Risk of action vs risk of inaction

[gsuteke]

good points in relation to the draft. but it doesn't make alot of sense to sell low at this point. if we're this down on our players how do you think the rest of the league views them?

Quote:

---

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.

---

[Diesel]

I'm not suggesting a fire sale at all.

In fact, I wouldn't trade anybody unless it's the right deal.

That includes Marvin.

The value of our players are just too low...

I do think a right deal exists... For instance, I think Gasol will be back on the blocks if Memphis don't come out winning or if Memphis young players uptempo without him. Another player who may come available is Iverson...

Say what you want about Iverson... getting Iverson, moving JJ to the three.... Has it's merits... if Iverson is still a strong defender.

Right now, our ending contracts and young talent put us in a good position to deal for good players.

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

I'm not suggesting a fire sale at all.

In fact, I wouldn't trade anybody unless it's the right deal.

That includes Marvin.

The value of our players are just too low...

I do think a right deal exists... For instance, I think Gasol will be back on the blocks if Memphis don't come out winning or if Memphis young players uptempo without him. Another player who may come available is Iverson...

Say what you want about Iverson... getting Iverson, moving JJ to the three.... Has it's merits... if Iverson is still a strong defender.

Right now, our ending contracts and young talent put us in a good position to deal for good players.

---

the Hawks should be very active at the trading deadline this year. they should be looking to add players as opposed to dropping contracts. There are players who may be attractive (Childress) and cap saving contracts (AJ, Ren) that the Hawks will have as bargaining chips.

what is the rule on trading your first round pick X number of years in a row? is it three consecutive years or two?

[Diesel]

First off, the Hawks shouldn't trade a player unless the deal makes sense.

It doesn't fit to start naming contracted players in deals right now..... You throwing Chillz out there is just another way of saying he's next. I don't think he should be next. He's probably one of the better players we have.

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

First off, the Hawks shouldn't trade a player unless the deal makes sense.

It doesn't fit to start naming contracted players in deals right now..... You throwing Chillz out there is just another way of saying he's next. I don't think he should be next. He's probably one of the better players we have.

---

read this post again. Perhaps you will see the irony. LOL

did you join the basketball league? I'd like to see how you would fare.

[Packfill]

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?

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.

---

I am pretty sure he means something like Golden State going out and trading for Baron Davis. Huge risk involved, but obviously huge upside as well.

Or something like Orlando giving a max deal to Grant Hill back in the day. Did they get their money? No. But any GM with the money would have given him the same deal.

[exodus]

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've got your deals mixed up.

You said BK stole indy's first round pick. I disagreed since at the time it seemed likely that the pick would be in the 18-20 area. Indy was widely praised about the deal with US.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

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?

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.

---

I am pretty sure he means something like Golden State going out and trading for Baron Davis. Huge risk involved, but obviously huge upside as well.

Or something like Orlando giving a max deal to Grant Hill back in the day. Did they get their money? No. But any GM with the money would have given him the same deal.

---

Getting Baron (who i wasn't a fan of) was a big risk but it was a proactive risk. BK takes a lot of passive risks with his inaction.

[exodus]

Pritchard comes in and takes over a roster that is a total mess. They have a bunch of young underachievers and bloated contracts to (mainly) Miles and Randolph. They have the worst record in the league and get screwed in the lottery, winding up in the worst possible position picking 4th (we were 5th) in a weak draft.

So what does he do? He wheels and deals and winds up with Aldridge and Roy who will probably be by far the best players out of that draft. Then he buys the Suns pick and takes Sergio (who would look nice in a Hawks uni).

So Portland, picking one spot ahead of us, winds up with Roy, Aldridge and Sergio. We wind up with Shelden.

Colangelo takes over Toronto. He has a free agent pg in Mike James who talked so nutty ( i wish i had the quotes they were priceless) that they can't think about resigning him. Their only other pg is the rookie Calderon from Spain who did ok but no way are they comfortable starting him. They also have Bosh starting at center which obviously won't work.

So they need a starting pg and a center who can play D. Sound familiar? By the time the season started they had a starting pg and a center who could play D.

Trading CV for TJ was definitely a big risk. You generally don't trade big for small and CV had a big rookie year. But Colangelo felt TJ would be a good fit with the way they wanted to play...uptempo.

Rasho is nobodies idea of an ideal center. But he has size and can play D. Is he overpaid for what he brings? Sure but bigs who can play D generally are.

They had a huge hole at the 2 which Colangelo filled with a free agent pickup from overseas, Anthony Parker.

Problems solved and they have a big year.

Is the difference between these two and BK clear enough?

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

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.

---

The fact that BK put the team in a position where it was forced to overpay for a free agent point guard in a year where the free agent point guards were crap, is evidence of Exodus' point. You need to look ahead in this league.

[Peoriabird]

Quote:

---

The fact that BK put the team in a position where it was forced to overpay for a free agent point guard in a year where the free agent point guards were crap, is evidence of Exodus' point. You need to look ahead in this league.

---

I don't know about you but I'm happy with our roster. We passed on Paul & William but ended up with a point guard 2 year later anyway! So What's the problem? I'll take our roster over New Orleans roster any day of the week!

[Swatguy]

Quote:

---

I don't know about you but I'm happy with our roster. We passed on Paul & William but ended up with a point guard 2 year later anyway! So What's the problem? I'll take our roster over New Orleans roster any day of the week!

---

Shelden and Marvin just may blow-up. I would not be surprised. I think I am higher on Shelden than about any in his draft. The guy has the beans upstairs and may turn the corner physically.

This training camp is exciting. They will be going after it.

Chillz, Shelden and Salim are loose. Acie, Speedy and Al seem intense (Lo too).

I* have been called a homer and it is true. I am nearly stoked.

The risk here is to not make a move and evaluate this product for 60 days.

[Dejay]

You won't get an argument from me. Its what I've been saying all along.

I'll gladly take the win now approach that the Celtics are running with anyday over the 'wait two more years and we might get the 8th seed before our young guys leave' approach BK and the ASG has taken.

[Buzzard]

Quote:

---

BK has ignored the risk of inaction time and again.

---

He did not ignore it with the JJ deal. He did not ignore it when he traded away JT and Shareef either....

This is the year we see if BK's plan was worth all the risk he did take. I like our lineup a lot now; so for me its a wait and see attitude. This season will be BK's pass/fail season as far as I am concerned.

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The fact that BK put the team in a position where it was forced to overpay for a free agent point guard in a year where the free agent point guards were crap, is evidence of Exodus' point. You need to look ahead in this league.

---

I don't know about you but I'm happy with our roster. We passed on Paul & William but ended up with a point guard 2 year later anyway! So What's the problem? I'll take our roster over New Orleans roster any day of the week!

---

I would be alot happier with our roster if it included Deng, Paul/Deron and Roy instead of Childress, Marvin and Shelden, respectively.

[Buzzard]

Quote:

---

I would be alot happier with our roster if it included Deng, Paul/Deron and Roy instead of Childress, Marvin and Shelden, respectively.

---

If we are talking about immediate returns, I do not see how anyone can argue with you. I still think a Marvin/Acie combo could turn out to be in the long run better than a Paul or Deron/Roy or Deng combo.

This year is going to tell us a lot about Marvin one way or the other...

[Buzzard]

Quote:

---

I would be alot happier with our roster if it included Deng, Paul/Deron and Roy instead of Childress, Marvin and Shelden, respectively.

---

One other thought. If Holford and Acie both make all rookie 1st team and a couple of years later go to their 1st all-star game. Should BK still have his job if MWill, Shelden, and Chillz end up being nothing more than role players?

That would be two out of five top 12 picks go to the all star game. Is that a bad ratio or a good one? I think that is a tougher question than most of us initially thought...

[exodus]

Quote:

---

He did not ignore it with the JJ deal.

---

He was proactive there and the results speak for themselves. However his tendency has been to be passive.

Quote:

---

He did not ignore it when he traded away JT and Shareef either....

---

Anyone can dump a player. It takes talent to be able to bring in quality players. The JT deal was crap.

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I would be alot happier with our roster if it included Deng, Paul/Deron and Roy instead of Childress, Marvin and Shelden, respectively.

---

If we are talking about immediate returns, I do not see how anyone can argue with you. I still think a Marvin/Acie combo could turn out to be in the long run better than a Paul or Deron/Roy or Deng combo.

This year is going to tell us a lot about Marvin one way or the other...

---

You would take Marvin and Acie over Deron and Deng?

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I would be alot happier with our roster if it included Deng, Paul/Deron and Roy instead of Childress, Marvin and Shelden, respectively.

---

If we are talking about immediate returns, I do not see how anyone can argue with you. I still think a Marvin/Acie combo could turn out to be in the long run better than a Paul or Deron/Roy or Deng combo.

This year is going to tell us a lot about Marvin one way or the other...

---

You would take Marvin and Acie over Deron and Deng?

---

I had issues with that statement, too.