JDL88

Anthony Davis Season Outlook 2018-2019

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, lacit1707 said:

yes, tatum is much better than kuzma...all kuz does is score...tatum does everything...

but its not just tatum.. its the picks that the pels want.... the young guys lakers offering, id say Ingram is the only one with supserstar potential...id say theyve all underperformed based on expectations except for kuzma....the lakers picks are not going to result in a superstar...

celtics have several picks they can give and all can potentially turn into an superstar...

 

heres where it gets dicey

 

2019

Sacramento Kings’ top-1 protected pick ( most likely a late first rounder this year)

Memphis Grizzlies (If pick falls outside top-8) - WASH

Los Angeles Clippers (If pick falls outside top-14) - WASH clips dont want to make playoffs

Own pick

2020

Memphis Grizzlies (If pick has not yet been conveyed and falls outside top-6) - Again, late first rounder?

Los Angeles Clippers (If pick has not yet been conveyed and falls outside top-14) - Not great

Own pick

2021

Memphis Grizzlies (If pick has not yet been conveyed. Pick would be unprotected) - Only real trading chip i see...how bad will Grizz be in 2021?

 

 

So I don't see any surefire home runs here guys with Celtics picks..I DO see Kuzma, Ingram, Ball though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lacit1707 said:

lol... they shouldnt have taken the lakers deal.... why should they? that offer isnt going anywhere.

lol...I said it because I've been in-house counsel for a large corporation and I knew the fall out that would arise if they didn't take it.  This circus is costing them a lot of money.  This is one of the worst PR nightmares in recent memory so even if they manage to squeeze a little more value out of a summer trade, whatever benefit they would receive will be negated by the loss of revenue and poor publicity.  Most of you are inept because you think about things solely from an on-court perspective which is the tip of the iceberg.  Teams exist to make money, period.  There's a reason why the ownership wanted a deal to be made and Demps was fired because he didn't get it done.  If you think the Lakers offer won't change and they will just accept it in the summer anyway then you have no concept of business whatsoever as this circus is costing them millions upon millions of dollars the longer it goes on, it is hurting (already has hurt) their image, and it hurts the morale of their front office because the staff doesn't want to go to work every day under a raincloud of controversy.  

Edited by StifleTower2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, StifleTower2 said:

lol...I said it because I've been in-house counsel for a large corporation and I knew the fall out that would arise if they didn't take it.  This circus is costing them a lot more money than a trade would have.  Most of you are inept because you think about things solely from an on-court perspective which is the tip of the iceberg.  Teams exist to make money, period.  There's a reason why the ownership wanted a deal to be made and Demps was fired because he didn't get it done.  If you think the Lakers offer won't change and they will just accept it in the summer anyway then you have no concept of business whatsoever as this circus is costing them millions upon millions of dollars the longer it goes on, it is hurting (already has hurt) their image, and it hurts the morale of their front office.  

how is not trading him costing the team money? elaborate....

if ownership really wanted the deal to be made, it would have been made regardless of what Demps wanted. if you think he was fired for this incident only, youre crazy. i basically disagree with it hurting pelicans image and the fact that the lakers offer will change in spite. they want AD and are going to lose him to celtics out of spite, thats really what youre going with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, lacit1707 said:

how is not trading him costing the team money? elaborate....

if ownership really wanted the deal to be made, it would have been made regardless of what Demps wanted. if you think he was fired for this incident only, youre crazy. i basically disagree with it hurting pelicans image and the fact that the lakers offer will change in spite. they want AD and are going to lose him to celtics out of spite, thats really what youre going with?

It's a PR disaster.  Ticket sales are declining.  There is a social media campaign to boycott Pelicans games.  I know that not all of their revenue comes from tickets, actually most comes from other sources, but it's a blow.  Now they have AD, are they going to play him?  Have to play him otherwise they will get fined.  But the Pels fans are booing him when he takes the court.  Also, every time he steps foot onto the court it's a risk.  Can't play him, can't sit him.  From a financial perspective it's like burning 1/4 of a season worth of revenue.

 

Imagine the following: you have an asset valued at one million dollars but holding on to it costs you 25% APR.  You have an offer to liquidate it for 900,000 right now.  Sure, you might be able to sell it for more than one million dollars a year from now, or you might not.  But regardless, it's costing you $250,000 to hold it long enough to find out.  So even if you get an offer for $1,100,000 later you still lost money.  That's the situation with AD from a financial perspective.

 

From a basketball standpoint maybe there's a reason to hold on until the summer. We don't know.  It's just annoying when people say there's no reason to trade him now.  Clearly there were reasons.    

Edited by StifleTower2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, StifleTower2 said:

It's a PR disaster.  Ticket sales are declining.  There is a social media campaign to boycott Pelicans games. 

I agree it is PR disaster, however I couldn't find anything about campaign to boycott Pelicans Games. If anything, looking at the comments at https://www.nola.com/pelicans,

 people do not want AD to play.  And your financial analysis does not include the value of assets coming back in AD trade.   Lakers offer is well known and projected future value for those players is not as high (they are not superstars) as  what Boston and other teams (any team who gets #1 pick this year) might offer. 

To me it looks like NO is willing to take a short term loss in order to get long term profit.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gile Pile said:

I agree it is PR disaster, however I couldn't find anything about campaign to boycott Pelicans Games. If anything, looking at the comments at https://www.nola.com/pelicans,

 people do not want AD to play.  And your financial analysis does not include the value of assets coming back in AD trade.   Lakers offer is well known and projected future value for those players is not as high (they are not superstars) as  what Boston and other teams (any team who gets #1 pick this year) might offer. 

To me it looks like NO is willing to take a short term loss in order to get long term profit.

You're really thinking of things from a basketball standpoint not a financial standpoint.  The assets the Pelican *might* receive from Boston *might* have more value from a on court perspective but I don't think Tatum is putting more butts in seats than Ingram, Lonzo, etc.  Either way they're going to be bad for a while.  I did hear that people don't want AD to play.  Suppose they don't play him.  You really think they'll have as much revenue as they would have if they took the Lakers deal?  No, because at least the Lakers deal would bring exciting new players to the team.  To me what they're doing is sacrificing short term value because they were flustered by the situation and didn't know what to do.  Now you guys are covering for them and making it seem like a smart move long term.  I imagine that come summer time the deal they accept will be roughly equal in value as the deal they turned down.  The only difference being the lost revenue which the owners care about, but you have the luxury of not caring because it isn't your money.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, StifleTower2 said:

It's a PR disaster.  Ticket sales are declining.  There is a social media campaign to boycott Pelicans games.  I know that not all of their sales comes from tickets, but it's a blow.  Now they have AD, are they going to play him?  Have to play him otherwise they will get fined.  But the Pels fans are booing him when he takes the court.  Also, every time he steps foot onto the court it's a risk.  Can't play him, can not play him.  From a financial perspective it's like burning 1/4 of a season worth of revenue.

Imagine the following: you have an asset valued at one million dollars but holding on to it costs you 25% APR.  You have an offer to liquidate it for 900,000 right now.  Sure, you might be able to sell it for more than one million dollars a year from now, or you might not.  But regardless, it's costing you $250,000 to hold it long enough to find out.  So even if you get an offer for $1,100,000 later you still lost money.  That's the situation with AD from a financial perspective.

From a basketball standpoint maybe there's a reason to hold on until the summer. We don't know.  It's just annoying when people say there's no reason to trade him now.  Clearly there were reasons.    

id have to see ticket sales numbers declining but thats a drop in the bucket...theyve been listed 23rd or 24th out of 30 every year basically with AD...so, people arent showing up regardless of this circus...what do you mean its like burning 1/4 of a season worth of revenue??? your example of 25% loss is rooted in what-ifs and not facts...the risk absolutely outweighs the loss by gauging the FULL market and not taking the lakers deal, especially when that deal really isnt that attractive. if it were really a great deal, Lakers wouldnt have offered it...

so yea, your "financial" reasons arent adding up at all to anything that says, make a deal now....also, youre clearly thinking short team, (tiny loss financially) by saying to move AD. the best deal you make, means the better your team will be... better floor product is what will bring fans in...so rushing a deal now to save a few bucks, in the long run will hurt them much more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lacit1707 said:

id have to see ticket sales numbers declining but thats a drop in the bucket...theyve been listed 23rd or 24th out of 30 every year basically with AD...so, people arent showing up regardless of this circus...what do you mean its like burning 1/4 of a season worth of revenue??? your example of 25% loss is rooted in what-ifs and not facts...the risk absolutely outweighs the loss by gauging the FULL market and not taking the lakers deal, especially when that deal really isnt that attractive. if it were really a great deal, Lakers wouldnt have offered it...

so yea, your "financial" reasons arent adding up at all to anything that says, make a deal now....also, youre clearly thinking short team, (tiny loss financially) by saying to move AD. the best deal you make, means the better your team will be... better floor product is what will bring fans in...so rushing a deal now to save a few bucks, in the long run will hurt them much more...

You're actually contradicting yourself.  You admit they're 23rd/24th.  You really think getting Tatum or whomever is going to boost their ticket sales above that?  No, they're going to be a bottom tier team regardless.  The only difference being the disaster that is the rest of this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, lacit1707 said:

if it were really a great deal, Lakers wouldnt have offered it...

 

They offered their whole team without Lebron and 2 1st round picks, cant really offer more than that unless you're the Nets :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, StifleTower2 said:

You're actually contradicting yourself.  You admit they're 23rd/24th.  You really think getting Tatum or whomever is going to boost their ticket sales above that?  No, they're going to be a bottom tier team regardless.  The only difference being the disaster that is the rest of this year.

no, obviously no one they get will be better than AD right now...but if they get tatum and 1 or 2 superstars in the future, yes, theyd be a good team which puts fans in the seats....and its not just the celtics...that zion pick would be more valuable to NO than the laker package...

the point was that the AD circus isnt going to hurt them financially and you havent proven otherwise. theyre attendance has always been awful, that was the point...

12 minutes ago, DezedandConfused said:

They offered their whole team without Lebron and 2 1st round picks, cant really offer more than that unless you're the Nets :rolleyes:

thats the point, NO doesnt value the lakers young core the way Lakers think they should be valued...i dont see any of those players being full out stars in the league. maaaaybe ingram but he hasnt been taking off as expected...

bottom line is that the pelicans had no incentive to make a deal now unless it blew them away. clearly the lakers package didnt blow them away and they value picks and tatum over the lakers deal...throw zion into the mix as well

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any sports, there are two things that sell lots of tickets:  winning  and superstars.

Lakers offer (Lonzo, Kuzma, Ingram, mid to late picks) does not provide either one of them.  

Why not wait if #1 pick can be obtained in trade for AD?  Or whatever   Boston and other teams will offer?

I don't know what NO  main revenue source is ( I would like to know that info for every team), but I guess that ticket sales are probably under 50%.  So sitting AD is not a big deal financially for team owners. They are are billionaires in real life. I kind of think those people know how to make money. 

If you own  AD in fantasy then it is a huge deal.    

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd think the fans in NO would be more excited in the chance they get the number one overall pick in the draft rather than a bunch of Lakers that haven't really lived up to expectations or have shown any semblance in actually gelling and performing well together so far in LA.  If they aren't working on the Lakers what incentive do the NO owners have in bringing these guys to NO? On the off chance that they'll suddenly become these great players. Those guys are hardly a core to build around. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every argument I’ve seen has to do with the assumption that they will get a more competitive package from a basketball perspective in the offseason.  No one has really addressed my point regarding revenue.  Only @lacit1707 has even attempted to do so by saying I don’t really have proof they are losing money.  I don’t have direct proof but I think it’s reasonable to assume that they will lose money in the short term given that it’s a dumpster fire.  Regardless, I’m just seeing the same arguments over and over again about better packages being available in the offseason without anyone providing good counter arguments to mine.  So at this point I’m just going to agree to disagree.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, StifleTower2 said:

Every argument I’ve seen has to do with the assumption that they will get a more competitive package from a basketball perspective in the offseason.  No one has really addressed my point regarding revenue.  Only @lacit1707 has even attempted to do so by saying I don’t really have proof they are losing money.  I don’t have direct proof but I think it’s reasonable to assume that they will lose money in the short term given that it’s a dumpster fire.  Regardless, I’m just seeing the same arguments over and over again about better packages being available in the offseason without anyone providing good counter arguments to mine.  So at this point I’m just going to agree to disagree.  

well, part of the problem is you are just saying, theyre losing money, without anything to back that up...

the fact that they can get a better package of players by waiting is directly correlated with increased revenue in the long run....i am only seeing an argument from you in the very short term...which again, is peanuts...dealing AD to the Lakers at trade deadline really doesnt help then gain value as a franchise, at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lacit1707 said:

well, part of the problem is you are just saying, theyre losing money, without anything to back that up...

the fact that they can get a better package of players by waiting is directly correlated with increased revenue in the long run....i am only seeing an argument from you in the very short term...which again, is peanuts...dealing AD to the Lakers at trade deadline really doesnt help then gain value as a franchise, at all.

Trade value will decline the closer it gets to FA. Boston's trade package will not be much better than the Laker's offer  you can bet on that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, StifleTower2 said:

Every argument I’ve seen has to do with the assumption that they will get a more competitive package from a basketball perspective in the offseason.  No one has really addressed my point regarding revenue.  Only @lacit1707 has even attempted to do so by saying I don’t really have proof they are losing money.  I don’t have direct proof but I think it’s reasonable to assume that they will lose money in the short term given that it’s a dumpster fire.  Regardless, I’m just seeing the same arguments over and over again about better packages being available in the offseason without anyone providing good counter arguments to mine.  So at this point I’m just going to agree to disagree.  

Their revenue will jump through the roof if Zion happens compared to the Laker deal.  In fact any time a team comes to a crossroads they'll be a lul followed by bump in revenue. The fans will start getting excited for the rebuild. As for the immediate revenue. These guys are billionaires for a reason. There are plenty of avenues to bring in more revenue. Ticket deals etc. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DezedandConfused said:

Trade value will decline the closer it gets to FA. Boston's trade package will not be much better than the Laker's offer  you can bet on that.

two things..... you agreed that celtics package would be better, if only marginally...so celtics is better..... second....theres a year and half left on AD contract....they have PLENTY of time...

Just now, HotSauce24 said:

meaning what?

honestly, if the Pels were smart, they would just pay the 2 mill up front and be done with this nonsense and prove a point to the nba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, lacit1707 said:

well, part of the problem is you are just saying, theyre losing money, without anything to back that up...

the fact that they can get a better package of players by waiting is directly correlated with increased revenue in the long run....i am only seeing an argument from you in the very short term...which again, is peanuts...dealing AD to the Lakers at trade deadline really doesnt help then gain value as a franchise, at all.

Nor do you have anything to back up your claim that they will have better offers in the summer.  They may not, they could have worse.  It’s all hypothetical which is why I’m going to make a graceful exit.  We have been taking circles for a week.  Must not be much else going on right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lacit1707 said:

two things..... you agreed that celtics package would be better, if only marginally...so celtics is better..... second....theres a year and half left on AD contract....they have PLENTY of time...

meaning what?

honestly, if the Pels were smart, they would just pay the 2 mill up front and be done with this nonsense and prove a point to the nba

That I think he will be shut down soon.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, lacit1707 said:

well, part of the problem is you are just saying, theyre losing money, without anything to back that up...

the fact that they can get a better package of players by waiting is directly correlated with increased revenue in the long run....i am only seeing an argument from you in the very short term...which again, is peanuts...dealing AD to the Lakers at trade deadline really doesnt help then gain value as a franchise, at all.

Nor do you have anything to back up your claim that they will have better offers in the summer.  They may not, they could have worse.  It’s all hypothetical which is why I’m going to make a graceful exit.  We have been taking circles for a week.  Must not be much else going on right now.

 

Sorry for the repost. 

Edited by StifleTower2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, StifleTower2 said:

Every argument I’ve seen has to do with the assumption that they will get a more competitive package from a basketball perspective in the offseason.  No one has really addressed my point regarding revenue.  Only @lacit1707 has even attempted to do so by saying I don’t really have proof they are losing money.  I don’t have direct proof but I think it’s reasonable to assume that they will lose money in the short term given that it’s a dumpster fire.  Regardless, I’m just seeing the same arguments over and over again about better packages being available in the offseason without anyone providing good counter arguments to mine.  So at this point I’m just going to agree to disagree.  

here  it is about revenue. Data is from 2016, I don't  believe it changed a lot since then.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/baileybrautigan/2016/03/21/where-all-that-money-comes-from-nba-team-valuations-visualized/#1465875d444f

In case you don't want to read entire article: 

"A team's total value is made up of four determining factors: Sport, Market, Arena and Brand.

Sport is the portion of a team's value attributable to revenue shared among all teams.
Market is the portion that comes from its city and market size (which determines the team's revenue per fan).
Arena is the part attributable to its arena (home game attendance, premium seating, non-NBA events, etc.)
And Brand comes from (you guessed it) the team's specific brand.

Breakdown for NO:
Team total value:  $650M
Sport: $319M
Market: $160M
Arena: $117M
Brand: $59M
Revenue per fan: $15 dollars"

Arena revenue (butts in the seats) is only 18% of the revenue.  Sitting or playing AD does not have huge impact on the revenue. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Rest rule" states: NOT to sit a star (when healthy to play), IF it's a Nationally televised game, OR an away game.  They have 23 games left. 12 of those are either Nationally televised or away games. The other 11 are just standard home games. That was the "rest rule" coming into the season.  My point is, I think Danny Ferry has some leverage here however small that may be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gile Pile said:

here  it is about revenue. Data is from 2016, I don't  believe it changed a lot since then.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/baileybrautigan/2016/03/21/where-all-that-money-comes-from-nba-team-valuations-visualized/#1465875d444f

In case you don't want to read entire article: 

"A team's total value is made up of four determining factors: Sport, Market, Arena and Brand.

Sport is the portion of a team's value attributable to revenue shared among all teams.
Market is the portion that comes from its city and market size (which determines the team's revenue per fan).
Arena is the part attributable to its arena (home game attendance, premium seating, non-NBA events, etc.)
And Brand comes from (you guessed it) the team's specific brand.

Breakdown for NO:
Team total value:  $650M
Sport: $319M
Market: $160M
Arena: $117M
Brand: $59M
Revenue per fan: $15 dollars"

Arena revenue (butts in the seats) is only 18% of the revenue.  Sitting or playing AD does not have huge impact on the revenue. 

I already said I knew that arena revenue is a small part of their overall revenue three posts ago.  But it’s also hurting their brand (image) by being a complete dumpster fire.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, StifleTower2 said:

I already said I knew that arena revenue is a small part of their overall revenue three posts ago.  But it’s also hurting their brand (image) by being a complete dumpster fire.  

Brand is only 9% of the revenue, so another minor impact

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.