VarsitySlacker

Quote: We are total idiots....JS is an exciting player, but he wouldn't be a starter on a good team. We have a shooting guard and that's it. I wouldn't go THAT far. Assuming that by "good team" you mean "playoff team with a record over 500," Smoove is better than at least one of the forwards on: Miami Indiana Toronto Cleveland Phoenix (if you count Diaw as a F and Stoudamire as a Center) San Antonio (Bowen is the most overhyped player in the game) Utah Houston LA Lakers LA Clippers and arguably Chicago Washington Detroit The only teams that Smoove would unquestionably not start on are Dallas (Nowitski/Howard) and Denver (Carmelo/Nene), and he would effectively be a starter on the latter. Though certain people do tend to overrate him, he is definately a keeper. Not a max keeper (yet), but a keeper nonetheless.

Quote: The point is still true... Until he's doing more than any average Sf can do (13 ppg or 8 ppg).. then you should leave your streamers and banners and parade at home! According to Yahoo! sports, the average NBA forward is averaging 9.3 points and 4.8 rebounds (with 1.4) assists. Marvin is averaging 12.7 points, 4.9 rebounds, and 1.9 assists (over the season, and has shown marked improvement in his recent playing) What are we arguing about again?

You will never see me call someone an idiot for their opinion. I reserve that term for people who lack intelligence, not popular viewpoints. Honestly, we have different opinions. I think this team IS good enough to make an impact, and I believe you and Walter do not. However, there are no excuses right now for why they're not. The team is healthy enough to win, but there is absolutely no offensive scheme, no defense, and the most asinine substitution patterns I could imagine. We should have won the past 5 games, but we've choked them all away. If we tank out, worst case scenario, Woodson is gone. Best case scenario, Woodson is gone and we have another star on the team from the draft. Worse case scenario should still make us a better team then we are now. Basically, I'm calling for the players to quit on the coach more than I'm calling for the team to tank.

I hate to do it. I feel like I'm going back on everything that I believe in. But I'm hopping aboard the pro-tank bandwagon. We just lost to the Knicks. Not just the Knicks, but the Knicks without David Lee, without Nate Robinson, and without Jamal Crawford. Do I believe that this team is good enough to be a contender? ABSOLUTELY. But it will NEVER happen with Woodson at the helm, because he has know idea how the hell to run a basketball team. You can't play not to lose, you have to play to win. The thing is, people talk about how far away we are from the bottom, and how we're only so far out of the playoffs. We are CLOSER to the 2nd worst record than we are to the playoffs. We're almost closer to Memphis than we are to the 8-seed. So I concede. A tank job here will A) hopefully get us a decent draft pick, and more importantly B) get Woodson the hell off of my court.

I thought I would take this time to say "I told you so" Denver Nuggets record in three splits 18-12 - teams record before trading for Allen Iverson --- 6-8 - team's record after trading for Iverson, but before Carmelo returned from his injury --- 8-11 - Team's record when Carmelo and Iverson played together. So, for those who are counting, that's 18-12 without Iverson, 15-19 with him. Just imagine what this team could do with a future hall of famer. Didn't someone proclaim that the Nuggets would win the finals with both of these superstars on their team? I seem to recall a pretty in-depth argument.

Quote: How many games were we struggling to score and Salim just sat the pine? The thing about Salim that differs him from Solomon (at least in my opinion) is that, while Salim is capable of winning a game for you, he's every bit as capable, if not more, of losing it. What he gains in offense he is torn apart in defense, and it's much harder for a player to pick up the defensive slack than the offensive. Solomon doesn't have that glaring weakness in his game - He's raw, so he fouls a lot, but he plays reasonable defense (in comparison to his contemporaries) and has a decent offensive game.

In a case of extremes, JJ and Smoove should not go anywhere. Nor should Solomon in my opinion, because his potential value far exceeds his return in a trade. Everyone else is open. The only people I'd be tenuous about trading are Marvin and Chill (in that order), because they're the only people who have proven to be capable players. Of course, they're also the only ones who have a legitimate value, so from a trading standpoint are the best pieces to move.

HAY WALTER I AM GOING TO MAKE A THREAD THAT DELIBERATELY BAITS YOU AND THEN WHEN YOU REPLY I AM GOING TO CHALLENGE YOU AND POST THE BEATING A DEAD HORSE EMOTICON WHEN YOU REPLY! Jesus, enough is enough. I understand that you see the same stuff from Walter all the time. I understand that it is negative. Guess what - 90 % of this board is overly negative. Look through every single game thread, through every single thread even. In a MW thread, Diesel has criticism. In every game thread, I see "wow this is embarrassing shelden is the worse basketball player ever what a waste of a draft pick" in that broken, run-on sentence grammar. Sometimes Shelden is replaced with Marvin. Always by the same two people. You say he comes out in every single thread and posts the same stuff - That's because every single thread is about the same stuff! Someone do the math, and tell me the percentage of threads on here that do not involve tanking, Billy Knight, Shelden Williams, or Marvin Williams, and then show me where he has brought them up. The man is entitled to an opinion, the same as you. And yes, he makes a lot of new threads. Surprise, a lot of people do. I can't tell you how many times I've seen "Diesel trade of the day" "Diesel trade of the day part 2" "Diesel trade of the day redux" and "Diesel trade of the day addendum" in addition to "Diesel's thoughts on the loss" and Diesel's thoughts on the win" when, yes, there are existing topics already covering the subject, or at the very least condensable threads. Not to unceremoniously pick on Diesel, but it seems that it has become the celebrated thing to attack Walter for doing something that they both do. I understand that Walter is irritating to you guys. If you don't like what he has to say, put him on ignore. I don't, because while I don't agree with him, I respect his opinion. If you guys are really that flustered with him, then leave him alone. It's obvious he's not going to be banned, nor does he has a reason. The administration here is very gracious, and it took forever to get phx_suns banned when he legitimately was a troll (for the record, I called that from the beginning) So stop stroking your message board egos, trying to obtain that ever elusive e-cred. I know Lascar has Walter on ignore, good for him. I have jsmoovefemalefan on ignore for that same reason. The feature is there for a reason, if another poster constantly irritates you, then IGNORE THEM. Don't bait them and taunt them and wonder why they continue to post. EDIT: For the record, Walter has posted on 10 of the 19 posts on the front page, all either relevant to BK, Shelden, Marvin, or tanking. He's arguing his point, he's not hijacking other threads. He goes in there to talk about BK, Shelden, Marvin, or tanking, respectively.

I put 15 games. That said, I'm not sure. For one thing, the poll is inherently flawed. What if, with 5 games out, we're 7th from the bottom (per say) but 2 games out of the playoff spot? Do you tank? No. This is possible (though not probable) due to the disparity of talent in the leagues, as well as the entire Eastern conference sans the top 4 teams self-imploding or being of questionable talent. I do think that, with 15 games left in the season, or approximately 10 games from now, we should have a setting on how good we should actually be healthy. If we win less than 5 games in our next 10, then we're simply not a good team. We're not playing great teams, so we should be able to win. If we're not, then you are right and I am not, Walter. I'll go ahead and say it. If we win less than 5 of the next 10 games (And they're clear losses, not bullshit losses), then I'll go ahead and throw in the towel for the current team. However, if we go .500 or better, than by all means I support going for the moral victory of a good record. Playoff or not, I'd like to see us cross the 35 win mark, because the disparity from that point is not going to be worth tanking. With 15 games left, though, this team is absolutely capable of plummeting to the bottom of the standings. And maybe luck will work for once (don't count on it) I do NOT want to do this. But if we're not succeeding against this part of our schedule, then this team is not built to last. I will agree with a point you've made, though - The thought of BK and Woody gone and a top 3 pick makes me excited. I don't think BK is as bad as you do, but anything that gets Woody out of here is a plus in my book. I wonder how a player feels at this point, certainly the logic is the same. Would you rather have the 2 or 3 more wins, or the draft pick and a fresh start?

Likely I would try to trade down with Charlotte for their two picks. With a high pick and two mid-to-low picks, I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect to pick up both Thabeet and Crittendon/Law, without reaching for either.

I don't see either of them ever having the motivation to come over. If I were them looking in, and saw Esteban Batista (our only "foreign project")not even dressing, or being designated, I wouldn't want to run that risk.

Quote: Quote: out. Quote: in. Quote: Very Truly Yours, Final_Quest You gotta stop that flip flopping! That's just a weak strawman argument.

Quote: Woe unto the pump fake. Dirk has a very slow release.. If Josh Smith is playing him man on man, I'm sure that Dirk will try to draw the foul... Do you remember that game? 6 blocks in a quarter? 10 in the game? Smoove's first "breakout potential" game? Yeah, remember who that was against?

Quote: Quote: Joe shoots .471%. Kobe shoots .467%. So, probably about as often as Joe does. although some may think otherwise I'm not a Joe hater. I just want to see a return on an investment. So what would you classify as a "return on the investment"?

My prediction? The unfortunate return of phx_suns.

It's not guaranteed, but the team can give out rings to just about anyone they like. As for the trade, it's not great. Probably not good. But I really have no use for a second rounder. While I really like Solomon Jones, he never gets minutes. And I would much rather have Anthony Johnson on the court than any of our other second round picks, be it Ivey or Salim, even with the bump in cost. I'm pretty sure they both come off the books next year anyways, so the money owed to AJ, should we choose to keep him, isn't a big deal. Bottom line, anything that keeps Salim Stoudamire off of my court is a good thing.

In concept, I was thinking along similar lines today. We're probably going to have to overpay for a PG, and Chill is probably going to be the one to go. However, Telfair is certainly not the correct pick. I was thinking more along the lines of Childress/Salim for Sergio Rodriguez/Pick (top 5 protected, or so...)

I recall...quite vividly in fact, at least one person who was adamant about drafting Marty A at number two. So, yes, that means there is definately one person who would have a worse draft record than BK.

So, what you're saying...If you can find worse players picked within five spots, then BK sucks. If you can't find worse players within five spots, then BK sucks. Oh, I get it.

Yeah, that's my fault. I lost track of where I was going in the post, I meant to add the addendum "Even Walter has conceded that it's too late to tank now." Sorry.

Quote: But this would not be the year to tank regardless. There are two teams that will absolutely battle for the worst record...the C's and the Griz. We can't "catch" them. Because PHX owns our pick, if its not top 3 then what exactly is the point of tanking? If the Suns did not own our pick I might see the logic. One of these years we need to learn the mechanics of winning. If we could get a PG and some help inside before the deadline I think we have the core of a nice situation. I disagree with your initial statement - were there a year to tank, this would absolutely be it. With two game-changers coming out in the draft, and ESPECIALLY with the amount of injuries that have plagued this team, it would be very easy for us to be significantly worse than both the Cs and the Grizz. What's our record without JJ? What's our record without Smoove? Both of them were rushed back from injury in a panic, but the timetable on Smoove almost extended to now (though not entirely). If we had gone 1-13 in January instead of 7-7 (which is very feasible based on the way the team plays without Smoove), then we're in a top position for a top spot. And as a side note, though it doesn't condone a point for either side...For all the talk about the Hawks bad luck, remember when the Celtics tanked HARD to get Tim Duncan? Anybody remember who they came out with? That's got to be just as bad as us, if not worse.

Quote: GSUteke, the question started with whether we will have made a mistake to not tank earlier if both Oden and Durant do not come out. I said no as we need at least one in the draft to have justified it. I asked in return if we don't make the playoffs and both enter the draft if it would be a inverse mistake in return. I conceeded to the facts on my part, but of course, the opposing side balked at any notion that tanking could be justified. No, Diesel balked. Entirely different. The tank situation is VERY similar to the CP/MW situation. Next year at midseason, if we aren't in a strong position for a playoff run, then it's pretty evident that we SHOULD have tanked. Bear in mind, this doesn't mean "tell your players to lose," it means "keep JJ at only about 35 minutes a game, tell Smoove NOT to come back so fast from his injury in lieu of reaggravating it, and trading off Zaza/Lo/any other stiffs that don't need to be on the team for what we can get for them. A few months ago, the topic was posted "If you picked NOW, would you still pick MW over CP and DW?" (Perhaps someone can find it for me) I don't know the exact numbers, but 1 person out of about 30 said yes. But it took until the next season to acknowledge that yes, a PG would have been the right pick. Now, before you jump on my ass like you all love to jump on Walter (and he is so often deserving of it), I don't want to tank. I think this team is on the verge of being a playoff contender, and with a competent big (Re: Not necessarily dominant, but not Zaza), and either a healthy speedy or a playmaking PG, we'll be in the upper echelon of the east (for whatever that's worth). If this is true, then I really don't doubt that, at the very least, Walter will shut up about tanking in retrospect, because it wouldn't have been a good idea. However, if I'm wrong and we're not major contenders, and at this point next year we're still 5 games out of the 8 seed, and Greg Oden and/or Kevin Durant are tearing up the league, then Walter will be right, tanking would have been a better idea. Honestly, 80% of this board needs to get rid of their own egos and post as a Hawks fan and not as a message board superstar. We'd be better off if names weren't displayed, because I'm pretty damn sick of the "Oh God, Walter posted, I'm going to post the dead horse emoticon because it's the funny thing to do and lololololol. The man makes some (stubborn yet )good points, but you're too busy being trendy and ignoring them. Grow up.

Quote: ...desperately overuse ignorant emoticons and attack them personally. W Um, I'm on Walter's side on this one. Yes, Walter is very stubborn, and very pessimistic about the current team, as well as most teams past. But he also knows more about basketball than probably 95% of the board, and unless you're going to make a well-thought out, in-depth refute to his point, he's not going to concede a thing. We've reached the point that the "beating a dead horse" emoticon is, in fact, "beating a dead horse." And, for the record, Walter, I will not admit that tanking is a good idea if we finish this season out of the playoffs. If, by midseason next year we're not in position for a decent playoff birth, then THAT will prove that you were right and the current team does not have it in them to succeed. Fair enough?

Quote: Well, there's some rumblings about either one coming out. Durants father has recently been quoting as saying that he thinks his son will stay another year? Do you think Walter will admit he was wrong about tanking if neither Durant or Oden declare? As for the topic at hand, I wouldn't trust too much in the draft. After the initial 4 or 5 people who have the "game-changer" capability touted (for the record, Joakim Noah will be a bigger bust than Shelden. It was commonly known that Shelden was a reach as the 5 spot , but Noah, while not as undersized as SW, has been perpetually a top three pick, and will bust hard) the draft is a pretty big crapshoot depending on who does and does not declare. And if Crittendon DOES declare, he'll be gone long before the Indy pick, leaving a bunch of risks at the PG position. While it's possible that a Marcus Williams or a Sergio Rodriguez will fall that far again, it's a lot more likely that we get a Rajon Rondo, when we'd be better served just taking a big risk on an unknown or trade the pick away for whatever. Though if Thabeet keeps free-falling and end up at our spot (which I highly doubt, seeing as Sene barely cleared the top ten), he would absolutely be the right man for the team, raw as he is.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#41 In addition, teams are restricted from trading away future first round draft picks in consecutive years. This is called the "Ted Stepien Rule." Stepien owned the Cavs from 1980-83, and made a series of bad trades that cost the Cavs several years' first round picks. As a result of Stepien's ineptitude, teams are now prevented from making trades which might leave them without a future first-round draft pick in consecutive years. This rule applies only to future first round picks. For example, if this is the 2005-06 season, then teams can trade their 2006 first round pick without regard to whether they had a 2005 pick, since their 2005 pick is no longer a future pick. But they can't trade away both their 2006 and 2007 picks, since both are future picks. Teams sometimes work around this rule by trading first round picks in alternate years. In addition, teams are required to have only a first round pick, and not necessarily their first round pick. So teams may trade away their own future picks in consecutive years if they have another team's first round pick in one of those years. Just in case anyone is confused (As I was).