SAC - MIL

[Baron Davis]

SAC receives:

GF 61 Shabazz Muhammad $3,046,299 $4,237,401
C 52 Georgios Papagiannis $1,573,500 $1,644,300 $1,715,100 $2,630,963 $3,696,504

MIL receives:

PG 66 George Hill $8,000,000
2018 GSW 2nd round pick

I accept.

Sacramento likes this trade as it gives us two young players who fit our timeline. Shabazz is kind of a bust so far but he showed some promise this year and he still is a former #1 high school prospect in his class so he's someone in our opinion worth gambling on. I'm not as high on Georgios personally but he still is a lottery level talent and with the state of our franchise we are looking to get as many lottery tickets as we can so hopefully some of them hit.

This trade is also good for Milwaukee as it fills their need at point guard (and a top of tier 2 point guard at that) on an awesome contract (Dragic just got 5 years $90 mil) that still leaves them cap space (after amnestying Ty Lawson) to go out and get a top tier free agent (so they can add two high level starters this July instead of just 1). Additionally, the act of getting George Hill and making the team better will make his pitches to free agents more compelling (it's hard to pitch players to want to play on your team when you don't have anyone to pass them the ball). There is also lots of reason to believe that George Hill will be willing to sign long term as the analogous situation in the NBA, the Jazz acquiring George Hill, is likely to lead to a resigning and MIL is in a similar position to the Jazz. Shabazz doesn't really fit on their team, if he does pan out they wouldn't have space to resign him next year anyway, and his $3 mil cap hit actually is relevant if MIL is to go after a top tier free agent. The 2018 second rounder adds to the stable of picks MIL already has (2 first roudners next year and 3 in 2018, to start) which will allow them to fill out their lineup with cheap rookie contracts alongside their TopFA-Hill-Favors-Gay-Young-Ariza-Livingston core.

[Dirk Nowitzki]

I accept this! Hill is on his last year of the contract irl and Im sure its motivation enough for him to work harder this season + the new cap rising I dont see him slacking and stability will be great if I were to aim for home court advantages. It also helps me to focus on getting either a top big man or a wing for me to be able to let Ariza or Young to lead the bench.

[concerned guest]

Jul 7, 2016 11:08:00 GMT -5 Dirk Nowitzki said:

I accept this! Hill is on his last year of the contract irl and Im sure its motivation enough for him to work harder this season + the new cap rising I dont see him slacking and stability will be great if I were to aim for home court advantages. It also helps me to focus on getting either a top big man or a wing for me to be able to let Ariza or Young to lead the bench.

This isnt fantasy, this league is going to be around a long time, young players are worth more than old ones... Stop shipping out your young talent for guys that dont even match your team.

[Dirk Nowitzki]

Brown Cobb IV
Colin Loftin
Justin Timberlake
Steve Jobs
Pete Maravich

[Dirk Nowitzki]

Jul 7, 2016 11:10:45 GMT -5 concerned guest said:

Jul 7, 2016 11:08:00 GMT -5 Dirk Nowitzki said:

I accept this! Hill is on his last year of the contract irl and Im sure its motivation enough for him to work harder this season + the new cap rising I dont see him slacking and stability will be great if I were to aim for home court advantages. It also helps me to focus on getting either a top big man or a wing for me to be able to let Ariza or Young to lead the bench.

This isnt fantasy, this league is going to be around a long time, young players are worth more than old ones... Stop shipping out your young talent for guys that dont even match your team.

I dont have a passer, ball handler and 3 point shooter in my starting line up. I think he fits exactly right in

[Dirk Nowitzki]

The plan here is to recruit the next Buck legend to be partnered with Favors. Winning culture will attract great players.

[John Stockton]

reject. shabazz himself is worth more than George hill esp when you take the contracts into account.

[Pete Maravich]

I reject.

I love George Hill probably as much as anyone but he was just traded IRL for G. Papagiannis' value.  That leaves Muhammad for an '18 2nd?  No way.

[Baron Davis]

Jul 7, 2016 13:27:26 GMT -5 John Stockton said:

reject. shabazz himself is worth more than George hill esp when you take the contracts into account.

That's complete nonsense. There is no state in which Shabazz is worth more than George Hill, and especially not with the current Bucks team. Shabazz Muhammad was in trade rumors this year. The kind of players that were talked about as potential other sides of the trade were (roughly from worst to best) Brandon Bass (lol no), Kelly Olynyk, Jared Sullinger, and at the high end the 16th pick in the draft. George Hill was traded this year to the Jazz for the 12th pick in a move that was consensus considered a win for the Jazz.

fivethirtyeight just put out their CARMELO projections. They project Shabazz Muhammad to be a replacement level player over the next five years adding a total of $2.6 mil of value
projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/shabazz-muhammad/
and has George Hill as a solid starter adding $65.7 mil of value over the next 5 years
projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/george-hill/

And the contracts move it even further in the other direction. Both players have one year left before they are up for new contracts at the market rate. This year Shabazz is going to be a replacement level player and cost $3 million. George Hill is going to be worth 4+ wins and cost $8 million (keep in mind that wins are worth ~$5mil per). 

[Baron Davis]

Jul 7, 2016 13:36:30 GMT -5 Pete Maravich said:

I reject.

I love George Hill probably as much as anyone but he was just traded IRL for G. Papagiannis' value.  That leaves Muhammad for an '18 2nd?  No way.

Hawks had to clear cap space to try to resign Horford. Consensus was that Jazz won the trade easily. Muhammad is a reclamation project, probably worth somewhere around the 25th pick in the draft. Getting Hill is better for MIL than it was for the Jazz- MIL has no good point guard and no one with passer, ball handling, or 3 point shooter skills, and is looking to add another free agent which getting George Hill helps them do.

This trade is fair. There are something like 10 teams in this league tanking right now. You shouldn't force MIL to tank when they have a clear path forward. Make a push to be competitive now and try to win while he has his strong core of players, and meanwhile reload with his 5 (again, 5!) first round draft picks in the next two years. He doesn't need even more picks, and he isn't going to resign Muhammad.

(It's worth mentioning that the fact that (to my understanding) Lebron went 8th in the original draft to the team that was the most recent champion shows maybe there is an overemphasis on youth by y'all, right?

[Colin Loftin]

Reject for me, that's what, ~15 years of guaranteed control over young guys for an expiring and a future 2nd?

[Colin Loftin]

Jul 7, 2016 13:55:09 GMT -5 Baron Davis said:

Jul 7, 2016 13:36:30 GMT -5 Pete Maravich said:

I reject.

I love George Hill probably as much as anyone but he was just traded IRL for G. Papagiannis' value.  That leaves Muhammad for an '18 2nd?  No way.

(It's worth mentioning that the fact that (to my understanding) Lebron went 8th in the original draft to the team that was the most recent champion shows maybe there is an overemphasis on youth by y'all, right?

I think it was actually that he was only on a 1+1 deal, and thus without bird rights. And it's not like it was rookies picked ahead of him. AD, Curry, Durant, Boogie, Harden, Russ, and PG. With the exception of Durant, all came with longer contracts or a QO from their rookie deal. The championship probably had more to do with John's deal-making skillz

[Baron Davis]

Goran Dragic (67) was traded on an expiring to the Heat for 2 first round picks and Danny Granger. He was 28, and George Hill (66) is 30, but it's very similar.

[Steve Jobs]

Yeah, the point here is that George Hill might be worth more than the 12th pick, but Muhammad is worth way more than a crappy second rounder by any measure. Given the context, which is that Papagiannis was just drafted and he's already been tossed into multiple trades, it's mildly necessary for us to be discerning about the why on top of just comparing value, and the why doesn't make any sense. George Hill for Papagiannis can be a win if you expect Hill to extend, have a competitive team built around him, and will still have the cap space after signing Hill to a big contract next offseason to bring in more quality players. None of those things seem inherently true, which means the most likely scenario is Milwaukee gives up some great young depth pieces for a year rental of Hill and then either can't afford to keep him or doesn't have a team good enough to entice him to stay. Too much risk, not quite enough reward - Hill is a tier 3/4 PG, not a tier 2, so the benefit of having him when he's expiring and a depreciating asset would never outweigh the risk of giving up Muhammad and papaG on rookie deals for a year rental of Hill.

[billy]

Jul 7, 2016 14:12:27 GMT -5 Baron Davis said:

Goran Dragic (67) was traded on an expiring to the Heat for 2 first round picks and Danny Granger. He was 28, and George Hill (66) is 30, but it's very similar.

The suns had no leverage because dragic demanded a trade and refused to re-sign...

Paint a less biased picture and people might take your wholely reasonable argument more seriously :)

[Baron Davis]

Read what you just wrote. The Suns had no leverage, so they got *less* than they otherwise would have got. You are arguing on my side. If they had had leverage they would have got more than 2 first rounders and Danny Granger for Dragic.

[Baron Davis]

Jul 7, 2016 14:21:33 GMT -5 Steve Jobs said:

Yeah, the point here is that George Hill might be worth more than the 12th pick, but Muhammad is worth way more than a crappy second rounder by any measure. Given the context, which is that Papagiannis was just drafted and he's already been tossed into multiple trades, it's mildly necessary for us to be discerning about the why on top of just comparing value, and the why doesn't make any sense. George Hill for Papagiannis can be a win if you expect Hill to extend, have a competitive team built around him, and will still have the cap space after signing Hill to a big contract next offseason to bring in more quality players. None of those things seem inherently true, which means the most likely scenario is Milwaukee gives up some great young depth pieces for a year rental of Hill and then either can't afford to keep him or doesn't have a team good enough to entice him to stay. Too much risk, not quite enough reward - Hill is a tier 3/4 PG, not a tier 2, so the benefit of having him when he's expiring and a depreciating asset would never outweigh the risk of giving up Muhammad and papaG on rookie deals for a year rental of Hill.

I think this is fair. Like I said in my original post, I don't agree that Hill is going to be hard to resign given that the Jazz are likely to resign him and my understanding is that the way free agency works is that we try to match the decision making of the players,. If I am overreaching on that, then I agree that is a meaningful hit to the Milwaukee side. Tier 3/4 vs. 2 is just about how many tiers you have I guess, I just stole that terminology from the most recent stock watch of George HIll. It seems to me that this trade is the kind of trade the Mavs or Hawks might do (from the Milwaukee side)- it is a valid strategy to try to be a top 10 team every year and look to get lucky in the playoffs (it worked for the Mavs, not to mention that I don't see why making a deep run in the playoffs can't be an end in and of itself).

But it seems like I've lost the argument. I'm new so maybe I don't understand just how deeply winning is disincentivized, so I will defer to y'all's judgment that it's possible that in this context maybe things are different. But I absolutely think that if this was a real NBA trade the takes would be net mixed or even possibly in Milwaukee's favor.

[Steve Jobs]

Jul 7, 2016 14:46:18 GMT -5 Baron Davis said:

Jul 7, 2016 14:21:33 GMT -5 Steve Jobs said:

Yeah, the point here is that George Hill might be worth more than the 12th pick, but Muhammad is worth way more than a crappy second rounder by any measure. Given the context, which is that Papagiannis was just drafted and he's already been tossed into multiple trades, it's mildly necessary for us to be discerning about the why on top of just comparing value, and the why doesn't make any sense. George Hill for Papagiannis can be a win if you expect Hill to extend, have a competitive team built around him, and will still have the cap space after signing Hill to a big contract next offseason to bring in more quality players. None of those things seem inherently true, which means the most likely scenario is Milwaukee gives up some great young depth pieces for a year rental of Hill and then either can't afford to keep him or doesn't have a team good enough to entice him to stay. Too much risk, not quite enough reward - Hill is a tier 3/4 PG, not a tier 2, so the benefit of having him when he's expiring and a depreciating asset would never outweigh the risk of giving up Muhammad and papaG on rookie deals for a year rental of Hill.

I think this is fair. Like I said in my original post, I don't agree that Hill is going to be hard to resign given that the Jazz are likely to resign him and my understanding is that the way free agency works is that we try to match the decision making of the players,. If I am overreaching on that, then I agree that is a meaningful hit to the Milwaukee side. Tier 3/4 vs. 2 is just about how many tiers you have I guess, I just stole that terminology from the most recent stock watch of George HIll. It seems to me that this trade is the kind of trade the Mavs or Hawks might do (from the Milwaukee side)- it is a valid strategy to try to be a top 10 team every year and look to get lucky in the playoffs (it worked for the Mavs, not to mention that I don't see why making a deep run in the playoffs can't be an end in and of itself).

But it seems like I've lost the argument. I'm new so maybe I don't understand just how deeply winning is disincentivized, so I will defer to y'all's judgment that it's possible that in this context maybe things are different. But I absolutely think that if this was a real NBA trade the takes would be net mixed or even possibly in Milwaukee's favor.

Winning isn't disincentivized... That is absurd.  

Ultimately, only one team wins every year.  In real life, players and organizations make amazing money to do what they do, and doing it well or poorly reflects both the amount they can make and their ability to maintain their position.  In a sim league, there is less incentive to be "better, but not the best" since no ticket or merch sales hang in the balance, no fan morale and very little team morale come into play.  

With no money or jobs in the balance, being good doesn't mean the same thing that it does in real life.  With that comes the fact that teams/GMs aren't required to care as much about making good trades or acquisitions - if they make a bad move and their team becomes terrible, they can just quit/get fired and it's not only not their problem anymore, it literally doesn't effect any other part of their lives.  Unlike in the NBA, where a GM's decision making can cost him his job, livelihood, and ability to care for themselves or their families, decision making here is naturally more frivolous.  That's WHY the TC exists.  If every GM was more discerning, or if money hung in the balance and made sure that trades were less likely to be uneven, there would be no position for someone like me to reject or accept trades because it would just be at the discretion of the two sides agreeing on it as per real life.  

And when said GMs DO ruin teams, be it intentionally or from incompetence, that makes the teams much harder to offer to the next GM (whether or not they would be a good GM) because the team may literally be trash.  When a team becomes trash and has little to no means of effectively tanking and rebuilding quickly, the balance of power in the league starts to shift drastically to the top and the league slowly falls apart from lack of participation.  Long story short, stopping bad long term moves out of necessity for the benefit of the future of the league (which we all hope to run as far as Billy/we can take it) may look like disincentivizing winning, but it's really about incentivizing good long term planning so that no matter when your team is actually in contention for titles, no team was ever too bad to save with good management. 


But, this brings up a point that could gain traction at some point in the future - adding money into the mix, either buy-ins or tiered prize money for success (or both) could be a short or long term answer to helping alleviate issues like this.  Knowing that you've paid money to be a part of the league, you're both more likely to be extra discerning in your trades and more likely to stick around if your trades are all bad.  Wouldn't eliminate the need for TC entirely, but it would help make sure we weren't just sitting here naysaying every deal every time... the rejects should always be about a trade being "franchise ruining" or not, and if it's not franchise ruining, it should only be rejected with very thorough reasoning.