Raptors/Suns/Hornets: Agreed on Draft Day, July 1st Deal

[Rapsobsessed7]

renouncing Joey Graham? Its going to take more than that to absorb the difference between nash+jose and the lottery pick. By doing this we also forfeit our right use the MLE and that is a big hardship it comes down to Marion being renounced to make up the difference. Now your saying your swapping long term salary for short term salary and getting a lottery pick so by that means

Nash+#14 for Paul (long term salary)

is in favor of the suns, your reasoning makes 0 sense. What long term salary are you talking about Joses or Rokos or both because Roko makes 1,450,000 as a 25 year old in 2010 which isnt this huge hardship and Jose is locked into a reasonable contract for a while. I dont see your reasoning now, its like your back tracking you say take hump out and it becomes fair. I do but now your saying long term kills short term salary i just dont understand your point anymore. Then you go off by biasing a players value on past accomplishments by that standard what do you think we could have gotten for JO, im sure T-Mac/Iverson are worth a bundle too, Crawford is seen as a bad contract yet he was rookie of the year once so does that mean hes worth a whole bunch now. You can base a players value on past accomplishments it goes by THIS SEASON, THIS YEAR.

[Alfred]

By the way LoserX, I've posted the reasoning behind your mistake on the last page.

[loserX]

Right. And I am establishing that, at $5.8M after taxes, Humphries carries considerable negative value to the Suns. So the Suns, for one, certainly do care if he doesn't need to be in the trade.

The deal is considerably better for the Suns if he is removed. How is that not relevant? How does it not make sense? His inclusion worsens the trade for the Suns. I'm sorry, I don't see the disconnect.

You said:

Then by all means the Raptors should keep him. I don't know why they would want to trade a proven commodity on a reasonable contract for what is being considered a clearly inferior player and a gamble of a draft pick.

As if to say "If he's so good, keep him then! Why are you trying to give him to the Suns when he's worth so much?"

I did say that second piece about Calderon, yes. I apologize if that's the source of the confusion. But the first quoted piece above is about Humphries, not Calderon, and has literally nothing to do with the latter paragraph.

This was in response to when I was trying to defend a completely different point, which was that Jose/Humphries/Cash was worth Nash/#14. Obviously, your criticism doesn't make any sense when you understand what I'm talking about. I'm trying to establish that this package is at least worth Nash/#14, you're responding as though I actually want this trade to go through.

No, I'm not. I'm not addressing your interest in the deal whatsoever, either personally or on behalf of the Raptors. You are saying that the Suns would make the deal with Humphries in it. I am saying that he does not need to be in the deal for it to work, and that he poses negative value, so therefore I disagree with you. It is irrelevant to me whether the Raptors want the deal to be made, with or without Humphries. My criticism actually makes perfect sense in the context of the Suns not wanting to make the deal with Humphries in it.

You then said in the quote that I just recently quoted that "Humphries doesn't NEED to be in the deal." I don't care if he doesn't NEED to be in the deal.

I know you don't care. But THE SUNS DO. Remember them? The party who has to actually agree to the trade? If the deal works without him, and it does, then they care a lot. Regardless of what you or the Raptors think of Humphries' value.

The way you phrased it, it has absolutely no bearing on whether Jose/Humphries/Cash is worth Nash/#14. None.

Wrong. He is negative value (to Phoenix) and does not need to be in the deal for it to work. Which is precisely what I said. The deal is much more tempting if he is excluded. How does that have no bearing on the deal?

Now you're trying to hide the fact that you didn't understand.

I did misspeak on the Calderon point (as noted at the top of this post), and I apologize for that. But that is a completely separate issue from the Humphries point.

[Baddy Chuck]

Your whole argument is the Suns would have to do this deal if they were rebuilding it seems. In a rebuilding fase

Nash>Calderon - Nash is currently better then Calderon and is expiring so therefor they would stick with the better player and the shorter contract and go after a point guard in the draft or in 2010.

Pick>Nothing - How many rebuilding teams give up picks to downgrade? None...

Nothing>Humphries - Paying the luxury tax for someone who currently isn't any better then a player they have for the vet min (Amundson) is dumb.

[Baddy Chuck]

Nash+#14 for Paul (long term salary)

I really hope you didn't just compare Calderon to Paul. Like not even in the same breath. Or the same league. Possibly the same country....

[Alfred]

Right. And I am establishing that, at $5.8M after taxes, Humphries carries considerable negative value to the Suns. So the Suns, for one, certainly do care if he doesn't need to be in the trade.

The deal is considerably better for the Suns if he is removed. How is that not relevant? How does it not make sense? His inclusion worsens the trade for the Suns. I'm sorry, I don't see the disconnect.

You said:

Then by all means the Raptors should keep him. I don't know why they would want to trade a proven commodity on a reasonable contract for what is being considered a clearly inferior player and a gamble of a draft pick.

As if to say "If he's so good, keep him then! Why are you trying to give him to the Suns when he's worth so much?"

I did say that second piece about Calderon, yes. I apologize if that's the source of the confusion. But the first quoted piece above is about Humphries, not Calderon, and has literally nothing to do with the latter paragraph.

It's irrelevant which one it's about. The sentiment is the same. Think about it. You're saying "Oh, why would you give that player up in a trade if he's so much better than what you're getting back?" i.e. saying that I actually want this trade to go through, rather than actually attacking the point that I was making, which is, as I've stated many times, that Calderon/Humphries/Cash is worth at least Nash/#14. What I said works whether or not you're talking about Calderon or Humphries.

This was in response to when I was trying to defend a completely different point, which was that Jose/Humphries/Cash was worth Nash/#14. Obviously, your criticism doesn't make any sense when you understand what I'm talking about. I'm trying to establish that this package is at least worth Nash/#14, you're responding as though I actually want this trade to go through.

No, I'm not. I'm not addressing your interest in the deal whatsoever, either personally or on behalf of the Raptors. You are saying that the Suns would make the deal with Humphries in it. I am saying that he does not need to be in the deal for it to work, and that he poses negative value, so therefore I disagree with you.

Let's analyse what you're saying for a moment. This argument has two premises and a conclusion:

Premise #1:
Humphries does not need to be in the deal for it to work.
Premise #2:
Humphries has negative value.
Conclusion:
The Suns would not agree to the above trade if it was forced on them.

The premises do not support the conclusion! Humphries can have both negative value, and not need to be in the deal, and the Suns COULD STILL ACCEPT THE DEAL if the Raptors required that Humphries be included. Imagine for a second that Humphries was a throw-in with Chris Paul. Humphries could both have negative value and not NEED to be included in the deal and the Suns would still be all over it.

That's the point of my argument. I'm comparing the two packages in terms of worth. You were not.

You then said in the quote that I just recently quoted that "Humphries doesn't NEED to be in the deal." I don't care if he doesn't NEED to be in the deal.

I know you don't care. But THE SUNS DO. Remember them? The party who has to actually agree to the trade? If the deal works without him, and it does, then they care a lot. Regardless of what you or the Raptors think of Humphries' value.

You missed the point yet again. In order to make my point about Calderon's worth, I'm saying that the Suns would accept the deal regardless as to whether Humphries was in the trade or not. Disagreeing wth me is fine. The way you were disagreeing with me made no sense.

The way you phrased it, it has absolutely no bearing on whether Jose/Humphries/Cash is worth Nash/#14. None.

Wrong. He is negative value (to Phoenix) and does not need to be in the deal for it to work. Which is precisely what I said. The deal is much more tempting if he is excluded. How does that have no bearing on the deal?

Again, I'll rephrase my argument so that you understand it:

Me: "The Suns would accept a deal consisting of Calderon/Humphries/Cash for Nash/#14."
You: "But Humphries doesn't need to be in the deal for it to work."
Me: "That's irrelevant to my argument. They would accept it either way."

[Baddy Chuck]

Me: "The Suns would accept a deal consisting of Calderon/Humphries/Cash for Nash/#14."
You: "But Humphries doesn't need to be in the deal for it to work."
Me: "That's irrelevant to my argument. They would accept it either way."

Every fan that isn't a Raptors fan: You're wrong.

[Alfred]

Me: "The Suns would accept a deal consisting of Calderon/Humphries/Cash for Nash/#14."
You: "But Humphries doesn't need to be in the deal for it to work."
Me: "That's irrelevant to my argument. They would accept it either way."

Every fan that isn't a Raptors fan: You're wrong.

First of all, that was an example of my argument, but for the sake of it, I'll play along.

Jose Calderon and Steve Nash:

Seperated by .8 PER and 8 years in age. Steve Nash is an unrestricted free agent next year, and Jose is signed to a long, reasonable contract.

[Baddy Chuck]

So for a rebuilding team values a player who doesn't fit the system they are going for and is locked into a long contract is worth more then a player who does fit in and is expiring?

[Alfred]

So for a rebuilding team a player who doesn't fit the system they are going for and is locked into a long contract is worth more then a player who does fit in and is expiring?

In the case of valuable assets, the contract expiring is actually NOT good. I certainly would not trade Jose Calderon for an expiring contract.

I also mentioned why I think Jose Calderon was a good fit for the team. Most because of the personell. Scan back a few pages and you can rebutt the argument that you didn't get around to.

[Baddy Chuck]

Can I ask why you think a productive expiring contract, during the biggest free agent offseason in years, with MANY teams willing to give up talent for cap space/expirings (Nash can be cut to saved money this season I believe also) is not a good thing?

[Rapsobsessed7]

who said Jose doesnt fit their system they were more half court oriented this year than fast break. A rebuilding team would value a 7 year younger player who does basically the same things (stat wise) while the other would do it to reunite Nash in Canada and with Triano and im sure MLSE would love the extra money they get from brining nash to canada because hes loved here.

Toronto Trades:
Jose Calderon $8,219,008
Roko Ukic $1,350,000
Patrick O'Bryant $855,189
3 million Cash (Miami Deal)
= 10, 424, 197 X 1.25 + 100,000
= 13, 130, 246

Phoenix Trades:
Steve Nash $13,125,000
Rights to Terrence Williams (#14)

this deal is more than fair i dont see how you can see that? Roko is 24 years old POB can be cut saving them 500,000 which makes their total savings 3 million. Cash buys a late pick in next years draft equal or better than williams. Jose and nash are equal stat wise except one is 7 years younger. Forgetting past accomplishments this deal is more than fair.

Calderon/Roko/Dragic
Richardson/Barbosa
Hill/Dudley
Amare/Amundson
Shaq/Lopez

They save 3 million could deal shaq to NOH like i mentioned in this deal because that has been rumored before and could bring them under the luxury tax i just dont see how its so unfair. Nash doesnt kill Jose the difference this year is minimum (not much if any) the difference is 7 years of age which requires the pick which the counter compensation is 3 million cash, a young 24 year old PG and POB who can be cut saving 500,000.

[Baddy Chuck]

There is no way Nash/#14 for Calderon/scrubs is fair. I'm sorry, its just not. And I honestly probably would prefer Calderon over Nash at this point. Adding the lotto pick is a 100% deal breaker.

[Rapsobsessed7]

You using the nash can just be cut is stupid and completely goes against what Loser X and you just said. Who replaces nash then, it makes them 100 times worse and what then Amare leaves thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard and i hate that argument. Their not going to just cut nash to save money, who starts at PG they become a much worse team at risk of losing Amare.

[Alfred]

Can I ask why you think a productive expiring contract, during the biggest free agent offseason in years, with MANY teams willing to give up talent for cap space/expirings (Nash can be cut to saved money this season I believe also) is not a good thing?

Why would you want a productive player who is living up to or exceeding his contract in terms of production to expire? You want to keep the good contracts attached to good players for as long as you possibly can. It's pretty simple.

[Baddy Chuck]

You using the nash can just be cut is stupid and completely goes against what Loser X and you just said. Who replaces nash then, it makes them 100 times worse and what then Amare leaves thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard and i hate that argument. Their not going to just cut nash to save money, who starts at PG they become a much worse team at risk of losing Amare.

I'm saying in a trade. They could trade him to a team looking to desperatly to cut cap (much like Stackhouse) and receive just as much, if not more talent in return.

And if they are rebuilding like you guys say they would trade for Calderon for, they would draft a point guard, sign (or get in trade) a veteran and let that ride.

[loserX]

It's irrelevant which one it's about. The sentiment is the same. Think about it. You're saying "Oh, why would you give that player up in a trade if he's so much better than what you're getting back?"

That is actually not at all what I'm saying about Humphries. Is that what you believe? Because if so I'm a little bit flabbergasted as to where you might have gotten that from.

i.e. saying that I actually want this trade to go through,

That is actually not at all what I'm saying either.

Let's analyse what you're saying for a moment. This argument has two premises and a conclusion:

Premise #1:
Humphries does not need to be in the deal for it to work.
Premise #2:
Humphries has negative value.
Conclusion:
The Suns would not agree to the above trade if it was forced on them.

The premises do not support the conclusion! Humphries can have both negative value, and not need to be in the deal, and the Suns COULD STILL ACCEPT THE DEAL if the Raptors required that Humphries be included.

YES THEY COULD. BUT I AM SAYING THAT THEY LIKELY WOULD NOT. The conclusion, as phrased by you yourself, is whether they would. How exactly do the premises support your conclusion that the Suns would do this? Your argument appears to be this:

Premise #1:
Humphries does not need to be in the deal for it to work.
Premise #2:
Humphries has negative value.
Conclusion:
I personally don't care, so the Suns can suck it.

Not exactly logically compelling either.

Imagine for a second that Humphries was a throw-in with Chris Paul. Humphries could both have negative value and not NEED to be included in the deal and the Suns would still be all over it.

So what? When Paul and Calderon have equivalent value, that might be relevant. Paul would be worth taking Humphries. Calderon would not be.

Again, I'll rephrase my argument so that you understand it:

Me: "The Suns would accept a deal consisting of Calderon/Humphries/Cash for Nash/#14."
You: "But Humphries doesn't need to be in the deal for it to work."
Me: "That's irrelevant to my argument. They would accept it either way."

Me: "No, they wouldn't, because Humphries has negative value to them at his cost. They might however accept the same deal if it did not include Humphries."

There. Now are we on the same page?

[Baddy Chuck]

Can I ask why you think a productive expiring contract, during the biggest free agent offseason in years, with MANY teams willing to give up talent for cap space/expirings (Nash can be cut to saved money this season I believe also) is not a good thing?

Why would you want a productive player who is living up to or exceeding his contract in terms of production to expire? You want to keep the good contracts attached to good players for as long as you possibly can. It's pretty simple.

Nash at $13 million gives you better/same production/contract then Calderon/Humphries at $11 million.

Then add a first on that? Please.....


I'd think youd have a hard time finding any team in the lottery willing to give up cap and their pick for Calderon.

[Rapsobsessed7]

It's irrelevant which one it's about. The sentiment is the same. Think about it. You're saying "Oh, why would you give that player up in a trade if he's so much better than what you're getting back?"

That is actually not at all what I'm saying about Humphries. Is that what you believe? Because if so I'm a little bit flabbergasted as to where you might have gotten that from.

i.e. saying that I actually want this trade to go through,

That is actually not at all what I'm saying either.

Let's analyse what you're saying for a moment. This argument has two premises and a conclusion:

Premise #1:
Humphries does not need to be in the deal for it to work.
Premise #2:
Humphries has negative value.
Conclusion:
The Suns would not agree to the above trade if it was forced on them.

The premises do not support the conclusion! Humphries can have both negative value, and not need to be in the deal, and the Suns COULD STILL ACCEPT THE DEAL if the Raptors required that Humphries be included.

YES THEY COULD. BUT I AM SAYING THAT THEY LIKELY WOULD NOT. The conclusion, as phrased by you yourself, is whether they would. How exactly do the premises support your conclusion that the Suns would do this? Your argument appears to be this:

Premise #1:
Humphries does not need to be in the deal for it to work.
Premise #2:
Humphries has negative value.
Conclusion:
I personally don't care, so the Suns can suck it.

Not exactly logically compelling either.

Imagine for a second that Humphries was a throw-in with Chris Paul. Humphries could both have negative value and not NEED to be included in the deal and the Suns would still be all over it.

So what? When Paul and Calderon have equivalent value, that might be relevant. Paul would be worth taking Humphries. Calderon would not be.

Again, I'll rephrase my argument so that you understand it:

Me: "The Suns would accept a deal consisting of Calderon/Humphries/Cash for Nash/#14."
You: "But Humphries doesn't need to be in the deal for it to work."
Me: "That's irrelevant to my argument. They would accept it either way."

Me: "No, they wouldn't, because Humphries has negative value to them at his cost. They might however accept the same deal if it did not include Humphries."

There. Now are we on the same page?

Toronto Trades:
Jose Calderon $8,219,008
Roko Ukic $1,350,000
Patrick O'Bryant $855,189
3 million Cash (Miami Deal)
= 10, 424, 197 X 1.25 + 100,000
= 13, 130, 246

Phoenix Trades:
Steve Nash $13,125,000
Rights to Terrence Williams (#14)

Exactly taking out Humphries adding Roko+POB yet you decline because of what reason again your being hypocritical. Roko doesnt have negative value, POB can be cut to save 500,000 and Roko is only 24 years old. I dont see roko as a scrub hes a young developing PG and Jose has more value than nash at this point.

[rsavaj]

I'm not saying that this is a good trade for the Raptors. I'm saying that Calderon is worth at least as much as Nash and their first round pick. You're getting confused.

wow