how 'bout the LLE to Smith?

[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...

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.

it made the result better, not the decision...maybe that is splitting hairs, but it seems to be a difference to me.

[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! 

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.

I'm even more puzzled. When were our chances of getting Smith "strong" or even "good"? Never?

[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.

it made the result better, not the decision...maybe that is splitting hairs, but it seems to be a difference to me.

If you want to look at it that way fine. Already said that I liked the decision regardless.

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.

I'm even more puzzled. When were our chances of getting Smith "strong"? Never?

By the trade deadline, when people here were salivating the prospects of adding Smith. The process dragged, uncertainty of him becoming bought out at all came up, then Wallace got injured. There's a time factor here, and things are fluid. Circumstances change.

[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! 

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.

I'm even more puzzled. When were our chances of getting Smith "strong"? Never?

By the trade deadline, when people here were salivating the prospects of adding Smith. The process dragged, uncertainty of him becoming bought out at all came up, then Wallace got injured. There's a time factor here, and things are fluid. Circumstances change.
[/quote]

Oh, I believe by now we've all understood your thesis. 

In your opinion, by the trade deadline we had a strong chance of landing Smith. You also believe that by the trade deadline Ainge decided to make an offer to Moore because there was a high risk we wouldn't be able to land Smith.

[BudweiserCeltic]

You missing "had he been bought out". Who knows when exactly the offer to Moore was? Who knows if Ainge would've made offers to BOTH at the same time and just go with whomever accepted first, etc. Even with us having a strong chance of landing Smith had he been bought out, who knows how long he would've dragged his decision and on how that would've affected matters.

I don't play the hypothetical game... that's what you guys like to apparently do. I only work with what happened and on how good I thought a decision was with the given information and circumstances at the time. That's the bottom line for me, and as I've said... I liked the decision to get Moore when we did and have ZERO buyers remorse.

[cordobes]

You missing "had he been bought out".

Wrong.

When were our chances of getting Smith "strong"? Never?

By the trade deadline, when people here were salivating the prospects of adding Smith.

Sorry to let you know that "by the trade deadline" Smith was not bought out.

You can't have it both ways: either you believe that by the trade deadline we had a strong chance of landing Smith (when he was still a Thunder player) or you believe that by the trade deadline there was a very high risk we wouldn't be able to land Smith. You've said both things and they are absolutely contradictory.

[BballTim]

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...

  I didn't use Wallace's injury to defend the decision to sign Moore. I just said that before his injury we'd have had a better chance at signing Smith. Sorry if that was too complicated for either of you.

[BudweiserCeltic]

You missing "had he been bought out".

Wrong.

What do you mean wrong? You were insinuating what MY thesis was... I fixed it for you.

Well, I understood your question differently.

And the way you want it answered is quite hard because there are many factors to consider.

But since Joe wasn't bought out until the last minute, untimately I would say we would've had low chances in getting him regardless of how I would've felt about our chances with him had he been bought out earlier.

And there's no contradiction in it either. I could've felt we had a strong chance of getting him in that particular time, and as time went by feel that our chances lowering by the minute. At the time of the trade deadline, I thought he was going to be bought out quite soon and we would have a good chance of landing him. It didn't happen, so it doesn't matter.

And again, just because I like our chances, it doesn't mean that there wasn't a high risk of losing him.

[BballTim]

By the trade deadline, when people here were salivating the prospects of adding Smith.

Sorry to let you know that "by the trade deadline" Smith was not bought out.

  He didn't say that Smith was bought out by the deadline. He said people were talking about Smith getting bought out after the deadline had passed.

[cordobes]

And again, just because I like our chances, it doesn't mean that there wasn't a high risk of losing him.

 

What does that mean?

Look, what was your opinion on our chances of getting Smith by, say, February 21th? Very good, good, bad or very bad? Or you didn't have a personal opinion? Or you just refuse to say what it was?

[BudweiserCeltic]

And again, just because I like our chances, it doesn't mean that there wasn't a high risk of losing him.

 

What does that mean?

Look, what was your opinion on our chances of getting Smith by, say, February 21th? Very good, good, bad or very bad? Or you didn't have a personal opinion? Or you just refuse to say what it was?

Jesus, could you ask some relevant question?

What it means is what it says. Risk is one thing, chances of getting a person is another. It's really not hard to understand... that while I think we would've had a good chance of getting Smith (again, had he been bought out back then) it doesn't mean that there's no high risk existing at the same time of us not signing him at all... because there are other competitors around with good chances of landing him too.

[cordobes]

And again, just because I like our chances, it doesn't mean that there wasn't a high risk of losing him.

 

What does that mean?

Look, what was your opinion on our chances of getting Smith by, say, February 21th? Very good, good, bad or very bad? Or you didn't have a personal opinion? Or you just refuse to say what it was?

Jesus, could you ask some relevant question?

Oh, I know why you can't give a straight answer to that question - a very simple one, what would your answer be if anyone had asked you by Feb 21st "hey Bud, how do you rate our chances of getting Joe?".

Because either the risk of not landing Smith was so high - and not because of Wallace's injury - that we never actually had a good chance of landing him and all the talk about how entering the season with an incomplete roster to get a player of Smith's quality was foolish;

or the risk of not landing Smith was acceptable and we had a good chance of landing him - but that is absolutely and literally contradictory with the statement that Ainge signed Moore because, and I quote, "the risk of not signing Moore was too high".

[BudweiserCeltic]

And again, just because I like our chances, it doesn't mean that there wasn't a high risk of losing him.

 

What does that mean?

Look, what was your opinion on our chances of getting Smith by, say, February 21th? Very good, good, bad or very bad? Or you didn't have a personal opinion? Or you just refuse to say what it was?

Jesus, could you ask some relevant question?

Oh, I know why you can't give a straight answer to that question - a very simple one, what would your answer be if anyone had asked you by Feb 21st "hey Bud, how do you rate our chances of getting Joe?".

Because either the risk of not landing Smith was so high - and not because of Wallace's injury - that we never actually had a good chance of landing him and all the talk about how entering the season with an incomplete roster to get a player of Smith's quality was foolish;

I answered you this before. There's a difference of opinion on Moore and I already answered what MY expectations were as it regards waiting to acquire a bought out player. Adding someone like Smith is nothing more than being hopeful (and we added Marbury, so we did quite good).

Until Joe Smith was bought out, chances of ANYONE acquiring him was low. As time passed and Smith didn't get bought out our chances became lower. The only way I can say that we had a good chance of getting him was if he had been bought in a timely fashion. Abscent of that, I would have said "he has to get bought out first", and his willingness of choosing us over some other team would change as time passes, which it did because of the Wallace situation.

or the risk of not landing Smith was acceptable and we had a good chance of landing him - but that is absolutely and literally contradictory with the statement that Ainge signed Moore because, and I quote, "the risk of not signing Moore was too high".

It's not contradictory. There's a time factor here that you're not considering. The risk of not landing Smith was acceptable up to a point... it's not hard to understand.

[vjcsmoke]

Look it's already March 3rd now.  Since Joe Smith isn't on either the Cavalier's or Celtics roster yet, doesn't that mean that he would be ineligible to be on the playoff roster?  So isn't this all a moot point?  Joe Smith might be able to help for the rest of the regular season, but if he can't play in the postseason, what's the big deal?  Isn't it all moot now?

[Fafnir]

Look it's already March 3rd now.  Since Joe Smith isn't on either the Cavalier's or Celtics roster yet, doesn't that mean that he would be ineligible to be on the playoff roster?  So isn't this all a moot point?  Joe Smith might be able to help for the rest of the regular season, but if he can't play in the postseason, what's the big deal?  Isn't it all moot now?

No, Joe Smith needed to be waived by March 1st. He now can take his sweet time deciding where to sign.