• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Windy: Sessions traded to LA

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Grade the Trade for the Cavs

  • A

    Votes: 109 33.9%

  • B

    Votes: 168 52.2%

  • C

    Votes: 34 10.6%

  • D

    Votes: 6 1.9%

  • F

    Votes: 5 1.6%
  • Total voters
    322
RTrees said:
I like this idea, and posted similarly. But it is it really worth buying a pick to move up from 30 to 28? It would only seem to be worth trading late first round level assets or buying a late pick if it gave you the opportunity to move up more significantly. I guess 28th is better than 30th. But this option is especially worth considering if both the Heat and Lakers have relatively bad years next year. 28th might not be bad enough.
Click to expand...

It just opens up a lot of contingencies. For instance, if we trade the Heat pick as part of a deal to trade up in this draft, we can potentially recoup our ability to snag the Laker's pick.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll try to make the most of the picks we have. We'll have lots of options for trading them, trading up with them, or just using them. If we get lucky along the way and one of those picks end up much better than projected? Jackpot.

Just like in Vegas ... you've got to play to win ....
 
KeyzerSozee said:
I am a Contracts Attorney. I will admit I have not seen the agreement. But I find it extremely difficult to believe that would be allowed. I do not think it would EVER happen unless it was "Least Favorable Pick . . . of any team whose pick the Cavaliers might acquire". First, I do not think you can read the agreement if it is only least favorable. Why? As of the signing of the Agreement (purely from a contract negotiating point of view) the Cavaliers do not have any such pick. A contract requires a "meeting of the minds", and I am sure such a scenario is probably not anything either side could claim to have been contemplated when the Agreement was made (unless specifically provided).

And I have to think that there is a lot of language as to the swap. Why? What if we trade the Heat Pick or a bunch of other scenarios? Does our trade partner get to swap the Heat Pick for the Lakers? If we get the pick back is it anchored to that one as something that came from the Heat Pick? My guess would be neither and the swap option is cancelled. The goal of a (good) contract is to provide for anything unforeseen. I am sure that the terms are very specific.
Click to expand...

Ok, sounds like its unlikely that we pulled one over on them, i guess the hope is that both teams were aware of the possibility and it was written into the deal. As Grant said, there was a lot of specific wording in the contract, probably about exactly the situations you described. If they needed to call officials to make sure things were ok, i would think that would hint at more complex options like the one I/we are hoping for, because it would be pretty simple to just say "the swap option is cancelled".

I wish they would just publish the deal itself for people like us.
 
KeyzerSozee said:
I My guess would be neither and the swap option is cancelled. The goal of a (good) contract is to provide for anything unforeseen. I am sure that the terms are very specific.
Click to expand...

NBA GMs do love their flexibility and they wouldn't lock themselves down unless they had to. The option in this case might not be tied to our picks, but to the Laker's pick. If they trade the pick, the condition would still apply to the team that received it.

Anyway, I'm sure they could work out the language. The only question is whether the presser truly conveyed what was agreed upon.
 
KeyzerSozee said:
Something I was thinking about. What did they grade the CP3 deal (when believed to LAL)? How could they possibly put this in the "A" category for the lakers, which implies that acquiring CP3 was about on the same level (as I'm sure it was an "A")????????????
And this would otherwise be an "A" except for "some misgivings"? Hollinger needs to stick to numbers.
Click to expand...

Becasue they were giving up more to get cp3. The Lakers were trading Gasol and Odom, not a late 1st round pick

This trade was a win/win for both teams.
 
KeyzerSozee said:
I am a Contracts Attorney. I will admit I have not seen the agreement. But I find it extremely difficult to believe that would be allowed. I do not think it would EVER happen unless it was "Least Favorable Pick . . . of any team whose pick the Cavaliers might acquire". First, I do not think you can read the agreement if it is only least favorable. Why? As of the signing of the Agreement (purely from a contract negotiating point of view) the Cavaliers do not have any such pick. A contract requires a "meeting of the minds", and I am sure such a scenario is probably not anything either side could claim to have been contemplated when the Agreement was made (unless specifically provided).

And I have to think that there is a lot of language as to the swap. Why? What if we trade the Heat Pick or a bunch of other scenarios? Does our trade partner get to swap the Heat Pick for the Lakers? If we get the pick back is it anchored to that one as something that came from the Heat Pick? My guess would be neither and the swap option is cancelled. The goal of a (good) contract is to provide for anything unforeseen. I am sure that the terms are very specific.
Click to expand...

I agree that in all likelihood the deal says least favorable pick....of the 2013 Cavs and Heat picks currently owned by the Cavs.

But if it doesnt.... :D

And also in a court of law "least favorable pick" should be fine for the Cavs since it's implied that it's the Cavs that are doing the favoring since it's the "Cavs' (ownership grammar) least favorable pick". The Lakers wouldn't be able then to argue that the 30th pick is more favorable than the 22nd for instance. It's the CAV'S least favorable, so they make the call, no?

I haven't seen the contract either, and am only pretending to know what the phrasing is and how a judge would rule the phrasing. You probably know better than I on this. I guess we just wait for the details to come out and things become more clear.
 
I just can't believe that the 2013 swap is completely unprotected, I keep expecting Lakers to clarify that it is lottery protected like the 2012 pick. Unbelievable that Grant managed to acquire another unprotected pick. I like how we can sit back and watch the LAL circus potentially fall apart, and there are so many possible triggers:
1. kobe injury
2.gasol trade
3. mike brown's offense
4. sessions as a starting pg
5. eyenga as a defensive stopper
6. mother f'n artest is a ticking time bomb.
 
RTrees said:
I think the apples and oranges cliche applies here. Grading trades is usually based on what is given versus what was gotten. So Pau and CP3 don't apply to the grading of the Sessions deal.

You could have a barrel full of apples and pick the best one, that would be an A. You could have a barrel full of oranges and pick the best one, that would be an A. But you can't grade one species of fruit versus the other, and then call it a grade of the fruit itself, especially when the commissioner of fruit has squashed one of the two fruits before it could be eaten.
Click to expand...

Ok that made me laugh. But I don't think it is exactly apples to oranges. Just because you make a trade to make your team better it is not an "A". It shouldn't be. That's like giving 20% of the class on a bell curve. I would think that acquiring franchise players putting you on a path to a championship is an "A". Was getting Sessions good? Yes. But, was the CP3 deal better? Well you said yourself it was too good so the NBA nixxed it. I just don't see how you cannot compare the two. This is as close as you can get as the Lakers had two scenarios (one fell through) for getting a guy hoping to assist Kobe. It is completely Comparable and if you want use the PER of Hollinger, it shows that even with no one at PF with CP3, wins added is greater than Gasol and Sessions. If every trade made to improve a team was an "A" then I would think any trade not dumping salary is an "A" as that is always the goal. The bottom line is it should raise eyebrows to have said before Cp3 deal, homerun, getting the Cavaliers Backup PG? Also an "A". I don't see it.

And I have a problem with journalists not doing a bit more work in comparing the deals and position of the Lakers, choosing instead to just say, yeah that's an "A".
 
Sorry to say, but I don't see the Lakers in the lottery next season. Kobe doesn't show signs of significantly slowing down, and if he has to, Gasol and Bynum can produce. And if they trade Gasol or Bynum they will get something very significant in return. So I don't think the fact that the pick is unprotected will really matter. Granted they will be one year older, but Gasol hasn't missed really significant time in a while, neither has Kobe. Those two are enough to get them in the playoffs alone.
 
KeyzerSozee said:
Ok that made me laugh. But I don't think it is exactly apples to oranges. Just because you make a trade to make your team better it is not an "A". It shouldn't be. That's like giving 20% of the class on a bell curve. I would think that acquiring franchise players putting you on a path to a championship is an "A". Was getting Sessions good? Yes. But, was the CP3 deal better? Well you said yourself it was too good so the NBA nixxed it. I just don't see how you cannot compare the two. This is as close as you can get as the Lakers had two scenarios (one fell through) for getting a guy hoping to assist Kobe. It is completely Comparable and if you want use the PER of Hollinger, it shows that even with no one at PF with CP3, wins added is greater than Gasol and Sessions. If every trade made to improve a team was an "A" then I would think any trade not dumping salary is an "A" as that is always the goal. The bottom line is it should raise eyebrows to have said before Cp3 deal, homerun, getting the Cavaliers Backup PG? Also an "A". I don't see it.

And I have a problem with journalists not doing a bit more work in comparing the deals and position of the Lakers, choosing instead to just say, yeah that's an "A".
Click to expand...

I think what you're grading here is not the trade itself, but the splash-factor of the trade.

In that context, yes this trade would be marked much lower. Small splash versus big splash.

Still don't know why you're comparing the two though since Stern is the lifeguard of that pool and will not allow cannonballs.
 
supergoat52 said:
Ok, sounds like its unlikely that we pulled one over on them, i guess the hope is that both teams were aware of the possibility and it was written into the deal. As Grant said, there was a lot of specific wording in the contract, probably about exactly the situations you described. If they needed to call officials to make sure things were ok, i would think that would hint at more complex options like the one I/we are hoping for, because it would be pretty simple to just say "the swap option is cancelled".

I wish they would just publish the deal itself for people like us.
Click to expand...

Me too. I mean it is possible that it is too broadly worded . . . still. But, people send drafts back and forth inserting "reasonable" and most are pretty good at thinking of contingencies. However, considering it did not come up until the 400's here, it is possible they missed it. And said "Cavs picks" or something.

If it did say something like the Cavs have the right to swap a higher pick they have the rights to- for the Lakers, I think your guys ideas are probably right. I see it as increasingly likely that it is possible because I imagine they have pretty standard language (just like any attorney, they have thousands of forms) but since this doesn't come up often, they may have had to actually make it up. It would be nice if you could see the actual agreement or what they submit to the league.
 
RTrees said:
I agree that in all likelihood the deal says least favorable pick....of the 2013 Cavs and Heat picks currently owned by the Cavs.

But if it doesnt.... :D

And also in a court of law "least favorable pick" should be fine for the Cavs since it's implied that it's the Cavs that are doing the favoring since it's the "Cavs' (ownership grammar) least favorable pick". The Lakers wouldn't be able then to argue that the 30th pick is more favorable than the 22nd for instance. It's the CAV'S least favorable, so they make the call, no?

I haven't seen the contract either, and am only pretending to know what the phrasing is and how a judge would rule the phrasing. You probably know better than I on this. I guess we just wait for the details to come out and things become more clear.
Click to expand...

(Ohio Law) you are to construe the terms of a contract given their ordinary meaning (unless to do so would lead to absurd results). That is if it is "unambiguous". Now, if it was simply something like "the Cavs can change positions if any of their draft picks are later", I think they could make a pretty good argument that you are right.

I just doubt it didn't provide for contingencies. And is probably a pretty lengthy doc. I tried to find ANY trade submitted (in it's contract form) to get an idea to speculate, but couldn't find. If anyone knows like in docstoc PM me a mssg/link, because I bet the contracts are almost always identical (except for what is traded).

Again, I have never seen a trade doc. It could be 1 page, it could be 1000. The closest is a friend of mine sold a script to harvey weinstein for $800,000.00 and had me look at it because it's not getting made. It was unbelievable how much thought went into it when I read it. There is little wiggle room.

BTW: Writing a script bought by miramax gets you a lot of money. LOL
 
KeyzerSozee said:
It is completely Comparable and if you want use the PER of Hollinger, it shows that even with no one at PF with CP3, wins added is greater than Gasol and Sessions. If every trade made to improve a team was an "A" then I would think any trade not dumping salary is an "A" as that is always the goal. The bottom line is it should raise eyebrows to have said before Cp3 deal, homerun, getting the Cavaliers Backup PG? Also an "A". I don't see it.
Click to expand...

What if the CP3 deal was never on the table? What would you compare the Sessions deal to then?

I don't think it's a big deal to judge the deal standalone based on what a team needed, the ability of what they got to fill that need, and what they had to give up to get it.

The only problem with the "A" score is that Hollinger undervalued what the Lakers gave up - as for whatever reason he decided a 1st round pick was only worth $3m. If that's truly the case, then the Lakers could easily replace the ones they traded..
 
beginning to warm up to this trade with the ability to take best 2 of 3 picks next year between lakers/cavs/heat. plus the cash considerations could make up for a significant part of that salary the cavs would be paying to walton. still think the lakers won this trade but not nearly as much as I thought last night.
 
IWantAKouki said:
Sorry to say, but I don't see the Lakers in the lottery next season.
Click to expand...

Nobody does... it's just a little bonus like that 2.8% chance we had to win the lottery with the Clipper's pick. Keep pulling the handle, and eventually you win the jackpot.
 
This is going to be a trade that cannot truly be graded until several things happen, much like the trade that landed Gasol in LA. That trade seemed like a terrible trade at the time, but got Memphis another franchise or near franchise center-4 seasons or so later. Horribly lopsided trade turned into Grizzlies picking up a really good player at just the right time when the team was gelling with other young picks.

Once we go through the 2 drafts using Lakers picks it will be much easier to grade, but even then we will have to wait years perhaps to see the player development. Also, considering how many late picks the Cavs have acquired, the likelihood of drafting a player that develops in Europe for awhile goes up if there are not open roster spots for all these picks.

The fastest way to grade the trade would be if the pick(s) is packaged and traded for a known player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top