Why is the Knight-White trade a mistake?

[hcsilla]

Originally posted by Chaplin
"Could" and "Would" are not the same thing, hcsilla. You don't know if Orlando required Archibald in some form in order to agree to the Harvey trade.

My point is that does NOT matter.

If ORL required Archibald they could (and would )have gotten him without the White-trade as well.
If ORL did not require Archibald then we could (and would) have gotten Harvey even without the Outlaw-trade.

You have no confirmation that we were going to get Harvey regardless of whether Archibald was traded.

No, I don't but the White-trade did not have any direct influence on the Harvey-trade.

 

[hcsilla]

Originally posted by George O'Brien
There are two issues being discussed here.

1. Was the White trade a bad decision in retrospect (ie that the Suns would be in the free agent market).

2. Was the string of trades a mistake from the start: Bo and Big Jake to Memphis for Knight, Archibald, and Trybanski then Knight to Washington for White and Archibald to Orlando for Harvey.

I'm willing to accept that in retrospect the White deal hurts. If you are going to lose, then maybe it doesn't matter if you are competitive if you can sign a stud free agent or get a super draft pick.

What I am not convinced of is the claim that these trades did not make basketball sense. The fact that they did not turn into wins is hardly the basis for judging moves related to secondary players.

I will stand by my conclusion that the White and Harvey combination is better than the Bo and Big Jake combination in strictly basketball terms. I will also insist that over the course of the season, the Suns will win more games with White playing than if Knight remained. Strictly basketball, not cap or finances, the deal made sense. But all of us would like that cap room back NOW.

Ok, that's close to my point of view about the Outlaw- and White-trades.

But I think that at the time of the Knight-trade White was overpaid. That's a fact.
Unless he puts up about 9/7/1.5 as Suns' starting C (which was highly unlikely, IMO) he still remains overpaid. He did not put up those numbers, he did "remain" overpaid.
Since it's always a mistake to trade ONLY for an overpaid player (unless you are a true contender team) I do (and did) think that the White-trade was a mistake.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by hcsilla
Ok, that's close to my point of view about the Outlaw- and White-trades.

But I think that at the time of the Knight-trade White was overpaid. That's a fact.
Unless he puts up about 9/7/1.5 as Suns' starting C (which was highly unlikely, IMO) he still remains overpaid. He did not put up those numbers, he did "remain" overpaid.
Since it's always a mistake to trade ONLY for an overpaid player (unless you are a true contender team) I do (and did) think that the White-trade was a mistake.

I would guess he is about $2 to 2.5 million overpaid. This means the Colangelos are losing more money than they might. This summer, he will be on the last year of his contract, so he could certainly be fodder in a trade. The only thing he screws up is free agency and that is already agreed upon.

Ultimately, I fear he is this year's Oliver Miller - a guy who is too heavy to meeti his potential. It's too bad because he does have the talent to be quite good.

 

[hcsilla]

Originally posted by George O'Brien
I would guess he is about $2 to 2.5 million overpaid. This means the Colangelos are losing more money than they might. This summer, he will be on the last year of his contract, so he could certainly be fodder in a trade. The only thing he screws up is free agency and that is already agreed upon.

Yes, I agree.

That's why you have to be carefull with trading only for overpaid players.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by hcsilla
Yes, I agree.

That's why you have to be carefull with trading only for overpaid players.

Sure, everybody wants to trade their underpaid players.

 

[hcsilla]

Originally posted by George O'Brien
Sure, everybody wants to trade their underpaid players.

Sure, noone is forced to take an overpaid player.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by hcsilla
Sure, noone is forced to take an overpaid player.

Overpaid is generally a matter of context. Michael Jordan was paid $36 million a year and won 6 rings. Kevin Garnett was paid $28 million and won none. Were they worth it? Were they overpaid?

A player that puts a team in a position to win the championship may be a bargain, but the same player on a lottery team may be totally overpaid. The same player can be a bargain one year, get injured and lose a step and be totally overpaid the next.

Objectively, the only measure of whether a player is overpaid is if that guys can be replaced at the time the contract was made for an equal quality but less expensive player. Re-signing a player at a high salary when someone else is available AT THAT POINT IN TIME, means that they were overpaid.

In your typical NBA contract, the player may be slightly underpaid in the first couple of years and generally overpaid the last couple of years. The goal is get value over the entire term of the contract and not just value each year. There is an advantage in having guys under contract in developing continuity even though 1 year deals give more flexibility.

Some teams are lucky. They get their player under contract before they became really really good. Others are unlucky in that they sign someone to a big contract based on a good year only to watch them not match it in later years.

Teams are constantly signing guys because of their potential, which if it works means they will be overpaid in the early years of the contract and hopefully underpaid later. If they aren't better, then it looks like a poor decision.

Shawn Marion may be slightly over paid, but it is not clear the Suns could have acquired his replacement. If he does not get better, he will be significantly overpaid in future years. But if he gets a lot better, he may prove to be a bargain.

 

[hcsilla]

Yes, of course that's true but anyway Jahidi White was overpaid, is overpaid and will be overpaid (until his contract expires).

At least for the Suns.

 

[hcsilla]

Originally posted by George O'Brien

Shawn Marion may be slightly over paid, but it is not clear the Suns could have acquired his replacement.

Yes, I agree again.

Marion may be slightly overpaid but since Suns didn't really have any other possibilities if they wanted to keep him and I never did blame the Suns because of re-signinig of Marion at the max.