BK had most 4 year draft capitol of any GM...EVER?

[AHF]

This will clarify everything for me.

Three people begin work as Assistant Managers for Burger King on January 1, 2004. Their names are AM1, AM2 and AM3.

Each gets paid a straight salary of $1500/week. Their salary does not change from January 1, 2004 through the present.

None of them has any other source of income and none has any assets or debts prior to starting work on January 1, 2004.

AM1 takes a loan in 2005 that he will finish repaying in 2015.

AM2 defers 5% of his salary into a 401K account from January 1, 2004 through the present.

AM3 simply takes his check every week and lives off that.

In your mind, the capital or assets that each of these people had to work with from 2004-2007 are different.

Correct?

(Like the Portland pick) AM2 has more future assets and fewer assets used between 2004-2007 than AM1 or AM3.

(Like the Hawks) AM1 gave up his present rights to future income and has fewer future assets between 2004-2007 than AM2 or AM3.

When you look at how much capital each of these guys had to work with, it is different for each one, right?

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

This will clarify everything for me.

Three people begin work as Assistant Managers for Burger King on January 1, 2004. Their names are AM1, AM2 and AM3.

Each gets paid a straight salary of $1500/week. Their salary does not change from January 1, 2004 through the present.

None of them has any other source of income and none has any assets or debts prior to starting work on January 1, 2004.

AM1 takes a loan in 2005 that he will finish repaying in 2015.

AM2 defers 5% of his salary into a 401K account from January 1, 2004 through the present.

AM3 simply takes his check every week and lives off that.

In your mind, the capital or assets that each of these people had to work with from 2004-2007 are different.

Correct?

(Like the Portland pick) AM2 has more future assets and fewer assets used between 2004-2007 than AM1 or AM3.

(Like the Hawks) AM1 gave up his present rights to future income and has fewer future assets between 2004-2007 than AM2 or AM3.

When you look at how much capital each of these guys had to work with, it is different for each one, right?

---

you just had to go and introduce math into the argument, didn't ya?

[leftwich]

this thread is ridiculous and takes up half the main page, stop.

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

this thread is ridiculous and takes up half the main page, stop.

---

Kind of like the Yi Summer League thread?

Exactly what is it knocking off the front page?

[leftwich]

This thread is a bunch of middle school girls arguing what the term draft "capitol" means as if there's a murder trial verdict at stake.

[leftwich]

and that wasn't directed towards you, gsuteke. just realized i replied to your post.

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

and that wasn't directed towards you, gsuteke. just realized i replied to your post.

---

no big deal.

there ain't a whole lot going on right now though.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

this thread is ridiculous and takes up half the main page, stop.

---

I'm not sure if you realize this, but you can go to your user preferences and make the threads collapse so you aren't seeing every post in a thread and will simply have the threads listed in order of the one with the most recent post. It will also indicate which threads have been posted in since you last reviewed them. Which is to say that no one should complain that you just added 3 more posts to this already unwieldy thread since they can just adjust their preferences.

[leftwich]

Quote:

---

I'm not sure if you realize this, but you can go to your user preferences and make the threads collapse

---

i honstly didn't, thank you. in that case, flame on.

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'm not sure if you realize this, but you can go to your user preferences and make the threads collapse

---

i honstly didn't, thank you. in that case, flame on.

---

flame on...... I love it.

you do get alot of liberty over here.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

When you look at how much capital each of these guys had to work with, it is different for each one, right?

---

Qualified yes. JJ STILL represents capital for us. He just does not represent "draft capital". He would represent the "loan" the individual who took to later be paid off in (in this case) draft pick installments.

The original question I posed regarded the amount of draft capital utilized to build THIS (as in this year's) team. We have mortgaged some of our future (next year's pick) to build this year's team. Ads much as I like Portland's capital, Portland has not done that. Certainly we could trade JJ just like they could trade the 2008 pick (meaning both have trade value), BUT THEIR 2008 PICK CAN NOT PLAY FOR THEM NOW. Only JJ currently has value, meanign can produce, as a player. As such I did not include their 2008 pick UNUSED vs. including our 2008 pick USED acquiring JJ.

While Portland has had some good fortune in their draft selection winning lottery and decent draft years I don't believe they have had more draft capital than we have. Just as much of their most recent good fortune came as a result of our front office incompetence and their shrewdness. There is no way in hell Roy should be on their team and I'm frankly shocked at the Chicago trade of Aldridge for TT. The trade of Telfair was masterful also. Portland's GM the last 2 years has been exceptional.

In short, had we gotten Roy (and Portland whomever) and ANY other of Deng, Paul, or Deron and Chicago not traded Thomas for Aldridge, IMO we would not only have had the greater draft capital but the greater returns for our draft capital spent.

W

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'm not sure if you realize this, but you can go to your user preferences and make the threads collapse

---

i honstly didn't, thank you. in that case, flame on.

---

I wasn't being sarcastic with that. I think that option really improves the site.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

When you look at how much capital each of these guys had to work with, it is different for each one, right?

---

Qualified yes.

---

That amount to a fundamental disagreement that we aren't going to resolve in discussion then. In my mind, all three people in the hypothetical I mentioned had the exact same assets at their disposal and just used them in different ways. To me, if you are asking for assets over a period of time you can't base that on what a team has done with those assets.

On the other hand, the question of whether the capital that has gone into putting this team together is the most in NBA history is a different one from asking about capital over a 4 year period.

In terms of recent teams, how about the capital that went into the 2003-04 Bulls?

1999 - #1 overall, #16 overall

2000 - #4 overall, #8 overall, #24 overall

2001 - #4 overall

2002 - #2 overall

2003 - #7 overall

= 1 (30), 2 (29), 4 (27), 4 (27), 7 (24), 8 (23), 16 (15), 24 (7) = 182

That favorably compares to the Hawks last five years:

2003 - #21

2004 - #6 overall, #17 overall

2005 - #2 overall

2006 - #5 overall

2007 - #3 overall, #11 overall

+ 2008 (assumed by W to be 11) + Philly pick (assumed by W to be 30)

= 2 (29), 3 (28), 5 (26), 6 (25), 11 (20), 11 (20), 17 (14), 21 (10), 30 (1) = 173