Risk of action vs risk of inaction

[exodus]

This point has come up a few times and i think many people only see one side of the risk equation. Say aquiring player X might be a risky move with a potentially high payoff some might argue against it because of the risk.

But there is another type of risk. If you do nothing you risk letting opportunities pass you by. You go year after year with the same holes in the roster and out of desperation reach for a player at number 5 who shouldn't be under consideration. Then out of desperation you sign an undersized injury prone career backup pg and a washed up 4/5 backup.

In other words the risk of inaction is having an offseason like Shelden/Speedy/Lo. Personally i like the risk of TAKING action much better. At least there is potential upside.

[roezag]

Isn't that more the risk of taking the wrong action?

[AnakinJoe]

It all depends. I'd rather have Shelden/Speedy and Lo than Jerome James, Steve Francis and Malik Rose (at those contract prices). It's not like Speedy is making Kenyon-money and has missed most of several seasons (and or fought with the coaching staff when he was healthy).

I agree in the principle of your theory, inaction has consequences also. But when I consider that most teams were offering us bloated contracts in trades (didn't the Warriors want us to take back Dunleavy or Murphy for Al?), then I'm not so sure. One last point, BK did first go after Cassell before moving on to Speedy. The other PGs available that year were Mike James and Marcus Banks. Not exactly a stellar group of future HOFers.

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

This point has come up a few times and i think many people only see one side of the risk equation. Say aquiring player X might be a risky move with a potentially high payoff some might argue against it because of the risk.

But there is another type of risk. If you do nothing you risk letting opportunities pass you by. You go year after year with the same holes in the roster and out of desperation reach for a player at number 5 who shouldn't be under consideration. Then out of desperation you sign an undersized injury prone career backup pg and a washed up 4/5 backup.

In other words the risk of inaction is having an offseason like Shelden/Speedy/Lo. Personally i like the risk of TAKING action much better. At least there is potential upside.

---

Waldo stole Ex's password and toned down the rhetoric.

I'm not fooled though

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Isn't that more the risk of taking the wrong action?

---

Taking the wrong action would be like taking Marvin over Deron, Chill over Deng.

But when you look at the '06 offseason why were those actions taken? Because of passing up one opportunity after another after another. You are left with continuing to play with gaping holes in the roster or filling the holes with whats available out of desperation.

People talk about the risk of trading Marvin now. What if he blows up this season? That is certainly a risk. However there is also a risk to not trading him. The risk is that he continues to disappoint and his trade value falls further.

I am not saying i would definitely trade Marvin now but it is important to acknowlege that there is risk in keeping him. A lot of people only see the risk on one side but not the other.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

The other PGs available that year were Mike James and Marcus Banks. Not exactly a stellar group of future HOFers.

---

My point exactly. If you keep letting opportunities pass you by you might run out of good opportunities.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

You mean like how Indy did, by signing Harrington and giving away their 1st round pick? Or like how they did again, by dealing Harrington and Jackson, for Dunleavy, Murphy, and Digou?

Or like how the Lakers "allegedly" did, when they didn't want to trade Bynum and Odom, for Jason Kidd?

Action for the sake of action, can be disasterous most of the time in the NBA. The "risk" taken has to be a well thought-out calculated risk.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Action for the sake of action, can be disasterous most of the time in the NBA.

---

Action taken out of desperation is what led to the offseason of '06.

And nowhere did i say take action just for the sake of action so basically you are just making a strawman.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

You mean like how Indy did, by signing Harrington and giving away their 1st round pick? Or like how they did again, by dealing Harrington and Jackson, for Dunleavy, Murphy, and Digou?

Or like how the Lakers "allegedly" did, when they didn't want to trade Bynum and Odom, for Jason Kidd?

---

The Lakers definitely blew it by not dealing Bynum for Kidd. I am not aware of the particulars of the deal but the Lakers are in win now mode so they can't really afford to wait on a project.

And Indy trading their pick for Al was actually a good move value wise. They had to figure they weren't going to give up their pick this year.

Their mistake was thinking Al would be effective at the 4. We know better. He is much better at the 3 and they already had Granger so in that sense they messed up.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

LOL . . why are you getting defensive? I didn't accuse you of anything. I was just making a general statement.

I'm making a "strawman", but you started this thread . . LOL. OK.

Why did you start this thread?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

The Lakers definitely blew it by not dealing Bynum for Kidd. I am not aware of the particulars of the deal but the Lakers are in win now mode so they can't really afford to wait on a project.

And Indy trading their pick for Al was actually a good move value wise. They had to figure they weren't going to give up their pick this year.

Their mistake was thinking Al would be effective at the 4. We know better. He is much better at the 3 and they already had Granger so in that sense they messed up.

---

I agree that the Lakers blew it. They had a chance to put two Hall of Fame players in the same backcourt together, and didn't pull the trigger because of their infatuation with Bynum as the next great big man. Somebody in that Laker organization should've reminded Mitch Kupcake that big men who turn out to be great in the NBA, are usually "great" or at least very good, from Day 1. And seeing how Kidd made Mikie Moore a rich man this year, I'm sure Kidd's playmaking ability could've even made Kwame Brown look like a viable offensive threat on a nightly basis.

All of Indy's moves were out of desperation, if you ask me. Especially that mid-season trade. BK literally stole that 1st round pick from Indy. I'm sure Indy would LOVE to have an Acie Law or a Rodney Stuckey to add to that lineup.

[prolific25]

Quote:

---

And Indy trading their pick for Al was actually a good move value wise. They had to figure they weren't going to give up their pick this year.

---

Indy was a playoff team for 9 straight seasons at the time they made the Harrington trade. How did they figure that they would be picking in top 10?

[exodus]

Quote:

---

LOL . . why are you getting defensive? I didn't accuse you of anything. I was just making a general statement.

I'm making a "strawman", but you started this thread . . LOL. OK.

Why did you start this thread?

---

I am pointing out the fact that there is risk on both sides of the equation. Too many people only see risk on one side and use that risk as part of their argument. Meanwhile they pretend that their preferred course of action has no risk.

It doesnt work like that.

I have defended Marvin as much as anyone here but i have no problem acknowleging that the risk of keeping him is real. he could continue to disappoint and his trade value could plummet.

Is this risk of keeping him greater than the risk of trading him and seeing him blow up somewhere else? Hard to say but it can't just be ignored.

BK has ignored the risk of inaction time and again.

-He didn't fill the pg spot in the '05 draft because Paul was too short and Deron had weight problems and didn't shoot well. "we can always fill our pg spot later. Lets wait for Mr Perfect PG. "

-He wanted Nene and could have traded for him but chose not to. Maybe it was too risky to trade for an injured player. Maybe he thought he could sign him away from Denver in the offseason (risk of inaction).

The result is now we are hoping that an undersized rookie can fill the hole at center even though successful undersized centers are very rare.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And Indy trading their pick for Al was actually a good move value wise. They had to figure they weren't going to give up their pick this year.

---

Indy was a playoff team for 9 straight seasons at the time they made the Harrington trade. How did they figure that they would be picking in top 10?

---

Your right i got that backwards. What i meant was they had to figure the pick wouldn't be a lottery pick.

And they easily could have kept their pick if they had been smart at the end of the season.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

BK literally stole that 1st round pick from Indy. I'm sure Indy would LOVE to have an Acie Law or a Rodney Stuckey to add to that lineup.

---

No he didn't. Indy was widely praised around the league when that deal went down. The odds were our pick would be in the late teens and not many late teen picks are going to be as good as Harrington.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Waldo stole Ex's password and toned down the rhetoric.

I'm not fooled though

---

But if they did I'm sure I'd get from them an email apologizing and asking forgivness for the hate posting they are about to do. Nice try GSUteke.

W

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Indy was widely praised? I saw it the other way around. From what I saw, people were praising Golden St for bringing in two players that fit their system perfectly. The Indy side of the deal definitely wasn't criticized, because they did get ( what people thought ) were 3 good players out of the deal.

But make no mistake, Indy made that move, partially because of the bad PR that Jackson had brought to the team because of the strip club incident. Plus, Murphy and Dunleavy had some bad looking contracts.

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Waldo stole Ex's password and toned down the rhetoric.

I'm not fooled though

---

But if they did I'm sure I'd get from them an email apologizing and asking forgivness for the hate posting they are about to do. Nice try GSUteke.

W

---

humor Waldo. you should try it sometime.

it really does make the world a better place in which to live if you every now and again.

have at it Bud

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

Indy was widely praised? I saw it the other way around. From what I saw, people were praising Golden St for bringing in two players that fit their system perfectly. The Indy side of the deal definitely wasn't criticized, because they did get ( what people thought ) were 3 good players out of the deal.

But make no mistake, Indy made that move, partially because of the bad PR that Jackson had brought to the team because of the strip club incident. Plus, Murphy and Dunleavy had some bad looking contracts.

---

you guys are having a horse and wagon discussion. you're talking about the wagon. he's talking about the horse.

Harrington for Indy's #1 is the horse. the wagon came later on my friend.

[Diesel]

Usually, You don't go "all in" with a pair of 2s.

Moreover, the amount of risk you take is always dictated by the situation not by the risk itself.

Us picking Marvin was equivalent to us going all in with a pair of 2s and seeing that there was a possible flush and a possible straight on the board.

I equate Marvin to a pair of 2s because Sf is the most readily available and also needless position that there is. Not many teams are losing because of lack of a Sf. However, if you don't have a PG... Losing will come. It's guaranteed.

I think us taking Shelden was the right move considering the circumstance. It was a big "all in" call, but it was a high bet with us holding big Slick after the flop.

What I mean by that is that when Shelden was drafted, we needed a big. Based on ownership talk, we planned not to keep Al and there was no sign of if Smoove could play the 4.