• Since we moved our URL please clear your browsers history and cookies and try logging in again. Thank you and sorry for any inconvenience
  • Since we moved our URL please clear your browsers history and cookies and try logging in again. Thank you and sorry for any inconvenience

Philippine PBA Trades, Releases, Sign-ups, Rumours (vol. III)

  • Thread starter Thread starter rikhardur2
  • Start date Start date
greenarcher said:
Doesn't have to be Caperal. Jammer Jamito plus draft pick will do.
Click to expand...

Its difficult.. louie alas might think jamito isnt better than perkins or eriobu..they gave up on jonjon gabriel ..maybe phoenix or alas look for his old reliable faundoooo...
if dennis uy is rrally that rich , he needs to assert himself on antrade in getting almazan on a lopsided but lot of cash trade..
 
reamily said:
Phoenix lack above 6'5 big man...but Ginebra wont give caperal to them
Click to expand...

Phoenix have caperal before but traded him for a wing whose not getting much time. Silly for them to trade for him after letting him go when he was playing well for them as their tallest player.
 
neo said:
Phoenix have caperal before but traded him for a wing whose not getting much time. Silly for them to trade for him after letting him go when he was playing well for them as their tallest player.
Click to expand...

They gave mike miranda and caperal lol.. and im thinking earlier if who traded them av or alas...
Not all big men in thephils moves nad has strength like cs..
 
NOiNU said:
So you're saying the Chan trade isn't fair, even if it "looks okay", just because the haul (Phoenix's) pales in comparison with that of a previous trade? I'm sorry but I don't think that's an objective way of viewing parity of trades. Every trade should be viewed individually as each team's needs and projections are distinct from each other. One's trash could be another's fortune, they say.

Considering Chan's advanced age and next year's draft's depth, this is just fair and favorable to both parties concerned. To say otherwise using a separate, previous trade as the basis of argument is simply illogical. I don't think a review committee evaluates a pending trade by comparing it to previous ones.
Click to expand...

It's not fair because the selection committee set the gold standard already as to the equivalent value of a team starter. Forget about the trades that happened in the Narvasa tenure - that's apples and oranges. When Marcial came in, his first order of the day was to create this committee to ensure parity among trades. When TNT wanted to get Cruz from ROS, the committee shot down the deal of Cruz being swapped for a first rounder. To make it fair, according to the committee, TNT needed to sweeten things. Hence, Onwubere and Rosales.

How Onwubere and Rosales are doing today, after the trade, is irrelevant. No one would know how they would pan out after the trade.

What matters now here is this - is Chan the same or of higher value than Cruz? By minimum, they'd be the same. In general, Chan has greater value. If you cite Cruz's age, anyone can counter Chan's Gilas experience. In other words, the Commissioner cannot use intangibles when deciding for trade values.

There's no question that each trade value should be looked individually, not even close to arguing with you on that. But when you set a bar, just like what the selection committee did, when it came to deciding what constitutes fairness in trade, then that should be followed. It's that simple.

And we haven't even talked about the hush-hush deal that made this trade possible. The announcement was made on a Monday afternoon, which meant the proposal was submitted to the Commissioner on Friday at the latest. In the Cruz and Romeo transactions, the trade deals were leaked to media to serve as litmus test and measure the pulse of the fans. If fans feel it's lopsided in favor of TNT, then they'd ask TNT to add a few more until it is ok. In the Chan deal, there was no leak - just final approval. Interesting!
 
NOiNU said:
Considering Chan's advanced age and next year's draft's depth, this is just fair and favorable to both parties concerned. To say otherwise using a separate, previous trade as the basis of argument is simply illogical. I don't think a review committee evaluates a pending trade by comparing it to previous ones.
Click to expand...

And we shouldn't even be talking about draft depth as there's not one single player who has applied for the draft. Again, that's pure speculation they're doing, assuming you're correct with your prognosis. That has no place in the office of the PBA Commissioner. That's the illogical one, really...
 
NOiNU said:
Well, there's no such thing as a perfect trade, esp these kinds (current player for a pick). If Phoenix is amenable to it, for reasons only they know, then the Commissioner had to allow it because he simply can't rationalize for both teams involved. The only time he could do that is when the disparity of the pieces is glaring. In this case, we don't even know who might be the draft pick. Hence, let Phoenix roll the dice as it is a matter of boom or bust anyway.

Yeah, you have a decent player in Chan but feels he is redundance with the presence of Wright. Also, you're not even reaching the semifinals with what you have, might as well shake things up, right? Phoenix going for youth is not really a bad idea, and giving up Chan is not that steep of a price to pay.
Click to expand...

And KIA was also ok, "for reasons only they know," to give up their first overall pick for 4 scrubs right, using your argument? If you claim the CS deal was fair, then I won't elaborate any further.

Greenarcher is correct...if Ginebra merely gave up on another player or players like Manuel or Taha and Jamito, then that would have been "close to a perfect trade."
 
Jay P. Mercado said:
And KIA was also ok, "for reasons only they know," to give up their first overall pick for 4 scrubs right, using your argument? If you claim the CS deal was fair, then I won't elaborate any further.

Greenarcher is correct...if Ginebra merely gave up on another player or players like Manuel or Taha and Jamito, then that would have been "close to a perfect trade."
Click to expand...

Speaking of Taha, GSM is in the move and rolling.

https://twitter.com/pbaconnect/status/1009002927568982016/photo/1

Seargeant of globalport to Ginebra
Paolo Taha to Globalport
 
what tim cone see on sergeant or it is pido wanting taha as a 2 way champion pba player now..
 
Jay P. Mercado said:
And KIA was also ok, "for reasons only they know," to give up their first overall pick for 4 scrubs right, using your argument? If you claim the CS deal was fair, then I won't elaborate any further.

Greenarcher is correct...if Ginebra merely gave up on another player or players like Manuel or Taha and Jamito, then that would have been "close to a perfect trade."
Click to expand...
How you conveniently ignored "when the disparity of the pieces are glaring" is intellectual dishonesty. Obviously, in that case, the gap is just too big.

"Setting the golden standard" and and agreeing with me "trades should be viewed individually" is downright contradictory. When you say individually, you don't refer to anything but that particular trade's face value. Kaya nga individually eh.

I agree that we shouldn't look at the depth (or lack of it) of next year's draft. That indeed is irrelevant. What I am saying is, we gotta give the Phoenix management the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they are banking on Ginebra continuing its current struggle, and giving them Chan is some kind of a Trojan horse, muddling the rotation and chemistry. The deeper Ginebra falls, the higher that pick would be.

I honestly haven't put into consideration the "conspiracy" side of things. Admittedly, I also view the Chan side as the loser in this trade. That won't make me, though, (putting myself in commish's shoes) veto said trade. If you are arguing this issue in light of these under the table discussions, then it is moot for me to rebut as I am stating my case using solely face value as basis.
 
Jay P. Mercado said:
Jarencio was the head coach of Global Port when he traded Taha to KIA back in 2016.
Click to expand...

yup he get back amore experienced champion player 2015 pa yata..

Its not all the time that you trade a player because you dont want him, you can trade a payer vecause he might not be ready back then..
 
NOiNU said:
How you conveniently ignored "when the disparity of the pieces are glaring" is intellectual dishonesty. Obviously, in that case, the gap is just too big.

"Setting the golden standard" and and agreeing with me "trades should be viewed individually" is downright contradictory. When you say individually, you don't refer to anything but that particular trade's face value. Kaya nga individually eh.

I agree that we shouldn't look at the depth (or lack of it) of next year's draft. That indeed is irrelevant. What I am saying is, we gotta give the Phoenix management the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they are banking on Ginebra continuing its current struggle, and giving them Chan is some kind of a Trojan horse, muddling the rotation and chemistry. The deeper Ginebra falls, the higher that pick would be.

I honestly haven't put into consideration the "conspiracy" side of things. Admittedly, I also view the Chan side as the loser in this trade. That won't make me, though, (putting myself in commish's shoes) veto said trade. If you are arguing this issue in light of these under the table discussions, then it is moot for me to rebut as I am stating my case using solely face value as basis.
Click to expand...

Trades are approved based on a minimum standard requirement. It doesn't have anything to do with team needs and preferences. When the standard requirement is wrong from the getgo, and the PBA is willing to admit that, then I have no problem with the Chan trade to Ginebra. But that's the problem - the PBA acted indiscriminately when they didn't approve a straight Cruz-first round pick trade last February, an effect of the CS brouhaha.

Commissioners aren't there to "rationalize" for the teams. They are there to ensure that the trade is balanced. But how does one measure balance? it's not like Marcial will look at both teams and say, "ah, the pieces fit well, Ginebra needs a shooter, Phoenix doesn't need one and would opt for a young pick." That's not how Commissioners should think.

Instead, they refer to past actions to find out if a trade is indeed equal sided. Unfortunately, in the Cruz trade, they didn't have much basis because that was the first action taken by the selection committee in their effort to clean up trade deals. Which was why Cruz was overvalued - worried about the fans' backlash. But since everyone accepted this decision as just, fair and correct, that would have served as their basis for future decisions - a binding precedent. That's how the court rules, and while they take each case individually, there's a foundation for such argument.

I am not criticizing either Ginebra or Phoenix for making this move. If both teams feel they made the right decision, that's their call. But it's the Commissioner who ultimately decides on what is actually right. There lies the rub.
 
Jay P. Mercado said:
Trades are approved based on a minimum standard requirement. It doesn't have anything to do with team needs and preferences. When the standard requirement is wrong from the getgo, and the PBA is willing to admit that, then I have no problem with the Chan trade to Ginebra. But that's the problem - the PBA acted indiscriminately when they didn't approve a straight Cruz-first round pick trade last February, an effect of the CS brouhaha.

Commissioners aren't there to "rationalize" for the teams. They are there to ensure that the trade is balanced. But how does one measure balance? it's not like Marcial will look at both teams and say, "ah, the pieces fit well, Ginebra needs a shooter, Phoenix doesn't need one and would opt for a young pick." That's not how Commissioners should think.

Instead, they refer to past actions to find out if a trade is indeed equal sided. Unfortunately, in the Cruz trade, they didn't have much basis because that was the first action taken by the selection committee in their effort to clean up trade deals. Which was why Cruz was overvalued - worried about the fans' backlash. But since everyone accepted this decision as just, fair and correct, that would have served as their basis for future decisions - a binding precedent. That's how the court rules, and while they take each case individually, there's a foundation for such argument.

I am not criticizing either Ginebra or Phoenix for making this move. If both teams feel they made the right decision, that's their call. But it's the Commissioner who ultimately decides on what is actually right. There lies the rub.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but if you yourself think Cruz was overvalued, then you are effectively saying that that was a bad precedent. If some entity continues to make decisions using a bad precedent as basis, don't you think that's absurd? Isn't it better to forget the past mistakes and start anew?

I don't think the commissioner's office is binded to abide by the parameters of the Cruz trade. Bear in mind we are not talking about the court of law here, but a pro hoops commissioner's office.
 
u think the trade is fair.. and my standard of a fair trade is both parties agreed in principle to trade player x to player y... if there os a similar case of cs then its up to the league to nullify it in sense of league balance..
 
NOiNU said:
I understand your point, but if you yourself think Cruz was overvalued, then you are effectively saying that that was a bad precedent. If some entity continues to make decisions using a bad precedent as basis, don't you think that's absurd? Isn't it better to forget the past mistakes and start anew?

I don't think the commissioner's office is binded to abide by the parameters of the Cruz trade. Bear in mind we are not talking about the court of law here, but a pro hoops commissioner's office.
Click to expand...

Then that's the problem indeed. When the pledge of a Commissioner, upon assumption of office, was the cleaning of trade deals (as his first major step) by putting up a selection committee erred from the getgo. Who's to say that the selection committee was "rectifying" their past mistake? Conveniently, the correction happened to an SMC team, the very same beneficiaries of previous lopsided trades before Marcial's time - the very same trades that he vowed to eradicate.

The question now is....which is which? How can teams in the future, when they agree on trades, come up with arrangements when you have two different perspectives? How would they handle a possible Calvin Abueva trade? Is he worth a first round pick like Chan? Is he worth a first round pick plus filli-ins like Cruz? Is he worth a first round pick, a starter and a fill-in?

And it's not fair if the PBA tells them, "just let us decide when you've reached an agreement and we'll decide from there." Teams will base their agreements with other teams based on past decisions made by the Commissioner and his committee to come up with a sensible arrangement. At this point, which one would they follow?
 
Jay P. Mercado said:
Then that's the problem indeed. When the pledge of a Commissioner, upon assumption of office, was the cleaning of trade deals (as his first major step) by putting up a selection committee erred from the getgo. Who's to say that the selection committee was "rectifying" their past mistake? Conveniently, the correction happened to an SMC team, the very same beneficiaries of previous lopsided trades before Marcial's time - the very same trades that he vowed to eradicate.

The question now is....which is which? How can teams in the future, when they agree on trades, come up with arrangements when you have two different perspectives? How would they handle a possible Calvin Abueva trade? Is he worth a first round pick like Chan? Is he worth a first round pick plus filli-ins like Cruz? Is he worth a first round pick, a starter and a fill-in?

And it's not fair if the PBA tells them, "just let us decide when you've reached an agreement and we'll decide from there." Teams will base their agreements with other teams based on past decisions made by the Commissioner and his committee to come up with a sensible arrangement. At this point, which one would they follow?
Click to expand...

I think the simplest approach is this--board lets the commish do its job re trades and feel free to cry foul when they need be. Narvasa's head rolled when he pulled the CS trigger. I don't think Marcial would be any different should he follow Narvasa's footsteps, and he'd be dumb to do so.
 
NOiNU said:
I think the simplest approach is this--board lets the commish do its job re trades and feel free to cry foul when they need be. Narvasa's head rolled when he pulled the CS trigger. I don't think Marcial would be any different should he follow Narvasa's footsteps, and he'd be dumb to do so.
Click to expand...

I disagree, you don't empower a Commissioner without a foundation to work on - that'll be chaotic and lead to excess subjectivity. Neither should the Commissioner be put in a situation when his job is on the line for a wrong decision made. In Narvasa's case, he made several bad decisions, the CS case serving as the last straw.

I'm all for Commissioner independence - that is the ideal scenario. Just like the NBA. But just like its American league counterpart, Silver has enough precedent to work on when making decisions. Set up the parameters first (which was supposed to be the case with the selection committee) and then, give the Commissioner the latitude to decide accordingly.

For now, we can only shake our collective heads with this new dilemma created by Marcial...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top