Howard trade grades: Drop'em here!

[AHF]

3 hours ago, sturt said:

Right. Maybe we're talking past each other. Trying this again.

We gave up value.... and were on the receiving end of Plumlee.

That then stands as testimony that it's plausible that we, too, can send Plumlee off as trade filler, and we too can be the talent beneficiary in such a trade.

And that supports what I"m saying: each trade situation is different depending on what each team happens to be valuing at that moment in time, and so Plumlee and his contract can be a bad thing in a trade, or it can be a good thing.

Plumlee's contract is always a bad thing in a trade but I totally agree that each trade situation is different and there are different levels of desire and desperation that drive leverage on each side.  This deal made it out like they had the leverage.  In a future deal there may be circumstances where that changes but what doesn't change is the fact that he is a toxic asset.  The only thing that would change his asset value is a revolutionary change in his game.

[sturt]

45 minutes ago, AHF said:

Plumlee's contract is always a bad thing in a trade but I totally agree that each trade situation is different and there are different levels of desire and desperation that drive leverage on each side.  This deal made it out like they had the leverage.  In a future deal there may be circumstances where that changes but what doesn't change is the fact that he is a toxic asset.  The only thing that would change his asset value is a revolutionary change in his game.

Um. It's not "always" if, in fact, "each trade situation is different," and perceived leverage, then, varies.

To the contrary, I believe the CHA GM would respond it was a great thing for him that he had a throwaway contract, aka "toxic asset" in this case that he could use to satisfy the CBA-mandated trade constraints, and not have any real consequence to the rest of his roster.

If there were no salary cap, you'd be completely correct to assess him as a "toxic asset" "always."

But because there is a salary cap environment, it provides some potential value in terms of trade assets.

(I honestly don't think I told you anything you don't already acknowledge. This feels to me like a semantics-wrestling episode.)

 

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Watchman said:

They also get fired for their "lapses in judgment." 

What world are you living in?  If I take my worst mistake as a 23 year old and have to chance to grow from it, there is a benefit to that.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Um. It's not "always" if, in fact, "each trade situation is different," and perceived leverage, then, varies.

To the contrary, I believe the CHA GM would respond it was a great thing for him that he had a throwaway contract, aka "toxic asset" in this case that he could use to satisfy the CBA-mandated trade constraints, and not have any real consequence to the rest of his roster.

If there were no salary cap, you'd be completely correct to assess him as a "toxic asset" "always."

But because there is a salary cap environment, it provides some potential value in terms of trade assets.

(I honestly don't think I told you anything you don't already acknowledge. This feels to me like a semantics-wrestling episode.)

 

 

I'll grant you that pure salary can be useful regardless of to whom it is attached.  That will be more the case in 3 years than it is today.  Today he is toxic but you are right that it becomes less so with each passing year until he becomes a worthless player on an expiring contract.  Outside of pure salary fill, I can't imagine anyone ever wanting him at that price without a fundamental change in his performance.

Granting that, I have to point out that having people with those types of contracts on your roster is the opposite of what you want because having a better player attached to the same salary is always equally or more tradeable.