Go on record now.

[Norm Peterson]

There have been good trades in professional sports and bad trades in professional sports.  Some trades work out for both parties, some for neither, and others there's a clear winner in the arms length deal.

 

I realize there are no actual "trades" in college basketball the way  there are in the pros, but just pretend that we swapped Jacobson, Morrow, Horne and Fuller for Copeland, Palmer and Okeke.

 

Rate the trade.  Go on record now -- no 20/20 hindsight.  Before the games are played, how good of a deal would this have been as a trade?

[kldm64]

I'd take Copeland, Palmer and Okeke any day over Morrow, Jacobson, Horne and Fuller.  

[big red22]

Morrow > Okeke

Okeke > Jacobson

Copeland > Morrow

Copeland > Jacobson

Palmer > Horne

Palmer > Fuller

 

Fun being the 1st Vote 

 

I went "If this was a trade, this would have been a really good trade on our end: gave up a little; got a LOT!"

 

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by big red22

[hskr4life]

While Morrow was our biggest loss, I feel that we would have “come out well” in terms of a trade.  Yes we lost some good players, but we added pieces that are necessary that we really didn’t have before.  

[Norm Peterson]

13 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

While Morrow was our biggest loss, I feel that we would have “come out well” in terms of a trade.  Yes we lost some good players, but we added pieces that are necessary that we really didn’t have before.  

 

Absolutely.  This trade filled some needs.  We gave up two starters and we got two starters, but the skillsets of the guys we got are better than the skillsets of the guys we gave up.

 

And by giving up 4 roster spots in exchange for 3, we cleared up some space under the salary cap that allowed us to sign a couple of free agents in the off-season.*

 

Great roster management by the coaching staff.

 

*  Given the current controversy and scandal involving shoe companies, I want to emphasize this is an allegory, a metaphor; it's not meant literally.

[jayschool]

I will go with Miles' comments at the conference media festival. He said that when players think of themselves fitting into a particular spot in the lineup, they become a detriment to team unity when they're asked to play in another spot. On team chemistry alone, I'll say the trade was a slight net positive.

[Norm Peterson]

Just now, jayschool said:

I will go with Miles' comments at the conference media festival. He said that when players think of themselves fitting into a particular spot in the lineup, they become a detriment to team unity when they're asked to play in another spot. On team chemistry alone, I'll say the trade was a slight net positive.

 

I think I know exactly what he's alluding to. 

 

Hint: this chemistry issue corresponds almost exactly with the timing of our end-of-season swoon last year.

[nuhusker7]

This is a tough question for me. If this were the NBA, it would be an easy answer for me, we got better players than we lost so we got the better end of the stick. In essence our new players would have a better video game rating than the ones who left.

 

There are just so many other aspects to college basketball, and that's personally why I love it more than the NBA. These are 18-22 year old kids, what often gets lost is the team chemistry, the adjusting to a new city, the adjusting to a new academic program, the relationships that the players have with each other and the coaches, girlfriends back home, and a myriad of other issues that aren't related to someone's basketball talent.

 

Who knows, the adjustments and fresh starts for everyone could be the best thing that happened to everyone on both sides, but it also might not. I just wonder would a Michael Jacobson that has been at Nebraska with the same coaching staff, system, and comfort level for 4 years be better in the long run than a more talented player that comes in for 1 or two years?

 

I guess this is just a long way of me saying  the new guys are probably more talented, so to answer the specific question posted I think it is a great "trade". But my cop out answer is we will have to wait and see how the new guys adjust to Nebraska, and how well old guys adjust at their new homes.

[nuhusker7]

22 minutes ago, jayschool said:

I will go with Miles' comments at the conference media festival. He said that when players think of themselves fitting into a particular spot in the lineup, they become a detriment to team unity when they're asked to play in another spot. On team chemistry alone, I'll say the trade was a slight net positive.

I agree with this. I was writing my post about the same issues when you posted this.

[jimmykc]

Can't vote until I see them play.

[Norm Peterson]

1 hour ago, jimmykc said:

Can't vote until I see them play.

 

Kind of defeats the purpose, Jimmy. You’re supposed to vote without the benefit of hindsight. 

[Huskerpapa]

Much will depend on Morrow and Copeland.  They seem to be the stars of the trade.  Yet, the sleeper is Mr. Palmer. 

[HB]

I  Could go on record now, but it would be ridiculous since I haven't seen any of them play one second of basketball.    Never been a fan of completely uninformed opinions.   So I abstain.  

[colhusker]

6 hours ago, jayschool said:

I will go with Miles' comments at the conference media festival. He said that when players think of themselves fitting into a particular spot in the lineup, they become a detriment to team unity when they're asked to play in another spot. On team chemistry alone, I'll say the trade was a slight net positive.

That comment by him caught my attention too.

[trickey]

5 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Absolutely.  This trade filled some needs.  We gave up two starters and we got two starters, but the skillsets of the guys we got are better than the skillsets of the guys we gave up.

 

And by giving up 4 roster spots in exchange for 3, we cleared up some space under the salary cap that allowed us to sign a couple of free agents in the off-season.*

 

Great roster management by the coaching staff.

 

*  Given the current controversy and scandal involving shoe companies, I want to emphasize this is an allegory, a metaphor; it's not meant literally.

 

Let's not kid ourselves!

Two years ago we all realized Fuller was going to go to a smaller program so he could try to play some significant minutes.

Therefore, it is only 3 transfers we are concerned about.

Morrow is the biggest loss as a rebounder.

I believe Jacobsen and Morrow realized they were both going to be challenged by those who were ineligible.

Morrow wants to be a 3....good luck to him unless he developed an outside shot.

Jake had good D, yet he saw he could not carry the day on the offensive end of the court.

Horne retreats to Tulsa...enough said!

 

This was a good old fashioned upgrade by trade!

 

[NoladrianSephier]

One aspect I'll be interested in is Morrow's health. We'll feel pretty good about our guys if they stay healthy and Morrow is gimpy half the season.

[hhcmatt]

Seems like this was phrased better under 'will this team be better than last year's' because this trade as structured is intellectually dishonest.

Here was our roster for this year when the season ended last year.

 

 

Palmer and Copeland were already part of the team before the other 4 guys left.

Really we have traded:

 

MJ, Ed, JH, and Fuller for Dube, Thomas Allen, Thor, and an empty scholarship.

If one wants to go a step further in knowing that Fuller was going to grad transfer we're talking about 

MJ, Ed, and JH for Dube, Thor, and an empty scholarship.  With all due respect to Dube, Thor, and no one, the other 3 guys would have provided a lot more depth. On the other hand, you can look at D. Biggs for the value of addition by subtraction.

 

Now...is our team chemistry going to be better with 3 guys gone who would probably be griping about lack of playing time/starting off the roster? Will the big discussion point be that we're just one rebounder away from winning some games? Are we going to get another 5 star mid season? 

 

[AuroranHusker]

I think this is an exercise in projections based on perceived value according to the coming & going players' future production and playing time. Even though Palmer & Copeland were on the roster as transfers, this is still an interesting take on the situation. I believe Nebraska upgraded at PF, C, & SF in the process (Jordy/Duby taking Eddie's minutes at the C spot is a hidden part of this conclusion because Okeke & Tshimanga are true post players that will be imposing figures in the middle).

[Norm Peterson]

Interesting point, Dimes, but completely immaterial to what I was interested in examining.  There’s also no actual trades in college basketball but you’re willing to suspend disbelief for one part of my poll based an a fictional scenario but not the other.

Edited October 21, 2017 by Norm Peterson

[Handy Johnson]

I'd say Copeland and Palmer are the best of the whole lot without even considering Okeke.  Let's not forget, for all of the hand wringing over the departure of Jacobson and Morrow, neither one of them could shoot a lick.

[nebrasketball10]

On 10/20/2017 at 4:02 PM, Norm Peterson said:

There have been good trades in professional sports and bad trades in professional sports.  Some trades work out for both parties, some for neither, and others there's a clear winner in the arms length deal.

 

I realize there are no actual "trades" in college basketball the way  there are in the pros, but just pretend that we swapped Jacobson, Morrow, Horne and Fuller for Copeland, Palmer and Okeke.

 

Rate the trade.  Go on record now -- no 20/20 hindsight.  Before the games are played, how good of a deal would this have been as a trade?

My memory is poor... wouldn't we have had Palmer regardless of those guys leaving? And wouldn't we have had a scholarship available for Copeland either way? 

[nebrasketball10]

Just now, nebrasketball10 said:

My memory is poor... wouldn't we have had Palmer regardless of those guys leaving? And wouldn't we have had a scholarship available for Copeland either way? 

Never mind...Dimes' post answered my question. 

[aphilso1]

4 hours ago, Handy Johnson said:

I'd say Copeland and Palmer are the best of the whole lot without even considering Okeke.  Let's not forget, for all of the hand wringing over the departure of Jacobson and Morrow, neither one of them could shoot a lick.

 

Morrow was the best off-the-ball offensive player we had by a HUGE margin.  No one else positioned themselves for easy buckets in an even remotely comparable way.  That skillet will be sorely missed this year, unless someone on the current roster drastically changes their approach on the offensive end.

[aphilso1]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again.  The ability to rebound the basketball will be key to this team's success.  That was the one thing we were actually good at last year, based on three guys that were solid rebounders (Ed, Jacobson, Jordy) and another who was great relative to his position (Tai).  Three of those four guys are gone.  The game film I've seen of Copeland leaves me seriously questioning his willingness to rebound.  Okeke is proven.  Palmer is somewhere in between.  I can easily see this team improving significantly in offensive efficiency and scoring, but ending up with only a slightly better record.  If that happens, I think an unwillingness to put in work on the glass is a likely reason.  For that reason I consider this hypothetical trade only a marginal win.

[Huskerpapa]

We were a pretty good rebounding team last year, and it really didn't put us over the top.  There are many keys for us to be successful this upcoming season, rebounding is just one item on that list.