CBAreject

You cannot sign a FREE AGENT before the draft! Therefore, you cannot trade him for a pick in that year's draft! We cannot sign and trade Jackson for a chance at Smith. Cannot be done. I've said this before, but people do not listen. No more talk of doing something that cannot be done, please. AM I WRONG? Perhaps! It would make me much happier if I were wrong than being right and having no one listen.

How could you say that? Any true fan would want his team to win. We should fight to win every last game we can. The draft is no guarantee, and I can't understand the laws of probability, so I can't see how a higher percentage chance at a good player is better than a lower percentage chance. I just see that neither is 100%, so I make the blanket statement that the draft is no guarantee. I'm a moron. I can't think. BTW, I was being sarcastic...except the part about being a moron. I humbly admit that I am one.

Can you stop defending your ridiculous team with its propensity for conspicuous consumption??? Scouting department? Oh, boy, I bet those guys really had to work hard to figure out that ARod had some hidden talent, but you meant the draft... Jeter only fell to the Yankees in the first round b/c no other team could afford to sign him, ala Rick Ankiel and J.D. Drew. So, the Yanks trade those hot prospects for 'overpriced veterans that other teams are too cheap to retain'? Where do I begin????? First, name a couple of those players who've amounted to anything. Actually teams overvalue Yankee prospects. Second, TOO CHEAP? WHAT THE (*!^* are you talking about? Teams can't afford to resign those players because the don't have the freakin' money. They're not just pinch-pennies, moron. THIRD, if the Yanks do have a good scouting department (and I actually think it is solid, but not great), then they very well should because they spend more on that sector than any other team. Many teams have had to downsize scouting. You will have a very hard time convincing anyone of the Yankees' great accomplishments if they win. BASEBALL is the only sport in which one team can have three times the average payroll and get away with it. The Yankees lost last year, so they went out and spent more and more and more. They went and traded for the most ridiculous contract in baseball. Why? Because they could...they are, after all, the Yankees. What I wonder is WHY anyone actually is a fan (outside of New York). What is the point? So, you root for the best team so that you have the highest chance of being a winner? That's the best I can come up with. Am I bitter? Of course! Every fan in baseball is bitter about the absurd imbalance in baseball right now. I hope the Yankees lose and look stupid doing it, but then again, they'll probably just buy more players if they do.

OK, nobody lay into me about wanting our Hawks to lose. Those who don't want the team to lose just can't think very well. OK, there I asked for it. Anyhoo, tonight was great for draft position. 1) We lost 2) Washington won 3) Phoenix won Tonight was ALMOST even better as Chicago nearly stole won from NO, but was beaten in overtime. So, the same day that Blunt says that he can't see anyone except for Washington passing us, Phx and Wash both pass us. How bout it, Blunt? Actually, what Blunt failed to realize is that Phoenix is better than their record because they have played all year without one of the top players in the league (Stoudamire...oh yes...don't argue) and the best player on the team. Now he's back and logging 33/15 on a good night. Scary for the league is if Phx lands a good pick. Marion, Johnson, Stoudamire, Okafor, maybe? sick. Furthermore, Blunt failed to notice that Washington is playing its best ball after Kwame Brown called out Gilbert Arenas. Gilbert has risen to the challenge and Washington is hot. Also, Orlando is playing its best ball of the season. Chicago? Not great, but Chandler is healthy. They've played OK. Point is, I think we will finish with the third worst record at least. There's a chance Orlando will pass us, and Chicago may, too. They may, and I hope they do, even though they really suck. We're just a lot worse. I think the Lakers upset sent a message that we play hard, but that will only get us so far. -I want the Hawks to lose, and that makes me a fan. Otherwise, I would be indifferent.

Why would we go after Person? What can he do for us? I wouldn't give him more than 1 yr, 2 mil. Barry? Yeah, I'll take him. 3 yrs, 13 mil. Sura? 3 yrs, 9 mil. Denver's model? They went after one of the biggest FA's available and landed him. Miller is the 3rd best point in the league right now (Kidd, Payton....ok, maybe Nash).

OK, actually Lebron, but I wanted to offer a different veiwpoint. 1) Lebron 2) PEJA 3) Yao 4) Duncan 5) Garnett 6) Kidd Those players all take mediocre or poor teams and make them good. Of course, Lebron's team isn't quite good yet, but just wait. PEJA has made Sac the best team in the league without it's perceived superstar. Does Webb make Sac good? Did he make Washington good? What many do not realize about basketball is that it's about 2 things: maximizing scoring efficiency on offense and minimizing scoring efficiency on defense. Sure, that's a simple concept, but many do not understand this. Simply put, PEJA has the highest scoring efficiency in the league. He single handedly beat the Lakers last night despite terrific nights by Shaq and Kobe. Of course, Kobe's night would be perceived as terrific, but closer inspection reveals that he shot only 12-28. Peja is better than Kobe.

b) Football players get HUGE signing bonuses that aren't really factored into their "salary" numbers. Baseball and basketball players don't get these. Actually, they are...as far as the salary cap goes. The signing bonus is divided evenly over the length of the contract for cap considerations. Since the NFL cap is what we're using to determine average player salary, we are including signing bonuses. e) One thing that actually hurts the NFL, but not the NBA, is vet minimums. A lot of times, NFL teams will cut a more vet player because they HAVE to pay him more, instead opting for a perhaps slightly less ready younger/healthier? player who they can pay less... I agree. I would do away with minimums altogether. Doesn't that ruin a free market for players? That's what unions will do to you. If there were no union, there would be free bidding on undrafted FAs. Some guys would get a chance to play for $60,000 or so, who wouldn't have otherwise. c) I don't know this, but I would wager, that the avg. career length of a baseball player is much lengthier than a basketball player. Football is by far the shortest. This is interesting. Obviously, we would guess football is the shortest just because of injuries (I know data supports it, too). I was wondering if it has something to do with the percentage of the roster occupied by non-starters, too. Think about it. It's much easier to make a team as a reserve. Frequently, reserves come in for just a short time and then don't pan out. In baseball (longest), there are what I would consider 15 starters (positions, starting pitchers, closer, dh), which is 67% of the roster. In basketball, there are 5 starters, which is about 43% of the roster. In football, there are 22 starters, which is 42% of the roster. Of course, injuries shorten the career length in football, as well.

You cannot trade a FA for a lottery pick! A player who is a FA cannot be traded until he is signed. A player who becomes a FA after the season cannot be signed until after the draft. How then could anyone trade for a lottery pick???????? These "INSIDERS" are idiots. They want to down the Hawks. I don't know what it is, but everybody outside of Atlanta was PISSED when the Hawks traded Rasheed. Why? Anybody who can explain it, please do. HERE'S MY BEST EXPLANATION: Most people are always on New York teams' SACKS! The only way that the Knicks get SHEED is if the Hawks SNT him to the Knicks. BUT! The only way for the Hawks to SNT him to the Knicks is if the Knicks give back bad contracts to the Hawks. Do the Hawks want bad contracts? NO! BUT, Knicks fans everywhere think that the Hawks are still the whipping boy of NBA trades because of Babcock's ineptitude. SO! They think that the Hawks are stupid enough to trade Rasheed to the Knicks. BUT, now that will never happen, so Knicks fans (and there are A LOT of them) are PISSED! HA! Take that! This is the same team that offered LJ and Childs for DEKE! LOSERS!

Overrating JT? But what about a #1 or #2 pick (assuming we pick so high)??? JT is just to sweeten the pot a little. How could Boston sneer at such a high pick? They're not getting any better, dude, and they don't have any cap money. BOSTON: Number one pick and JT for Pierce? Nah, we're pretty happy being a horrible team with no way to improve.

Diesel forgot about this one, but it was the best move by far, in my opinion. How did we get rid of Dog without taking back bad contracts??? Some people even complained about that deal! Guh? I think drafting Diaw was second best. He got something of high value with a low pick. Trading Reef/Ratliff wasn't that great an accomplishment because they are both valuable, and I'm sure other teams wanted them. I still like all of his deals, though.

Quote: i don't think he was implying that at all Fine. I think he was. Maybe he didn't say, 'I don't want to finish last! It's bad luck!' However, his language did not indicate that, 'It's not the end of the world if we don't finish last.' If I am exaggerating his position in one direction, you are exaggerating it in the other. This is obviously a difference of opinion, and I will never convince you of mine. Quote: i think u read too much into his statement because you're either mad at people who don't understand logic/probability or you just wanted to come across as an intelligent person I read too much into his statement because I was angry? No, if I am angry in the first place, it is because I read too much into his statement, and not the other way around. Now, that is poor logic. Am I a jerk? Perhaps. Do I come on here to vent because I can't do it to people's faces at work without getting fired? Probably. Is that right? No, sir. I know two things for certain, though. First, I'm not mad at people because they don't understand. I'm mad at them because they don't care to understand. Thinking is a lost art. No one wants to do it because it doesn't result in gaining wealth or getting laid in the short term. Secondly, I have nothing to gain by trying to appear intelligent to a group of people who don't know anything about me and whom I'll never meet.

I think if Billy Knight "built" a team in any sort of vein, it was purely accidental. I don't think he used any strategy in acquiring our current team except that they all have expiring contracts.

I've seen JT + Milwaukee pick for top 5 pick several times now. Guys, I would never, ever, ever trade a top 5 pick for Jason Terry and some mid-round pick. I can't see it happening. I hope I'm wrong here, but I just cannot imagine Phoenix or Chicago trading their pick to us for a guy without a position.

Wait, why are we trying to win games, again? I so hope we end up picking 7th instead of 1st. What wonders that would work for our franchise. Cletus: "The #1 pick ain't no guarantee! It could be a flop!" Me: "Yes, but the #1 pick is better than the #6 pick, isn't it." Cletus: "That ain't the way to build!" Me: "Oh, right. We should've kept our overpaid 'core' together and used CC in a sign and trade for Kobe. Right, I nearly forgot."

No, he didn't explicitly say that, but he MORE than implied it. Here's what he said: "Remember, the worst record rarely gets the #1. So I'm more than content to be in the bottom 3." What do you think that means? What??? If he'd said, 'I want to be in the bottom three,' alone, then I couldn't have argued. However, he IMPLIES that it's better not to be #1, but to just be in the bottom 3 (2 or 3). Why does he advise us to REMEMBER that being the worst team isn't necessarily best?? Why? Think! If it's not spelled out for you in black and white, you miss it altogether.

Look, the worst team has a 25% chance at the #1 pick through the lottery. OF COURSE the worst team rarely gets the #1 pick. They only have a 25% chance! BUT, it is pure ignorance to say, 'Well, I'd rather be number 2 or 3.' The #2 team has less chance than the #1 team, as does the #3 team and so on. Why would you 'be more comfortable' with less of a chance? Oh, I ask, but I actually know. With 98% of Americans, anecdotal evidence is more convincing than mathematical probability. Because you've seen the #1 team have 'bad luck' in the past, you only assume that's going to continue. What's funny is that half of the ignoramuses go the other way and say that the #1 team is 'due'. That's what they said about Cleveland last year. Those same people think that if the roulette wheel lands on red 4 straight times, it's probably going to land on black that 5th time. It's due. The trials are INDEPENDENT, PEOPLE! The 5th spin does not depend on what happened in the first 4 spins!!!!!! AUGH! Why is this so frustrating? I dunno. It's such a simple concept, but the overwhelming majority of people do not understand it. What's worse is that they don't understand it even after having it demonstrated to them. OH, and the Hawks are 4 games back of the Magic, not 6

I just realized that for the next 28 games we have the worst team in NBA history! It's kind of fun, actually. Too bad we couldn't play these guys all year so we'd set the record for fewest wins.

The only two sensible reasons for keeping Rasheed were that we might've been able to dangle him in a sign and trade, which I will thank sd79 for pointing out, and that we wouldn't have pimped out detroit. However, we should note that sign and trades generally bring back several mediocre players with lots of guaranteed money. The Detroit reason actually has more merit. So, let's summarize it: PROS: 1st round pick (Mil) Our own #1 is higher CONS: We might've used Sheed in a SNT We make Detroit a player in the FA market (we don't want this) Other pros/cons mentioned but not making my list: CONS: We might've made the playoffs (guh?) We might've resigned Sheed (gah?) We'd have earned more respect (GOH?) PROS: Bobby Sura is on our team (seriously) Let's actually think about making Detroit a player, though. Does Detroit sign Okur? They have some dough to throw at Kobe. Don't need him, you say? Pulease.

Quote: How do you know it is a weak position Reject? I know because I understand logic. Quote: By giving away Wallace ($5) without the candy bar. That just means we are going to lose. The first sentence isn't even a sentence, but I know what you mean. OMG, the $5 was NOT Rasheed Wallace. The money is the cap space (apropos?). That's what the other dude meant when he said that $5 plus a candy bar is better than just $5! We both agree that the candy bar is the draft pick. How, then, could we possibly have had BOTH Rasheed and the pick? Obviously, the $5 was CAP SPACE.... Quote: I still thought this team had a chance to make the playoffs with Wallace. That's just silly. We would've had to win 20 of 28 to sniff the playoffs. That would mean we'd be the best team in the conference for that stretch. Silly. Quote: It's a lot deeper than just adding a candy bar to $5. Let's do a little thinking before respond. Thank you. At least read my other post. Before you start calling out my weak arguements. This doesn't deserve response, but I must. I don't think??? Again, the last two sentences are not sentences. Is this important, really? Yes! We're talking about the intricacies of logical exchange, here. It takes complete thoughts to even begin to formulate a logical position. Learn how to write and spell (arguements???) before you acuse me of not thinking, bub. I have read your other posts, and I think it's lunacy to suggest we were a playoff team with Rasheed Wallace. Were we better? Quite possibly. 20/28 better? Oh my, no.

Couldn't remember. I know play was one of them. I just got worked up about all this BK bashing. I apologize for getting it wrong.

Of course Milwaukee 'STAYED' copetitive. They were competitive to start with. We were not competitive to start with, so how can we 'STAY' competitive?

"Because now a days in the NBA there is no guarantees in the draft." Dude, that's a horribly weak position. The question being asked is, 'Why would $5 and a candybar not be better than just $5.' Your answer is that there is no guarantee of candybars. So what? Even a 20% chance at a candybar and $5 is better than just $5. Bad argument.

So, you think that a computer can control which ball comes out of the hopper? That's a very chaotic system to model mathematically.

Quote: Especially after giving up a first to get both Dickau and Shareef. Have you ever taken economics? Do you understand the concept of 'Sunk Cost'? That's what those draft picks are. We cannot recover them. We should not hold on to Reef SIMPLY BECAUSE we gave up something valuable to get him. We should evaluate him for what he is worth to us right NOW. Geez.

Guys, Know I don't post much, but I do read. I've read over and over, "This is just not the way to do things." "Billy Knight sucks." When are you people going to learn? EVERY STINKING YEAR Hawks fans and front office says, 'We want to win now. Building through the draft is the wrong way to go. That's just not the way to do things.' EVERY STINKING YEAR Hawks fans say, 'Let's try to win as many games as possible so we can look respectable and get a low lottery pick!' What gives? I know it's not politically correct to ask that your team lose, but C'MON PEOPLE! What do you think the benefit is of winning 30 games instead of 20????? WHAT? WHAT DO YOU THINK WE COULD'VE DONE WITH REEF AND THEO???? WHAT?????? Many of you keep saying, 'Aw, we shoulda kept 'em and tried to build around 'em. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????? What options did we have???? You can't possibly think we were better off with that horribly flawed and capped out team! But you do! I don't understand! Some of you think we should've kept Wallace even! HOW??? He never would've resigned here! NEVER! Now, I'm not B.Knight's #1 fan. I truly believe he should've squeezed Dumars' balls a little and gotten him to offer up Darko. Some say he never would've done it. I say fine. This was the Pistons' only prayer for a championship...we held all the cards. That said, I still think we're better off with a decent pick and cap space than just cap space alone. NOW, BEFORE YOU ANSWER THIS, I don't want, 'Well, what are we gonna do with picks and space???' That's hardly the point. The point here is that we were not going to do anything with what we had. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to defend your position that we should've kept what we had.