Thank the Lord Otis traded Ariza!

[mhectorgato]

If thats your attempt at a apology; then your its accepted.

Lets get this thread back on topic; if people can leave me to do my job, or better still give me no reason to step in then thats even better.

[maginno]

If thats your attempt at a apology; then your its accepted.

Lets get this thread back on topic; if people can leave me to do my job, or better still give me no reason to step in then thats even better.

Will do. Had no idea you were requesting a public apology though.

[maginno]

Back on topic Cook and Evans contributions > Ariza's. So in the short term the Magic got the better end of the deal. Long term is anyones guess so its hard to argue from any position other than the Magic winning in this trade. Unless of course someone knows the future.

Not sure I understand the way that that is written. I think you were saying theres no way of knowing who won the trade long term and I completely agree with that. Gato has floated the short term idea but I just don't see trades being evaluated on a fe w months basis. Not when the goal is to build a team toward a championship. Trades a are always long term moves or moves that get you immediately to a championship. Thats the logical goal of every team.

Great case is down here in Miami fans of the Heat were pretty divided over the trades made to bring in Walker and the other players brought in the same time. If you looked at that trade today. You'd call it a horrible failure. However in between there was a championship so every hit against the trade dies. IF not for that championship you'd call the trade horrid. So all trades have to be evaluated toward a championship or viewed in time towards that future goal. Just too soon Doesn't make good sense even if Ariza hadn't been injured and completely illogical just based on an injury.

[mhectorgato]

Not sure I understand the way that that is written. I think you were saying theres no way of knowing who won the trade long term and I completely agree with that. Gato has floated the short term idea but I just don't see trades being evaluated on a fe w months basis. Not when the goal is to build a team toward a championship. Trades a are always long term moves or moves that get you immediately to a championship. Thats the logical goal of every team.

Great case is down here in Miami fans of the Heat were pretty divided over the trades made to bring in Walker and the other players brought in the same time. If you looked at that trade today. You'd call it a horrible failure. However in between there was a championship so every hit against the trade dies. IF not for that championship you'd call the trade horrid. So all trades have to be evaluated toward a championship or viewed in time towards that future goal. Just too soon Doesn't make good sense even if Ariza hadn't been injured and completely illogical just based on an injury.

And using the championship is the only possible way to examine a trade in the short term?

The fact that we've gotten two rotation players that have helped to put us on track to win 50+ games, in I don't know how many years, means nothing?

The fact we have 2 rotation players that will help us to even have a winning record in many years means nothing?

The fact we have 2 rotation players that will help in the playoffs means nothing?

Sorry, just because you measure trades that way in the short term, doesn't mean anything to me, because I am happy to have 2 rotation players that have helped the team reached heights they haven't done in years.

When was the last time we had a division banner raised?

Evans and recently Cook (took him a little while to get going) have helped the team to achieve something that they have not done in years.

That's how why I evaluate the short-term trade as a success from our standpoint.

* I am retracting my decision to withdraw, because mags continues on this the only short-term viewpoint is championship track*

[maginno]

The fact that we've gotten two rotation players that have helped to put us on track to win 50+ games, in I don't know how many years, means nothing?

as you are found of saying - off point. you don't win a trade because you got a player that can play in games. Thats elementary. You can repeat it over and over but thats the issue in this thread. Who won the trade? So you win 50+ with them playing . I think you'd be really going off the deep end if you indicated COOK and Evans was THE REASON we are on that track. We were on that track before they came.

So its not a matter of it meaning nothing. False choice. Its that an injury doesn't prove anything about who won a trade. You keep bringing that up and I keep answering and then you claim I Ignore it. Have fun with that. I never have ignored it. I answered it again and again.

You got two guys in the rotation now - big whoop. IF they aren't good enough to play next year or leave what good does that do in building a championship team?

Take a lesson form the Patriots. NO patriot fan is jumping up and down over regular season wins. So we'll see over the next year or so. the only place where you can see the illogical notion that you can determine the winner of a trade after a few months because of a temporary injury is this board. Its definitely a Homer's viewpoint and please don't even try to claim Homer is a bad word. Its used to denote the natural tendency of fans to over estimate their own team's situation. Nothing more.

[BassMaster]

Not sure I understand the way that that is written. I think you were saying theres no way of knowing who won the trade long term and I completely agree with that. Gato has floated the short term idea but I just don't see trades being evaluated on a fe w months basis. Not when the goal is to build a team toward a championship. Trades a are always long term moves or moves that get you immediately to a championship. Thats the logical goal of every team.

Great case is down here in Miami fans of the Heat were pretty divided over the trades made to bring in Walker and the other players brought in the same time. If you looked at that trade today. You'd call it a horrible failure. However in between there was a championship so every hit against the trade dies. IF not for that championship you'd call the trade horrid. So all trades have to be evaluated toward a championship or viewed in time towards that future goal. Just too soon Doesn't make good sense even if Ariza hadn't been injured and completely illogical just based on an injury.

And using the championship is the only possible way to examine a trade in the short term?

The fact that we've gotten two rotation players that have helped to put us on track to win 50+ games, in I don't know how many years, means nothing?

The fact we have 2 rotation players that will help us to even have a winning record in many years means nothing?

The fact we have 2 rotation players that will help in the playoffs means nothing?

Sorry, just because you measure trades that way in the short term, doesn't mean anything to me, because I am happy to have 2 rotation players that have helped the team reached heights they haven't done in years.

When was the last time we had a division banner raised?

Evans and recently Cook (took him a little while to get going) have helped the team to achieve something that they have not done in years.

That's how why I evaluate the short-term trade as a success from our standpoint.

* I am retracting my decision to withdraw, because mags continues on this the only short-term viewpoint is championship track*

I totally agree with this post. The Magic are not looking short term, but long term. Otis Smith was correct when you look at the situation with the Heat. Yes they got their championship and now they have nothing, and will have nothing for a very long time. Yes short term served them well, but the end result is that they won't be vying for any more championships for a long time or ever with their present thinking.
Ariza was a good trade for the Magic long term. I suspect that the Magic will try and keep Evans, more then they will try and keep Dooling.
But that is just my opinion.

Evans and Cook helped the Magic get where they are today. Evans is starting if that isn't enough statement for you mag.
And Cook has turned the corner where his added presence has helped Dwight get some rest time on the bench instead of trying to play every minute of every game.
Ariza on the other hand has not helped the Lakers except in keeping a seat warm. Not the thing the Lakers wanted from this trade you think.
Long term outlooks look better with Cook as an added presence while Ariza who knows IF HE CAN GET HEALTHY is the big question for the Lakers as it was for the Magic and for every team he has played.
So yes good trade for the Magic short and long of it.

[mhectorgato]

as you are found of saying - off point.

Hardly - it's what you and I have been discussing.

you don't win a trade because you got a player that can play in games. Thats elementary.

Trading a player that wasn't being used and getting 2 back (1 still under contract for a few more seasons) that contribute every game, is a "win" in the short-term.

That's also elementary.

You can repeat it over and over but thats the issue in this thread. Who won the trade? So you win 50+ with them playing . I think you'd be really going off the deep end if you indicated COOK and Evans was THE REASON we are on that track. We were on that track before they came.

What I indicated was that, as rotation players they have had an impact in accomplishing that.

Yes, given the past, it's an accomplishment.

So its not a matter of it meaning nothing. False choice. Its that an injury doesn't prove anything about who won a trade.

Why do you keep bringing up the injury when I haven't?

You keep bringing that up and I keep answering and then you claim I Ignore it. Have fun with that. I never have ignored it. I answered it again and again.

I claim that you ignore any viewpoint that isn't yours, ie. short-term view not including the championship.

And that you ignore. You ignore that 2 > 1 in this case.

You got two guys in the rotation now - big whoop.

Verses having 1 player not, yes that is a good thing. Additionally, one of those rotation players is a starter.

IF they aren't good enough to play next year or leave what good does that do in building a championship team?

Cook is still under contract. It's entirely within reason that Evans will resign given that we have his rights and perhaps he enjoys the chemistry and direction we are going in.

Take a lesson form the Patriots. NO patriot fan is jumping up and down over regular season wins.

Before they won their championships, I'd imagine they were. Once they achieved that level of success, more was expected.

Coach's first season they went 5-11. The season before 8-8, and before that 9-7.

Once they went 11-5 with Belichick (sp?) more was expected.

Just like with the Magic - before this season, .500 was a good season. Now after this season, .500 is no longer a good season due to the success of this season - which our 2 new rotation players had a part in creating.

So we'll see over the next year or so. the only place where you can see the illogical notion that you can determine the winner of a trade after a few months because of a temporary injury is this board.

Its definitely a Homer's viewpoint.

Says you.

You are not the arbiter of what is a valid opinion and viewpoint. It's your opinion and you're entitled to that. But to say that anything else is false ...

Again what makes you so uniquely qualified to make such judgments?

[maginno]

-= original quote snipped =-



I totally agree with this post. The Magic are not looking short term, but long term.

Great! Progress at last. If the Ariza trade is about the long term then the only logical, rational approach to this is that the trade must be evaluated on those terms - long term. Its going to be amusing to see how as the OP you handle this because now essentially you have to now argue that a long term strategy can be evaluated by its short term success. Sorry. Long term hasn't happened yet and only a crystal ball can tell you how the long term will play out. So if you apply your own goals to common sense the trade can't be evaluated as a success or a win yet.

[mhectorgato]

Great! Progress at last. If the Ariza trade is about the long term then the only logical, rational approach to this is that the trade must be evaluated on those terms - long term. Its going to be amusing to see how as the OP you handle this because now essentially you have to now argue that a long term strategy can be evaluated by its short term success. Sorry. Long term hasn't happened yet and only a crystal ball can tell you how the long term will play out. So if you apply your own goals to common sense the trade can't be evaluated as a success or a win yet.

Of course you ignore - "totally agree with this post." was quotation of my post.



As well as this:

Evans and Cook helped the Magic get where they are today. Evans is starting if that isn't enough statement for you mag.
And Cook has turned the corner where his added presence has helped Dwight get some rest time on the bench instead of trying to play every minute of every game.
Ariza on the other hand has not helped the Lakers except in keeping a seat warm. Not the thing the Lakers wanted from this trade you think.
Long term outlooks look better with Cook as an added presence while Ariza who knows IF HE CAN GET HEALTHY is the big question for the Lakers as it was for the Magic and for every team he has played.
So yes good trade for the Magic short and long of it.

Nice job of picking and choosing!

[SOUL]

Evans has helped us (even with his chuckyness sometimes), and Cook has helped with some firepower off the bench. Ariza would have helped us if he got time, but he didn't. Which is why the trade has benefited us.. could we have gotten better (an actual backup bigman)? Probably.. but we have no idea what offers were on the table.

Beyond me why this is a debate worth 10 pages.

[BassMaster]

-= original quote snipped =-



Nice job of picking and choosing!

Yes I loved your post and of course someone who should be just ignored consider how much he values anyone else's viewpoint I did not agree with his post.
But that leaking brain of his did not catch that point of view since it didn't fit his little picture on this topic.
Thanks for noticing how much he skip's when it doesn't agree with his spin.
We have two healthly players to the Lakers one player who can't seem to stay healthly for any team.
Sounds like more long term gains then just short term you think.

[BassMaster]

Evans has helped us (even with his chuckyness sometimes), and Cook has helped with some firepower off the bench. Ariza would have helped us if he got time, but he didn't. Which is why the trade has benefited us.. could we have gotten better (an actual backup bigman)? Probably.. but we have no idea what offers were on the table.

Beyond me why this is a debate worth 10 pages.

maginno has to let everyone know just how bad the rest of us are in are posts and how she/he is always right.
That is the reason for 10 pages and counting.

[maginno]

Again what makes you so uniquely qualified to make such judgments?

Thats easy. General NBA consensus agrees with me. There isn't a soul outside of Orlando that is claiming who won the trade based on a few months. its totally invalid based on the history of the NBA. Anyone with even rudimentary experience in the NBA will tell you that trades are evaluated by course of time over a year , two or three.

You keep coming back to two for one and that also is not backed by the NBA. two even three players in a rotation are traded for one and two players ALL THE TIME. The Team that got back less players in the rotation are never automatically considered losers. exactly how long have you been following the NBA?

You ARE off point. When people talk about winning a trade they are talking about two teams not just your own. An examination of what the other team got is ALWAYS part of that analysis and of course its illogical to make that argument while the player is injured because at that time there is nothing to compare. Its a nice trick but won't work .
Anyone making an argument that Cook will definitely be in the rotation come November must have less confidence than I do in Otis (and that would be pretty bad). IF otis actually does his job and gets a PF and Battie comes back it doesn't take any imagination whatsoever to find Cookie monster riding pine and puff goes the two player in rotation theory.

Appreciate your enthusiasm for regular season wins but Otis himself will tell you its all about getting a ring. YOu trade toward that goal, You draft toward that goal, your sign free agents toward that goal and claiming that you cannot evaluate trades in the long term based on that goal will forever be nonsense.

That said . I'll say again with complete honesty - Have a great weekend Gato. The weekend calls and I have alot better things to do than write on a forum. Will get back to you on the flip flop.

[maginno]

-
But that leaking brain of his did not catch that point of view since it didn't fit his little picture on this topic.

Here we go again with the personal attacks that have nothing to do with the subject. Been instructed not to PM mods and usually when there are insults of this type directed this way its mums the word. So according to my earlier promise - I pass. I'm content to analyze and point out the failures in your logic any time = to wit.

There simply is no way that a temporary injury can say anything about the long term. Nada. the point wasn't missed because of any smallness . Its because its not a rational argument
.
Hey cougar you have a nice weekend too .

[mhectorgato]

Again what makes you so uniquely qualified to make such judgments?

Thats easy. General NBA consensus agrees with me. There isn't a soul outside of Orlando that is claiming who won the trade based on a few months. its totally invalid based on the history of the NBA. Anyone with even rudimentary experience in the NBA will tell you that trades are evaluated by course of time over a year , two or three.

You keep coming back to two for one and that also is not backed by the NBA. two even three players in a rotation are traded for one and two players ALL THE TIME. The Team that got back less players in the rotation are never automatically considered losers. exactly how long have you been following the NBA?

You ARE off point. When people talk about winning a trade they are talking about two teams not just your own. An examination of what the other team got is ALWAYS part of that analysis and of course its illogical to make that argument while the player is injured because at that time there is nothing to compare. Its a nice trick but won't work

Thanks for your opinion.

If it's more that an opinion, please provide proof.

Appreciate your enthusiasm for regular season wins

I appreciate how you brought up the Patriots and how that shown to be invalid and you just ignore that.

but Otis himself will tell you its all about getting a ring. YOu trade toward that goal, You draft toward that goal, your sign free agents toward that goal and claiming that you cannot evaluate trades in the long term based on that goal will forever be nonsense.

Again. If the team didn't even have .500 record last season, it's fool hardy to be expecting a championship next season. If Evans doesn't resign, we still will have Cook to be a rotation player in the coming season.

So if we win the championship next season, can we say that we won the trade?

If that's the sole definition of a good season, then 29 teams fail every year.

For me partial progress has been achieved with .500 + season. The next step for me as well will be defined in the playoffs. A second round appearance will be - for me - a definition of a successful season.

Of course, I want us to make it to the ECF and Finals, but with Detroit and Boston as strong as they are, that may be a tall order.

I understand that long term goals take short term goals and steps to make it there.

The attitude that SVG has brought is a big step towards that. The progress of Dwight is a step towards that. The way Hedo has come out of his shell is a step towards that.

Trading a non rotation player was a step towards that.

That said . I'll say again with complete honesty - Have a great weekend Gato. The weekend calls and I have alot better things to do than write on a forum. Will get back to you on the flip flop.

Ciao.

[BassMaster]

-= original quote snipped =-



Here we go again with the personal attacks that have nothing to do with the subject. Been instructed not to PM mods and usually when there are insults of this type directed this way its mums the word. So according to my earlier promise - I pass. I'm content to analyze and point out the failures in your logic any time = to wit.

There simply is no way that a temporary injury can say anything about the long term. Nada. the point wasn't missed because of any smallness . Its because its not a rational argument
.
Hey cougar you have a nice weekend too .

You are so good about spinning something to fit your opinion, Yes your opinion.
The best way is to take out of context what someone has posted and just use that part to fit what you are saying.
Lets see if you can take this since it is going to hurt, but I googled what you said about how all of the NBA agrees with you about the Evans/Cook for Ariza trade and what I found was that almost every site agree's with the rest of us that the Magic did very well with this trade getting two healthy players who have added to the Magic quality minutes while the Lakers are stuck with a player who is injury prone.
That this trade was a bad for the Lakers, but great for the Magic and fits into the long term goals of the Magic and also greatly helps the Magic short term. Solid trade job well done by Otis Smith.
Try checking your facts before you try that spin job on the rest of us it is getting tired.

[Bay_Areas_Finest]

"Blah Blah Blah"

Get over your hard-on for Ariza, kid.

Maurice Evans is better for this team. He actually knows how to make a perimeter shot, something Ariza could never do.

[MagicalMan]

-= original quote snipped =-



Not sure I understand the way that that is written. I think you were saying theres no way of knowing who won the trade long term and I completely agree with that. Gato has floated the short term idea but I just don't see trades being evaluated on a fe w months basis. Not when the goal is to build a team toward a championship. Trades a are always long term moves or moves that get you immediately to a championship. Thats the logical goal of every team.

Great case is down here in Miami fans of the Heat were pretty divided over the trades made to bring in Walker and the other players brought in the same time. If you looked at that trade today. You'd call it a horrible failure. However in between there was a championship so every hit against the trade dies. IF not for that championship you'd call the trade horrid. So all trades have to be evaluated toward a championship or viewed in time towards that future goal. Just too soon Doesn't make good sense even if Ariza hadn't been injured and completely illogical just based on an injury.

I think you evaluate a trade consistently throughout the season and into the future. As it stands now we have gotten the better end of the deal. That doesn't reflect long term success, but that is a moot point as no one knows the future. The only basis for judgment at this point is to look at contribution to date. In which case the Magic are getting better production from the deal. So short-term: Magic got the better deal; long term: impossible to predict.

[MagicalMan]

Again what makes you so uniquely qualified to make such judgments?

Thats easy. General NBA consensus agrees with me. There isn't a soul outside of Orlando that is claiming who won the trade based on a few months. its totally invalid based on the history of the NBA. Anyone with even rudimentary experience in the NBA will tell you that trades are evaluated by course of time over a year , two or three.

I see fans and media alike judging the Shaq/Marion and Kidd/Harris & Diop trades only weeks after the trade happened. Same with the Gasol trade. People everywhere are grading these trades. I dont see how the consensus is to wait or year or two. Actually I dont recall ever seeing a trade ignored for a couple of seasons before people start claiming who won/lost.

[BassMaster]

-= original quote snipped =-



I see fans and media alike judging the Shaq/Marion and Kidd/Harris & Diop trades only weeks after the trade happened. Same with the Gasol trade. People everywhere are grading these trades. I dont see how the consensus is to wait or year or two. Actually I dont recall ever seeing a trade ignored for a couple of seasons before people start claiming who won/lost.

As I mentioned after reading mags post that I googled this trade and found out that almost all experts say that the Magic got the better end of this trade. Two healthy players who are helping out their repective teams to one player who is injuried once again and not helping out said team.
At first people rode on Otis for this trade, but now after the way Evans has played and the way that Cook is finally playing people are happy that we have players helping out rather then riding the bench. Plus a lot of people have noticed that Ariza is hurt too often to help out any team that he has been on.
Mags seems to be the only one that needs two to three years to determine if a trade is good or bad. Of course this is the same person who thinks that the Heat will be playing to be the next div champion next year. It makes me wonder what kind of water she/he is drinking down in Miami, or maybe smokes something to make you say all of that with a straight face.