Socnorb11 wrote:Do you think Pujols would handle it the same way, if he were a free agent?
A little humility would be swell.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the minority".
Pujols isn't in a sport that glorifies the individual, or depends on an individual player as much as LeBron.
Pujols, while largely regarded as the best player, isn't the biggest star by far in his sport.
I understand you're issue and some humility would be nice. But the majority of people want to see this, no matter what a vocal minority says about humility.
Socnorb11 wrote:So when all is said and done, and Lebron chooses a team other than the Bulls tonight, can we all agree that the Bulls gave up Hinrich and the 17th overall pick in the draft for absolutely nothing?
No, because they still have the cap space to replace the production of Kirk Hinrich and the 17th overall pick with incredible ease. Which was always the point and was reiterated multiple times the first time this argument was brought up.
The idea was to sign 2 max players, right? They didn't trade Hinrich just so they could sign a replacement for Hinrich. I mean, they could have gotten value for Hinrich rather than give him away, if they really didn't want him.
Giving away Hinrich is fine because of how disproportionate his salary is to his production. They traded him so they could have the space to make a run at 2 max players, knowing full well that if they didn't get them, that they can easily replace the production of Hinrich and the 17th pick with that cap space. I don't understand why you're not grasping that, especially the italicized.
Socnorb11 wrote:So when all is said and done, and Lebron chooses a team other than the Bulls tonight, can we all agree that the Bulls gave up Hinrich and the 17th overall pick in the draft for absolutely nothing?
No, because they still have the cap space to replace the production of Kirk Hinrich and the 17th overall pick with incredible ease. Which was always the point and was reiterated multiple times the first time this argument was brought up.
The idea was to sign 2 max players, right? They didn't trade Hinrich just so they could sign a replacement for Hinrich. I mean, they could have gotten value for Hinrich rather than give him away, if they really didn't want him.
Giving away Hinrich is fine because of how disproportionate his salary is to his production. They traded him so they could have the space to make a run at 2 max players, knowing full well that if they didn't get them, that they can easily replace the production of Hinrich and the 17th pick with that cap space. I don't understand why you're not grasping that, especially the italicized.
They haven't replaced the production of Hinrich, much less the 17th pick.
Granted, it's still early. But at this point I think the best they can do is break even on the deal, and they'll have to scramble to do even that.
Today is the first day that FA's can sign, and the whole idea is that you try to get 2 max's and then replace them as a contingency, which again, will be ridiculously easy considering Hinrich and the 17th pick aren't very good.
Transmogrified Tiger wrote:Today is the first day that FA's can sign, and the whole idea is that you try to get 2 max's and then replace them as a contingency, which again, will be ridiculously easy considering Hinrich and the 17th pick aren't very good.
Transmogrified Tiger wrote:And Kwame Brown went 1st overall. Strawmen aren't going to work here.
The point is that the 17th pick can be good, if you pick wisely. You said it's not. That's not "strawmen".
Unless you're assuming that the Bulls wouldn't have chosen wisely.
Well, some of it depends on who is available and a certain amount of luck.
Generally, a 17th pick will be better than a 35th pick. But a 17th pick hasn't historically been an impact player. Especially not as a rookie. So I think he's saying, it's unlikely a 17th pick would be as good as Boozer, and it's not likely a future impact player was available at 17th (though this will be change, hindsight and all).
This is just going around in circles because the points have been made. Look at players taken outside the lottery. There are far more misses than hits, and there's definitely not enough successes to say "well we can't possibly replace this person if we have a truckful of money leftover, better not go after one of the best players in the league and hold on to him". For every Danny Granger there are 5 Juan Dixons.
Transmogrified Tiger wrote:This is just going around in circles because the points have been made. Look at players taken outside the lottery. There are far more misses than hits, and there's definitely not enough successes to say "well we can't possibly replace this person if we have a truckful of money leftover, better not go after one of the best players in the league and hold on to him". For every Danny Granger there are 5 Juan Dixons.
Fair enough.
For the record, I did come to understand and accept why the Bulls made the trade. I was hoping that it would pan out with 2 max players. Since it didn't, I'd prefer to have Hinrich and the draft pick back. But I can see your side as well.
