it SHOULD be a strategy. Very few teams actually do it; blowing up to THIS extent intentionally is quite rare. If you look at the other horrible teams around us, most of them actually got to their current states by terrible mismanagement (Detroit, Washington, Toronto) rather than a GM sitting back and saying "let’s go all the way down, the best way of going all the way up." The Hornets have intentionally decided to be bad in a short season where the payoff in the first 5 picks (at this point: Davis, Drummond, Robinson, Sullinger, MKG) could be massive.
It’s almost like saying the less we get for CP, the better off we will be in the long run because having nothing “gives us a chance to be really bad”. I’m not a fan of that logic.
Nor am I. But that’s the modern NBA. Find me legitimate title contenders (made the Finals, or efficiency differential of +6) from small (non-Miami) markets in the last 20 years that weren’t built though drafting a superstar.
And I’m not saying the LESS we get… just that there’s a delayed payoff. Half-up front (Gordon) and another half theoretically later on (the draft). The fact the second half is not guaranteed is simply a fact of this league. If you want to contend for a title, you need some luck. You can set up the odds for the draft in your favor as best as possible (as we’ve done now and hopefully will continue to do with a Kaman trade), but that’s it.
So even if you don’t see it as a "fair" or "logical" strategy, the fact is that it’s in line with, empirically, how you construct a title contender in the NBA in a small market. Eric Gordon + Minnesota’s pick was an excellent package IF you support the second method of rebuilding (ie rebuilding towards a title). It not only provided a secondary star for the team (Gordon), it kept the team bad enough to work towards one of those top 5 picks. Basically, what you’re lambasting the trade for is THE exact reason those of who liked it supported it.
And look, if you want to grill me for the Wolves pick, definitely cool. I thought there was a chance it could be in the 7-10 range. It will be 11-14. But ultimately this trade doesn’t come down to that right now.
4. In those very links you posted, Gordon is listed at 10 pounds heavier (what I meant by bigger), about 20-30 pounds stronger on max. bench press, higher vertical, and also faster down the court. Also, I really don’t get why we’re quibbling over 1 or 2 inches of height. A small player has been a centerpiece of a title before. Period. I guess next you’ll move onto "but Gordon isn’t/won’t be Wade!", but you asked your original question, and here was the answer to that.
6.
A player doesn’t need to be traded every season to prove that he’s “tradable”.
strawman
Last year he put up borderline All-Star numbers for $8 million.
I’m talking his future value, age, and contract.
You make it sound like he’s the next Eddie Curry.
what? me saying I wouldn’t want to pay an unathletic 35 year old $11M = calling him Eddie Curry. Okay.
thanks
As a clips fan I was really curious how hornets fans would take this latest setback to gordon. I know it hurts and it’s hard to watch this year, but some part of me has to think that through all EJ’s struggles this year it might just be the best for the hornets. Even if EJ played to his full potential, sorry to say, I’d have to think the hornets would still be a lottery team. This setback may be a blessing in disguise with potential to earn the #1 overall pick. When you see the dominant teams, with rose, durant, lebron, griffin, you know how important it is to land a superstar in the draft (except in miami’s case). Not to mention potentially keeping EJ around at a cheaper price. Curious what kind of offers he’ll get this summer, but as I recall he was looking for westbrook type money, or at least love. id have to think offers would top out at gallanari money at this point.
All homerism aside, i think the trade was still the best option for the hornets. The thing that is killing them is the decent success of the timberwolves. I know most clips fan thought at worst that wolves pick would be a top 5 pick, but Rubio has been much better than I expected, and with a proven coach, he’s getting a lot out of everyone (seriously pekovic?, haha)
by osamu on Feb 14, 2012 6:32 AM CST via iPhone app reply actions
As long as reports don't come out Brandon Roy-like
and alluding to irreversible deterioration of a knee, he’ll likely still land an around the max type contract.
Completely agree with you though, that we may look back on this in the future and see this was really a blessing.
ESPN article
My rebuttals:
1. I can only bet that Cuban was against the Lakers trade.
2. Cuban wanted Chris Paul. BADLY.
3. The article says the Hornets “will likely lose Gordon in free agency.” Umm… what? Is this author from Indiana?
Reppin' the Lafayette Hornets fans.
As of now...
we have never really had Gordon, so hard to see how we can lose him…
As for me, I think Monty Williams should be the coach of they year, and get a raise.
"I've seen George Foreman shadow box, and the shadow won." Muhammad Ali
by BenDerDonDat on Feb 14, 2012 8:32 AM CST up reply actions
So many opinions
are so certain that we’re not going to keep Gordon and thus have nothing to show for the CP3 trade. UGH! Now I’m not certain he is going to stay, but neither are they assuming he’s gone tomorrow. Bottom line – highest possible ceiling of any deal is the one we did. Very good chance of signing one of the best up&coming young guys in Gordon, getting another 1st round draft pick in a deep draft with a good possibility of it ending up in the lottery and a few other pieces with which to keep long term or use as trade bait.
I'm not as optimistic
Best case scenario is that we can somehow retain Gordon for substantially less than the max AND then he proves even better than we expected AND avoids injury or ability erosion due to past injuries. Not very likely.
Scenarios that will likely steer us clear of championship contention include any scenario which includes Gordon getting paid the max (in which case we still have to answer questions about whether 1. he can play a full season, and 2. does it really make sense to build a championship contender around a 6’3" SG, etc.) or any scenario in which Gordon continues his injury woes (which right now looks reasonably likely considering the very long history of injuries he now has).
That’s not to say we’d never ever see the playoffs with Gordon in the latter scanarios, but I think that actual championship contention would be highly unlikely in such scenarios.
Thast’s why at this point, I’m kind of resigned to a sense of fatalism and almost indifference as far as what happens regarding Gordon… the most likely scenarios don’t paint a great picture.
Gordon's Games Played
Since entering the NBA, season by season, Gordon has played in:
78 games
62 games
56 games
15(?) games
If the current trend continues, he’ll appear in about 5 games next season.
Yeah
most of us are aware of his games played issue. However, unless there is something structural wrong with his knee whereby he can never be the player he once was, I’m still not writing him off. Many a player has gone through an injury nexus where they’re often injuried during their early years. Camby and Nene immediately come to mind and I have a feeling Andrew Bynum will be another. For that reason, I still think a small market team like ours has to take that chance on Gordon. Losing him for nothing is like throwing away the lottery ticket w/o even scratching off a number.
I'm not writing him off either
But building around a player who misses 20-30 games a season on average due to varous and sundry injuries isn’t exactly a championship path either.
Camby and Nene are good players and so is Bynum, who is very good. But the teams aren’t built around those players. Maybe one day the Lakers will build around Bynum. We’ll see.
And then there is still the issue of Gordon being a 6’3" SG… he’s a fine player allright, but who is the best all time NBA shooting guard who is 6’3" or smaller that you know?
Dumars/Dwyane Wade
Gordon is an inch shorter than Wade but is bigger (weight), stronger (bench press), jumps higher (vertical), and is faster (full court sprint). Lack of historical counterpart data isn’t something I’m worried about with Gordon.
Gordon/Wade
Dumars was never the franchise player on a championship team, so we can pretty much ignore him.
Wade is listed as an inch taller and 5 pounds heavier than Gordon. Further, Wade had Shaq when he won. And that’s not mentioning that Gordon is already behind Wade in career development and would need to immediately start averaging 25-30 points per game for the next 6 or 7 years to catch up.
So it seems the answer is, there is no example of building a championship around a player like Gordon.
You're making a strawman argument
I’ve never said at any point that the Hornets will be building a title team around Gordon with him as the centerpiece. See above.
As Rohan said
Gordon is behind Wade in terms of career development. But it’s not far off, no matter what the PPG seem to indicate. In Wade’s first 3 seasons, he had an ORTG of 101,109 and 115 to average out to 108.3. Gordon in his first 3 season, he had an ORTG of 112,107,112 to average out to 110.3..
Wade played 213 games in the same span. Gordon played 196 games in the same span. that’s a total of ~6 games per season. some cause for concern yes, but not a lot of concern.
You’ve got to remember, Wade played in a better system with better teammates compared to Gordon. Gordon has yet to play in a defensive minded system (until today MWAHAHAHA). But his defensive potential is there (can Rohan make a detailed post about this using Synergy Sports?)
Gordon and NOLA 2012 1st will be the cornerstone. There isn’t an example of building a core around Gordon ALONE. But there is when you add UNIBROW into the equation. Commish and Batman will rule NOLA/Gotham City!!
I've been meaning to, but waiting till he gets back
Now not sure if that will happen haha.
But yeah, I consider Gordon top 3 at his position defensively. His lateral ability is simply tremendous.
Gordon's Knee Injury
This is a double blessing. Without our only player capable of creating his own shot the Hornets will be terrible and in the hunt for a top three pick. In addition it has to depress Gordon’s value. Gordon was looking for roughly a 4 year $55 million deal. Now he’s going to be coming back off knee surgery, missing 50+ games and the Hornets still have the ability to offer him the fifth year or franchise him. The Hornets, if they’re smart, are going to let the market determine his value and then likely match or slightly exceed the best contract offered. Better yet, the prize asset from the CP3 trade is avoiding the meat grinder of this compressed schedule when he would have only increased his value and damaged the Hornets’ long term financial flexibility.
The Hornets will suck, get a high pick (in addition to the Minnesota pick and possibly the Knicks pick), ideally get a fresh Gordon for under market value, find a new owner and begin next season with serious promise in a dramatically aging Western Conference. The only players on contracts that are not expiring or cheap contracts will be Okafor, Ariza and Gordon. The Knicks sucked for much longer on the hope of LeBron and they ended up with Carmelo Anthony and traded the whole team for him.
signs of a really REALLY bad season
ppl saying that knee injury to our best player is a “double blessing”
Man is the NBA a perverse universe or what
1. Injuries are wonderful, particularly to star players
2. To lose consistently is reason for hope
3. If you can’t finish at the very top, please finish at the very bottom
4. Cap space (i.e. not spending money) is a good thing
5. Nothing is more valuable than a high pick of an unproven player who is 19 years old
6. David Stern is a wonderful owner b*stard, or a horrible owner b*stard
7. Hornets real competition is the B’Cats and the Wizterds…
Man I am confused.
"I've seen George Foreman shadow box, and the shadow won." Muhammad Ali
by BenDerDonDat on Feb 14, 2012 11:28 AM CST up reply actions
Please name me...
All the winning small market teams that didn’t hit it big in the lottery. I’ll wait.
Just my opinion, but I'm baffled by support for the Lakers trade.
Even assuming everything Rohan wrote is wrong (which it’s not), how does that Hornets team ever get past Cp3, Kobe, Bynum, let alone Cp3, Kobe, Dwight, which Mitch probably could have pulled off? I mean we would have been guaranteeing Lakers in the finals for like the next five years.
I’m with Rohan on this one, sad as it is. AND YOU WILL ALL BOW DOWN TO HIM WHEN UNIBROW, GORDON, AND AYON WIN IT ALL NEXT YEAR. Hahaha. Whatever, Rohan’s still right.
by m-W on Feb 14, 2012 12:06 PM CST via mobile reply actions 1 recs
In 2013
When Chris Paul resigns with the Hornets! We’ll be unstoppable!
Seasoned by Zatarains
by MrWayneKeller on Feb 14, 2012 3:16 PM CST up reply actions
Kaman looked really good in the post
He is a good post up center in this league so that is a good start. Vasquez looks like he has some potential at pg also, Hornets could rally and be a scrappy bunch in the West.
"Booze takes a lot of time and effort if you're going to do a good job with it."
― Raymond Carver, Where I'm Calling From: New and Selected Stories
GET TO THE RIM HEAT (and SKY)! ATTACK THE PAINT!
Question
Let’s say the Hornets sign Gordon on a max deal over the offseason.
And let’s say Gordon hurts his knee during the first game of next season. And sits out for 6 weeks. And then another 6 weeks. And then another.
Would the Hornets be allowed to amnesty him in the following season? If so, I see nothing wrong with giving this guy a max.
Reppin' the Lafayette Hornets fans.
Not amnesty
Best hope would be a Brandon Roy situation where a player has to retire for medical reasons and the rest of their salary comes off the book. Amnesty is only good for contracts signed before the new CBA was enacted.
The Team Is Bad
And it’s still laying a foundation, giving a terrific coach and a promising General Manager the chance to get their own players and build the frame on top of the foundation. This is rebuilding in every sense of the word. As of this offseason, ideally the team will have new ownership, new long term viability in the city, a direction, a new face of the franchise and promise that hasn’t been with the team since the 2008 offseason. At worst, the team will have all of those without a new face of the franchise. Look, I get the detractors to the situation but most of them say they wanted the team to be competitive for the fans this season.
I watched fans last season. They didn’t come to the games. At all. It’s not a knock on New Orleans fans at all, when they come out they are incredibly fun to watch a game with, but fans are not dumb. They can tell when there’s a chance at real success and when there’s not. Building a contender is what will keep fannies in the seats. They would not have fallen for this charade this year, just as they didn’t last year.
And if anything this makes it even more promising for future owners, who are allowed to come in and bring in their own guys and put their fingerprints all over the team (hopefully that includes keeping the front office intact). People just don’t understand. I’ve heard a lot of “I wouldn’t buy this team for $2” or “I bet Stern sure has people lining around the block to buy them now” and it bothers because most are Lakers fans and/or people who just don’t get the point.
But I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, the glass is always half empty when it comes to New Orleans. And it always has been.
Seasoned by Zatarains
Always Half Empty
As it relates to other people’s opinions.
Seasoned by Zatarains
by MrWayneKeller on Feb 14, 2012 3:08 PM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on At The Hive
Related FanShots on At The Hive
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- David Stern changed the competition committee to push new rules, report says
- Nazr Mohammed films Oklahoma City Thunder fans welcoming the team back at 5:30 in the morning (VIDEO)
- The Orlando Magic finally part ways with both Stan Van Gundy and GM Otis Smith
- Mike D’Antoni breaks silence on New York Knicks exit: ‘An obstacle had to be removed’
- Adam Morrison looks great, everyone
