Bradly Beal, 50 mil to score 9 points in 31 mins in an elim game (Kblaze get in here

[QUOTE=DMAVS41;14907220]Widely reported that both Miami and Milwaukee were interested and trying to make it work.

Beal himself said he got word that the Knicks, Nets, and Kings were trying to make moves to make it happen as well.

Again, he got moved within days / weeks of coming available and the Wizards got positive value for the contract.

To argue otherwise is to simply argue against reality.[/QUOTE]



If there were so many teams interested then why did the Suns get him "basically for free"? Those are your own words.

Why couldn't the wizards get more for him like other teams did when trading their players?

I guess no contrast is untradeable but there’s a certain point where it looks like such a negative asset you have to attach a 1st to get rid of it. Beal got positive value from suns but at same time lotta people thought phx made a stupid overpay. I was in between thought it was overpay but ok with it since they needed an upgrade from Paul and no other “star” was attainable.

For now those people down on Beal trade were right imo. He looks untradeable rn and phx big 3 doesn’t work. That can change with a bounce back year but hard imagining Beal plays as well as someone like gobert on this suns team.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14907222]If there were so many teams interested then why did the Suns get him "basically for free"? Those are your own words.

Why couldn't the wizards get more for him like other teams did when trading their players?[/QUOTE]

My exact quote was basically for free or at little cost...and I explained previously what I meant. Which was that a win now team like the Suns doesn't care about giving up some future pick swaps and Chris Paul's contract.

Why couldn't the Wizards get more? Because Beal and his contract were not as valuable as the other players you are referencing...in addition to the Wizards not being willing to take on a contract like Simmons, who has a much worse contract than Beal, to get extra assets.

I'm not sure if you are knowingly doing this, but at this point I'll assume you aren't interested in actually having a discussion. You are changing the debate from whether or not it hurt the Wizards to how much of a positive return the Wizards got.

To me, that sort of ends the debate. Once we are debating why the Wizards didn't get more...my side has won....because the very fact that he was traded with ease and for positive value destroys the narrative that he couldn't be traded (yes, I realize you didn't say this explicitly) or that his contract was just stupid and would hurt the Wizards (you did say this)...

So you now arguing about why they didn't get as much as Siakam or lamenting that they should have tanked earlier...to me, are not relevant to our debate. Again, I was in favor of trading Beal likely before you and Wizards fans ever thought of it.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;14907226]I guess no contrast is untradeable but there’s a certain point where it looks like such a negative asset you have to attach a 1st to get rid of it. Beal got positive value from suns but at same time lotta people thought phx made a stupid overpay. I was in between thought it was overpay but ok with it since they needed an upgrade from Paul and no other “star” was attainable.

For now those people down on Beal trade were right imo. He looks untradeable rn and phx big 3 doesn’t work. That can change with a bounce back year but hard imagining Beal plays as well as someone like gobert on this suns team.[/QUOTE]

For where the Suns were...it is really hard to call it an overpay imo.

You could call the trade stupid in that they shouldn't have traded for Beal...and that, imo, is perfectly reasonable...but to call it an overpay considering what little they gave up for a team with like a 3 year window max...I don't know, they just didn't pay much that matters to them.

Like I said above, whether or not they should have traded for Beal is a whole different story.

And just to clarify...our debate was never about the Suns trade. It was about whether or not Beal's contract would hurt the Wizards and with some...whether or not he could even be traded without attaching assets...and I think it is simply objective...that the other side was wrong about that.

But that other side might be right about Beal's on court value, especially for a team like the Suns...but that was never the debate.

Nobody, to my knowledge...ever argued Beal was a top 6 player...Blaze seemed the highest on him and I don't even think he was arguing anything beyond borderline all-star level player.

Let's hear what Beal himself had to say:

[QUOTE]
[B]“So, my initial favorite was Miami," [/B]Beal said in an interview with Andscape. "And so, we call Miami. [Miami president] Pat [Riley] says well I’ll go talk to [owner] Micky [Arison] and figure it out. So he goes, talks to Micky, we go, we hear back [New York] Knicks, Sacramento, Brooklyn a little bit, and then it was Milwaukee and it was one more big team … And that was kind of one of the most difficult things about every trade and every team. And I respect and love every team, [B]but a lot of them just couldn’t do it because the money was just so high." [/B]
Beal said he landed with Suns even though they were a darkhorse candidate.
I’m like, ‘OK, what’s Miami doing? Dragging feet.’ And eventually it came to a point to where [B]Miami said they just can’t do it," [/B]Beal said. "But it was an eye-opener for sure. And that’s why I said I went into everything kind of open-minded and with an open slate. [B]And out of nowhere here comes a dark horse in Phoenix and their aggressiveness pushed me over the top.”[/B]

[/QUOTE]

[url]https://www.si.com/nba/heat/miami-news/phoenix-suns-bradley-beal-says-the-miami-heat-were-his-preferred-trade-destination[/url]


So other teams passed because of the contract and then here comes this crazy new owner who doesn't understand the NBA. That same guy was just quoted as saying that 26 other teams would happily trade places with the Suns.

:roll:

[QUOTE=DMAVS41;14907236]For where the Suns were...it is really hard to call it an overpay imo.

You could call the trade stupid in that they shouldn't have traded for Beal...and that, imo, is perfectly reasonable...but to call it an overpay considering what little they gave up for a team with like a 3 year window max...I don't know, they just didn't pay much that matters to them.

Like I said above, whether or not they should have traded for Beal is a whole different story.

And just to clarify...our debate was never about the Suns trade. It was about whether or not Beal's contract would hurt the Wizards and with some...whether or not he could even be traded without attaching assets...and I think it is simply objective...that the other side was wrong about that.

But that other side might be right about Beal's on court value, especially for a team like the Suns...but that was never the debate.

Nobody, to my knowledge...ever argued Beal was a top 6 player...Blaze seemed the highest on him and I don't even think he was arguing anything beyond borderline all-star level player.[/QUOTE]

It was an overpay imo. Bunch of role guys went for a few 2nds at the deadline. Suns could’ve gotten 2 starter lvl role guys for the package they gave up for Beal imo. Those role guys might be a bit overpaid but not as much as Beal was so hence they overpaid for Beal. Teams had interest in Beal but we don’t know what they offered and one teams offer doesn’t determine the market. Gobert was considered a bit of an iffy asset on his contract and look wat he fetched no one else was going offer close to that.

I remember being on the other side too arguing with you. My answer was I prefer cap space for the wizards. Maybe it’s irrelevant to argument too but they wasted a year for mediocrity in a very strong draft class. I do know for sure there were deals to be had to absorb bad contracts into cap space and you would get a 1st too. Davis bertans richaun Holmes etc. Now even with suns overpay, wizards are stuck with 1 1st those 2nds and swaps and Poole. I think I saw you say in this thread you can move poole for a worse contract and assets I heavily disagree. It can change by next year(just like how Beal went from a negative contract to one of the worst in the league) but last offseason and now Poole is one of the worst contracts in league there’s no obvious worse contract to trade for.

And finally the supermax is meant for all-nba players at very least. Some don’t get the full supermax even like gobert. paying a borderline all star a supermax is just gonna be more of a negative asset than a role player making 25% more than he should. Terry rozier went for Lowry and a low value 1st, yea you could’ve gotten him+miles bridges for the cp3 package to give one alternative

[QUOTE=tontoz;14907238]Let's hear what Beal himself had to say:



[url]https://www.si.com/nba/heat/miami-news/phoenix-suns-bradley-beal-says-the-miami-heat-were-his-preferred-trade-destination[/url]


So other teams passed because of the contract and then here comes this crazy new owner who doesn't understand the NBA. That same guy was just quoted as saying that 26 other teams would happily trade places with the Suns.

:roll:[/QUOTE]

That dude is not going to give in.

You could explain it had to be a perfect storm of events until you are blue in the face and he is going to act like he was correct because Beal was traded so he was not [I]literally[/I] untradeable. He only comes here to stubbornly argue until the other person gives up from fatigue and he can pat himself on the back for being "correct"

[QUOTE=Charlie Sheen;14907256]That dude is not going to give in.

You could explain it had to be a perfect storm of events until you are blue in the face and he is going to act like he was correct because Beal was traded so he was not [I]literally[/I] untradeable. He only comes here to stubbornly argue until the other person gives up from fatigue and he can pat himself on the back for being "correct"[/QUOTE]

Yeah Beal was "easily" tradable because some new owner came in and had no clue what he was doing. Cool story bro.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14907259]Yeah Beal was "easily" tradable because some new owner came in and had no clue what he was doing. Cool story bro.[/QUOTE]

Yea tbf can still be tradable but doesn’t mean positive value. Miami didn’t even want to include a 1st with Lowry+drob(2 marginally negative contracts).

[QUOTE=tontoz;14907238]Let's hear what Beal himself had to say:



[url]https://www.si.com/nba/heat/miami-news/phoenix-suns-bradley-beal-says-the-miami-heat-were-his-preferred-trade-destination[/url]


So other teams passed because of the contract and then here comes this crazy new owner who doesn't understand the NBA. That same guy was just quoted as saying that 26 other teams would happily trade places with the Suns.

:roll:[/QUOTE]

Yes, his quote literally proves that other teams were interested.

You asked for me to list the other teams that were interested....and I listed them...then you quote Beal saying exactly what I said....and think it somehow works in your favor?

Again, you aren't interested in reality. He was traded within a few days / weeks of becoming available...multiple teams showed interest, and he got positive value for the Wizards.

Sorry...

[QUOTE=Charlie Sheen;14907256]That dude is not going to give in.

You could explain it had to be a perfect storm of events until you are blue in the face and he is going to act like he was correct because Beal was traded so he was not [I]literally[/I] untradeable. He only comes here to stubbornly argue until the other person gives up from fatigue and he can pat himself on the back for being "correct"[/QUOTE]

This is what losers and people that were wrong do. They say things like "I would have been right if only this team didn't do this...or I would have won if this thing didn't happen"...

It's almost like there is always an owner / team willing to take on an all-star level player around 30 years old in a win-now situation....

But, you are right....that never happens....it was a "perfect storm"

Jesus you people are ignorant as shit.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41;14907362]Yes, his quote literally proves that other teams were interested.

You asked for me to list the other teams that were interested....and I listed them...then you quote Beal saying exactly what I said....and think it somehow works in your favor?

Again, you aren't interested in reality. He was traded within a few days / weeks of becoming available...multiple teams showed interest, and he got positive value for the Wizards.

Sorry...[/QUOTE]


:roll:

The reality is that all those teams declined because of his contract. Those we literally his words .

Multiple teams doing their due diligence looking into it, and declining due to his contract, shows the blatant stupidity of your position.

Sorry

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;14907249]It was an overpay imo. Bunch of role guys went for a few 2nds at the deadline. Suns could’ve gotten 2 starter lvl role guys for the package they gave up for Beal imo. Those role guys might be a bit overpaid but not as much as Beal was so hence they overpaid for Beal. Teams had interest in Beal but we don’t know what they offered and one teams offer doesn’t determine the market. Gobert was considered a bit of an iffy asset on his contract and look wat he fetched no one else was going offer close to that.

I remember being on the other side too arguing with you. My answer was I prefer cap space for the wizards. Maybe it’s irrelevant to argument too but they wasted a year for mediocrity in a very strong draft class. I do know for sure there were deals to be had to absorb bad contracts into cap space and you would get a 1st too. Davis bertans richaun Holmes etc. Now even with suns overpay, wizards are stuck with 1 1st those 2nds and swaps and Poole. I think I saw you say in this thread you can move poole for a worse contract and assets I heavily disagree. It can change by next year(just like how Beal went from a negative contract to one of the worst in the league) but last offseason and now Poole is one of the worst contracts in league there’s no obvious worse contract to trade for.

And finally the supermax is meant for all-nba players at very least. Some don’t get the full supermax even like gobert. paying a borderline all star a supermax is just gonna be more of a negative asset than a role player making 25% more than he should. Terry rozier went for Lowry and a low value 1st, yea you could’ve gotten him+miles bridges for the cp3 package to give one alternative[/QUOTE]

Yea, I never said it was stupid to let him walk and tank. I just thought it was slightly better to sign him and move him. I would have wanted to take on Simmons from the Nets. I think the Wizards messed up not taking back a contract as bad as Simmons to get more

We disagree on the overpay because it was so marginal, but I understand your argument about the Suns being better off doing something else. I likely agree depending on the specifics.

The supermax is meant for players that qualify for it. The players negotiated it that way. I never even argued Beal was worth that, because he obviously isn't....but we all just need to make peace with this big contracts because they aren't stopping. The players fought for that and they aren't going to be cool with guys that qualify for something not getting at least 90% of their personal max in most situations.

Agree or disagree...doesn't matter...it is what it is.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14907364]:roll:

The reality is that all those teams declined because of his contract. Those we literally his words .

Multiple teams doing their due diligence looking into it, and declining due to his contract, shows the blatant stupidity of your position.

Sorry[/QUOTE]

They declined, but were interested.

Do you think a team being "interested" mandates that they make the trade? Do you not know what words mean?

He was traded for positive value....you can't admit it...so you need to pretend a NBA team / owner taking a risk in a win-now situation is some rare event because you can't admit to being wrong on an anonymous message board.

Think about that for a second you clown....:roll::roll::roll:

[QUOTE=DMAVS41;14907366]They declined, but were interested.

Do you think a team being "interested" mandates that they make the trade? Do you not know what words mean?

He was traded for positive value....you can't admit it...so you need to pretend a NBA team / owner taking a risk in a win-now situation is some rare event because you can't admit to being wrong on an anonymous message board.

Think about that for a second you clown....:roll::roll::roll:[/QUOTE]

Interested and actually making an offer aren't the same thing. A team is just doing it's due diligence if Beal is willing to go there

If they decline due to his contract then that just shows that his contract is tough to trade.

Sorry if you can't accept this, or are too dumb to comprehend it.

Traded for positive value or basically for free? Which is it?