Scase wrote:islandboy53 wrote:Scase wrote:Herein lies the issue, if you approach the concept of people being bother or negative towards an objectively bad trade, as them being "management haters" then yeah, it's always going to be a contentious situation.
You can have the discussion about where the team is at, but ignoring the why, or hand waving it away as general "hating" is a much too simplistic way to approach it.
Are people who say the VC trade was awful just "management haters"? No it was an objectively bad trade that set the franchise back some years. The Poeltl trade is the same, it's just not as bad. Had we had at least say 2 more years of first round exits after that trade, you could say it was a bad trade to make, but you couldn't say it was a complete **** up. Tanking the year after you just traded for a C that is likely going to result in you losing that pick is not hating, it's calling a spade a spade.
The facts stand as is, due to that trade, which has had virtually zero positive impact, we are now in a place where we decided that tanking was the best option available for the team long term, but we are extremely hampered by the trade as it has us potentially handcuffed for the next 3 years.
If the pick conveys this year, it's bad. Makes the entire season feel like a waste. If it conveys next year, it's also bad because we lose the chance to have a draft pick in a year that has some top end talent. The team hasn't "moved on", they are doing the same as all of us, doing what you can with what you've got.
The trade happened barely a year ago, acting like everyone should forgive and forget is just short-sighted.
Honestly, I really don't care if you forgive, or forget. Many/most of the folks who continue to re-litigate this trade, telling us how bad it was, in their very humble opinions, have a general pattern of criticizing management on an ongoing basis. They're certainly welcome to spend as much time as they like sharing that opinion. However, they should expect to at least occasionally be referred to as "management haters", given that's what they demonstrably are.
On many days, I'd be happy to debate the Poeltl trade on its merits, both last year and moving forward, but this isn't one of them. For now, I'll point out 2 things. Firstly, we are currently tanking because of injuries to Barnes and Poeltl.
With them in the lineup, we are arguably competitive for the play in, and would be shooting for that, with Poeltl playing a key role. Secondly, if we keep the pick this year, one of our 3 picks will be traded, for a pick next year, or a player/players in lieu of that pick. If the pick conveys, we have certainty moving forward. And we'll have Poeltl anchoring the defence, rebounding, passing and setting screens either way. And in a year or 2, when we have his replacement lined up, he'll still be an asset that can bring back pieces we need more at that time.
That said, please continue to spend as much time as you like telling me how bad the Poeltl trade was.
My guy, at the time of the Barnes injury, we were 16 games below .500 at 7th worst in the NBA, we were not competitive for the play in. We would have had to go 8-1 since that GSW game where Barnes got injured
just to tie atlanta for the final play in spot.
If we go 5-4 with Scottie and Jacob instead of 1-8 without them, we're 3.5 back. That's 4 more wins, with the Detroit & Portland games very likely and 2 out of the rest entirely realistic. At 3.5 back, with 13 games left, we're at least in the conversation, with every reason to continue competing for 10th.
The disconnection from reality is shocking.
Your entire argument is based on us unequivocally trading away one of our picks if it doesn't convey, which is utter and complete speculation. But let's entertain that scenario, as to be totally fair, we are all operating on speculation.
Based on Bobby's post TDL presser, the idea that we would move one of 3 picks if our own doesn't convey is not really very speculative. However, it's very generous of you to concede that everything you're saying is totally speculative. At the same time, the argument is a little broader than just dealing with the potential scenario of three picks, my guy. Try to keep up.
We would most likely be trading the DET pick which is pretty low value, so moot point. Or we'd trade the IND pick, to who exactly? We're going to swap a (very very likely) non lotto pick this year, for a worse pick next year? Cause no team is going to trade you for a same or better pick the next year in a better draft.
I agree that we're most likely to trade the Detroit pick, if we have 3 available, so I have no idea why you're going on about the Indiana pick, which is probably more useful to us in this scenario. The 31st or 32nd pick will have value to a number of teams. For example, four teams have no pick this draft. Really, though, there's little value speculating on this aspect until we know how the lottery balls drop. And, as I noted, if the pick conveys, we have certainty moving forward, which you earlier raised as a concern, but now seem, not surprisingly, unconcerned about.
I will agree with your assessment of drafting a player as an eventual replacement, but I'm not sure I see a 31 year old Jak viewed as anything remotely valuable as a trade asset. If we can't move a player like Brown who is definitely useful, younger, and had a very attractive team option for his last year, I don't see how Jak will be any better. Maybe he stays as the backup C, but I wouldn't bet on him being traded for anything particularly valuable.
Speaking of a shocking disconnect from reality, the fact that we haven't moved Brown, yet, is substantially different than being unable to move him. He will be moved this offseason. At the same time, I'm not saying Jacob in 2 years will bring back a prospect and a 1st, but he'll still have value. Older centres like Adams (30), Valanciunas (31), Davis (31), Gobert (31), Olynyk (32), Vucevic (33), Horford (37) all still have value, some more than others. Jacob is highly likely to bring back value in 2 years.
This isn't an argument about how good or bad the trade was, but rather the cascading impact it has/will have.
You spent a lot of time telling me how bad the trade was. You said the VC trade was "an objectively bad trade that set the franchise back some years. The Poeltl trade is the same, it's just not as bad." You then went on to explain how the trade had "no positive impact", "forced us to choose tanking as the best available long term option", and "has potentially handcuffed us for the next 3 years". The whole conversation has been about your perception of the value of the trade, including the impacts today and into the future. You're entitled to your perspective, but the arguments you've made are pretty weak sauce, my guy.
