Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

arkrud wrote:

knickstorrents wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Record wise its a wash. The proof is in the records.

But both teams got worse. Why not call it a loss rather than a wash for both teams?

Therefore assuming this is true (and the records speak for themselves):

1) If the Knicks don't do the trade, the Knicks would be in better shape.
2) If Denver doesn't do the trade they would be in worse shape since Melo would have left for no assets.

Here we go - after all emotional nonsense plain and simple facts.
Melo is like a luxury car - you only get one after you are doing good and have another car to go to work.
If you get one and you cannot afford it you will end up working just to pay the bill and in debt.
He is very expensive complimentary piece to very specific and well run system which is not yet designed.
If Zen can come up with one and make NY and Melo winners I am all for it.
If he will come to conclusion that this is a feeder in the wind and will let men go I am with him too.

He's like a car that's worth $50,000 (still a nice, good car) but you have to pay $125,000 to get it.

You can say that about most high contract players.

What I think that you are missing is that the market determines what a player is worth by supply and demand.

You would not have even signed to the max as a ufa, but how many teams with the cap space would have? At minimum - most of them.

No, the market determines what players are paid, not what they're worth. There's a lot of evidence that the two have little to do with each other.

It's economics. the commodities market determines the price of pork bellies. What are they actually worth?

What I think you are implying is that the market makers in the NBA are getting it wrong and setting the market incorrectly, right?

I don't think any economist would say the market always accurately assesses the worth of products. Something can be popular (in high demand) for reasons other than its true worth. Think of a pretty car that no one realized would typically break down after 10,000 miles.
There's almost no correlation between team payroll and winning percentage. Most GMs really don't know how much players are worth. They may know how much they'll have to pay to get the player (i.e., supply and demand) but not how much the player is worth in terms of win production.

You are playing with the word "worth", ok.

I do think teams are a bit clueless often in overvaluing inefficient players. I think that this is changing and we will see a different landscape in the nba withing a few years. Teams are getting much smarter and employing better people who have the ability to look beyond chest pumping, cool buckets and fugazy flare.

Don't want to argue the trade but Melo played well here and a team could have been built around him that was a winner if the team surrounded that move with smart moves but they screwed up every move before and after.

We still may be far apart in how much we would pay for a player. You have been very vague on this so I would like to see a concrete example from you.

Can you give me an example that a player who the market determines should get x and you would pay him double that and a player that gets paid y should be getting half. Please dont display the obvious but a case that is more abstract.

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

arkrud wrote:

knickstorrents wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Record wise its a wash. The proof is in the records.

But both teams got worse. Why not call it a loss rather than a wash for both teams?

Therefore assuming this is true (and the records speak for themselves):

1) If the Knicks don't do the trade, the Knicks would be in better shape.
2) If Denver doesn't do the trade they would be in worse shape since Melo would have left for no assets.

Here we go - after all emotional nonsense plain and simple facts.
Melo is like a luxury car - you only get one after you are doing good and have another car to go to work.
If you get one and you cannot afford it you will end up working just to pay the bill and in debt.
He is very expensive complimentary piece to very specific and well run system which is not yet designed.
If Zen can come up with one and make NY and Melo winners I am all for it.
If he will come to conclusion that this is a feeder in the wind and will let men go I am with him too.

He's like a car that's worth $50,000 (still a nice, good car) but you have to pay $125,000 to get it.

You can say that about most high contract players.

What I think that you are missing is that the market determines what a player is worth by supply and demand.

You would not have even signed to the max as a ufa, but how many teams with the cap space would have? At minimum - most of them.

No, the market determines what players are paid, not what they're worth. There's a lot of evidence that the two have little to do with each other.

It's economics. the commodities market determines the price of pork bellies. What are they actually worth?

What I think you are implying is that the market makers in the NBA are getting it wrong and setting the market incorrectly, right?

I don't think any economist would say the market always accurately assesses the worth of products. Something can be popular (in high demand) for reasons other than its true worth. Think of a pretty car that no one realized would typically break down after 10,000 miles.
There's almost no correlation between team payroll and winning percentage. Most GMs really don't know how much players are worth. They may know how much they'll have to pay to get the player (i.e., supply and demand) but not how much the player is worth in terms of win production.

You are playing with the word "worth", ok.

I do think teams are a bit clueless often in overvaluing inefficient players. I think that this is changing and we will see a different landscape in the nba withing a few years. Teams are getting much smarter and employing better people who have the ability to look beyond chest pumping, cool buckets and fugazy flare.

Don't want to argue the trade but Melo played well here and a team could have been built around him that was a winner if the team surrounded that move with smart moves but they screwed up every move before and after.

We still may be far apart in how much we would pay for a player. You have been very vague on this so I would like to see a concrete example from you.

Can you give me an example that a player who the market determines should get x and you would pay him double that and a player that gets paid y should be getting half. Please dont display the obvious but a case that is more abstract.

It tends to be the low ppg players who are efficient and good in other areas that the market undervalues. I was using the term worth in terms of how many wins (which should be the goal) the player is worth. If you list a few example players, I'll say how much I think they're worth. It will likely have nothing to do in many cases with how much they're actually paid.
I've said I think Melo is worth about 4 years, $52 mil given both his production and age. (You can't call that vague rather than concrete.) Obviously he'd decline that offer and I would have traded him before it even got to this point.

That is what you think Melo is worth now. However, How much would you have paid him 4 years ago?

And, who do you think is a max player that is not getting anywhere near the max (but you feel that he deserves to)? I have heard you state that many are grossly overpaid yet I don't know who you think is grossly underpaid. For example, a couple of years ago, I made an argument that Jeff Hornacek was GROSSLY underpaid for his career.

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

arkrud wrote:

knickstorrents wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Record wise its a wash. The proof is in the records.

But both teams got worse. Why not call it a loss rather than a wash for both teams?

Therefore assuming this is true (and the records speak for themselves):

1) If the Knicks don't do the trade, the Knicks would be in better shape.
2) If Denver doesn't do the trade they would be in worse shape since Melo would have left for no assets.

Here we go - after all emotional nonsense plain and simple facts.
Melo is like a luxury car - you only get one after you are doing good and have another car to go to work.
If you get one and you cannot afford it you will end up working just to pay the bill and in debt.
He is very expensive complimentary piece to very specific and well run system which is not yet designed.
If Zen can come up with one and make NY and Melo winners I am all for it.
If he will come to conclusion that this is a feeder in the wind and will let men go I am with him too.

He's like a car that's worth $50,000 (still a nice, good car) but you have to pay $125,000 to get it.

You can say that about most high contract players.

What I think that you are missing is that the market determines what a player is worth by supply and demand.

You would not have even signed to the max as a ufa, but how many teams with the cap space would have? At minimum - most of them.

No, the market determines what players are paid, not what they're worth. There's a lot of evidence that the two have little to do with each other.

It's economics. the commodities market determines the price of pork bellies. What are they actually worth?

What I think you are implying is that the market makers in the NBA are getting it wrong and setting the market incorrectly, right?

I don't think any economist would say the market always accurately assesses the worth of products. Something can be popular (in high demand) for reasons other than its true worth. Think of a pretty car that no one realized would typically break down after 10,000 miles.
There's almost no correlation between team payroll and winning percentage. Most GMs really don't know how much players are worth. They may know how much they'll have to pay to get the player (i.e., supply and demand) but not how much the player is worth in terms of win production.

You are playing with the word "worth", ok.

I do think teams are a bit clueless often in overvaluing inefficient players. I think that this is changing and we will see a different landscape in the nba withing a few years. Teams are getting much smarter and employing better people who have the ability to look beyond chest pumping, cool buckets and fugazy flare.

Don't want to argue the trade but Melo played well here and a team could have been built around him that was a winner if the team surrounded that move with smart moves but they screwed up every move before and after.

We still may be far apart in how much we would pay for a player. You have been very vague on this so I would like to see a concrete example from you.

Can you give me an example that a player who the market determines should get x and you would pay him double that and a player that gets paid y should be getting half. Please dont display the obvious but a case that is more abstract.

And a boomer:

Tony Parker	$12,500,000 	$12,500,000 	$0 	        $0 	        $0 	$0 	Underpaid a lot
Tim Duncan	$10,361,446 	$10,361,446 	$0 	        $0 	        $0 	$0 	Ha-ha
Tiago Splitter	$10,000,000 	$9,250,000 	$8,500,000 	$8,250,000 	$0 	$0 	Just right
Manu Ginobili	$7,000,000 	$7,000,000 	$0 	        $0 	        $0 	$0 	LOL
Boris Diaw	$4,702,500 	$0 	$0 	$0 	        $0 	        $0 	        Just right
Matt Bonner	$3,945,000 	$0 	$0 	$0 	        $0 	        $0 	        Just right
Danny Green	$3,762,500 	$4,025,000 	$0 	        $0 	        $0 	$0 	Wow
Marco Belinelli	$2,750,000 	$2,873,750 	$0 	        $0 	        $0 	$0 	Wow

So Melo wants to get paid 30 - like Parker, Duncan, and Manu together...
Is he even 1/10 as good as this 3 together?
Fac...king bunch of MSG losers

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

arkrud wrote:

knickstorrents wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Record wise its a wash. The proof is in the records.

But both teams got worse. Why not call it a loss rather than a wash for both teams?

Therefore assuming this is true (and the records speak for themselves):

1) If the Knicks don't do the trade, the Knicks would be in better shape.
2) If Denver doesn't do the trade they would be in worse shape since Melo would have left for no assets.

Here we go - after all emotional nonsense plain and simple facts.
Melo is like a luxury car - you only get one after you are doing good and have another car to go to work.
If you get one and you cannot afford it you will end up working just to pay the bill and in debt.
He is very expensive complimentary piece to very specific and well run system which is not yet designed.
If Zen can come up with one and make NY and Melo winners I am all for it.
If he will come to conclusion that this is a feeder in the wind and will let men go I am with him too.

He's like a car that's worth $50,000 (still a nice, good car) but you have to pay $125,000 to get it.

You can say that about most high contract players.

What I think that you are missing is that the market determines what a player is worth by supply and demand.

You would not have even signed to the max as a ufa, but how many teams with the cap space would have? At minimum - most of them.

No, the market determines what players are paid, not what they're worth. There's a lot of evidence that the two have little to do with each other.

It's economics. the commodities market determines the price of pork bellies. What are they actually worth?

What I think you are implying is that the market makers in the NBA are getting it wrong and setting the market incorrectly, right?

I don't think any economist would say the market always accurately assesses the worth of products. Something can be popular (in high demand) for reasons other than its true worth. Think of a pretty car that no one realized would typically break down after 10,000 miles.
There's almost no correlation between team payroll and winning percentage. Most GMs really don't know how much players are worth. They may know how much they'll have to pay to get the player (i.e., supply and demand) but not how much the player is worth in terms of win production.

You are playing with the word "worth", ok.

I do think teams are a bit clueless often in overvaluing inefficient players. I think that this is changing and we will see a different landscape in the nba withing a few years. Teams are getting much smarter and employing better people who have the ability to look beyond chest pumping, cool buckets and fugazy flare.

Don't want to argue the trade but Melo played well here and a team could have been built around him that was a winner if the team surrounded that move with smart moves but they screwed up every move before and after.

We still may be far apart in how much we would pay for a player. You have been very vague on this so I would like to see a concrete example from you.

Can you give me an example that a player who the market determines should get x and you would pay him double that and a player that gets paid y should be getting half. Please dont display the obvious but a case that is more abstract.

It tends to be the low ppg players who are efficient and good in other areas that the market undervalues. I was using the term worth in terms of how many wins (which should be the goal) the player is worth. If you list a few example players, I'll say how much I think they're worth. It will likely have nothing to do in many cases with how much they're actually paid.
I've said I think Melo is worth about 4 years, $52 mil given both his production and age. (You can't call that vague rather than concrete.) Obviously he'd decline that offer and I would have traded him before it even got to this point.

That is what you think Melo is worth now. However, How much would you have paid him 4 years ago?

And, who do you think is a max player that is not getting anywhere near the max (but you feel that he deserves to)? I have heard you state that many are grossly overpaid yet I don't know who you think is grossly underpaid. For example, a couple of years ago, I made an argument that Jeff Hornacek was GROSSLY underpaid for his career.

I periodically discuss guys that I think are being devalued and I want us to get like Reddick, Millsap, and Harden. I'm sure there are plenty others but I only do this in my spare time. If you're talking about a real max contract (like $100 mil), there probably are only a few guys in the league I'd offer that to - Lebron, Durant, Paul, and A Davis after his rookie contract if he keeps this up. I might give that to Love, Harden, and Griffin - I'd have to really study all the data closely and think about it. If I already had signed one of those players and had a great supporting cast, I'd be willing to add another all-star (like Melo or Curry) at high price to provide the finishing touch but I'd view that as overpaying for a finishing touch rather than getting a great deal.

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

arkrud wrote:

knickstorrents wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Record wise its a wash. The proof is in the records.

But both teams got worse. Why not call it a loss rather than a wash for both teams?

Therefore assuming this is true (and the records speak for themselves):

1) If the Knicks don't do the trade, the Knicks would be in better shape.
2) If Denver doesn't do the trade they would be in worse shape since Melo would have left for no assets.

Here we go - after all emotional nonsense plain and simple facts.
Melo is like a luxury car - you only get one after you are doing good and have another car to go to work.
If you get one and you cannot afford it you will end up working just to pay the bill and in debt.
He is very expensive complimentary piece to very specific and well run system which is not yet designed.
If Zen can come up with one and make NY and Melo winners I am all for it.
If he will come to conclusion that this is a feeder in the wind and will let men go I am with him too.

He's like a car that's worth $50,000 (still a nice, good car) but you have to pay $125,000 to get it.

You can say that about most high contract players.

What I think that you are missing is that the market determines what a player is worth by supply and demand.

You would not have even signed to the max as a ufa, but how many teams with the cap space would have? At minimum - most of them.

No, the market determines what players are paid, not what they're worth. There's a lot of evidence that the two have little to do with each other.

It's economics. the commodities market determines the price of pork bellies. What are they actually worth?

What I think you are implying is that the market makers in the NBA are getting it wrong and setting the market incorrectly, right?

I don't think any economist would say the market always accurately assesses the worth of products. Something can be popular (in high demand) for reasons other than its true worth. Think of a pretty car that no one realized would typically break down after 10,000 miles.
There's almost no correlation between team payroll and winning percentage. Most GMs really don't know how much players are worth. They may know how much they'll have to pay to get the player (i.e., supply and demand) but not how much the player is worth in terms of win production.

You are playing with the word "worth", ok.

I do think teams are a bit clueless often in overvaluing inefficient players. I think that this is changing and we will see a different landscape in the nba withing a few years. Teams are getting much smarter and employing better people who have the ability to look beyond chest pumping, cool buckets and fugazy flare.

Don't want to argue the trade but Melo played well here and a team could have been built around him that was a winner if the team surrounded that move with smart moves but they screwed up every move before and after.

We still may be far apart in how much we would pay for a player. You have been very vague on this so I would like to see a concrete example from you.

Can you give me an example that a player who the market determines should get x and you would pay him double that and a player that gets paid y should be getting half. Please dont display the obvious but a case that is more abstract.

It tends to be the low ppg players who are efficient and good in other areas that the market undervalues. I was using the term worth in terms of how many wins (which should be the goal) the player is worth. If you list a few example players, I'll say how much I think they're worth. It will likely have nothing to do in many cases with how much they're actually paid.
I've said I think Melo is worth about 4 years, $52 mil given both his production and age. (You can't call that vague rather than concrete.) Obviously he'd decline that offer and I would have traded him before it even got to this point.

That is what you think Melo is worth now. However, How much would you have paid him 4 years ago?

And, who do you think is a max player that is not getting anywhere near the max (but you feel that he deserves to)? I have heard you state that many are grossly overpaid yet I don't know who you think is grossly underpaid. For example, a couple of years ago, I made an argument that Jeff Hornacek was GROSSLY underpaid for his career.

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:looks to me like both those clubs have succeeded at getting a great value or at least a fair value for the money they pay.

time for the knicks to do the same. start with how effective each player is at defending the position and work from there. look at drpm : http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/DRPM

carmelo anthony for instance is at a -.60 for his position, ranked 255th in the league.
jr smith is ranked behind steve nash at -.96 and 287th !
felton is 316th and -1.26.
bargnani is 331st and -1.40
stoudemire is 394th and -2.59

these players are the ones that you have to wonder what worth they have to a winning cause as the knicks look to rebuild or overhaul the roster. all are overpaid.

So now we are buying into advanced stats (as long as as the slipper doesn't fit)?

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:looks to me like both those clubs have succeeded at getting a great value or at least a fair value for the money they pay.

time for the knicks to do the same. start with how effective each player is at defending the position and work from there. look at drpm : http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/DRPM

carmelo anthony for instance is at a -.60 for his position, ranked 255th in the league.
jr smith is ranked behind steve nash at -.96 and 287th !
felton is 316th and -1.26.
bargnani is 331st and -1.40
stoudemire is 394th and -2.59

these players are the ones that you have to wonder what worth they have to a winning cause as the knicks look to rebuild or overhaul the roster. all are overpaid.

So now we are buying into advanced stats (as long as as the slipper doesn't fit)?

Well he does write a lot about usage rate, assists, and I think true shooting percentage.

Yes. He does talk about stats but never ones that favor Melo (FOR SOME REASON).

But he wants Melo at 12-13 per. I hear that though I don't think there is a chance that this is happening though I would love it.

masud wrote:As I Knick fan how Denver is doing is completely irrelevant. The only question is was the trade worth it for the Knicks, I don't know how anyone can say it was at this point. No way the Knicks were gonna win anything with Melo as our best player and that trade basically guaranteed that he would be our best player for the next 4-5 years. We got lucky with the amnesty clause that got use Tyson, really it should have been worse than this.

Uh ... the amnesty move and the Tyson signing was good move? If that is what you call luck ...