theatlfan wrote:Honestly, I had a hard time responding to this; some of this is really borderline insulting.
1st, Adelman and his handling of younger players. Saying you're going with a "larger sample size" is a simple fallacy. This group you're throwing away is a part of the overall sample size, and by throwing away any particular grouping just invalidates any conclusions - this is just basic statistics. The fact that you dismiss a group is bad enough, but to throw it away simply because it's an inconvenient fact to your argument is simply childish. Honestly, if we're going to debate something, then I expect more than just sophomoric trashing of facts that refute your argument. This is 2x true when the guys you're throwing out only include a guy that was waived the year after he was under Adelman and another that actually got the 2nd most minutes of his career within his "first few seasons".
Listen I'm not really invested enough in this matter to really tolerate your sensitivity over alleged insults no matter how flowery written it may all be. Fact is if you are going to create a list and continually add to said list and at the end of said list the overwhelming majority of examples fit more with a current example then alas, the few that do not are thus in my mind exceptions. Rather simple, if 75%-80% followed the same course as a current example then I can very easily establish that as the prevailing trend. If you want to focus on the 20-25% of that sample and somehow attribute that to being more definitive of the whole then be my guest, it's your prerogative but alas again, I'm sure you'll find this as a poorly veiled insult. I for one am not invested enough in a hypothetical trade idea to delve deep into the specific circumstances that influenced the majority of those players averaging only 20 minutes in their first few seasons under a specific coach. All I know is that at a glance, only 3 stand out from what I'm currently seeing with Williams.
2nd, I mentioned that I don't expect any prospect to necessarily adapt to the NBA game immediately, but that kids who stick with college generally adapt to a role better than younger guys. So, you go back all of 6 months to dispute this?!? C'mon, I had right there that I'd give a kid a year. Instead of walking back even to the previous draft where you can see kids like Enes Kanter and Tobias Harris - two guys that have generally had positive reviews out of their respective teams even though they haven't been able to break 20 minutes per - and guys like Klay Thompson, Marcus Morris, K Leonard, and Shumpert who've altered their roles from being "the man" in college to be a contributor on their team early. Now, nothing is a sure thing in the draft and yes, there will be some flops, some guys who'll take longer, and some who can only play one way at any level for any classification, but this isn't something that I'm opining as much as I'm parroting and there is some logic behind the hypothesis. H3ll, maybe it's wrong, I don't know, but you definitely made a lazy effort, at best, to dispute it and ending up just wasting time in both yours writing it and whoever's in reading it.
We can play this game forever, we can walk back just another draft and make note of college sophomores and juniors such as Evan Turner, Wesley Johnson, Ekpe Udoh, Al-Farouq Aminu, Gordon Hayward/Alec Burks, Cole Aldrich, Patrick Patterson, Ed Davis and Larry Sanders struggling to make any appreciable impact until their 3rd seasons if that. It has nothing to do with him being "the man" and having to reduce his role. You are using examples of players that are utilizing their exact skillset from college in the pros or at the minimum filling in at the same position that they played in college. Why the fact his role and position is already being occupied by a player by the name of Kevin Love is being omitted I have no idea. It's as if his present circumstance has zero meaning to you as you are railing against him for failing to reinvent himself as an entirely different type of player than what he was in school.
3rd (for now), you conveniently side-step the questions at the heart of the matter here. How are we in a situation to cure the fixes that you bring up to fix D Williams as a player (his measurables are good for a PF; he needs minutes)? Sure, he's behind Love and Dante Cunningham in MIN, but we've got two AS (at least in our FO's mind) in front of him here. What makes you think we're a better situation to help what ails him?
Look, I know that many view me as a D Williams hater - and maybe I am. Even some of the things that you say to defend him (60% of O comes from perimeter; shooting is busted; may need to change something mentally) are really the reasons I wouldn't bother with him. Yes, I still think he's a 'tweener (I gave up on the measurables argument since a) it was starting to get into minutiae and b) I really didn't care anymore - BTW, the SF measurables are for Smoove) and think he needs to reinvent his game (or maybe as you say, re-find the way to play the game he left in college) to even become a competent starter - so forth All-NBA. But I'm willing to put these aside to hear you out, but instead, I'm just subjected to this lazy and childish riposte.
For one, he can succeed at what he knows here in Atlanta. His skillset is that of a back to basket player who can also face up and attack from 15 feet and in, something neither Al or Josh are willing or capable of doing consistently. Unlike in Minnesota where (you're going to hate this) Love's inferior to a SF's measurables (6'7.75", 6'11.25" wingspan, 8'10" standing reach") prevents then from playing in consistent lineups together, we know that Al can play C fulltime and Josh can spot at SF. Larry Drew already utilizes this lineup with Ivan to a lot of success and I believe that Williams could increase the potential of it. Looking forward it also
creates flexibility for the team heading into free agency. If Josh decides to pull an Elton Brand/Carlos Boozer/Hedo Turkoglu/Lebron James and bolt or just prices himself out of Ferry's desires then there is a contingency with a potential replacement. If the big CP3/Dwight dream is looking like a reality and Al has to be moved to clear up necessary salary then you have a contingency for a cheaper replacement already on the roster. If Ivan, Zaza and Tolliver (yes, that's meant as a joke) bolt for literally greener pastures you also have a position of depth already filled, etc. etc.
OK, most of this is a fantastic embellishment which is nothing more than another childish attack. Where did I say that going into FA was "make or break" for Ferry? All I said was it was a "better opportunit[y]" than taking on what amounts to being a salary dump for MIN. I didn't even say it's the best opportunity, just think that it's a baseline that any trade where we take on salary has to beat. Don't project something onto me or put words in my mouth. I honestly expect better.
As far as why he signed him, it's simple: he was the player we wanted at a price we couldn't refuse. Ferry has also made it clear that he expects to remain competitive throughout his tenure and signing good players at great values is a no brainer acquisition. If you search through some of the articles on Peachtree Hoops, you'll see that one of the writers there is a (former?) poster here named Evil Dallas. In the writeups he shows that the expected production to price of the current team far outstrips that of our previous incarnations and a big part of that is L Williams thanks to an AS level PER and a MLE salary. I tend to agree here.
Oh, cut the theatrics. Did you not say this exactly?:
.....but the fact is that Ferry has had the plan to carry the $$ to FA since the day he agreed to the JJ deal. If you don't acknowledge that, then you're simply not playing the same game as the real world. Optimizing the return we could get in FA is our main goal right now...
Did I put those words in your post? Does the Louis Williams deal not fly in the face of that exact quote? His signing came after the JJ trade and it directly impacts money available in 2013's free agency so really now.
Here's the thing, you can disregard (Derrick) Williams all you want but I also think that he could help the team remain competitive and at a price (Jenkins and Morrow) we couldn't refuse. Louis is a bargain for sure but Williams is also putting up an above league average PER with the potential for more while also being on the equivalent of a MLE deal.
... Or possibly as much as $.5M less than what Nash signed for. If he buys into what we're selling, then this seems reasonable. Thanks for these numbers.
Yes, we can expect that our free agents will be just as willing to forego a major payday in their 20s as a 38 year old looking to ring chase at the end of their career. This type of thinking worked out well for OKC in their negotiations with Harden.
As I said above, I'm not sure that going to FA is the best opportunity (really don't know the other opportunities to compare it to). It's just a baseline opportunity to compare other things to. Losing this opportunity to take on a salary dump where the payment is a currently flawed player who you're even arguing should stay at the same position as our two best players is definitely worse than this baseline. I think Ferry is carrying a 3 year plan - Year 1) clear out the dead weight in terms of production vs price (JJ and Marvin... at least so far); Year 2) put together the championship core to go forward with (FA is just one way to do that); Year 3) finish assembling the pieces to surround the core. Sure, in year 2 it will be harder to assemble the depth needed, but the hope would be that, similar to MIA, there's proof that the team is working with a deep playoff run. When Year 3 comes around, it becomes a much easier sales pitch to convince the role players that we could make a legitimate run at a title.
The baseline in all of this is that you view Williams as nothing more than a salary dump. If that's your thinking from the beginning then all of the rest of your arguments will follow suit. Fact is that a trade like this fulfills a need for Minnesota in that it gives them two SGs when all they have healthy is Shved at the expense of a talented prospect that is unlikely to fulfill their potential behind Love on a team looking desperately to make the playoffs at the end of a long rebuild. Make no mistake, they are giving up the best player in the deal but shoring up a position of need from a position of strength with the
added benefit of being able to free up salary perhaps to resign Pekovic. That is what makes the value equal out and even make a proposal like this plausible.
The Hawks have a more versatile roster due to length and athleticism that can accommodate Derrick Williams just like the team has done for Louis Williams despite having Teague and Harris already. We've managed to establish that the salary is only restrictive if maintaining the core is the plan to go along with a max player but even you admit that Bynum and Iguodala would be the mostly likely signees....That doesn't scream contending for a championship. That looks no different than the previous rosters with Joe and Marvin as far as upside an its ability to attract top tier vets on minimum deals. The core can just as easily be retained and a lower tier free agent(s) be signed or traded for with the rest of the money either being rolled over to the future or utilized in trades. It's not the end of the world or even having as dramatic an effect on the cap as you are making it out to be so just leave it at that.