Speculation: Roster Building Thread - Part XIII (Nanaki edition)

haohmaru

boomshakalaka
Aug 26, 2009
16,996
11,581
Fleming Island, Fl
Yeah, no.

I respect your right to your opinion.
That said, my views on how they should deal long term generally work.

I said trade Buch early on when he had value b'c he still had term
I said no on wasteful rentals
etc
etc
etc

don't get em all right, no one does
but extending current window IS their best path now
and coupla big deals are needed for that

if smaller options are not better [judge each situation separately on merit]
then go big or go home

Which has no relation whatsoever to the ludicrously unrealistic trades you propose that will never happen.

And almost NOBODY liked the Buch deal so that’s not one I’d hang my hat on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SA16

TGWL

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 28, 2011
16,016
10,706
Which has no relation whatsoever to the ludicrously unrealistic trades you propose that will never happen.

And almost NOBODY liked the Buch deal so that’s not one I’d hang my hat on.
Yeah, I'd argue his value was probably high when the trade took place, it just we got taken to the wood shed on the actual trade.
 

bernmeister

Registered User
Jun 11, 2010
28,601
4,183
Da Big Apple
Which has no relation whatsoever to the ludicrously unrealistic trades you propose that will never happen.

And almost NOBODY liked the Buch deal so that’s not one I’d hang my hat on.

Yeah, I'd argue his value was probably high when the trade took place, it just we got taken to the wood shed on the actual trade.

Mic Drop......

respectfully disagree
yeah Buch had increased production evident later on when we dealt him
BUT
when that happened, his term was a sliver of rfa status

obv, we could have gotten more if he had less production but still showed upside potential while being offered more cheaply for longer term = greater value

given that reality, and fact we failed to make a deal earlier b'c we self rented Buch in win now posture when it was obvious to a blind man we were not gonna be cup finalists, value was not highest when we dealt him and we were lucky to get what we did under those misfire circumstances

--------

my props are arguably doable from a value standpoint at minimum
so not "ludicrously unrealistic"
howev, this misassessment is to be expected from someone who views Vesey as > than Rempe
 

TGWL

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 28, 2011
16,016
10,706
respectfully disagree
yeah Buch had increased production evident later on when we dealt him
BUT
when that happened, his term was a sliver of rfa status

obv, we could have gotten more if he had less production but still showed upside potential while being offered more cheaply for longer term = greater value

given that reality, and fact we failed to make a deal earlier b'c we self rented Buch in win now posture when it was obvious to a blind man we were not gonna be cup finalists, value was not highest when we dealt him and we were lucky to get what we did under those misfire circumstances

--------

my props are arguably doable from a value standpoint at minimum
so not "ludicrously unrealistic"
howev, this misassessment is to be expected from someone who views Vesey as > than Rempe
You don't just trade players away because you fear value may drop when the decision comes to actually trade him. You can't get in front of every situation just to make sure highest value was gotten on every trade. We all know players can't play prime years forever. Teams can't make decisions based on that player not being worth as much a year or 2 down the line, especially teams that want to compete.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad