**Breaking** Trey Burke being discussed in Trades!!!!

[Coach Ellis]

Hopefully DL has learned the lesson with Kanter's trade and decided to trade Burke now!

Agreed. He's done well to rehab his trade value as a bench scorer, but I just don't see him as a long-term fit. Better to get something while he's still well regarded and on a good contract, than to hang onto him until the relationship sours and the best they can get for him is peanuts and addition by subtraction.

 

[kabenac]

Totally hypothetical and made up, but would any of you trade Burke to Houston for Lawson and a 1st round pick?

 

[Coach Ellis]

Totally hypothetical and made up, but would any of you trade Burke to Houston for Lawson and a 1st round pick?

No. Lawson is toxic and his non-guaranteed contract has more value than he does. Jazz don't need to get rid of Burke to create cap space, so they should look to add something of quantitative value if they're trading him. I'm fine if they go bigger for Burke, but I don't see Lawson as the right fit.

 

[silesian]

Diminishing returns? You understand the law or look finance up on wikipedia?

Sunk cost fallacy has nothing to do with diminishing returns.

I do corporate finance/valuation/deals/development for a living and studied at grad level.

 

[Maneesh]

Sunk cost fallacy has nothing to do with diminishing returns.

I do corporate finance/valuation/deals/development for a living and studied at grad level.

So?

 

[Maneesh]

By holding Kanter and everything else can stay constant and time go on returns diminish. I learn this from greatest finance school all of Bulgaria!

 

[Maneesh]

Cost can be sunk only because Jazz let it DUH!

 

[Maneesh]

I remember last year I wait for my great Heor Kanter to be trade and hope yield ugh return and even think when I hear it what the???I remember for one second I can get a little excite when I hear Lamb, but then it comes out... I hope this time we can have some good trade and make us more stable for short and long term!

 

[gregbroncs]

Cost can be sunk only because Jazz let it DUH!

Cost was sunk because he didn't work out. He was a bad investment with the 3rd pick. But he sabotaged his value demanding a trade. However the Jazz got more than fair value considering OKC is now paying a backup big like a starter. So as I always said getting anything for him was a win, because the Jazz had no interest in having him on the roster, we were losing him for nothing if they waited.

 

[Maneesh]

Cost was sunk because he didn't work out. He was a bad investment with the 3rd pick. But he sabotaged his value demanding a trade. However the Jazz got more than fair value considering OKC is now paying a backup big like a starter. So as I always said getting anything for him was a win, because the Jazz had no interest in having on the roster, we were losing him for nothing if they waited.

We should
1> Never take him. I knew it!
2> Trade him for Harden!
3> Trade him before last year Trade deadline!

We wait. know we pat ourself and say oh well "sunk cost" Sunk cost means bad choice!

 

[gregbroncs]

We should
1> Never take him. I knew it!
2> Trade him for Harden!
3> Trade him before last year Trade deadline!

We wait. know we pat ourself and say oh well "sunk cost" Sunk cost means bad choice!

Good god how is this so hard to understand. Yes he was a bad 3rd pick the cost was lost as soon as you make that choice. Never in any universe was Kanter going to get you Harden. They traded him when they had to, you have no idea if anybody offered more prior to that trade. If you trade him earlier you may get more, or you may not. His value was never that high for any of his stint here.

 

[Maneesh]

Good god how is this so hard to understand. Yes he was a bad 3rd pick the cost was lost as soon as you make that choice. Never in any universe was Kanter going to get you Harden. They traded him when they had to, you have no idea if anybody offered more prior to that trade. If you trade him earlier you may get more, or you may not. His value was never that high for any of his stint here.

You don't know what you can even SAY! It is on record OKC offer Harden for Kanter and filler. Don't yell me guy!

 

[gregbroncs]

You don't know what you can even SAY! It is on record OKC offer Harden for Kanter and filler. Don't yell me guy!

LINK? if it's on record give the link, I have not seen this. What was the filler? Also don't forget that was going to be a 3 month rental of Harden as well, so without a guarantee of an extension or the Jazz knowing they were matching the contract that can change it.

 

[Stifle Tower]

You don't know what you can even SAY! It is on record OKC offer Harden for Kanter and filler. Don't yell me guy!

Link?

And as gregbroncs said, Houston traded for Harden because they got a guarantee he would re-sign with them.

And let me ask you this, OKC is paying how much in luxury tax? They were ONLY willing to take Kanter because they thought by doing so, it would show Durant they are willing to make some moves. $16M for a BENCH player who is now getting LESS minutes than he was with Utah. CRAZY!!!

 

[latin jazz]

We should
1> Never take him. I knew it!
2> Trade him for Harden!
3> Trade him before last year Trade deadline!

We wait. know we pat ourself and say oh well "sunk cost" Sunk cost means bad choice!

It wasn't sunk cost because at the end of the day he had some value moving forward, at least for OKC. He didn't help the Jazz case by requesting a trade.

BTW, if you want to look smart, then you should read about 'Hindsight Bias'. Everything is so obvious when we look into the past right? I recommend you to read "Connecting the Dots" on Gladwell.com

Then you might stop making this silly argument

 

[Maneesh]

It wasn't sunk cost because at the end of the day he had some value moving forward, at least for OKC. He didn't help the Jazz case by requesting a trade.

BTW, if you want to look smart, then you should read about 'Hindsight Bias'. Everything is so obvious when we look into the past right? I recommend you to read "Connecting the Dots" on Gladwell.com

Then you might stop making this silly argument

Who asked you? You just make it more silly.

 

[silesian]

Cost was sunk because he didn't work out.

You may want to take some time to understand the concept before abusing it and embarrassing yourself.

Sunk means "in the past" and is value neutral, nothing to do with whether they are good or bad.

 

[Jazz4ever]

Who asked you? You just make it more silly.

Your Big Al persona is starting to mix with your current alt it seems. Try to keep them separate.

 

[gregbroncs]

You may want to take some time to understand the concept before abusing it and embarrassing yourself.

Sunk means "in the past" and is value neutral, nothing to do with whether they are good or bad.

Fair enough that was his argument though. That his cost was sunk.

 

[Coach Ellis]

LINK? if it's on record give the link, I have not seen this. What was the filler? Also don't forget that was going to be a 3 month rental of Harden as well, so without a guarantee of an extension or the Jazz knowing they were matching the contract that can change it.

I've never seen anything stating that the Jazz made a solid offer, just that they inquired and had some nice pieces to work with (Kanter, Burks and draft picks), but everyone knew that wherever Harden went he was getting a 5 year max contract. As a RFA, there was no downside to making that trade since you'd retain the right to match any offer sheet.

I wanted this trade to happen at the time simply because Harden was clearly an Alpha scorer and would've paired well with Favors/Hayward for the future - plus the Jazz still had Jefferson, Millsap and Carroll on the roster - gotta think that Millsap and DMC stick around if the Jazz had gotten Harden and made the playoffs that year.