winforlose wrote:shangrila wrote:winforlose wrote:
Clever if a bit technical and confusing. Utterly false, but clever. You are arguing in good faith that no other possible trades involving all that draft capital could possibly have ended well. You are also arguing that even if we decided to move KAT the best we could ever do is Randle, DDV, and #17 in a bad draft. Rudy had a terrible playoff after a bad season. He is showing his age and starting a very bad contract. He might have two good years left, and we would be smart to move him again.
P.S you just saw us lose NAW for nothing, we have no starting or backup PG this season (38 year old Mike should be a good 3rd string, and Dilly would be a G leaguer after a year like last,) and we have almost no money to fix it. But who knows maybe in 5 years Joan will prove a project worth selling so ludicrously short on KAT (the one asset we could afford to trade to get the PGOF which we sold for a backup SG.)
I love that you openly admit you don't understand what I was saying, then still feel that you have a leg to stand on to criticise it.
I said, “Clever if a bit technical and confusing,” that doesn’t mean I don’t understand what you said. Your point is that Karl had to be moved to avoid moving other players like Naz, but you miss the fact we were already a 2nd apron team either way. We could have waited a year and made a KAT trade with the only consequence being money from the owners pocket. Your point that Karl was a bad fit (aside from being inconsistent with 23/24,) doesn’t justify trading him without getting a backup C to replace him. Nor does it address our dire need both then and now at PG. Most of you guys wanted to pretend that Mike at 36 and following a deep playoff run was gonna be excellent last year. Some of us, myself included, realized he would show his age/wear down. Your analogy wasn’t confusing because it makes no sense, it was confusing because it fails to address the larger issues. It wasn’t between the two types of electric vehicles, we could have bought any vehicle. That was the point of the dinner budget analogy. SMH, you took a bad post, inferred something incorrect about my response to it, ignored the content of my actual response, and then insult me with it.
Ok, I'll explain since you really didn't get it.
To start with a side note; the 2nd apron is a hard cap, more or less. You can say "it's just money" until you're blue in the face but when Steve Ballmer is making cost cutting moves the expectation that any other owner in this league will agree to be a constant 2nd apron team isn't realistic. Teams will, as Connelly said, "dip into" it for a few years then back out. That's the reality of this new CBA. It isn't up for debate. Either accept it or don't.
I never said anything about Towns' fit. At all. Which given you based this whole response on it demonstrates clearly that you didn't understand my analogy. I also said nothing about Conley or the need to replace/upgrade him. Neither did the post you were originally replying to, so you can't argue that I'm ignoring context there. Which is the literal definition of a strawman, since you're arguing against something I never said.
The reason my analogy was more complex than yours was because I attempted to include the added nuance of the situation/s. Yours was too simplistic, ignoring things like the human element, the value of success and experience, the realities of restrictions either enforced or implied, etc. Trying to dumb it down to "player X cost us $5 which we could have spent elsewhere" ignores so much context that it becomes pointless.
On the PGOF talk, honestly there's no point in engaging with you on that because there's nothing to engage with. You don't even offer any examples, just "we could have traded all of that for someone better!"...like who? How can anyone have a discussion about a fictional, Schrodinger's cat player that could theoretically solve all or none of our needs? Do you see why this argument can quickly become frustrating to other people?
For clarity I'll go on record here with my thoughts about the team; I do believe we overpaid for Gobert, but also realise that it was under a different CBA environment and appreciate the success it has led to while also seeing that it hasn't cost us too much as of yet. I don't believe we could have traded for a better player than Gobert, although would be happy to debate it and agree we could have gone for different ones. I believe KAT did need to be moved and was proven right about his value, for all of the many reasons I've listed previously. I like Finch as a coach, even if I understand he isn't perfect. I like Connelly as a GM, who also isn't perfect but brings a level of competence that this organisation has never seen. I don't believe Mike is a starting PG anymore and made comments about that last season (ironic, huh?) but also appreciate that the team has finite resources and can't have everything that I'd want. I believe in Rob, believe that he'll develop into a good PG even if his size might cause issues from time to time. I believe in Clarke and Shannon Jr, and hope that Miller will get minutes this season to prove if he's worth keeping like Minott proved he wasn't. I believe in our core and believe that the team is positioned to continue being competitive throughout Ant's prime years. I didn't have Joan on my radar at 17 but understand the thought process and am interested to see how it pans out. I hated the trade downs and really didn't have Rocco on my radar in the 2nd but can also see the appeal with him. I don't believe we're true championship contenders and am fine with that, after 2 decades I'm excited to finally watch my team play competitive NBA basketball throughout the season.
I put that there just to make it clear where I stand, not to debate any of those points. I don't want to derail this thread any further than I'm already doing. And honestly on that thought I'm going to stop here; respond back to this post if you want but this will be the last thing I have to say on it.
