MG22 wrote:I don't think that basket is about one or 2 all stars anymore - I believe in the moneyball-thinking and creating the best possible team in that sense. That is simply the reason why I think we should think about what would be the next move creating a better team instead of creating a superstar that we think can lead the team into the future.
Moneyball was about exploiting market inefficiencies in a closed system designed to punish cash poor teams.
Unfortunately a lot of people here try to use Moneyball as a example of why splitting an asset or pushing for volume is a good strategy. Except in no other major sport, can one player dramatically shift the fortunes of a team and game so much. Also the critical marketing aspect of the NBA revolves around individual players.
Bill Belichick drafted Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez, before the "Move Tight End" was common, then locking them up to long term team friendly deals, that was an example of exploiting a market inefficiency within the system. Hernandez was split out as a wide receiver more than a Tight End, but was negotiated with and paid on a TE scale. Suddenly the Antonio Gates type player was the rage in the NFL and every team wanted a Red Zone power forward type who could out muscle and outleap and truck over defenders.
Dayton Moore, formerly a Braves executive, built the Royals around speed, defense and overloading his relief pitching corps to take his starters out of ballgames. His starters had to go five innings, and he'd run his bullpen, sometimes 6-8 deep, and his defense, esp his outfield, was producing at a historic level. This preceded teams overloading a bullpen this way for a FULL SEASON. Teams tried to do this in the playoffs, but not to this volume. Instead of overpaying guys like Steve Karsay, like the Yankees would do, or Rafael Soriano, Moore found gems like Ryan Madson for cheap. This is another example of setting the market before trends locked in.
Making a volume trade is not Moneyball. At all. It's just trading a dollar for 2 quarters and a dime.
For the sake of discussion, Boston would only move something like Horford, Smart and a protected 1st round pick for Zinger. Do I think that's a good deal? No. But that's what they would offer. They wouldn't take Noah nor Lee either. There would need to be a third team, likely a team like Chicago, to make it all work, since the Knicks have nothing that could match Horford's salary.
The other issue is if and it's a huge IF, the Knicks were to trade Zinger, they'd prefer to do it with a Western team.
The Celtics are not giving up four players and taking in Noah's contract just to get Zinger. Also the Knicks would want picks and they aren't getting multiple high lottery picks for Zinger in this kind of deal.
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying there are too many complications. More to point, you'll need to bring in a third team ( which I don't know) and the Celts are not moving Morris to the Knicks and they are not taking in Thomas/Lee/Noah/Kanter/THJr in any form in any deal. If you can find a deal that covers all that in the trade machine, it would be interesting to see. I just don't think there is one though. The complication with Smart though is he can't shoot. You'd be negating the one Knick who can consistently create his own shot and overload the Knicks with no one who can create their own shot. Baker, Smart, FrankN would be a pretty interesting defense though.
The team you'd want to look at is Houston. If they could get Zinger, they'd trade James Harden. I know that would seem insane, but Morey will trade anyone and it's clear no one really wants to play with James Harden if they are an elite player and have a choice. How the salaries would match, I don't know. But no one would miss Harden too much on the Rockets. ( I wouldn't put him on being an @sshole on the Jabbar level, but he's really close)