Ben Simmons A Hawk? I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[thecampster]

1 hour ago, RandomFan said:

Not that I'm pushing for it to happen, but I wouldn't be opposed to taking on Ben in a trade. Primarily because due to his performance in the playoffs combined with his trade demands, we would be buying low on his stock; whoever trades for him is almost assuredly going to be getting more value back than they are sending out. 

I would feel comfortable trading away Cam, one of Bogi or Gallo (not both because Philly probably wouldn't want both), up to two 1st round picks, and possibly even throw in Delon Wright if necessary to match salaries. 

Starting lineup of Trae, Hunter, Simmons, JC, Capela. Send Ben to the bench early to stagger Trae and his minutes so one is always on the floor. Also set the rotations where after the starting minutes he is on the court more with Dieng or JC at center instead of Capela. 

Ben wouldn't necessarily have to close the game either; at least not until his confidence in at least his free throws returns/improves.  

There is no world where I'm trading away Cam in a deal for Simmons. Not because Cam is better today but because Cam can shoot/will shoot in the NBA.  Although Cam, Gallo, Wright works financially and Taking on Simmons replaces what Wright is supposed to offer, Philly isn't taking on 3 players. They don't have room for 3 players for 1.  Any deal for Simmons will either be for 1-2 players or Simmons + a player for 2-3 and then draft compensation.  

Entertaining this, Cam + Gallo + 1 - 1st round lottery protected pick is fair value for Simmons is fair value. Simmons is an extremely good player, but he's not KD, not Giannis. In SI.com's top 100 list, they ranked him 31. He's a star, he's worth value, he's young. But lets not get crazy with trade ideas. He's got flaws, significant ones.

 

Realizing when assessing these values in trades, the salaries of the players a large equation.

Its not Simmons for Cam. Its Simmons at $34 million and $40 million in 3 years against Cam's $4 million.  I'm not talking salary matching here. I'm saying that Simmons takes up a lot of salary and that restricts what you can spend on 2 more players.  If you budget is $50 million, you can get 2 x 8 million dollar players with Simmons. With Cam, you can get 2 x 23 million dollar players.  There is value in value.  Simmons is good but does his level of good justify his $34 million.  If it doesn't, what you send back has to be less valuable. There's a great scene in moneyball where talking about Giambi, they say they aren't replacing Giambi with a player but they will replace him with the aggregate.

That's what happened with the Hawks last year, the sum of their players was better than most team's all stars because they didn't have a max salary on the roster and could afford to add Bogi, Gallo and others.  They built their own superstar by sharing it among 4 players on the floor. They didn't have to settle for less than good at any position. Don't give up the farm for Simmons but Bogi, Gallo and a future heavily protected 1st is fine (as long as everyone is on board).

[Diesel]

46 minutes ago, thecampster said:

There is no world where I'm trading away Cam in a deal for Simmons. Not because Cam is better today but because Cam can shoot/will shoot in the NBA.  Although Cam, Gallo, Wright works financially and Taking on Simmons replaces what Wright is supposed to offer, Philly isn't taking on 3 players. They don't have room for 3 players for 1.  Any deal for Simmons will either be for 1-2 players or Simmons + a player for 2-3 and then draft compensation.  

 

This is the problem right here.  Let's go out and get JR Rider if that be the case.  He will can shoot/will shoot too.    The implication is that Simmons will not shoot?  Not true.   Simmons had 1 freaking play... where he didn't shoot.   Do you know how many players have messed up on 1 freaking play and are never labelled by that??  If the cost is Gallo/Cam I'm doing the trade all day because Simmons is better and will remain better than Cam.   Call me on the day that Cam's skills and abilities surpass Simmons'?   Simmons will probably end his career as a Hall of Famer... and we may still be waiting on Cam to realize his potential. 

 

 

[Spud2nique]

2 hours ago, RandomFan said:

Not that I'm pushing for it to happen, but I wouldn't be opposed to taking on Ben in a trade. Primarily because

.. you’re tired of hearing rumors.. 

[NBASupes]

44 minutes ago, Diesel said:

This is the problem right here.  Let's go out and get JR Rider if that be the case.  He will can shoot/will shoot too.    The implication is that Simmons will not shoot?  Not true.   Simmons had 1 freaking play... where he didn't shoot.   Do you know how many players have messed up on 1 freaking play and are never labelled by that??  If the cost is Gallo/Cam I'm doing the trade all day because Simmons is better and will remain better than Cam.   Call me on the day that Cam's skills and abilities surpass Simmons'?   Simmons will probably end his career as a Hall of Famer... and we may still be waiting on Cam to realize his potential. 

 

 

Idiotic posting if you think its just one play. This thread is garbage anyway, that's why I barely have entertain it outside of people @ me. But saying its just one play ain't true 

Edited September 24, 2021 by NBASupes

[kg01]

2 hours ago, NBASupes said:

Idiotic posting if you think its just one play. This thread is garbage anyway, that's why I barely have entertain it outside of people @ me. But saying its just one play ain't true 

I'm gonna buy you a "Simmons" Hawks shirsey once the deal happens.  Extra-smedium? 

[thecampster]

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

This is the problem right here.  Let's go out and get JR Rider if that be the case.  He will can shoot/will shoot too.    The implication is that Simmons will not shoot?  Not true.   Simmons had 1 freaking play... where he didn't shoot.   Do you know how many players have messed up on 1 freaking play and are never labelled by that??  If the cost is Gallo/Cam I'm doing the trade all day because Simmons is better and will remain better than Cam.   Call me on the day that Cam's skills and abilities surpass Simmons'?   Simmons will probably end his career as a Hall of Famer... and we may still be waiting on Cam to realize his potential. 

 

 

So you do realize I advocated for trading for Simmons. I just don't want to give up Cam to do it. The value for his salary is too high. The potential is far too high.  I'm willing to go Bogi/Gallo because both are mid to high pay players with some question marks. Bogi is a smidge undersized, average defense while Gallo's age and contract to contribution ratio is out of whack.  

Let me try to explain what I'm talking about with Cam/Gallo.

Realize that all Cam stats are hampered by him playing through some stuff last year.

Gallo 24 min/g, 13.3 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 1.5 apg, .6apg.

Cam 28 min/g, 11.2 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 1.3 apg, 1.3 apg

 

Statistically speaking they had the same offensive impact last year. Gallo shot 7% better but on 9 to 10 shots per game...the functional difference is statistically 1 point  (10x.07x2=1.4ppg).  Defensively, Cam's impact is significantly better than Gallo's. They are technically the same impact of a player statistically with a slight edge to Cam even with his issues last year.  Cam makes 4.6 million this year, Gallo 20.  I'm willing to gamble with Gallo's salary but not with Cam's....he's too valuable per million spent.

Bogi is a harder call. He scores 6 ppg more than Cam on 2 more shots. He gets a smidge less rpg and spg but 2 more apg.  Cam is a much better defender but the difference between the two based on last year as a total impact favors Bogi.  Still, Bogi makes 4x's Cam's salary.  I'm not saying I'm taking Cam over Bogi today but I am saying there is not a 13 million dollar difference between the players. 

I have no problem acquiring Simmons for Bogi/Gallo but I do have a problem with Gallo, Cam, Wright. Financially its pretty dumb.

[RedDawg#8]

5 hours ago, NBASupes said:

Idiotic posting if you think its just one play. This thread is garbage anyway, that's why I barely have entertain it outside of people @ me. But saying its just one play ain't true 

Agreed, it was definitely more than 1 play. Hell, it was more than 1 game.

 

[Diesel]

3 hours ago, thecampster said:

So you do realize I advocated for trading for Simmons. I just don't want to give up Cam to do it. The value for his salary is too high. The potential is far too high.  I'm willing to go Bogi/Gallo because both are mid to high pay players with some question marks. Bogi is a smidge undersized, average defense while Gallo's age and contract to contribution ratio is out of whack.  

Let me try to explain what I'm talking about with Cam/Gallo.

Realize that all Cam stats are hampered by him playing through some stuff last year.

Gallo 24 min/g, 13.3 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 1.5 apg, .6apg.

Cam 28 min/g, 11.2 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 1.3 apg, 1.3 apg

 

Statistically speaking they had the same offensive impact last year. Gallo shot 7% better but on 9 to 10 shots per game...the functional difference is statistically 1 point  (10x.07x2=1.4ppg).  Defensively, Cam's impact is significantly better than Gallo's. They are technically the same impact of a player statistically with a slight edge to Cam even with his issues last year.  Cam makes 4.6 million this year, Gallo 20.  I'm willing to gamble with Gallo's salary but not with Cam's....he's too valuable per million spent.

Bogi is a harder call. He scores 6 ppg more than Cam on 2 more shots. He gets a smidge less rpg and spg but 2 more apg.  Cam is a much better defender but the difference between the two based on last year as a total impact favors Bogi.  Still, Bogi makes 4x's Cam's salary.  I'm not saying I'm taking Cam over Bogi today but I am saying there is not a 13 million dollar difference between the players. 

I have no problem acquiring Simmons for Bogi/Gallo but I do have a problem with Gallo, Cam, Wright. Financially its pretty dumb.

Bogi  = 43.8% from three. 

Cam = 26.2% from three. 

QED....

 

[Diesel]

What's idiotic is thinking that one play or one series defines him.   Against us he pulled out 10/8.6/6.3 on 60% shooting and he was their best defensive player on the perimeter, lead the team in steals and second best defender inside.  

Against the Wizards...   14.8, 10.2, 9.2 on 64% shooting. 

Quote

Ben Simmons has exploded into life at the NBA Playoffs, turning in a dominant offensive performance in a 120-95 Game 2 win against the Washington Wizards.

Philadelphia burst out the blocks at the Wells Fargo Center on Thursday (AEST) and cruised to 2-0 in the series, in large part thanks to Simmons, who was well on track for a triple-double at half time.

With the 76ers up 71-57 at the half, Simmons already had 16 points, six rebounds and six assists from his 18 minutes on court.

He only completed 11 more minutes in the second half to finish the game just shy of a triple-double, with 22 points, nine rebounds and eight assists.

The man is a walking triple double and defensive stopper.   Put him at his right position with shooters around him and watch him work. 

[JayBirdHawk]

 

 

[sturt]

Me, I do wish he didn't have the contract he does because I do agree with @Diesel that the whole of the evidence suggests whoever obtains him will be getting a quality player.

But at that number, for that number of years?

No. I have to have a player who I have full confidence did not just have a Steve Sax moment, ie, one so psychologically devastating as to torture him for much, if not all, of the rest of his career.

Look, Cam might never be better than Simmons. Dre might never be better. Kev might never be better. However, I can deal with that because I'm not locked in to a big-number-big-year contract with any of them anyhow. They will or won't prove their worth. I get to hold on to my options and make a judgment after this season, which many of us perceive as the franchise's best chance to go to the NBA Finals since Nique and Bird went 7 games.

Whereas, if I invest in Simmons, it's the epitome of shoving all of the poker chips into the middle of the table. It's all or nothing, and if it doesn't go exceedingly well... not just good, but if it doesn't prove to put us over the top... then I'm stuck. I've got a humongously bad contract that will be a ball and chain with consequences like we haven't seen since Jon Koncak's contract in his era.

Notice, I didn't even mention what we would give up.... even if we gave up nothing, it's a problem. It's made worse by the loss of whoever we would send to Philly.

 

Just. Can't. Do it.

Again, wish I could. I do see reason for believing it could work, as said, exceedingly well and he could prove to be the biggest bargain basement trade acquisition, not just for ATL, but for any team in the last several years.

It would be general manager malpractice of the highest order, though, to take that degree of risk.

Goodbye, BS thread. You are officially, for good, dead to me.

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Me, I do wish he didn't have the contract he does because I do agree with @Diesel that the whole of the evidence suggests whoever obtains him will be getting a quality player.

But at that number, for that number of years?

No. I have to have a player who I have full confidence did not just have a Steve Sax moment, ie, one so psychologically devastating as to torture him for much, if not all, of the rest of his career.

Look, Cam might never be better than Simmons. Dre might never be better. Kev might never be better. However, I can deal with that because I'm not locked in to a big-number-big-year contract with any of them anyhow. They will or won't prove their worth. I get to hold on to my options and make a judgment after this season, which many of us perceive as the franchise's best chance to go to the NBA Finals since Nique and Bird went 7 games.

Whereas, if I invest in Simmons, it's the epitome of shoving all of the poker chips into the middle of the table. It's all or nothing, and if it doesn't go exceedingly well... not just good, but if it doesn't prove to put us over the top... then I'm stuck. I've got a humongously bad contract that will be a ball and chain with consequences like we haven't seen since Jon Koncak's contract in his era.

Notice, I didn't even mention what we would give up.... even if we gave up nothing, it's a problem. It's made worse by the loss of whoever we would send to Philly.

 

Just. Can't. Do it.

Again, wish I could. I do see reason for believing it could work, as said, exceedingly well and he could prove to be the biggest bargain basement trade acquisition, not just for ATL, but for any team in the last several years.

It would be general manager malpractice of the highest order, though, to take that degree of risk.

Goodbye, BS thread. You are officially, for good, dead to me.

The salary also gives me pause.   However, my thinking is that Travis has been a Wizard at finding talent whereever he drafts.   Why should we believe that that stops.   Moreover,   We have a lot of tradable contracts and we're not the ones who have to commit to paying the LT.  The only real question is does it put us closer to winning a championship. 

While others here think that our purpose is talent development.   The truth is that our owners bought this team to win and make money.   I think Simmons does that.  It makes us more defensive. Puts a better player on the floor than the suggested trades.   I'm not giving up Bogi.

 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

my thinking is that Travis has been a Wizard at finding talent whereever he drafts.   Why should we believe that that stops.

So, your answer to "how do we deal with a monster bad contract if the player doesn't get us over the top"... is... draft more rookies???

What?

Me, I subscribe to the idea that...

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

While others here think that our purpose is talent development.   The truth is that our owners bought this team to win and make money. 

... so, no, the time is now. This team can't be dependent on grooming rookies at this stage as a strategy for winning a title.... and who's kidding whom that you're going to get superior talent drafting in the back end of the draft every year anyhow.

 

At that salary, Simmons is simply too high of a Steve Sax syndrome risk for a team at our stage of evolution.

[Diesel]

8 hours ago, sturt said:

So, your answer to "how do we deal with a monster bad contract if the player doesn't get us over the top"... is... draft more rookies???

What?

Me, I subscribe to the idea that...

... so, no, the time is now. This team can't be dependent on grooming rookies at this stage as a strategy for winning a title.... and who's kidding whom that you're going to get superior talent drafting in the back end of the draft every year anyhow.

 

At that salary, Simmons is simply too high of a Steve Sax syndrome risk for a team at our stage of evolution.

Either we have the talent to be ECF right now or we don't.   For the players that I would trade Gallo, Huerter, and Cam...   There was some contribution to us getting as far as we did, but not the overwhelming amount.   Cam contributed none.   Huerter and Gallo were backups who gave a good amount of contribution.

Replace them with Simmons.. a walking triple double and somebody who changes our defense from bad to average to above average and we get a great contribution.  Right now, teams focus their offense on Trae...  What happens when Trae can switch off with Ben?  What happens when Jrue Holiday is matched up with Ben and not Kvon?

About the young players from the draft.   My saying that Travis is a wizard is simply saying that even when you have the best team, being able to get quality players from the draft makes for players who you can trade in the future.   Look at our own history.   From the Last time we were successful... We followed up drafting with Payne, Oubre, and Bembry.  Payne never made it.. We traded him for peanuts.   We traded Oubre for what would eventually become 2 years with Tim Hardaway Jr. and Bembry never did turn out.  The point is that the fruit that we followed our 60 win team with was rotten/tainted fruit that highlighted the unastuteness of our front office at the time.   We gave our franchise nowehere to go in the future.   Even the trade.. which I applaud was one that we were not willing to stand behind because we soon jettisoned all the players from that 60 win team away. 

The team we have now are young.  It's a juggling act as it is getting them all under contract.   But we know the players that we must have... our core.  And Travis is smart enough to either keep the core together of if there must be a trade, get a win for the trade of core players.  And a win is described as getting a player that gets us closer to the goal of winning a chip.  No More should we develop players for other teams to come and take from us.   We wonder why other teams fans make lopsided trades for our players.. because we have been that Clipper like team that has not set our focus on winning a chip but have set our focus on player development.   Championship teams don't do that.  We are Warriors East in some sense. ... we need to think and be about that chip. 

 

 

[Gray Mule]

Yogi Berra said of baseball, and it also applies to any team sport:

"Half of playing this game is 90% mental."

Ben Simmons, as great as he is, has this great big mental problem.  It's the elephant in the room that everyone knows about but will not talk about.  

This problem came to light in the playoffs against the Hawks.  Having the spotlight shining on him here makes the problem grow to giant size.  Can he recover?  Will this problem simply go away?  Only time will tell.  Meanwhile, he has demanded that he be traded from this team.  He has this great big, long lasting contract.  A walking triple double?  Perhaps, if he overcomes his problem.  But, if he can't, it will cost his team some wins.  We know this from the playoffs history.

Would obtaining him for two or three starter worthy players + draft picks be wise?  You decide.

[sturt]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

It's a juggling act as it is getting them all under contract.

1. Actually, it's not for this season or next.

  

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

No More should we develop players for other teams to come and take from us.

2. Um. That's my line.

 

3. Zooming out, what you spend practically all of your words about Simmons discussing, Dies, is the reward side... that "walking triple-double" thing. I'm not sure why, because most of us insofar as I've read any of this thread, have acknowledged the reward side.

But that's not true. Really, I think I do know why... because you get it that the risk side is so toxic that you won't even let yourself go there as you think about the situation.

And yet, you know as well as any of the rest of us, we make a deal for Simmons, and there's no even barely decent options on the other side of that.

Your best offering was to suggest that Schlenk can draft such exceptional talent in the late 20s that we can survive a Steve Sax evolution of Simmons anyhow.

C'mon. No.

Clearly, you've sold yourself on this, though. I don't pretend to have said anything that would back you away from that cliff. But at least I have the self satisfaction that I tried.

[Diesel]

9 hours ago, sturt said:

 

 

3. Zooming out, what you spend practically all of your words about Simmons discussing, Dies, is the reward side... that "walking triple-double" thing. I'm not sure why, because most of us insofar as I've read any of this thread, have acknowledged the reward side.

But that's not true. Really, I think I do know why... because you get it that the risk side is so toxic that you won't even let yourself go there as you think about the situation.

And yet, you know as well as any of the rest of us, we make a deal for Simmons, and there's no even barely decent options on the other side of that.

Your best offering was to suggest that Schlenk can draft such exceptional talent in the late 20s that we can survive a Steve Sax evolution of Simmons anyhow.

C'mon. No.

Clearly, you've sold yourself on this, though. I don't pretend to have said anything that would back you away from that cliff. But at least I have the self satisfaction that I tried.

The risk side that I see and the risk side that you guys talk about are totally different.   I hear over and over again... He's a bad free throw shooter.  He's a bad free throw shooter...

Let me ask...

If we would have had the chance to get Shaq after his Orlando days.. would his free throw shooting caused you to not want him?  Would you have said... Well you know at the end of Games, teams will play Hack-a-Shaq!!  How much of a factor would that have been for you in thoughts of a trade for him?  If you could get Shaq after his Orlando days for three bench players... would any of those factors make you say... Nah... Shaq is not worth it.  Or would you have said... You know Shaq is making too much money.  He's going to hurt our ability to sign players and we will be like Steve Sax all over again.

My point is when you look at the risk.. the reward is so far above the risk that the risk sounds like the crying of teams that don't want to win.  Why do you think that teams are lining up making offers for this kid?  Why do you think Philly is holding on so tight to this kid?  It's because everybody know that this is a franchise player and future HOFer.

Back to the risks...

Back to my Shaq analogy.

Coming out of Orlando... Shaq:

1.  Was dominant on one side of the ball. 

But...

2.  Had problems hitting Free Throws.

&

3.  Had Just been humiliated by Houston in the Finals. 

Quote

During the interview, Shaquille O’Neal opened up on how Hakeem Olajuwon embarrassed him in the NBA Finals. He also talked about bouncing back from his first NBA Finals loss.

“After making it to the Finals in ’95 and getting embarrassed by Hakeem Olajuwon, I said to myself, ‘if I ever go back, I gotta put on a performance so dominant that it won’t be a question who the champ is,” Shaq said.

Everybody that watched that finals know that Shaq was literally embarrassed by Hakeem. 

So in a lot of respects, Simmons has similarities with Shaq... 

1.  Simmons, dominant player

2.  Has a problem hitting free throws. 

3.   Embarrassed in the playoffs. 

Sturt...  Would you find a reason to turn down Shaq in 1996?

 

 

 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

 I hear over and over again... He's a bad free throw shooter.  He's a bad free throw shooter...

Not from me.

  

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

Or would you have said... You know Shaq is making too much money.  He's going to hurt our ability to sign players and we will be like Steve Sax all over again.

Um.

You'd have to show me some evidence that there is some similarity between Simmons' parting experiences in PHI and Shaq's parting experiences in ORL.

There is no similarity that I recall. Everyone understood Shaq to be dominant. There would not have been a single team that wouldn't have moved heaven and earth to get him if they could. And most applicable... there was no Steve Sax syndrome concern.

The concern is not merely free throw shooting for BS. The concern is more than that. It's that he checked out of games. He's begun to doubt his ability to affect a game offensively.

That could reverse itself once he gets to a new place. I might even say it's likely.

But because of the situation it puts ATL in if that didn't happen, and in view of the fact that it's not necessary for Schlenk to take that risk given the assets he has... it doesn't work for us. For some other team, sure. Not us.

  

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

Why do you think that teams are lining up making offers for this kid?

Some are. Not very many, actually, or it would be a seller's market for him. Word is that PHI might finally be coming to the realization that they're not getting what they thought they would get.

Those that are, no doubt, see blood in the water, and think they can get a bargain basement discount.

And they might be right. We'll see.

 

[JTB]

This still a thread! ….damn thought we moved on.

Why are we entertaining the guy who was afraid to dunk on Trae????….I kid, I kid

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Not from me.

  

Um.

You'd have to show me some evidence that there is some similarity between Simmons' parting experiences in PHI and Shaq's parting experiences in ORL.

There is no similarity that I recall. Everyone understood Shaq to be dominant. There would not have been a single team that wouldn't have moved heaven and earth to get him if they could. And most applicable... there was no Steve Sax syndrome concern.

The concern is not merely free throw shooting for BS. The concern is more than that. It's that he checked out of games. He's begun to doubt his ability to affect a game offensively.

That could reverse itself once he gets to a new place. I might even say it's likely.

But because of the situation it puts ATL in if that didn't happen, and in view of the fact that it's not necessary for Schlenk to take that risk given the assets he has... it doesn't work for us. For some other team, sure. Not us.

  

Some are. Not very many, actually, or it would be a seller's market for him. Word is that PHI might finally be coming to the realization that they're not getting what they thought they would get.

Those that are, no doubt, see blood in the water, and think they can get a bargain basement discount.

And they might be right. We'll see.

 

The reason Orlando lost Shaq is because the CBA changed and gave  Shaq a low ball offer.  LAL saw the mistake and gave Shaq the offer that he wanted.   That's the gist of what happened.   IN the time that Orlando shot him the lowball offer (13 Million per and he wanted 20 Million), Shaq got to the place where he was no longer interested in staying in Orlando. 

Sounds Familiar?

BTW...  This is what I see when I hear guys here:

Quote

ATLANTA HAWKS: While Atlanta wasn't on our initial list, the Hawks quickly became a viable option when I, along with a colleague, took a call from current Los Angeles Dodgers CEO and President Stan Kasten about the Hawks' interest in Shaq. Kasten, who was president of both the Hawks and Atlanta Braves at that time, indicated that the merger between Hawks owner Ted Turner's broadcasting companies (CNN, etc.) and Time Warner would be able to generate significant ancillary income for Shaq.

On the basketball side, he viewed Shaq as the missing piece to a championship in Atlanta and was comfortable offering him a seven-year deal averaging somewhere between $10 and $15 million per year. He was not, however, interested in breaking up much of his team to do so.

This is kind of crazy to look back on, but in 1996, Kasten considered Mookie Blaylock and Christian Laettner to be the Hawks' foundational players. They weren't going anywhere. Two other players from a group consisting of Stacey Augmon, Alan Henderson, Grant Long and free agent Steve Smith also needed to be retained.

If you let it... History will repeat itself.