"You can figure out why it was done...

[spectre_]

The Okafor/Chandler trade wasn't about the players, as LB has confirmed. Of course Battery won't own up to being wrong, though.

Ham, you're the best.

So do you guys think it was all about the money? If so...I'll re-ask the question: Do you think trading Mek for TC's 25 million dollar contract was the best financial deal we could have done?

I don't think one person with sense thinks financials didn't play a part. Even those who are ok with the player swap thinks we got taken in the trade due to "value" (just like we have in every trade).

Or is this all about Battery?

[thruthefire]

I think it was put to LB that we WERE going to move Mek regardless, so the TC return was making the best of a bad situation (from LB's POV).

I agree with this.

I'm just saying I don't buy the "It was a good trade because we brought in a winner, a leader, an LB-type player, a player that fits our personnel better, etc." that's been going around. Especially not Battery's TC-is-a-better-player-than-Okafor-is stance. *Waits for him to tell me I don't watch the games*

[Walt Cronkite]

There's this show, Trueblood, that comes on HBO. We've referenced it many times before, Hamilton especially. I think he has a comment in the HOF mentioning it.

Nice to see you still make posts consisting of nothing but quotes and emoticons. Your schtick is tired.
:stupidemoticon:

So far you've contributed nothing worthwhile to this thread, but you have the nerve to "mock me" for my use of "stupid emoticons?" OK well here is one emoticon I've reserved especially for you...

That's not reserved especially for me, you used that one on Paydro not too long ago

Anyway, I don't think this is a very worthwhile thread to begin with, so there hasn't been much for me to comment on. Without knowing the context of the quote or better yet, hearing the actual sound bit, all anyone can do is speculate. It definitely seems to me that LB it's not about the players implies that he's not thrilled about the move. I don't see it as endearing of Okafor or damning of Chandler though. Seems like something you say without thinking it's going to be overanalyzed, but it just so happens that it was caught by a desperate reporter on a slow news day.

You make a weird use of quotation marks. You typically use them to reference something as it was literally written or said or when citing a hypothetical. ie. I never wrote "stupid emoticons", but you quoted me as if that was a direct phrase. Similarly, I never wrote the phrase "mock me" or the word "mock". If I had, you could've quoted "mock" and used it to throw what I wrote back in my face, but I didn't, so it's confusing to read. Not important and way off topic, just something that I've noticed for a long time about your writing style that bugs me. Whatever though, I try to more or less avoid reading your posts entirely these days, so I guess the point is moot.

[Walt Cronkite]

The Okafor/Chandler trade wasn't about the players, as LB has confirmed. Of course Battery won't own up to being wrong, though.

Ham, you're the best.

So do you guys think it was all about the money? If so...I'll re-ask the question: Do you think trading Mek for TC's 25 million dollar contract was the best financial deal we could have done?

I don't think one person with sense thinks financials didn't play a part. Even those who are ok with the player swap thinks we got taken in the trade due to "value" (just like we have in every trade).

Or is this all about Battery?

When I wrote "Awesome!" earlier, I intended it to be a sarcastic throw away post. I don't think there is much you can grab from the quote, seemed like it was an excuse to talk about the Chandler/Okafor trade, which I am soooo tired of typing on. I don't like the trade, but I've been over it for a while now... we can't call "take backs", so what's the point? I try to be on the ILBIT wagon because he seems to be the only person in the organization with any semblance of a clue, so this quote is definitely frustrating since it raises doubts that Larry is on board with the trade. To me, that sucks big time... it was one of two silver linings I tried to find in the move (the other being that maybe it helps BJ sell the team), but like many have said, it's a pretty ambiguous quote.

In regard to your actual question, I think trading Okafor was about the money, but I don't have any way of analyzing if it was the best deal we could've gotten, financial or otherwise. Seems like BJ wanted to do something to make the team more attractive to a buyer, but Higgins/MJ knew LB would flip if we significantly downgraded in talent, so they were forced to find a compromise. As a Trueblood fan, I thought it was funny that Ham picked an image of the enchantress woman while she was working her magic on the towns folk. It's not at all about Battery for me.

[fatlever]

from the comments section of the blog

"James -- you're overthinking. Chandler's versatility makes him a good fit here in Larry's mind. Brown was simply acknowledging the obvious -- that this wasn't exclusively a basketball decision." - bonnell.

[spectre_]

from the comments section of the blog

"James -- you're overthinking. Chandler's versatility makes him a good fit here in Larry's mind. Brown was simply acknowledging the obvious -- that this wasn't exclusively a basketball decision." - bonnell.

Yup. From LB's history I think he'd have trashed Johnson 10 ways from Sunday if he was totally against the move.

Sorry Walt...didn't know it was an OT post. I know some and Battery go back and forth and was only trying to clarify if that was what this was evolving into (in which case I'd bow right out) or if you and TTF did think it was solely about money.

The Memphis paper said we were discussing Mek for their pick...but we wanted to add Nazr as well so they turned us down. At the time I don't think Memphis had a bad deal to ship back unless it was Jaric and he's more in the upper MLE on two years vs. TC's 10 figure per. They could have given us instant cap relief for this season plus a high pick...which would be a much more attractive package for a team on the market.

[Battery]

from the comments section of the blog

"James -- you're overthinking. Chandler's versatility makes him a good fit here in Larry's mind. Brown was simply acknowledging the obvious -- that this wasn't exclusively a basketball decision." - bonnell.

What exactly is a "basketball decision" anyway? IMO a basketball decision encompasses not only the players involves but also contracts since there is a salary cap in the NBA. And in order to become a contending team in the NBA, the value of the player must always equal the contract, unless you are adding a missing piece to a very good team. Okafor's value = contract simply did not add up at this time and thats why he was dealt. Smart move.

[doc.end]

:roll:

Do you have a point or are you playing the "I can't back up what I'm saying and I give up so I'll throw the moronic picture card out on the table?"



OK kids, lets all laugh at the funny picture now. ha ha

Battery, let me introduce you. Battery, this is W_Hamilton.

[doc.end]

:roll:

Hint for you Ham. It is funny only when you are actually right, like you used to be in old years here. (btw when is your saint sig?)

[Paydro70]

So do you guys think it was all about the money? If so...I'll re-ask the question: Do you think trading Mek for TC's 25 million dollar contract was the best financial deal we could have done?

I don't think one person with sense thinks financials didn't play a part. Even those who are ok with the player swap thinks we got taken in the trade due to "value" (just like we have in every trade).

Or is this all about Battery?

I think Walt has it exactly right... Johnson wants to sell the team, so he's trying to cut our long-term payroll. Undoubtedly we could have done better from a pure basketball value standpoint, or from a purely money standpoint, and so a compromise of Chandler was reached. I'm not saying LB hates Chandler or loves Okafor, just that if there were no such things as contracts, he would not have made the deal.

I think that making the compromise is the mistake. Either decide you want to slash the payroll and go do it, or decide you want to win now and either keep Okafor or get whatever LB wants more than Okafor in trade. Chandler does neither of those things... he earns more money for two years, and then we'll either re-sign him (no telling how that contract looks) or let him walk for nothing. Unless we make the playoffs this year or next, we'll have totally wasted our time and should have moved Okafor for expirings/prospects.

Anyway, I agree with TTF's post as well... all the quote really does is reveal that LB didn't want the trade because of how awesome he thinks Chandler is, which battery was not alone in contending.

They may very well be right, of course, but it'll apparently be a surprise to LB as well as myself if they are.

[Battery]

Anyway, I agree with TTF's post as well... all the quote really does is reveal that LB didn't want the trade because of how awesome he thinks Chandler is, which battery was not alone in contending.

They may very well be right, of course, but it'll apparently be a surprise to LB as well as myself if they are.

I love how you take my words out of context and use it against me. Good job, chief.

[Paydro70]

I didn't use your words at all... I just characterized your position. Did you not contend that Chandler is better for us than Okafor, and that LB wanted Okafor out?

[Battery]

I didn't use your words at all... I just characterized your position. Did you not contend that Chandler is better for us than Okafor, and that LB wanted Okafor out?

Um yeah, but what does this new question you just posed have to do with the words you chirped in the previous post?


Honing your skills for debate class...........I guess.



I swear, I need to take a bottle of aspirin whenever I'm done reading one of your Paydro "specials."

[Walt Cronkite]

Battery, I know your a genius and everything, but I think you misread Paydro's earlier mention based on you thinking he's asking a new question.

I post in peace, just saying.

"all the quote really does is reveal that LB didn't want the trade because of how awesome he thinks Chandler is, which battery was not alone in contending."

"Did you not contend that Chandler is better for us than Okafor, and that LB wanted Okafor out?"

How are those posts different?

[spectre_]

To be fair you can't even say LB didn't want Mek out...maybe he wanted someone else on a bigger contract and the FO said no.

Similar to what Bonnell said...way too much taken out of that single quip.

Some on the trade board took the opportunity to run with that snippet and assume we're having a fire sale...which prompted a 5 page thread on "what's the worst deal you can give up for Gerald Wallace".

[W_HAMILTON]

I've been busy so I can't respond in depth, but Paydro70 pretty much said what I think anyway.

It doesn't matter whether Brown wanted Okafor or not; it matters whether Brown would have traded Okafor for Chandler.

And judging from the comments, that answer is most likely no.

Again, pick better things to argue about. If Brown was just tickled pink with this trade, he wouldn't have made that sort of comment, regardless of what you take it to mean. You all are the ones taking too much from the comment, trying to imply that it means that he actually thinks Chandler is better, or that it means that Brown wanted someone with a larger contract, etc.

Take it for what it is. Brown said it wasn't about the players. If you are trading up for value, as you would hope to do in almost any trade, it WOULD have been about the players. But it wasn't. Even if it was motivated by financial factors, Brown, as the coach, wouldn't care about that. As I said before, the Phoenix trade had salary implications for us as well, but you didn't hear about him preaching the financial virtues of the trade. He was just happy to receive the players he did.