TripleThreat wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:His agent may be posturing, but who would have thought that Denver could get a couple of #1s for Mosgov?
Even as the market shifted for the value of first rounders in the past season and a half, Asik and Gortat both moved for first rounders.
Not outside of market trends to pay a first for a pivot who give rim protection. The extra first Denver got was on circumstance ( how many teams move a first overall for a top 25 player like Love and risk losing him in the offseason?)
Calderon and Mozgov are't even in the same ballpark in terms of market value, not even close, no offense.
You are talking about value, sans extenuating circumstance.
Some will say that Cleveland overpaid for Mosgov, but he was worth it to them because of the state of their lineup and perhaps concerns about their future. The Cavs would not have made this trade at the start of the season or in the offseason.
TripleThreat wrote:^ But we aren't really talking about Mozgov are we?You bring up Mozgov as an example of "You Never Know, Anything Can Happen" in terms of a Calderon trade.
Calderon has little to no trade value on his own. He can't play defense. His contract is extreme for a backup point guard. He's not a starter quality PG on most NBA teams. His contract extends out to his 35-36 age years.
Point guard has the lowest positional value in the NBA, center has the highest.
Feel to name any circumstance where a team would want to eat Calderon's contract for what he can give them, just on his own value, without any other kind of asset moving forward to push him out the door.
The PG does NOT have the lowest positional value--it has the HIGHEST my friend--do some due diligence on that. The average starting PG makes more than the avg starting C in the NBA.
BRIGGS wrote:TripleThreat wrote:^ But we aren't really talking about Mozgov are we?You bring up Mozgov as an example of "You Never Know, Anything Can Happen" in terms of a Calderon trade.
Calderon has little to no trade value on his own. He can't play defense. His contract is extreme for a backup point guard. He's not a starter quality PG on most NBA teams. His contract extends out to his 35-36 age years.
Point guard has the lowest positional value in the NBA, center has the highest.
Feel to name any circumstance where a team would want to eat Calderon's contract for what he can give them, just on his own value, without any other kind of asset moving forward to push him out the door.
The PG does NOT have the lowest positional value--it has the HIGHEST my friend--do some due diligence on that. The average starting PG makes more than the avg starting C in the NBA.
I think he meant to say there is a famine of talent at the C position compared to PG which is the most talent heavy position league-wide. Obviously starting pg is a very important role on a team, arguably most important.
TripleThreat wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:His agent may be posturing, but who would have thought that Denver could get a couple of #1s for Mosgov?
Even as the market shifted for the value of first rounders in the past season and a half, Asik and Gortat both moved for first rounders.
Not outside of market trends to pay a first for a pivot who give rim protection. The extra first Denver got was on circumstance ( how many teams move a first overall for a top 25 player like Love and risk losing him in the offseason?)
Calderon and Mozgov are't even in the same ballpark in terms of market value, not even close, no offense.
Larkin was basically a first rounder. Eventually first rounders turn into players- they are not magic beans. We got Larkin (essentially a late first rounder) and 2 second rounders. Sure I would have preferred 2 firsts but the Tyson trade does not really register for me. I like the revisionist history though- a lot of posters on here said Tyson had zero trade value last season.
smackeddog wrote:TripleThreat wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:His agent may be posturing, but who would have thought that Denver could get a couple of #1s for Mosgov?
Even as the market shifted for the value of first rounders in the past season and a half, Asik and Gortat both moved for first rounders.
Not outside of market trends to pay a first for a pivot who give rim protection. The extra first Denver got was on circumstance ( how many teams move a first overall for a top 25 player like Love and risk losing him in the offseason?)
Calderon and Mozgov are't even in the same ballpark in terms of market value, not even close, no offense.
Larkin was basically a first rounder. Eventually first rounders turn into players- they are not magic beans. We got Larkin (essentially a late first rounder) and 2 second rounders. Sure I would have preferred 2 firsts but the Tyson trade does not really register for me. I like the revisionist history though- a lot of posters on here said Tyson had zero trade value last season.
always injured, was ineffective in the playoffs year before and was clashing with the coach, had another year at big money on his deal. What do you think his value was (at that time).
smackeddog wrote:TripleThreat wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:His agent may be posturing, but who would have thought that Denver could get a couple of #1s for Mosgov?
Even as the market shifted for the value of first rounders in the past season and a half, Asik and Gortat both moved for first rounders.
Not outside of market trends to pay a first for a pivot who give rim protection. The extra first Denver got was on circumstance ( how many teams move a first overall for a top 25 player like Love and risk losing him in the offseason?)
Calderon and Mozgov are't even in the same ballpark in terms of market value, not even close, no offense.
Larkin was basically a first rounder. Eventually first rounders turn into players- they are not magic beans. We got Larkin (essentially a late first rounder) and 2 second rounders. Sure I would have preferred 2 firsts but the Tyson trade does not really register for me. I like the revisionist history though- a lot of posters on here said Tyson had zero trade value last season.
I don't think anybody said that he has no trade value. That would have been ridiculous.
mreinman wrote:smackeddog wrote:TripleThreat wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:His agent may be posturing, but who would have thought that Denver could get a couple of #1s for Mosgov?
Even as the market shifted for the value of first rounders in the past season and a half, Asik and Gortat both moved for first rounders.
Not outside of market trends to pay a first for a pivot who give rim protection. The extra first Denver got was on circumstance ( how many teams move a first overall for a top 25 player like Love and risk losing him in the offseason?)
Calderon and Mozgov are't even in the same ballpark in terms of market value, not even close, no offense.
Larkin was basically a first rounder. Eventually first rounders turn into players- they are not magic beans. We got Larkin (essentially a late first rounder) and 2 second rounders. Sure I would have preferred 2 firsts but the Tyson trade does not really register for me. I like the revisionist history though- a lot of posters on here said Tyson had zero trade value last season.
I don't think anybody said that he has no trade value. That would have been ridiculous.
Even if he had no trade value, all we got for him was a player we're desperately trying to get rid of.
I do remember a lot of people say losing Tyson would be addition by subtraction though
Bonn1997 wrote:mreinman wrote:smackeddog wrote:TripleThreat wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:His agent may be posturing, but who would have thought that Denver could get a couple of #1s for Mosgov?
Even as the market shifted for the value of first rounders in the past season and a half, Asik and Gortat both moved for first rounders.
Not outside of market trends to pay a first for a pivot who give rim protection. The extra first Denver got was on circumstance ( how many teams move a first overall for a top 25 player like Love and risk losing him in the offseason?)
Calderon and Mozgov are't even in the same ballpark in terms of market value, not even close, no offense.
Larkin was basically a first rounder. Eventually first rounders turn into players- they are not magic beans. We got Larkin (essentially a late first rounder) and 2 second rounders. Sure I would have preferred 2 firsts but the Tyson trade does not really register for me. I like the revisionist history though- a lot of posters on here said Tyson had zero trade value last season.
I don't think anybody said that he has no trade value. That would have been ridiculous.
Even if he had no trade value, all we got for him was a player we're desperately trying to get rid of.
I do remember a lot of people say losing Tyson would be addition by subtraction though
people just were sick of him so that is just vent talk.
nobody could have possibly said that he did not have value.
