Hawks as is versus Magic in 7-game series

[Guest]

The bad reasoning in Nire's arguement and I guess yours is that you guys conclude that Cleveland messed up by getting Shaq "for Dwight". Well the truth is that weather they had gotten Shaq or not, they were going to lose to the Celtics. When you look at what happened against Boston, Shaq actually played well against Boston. He averaged 13.5 ppg and shot 52% from the field.

Shaq.

Check this out. He was the lead scorer and had 4 blocks. This is not the reason they lost to Boston. They lost to Boston because of Lebron. If they would have not gotten Shaq, they would have still lost. IN fact, they lost nothing in the trade for Shaq. They got Big Z back.

Therefore the argument is moot.

Bad reasoning? All my point is that after Cleveland lost to Orlando in 2009, they traded for Shaq in the offseason...most "experts" were saying that Shaq was brought in to battle Dwight, but that matchup never happened...After cleveland lost to Boston, the thought was that the Cavs would have been better off playing Hickson and Verajao more as opposed to Shaq....read somewhere that LBJ was lobbying for more playing time for Hickson as opposed to Shaq.

Shaq may have had good individual stats but you also have to take into account how it affected the other players and how it affected Clevelands ability to run on offense and play better defense.

It's shortsighted to plan for one specific player when there are no gaurantees that matchup occurs.

(Big Z was traded for Jamison, then was released and resigned...had nothing to do with Shaq trade from Phoenix)

[NineOhTheRino]

No no no.....Cleavland screwed up by playing idiotic lineups but did that really have anything to do with Shaq? Shaq was brought in to battle Howard and had he gotten that opportunity i think Cleavland would have been *successful. Shouldn't the goal be to put the best possible match up on the floor at all times? *Had Mike Brown played the correct lineups there is no way in hell Cleavland is not playing for a title.

*Well...I don't know if anything could have saved them after D. West did what he did with YKW's favorite girl.

Edited August 6, 2010 by NineOhTheRino

[Diesel]

Bad reasoning? All my point is that after Cleveland lost to Orlando in 2009, they traded for Shaq in the offseason...most "experts" were saying that Shaq was brought in to battle Dwight, but that matchup never happened...After cleveland lost to Boston, the thought was that the Cavs would have been better off playing Hickson and Verajao more as opposed to Shaq....read somewhere that LBJ was lobbying for more playing time for Hickson as opposed to Shaq.

Shaq may have had good individual stats but you also have to take into account how it affected the other players and how it affected Clevelands ability to run on offense and play better defense.

It's shortsighted to plan for one specific player when there are no gaurantees that matchup occurs.

(Big Z was traded for Jamison, then was released and resigned...had nothing to do with Shaq trade from Phoenix)

Again, Bad reasoning. Shaq was not brought in just to matchup with Howard. Shaq was brought in to give them a post presence. Boston didn't beat Cleveland because of the post. Boston beat Cleveland because Lebron is a wimp. Therefore, the arguments that have gone out against getting Shaq (even if mainly it is to matchup against Howard) is weak. However, if we had gotten SHaq, it wouldn't just be for Howard. It would be to give us a big that can match up with other bigs in the league and give Horf a break.

[Guest]

Again, Bad reasoning. Shaq was not brought in just to matchup with Howard. Shaq was brought in to give them a post presence. Boston didn't beat Cleveland because of the post. Boston beat Cleveland because Lebron is a wimp. Therefore, the arguments that have gone out against getting Shaq (even if mainly it is to matchup against Howard) is weak. However, if we had gotten SHaq, it wouldn't just be for Howard. It would be to give us a big that can match up with other bigs in the league and give Horf a break.

I know it wasn't just for Howard but that was the main reason, it was all that was talked about by every talking head.

ESPN-Chris Broussard 06/25/09

"The Cavs obviously were unhappy with their ability to defend Dwight Howard in the playoffs against the Orlando Magic and bringing Shaq into the fold should help."

Yahoo- Adreian Wojnarowski 06/25/09

"Yet the disappointing Eastern Conference finals loss to the Orlando Magic left Cavs GM Danny Ferry with incredible pressure to accumulate talent around James in the final season prior to his 2010 free agency. James has blessed the O’Neal trade, especially because it should give his overmatched frontline a chance to compete with Dwight Howard in the playoffs."

I didn't like the trade when Phoenix did it, I understood it from Cleveland's perspective, I didn't like him for the Hawks because I didn't believe he would fit in wih our young core and would actually take away from Al's development.

Michael Cunningham -AJC 08/06/10

"With Shaq off to Boston here’s a quick epilogue as it relates to the Hawks: I’ve been told that Atlanta wouldn’t budge on giving Shaq a starting nod over Al, who is after all still only 24-years old and an All-Star."

[Diesel]

Check out the podcast

On the podcast, Danny Ferry tells exactly why he traded for Shaq. He didn't mention Howard. He said in a 7 game series, he wants to cause matchup problems for whoever they play.

I think you have fallen into the trap of believing what writers write. We are seeing more and more than writers want the sensational. Shaq vs. Howard is sensational. However, it was not the truth about why they went out and got Shaq. Hell, Shaq is not a defensive stopper. What Ferry said in this podcast made more sense. He's a matchup problem.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Diesel

[Vol4ever]

How do we know this? This is the #1 response guys have been giving this offseason. Say LD is 10 times better than Woody coaching offense. How do we know he's not 10 times worse on the defensive side? Better or worse we don't have a clue.

X100. People are talking like Drew is the saviour. I am wlling to bet he is much worse than Woody! Drew aint proved crap and he is taking over a bonafide playoff team? WTH

The rats will be running out of the barn when the Hawks struggle at the .500 level this season.

[AHF]

X100. People are talking like Drew is the saviour. I am wlling to bet he is much worse than Woody! Drew aint proved crap and he is taking over a bonafide playoff team? WTH

The rats will be running out of the barn when the Hawks struggle at the .500 level this season.

Is it possible to do materially worse than posting the worst series loss in NBA history?

I say no. Even if Drew is an abject failure, he can't have a playoff series that is materially worse than the beating Orlando put on us.

I was not excited about the hire of Drew so I am definitely not saying he is the savior. I hope he exceeds my expectations, though.

[Diesel]

Is it possible to do materially worse than posting the worst series loss in NBA history?

I say no. Even if Drew is an abject failure, he can't have a playoff series that is materially worse than the beating Orlando put on us.

I was not excited about the hire of Drew so I am definitely not saying he is the savior. I hope he exceeds my expectations, though.

Yes.

Being in the playoffs and losing to your second round opponent (even if it's blowout city) is not as bad as not being in the playoffs at all.

I think a lot has been put on Drew simply because we hired him. The truth is that Drew is the same guy who was on the bench responsible for the offense while Woody was here.