OKC and Atlanta in talks - Dennis and Muscala for Melo - Deal Done (Not Fake News)

[MaceCase]

5 hours ago, Spud2nique said:

If Mr. Slink gets Miles PLUMLAAAYYYYYY (my English accent) off the books ? he’s the GM of the year! ? 

It would be pronounced more like Ploom-Ley.

[thecampster]

4 hours ago, frosgrim said:

Lin's not a bad player, but injured a little too much and got saddled with Lin-sanity in NYC.  I really like him as a mentor for Trae.  Hopefully Lin is ready to play come November and can take the starting duties for a while until Trae gets himself acclimated to the NBA. No need to start that kid and ruin his confidence so early. 

 

As far as the trade, I'm happy with it. Dennis had run out the string here and he needed to go. Getting what we did is great.  Not sure how much better we could have done given Dennis' perceived value and legal issues. 

My biggest issue with Lin is the hair.  The final determiner of this deal is whether or not the man bun rubs off on Trae. If so, we lost that trade.

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, thecampster said:

My biggest issue with Lin is the hair.  The final determiner of this deal is whether or not the man bun rubs off on Trae. If so, we lost that trade.

Hopefully Schlenk has a one man bun per team limit which is why he dealt Moose after he got Lin.

[thecampster]

The no trade clause explained.

A team does not need a player's permission to "discuss" him in a trade. 

A player does need a team's permission for his agent to talk to other teams.

The permission sought weeks ago wasn't "permission" for the Thunder. The Thunder went to Anthony (and his agent) and said...we need to get out from under your contract so we're either going to waive or trade you. We'd like to give you permission to seek out your own deal. We are only interested in cap relief, but we would like to know if you will give your permission and under what circumstances you'll accept a trade. Anthony and his agent laid out the rules/conditions for a trade and they talked with teams to determine his value outside of the deal (pre-looked for F/A deals) to make sure he could go to a better location. This also enables the player to negotiate his buyout with the new team. This is a separate deal that can't be submitted to the league until the trade is approved by the league (officially). They are separate deals. The new team doesn't have those rights until conveyed by the league via trade approval. Technically, Atlanta could now turn around and do the same thing OKC did but why the hell would they ruin their reputation with every agent/player in the league.

The waiving of the clause happens when the team submits the proposed deal to the league. In order to be officially traded, the league will contact Anthony (and or his agent) and have him officially sign away his no-trade rights at that time. It is not a blanket waive prior to trades to empower teams. It happens during the trade approval process. Anything reported beforehand amounts to a gentleman's agreement and nothing more. A player can (and has) reject a trade at the last moment during the approval process as a negotiating ploy or a change of heart. Which is why they talk about it beforehand instead of wasting their time and energy.

[thecampster]

Remember this deal that the league would not approve http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/7333285/los-angeles-lakers-deal-acquire-chris-paul-off

 

Or this baseball trade the player rejected. https://kplr11.com/2017/12/08/giancarlo-stanton-rejects-trade-to-cardinals/

or this one: http://a.espncdn.com/mlb/news/1999/1213/231893.html  Notice here that Griffey gave them indications he would waive his clause but then backed out when it came time to sign the paperwork.

 

 

[MaceCase]

I'm pretty sure Lin ditched the man bun 3 years ago, moved to the mohawk, then the slicked back ponytail, and has now settled comfortably on the dreads.

 

As to the whole Melo discussion, I believe it's been discussed ad nauseum that Melo has been trying to get to Houston for about 2 seasons with the caveat being that not one but two teams now have refused to take on Houston's only tradeable "assets" (Ryan Anderson) and Melo isn't in the least bit interested in leaving much if any money on the table. 

So without getting hung up on any singular report, Melo was in discussions (or at least had the expectation) of a buyout with both the Knicks and the Thunder in order to facilitate this move to Houston.  So I don't see the point in holding him hostage when the only payoff is a package that two franchises already saw as detestable.  Miami has only emerged as a suitor if they can acquire Melo for a cheap exception but uh, yea, I guess if they can unload a few crap contracts for the honor they wouldn't mind either.

But what's in it for the Hawks?  They already achieved their objective of gaining an expiring, I don't see the point in wading in well muddied waters hoping to extract a gem that two teams already couldn't find.

[Brotha2ThaNite]

Now this can get good lol

 

Quote

Mike Muscala Ripped 76ers in February: Joel Embiid Talks 'A Lot of S--t'

MIKE CHIARI
JULY 20, 2018

Mike Muscala provided a less than glowing review of the Philadelphia 76ers and soon-to-be teammate Joel Embiid during a podcast appearance in February.    

According to NBC Sports Philadelphia, Muscala appeared on Road Trippin' last season and said the following about Embiid and the Sixers:

"I don't like the Sixers. I just don't like them. I just feel like they talk a lot of s--t, especially Embiid. I understand there's going to be some trash-talking. But I just feel like—I don't know. Sometimes, I just—I respect players that just let their play do the talking. And I think sometimes, it just gets excessive, especially with Embiid. 

 

[sturt]

Dang guys... I call "strawman."

Where did I ever allege that is what WILL happen?

C'monnnnnn mannnnnn.

What I alleged is that, based on what we KNOW about the situation, it's ENTIRELY PLAUSIBLE that we have some options beyond buyout... and that there is NO evidence to the contrary that it isn't plausible.

@Buzzard, in this age of Google, I've at least tried where maybe you just didn't feel up to it. 

I can report with integrity that I find NOTHING that supports your assumption. That is, the assumption that Presti had made a promise to Melo... or that we made a promise to Melo.

Note, "assumption" doesn't mean you're wrong... doesn't mean your interpretation is even unreasonable. It means that you're jumping past the actual facts that have been reported, and interpreting it according to what seems most reasonable to you, but the truth is, there's ample room for speculation.

[sturt]

I don't claim any special understanding here of the nuts-and-bolts of how the no trade clause actually is implemented.

I don't claim any special understanding period.

I acknowledge that sometimes reporters are less than precise with their words, and that one cannot always put full faith and trust that things were/are how a reporter said they were/are.

Woj, I believe, was the reporter in question, though, and he tends to get extra credibility at least from where I sit.

And he reported that the clause had been, past tense, waived.

 

 

 

[sturt]

2 hours ago, MaceCase said:

But what's in it for the Hawks?  They already achieved their objective of gaining an expiring, I don't see the point in wading in well muddied waters hoping to extract a gem that two teams already couldn't find.

Not to be argumentative, but if I'm GM, I'm always interested to make sure I don't leave anything of value on the table. Why do I stop at meeting one objective if I can meet multiple ones? I don't see the point in rushing when there is no apparent reason to rush. And Anderson is the player that muddied those waters, and where others would not have been interested, we could be... if the price were right... whether now, or at the beginning of training camp.

I say "no rush." This is July. See how things evolve over the next 2-3 months. You'll be just as able to release Melo in October as you are right now.

That's the salient point.

 

 

[kg01]

@sturt, you're not getting it.  We love you but you're just not getting it.

We cannot play around with this or our name goes from 'mud' to 'mudbutt'.

Accept your wrongness here, sir.

[kg01]

18 minutes ago, sturt said:

I say "no rush." This is July. See how things evolve over the next 2-3 months. You'll be just as able to release Melo in October as you are right now.

That's the salient point.

 

 

That's a literally ridiculous approach which would negate any trust our GM has around the league and with guy's agents.

You're a smart dude so I'm literally shocked that you don't get this.

[sturt]

20 minutes ago, kg01 said:

@sturt, you're not getting it.  We love you but you're just not getting it.

We cannot play around with this or our name goes from 'mud' to 'mudbutt'.

Accept your wrongness here, sir.

Wrongess about???

That you guys are assuming conversations happened that we don't know happened, nor do we have any reason to assume happened?

[sturt]

18 minutes ago, kg01 said:

That's a literally ridiculous approach which would negate any trust our GM has around the league and with guy's agents.

You're a smart dude so I'm literally shocked that you don't get this.

I think you're AGAIN assuming something that's actually been EXPLICITLY struck down.

I have said specifically that if we did make a promise, then we should live up to it.

Your problem is, you're convinced that we made a promise, and without cameras and microphones, or at least a C-Viv report that says that happened, there is nothing to support your conclusion.

Schlenk ONLY had to deal with Presti once Melo waived his no-trade clause.

Campster and Woj disagree about the intricacies of how that went down. I'm not claiming special knowledge to know which one is right. But if Woj is right, then there absolutely is no reason to believe Schlenk dealt with Melo.

[Jody23]

Fwiw, Woj did report that the Hawks would pay the full amount to buyout Melo...

 

[kg01]

12 minutes ago, sturt said:

I think you're AGAIN assuming something that's actually been EXPLICITLY struck down.

I have said specifically that if we did make a promise, then we should live up to it.

Your problem is, you're convinced that we made a promise, and without cameras and microphones, or at least a C-Viv report that says that happened, there is nothing to support your conclusion.

Schlenk ONLY had to deal with Presti once Melo waived his no-trade clause.

Campster and Woj disagree about the intricacies of how that went down. I'm not claiming special knowledge to know which one is right. But if Woj is right, then there absolutely is no reason to believe Schlenk dealt with Melo.

You are flabbergasting me right now.  I mean, I haven't been flabbergasted like this since college.

This trade doesn't get done without a promise to buy him out.  That's not even up for debate in my eyes.

Even if there was no promise, holding the dude hostage may do a wee bit of good but it would concurrently do a galaxy's worth of damage.

[sturt]

4 minutes ago, kg01 said:

This trade doesn't get done without a promise to buy him out.

Welcome to that opinion, but you don't know that there was any other option on the table than the one with us.

ALLLLL I'm asking is that people acknowledge their assumptions here.

I don't know why that's so very very hard to do.

7 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Even if there was no promise, holding the dude hostage may do a wee bit of good but it would concurrently do a galaxy's worth of damage.

Ridiculous statement. If no promise was made, then there could not possibly be any damage.

8 minutes ago, kg01 said:

You are flabbergasting me right now.  I mean, I haven't been flabbergasted like this since college.

Well at least that's some consolation... hehehehe.

 

 

 

[AHF]

Sturt - When you see it has already been publicly announced that we are buying him out and he talked with OKC before they started shopping him about exploring scenarios where he would be bought out it doesn't take a big leap of faith to think that when trade scenarios were discussed that they were discussed with the assumption that he would be bought out.  The conduct of the Hawks here is highly suggestive that we promised him.  Now none of us were in the room but every sign points to that being the case.  We are about to take an act that will be consistent with that very reasonable inference (actually buying him out) and make this academic anyway.

[sturt]

12 minutes ago, AHF said:

very reasonable inference

I myself used similar words.

So, it's not like I ever contested that.

Never said anything about a "big leap of faith."

ONLY asked folks to acknowledge that, based on what had been reported, there is nothing CONCRETE about the assertion that the buyout was agreed w/ Schlenk before the deal with OKC was done... and to the contrary, whereas I've ALL ALONG been more than willing to acknowledge the "reasonable inference," it has been nothing short of pulling proverbial teeth to get folks to acknowledge even the TINYEST degree of assumption here.

In fact, I've missed it if ANYONE did.

It just shouldn't be so hard for people to do.

Maybe Woj was not precise in his reporting. It happens. But then again, maybe he was.

The side screaming "unreasonable unreasonable unreasonable" isn't mine. It's the other one.

[JayBirdHawk]

2 hours ago, kg01 said:

@sturt, you're not getting it.  We love you but you're just not getting it.

We cannot play around with this or our name goes from 'mud' to 'mudbutt'.

Accept your wrongness here, sir.

Ha....you said mudbutt............oh and Melo is getting bought out.   

Woj already reported it and he's getting ALL his money. No debate needed. Just suppositions and such.