You’re looking at this wrong. Washington doesn’t have to trade Beal. They “deserve” 2 1sts because that’s the price that will make them give up their most valuable trade asset today.

The question to be asking is why are the Pels allegedly considering taking on Parsons and going into the tax to put a 2nd 1st in the deal instead of using their own future 1st? Is there some mandate from the top? Maybe constructing such an unpalatable deal is to show Loomis that giving up 2 1sts isn’t the worst thing Demps could do.

Also, Frank and a 2nd to take on Parsons terrible contract? I’m sorry but you don’t give up value to take on bad contracts. That plus the tax implications pawel calculated says to me this doesn’t pass the sniff test. This is too stupid of a trade to troll us with so you should tell your source to stop messing with you. Again, the only reason to actually discuss this is if it’s an intentionally stupid trade designed to loosen limits from above. Or maybe it's about working Washington. "We really tried, but my boss won't let me trade Niko and 2 1sts. If you want the 2 1sts it has to be Randle."

This post was edited on 1/9/19 at 7:14 am

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by LouisianaJoseph

Denver

Member since Apr 2018

1393 posts

Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:30 am to TigerinATL

quote:

You’re looking at this wrong. Washington doesn’t have to trade Beal. They “deserve” 2 1sts because that’s the price that will make them give up their most valuable trade asset today.

The question to be asking is why are the Pels allegedly considering taking on Parsons and going into the tax to put a 2nd 1st in the deal instead of using their own future 1st? Is there some mandate from the top? Maybe constructing such an unpalatable deal is to show Loomis that giving up 2 1sts isn’t the worst thing Demps could do.

Also, Frank and a 2nd to take on Parsons terrible contract? I’m sorry but you don’t give up value to take on bad contracts. That plus the tax implications pawel calculated says to me this doesn’t pass the sniff test. This is too stupid of a trade to troll us with so you should tell your source to stop messing with you. Again, the only reason to actually discuss this is if it’s an intentionally stupid trade designed to loosen limits from above. Or maybe it's about working Washington. "We really tried, but my boss won't let me trade Niko and 2 1sts. If you want the 2 1sts it has to be Randle."

They don't "deserve" shite if we're taking Parsons. They deserve to send us at least 2 seconds if not a first for that horrible contract.
This trade makes 0 sense.

1 ...

Report Post

Pelicans Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board