|
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
|
crzymdups has a good point. When trying to add major pieces, you're always going to have some kind of considerable cost dynamic going on. One kind is when the player has already established himself, and it takes a lot of assets to acquire him (eg, Maggette or Brand). Another kind is when a player might develop into a big piece, but there are question marks. Spending big bucks or big assets on such a player is risky, because if he doesn't pan out, you've just overpayed by a large margin (eg, giving Hunter the MLE). Then there are cases that are lagrely a combination of these two situations (eg, Dalembert, Curry, etc).
The best way around this conundrum is to acquire promising players without having to give up lots of compensation to another team one way or another. You can do this by cheaply signing, say, a CBA guy no one else really covets and letting him develop on your roster (we tried this method last year with DerMarr, and again this season with Butler). But, by far the easiest and most reliable way is by building through the draft. If you wind up with a high pick, it's yours, and you have free reign over who you pick at your spot, without having to worry about significant contractual matters or surrendering talent you already have, etc. This is really NY's best hope for improving in the near future. In the above scenarios, you can improve your roster, but it's a lot harder to do what you always want to do in a transaction, which is essentially get something for nothing. (Note that if you trade a good player A for a very good player B, you've essentially added the talent difference between B and A to your roster 'for free.' If you don't have the assets or luck to do these kind of transactions, you'll only end up with varying degrees of lateral moves that ultimately don't get you very far.)
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
|
