Half the season behind us, what FA targets are you most hoping on Schlenk's radar?

[sturt]

20 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Thingram ain’t happening if that’s where your headed...again

I have it at a 10% chance... again.

But if he likes Ingram, he will make a move, and... again... that is congruent with his indicating he expects to be active/assertive early in free agency, unlike previous years.

But... again... I'm less interested in your conclusion, more interested in what reasoning (if any) led to the conclusion... in this case, that is the conclusion that Schlenk will not even make an offer.

All you've done, time after time, unless I'm just not paying good enough attention, is to offer some nebulous feeling/perception you have that Ingram can't play with a guard like Trae and a post player like JC. Not any meat to that.

[sturt]

35 minutes ago, sturt said:

So, that leaves us with good reason to think that Schlenk's blueprint is to add 2-3 players his scouting leads him to believe will seriously contribute and play major minutes in 2020-21, or at least by 2021-22. If he can't do so through the 2020 draft and free agency, then his alternative is to basically do what he's done in the past, which is to sign players with some upside to 1 or 2 year deals, and look to the 2021 off-season draft and market.

Conventional wisdom seems to say...

- One of those is going to be a legit candidate for back-up PG.

- One of those is going to be a legit candidate to compete for a starting wing role.

- One of those is going to be a legit candidate to be a quality back-up post player.

( @JTB , again... just to double-check... are you perceiving any "twisting" going on here? By all means, correct me if you think so.)

I've got Yogi. I've got Ingram. And I've got Millsap.

Or, if not Ingram and if Ainge is dealing, I've got Hayward instead of Ingram, and Wood instead of Millsap.

I don't have a Plan C yet, other than eyeing Olidapo for 2021.

But maybe if I continue to be at home as many of us are, that will come in time. I'm strongly inclined to think, though, that Plan C will almost certainly involve somehow getting Wood. He's the only UFA on the market who has the kind of upper-tier upside that I think resonates with Schlenk's parameters... just my opinion.

(Harrell would qualify only if Schlenk and his scouts are persuaded he is capable of developing a reliable 3 pt shot... not likely.)

 

21 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Higher chance of Harrell than Thingram. Girth>scrawny

Ingram is a wing. Harrell isn't. So, there's that.

 

Wood is a post player. Harrell is, too.

Wood > Harrell.

 

[Spud2nique]

17 minutes ago, sturt said:

I'm less interested in your conclusion,

Do tell. Maybe everyone should read pages and pages of you trying to show off ur “big dic..... tionary” of words describing how there’s a 10% chance that we land Ingram.  

[Spud2nique]

20 minutes ago, sturt said:

Not any meat to that.

Or Ingram. #needs

[Spud2nique]

19 minutes ago, sturt said:

 

Wood is a post player. Harrell is, too.

Wood > Harrell.

Oh boy. This is where credibility goes flying out the window like a piece of turd .  

 

I think if you asked Wood, he’d agree himself that Harrell is better.  

[sturt]

6 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Do tell. Maybe everyone should read pages and pages of you trying to show off ur “big dic..... tionary” of words describing how there’s a 10% chance that we land Ingram.  

Sorry if it offends, but one conclusion is as good as another absent people offering their explanation for how they came to think how they do. We only know if one conclusion is better, and thus more deserving of regard  than others if one actually does that... explains. When one doesn't explain, it suggests they don't actually think their reasoning is all that coherent to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

I don't make those rules, abrasive though they may be. They just are.  

[Spud2nique]

6 minutes ago, sturt said:

Sorry if it offends, but one conclusion is as good as another absent people offering their explanation for how they came to think how they do. We only know if one conclusion is better, and thus more deserving of regard  than others if one actually does that... explains. When one doesn't explain, it suggests they don't actually think their reasoning is all that coherent to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

I don't make those rules, abrasive though they may be. They just are.  

 

[sturt]

9 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

I think if you asked Wood, he’d agree himself that Harrell is better.

You're to be excused that you haven't read Christian Wood talk about himself, but I feel nearly certain he would absolutely reject that idea.

He doesn't lack for self-confidence.

But that's not really the point anyhow.

Even if I grant you that Harrell "is better," that's not the point.

When we sign whoever we sign, Schlenk has affirmed above that he's looking at players who can develop into something special.

It is not at all absurd to suggest that Wood is capable of developing into something special.

It also is not at all absurd to look at Harrell's last three years and believe that his "curve is flattening" to put it in terms we all surely understand right now. Some people like myself even would say Harrell, short of developing a 3 point shot, is not going to become anything more than what Paul Millsap was before he developed a 3 point shot... good, yes... but that is as much as he's going to ever be.

And sorry that I'm so unable to explain my thinking without using several words.

But it's better to explain than the alternative.

[Spud2nique]

8 minutes ago, sturt said:

We only know if one conclusion is better, and thus more deserving of regard  than others if one actually does that... explains. When one doesn't explain, it suggests they don't actually think their reasoning is all that coherent to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

What if, one explains but the other is so into their own writing ✍ that they have issues with fundamental reading  

 

 

[Spud2nique]

39 minutes ago, sturt said:

Wood > Harrell.

You said this.

3 minutes ago, sturt said:

Even if I grant you that Harrell "is better," that's not the point.

Then you said this.

[sturt]

50 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

What if, one explains but the other is so into their own writing ✍ that they have issues with fundamental reading

 

That's a dodge.

If it's not, you'll have to demonstrate the accusation (ie, suggesting "one" failed to read)... it's not like there's anything much to read in the first place, you have to admit. You've been what amounts to a "drive-by" poster for the most part in that respect.

[Spud2nique]

So you make a point that Wood is better, then two seconds later, that’s not the point?  

 

Sturt changes the variable of discussion based on the parameters that he prefers and if you don’t buy into his game, he attempts to make you feel less than. 
 

Me thinks it comes from fear.

[sturt]

2 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

You said this.

Then you said this.

Yes.

And yes.

 

In context we're discussing whether signing one is better than signing the other.

Wood > Harrell ... indeed.

[Spud2nique]

2 minutes ago, sturt said:

drive-by" poster for the most part in that respect.

Now ur just wafting.

[Spud2nique]

Just now, sturt said:

signing

Haha now it’s signing huh. Let’s look to the future of Wood. 
 

Sturt, excuse yourself before I really start to dunk on you.

[sturt]

1 minute ago, Spud2nique said:

So you make a point that Wood is better, then two seconds later, that’s not the point?  

 

Sturt changes the variable of discussion based on the parameters that he prefers and if you don’t buy into his game, he attempts to make you feel less than. 
 

Me thinks it comes from fear.

Another dodge.

I have no "game" other than jousting with you or others as to how we come to the conclusions we do. Some people are comfortable with that "game" as you put it, some aren't.

I'm not worried about anyone's feelings, and I don't really care that anyone care about mine.

This is just a discussion.

That I think better or worse about Person X's reasoning is only a reflection on their reasoning, not the person's right to exist, ie, value as a person... and again, I'd like to think that goes both ways.

[sturt]

4 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Sturt, excuse yourself before I really start to dunk on you.

 

(... hehe... I've always wanted to use that one... thanks for teeing it up!)

[Spud2nique]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

Another dodge.

I have no "game" other than jousting with you or others as to how we come to the conclusions we do. Some people are comfortable with that "game" as you put it, some aren't.

I'm not worried about anyone's feelings, and I don't really care that anyone care about mine.

This is just a discussion.

That I think better or worse about Person X's reasoning is only a reflection on their reasoning, not the person's right to exist, ie, value as a person... and again, I'd like to think that goes both ways.

Again your not reading. Your making it seem like I used different words to explain myself... YOUR WORDS. Comon Sturt I’m gonna try and help you here.

Try reading it slowly, maybe that would work. Oh and if you don’t mind, don’t change the narrative of discussions based on your desire. Thanks. I know you’ve been here a while but that doesn’t make you anything more than anyone else so  
 

 

[sturt]

Spud, you don't bother to explain, so it often becomes a problem figuring out what you're referencing. In this case, are you still on the "Wood > Harrell" thing?

Because, if you are, notice please that I only did what you routinely do, which is to offer a minimum of words.

But as this very thing shows, sometimes the minimum of words isn't adequate even when the context ought to make it clear what is intended.

Thus...

Explanation > Drive-by comments

... or do I need to explain that, too?... hehe  

[sturt]

5 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

I know you’ve been here a while but that doesn’t make you anything more than anyone else so

... which sounds a lot like...

10 minutes ago, sturt said:

I think better or worse about Person X's reasoning is only a reflection on their reasoning, not the person's right to exist, ie, value as a person... and again, I'd like to think that goes both ways.