LEE being dealt to GS (as soon as lebron picks miami)

[slinky]

Yep and so do those cav fans that came into the thread to warn us...

[Swimmer]

Where did I say every move Kahn has made has turned out to be a good one??

he still hasn't made a bad move yet

He doesn't say they are good or bad moves, shrink. He implies that Kahn's moves are either a) Good b) Undefined or c) Neutral. Mainly in the undefined category.

I still go back to my earlier point that it's not fair to judge in this manner. You could use this argument no matter who we selected at #4 or #30.

However, you just said Sasha was a good signing for the risk -- a worthwhile gamble. So you are saying a) many of Kahn's moves are "wait-and-see" before you can judge and b) even if his moves don't pan out, they are a worthwhile gamble. You can use these two arguments out of any GM failure, except for a DIRECT " We know Package A > Package B... but we decided on Package B anyways" -- which will never happen. Why will it never happen? Because rarely will it be revealed that two such comparable offers were available, and the front office chose one and not the other.

How about how we traded #23 for less than what the #24 was traded for? "That option was not available to us."?

[Krapinsky]

Where did I say every move Kahn has made has turned out to be a good one??

he still hasn't made a bad move yet

He doesn't say they are good or bad moves, shrink. He implies that Kahn's moves are either a) Good b) Undefined or c) Neutral. Mainly in the undefined category.

I still go back to my earlier point that it's not fair to judge in this manner. You could use this argument no matter who we selected at #4 or #30.

However, you just said Sasha was a good signing for the risk -- a worthwhile gamble. So you are saying a) many of Kahn's moves are "wait-and-see" before you can judge and b) even if his moves don't pan out, they are a worthwhile gamble. You can use these two arguments out of any GM failure, except for a DIRECT " We know Package A > Package B... but we decided on Package B anyways" -- which will never happen. Why will it never happen? Because rarely will it be revealed that two such comparable offers were available, and the front office chose one and not the other.

How about how we traded #23 for less than what the #24 was traded for? "That option was not available to us."?

I don't think that's true. I think if we had signed Pavlovic to a 2 year/$6M deal then that would not have been a worthwhile gamble. that would be like reversing the odds in my coin flip hypothetical. However, for one year on a team that is not even worried about winning for what was it, like $1.5M? That seems like a worthwhile gamble. It didn't leave us hamstrung from doing any other worthwhile moves.

[Krapinsky]

How about how we traded #23 for less than what the #24 was traded for? "That option was not available to us."?

That is an interesting one. It certainly looks like we screwed up there, but there are certainly possibilities to explain it.

1) The draft moves fast and you are trying to work the phones as quick as possible while still watching the draft board while wheeling and dealing. If an offer comes along that you like, the circumstances probably require you to take it, and prevent you from having the opportunity to call 10-12 teams to see if you can get a better deal. I can't say for sure, but it seems like that's the way it works.

2) It's also hard to say if this even mattered since the players we wanted at 27 and 31 might very well have been the same players we wanted at 30 and 35. In that case we might have just saved money.

[Krapinsky]

P.S. I have to take off for the day, so I apologize in advance for abandoning any further discussion.