jeremyd236 wrote:JimmyTheKid wrote:Ok, fine, so why was Monta untouchable at the deadline?
Why do you and others continue to throw this statement around? There's absolutely 0 evidence that suggests this is true at all, and common sense should steer you in the right direction.
There's reports ATL wanted Monta...from a week ago. There's also reports that they wanted Sanders thrown in the trade, and Hammond wanted no part of that. Which do you think makes more sense?
It makes sense to me. The Bucks could have really thought that they would have a much better chance to get Smith to resign with them if they could keep Monta. The Nets wanted Monta to help their pursuit of Howard last offseason,and the Hawks have almost nobody under contract besides Horford next year and are going to be chasing Howard this offseason. I could see Monta being the key piece for the Hawks, and I could also see the Bucks considering him untouchable because they felt like Smith would be a half season rental unless they held onto him. Yes it would take real stupidity on the bucks part to behave that way, but u would probably of course agree that the fact it would take real stupidity on the bucks part to behave that was strengthens my case rather than weakens it. It actually fits right into a longstanding pattern.