Kyle Lowry on Jim Rome

[DanH]

By historical I assume you meant the Nene deal.. but if you look at that deal, Nene was dealt for an inferior player. Letting Nene go may have actually been a wiser decision. They overpaid to keep him. If you over pay Lowry does he become harder to trade? And would then trading him mean that you would take on worse contracts that are even harder to move?

I don't know if MU would want to revisit that scenario because in my opinion it backfired... and that was for a player that seemed to have more of a market (as he was a big and probably more in demand) than I would imagine Lowry would have.

You don't want to lose a good player for nothing as that is bad asset management.. but it's even worse asset management when you trade him for inferior talent and/or worst contracts.

I am so happy we don't have BC, but I consider two of MU's biggest blunders in Denver were trading Afflalo and pieces (including draft picks) for Iggy (who was a rental) and the Nene for Mcgee/Turiaf trades. The Iggy/Afflalo trade could have worked out as the assumption was that if MU stayed as GM he would have resigned Iggy.. that may be true but was not a guarantee.

I completely disagree. The Nene trade was great - he got out from under that monstrous deal and got a role player and a player with upside on a rookie contract - so he had a controllable asset that he could choose to let walk (then Nene was kept to get a role player like Turiaf plus most of the cap space they would have if they had let him walk) or keep (in which case you have that young asset on the cost terms you set). McGee was a risk, but it was a pretty high upside risk - just the sort a starless team like DEN should be taking.

Similarly, if you get a chance at a player like Iggy and can unload what was seen as an overpaid contract at the time (Afflalo was another example of Ujiri locking up an asset then moving him later) that is again the sort of risk you should take as an organization.

[planetmars]

I completely disagree. The Nene trade was great - he got out from under that monstrous deal and got a role player and a player with upside on a rookie contract - so he had a controllable asset that he could choose to let walk (then Nene was kept to get a role player like Turiaf plus most of the cap space they would have if they had let him walk) or keep (in which case you have that young asset on the cost terms you set). McGee was a risk, but it was a pretty high upside risk - just the sort a starless team like DEN should be taking.

Similarly, if you get a chance at a player like Iggy and can unload what was seen as an overpaid contract at the time (Afflalo was another example of Ujiri locking up an asset then moving him later) that is again the sort of risk you should take as an organization.

I think we'll disagree and that's cool.. but first Turiaf was waived immediately after he was traded.. so he wasn't really considered in the transaction (he was simply acquired to make the dollars work). Nene was swapped for McGee. McGee was given a 4 year $44M extension in the summer (as opposed to the 5 year $67M for Nene), and Mcgee only played in 20 games for Denver following the trade. McGee's contract is bad.. he's not a good player and is making a lot of money. That can be crippling for a team. Nene > McGee and the difference in salary is $2M per year (with an extra year for Nene). Both bad contracts in my opinion. If Lowry is going to get a bad contract will he be traded for an equally bad contract?

If he resigned Nene but got a good player back (or a set of good players back like the Gay trade) then it would been a good move in hindsight.. but Nene is a much better player than McGee despite their age difference.. I think for Denver it would have been better just to reclaim some cap space back.

As for the Afflalo trade he has a very reasonable contract (compare his salary to DeMar's for example)... they also gave up a first round pick which could be in the lottery (assuming both Denver and NY fail to make the playoffs which is possible), and a 2nd (but that's not really that relevant) for a rental. Iggy may have come back but we will never know and it was a huge risk to give out that much for a guy that could leave at the end of the season (which he ended up doing). As a fan I would be so mad at the teams' front office for giving up that much for a one year player. That would be like trading Amir Johnson, a first round pick (potential lottery) and a 2nd rounder for Deng.

[octothorp]

This whole situation with Kyle is reminding me of Chris Bosh. Few differences though.. Bosh was a max player, Lowry is not. Bosh had a market (lots of teams creating cap space), Lowry does not (many teams have a starting caliber PG). But from the point of view of whether or not Lowry is coming back... seems like a long shot to me.

Biggest difference from the Bosh situation: a CBA which prohibits teams from going into the luxury to acquire players via sign-and-trade. That really shrinks the number (and quality) of teams that can make a pitch for Lowry.

[DanH]

I think we'll disagree and that's cool.. but first Turiaf was waived immediately after he was traded.. so he wasn't really considered in the transaction (he was simply acquired to make the dollars work). Nene was swapped for McGee. McGee was given a 4 year $44M extension in the summer (as opposed to the 5 year $67M for Nene), and Mcgee only played in 20 games for Denver following the trade. McGee's contract is bad.. he's not a good player and is making a lot of money. That can be crippling for a team. Nene > McGee and the difference in salary is $2M per year (with an extra year for Nene). Both bad contracts in my opinion. If Lowry is going to get a bad contract will he be traded for an equally bad contract?

If he resigned Nene but got a good player back (or a set of good players back like the Gay trade) then it would been a good move in hindsight.. but Nene is a much better player than McGee despite their age difference.. I think for Denver it would have been better just to reclaim some cap space back.

As for the Afflalo trade he has a very reasonable contract (compare his salary to DeMar's for example)... they also gave up a first round pick which could be in the lottery (assuming both Denver and NY fail to make the playoffs which is possible), and a 2nd (but that's not really that relevant) for a rental. Iggy may have come back but we will never know and it was a huge risk to give out that much for a guy that could leave at the end of the season (which he ended up doing). As a fan I would be so mad at the teams' front office for giving up that much for a one year player. That would be like trading Amir Johnson, a first round pick (potential lottery) and a 2nd rounder for Deng.

So Nene had a bad contract, and was traded for two expiring contracts, so you assume that because Ujiri chose to extend McGee that Lowry must be traded for a bad contract? That makes no sense to me.

The key to the Iggy deal is the relationship Ujiri has with players. I'm very confident Iggy would have resigned in DEN had Ujiri stayed. To pull off that trade, so must Ujiri have been. Afflalo's contract looks decent this year, but at the time of the trade he was consistently getting out performed by DeMar, and their contracts are not drastically different. The other key is that they traded a first that was the worst of their two picks (which, if Iggy stays, which I insist was extremely likely had Ujiri stayed, would end up in the 20's), and still maintain the possibility of a high draft pick regardless of how the team plays. And note that your example is flawed - it would be more like trading DeMar, the worse of our 2016 pick and NY's 2016 pick, and a 2nd rounder for Deng. Except before DeMar had played well this year.

[planetmars]

So Nene had a bad contract, and was traded for two expiring contracts, so you assume that because Ujiri chose to extend McGee that Lowry must be traded for a bad contract? That makes no sense to me.

I understand that McGee was an RFA and thus a potential expiring contract.. but he got resigned. If McGee was let go then what would be the point of even resigning Nene? McGee was a big risk (and I get the no reward without a risk strategy) but he was bad in Washington, a bit of a bone head, and was worse than Nene. And he was re-upped. And that's the point. If Lowry is given a bad contract (and its possible with his all-star caliber play) then wouldn't he be harder to move if the franchise wanted him to be dealt? If he were to be traded, could he not return equally bad contracts in return? If he was traded for expiring contracts (which by the way is not an easy proposition) then why even resign him in the first place (you still did not get any assets back and you just delayed your cap space by one season)? Keep the cap space and go after better talent in free agency or make lop sided trades in their favour? McGee is not going to be an easy guy to trade.. much harder than Nene was despite their age and salary differences. And that's the fear I have with Lowry. He gets resigned, but then traded for an equally bad contract but one that's even harder to move. Or if he gets traded for expiring contracts why even bother resigning him in the first place?

The key to the Iggy deal is the relationship Ujiri has with players. I'm very confident Iggy would have resigned in DEN had Ujiri stayed. To pull off that trade, so must Ujiri have been. Afflalo's contract looks decent this year, but at the time of the trade he was consistently getting out performed by DeMar, and their contracts are not drastically different. The other key is that they traded a first that was the worst of their two picks (which, if Iggy stays, which I insist was extremely likely had Ujiri stayed, would end up in the 20's), and still maintain the possibility of a high draft pick regardless of how the team plays. And note that your example is flawed - it would be more like trading DeMar, the worse of our 2016 pick and NY's 2016 pick, and a 2nd rounder for Deng. Except before DeMar had played well this year.

Ujiri could have been confident (I love a GM with confidence) but it still might not have worked out.. Iggy may have liked the idea of playing with a super star like Curry as opposed to nobody really in Denver. Or going to California instead of a cold weather town like Denver. So that risk does exist. Even though it was the worst of theirs and NY's pick it was still unprotected (and if Iggy left that pick could have been a lottery pick.. why didn't MU consider that before sending that pick back to Orlando).

As for the hypothetical example... trading a 23 year old DeMar (and his RFA status) with a first round pick (unprotected) and a 2nd rounder for an expiring contract is an extremely risky trade.. one that I wouldn't do (the expiring contract walks, I lose a young prospect and a first round pick). Now if the pick was protected or if the player wasn't really that good.. I'd think about it harder. Afflalo despite his last season in Denver was still a good player and was still on a reasonable contract. Not putting a protection on that pick though was a dumb idea.

[DanH]

I understand that McGee was an RFA and thus a potential expiring contract.. but he got resigned. If McGee was let go then what would be the point of even resigning Nene? McGee was a big risk (and I get the no reward without a risk strategy) but he was bad in Washington, a bit of a bone head, and was worse than Nene. And he was re-upped. And that's the point. If Lowry is given a bad contract (and its possible with his all-star caliber play) then wouldn't he be harder to move if the franchise wanted him to be dealt? If he were to be traded, could he not return equally bad contracts in return? If he was traded for expiring contracts (which by the way is not an easy proposition) then why even resign him in the first place (you still did not get any assets back and you just delayed your cap space by one season)? Keep the cap space and go after better talent in free agency or make lop sided trades in their favour? McGee is not going to be an easy guy to trade.. much harder than Nene was despite their age and salary differences. And that's the fear I have with Lowry. He gets resigned, but then traded for an equally bad contract but one that's even harder to move. Or if he gets traded for expiring contracts why even bother resigning him in the first place?



Ujiri could have been confident (I love a GM with confidence) but it still might not have worked out.. Iggy may have liked the idea of playing with a super star like Curry as opposed to nobody really in Denver. Or going to California instead of a cold weather town like Denver. So that risk does exist. Even though it was the worst of theirs and NY's pick it was still unprotected (and if Iggy left that pick could have been a lottery pick.. why didn't MU consider that before sending that pick back to Orlando).

As for the hypothetical example... trading a 23 year old DeMar (and his RFA status) with a first round pick (unprotected) and a 2nd rounder for an expiring contract is an extremely risky trade.. one that I wouldn't do (the expiring contract walks, I lose a young prospect and a first round pick). Now if the pick was protected or if the player wasn't really that good.. I'd think about it harder. Afflalo despite his last season in Denver was still a good player and was still on a reasonable contract. Not putting a protection on that pick though was a dumb idea.

To the first paragraph - the point of re-signing him is obviously to hope he lives up to the contract. So only in the scenario that fails do you consider the possible returns on a trade. So the point of re-signing him is that you want to keep him, and the risk associated with that is mitigated by the ability (proven, in MU's case) to remove his contract from the cap, and potentially even garner a young asset in the process.

Afflalo was not RFA status at the time - he was on his overpaid contract. So it is DeMar (as he is paid now, but performing like previous years), the worse of NYK's pick and ours in 2016, and a 2nd rounder. What team is going to accept protection on that pick, take on your bad contract, and all for a 2nd rounder?

[planetmars]

To the first paragraph - the point of re-signing him is obviously to hope he lives up to the contract. So only in the scenario that fails do you consider the possible returns on a trade. So the point of re-signing him is that you want to keep him, and the risk associated with that is mitigated by the ability (proven, in MU's case) to remove his contract from the cap, and potentially even garner a young asset in the process.

Afflalo was not RFA status at the time - he was on his overpaid contract. So it is DeMar (as he is paid now, but performing like previous years), the worse of NYK's pick and ours in 2016, and a 2nd rounder. What team is going to accept protection on that pick, take on your bad contract, and all for a 2nd rounder?

We really won't agree.. but one final comment. Afflalo actually had (and still does) a good contract. $38M for 5 years is a good contract for his production. Bill Simmons of all people was thinking 4 years and $50M would have been a good deal and he got a much better deal:
http://grantland.com/features/the-th...nba-christmas/

[Jamshid]

5 year $60 million ... Does this sound like the right price.

[ceez]

No

[Fully]

5 year $60 million ... Does this sound like the right price.

Good god no.

[DanH]

We really won't agree.. but one final comment. Afflalo actually had (and still does) a good contract. $38M for 5 years is a good contract for his production. Bill Simmons of all people was thinking 4 years and $50M would have been a good deal and he got a much better deal:
http://grantland.com/features/the-th...nba-christmas/

Well, Simmons is crazy then. Afflalo was always a solid if unspectacular defender and his PER was consistently around 13 (sub-Demar levels) until this year. He was paid on potential, just like DD, and just like DD until this year it seemed like a drastic overpay.