Perkins would have been absolutely great, exactly what this team needs. Mayo has a higher end then any player we got. Wallace arguably would become our best player. But you did get me on the meaning of "alot"
I feel like Morey is like that guy in fantasy basketball who accumulates all these good small pieces, then tries to offer you 5 or 6 of them for a top star. Like, I'm pretty sure if we had Morey in a pool, he'd be the one guy who always offers you like all these nice little pieces for your Lebron or Kobe, but none of them stick out as any player you'd particularly want. Also, the guy constantly lowballs you, so he pisses you off, and you know you're not going to go out of your way to accommodate him. You see a pending trade from him, you're like "****", followed by vague annoyance or pleasant surprise if it somewhat looks like a reasonable offer. i dunno sometimes people get away with ridiculous trades in fantasy just because you want the guy to stop sending you crap. hopefully that happens with Morey?
That's all that has been discussed, flipping our guys for Bosh ect. Nice revisionist history! Didn't happen. Morey isn't stupid silly, your over inflated know it all ego is though!
Okay I agree with Mayo. Pacers were not giving up much for him, I am baffled that we did not pursue. Seems like Hill+something else would have gotten it done. I'm guessing Morey just didn't like Mayo's game. Perkins, I don't think we had enough for plus he may not even resign with us. Wallace is a step towards making the playoffs though. Looks like we are trying to rebuild.
Could you define assets? I would assume those are draft picks and players that you don't think the team has plans for in the long term. So, what assets will Morey have to work with when the draft comes around (in terms of acquired picks and players you think have value to other teams)? And I'm asking this seriously as I'm not sure who owes us picks and which picks we've traded away.
Well, that plan netted the Lakers Pau Gasol and the Celtics Kevin Garnett. Also, looking at the history of the NBA, these asset trades are common. I mean, at the height of their careers Charles Barkley and Tracy McGrady were traded for almost nothing. I mean, you can look it up.
So what trades did we turn down because we overvalued Battier, Brooks etc then genius? 'member that time, when Utah called, and said "hey give us Brooks & Bat-Man and you can have Deron Williams" ... ...and Morey was all like "LOL WHUT? NOES U R KIDDING, THR IN MILSAP AND WE ARE CA$H MONEY!" Oh yeah, that's right, cause it didn't happen. You can't "overvalue" somethig on the back end that evidently nobody else values... ...and you can't have "overvalue"d somethign that you paid literally nothing for on the front end. Give it up.
We didn't turn down any trades. All reports showed how active we were pursuing options but getting rebuffed. When you fail at arguing do you just pull **** out of you ass? Did that just describe your whole D&D career??
Maybe you're forgetting the time Phoenix called and said "hey give us Battier and Scola and you can have MVP candidate Amare Stoudemire." ...and Morey was all like "LOL WHUT? PHYSICAL OR GTFO." Douchebag.
According to joshfast's bizarre-o definition, overvalued = unsuccessfully bid for. Putting in a low bid that costs you nothing isn't undervaluing - that's asinine. Under that logic, the Knicks "undervalued" their own assets vis-a-vis Denver, giving up the farm (of better young talent than the Rockets have) for Carmelo. If that's the definition of being an overvalue-r, then count me in as rather being an overvalue-r
After learning about the pick restrictions, I'm less inclined to say we added assets. Battier and Brooks should have brought us in a better package.
Offering assets that you think will net you a superstar player in trade, and getting rebuffed to plan C and D (2 low first round picks) tells me he overvalued his players/talent.
Again, that's asinine. Joshfast, if you go onto eBay and see a solid-gold, diamond-encrusted flying blue dildo with shark teeth, up for sale, closing in 5 hours, with a street value of $500,000, and you bid only $10,000, because it's all you have in the bank - and later lose, - is that becuase you overvalued your own assets? Or is it because you properly valued your assets, others had more, and you ended up putting in a low bid? Silly.
That doesn't mean you overvalue your assets. That means the teams who did trade for the superstars had better assets than you.
His plan when Yao and Tracy went down was to gather enough tradeable assets to nab a superstar. Didn't work.
Pau Gasol trade was absolutely ridiculous in how bad it was for the Grizzlies at the time (it's somewhat better now that Marc Gasol has gone from WTF-to contributing asset). Unless a rival GM suffers a total collapse of their mental facilities, I doubt a deal like that will happen again. Superstars always need at least a significant piece to net. For Garnett, the Celtics gave the Timberwolves Al Jefferson and a nice assortment of young players and a first round draft pick. McGrady was traded for Franchise and Cat-which at the time was not almost nothing. Horry and Cassell were pieces everyone was looking for. The thing is though, asset trades do happen, but our assets simply aren't good enough. Only pretty much liquidating almost the entire team will garner a good superstar. Our players are all of the type that well, it would be nice to have them, but no team is going to go out of their way to do it. Scola+Martin might net us someone of value, but now beyond that, we don't really have any players that other teams really want, unless we're deluding ourselves that PPat and J.Hill are the "future" superstars we see in our constant viewings of Clutchfans highlights. I seriously think Rockets fans severely overrate out players and how much they would be worth to rival GMs. I think Morey does too.
