bwgood77 wrote:NavLDO wrote:
That's a lot of speculation, I think. There's a good chance we were a bit better last year, keeping IT, and we may have lost Booker due to it, but additionally, and my main point, is we have no idea what kind of pkg IT would have pulled in during the summer. It could have been something that made us immediately better, vice a 1st and Thornton. It might have been a 1st last year, instead of this year, thus giving us another rookie that may have been as good or better than Booker, or it could have been a better starting PF (though Teletovic has been tearing it up as of late!)
Anyway, it's just too much speculation, and while playing the 'what if' game is fun to think about, and like you said, we have no idea what the deal would've been in the summer. Another 'what if' scenario COULD have been we traded IT, and maybe Warren in a pkg for a young, starter-level SG, which may have persuaded McD NOT to take Booker, and take Oubre instead, or maybe Cameron Payne or RHJ. A lot of things COULD have happened, including a career-ending injury for Bledsoe, thus keeping IT.
I think McD just feels he could have netted a more 'valuable' package for IT, had we kept him; and I think he probably wishes he didn't make as many trades as he did, and I think he regrets the Bucks deal more than anything.
And a couple more things 'I think'...'I think' McD had the IT deal 'done' with the Celtics, or at least the framework of the major pieces, a week or two earlier, thinking we'd have a Bledsoe/Dragic backfield again. And 'I think' McD scrambled a bit with the Bucks trade, since Gor-'wah' Dragic threw a hissy fit within the last week before the deadline, leading to the Heat deal. 'I think' it's possible, that had he planned on trading Dragic, he would not have planned a trade of IT, keeping an IT/Bledsoe backcourt, and hence, why he's feeling a sense of 'remorse' over that deal, realizing that IT/Bledsoe is better than Knight/Bledsoe. McD won't ever come out and say something like this about Knight while he's still on the team, but 'I think' McD's REAL desire for a 'mulligan' actually includes NOT trading the LAL pick for Knight...and lastly, 'I think' Dragic forcing McD's hand includes a lot more than just two 1sts...'I think' Dragic forced a trade of IT, and a trade FOR Knight, because to me, the Buck's deal was a very 'un-McD-like' deal.
I like how you call someone out for speculation and then go on to do some massive speculating.
-- Whew...I better tone down my 'tone'! I mean, saying, 'a lot of speculating, I THINK', well, that was pretty rough. Especially when I go on to say "playing the 'what if' game is fun...", then credit him for something he said, and then go on and show how much speculation could take place just on that deal alone, and how that could have lead to a ton of other scenarios--with what I just said, I think you and I have differing thoughts as to what 'calling someone out' means.
I wasn't "Calling him out", as you say. When I attempt to "call someone out," as I did with Frank on his notion about how McD some how 'blew up' a playoff squad by signing IT and not signing Frye in the off-season. That, my friend, was me 'calling out' someone on trying to 'bend the truth' when accusing someone of doing something they didn't do; what I did above was show how it can be fun to speculate, and how many different ways one could speculate. on I'm not sure what McD was thinking, and I think you possibly could be right, but to me his mulligan comments don't make sense...they almost contradict one another.
“I think in retrospect trading Isaiah Thomas when we did was a mistake,” he said of last season's trade deadline deal with the Boston Celtics. “I think sometimes in the recruitment process things sound better in July (luring Thomas in free agency) than they do in November."
The first comment sounds like he thinks he shouldn't have traded him. The second comment sounds like he thinks he shouldn't have signed him.
Both of these could be true, because chemistry got screwed up (by signing him) and it caused Dragic to want to leave, but then after that trade, he could have stopped the trades. So in that case, he is possibly in a round about way trying to say he shouldn't have signed him, but then once he traded Dragic anyway he shouldn't have traded IT.
I've thought before that perhaps the IT trade was set up prior to the Dragic fiasco and he didn't want to go back on his word.
But the biggest mistake of all is the Knight trade. I don't think I would have wanted to give that contract to Knight in FA, much less give up Ennis and the Lakers pick for him.
But of course this is all speculation, and that trade deadline, at least after the Dragic trade,
was a disaster as was this past offseason. -- Selecting Booker was 'a disaster'?? Signing Jon Leuer and Teletovic was a 'disaster'?? Trading away CusMo without giving up 'good' assets, or taking on a poor contract was a 'disaster'?? While these moves didn't move the needle this season, per se, I doubt they can be considered 'disasters'. Even the two seemingly 'overpaid' contracts weren't what I would call disasters, since we haven't even finished a season with them on the team. The Markieff trade is finally a positive (but again, the whole result of him needing to trade him was partially brought on by himself).
Hopefully he figures something out this summer and has a good draft, but if we end up giving a bunch of money to a mediocre or aging vet who doesn't move the needle and prevents younger guys from playing more, I'll say I've had enough, despite the drafting....wouldn't mind moving him to lead draft scout if he was game or something, but that's probably it if he botches another any more FA signings or makes stupid trades.
.
