AROUND the NBA:

[Jmaciscool]

I guess I’m stuck. Aren’t results the only real measure of a value-based decision?

Back in 1990, I kept my Novell stock and sold my Microsoft stock. In retrospect, it was a really bad trade - because of the results.

I suppose that, if you’re using some other measure than team success, you could render an absolute and immediate judgment.

So, let me try to state your position: “The Luka trade was a bad trade because I don’t like it.”

I certainly can’t argue with that!

Sorry, I guess I didn't explain my position very well if that's what you got from it.

My feeling is that you have to factor in the risks and likely outcomes. So for me it's not "The Luka trade was bad because I didn't like it" but instead "the Luka trade was bad because it traded a younger generational talent for an older generational talent without getting compensated accordingly for the difference in talent and age of the players." That's not even taking into account the lack of shopping for other offers, the fact the Mavs sent back a second round pick, etc. 

Put another way, and to use a variation of your example, let's say the Mavs traded Gafford for Jokic, and in the first game Jokic gets a career ending injury and never plays another game for the Mavs while Gafford helps Denver win four rings. Would that be a good trade? I would argue the trade itself was still good but had an unfortunate outcome that wasn't likely (but not impossible).

Hopefully that helps better explain where I'm coming from.