how 'bout the LLE to Smith?

[cordobes]

With the Cavs situation being what it is currently, I have little doubt that he wouldn't sign with them. That's my opinion and I believe it would've been true if things would have gone this way.

So, we opted for Moore because Smith would have signed with the Cavs in any case?

[winsomme]

Is this really what it's all about? Just to satisfy your curiosity of if we would've really missed out on Smith? With the Cavs situation being what it is currently, I have little doubt that he wouldn't sign with them. That's my opinion and I believe it would've been true if things would have gone this way.

no. it's about potentially filling a roster spot with a significantly better player.

[BudweiserCeltic]

With the Cavs situation being what it is currently, I have little doubt that he wouldn't sign with them. That's my opinion and I believe it would've been true if things would have gone this way.

So, we opted for Moore because Smith would have signed with the Cavs in any case?

No. We signed Moore because there was a huge risk that it would play out that way. And that Wallace got injured making the Cavs more "desperate" for Smith, makes the signing of Moore that much better.

Is this really what it's all about? Just to satisfy your curiosity of if we would've really missed out on Smith? With the Cavs situation being what it is currently, I have little doubt that he wouldn't sign with them. That's my opinion and I believe it would've been true if things would have gone this way.

no. it's about potentially filling a roster spot with a significantly better player.

Who we would probably miss on out anyways given the Cavs situation. You're willing to take the risk? Fine. I'm quite happy with Moore, but Smith would have been a longshot in my opinion with the turn of events of Wallace.

[cordobes]

Having Skinner instead of Moore doesn't change that fact.

That's the part you're having troubles to understand.

We'd have Skinner instead of POB. Moore would have never been signed. We'd been trying to sign Smith, Gooden or we'd just stay with Skinner.

Doc said we couldn't take the gamble of waiting for March 1st.

Am I saying that we would land Smith or Gooden for sure? No, just that we'd be able to gamble.

What would be the worst case scenario? We fail to land them. Would that be a big problem? Not really, we'd go with Davis, Powe and Skinner.

[winsomme]

Who we would probably miss on out anyways given the Cavs situation. You're willing to take the risk? Fine. I'm quite happy with Moore, but Smith would have been a longshot in my opinion with the turn of events of Wallace.

Yes. that is what i have been saying over and over again. I would have taken the risk. Smith IMO is enough of a better player that i would have taken the risk...

[BudweiserCeltic]

Moore wouldn't have been signed because we have Skinner. Skinner=Moore on this regard, how does that have anything to do with Smith? It simply doesn't.

Again, say we wait for Smith with Skinner. How do we land him? How do we convince him differently than what we would've with Moore? We would still be faced with the same problem.

[cordobes]

Moore wouldn't have been signed because we have Skinner. Skinner=Moore on this regard, how does that have anything to do with Smith? It simply doesn't.

Again, say we wait for Smith with Skinner. How do we land him? How do we convince him differently than what we would've with Moore? We would still be faced with the same problem.

With those assumptions, Ainge's plan of waiting for March 1st to land impact players now seems absolutely ridiculous.

I'm surprised you've never denounced we wouldn't have a chance of landing Smith and we should settle for a lesser player ASAP.

Why wait this late to sign a player of Moore's quality, if we weren't aiming for better?!?!?  There were guys of equal value in the off-season and at least they would now have the advantage of an entire season of practices and games with the team.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Moore wouldn't have been signed because we have Skinner. Skinner=Moore on this regard, how does that have anything to do with Smith? It simply doesn't.

Again, say we wait for Smith with Skinner. How do we land him? How do we convince him differently than what we would've with Moore? We would still be faced with the same problem.

With those assumptions, Ainge's plan of waiting for March 1st to land impact players now seems absolutely ridiculous.

I'm surprised you've never denounced we wouldn't have a chance of landing Smith and we should settle for a lesser player ASAP.

Why wait this late to sign a player of Moore's quality, if we weren't aiming for better?!?!?  There were guys of equal value in the off-season and at least they would now have the advantage of an entire season of practices and games with the team.

First we have a difference in opinion on the player. Secondly although there is always hope to land impact players (which we actually did with Marbury), but it wasn't my expectation. The expectation for going after bought out players is to improve our team cheaply while still having a chance to get a really good player out of it. That's the gist of it.

I never said we wouldn't have a chance of landing Smith. Circumstances made it so that in my opinion we wouldn't have much chance. If Smith was bought out earlier, we would've had a strong chance of getting him. Sadly the procedure went to the limit, while Cavs hand to land him improved by quite a bit.

[cordobes]

If Smith was bought out earlier, we would've had a strong chance of getting him.

I'm sorry, but a few posts ago you said that we signed Moore because there was a "high risk" we would miss Smith. Now you say the opposite.

What was it, after all? By the trade deadline, how would you rate our chances of getting Smith?

[BudweiserCeltic]

If Smith was bought out earlier, we would've had a strong chance of getting him.

I'm sorry, but a few posts ago you said that we signed Moore because there was a "high risk" we would miss Smith. Now you say the opposite.

What was it, after all? By the trade deadline, how would you rate our chances of getting Smith?

I didn't say the opposite. Circumstances made it so... and just because you have strong chances of landing someone, it doesn't mean that there's not a high risk on missing out on him.

If Smith was bought out by the trade deadline, I'd say we'd have a strong chance. But Ainge would be the one negotiating with him, he would've had a clear indication of his intentions. We could've still ended up with Moore. Smith could've still dragged it out trying to improve his value. Who knows. These are all hypotheticals, no one knows what motivates people to do what they do and how they would've handled the situation under different circumstances.

[BballTim]

If Smith was bought out earlier, we would've had a strong chance of getting him.

I'm sorry, but a few posts ago you said that we signed Moore because there was a "high risk" we would miss Smith. Now you say the opposite.

What was it, after all? By the trade deadline, how would you rate our chances of getting Smith?

  For one thing his getting bought out before Wallace was injured might have affected how interested Cleveland was in adding more payroll.

[cordobes]

Now I'm more puzzled than ever.

The same people who said that Ainge was right on signing Moore because there was a high risk of not landing Smith also believe that we had a strong chance of signing Smith by the same day Ainge signed Moore!

Funny stuff! 

[BudweiserCeltic]

Now I'm more puzzled than ever.

The same people who said that Ainge was right on signing Moore because there was a high risk of not landing Smith also believe that we had a strong chance of signing Smith by the same day Ainge signed Moore!

Funny stuff! 

You're mixing things up. Smith wasn't bought out by the trade deadline as you wanted to hypothisize, so my opinion on our chances of landing Smith back then have little merit on how things played out.

[winsomme]

Now I'm more puzzled than ever.

The same people who said that Ainge was right on signing Moore because there was a high risk of not landing Smith also believe that we had a strong chance of signing Smith by the same day Ainge signed Moore!

Funny stuff! 

yeah. that's revisionism. using Wallace's injury to defend the decision to sign Moore...

[BudweiserCeltic]

Now I'm more puzzled than ever.

The same people who said that Ainge was right on signing Moore because there was a high risk of not landing Smith also believe that we had a strong chance of signing Smith by the same day Ainge signed Moore!

Funny stuff! 

yeah. that's revisionism. using Wallace's injury to defend the decision to sign Moore...

No one is doing that. What at most I've have said, it's that it made that decision BETTER. I already thought that it was a good decision before Wallace got injured. Before Wallace got injured there was a concern of Smith getting bought out at all.