HAWKS ARE NOT LOOKING TO TRADE!!

[Diesel]

7 hours ago, sturt said:

Why do you call it a "prediction?" The author of the write-up you're citing says flat out...

Quote

we can make suggestions based on other information available publically and make a good guess of how much NBA owners really make.

That line alone in my book, Dies, should compel any ordinarily intelligent person to wonder about the confidence one should place in the author... and the reliability of his information. And when I looked, I found a young man (by virtue of his graduation photo) who claims to have an MBA... from where, he doesn't choose to say. Pardon my skepticism, but when I was in grad school, we spoke routinely about drawing inferences from other information available. And we spelled publicly without the A and extra L. Perhaps the claim to having an MBA is valid. But to wonder about the reputation of the institution that granted the degree is altogether reasonable.

I think it's self-explanatory. 

At the end of the day, a prediction is still a guess. 

I think you need to understand that even scholars make spelling errors.  Thank God for spell checkers.   Moreover, it's odd that you have to mill over a source so aggressively.  I mean.. didn't Bill Gates drop out of Harvard and never got a degree?  Do you then think that that fact would disqualify him from talking about computers or running a business?  Instead of trying to dissect the author, most intelligent people try to dissect the data. Does it hold up?  That's a big problem.. so many people are trying to attack who said it instead of what was said?

 

 

[Diesel]

7 hours ago, sturt said:

How much you're going to profit under a situation when income has decreased is most dependent on how you're dealing with the biggest numbers in that expense column.

This Sir is where we agree. 

This is why I say, he's cutting salary because too much salary cuts into his profits and that is increased (almost exponentially) by going into the area of LT. 

  No need for many words here. 

 

[JustSomeGuy]

I’ve said it before and will say it again. We don’t need to blow it up and don’t need another superstar. JJ has grown into that role beautifully. 

We need wing depth at the 2/3 and another big man. I’d give up a first for someone like Andre Drummond at this point. 

[Vol4ever]

36 minutes ago, JustSomeGuy said:

I’ve said it before and will say it again. We don’t need to blow it up and don’t need another superstar. JJ has grown into that role beautifully. 

We need wing depth at the 2/3 and another big man. I’d give up a first for someone like Andre Drummond at this point. 

I agree Drummond would make a difference as a big body under the basket.  We need to be concentrating on bringing in a physical big PF/C reserve.   

[NekiEcko]

I know that everybody is hype up and this team is doing better than the last few weeks but just be honest, can this team beat the C's in a seven-game series?  What about the Bucks? Or NY?  Right now, we are winning but the question is can we get out of the treadmill that is good enough to get into the play-in (play-offs) but never getting to the second round or ECF.  Unless we are okay being a treadmill team, good enough to get in but never getting to the end.  If is an opportunity to improve this team, then we should take it that including trading anybody if the price is right.

[JustSomeGuy]

39 minutes ago, Vol4ever said:

I agree Drummond would make a difference as a big body under the basket.  We need to be concentrating on bringing in a physical big PF/C reserve.   

This would also allow us to play more with OO/CC together which we can’t do now because of the lack of other front court depth.

[sturt]

3 hours ago, Diesel said:

I think it's self-explanatory. 

At the end of the day, a prediction is still a guess. 

 

 

Diesel, my friend.

A prediction is... a prediction. Yes, it's a guess, but scholars and mere mortals will agree, as you should yourself, that it's one thing to represent something as having happened, and another as could happen.

I would think that that would be the easy piece of what I wrote for you to acknowledge. But when you get in a defensive posture, it's my experience, you dig in rather than listening for what you can agree with. Granted, you have a lot of company in having that routine reaction, but not all of us are in that room with you.

 

3 hours ago, Diesel said:

I think you need to understand that even scholars make spelling errors.

They/we do, but not in something they/we publish.

And to call a person a scholar just because s/he says s/he has been granted a graduate degree may be proper professional etiquette... but few of us are ignorant that there are, indeed, degrees for sale out there... and while my suspicion is that this person more likely than not gained the one he alleges somewhere else, that's still the case even within the borders of the US.

 

3 hours ago, Diesel said:

Moreover, it's odd that you have to mill over a source so aggressively.

Um. Diesel, I clicked twice.

If that's aggressive (???), I would urge you to consider whether the better criticism is that you may be to easily duped into believing whatever shows up on the internet written by someone you don't know who makes whatever claims s/he makes.

 

3 hours ago, Diesel said:

didn't Bill Gates drop out of Harvard and never got a degree?  Do you then think that that fact would disqualify him from talking about computers or running a business?

 

At what age.

Bill Gates did not gain his acumen and knowledge as a matter of genetics or supernatural thunder striking him to invent MS-DOS. Right?

You think you're making your point, but you're actually making mine... we assign to people expertise as we understand reason to believe they hold expertise. It doesn't come by merely claiming a graduate degree in whatever discipline. We acclaim Bill Gates on the basis of what we know about the man , not some letters after his name.

 

4 hours ago, Diesel said:

Instead of trying to dissect the author, most intelligent people try to dissect the data. Does it hold up?  That's a big problem.. so many people are trying to attack who said it instead of what was said?

I'll agree with you. Absolutely. Focus on the substance the messenger is conveying, not the messenger him/herself.

My exploration of this person and finding reason to doubt his credibility as the expert he presents himself as? That falls completely flat and meaningless... if ... if we then examine the substance and find it presents facts that are well-grounded and logic that is well-reasoned.

 

But in fact, I did look at the substance as well.

And what did we find?

Largely a mix of Coon's information at cbafaq.com, and numbers we have no actual clue where they came from, since he... this supposed "scholar"... didn't know how scholars cite their sources.

 

That's where your criticism falls flat.

[sturt]

Circling back to the OP...

 

Dang, ain't it just perfect that this team picks this moment of the season... just ahead of the deadline... to create all these positive vibes?

 

As an outside observer... albeit one who absolutely would love to see the team turn all the expert opinions on their collective head and run the table to a championship... it's a lot of fun to tune in right now, and observe this turn of events in the soap opera that is the 2023-24 season.

 

Oh, oh... and dare I remind one and all... if only for shucks and giggles... it was this very time two years ago that the Boston Celtics turned the corner from being also-ran status to being a legit contender. Yes, they did make a deadline deal... but they began streaking a few games ahead of it. (And they made a basketball deal, of course... not a spreadsheet deal.)

 

[Diesel]

On 2/4/2024 at 9:39 AM, sturt said:

We acclaim Bill Gates on the basis of what we know about the man , not some letters after his name.

You mean his product right??  []  You mean what he has put out... Right?  You mean the things that we can actually test and quantify and mill over right??

Do you miss the simplicity??   I said, people spend too much time attacking the person instead of attacking what the person said.. in other words, attacking the person instead of attacking the person's output..  You go on this long diatribe about Bill Gates to only agree with what I said in Few words.  

Yet.. your actions above were once again to try to discredit the author (not his argument/output) because he didn't use spell check, because he didn't finish his degree, etc...  and then you tried to justify it at the same time.    But if you want to be right..  We can call you right.. and it would have as much validity as those mail order Ph.D.s some people get.  So as I give the appeasing and condescending you are right down below, I will color code it so that others may know that I'm being appeasing and condescending.   You ready?

 

Sturt, you know what?  You were right!

 

[sturt]

5 hours ago, Diesel said:

You mean his product right??  []  You mean what he has put out... Right?  You mean the things that we can actually test and quantify and mill over right??

For someone chafing at the bit to advance the idea that I write too much, it's more than a little amusing to see...

"You mean his product right"... twice... then, "what he has put out"... then "things we can actually test and quantify and mill over."

Notice, I'm not ragging on you for saying the same thing FOUR TIMES ... I get it, you're trying to emphasize a point by use of repetition. I'm ragging on you, for sure though, for [the bit the moderator deleted].

But to your question... yes... you get me it would seem... in essence, we assign credibility based on reputation of a person... not letters behind their name. Letters help. Letters do not on their own convey to me, "Trust this guy, he knows what he's talking about." And, for reasons according to you, as far as I can tell, I've already used too many words to explain.

 

 

For future reference, and I'm a little surprised you don't know this well... I don't employ denigration on its own [deleted example] as-if meaningful. It's just a form of hollow insult begging for some actual facts or logic to support it... it's what people do, especially when it comes to politics it seems to me, when they don't have a lot of substance on their side... or, they'd use substance. Substance is persuasive to intelligent adults. Hollow insults of any form, not so much.

 

5 hours ago, Diesel said:

Do you miss the simplicity??   I said, people spend too much time attacking the person instead of attacking what the person said.. in other words, attacking the person instead of attacking the person's output..  You go on this long diatribe about Bill Gates to only agree with what I said in Few words.  

Don't make daff comments, man. No, you're not daff. But that comment is sickly. Don't dig in so hard that you play contortionist and twist yourself into figure 8s.

What I did:

I noted the oddities of a person with a graduate degree in what he put out for public consumption in terms of grammar/spelling.

I noted the plausibility that we are not dealing with a person whose degree comes from an institution that we ordinarily would assign some regard... plausibility.

I made the assertion that we shouldn't presume a person's credibility/expertise should be given regard automatically on the basis of his/her claim that s/he has a grad degree... and connected that, later, to your own unfortunate support for my point... that indeed, we only assign to Bill Gates credibility/expertise because we have knowledge of the man and have reason  to be impressed by his credentials... in his case, having nothing to do with credentials gained from an educational institution.

And after that, I noted the lack of any actual source/substantiation for the information the blogger provided, though giving him credit for at least seeming to have read Coon Q&A #21.

What I did not do:

I did not agree with your contention that it is relevant that Bill Gates didn't have a degree. Because, well, it's not. Hell, no.

This kid claims to have a degree. That's actually the only thing in this entire mix that otherwise might compel a person to consider his work to be worth giving regard. Everything else leaves a reasonable reader to believe his work is nothing more than a long Hawksquawk post by someone who read Coon Q&A #21 and claims to have a grad degree.

5 hours ago, Diesel said:

your actions above were once again to try to discredit the author

You don't get it.

On 2/4/2024 at 9:39 AM, sturt said:

But in fact, I did look at the substance as well.

And what did we find?

Largely a mix of Coon's information at cbafaq.com, and numbers we have no actual clue where they came from, since he... this supposed "scholar"... didn't know how scholars cite their sources.

 

That's where your criticism falls flat.

 

To summarize where you are right... yes, someone can have zero credentials to give him/her any regard, and yet have facts that are compelling that they present, and logic that is sound. You absolutely can.

But where you're totally wrong... and you're smart enough to know this, but again, you seem to get in defensive postures sometimes and just refuse to budge...

Whereas we should naturally give Bill Gates' facts and logic high regard where it concerns the tech world, even if he would fail to cite his sources for those facts... becaaaaaausse... we have reason to regard him as an authoritative voice...

No, we should not naturally give sturt's facts and logic similar regard where it concerns the tech world... there is no reason to regard sturt as an authoritative voice, even though sturt does have some letters behind his name. If, though, sturt were to cite well-regarded, authoritative sources for his assertions, then, there is potentially reason for being compelled by sturt's assertions, giving those regard as important and valid.

Mind you, the leading reason for disregarding this blogger's work is not his lack of regard educationally or professionally. You do a disingenuous disservice to the conversation to pretend that that's all I laid out. (To be fair to you, it was the first thing I laid out, so it I get it why you'd give that the focus you do... but I only went there first because I started with where the blogger started rather than where he ended up.)

The leading reason for disregarding the blogger's work is contained in the quote immediately above... he gave us no substantiation whatsoever that would allow us to see where he got his numbers.

That's not my fault, nor yours.

But finishing up, you need to be more discerning... you're too easily misled in a world that is full of internet bloggers anxious to persuade you to empty conclusions. This one, not nefarious, but a lot of them are (risking stating the obvious).

 

[macdaddy]

Hey guys, you know the deal.  Let's refrain from commenting on other poster's intelligence, motivation or writing style and stick to the content.   If you guys are enjoying the back and forth on personal philosophical differences then you can do it in a DM rather than in the thread.  

Thanks. 

[shakes]

7 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Hey guys, you know the deal.  Let's refrain from commenting on other poster's intelligence, motivation or writing style and stick to the content.   If you guys are enjoying the back and forth on personal philosophical differences then you can do it in a DM rather than in the thread.  

Thanks. 

shut up.  @Diesel vs @sturt is exactly what this board needs right now.

[macdaddy]

1 minute ago, shakes said:

shut up.  @Diesel vs @sturt is exactly what this board needs right now.

Keep your bucket on.  they can continue with a little more decorum. 

[kg01]

On 2/4/2024 at 7:58 AM, NekiEcko said:

I know that everybody is hype up and this team is doing better than the last few weeks but just be honest, can this team beat the C's in a seven-game series?  What about the Bucks? Or NY?  Right now, we are winning but the question is can we get out of the treadmill that is good enough to get into the play-in (play-offs) but never getting to the second round or ECF.  Unless we are okay being a treadmill team, good enough to get in but never getting to the end.  If is an opportunity to improve this team, then we should take it that including trading anybody if the price is right.

My only bone to pick is on us beating MIL.

Didju forget they hired GLLLLenn RiversLLLL?

That man specializes in losing series as the favorite.  I doubt even Giannis can overcome him.  And we all know, when it comes to playoffs, you can't spell Lillard without a buncha L's. 

[Gray Mule]

Despite all that has been said, Hawks haven't pulled off any trades as of yet.  With their starting center out for a week or two, the #2 center and the #3 center just moves up a notch and we carry on.

Thursday's deadline may come and go without Hawks moving anyone.  I suppose we will know Friday!

[sturt]

Going to politely disagree with macdaddy, which is something I don't recall doing all that much.

Diesel was primarily attempting to debunk what I said. If he colored outside the lines by a little bit and it seemed to insult me in the process, I don't actually feel all that insulted... it's not really a problem. I'm content that other readers can discern for themselves if I'm "spewing BS"... and will, anyway. And surely anyone could recognize my lack of angst when Jeff took me to task yesterday. It's okay. We're adults, and as long as we're somewhat talking like intelligent ones, not sophomoric ones, that feels right to me... maybe just me, I dunno.

To be fair to macdaddy... and I've seen AHF recently make similar comment, though I didn't bother to read what led to it... sure, there are times when people color waaaaaaaay outside the lines, and it gets stupid heated... and you just don't wanna see a discussion heading in that direction to accelerate in that direction. That's legit.

That's not what this disagreement between me and Diesel was, though... unless I missed something.

[sturt]

1 hour ago, macdaddy said:

Keep your bucket on.

I don't know what that means. And I'm sure that shakes, like me, is scared to ask.

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, shakes said:

shut up.  @Diesel vs @sturt is exactly what this board needs right now.

I'd rather see @shakes vs. @macdaddy!!  It would be a shorter read and several bucket hat references!

 

[Diesel]

37 minutes ago, kg01 said:

My only bone to pick is on us beating MIL.

Didju forget they hired GLLLLenn RiversLLLL?

That man specializes in losing series as the favorite.  I doubt even Giannis can overcome him.  And we all know, when it comes to playoffs, you can't spell Lillard without a buncha L's. 

I'm predicting Hawks over Bucks in the playoffs!!!

[Diesel]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

Notice, I'm not ragging on you for saying the same thing FOUR TIMES ... I get it, you're trying to emphasize a point by use of repetition. I'm ragging on you, for sure though, for inserting in the middle of all of that "you spew a lot of BS"... now, that's some special self-awareness there, hehehehe.

I was hoping you didn't miss the genius of me spewing BS while talking about how you spew BS?? It's an object lesson in a paragraph!!