GustavBahler wrote:Nalod wrote:jrodmc wrote:smackeddog wrote:Melo trade looks even more ridiculous with every passing year- the equivalent today would be trading Mitch, Knox, Mario, Frank/trey Burke and 2 1st rounders for butler. Madness!
Yes, exactly. And don't forget, you'd get Frank/Trey "Felton" back for nothing. And Mitch would end up being "Moz" a project that ends up being one of the 10 worst contracts in the league; oh yeah, but he wins a ring sitting the bench in GS. And Knox "Rooster" ends up missing his entire rookie season and then barely plays thereafter, while also making the top 10 list for worst contracts. And Mario "the Mayor" winds up as a mid level exception and ends up playing in China or Bulgaria. What's ridiculous is the idiocy of history and actual player careers getting ignored every time someone remembers that their panties are still in a knot over Mardy Collins and JLin.
Never forget!
Jrod is a slut, but he's right. I can understand folks who were against the trade because they werent Melo fans. Time has shown that what we gave up for him was not worth losing sleep over.
The best player going the other way gave Derrick Rose a run for his money for missing games. Not to mention it did nothing for Denver's fortunes. If Denver really got the best of that deal we would have seen it a long time ago.
No, even though Perry made a nice save in unloading Melo's no trade deal without long term cap implications. It was Melo's second contract that was the real mistake.
Phil could done a legit rebuild, the Triangle might not have worked, but this team would have been a lot further along without Melo's (and Noah's) deal.
Regardless of the system , if the team hadnt strayed from its stated plan, I think Phil might have been able to build a good, young, playoff team. Triangle or not.
Why Im glad Perry Mills dont seem to be wavering on their plan. And Dolan is signing off on it.
The Knicks traded Jerian Grant, a 2nd and Robin Lopez for Derrick Rose, Holiday, etc
Let's say Rose work out for them. He didn't, but let's say he did. Odds of that were likely 2 out of 10.
Jerian Grant ended up NOT working out. For either team. But whether it works out or not doesn't change the equation on whether the decision was a GOOD MARKET BASED DECISION OR NOT.
Good resource management means holding to some core principles, EVEN IF IT DOESN'T WORK OUT NOW, because over time, the odds work in your favor. You make misses, you WILL MISS, but you are betting on making more relative hits in the meantime.
Rose was a poor market based decision. Whether or not Jerian Grant works out or not doesn't change the principle that you don't trade a young cost controlled guy for an injury prone guy, on a huge contract, who has off the court issues, who doesn't play D and can't shoot the three ball, who if he breaks out, will demand a max deal. Or walk and you lose him for nothing.
Even if Rose worked out, it was still a poor market based decision.
The Melo trade was a poor market based decision. The Knicks could have signed him in free agency. For cap space. Or they could have held firm on their offer for Wilson Chandler and a 1st.
This is what they teach kids for standardized tests. If you have time running out, and you are multiple choice and are not punished for wrong answers, pick the SAME LETTER on you scan tron for the rest of the test. If there are 17 questions left and you have 2 minutes to go, fill in a letter like C for all of them. Odds are, maybe 2-4 answers will be C. You get 2 to 4 out of 17. Not great, but better than 0 out of 17. If you just randomly picked any letter for 17 questions, you might hit based on luck for more than 2-4 of them. But odds are against it. Odds are, you'll miss all 17.
Picking the same letter is the same as holding to a core market based principle. Situations and dynamics might change, but you are playing the odds. You operate with OUTCOME INDEPENDENCE.
Steph Curry's rookie year was a test in outcome independence. Monta Ellis and Corey Maggette took turns freezing him out and chucking. Don Nelson went senile and battered him because he was a rookie. Curry just kept playing the right way. Even if the outcome was not getting the ball as much or getting **** on by his coach.
Was it the right market based decision?
THEN you ask - Did it work out?
THEN YOU ASK - Did the result force a chance in how you see the market?
WINNING TEAMS do this. Teams that operate with good resource management do this.
Saying the Melo/Knicks/Nuggets trade was a good one based on the results of what Denver got is an INCOMPLETE WAY OF LOOKING AT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.
No matter what Denver got, the Knicks paid more than what the market would actually bear. THUS IT WAS A BAD DECISION. It's one thing to pay a lot TO MARKET. It's another thing to pay a little TO MARKET. But there is no good reason to OVERPAY to market.
Being OUTCOME DEPENDENT is how teams stay bad. Much of the responses come from wanting to absolve someone from blame. Accountability versus blame. Market based perspectives are about ACCOUNTABILITY in the decision making process. Non market based decisions are about BLAME in the decision making process.
It's one thing to be a loser. It's another to THINK LIKE A LOSER.
Anyone who wants to believe the Melo trade was a good one, it's your right, it's a free country. But it's how LOSING TEAMS THINK.