dougthonus wrote:DuckIII wrote:The fact that Dumars said he tried to trade it 4 times and only got it done the 5th time with the least valuable pick of the lot skews a lot more toward’s Red’s theory than you are willing to admit.
I’m not saying it’s necessarily equal likelihoods or that his speculation is correct, but it’s solidly plausible. Frankly the certainty of your position smells a little of pre-existing bias given Dumars’ comments. Which to be fair, anyone who understands how to evaluate GMs - which certainly includes you as arguably the best at it on the board - would be right to have pre-existing bias regarding AK.
1: This argument becomes less and less plausible with every failed negotiation, and we were the last negotiation prior to #13
No, you have it backwards. It becomes more plausible with each failed opportunity. I guess you have to see both of my posts together. My second one explains it better.
2: I'm not aware of anyone denying this offer was on the table for us, is anyone denying it? So far, it just seems like internet posters deciding that it wasn't and KC Johnson speculating (but not reporting) that it wasn't though I haven't seen KC's video on it, just saw it referenced.
So? Who is supposed to deny it? Certainly not the Bulls if they are smart. "Hey, Noa, welcome to the team. Hold on a second before we announce you, so I can tell the assembled media we would have preferred a trade to the Pels had we gotten a better offer." I also don't think Red is saying it wasn't offered. He's providing a plausible alternative to the person actually taking a definitive position, which is you.
3: The best possible reading here is that we're bad at negotiating because Dumars WAS willing to trade a package for Queen (this is simply a fact because he did it), and we were unable to get him to that point.
Its one reading. Its just not iron clad the way you are stating it. I've personally witnessed it, many many times over the course of a 25 year career of negotiating multi-million dollar deals that have a ticking clock. People will take less or give more all the time at the last minute when they believe time is about to run out. It happens Doug. I don't know what to tell you.
And the analogy applies here because we know Queen was the singular asset that Dumars was fixated on. He wanted that specific player. You want to completely discount the tick tocking of the clock, and there is a rationale to your explanation. But its limited to the abstract, and does not take human nature into consideration. Human nature which I have personally seen play out in comparable circumstances many times.
I mean what are we suggesting here, if Dumars calls AK and offers something less (But was clearly willing to do more because he in fact did more) that AK is off the hook for simply saying "no"? That's an incredibly low bar for your GM. Whether Dumars offered this explicit deal or not, AK should have been able to extract it if he was good at his job and made an attempt.
Dumars, when pushed, was willing to make this deal, so either we had the deal and said no, we didn't try to negotiate, we were unable to negotiate it. All three show varying levels of incompetence given the deal took place a pick later.
This is still contingent on your singular premise that Dumars was going to offer everyone exactly the same thing despite the ticking clock dynamic. I reject the premise as definitive in the way you present it. The alternative is perfectly plausible albeit perhaps not equally likely.
This kind of reminds me of a line by Bill Maher in Religulous. He noted that he had the easier argument because organized religion sells certainly where there can be none, and atheists and agnostics sell a far more defensible position - doubt. Your position is certainly plausible as well. In my view you are just overstating your case.
