Posted by kam77:
Whether IT fully exploited their market values at the time, something we can't definitively ascertain, is a far more relevant evaluation of Isiah.
Fine. If I accept this premise, then I propose others accept the premise that Isiah had no choice but to leave the draft pick unprotected to get Eddy Curry. After all, we can not definitively ascertain the details of the negotiation.
Sounds like everyone is taking educated guesses. Maybe Isiah could have gotten the protection. OK, and maybe Marbury was the best he could get for Lampe/Vujanic. If we're going to accept the one premise, then shouldn't we accept the other? Am i off-base here? Would we be better off if Isiah had waited for Baron Davis instead of Marbury -- when would it have been okay to trade Lampe/Vujanic? Everyone is screaming today about Frye's plummeting trade value. It wouldn've been the same with Lampe I feel.
You are quite off-base, Kam. Re-read the post. First of all, what you quoted is not a premise - it would be the conclusion based partly on the rather firm premise that potential is a fluctuating but prominent commodity in the NBA. Moreover, at this point in the post, I've merely concluded that the deal involving Lampe and Vujanic can't be deemed an automatic success based on their future performance. Here is not where I conlude that Isiah overpaid - that was surmised later based on other deals for players whose performance was equivalent to Marbury. You should be able to understand that they are separate parts of the argument and, as such, I tried to minimize the guesswork. Instead of estimating the values of Vujanic and Marbury, I opted to assess the deal based on the conetemporary "market price" for a franchise player (Marbury), a more evidence-based route that allows me not to have to interpret Lampe news articles from over 4 years ago.
You countered by asking me to believe your premise that Curry could only be had without pick protection - in an attempt (I'm assuming) to point out that guessing on these deals is futile. Ironically, that was the very first point I made to begin with. Its precisely why I opted to assess the Marbury deal as a whole in relation to the Allen, Shaq, VC deals. So, really, your premise should not be accepted if you choose to accept mine. In fact, your premise is the opposite - you're asking me to believe your guesswork that the unprotected pick was required. Why should I do that when I refused to it with Vujanic and Lampe?
Curry is a player who presented with a unique health situation and whose value lay largely with his potential - estimating his value was and remains hard. Paxson's decision to sell was based on his belief that Curry's potential would reel in lottery picks and that his potential would thereafter go unfulfilled, much like a Lampe. In this situation where Isiah is a buyer, he will be evaluated by the amount of Curry's improvement and the duration of his "prime." How much will justify the trade? It depends on the quality of other players that have been recently acquired with 2 #1s, 2 #2s, cap space and a Mike Sweetney caliber player. Chances are, however, there won't be any more deals like that. There's a reason for that. You make the call, is it because Isiah overpaid, Paxson overpaid or simply too much risk on both sides?
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
3/17/2007 12:45 AM