Trade Deadline 2023: February 9th.

[JayBirdHawk]

4 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Bad example. Try again.

(See above)

[warcore]

46 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

(See above)

Burd you're at the top of the page!

[sturt]

(Hopefully, warcore, JDay gets moved in a standalone trade so Jay can have an actual point after all to make here, instead of the weak attempts to divert from the original discussion... ie, to my assertion that he's untradeable on his own. Few seem to be more motivated, albeit in a somewhat passive aggressive style rather than head-on, to resist giving up their preferred conclusion, truly. At least, that's been my experience.)

[JayBirdHawk]

10 minutes ago, sturt said:

(Hopefully, warcore, JDay gets moved in a standalone trade so Jay can have an actual point after all to make here, instead of the weak attempts to divert from the original discussion... ie, to my assertion that he's untradeable on his own. Few seem to be more motivated, albeit in a somewhat passive aggressive style rather than head-on, to resist giving up their preferred conclusion, truly. At least, that's been my experience.)

.

I listed several options for different trade scenarios previously. No rehashing them. Again!

[sturt]

Well, at least we agree on that much. Why offer them up a second time as-if they would somehow be more compelling if you just repeated them? Absolutely.

 

 

But alas, where we disagree is that any standalone trade scenarios for JDay are plausible. He is almost certainly filler for a bigger trade. SAS was, indeed, your best hope for some standalone option developing, imo.

[sturt]

New thought.

I wonder if (a) the front office cannot find any shake-it-up deals to their liking, if (b) their discussion turns to, "should we just make a change at head coach" after all.

It's just hard for me to imagine they're going to be satisfied to take a wait-and-see approach, and at the same time, hard for me to imagine that anyone is going to make an offer they can get enthusiastic about.

The one alternative option, then, may be to make a change in leadership.

[JayBirdHawk]

14 minutes ago, sturt said:

Well, at least we agree on that much. Why offer them up a second time as-if they would somehow be more compelling if you just repeated them? Absolutely.

 

 

But alas, where we disagree is that any standalone trade scenarios for JDay are plausible. He is almost certainly filler for a bigger trade. SAS was, indeed, your best hope for some standalone option developing, imo.

Sigh,  I focused on SAS simply because they are under the salary cap and also still under the required Salary Floor.  I said I wanted a similar trade like Dedmon.  I made no declarations or proclamations. 

The End/

[sturt]

8 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I focused on SAS simply because

Oh. So, okay. You just cited an example of a larger point.

Why didn't I think of that.

 

 

Wait. Oh yeah. I did.

(And yeah, I was already done with the topic, but failed to offer the climactic "the end." Good thinkin. The end.... well, that is, unless/until JDay gets dealt in a standalone, and you know what I will do? I'll come back and acknowledge you were right. Imagine that.... No, seriously, I think you're just going to have to imagine that b/c it's almost certainly not going to happen. )

[RandomFan]

[h4wkfan]

7 hours ago, sturt said:

Few seem to be more motivated, albeit in a somewhat passive aggressive style rather than head-on, to resist giving up their preferred conclusion, truly. At least, that's been my experience.)

Jay gave a few examples of trades that we see every single year for teams to cut salary. Her examples are rooted in historical facts. 
 

And to claim victory that Dedmon + a second is more considerable than JHol + a 2nd? Read the bolded above, please. 
 

Now let’s get this thread back on track! Who wins the trade deadline lottery and lands Korkmaz?!?

Edited February 8, 2023 by h4wkfan

[sturt]

@h4wkfan your rise to defend the words of the most well-defended poster in our community, I suppose, is admirable. Chivalry, it seems, is not dead, at least not here.

Since you reopened the issue and suggested some hypocrisy on my part, is it fair for me to answer that?

Sure it is. And here's how I'll answer that. You'll have to dig really hard to find some example of the other poster ever coming back to muah (and it seems others as well, but self-indulged person I am, I've paid less attention to the interactions with others) and "giving up [a] preferred conclusion."

Me? Not so hard. In fact, in the last week or so, I "gave up a preferred conclusion" to both her and to the one her responses support practically every time there's an opinion on her part conveyed following his... having to do with the Becky Hammon conversation.

So, your accusation falls flat, my friend. It's not true. It's false. And the converse... the original suggestion... is also accurate insofar as it's been my experience. (Am I opinionated? Yes. Take issue with that, though, if you want. The suggestion that I am too proud to give up a point is inaccurate and unfair.)

 

To your first point, all due respect, I only see (1) a strawman argument... I never disagreed with that in the first place, and the discussion was never about that but about this particular player's perceived value league wide. There is such a thing as being untradeable, except as trade filler.

And, (2) if one offers an example as one that would support his/her conclusion... but then... it evolves that that example tangibly, empirically isn't going to happen... then... it should probably seem less offensive that someone would dare point that out, more offensive that the person him/herself doesn't come back to acknowledge that his/her conclusion took a hit as a result first, demonstrating his/her intellectual humility.

(And oh by the way, that one whose responses she supports practically every time? Admirably, he expressed regret almost immediately when it became evident that his confidence in his conclusion that JDay would be an adequate rotation player was misplaced. Gold star on his accountability chart... again, like I've done in similar situations, believing we all, no exceptions, even me, need to be the sort of posters who openly acknowledge our bad takes if we're also going to be the sort of posters who enjoy the glory of our good ones. One has to earn those gold stars. Not everyone has one. Even just one.)

 

What's especially humorous about that last response is that I was just taken to task for a "bad example" of a larger point, but this bad example of something that she imagined could conceivably occur to support her conclusion? Gave herself a pass.... hehe.

Look, that said, as I already said... her conclusion still could be the "winning conclusion" here... mine still might be proven wrong in the next 36-ish hours. I've acknowledged the possibility. And as I've already said, if that were to happen, I'll come back to the discussion to do something she doesn't, as a rule, ever do.

 

I can anticipate the follow-up question, "So why am I singling this person out?" Well, I'm really not "singling"... I do this kind of thing with some routine... an equal-opportunity-critic. But to the spirit of the question anyhow... it's this simple: Believe in the principle that one's gotta be able to take it as well as you dish it out. If I make someone a target with some regularity, it shouldn't surprise me or anyone else that I'm expected to react to being targeted as humanly and casually as I executed said targeting. I'm not special just because I'm the lone hillbilly (to my knowledge) on this site. No get out of jail free cards just because there's something different about me than most, no matter what that difference is. Nothing wrong with being a hillbilly, but there's nothing especially righteous about it either. The things I say and the reactions I have should be treated with equivalent critical thought, period.

/the end (the sequel)

[shakes]

9 hours ago, RandomFan said:

[sturt]

1 minute ago, shakes said:

Name calling, and ad hominem in general, is what people do when they want so badly to defeat a conclusion and the substance supporting that conclusion, but they look in their arsenal, and they've got nothing.

So, they do what they consider the next best thing, evidently oblivious to the fact that the only people who accept ad hominem as compelling are those who admire ad hominem... and that the more intelligent audience recognizes it for what it is... a reflection on the person offering the criticism so much more so than the person s/he targeted.

I don't make the rules. I just know what they are, and I don't pretend they don't exist.

OR.... as Richie once said to the Fonz...

Sit on it, Fonzie!

 

hehe

 

[h4wkfan]

10 hours ago, sturt said:

Few seem to be more motivated, albeit in a somewhat passive aggressive style rather than head-on, to resist giving up their preferred conclusion, truly. At least, that's been my experience.)

I defended nobody. I simply stated my observation of a pointless back and forth. If that makes you feel like I’m defending somebody, then perhaps we should refer to the bolded above and move things along. 

[shakes]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

Name calling, and ad hominem in general, is what people do when they want so badly to defeat a conclusion and the substance supporting that conclusion, but they look in their arsenal, and they've got nothing.

So, they do what they consider the next best thing, evidently oblivious to the fact that the only people who accept ad hominem as compelling are those who admire ad hominem... and that the more intelligent audience recognizes it for what it is... a reflection on the person offering the criticism so much more so than the person s/he targeted.

I don't make the rules. I just know what they are, and I don't pretend they don't exist.

OR.... as Richie once said to the Fonz...

Sit on it, Fonzie!

 

hehe

 

0

[sturt]

2 minutes ago, h4wkfan said:

I defended nobody. I simply stated my observation of a pointless back and forth. If that makes you feel like I’m defending somebody, then perhaps we should refer to the bolded above and move things along. 

I was looking for the "Yeah, that's the ticket" GIF, but I just like this one so much better....

 

[Spud2nique]

35 minutes ago, sturt said:

Since you reopened the issue

Enjoy the web. 

[Spud2nique]

21 minutes ago, sturt said:

OR.... as Richie once said to the Fonz...

Groovy.

20 minutes ago, h4wkfan said:

I defended nobody. I

[kg01]

3-team deal in the worx per tha twitters ...

UTA : Westbrook and pick

LAL: D'Angelo Russell

MIN: Conley 

[Gray Mule]

We're not giving away any Hawk players.  If we were, a deal would have already happened.

Perhaps a deal, either small or huge, is still out there.  In about 24 more hours we should hear if anything is moving and shaking in Birdland.  Collins (naturally) and Bogie have both been mentioned.  Hawks have shown some interest (ask about, I suppose) in a few players.