Denver & Dallas Announce

Dallas trades:

Brandon Jennings 3/3/3/3/

and gets

Tyreke Evans 3/3/3/3/4.5
And Denver's 2012 2nd Round Pick

Assuming the original Curry/Tyreke trade is okay'd

Make this make sense to me please

Why does it take adding a pick for one player that has statistical numbers better than the other?
Last time I checked..
2+1 does not equal 1

And also try not to post trades when the player is not officially yours.

Evans and Jennings have similar stats this year and they are both going to improve. If anything, Evans would slightly win if not tie. Adding the 2nd round pick makes the whole balance uneven. If you guys can take out the pick, the trade could be passable.

It comes down to future value and what each teams needs are - and not what you think Tyreke's value is based on what yahoo says or your experience says, but what the market says. What if the trade was Tyreke and a 2nd for John Wall? More on that later.

Yes, last year's stats certainly favor Tyreke. However, Tyreke played a good deal of the year at PG and is playing more SG/SF this year. His "pure PG" numbers are down slightly, but more importantly, he doesn't lead the offense down the court, leading to slightly less assists and a future cap on them. He also doesn't shoot as many 3's as Jennings so if you're team really needs 3's as mine does, you may "over-value" that. Tyreke will almost certainly have more steals and rebounds than Jennings, and points, but by how much? And as of this writing Tyreke has a per game value of 100th best overall, while Jennings 62nd best overall. It's early, but that's a big difference - it will change, but right now, based on this year, I'm trading the 100th best player and getting the 62nd best player - a pick is definitely called for.

And Yes, we all know that Yahoo's rankings favor 3 point shooting, but still, the rankings, however short of time span covered, definitely show Jennings breaking out and doing a lot more this year - less TO's, better efficiency. But essentially the two are very equal, very similar. So the point was made by Dallas to me, since it is so equal what is his impetus to make the trade, which made sense to me - so I gave him one with a 2nd round pick. A perfectly equal trade may 'SOUND' great, but how often does that really happen, one side is gambling more than the other - betting on future returns. I'm betting that Jennings will perform better in the cats that my team is going to compete in than Tyreke, Dallas agreed, so In order to make the trade he needed a "cherry on top."

Yes, when I made the Curry deal I had in mind to trade Tyreke, however, the market, not the TC's quickly let me know that his value was not the 30th overall that he came into the season with 0 if I wanted a PG - so denying the trade on that ground is just plain wrong. I quickly found out that he wasn't worth Derrick Rose, for instance, who came in ranked 42nd, and I needed a more pure PG, and I was going to have to give more than Tyreke to get a top young one. No one was moving on Tyreke alone for a top PG, the market was not bearing it - the pick made the difference.

I don't know what more to say, it seems like a very real and fair trade to me based on the feedback I was getting while trying to trade Tyreke. And Sam, Tyreke's Stats are JUST NOT better than Jennings this year, take another look. Jennings is very clearly superior to Devin Harris, especially in 3's, steals and points AND contract, but you probably wouldn't even trade me him, let alone Bledsoe for Tyreke... and Fobby, I'm not going to get Collison, Westbrook (or Rose) OR WALL, all of whom came into the season valued lower than Tyreke. The next pure PG I probably have a shot at is Felton or Jrue and I don't value them nearly as high as Jennings. What would you say if the trade was Tyreke and a 2nd for John Wall? Because Wall came into the year ranked lower the Tyreke 30th to 75h, yet NO ONE is going to give me Wall for Tyreke and a pick. Yet again, Wall was ranked lower than Jennings.... you have to go on market value, not perceived value.

I hope this does it, a bit rambling, but i hope you get it now. Thanks in advance, I know I've been active and have been taking up a lot of your time, but I'm just executing my plan to compete next year.

omg wall of text. will read later, must go to bed for work

I could careless if Yahoo ranked Tyreke 1 and Jennings 500.
The rankings are one of the last things I factor in when I look at a trade.
For you yourself to say Jennings will end up being a better player than Evans is where the issue lies.
I'm not here to judge what you think, if you firmly believed Kwame Brown was a better player than Pau Gasol, I wouldn't care.
We cannot value trades based only on future instincts, theres no way we could value a trade and thus have no meaning for a Trade Committee.
Sure, the numbers right now show the numbers are about the same. If this trade was factored strictly one-dimensional (statistically), this wouldn't be as big of an issue.
You could use the same argument for trading Lebron for John Wall, Wall obviously has much more upside as well as a brighter future, he has more years and Lebron is already in his prime..

The point being is we cannot just approve a trade because both the owners are happy with it. We must look at the whole situation where the rest of the public looks and sees how it effects the competitive balance. Sure, one #2 pick should not have much bearing on the issue of competitive balances, but it violates the consistency on how we try to run this TC. I'm sure the norm would say Evans is the better player than Jennings (fantasy). I'm not here to argue that, I'm only here to say how passing this trade would contradict how the TC was built upon.

Remember, the main thing here is we cannot just pass something where all the participants in a trade are happy with, thus we cannot just approve something if all sides of the trade are delighted upon it.

I really hope both of you understand this...

Okay, well Dallas hasn't even agreed to the deal on the board yet, so let's pull it. I'll spend some more time with Tyreke and see what else I can work out.

Trade Pulled - not agreed upon yet.

Why can't thing be as simple as. i offered Dallas Evans for Jennings, Dallas said "NO" so i countered with my lowest value draft pick because i want Jennings on my team a lot more then i want Evans! some times we do have to over pay to get the guys we want. and this trade does not alter the balance of the league. you see simple!

well dan... i tend to agree with you

but at the same time, we should respect tc decision and let that be that

evans is better player and value (especially due to extra year for cheap) and the tc saw an inclusion of a pick as too much

whether we agree or not, that's the decision and we should accept it and let that be that

am not knocking am just point out how simple it is to explain a trade rather then to right a book and also point out the tc rule on veto.

A trade shall only be vetoed if the TC deems the trade to be evidence of cheating, collusion, the trade moves either team over salary, or alters the leagues competitive balance. if tc is going to veto they should explain which one of these rules was use. I know Cheating not it, no collusion, salary are good. then that leaves leagues competitive balance.

i find it funny we can approve a trade where you trade half a team for another, but a trade like this we can't. am sorry but i do think it is . am not looking to argue. As you guys know by now, I always find it hard to veto trades.

hey, if you aren't trading half a team, you shouldn't be trading!

hahahahahahaa jk

Why does how many players involved in a trade have an impact on how even or reasonable it is? I don't see why a pick is a part of this trade either. It seems to involve 2 comparable players with incredible potential. I think they should be taded evenly, but as stated above sometimes we overpay for things we want. That being the case and the outcome of these 2 teams being none of my business I have to say I can't argue the trade. What I don't understand is... how was the trade that I was involved in brought into question. I wonder this for 2 reasons. 1) It seems irrelevant to the outcome of this completely separate trade. 2) It also was not an uneven trade just involved several players, so I'm not sure as to why it is being used as a negative example. So all in all... GO TRADING!!! Without trading leagues become stagnant and boring. I support trades all trades not intended to bring down the league. Good luck getting a deal done!

dan was just joking, but yea, GO TRADING!

hahahahaha

I'm not mad at him. Just saying a trade is a trade and if it's reasonably fair it should sail through no problem. If I offended Dan I apologize... no harm intended.

dont worry, dan is thick skinned...

and if you got any mexican jokes, throw em at him. he doesnt mind

he plays back

as far as this trade goes, my first reaction was, omg cory u got robbed
however, maybe it is reasonable to add the pick if he wants the guy

but the tc has a hard job in situations like this as its a fine to think one side is giving to much and to actually veto

in this case, they vetoed. had they have allowed it, id have understood too

just a tough call and in this instance, they didnt like the pick going with the better player, especially one with a very nice 5th year, so its hard for me to blame them

but i do understand the sentiment of it not being too ridiculous. just a tough situation where it couldve gone either way

Hellfish, you're amazing.

Let me start off with this: I respect the TC decision though I disagree with it. Yes, it's possible to do both.

I would say it's completely unfathomable that this trade would be vetoed on the basis of " we cannot value trades based only on future instincts...". Then how, exactly, does the TC value baseball trades involving prospects? It seems to be the same concept. Of course I won't say any of that b/c it's absolute treason to express any sort of displeasure.

I will also say that it's tougher to find an elite PG than an elite SG (which both are poised to become), so position was a factor for the pick.

I don't see how this trade alters "competitive balance" (PB's favorite!)

If either manager quit today, would the team be left in a bad place cuz of this trade? I don't think so...

Both these player are pretty eqaul if you ask me on the lines of production and future capability. Yeah, my first instinct was wtf like everyone else. But, really? A pick in the ,last round of the rookie draft doesn't make it passable??? Just cuz a trade isn't 100% in your eyes don't mean its vetoable. Too much scrutiny. If someone wants a pg on the same level this deal makes perfect sense to me. Let's not take the fun out of managing our teams guys. Dan is 100% right, finally! And coop... he was using your trade as an example olf why a 10 for 10 passes and not this simple 1 for 1. Don't think he was pointing fingers.

The part that kills me... cannot value trades based on future instincts... I. Had a trade vetoed, ichiro for 3 prospects... you said I was getting too much... the week before that I traded lincecum and rollins for 4 prospects and it passed.

I don't feel like we have a strike zone. I throw a pitch, u call it a strike. Same pitch next time, its a ball.

I can't type very good or fast from my phone but I wanted to chime in. Oh and this trade wasn't even official so there was no tc decision just a discussionm the way I see it.

#2 picks don't create vetos. And tyreke and jennings anyone could argue one or the other. AND! At this point with the contracts, I may take wall over lebron, just cuz he's so dynamic.

My 2 cents for now... not tryn to piss anyone off.

I'm accepting the trade as it stands

fireworks!

I veto your fireworks. Them some weak ass shiiiiit

there will be no veto!

When did Bravo turn into the great Clay Davis?

bravo's a bad ass now....

dcooperdoc wrote:I'm not mad at him. Just saying a trade is a trade and if it's reasonably fair it should sail through no problem. If I offended Dan I apologize... no harm intended.

Not Offended am here for FUN!

beaner!

there, i had my fun

lolol

Integrity wrote:bravo's a bad ass now....

Now? Always was, and you're my little AZ biatch!

That reminds me, what's up with the D-Backs wanting kalsish, bard, ellsbury, and kelly for upton.

Are you f'n az people on crack or what???