The Cs should have signed Powe

[BballTim]

In other words, Danny broached the idea of a two-year deal, Leon said he'd take a deal for one year, and the Celtics moved on.  It sounds like both sides could have put a little more effort into this.

That's not what happened. Only after Powe having a verbal agreement to Cleveland, Danny made him the same offer he had accepted - the 2 years non-guaranteed deal.

Obviously, then it was too late, Powe did the right think.

It was a miscalculation by Ainge. Signing Powe would make more sense than signing Hudson. If you needed the roster spot later, you could always release him at no cost.

yep. definite misplay on Danny's part. Can't really explain why, though. Leon was so good for us, has a proven work ethic to come back from his injury, and could have come back at a really reasonable number.

  It takes more than work ethic to come back from injury. It takes a lot of time and a lot of luck. Players have trouble coming back from his injury in a year when it's the first injury to that knee, not the 2nd or 3rd.

work ethic is a controllable element and Leon's got it. and the luck element is factored into the contract he signed.

  Yes, work ethic is controllable. The health of his knee this year really isn't. It's not like, no matter what the injury, if he works hard enough he'll be back in no time. It's extremely unlikely he'll be back to full speed this year no matter how hard he works, how good a guy he is, or how much we liked having him on the Celts in the past.

Like i said, the potential snags in his return are factored into the contract he signed.

  Just like the potential snags in his return are factored into the fact that the Celts (and 28 or so other teams) didn't offer him a contract when he was available for the minimum. You need to keep things in perspective. Sheed misses 1-2 games with a sore foot and you're calling it a stress fracture. But when Leon's trying to come back from a major knee injury to a knee that he's injured multiple times in the past you refuse to believe that he won't adhere to the most optimistic rehab schedules.

the potential for snags were not factored in, that's my point...they simply miscalculated...

by the by, the Celtics did offer Leon a contact...just too late.

as for Sheed, I still haven't heard a diagnosis...so yeah I'm still concerned about a stress reaction...not sure what that has to do with this topic, though.

  If Leon comes back playing well enough to beat Baby or Sheed out of a spot in the rotation you can say that it was a miscalculation.

[radiohead]

I hope KG comes back soon and we go on an extended winning streak. The team's recent struggles as a result of our bigs going down almost all at the same time has brought back the ghost of Leon Powe yet again. I honestly feel that we could get banner #18 without him. We just need to get healthy. And if we don't win it all this year, it definitely won't be because we let Leon go. What's done is done. Time to move on guys. Just my two cents...

 

[winsomme]

In other words, Danny broached the idea of a two-year deal, Leon said he'd take a deal for one year, and the Celtics moved on.  It sounds like both sides could have put a little more effort into this.

That's not what happened. Only after Powe having a verbal agreement to Cleveland, Danny made him the same offer he had accepted - the 2 years non-guaranteed deal.

Obviously, then it was too late, Powe did the right think.

It was a miscalculation by Ainge. Signing Powe would make more sense than signing Hudson. If you needed the roster spot later, you could always release him at no cost.

yep. definite misplay on Danny's part. Can't really explain why, though. Leon was so good for us, has a proven work ethic to come back from his injury, and could have come back at a really reasonable number.

  It takes more than work ethic to come back from injury. It takes a lot of time and a lot of luck. Players have trouble coming back from his injury in a year when it's the first injury to that knee, not the 2nd or 3rd.

work ethic is a controllable element and Leon's got it. and the luck element is factored into the contract he signed.

  Yes, work ethic is controllable. The health of his knee this year really isn't. It's not like, no matter what the injury, if he works hard enough he'll be back in no time. It's extremely unlikely he'll be back to full speed this year no matter how hard he works, how good a guy he is, or how much we liked having him on the Celts in the past.

Like i said, the potential snags in his return are factored into the contract he signed.

  Just like the potential snags in his return are factored into the fact that the Celts (and 28 or so other teams) didn't offer him a contract when he was available for the minimum. You need to keep things in perspective. Sheed misses 1-2 games with a sore foot and you're calling it a stress fracture. But when Leon's trying to come back from a major knee injury to a knee that he's injured multiple times in the past you refuse to believe that he won't adhere to the most optimistic rehab schedules.

the potential for snags were not factored in, that's my point...they simply miscalculated...

by the by, the Celtics did offer Leon a contact...just too late.

as for Sheed, I still haven't heard a diagnosis...so yeah I'm still concerned about a stress reaction...not sure what that has to do with this topic, though.

  If Leon comes back playing well enough to beat Baby or Sheed out of a spot in the rotation you can say that it was a miscalculation.

that certainly would be one (and biggest) element, but I think even having him now with the reports of Leon being able to scrimmage would be a benefit. I think we could feel more comfortable about including Shelden in a deal for instance with Leon's return on the horizon.

[BballTim]

  If Leon comes back playing well enough to beat Baby or Sheed out of a spot in the rotation you can say that it was a miscalculation.

that certainly would be one (and biggest) element, but I think even having him now with the reports of Leon being able to scrimmage would be a benefit. I think we could feel more comfortable about including Shelden in a deal for instance with Leon's return on the horizon.

  No, that's the only thing. If he can't get playing time he's not fully recovered. If he's not fully recovered you can't trade away other players that provide depth in that spot. What if we make a trade and Powe has a relapse?

[winsomme]

  If Leon comes back playing well enough to beat Baby or Sheed out of a spot in the rotation you can say that it was a miscalculation.

that certainly would be one (and biggest) element, but I think even having him now with the reports of Leon being able to scrimmage would be a benefit. I think we could feel more comfortable about including Shelden in a deal for instance with Leon's return on the horizon.

  No, that's the only thing. If he can't get playing time he's not fully recovered. If he's not fully recovered you can't trade away other players that provide depth in that spot. What if we make a trade and Powe has a relapse?

you already agreed that a 75% Leon could help CLE....are you going back on that?

[BballTim]

  If Leon comes back playing well enough to beat Baby or Sheed out of a spot in the rotation you can say that it was a miscalculation.

that certainly would be one (and biggest) element, but I think even having him now with the reports of Leon being able to scrimmage would be a benefit. I think we could feel more comfortable about including Shelden in a deal for instance with Leon's return on the horizon.

  No, that's the only thing. If he can't get playing time he's not fully recovered. If he's not fully recovered you can't trade away other players that provide depth in that spot. What if we make a trade and Powe has a relapse?

you already agreed that a 75% Leon could help CLE....are you going back on that?

  I said that Leon could come back to play well enough to help Cleveland and still not be able to help us. It probably started with "even if Powe is able to come back at 75%..." which isn't a given. I never said it was probable that he'd come back that far this year nor did I say that it's unlikely that he'll have a relapse.

[winsomme]

  If Leon comes back playing well enough to beat Baby or Sheed out of a spot in the rotation you can say that it was a miscalculation.

that certainly would be one (and biggest) element, but I think even having him now with the reports of Leon being able to scrimmage would be a benefit. I think we could feel more comfortable about including Shelden in a deal for instance with Leon's return on the horizon.

  No, that's the only thing. If he can't get playing time he's not fully recovered. If he's not fully recovered you can't trade away other players that provide depth in that spot. What if we make a trade and Powe has a relapse?

you already agreed that a 75% Leon could help CLE....are you going back on that?

  I said that Leon could come back to play well enough to help Cleveland and still not be able to help us. It probably started with "even if Powe is able to come back at 75%..." which isn't a given. I never said it was probable that he'd come back that far this year nor did I say that it's unlikely that he'll have a relapse.

I'm not talking about what you predicted his recovery would be, I'm talking about at what point you conceded Leon would be worth having on your roster.

you claimed that Leon needed to be fully recovered for the Cs decision to not sign him to be considered a miscalculation. yet you noted he could be considered him at 75% to be valuable to CLE (which is in theory why they signed him).

I think the problem is that you are not making a distinction between "able to contribute" and "adding depth" as far as him having a role on the Cs.

If you acknowledge that he could contribute on CLE at 75% certainly he could add depth to the Cs at that level of recovery....and thus be a miscalculation even if that is as far as his recovery gets this year (less than the full recovery you required just a few posts back).

[BballTim]

  If Leon comes back playing well enough to beat Baby or Sheed out of a spot in the rotation you can say that it was a miscalculation.

that certainly would be one (and biggest) element, but I think even having him now with the reports of Leon being able to scrimmage would be a benefit. I think we could feel more comfortable about including Shelden in a deal for instance with Leon's return on the horizon.

  No, that's the only thing. If he can't get playing time he's not fully recovered. If he's not fully recovered you can't trade away other players that provide depth in that spot. What if we make a trade and Powe has a relapse?

you already agreed that a 75% Leon could help CLE....are you going back on that?

  I said that Leon could come back to play well enough to help Cleveland and still not be able to help us. It probably started with "even if Powe is able to come back at 75%..." which isn't a given. I never said it was probable that he'd come back that far this year nor did I say that it's unlikely that he'll have a relapse.

I'm not talking about what you predicted his recovery would be, I'm talking about at what point you conceded Leon would be worth having on your roster.

you claimed that Leon needed to be fully recovered for the Cs decision to not sign him to be considered a miscalculation. yet you noted he could be considered him at 75% to be valuable to CLE (which is in theory why they signed him).

I think the problem is that you are not making a distinction between "able to contribute" and "adding depth" as far as him having a role on the Cs.

If you acknowledge that he could contribute on CLE at 75% certainly he could add depth to the Cs at that level of recovery....and thus be a miscalculation even if that is as far as his recovery gets this year (less than the full recovery you required just a few posts back).

  So he can add depth to the team, although probably not be playing well enough to crack the rotation, and you can't count on his availability because of the likelihood of a relapse. That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds, any size you like. You can't trade away some other player because Leon gets back to 75% because you can't count on his remaining healthy. If he's not contributing on the court he offers no value to us this year, other than keeping him from contributing to a team with worse players in their frontcourt rotation.

[winsomme]

  If Leon comes back playing well enough to beat Baby or Sheed out of a spot in the rotation you can say that it was a miscalculation.

that certainly would be one (and biggest) element, but I think even having him now with the reports of Leon being able to scrimmage would be a benefit. I think we could feel more comfortable about including Shelden in a deal for instance with Leon's return on the horizon.

  No, that's the only thing. If he can't get playing time he's not fully recovered. If he's not fully recovered you can't trade away other players that provide depth in that spot. What if we make a trade and Powe has a relapse?

you already agreed that a 75% Leon could help CLE....are you going back on that?

  I said that Leon could come back to play well enough to help Cleveland and still not be able to help us. It probably started with "even if Powe is able to come back at 75%..." which isn't a given. I never said it was probable that he'd come back that far this year nor did I say that it's unlikely that he'll have a relapse.

I'm not talking about what you predicted his recovery would be, I'm talking about at what point you conceded Leon would be worth having on your roster.

you claimed that Leon needed to be fully recovered for the Cs decision to not sign him to be considered a miscalculation. yet you noted he could be considered him at 75% to be valuable to CLE (which is in theory why they signed him).

I think the problem is that you are not making a distinction between "able to contribute" and "adding depth" as far as him having a role on the Cs.

If you acknowledge that he could contribute on CLE at 75% certainly he could add depth to the Cs at that level of recovery....and thus be a miscalculation even if that is as far as his recovery gets this year (less than the full recovery you required just a few posts back).

  So he can add depth to the team, although probably not be playing well enough to crack the rotation, and you can't count on his availability because of the likelihood of a relapse. That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds, any size you like. You can't trade away some other player because Leon gets back to 75% because you can't count on his remaining healthy. If he's not contributing on the court he offers no value to us this year, other than keeping him from contributing to a team with worse players in their frontcourt rotation.

there is a contradiction inherent in your position. If Leon can contribute on CLE at 75%, then why can't he add depth on the Cs?

remember, the question being asked is at what point in his recovery would Leon have value on our roster....

and add to the list of considerations at what point Leon could contribute with Baby not being able to knock down that midrange jumper he was hitting last year due to his injured hand?

[BballTim]

  If Leon comes back playing well enough to beat Baby or Sheed out of a spot in the rotation you can say that it was a miscalculation.

that certainly would be one (and biggest) element, but I think even having him now with the reports of Leon being able to scrimmage would be a benefit. I think we could feel more comfortable about including Shelden in a deal for instance with Leon's return on the horizon.

  No, that's the only thing. If he can't get playing time he's not fully recovered. If he's not fully recovered you can't trade away other players that provide depth in that spot. What if we make a trade and Powe has a relapse?

you already agreed that a 75% Leon could help CLE....are you going back on that?

  I said that Leon could come back to play well enough to help Cleveland and still not be able to help us. It probably started with "even if Powe is able to come back at 75%..." which isn't a given. I never said it was probable that he'd come back that far this year nor did I say that it's unlikely that he'll have a relapse.

I'm not talking about what you predicted his recovery would be, I'm talking about at what point you conceded Leon would be worth having on your roster.

you claimed that Leon needed to be fully recovered for the Cs decision to not sign him to be considered a miscalculation. yet you noted he could be considered him at 75% to be valuable to CLE (which is in theory why they signed him).

I think the problem is that you are not making a distinction between "able to contribute" and "adding depth" as far as him having a role on the Cs.

If you acknowledge that he could contribute on CLE at 75% certainly he could add depth to the Cs at that level of recovery....and thus be a miscalculation even if that is as far as his recovery gets this year (less than the full recovery you required just a few posts back).

  So he can add depth to the team, although probably not be playing well enough to crack the rotation, and you can't count on his availability because of the likelihood of a relapse. That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds, any size you like. You can't trade away some other player because Leon gets back to 75% because you can't count on his remaining healthy. If he's not contributing on the court he offers no value to us this year, other than keeping him from contributing to a team with worse players in their frontcourt rotation.

there is a contradiction inherent in your position. If Leon can contribute on CLE at 75%, then why can't he add depth on the Cs?

remember, the question being asked is at what point in his recovery would Leon have value on our roster....

and add to the list of considerations at what point Leon could contribute with Baby not being able to knock down that midrange jumper he was hitting last year due to his injured hand?

  Baby's hand will probably be better before Powe's knee. And come on. You can't understand that even if he comes back and plays a few games for Cleveland he can still have a relapse? If you can guarantee that he'll have a flawless recovery, no setbacks and he comes back faster than about 90% of the people who are coming bck from their FIRST knee injury, not signing him was a miscalculation. If he comes back as you'd expect and you can guarantee that he won't have a relapse he makes Sheldon Williams expendable. Other than that it's no big deal either way.

[winsomme]

  If Leon comes back playing well enough to beat Baby or Sheed out of a spot in the rotation you can say that it was a miscalculation.

that certainly would be one (and biggest) element, but I think even having him now with the reports of Leon being able to scrimmage would be a benefit. I think we could feel more comfortable about including Shelden in a deal for instance with Leon's return on the horizon.

  No, that's the only thing. If he can't get playing time he's not fully recovered. If he's not fully recovered you can't trade away other players that provide depth in that spot. What if we make a trade and Powe has a relapse?

you already agreed that a 75% Leon could help CLE....are you going back on that?

  I said that Leon could come back to play well enough to help Cleveland and still not be able to help us. It probably started with "even if Powe is able to come back at 75%..." which isn't a given. I never said it was probable that he'd come back that far this year nor did I say that it's unlikely that he'll have a relapse.

I'm not talking about what you predicted his recovery would be, I'm talking about at what point you conceded Leon would be worth having on your roster.

you claimed that Leon needed to be fully recovered for the Cs decision to not sign him to be considered a miscalculation. yet you noted he could be considered him at 75% to be valuable to CLE (which is in theory why they signed him).

I think the problem is that you are not making a distinction between "able to contribute" and "adding depth" as far as him having a role on the Cs.

If you acknowledge that he could contribute on CLE at 75% certainly he could add depth to the Cs at that level of recovery....and thus be a miscalculation even if that is as far as his recovery gets this year (less than the full recovery you required just a few posts back).

  So he can add depth to the team, although probably not be playing well enough to crack the rotation, and you can't count on his availability because of the likelihood of a relapse. That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds, any size you like. You can't trade away some other player because Leon gets back to 75% because you can't count on his remaining healthy. If he's not contributing on the court he offers no value to us this year, other than keeping him from contributing to a team with worse players in their frontcourt rotation.

there is a contradiction inherent in your position. If Leon can contribute on CLE at 75%, then why can't he add depth on the Cs?

remember, the question being asked is at what point in his recovery would Leon have value on our roster....

and add to the list of considerations at what point Leon could contribute with Baby not being able to knock down that midrange jumper he was hitting last year due to his injured hand?

  Baby's hand will probably be better before Powe's knee. And come on. You can't understand that even if he comes back and plays a few games for Cleveland he can still have a relapse? If you can guarantee that he'll have a flawless recovery, no setbacks and he comes back faster than about 90% of the people who are coming bck from their FIRST knee injury, not signing him was a miscalculation. If he comes back as you'd expect and you can guarantee that he won't have a relapse he makes Sheldon Williams expendable. Other than that it's no big deal either way.

guarantees? where are the guarantees for any player....plus, you're moving into a different question.

the question is at what point in Leon's recovery would it be worth having signed Leon in the off season. And I'm arguing that he has value on a roster before he is 100% recovered which like you asserted is probably why CLE signed him (noting that at 75% he would be better than say Hickson)...

he also could have value as a trade chip considering he could be back to 100% next year and be locked up for that same $900,000...

[BballTim]

  If Leon comes back playing well enough to beat Baby or Sheed out of a spot in the rotation you can say that it was a miscalculation.

that certainly would be one (and biggest) element, but I think even having him now with the reports of Leon being able to scrimmage would be a benefit. I think we could feel more comfortable about including Shelden in a deal for instance with Leon's return on the horizon.

  No, that's the only thing. If he can't get playing time he's not fully recovered. If he's not fully recovered you can't trade away other players that provide depth in that spot. What if we make a trade and Powe has a relapse?

you already agreed that a 75% Leon could help CLE....are you going back on that?

  I said that Leon could come back to play well enough to help Cleveland and still not be able to help us. It probably started with "even if Powe is able to come back at 75%..." which isn't a given. I never said it was probable that he'd come back that far this year nor did I say that it's unlikely that he'll have a relapse.

I'm not talking about what you predicted his recovery would be, I'm talking about at what point you conceded Leon would be worth having on your roster.

you claimed that Leon needed to be fully recovered for the Cs decision to not sign him to be considered a miscalculation. yet you noted he could be considered him at 75% to be valuable to CLE (which is in theory why they signed him).

I think the problem is that you are not making a distinction between "able to contribute" and "adding depth" as far as him having a role on the Cs.

If you acknowledge that he could contribute on CLE at 75% certainly he could add depth to the Cs at that level of recovery....and thus be a miscalculation even if that is as far as his recovery gets this year (less than the full recovery you required just a few posts back).

  So he can add depth to the team, although probably not be playing well enough to crack the rotation, and you can't count on his availability because of the likelihood of a relapse. That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds, any size you like. You can't trade away some other player because Leon gets back to 75% because you can't count on his remaining healthy. If he's not contributing on the court he offers no value to us this year, other than keeping him from contributing to a team with worse players in their frontcourt rotation.

there is a contradiction inherent in your position. If Leon can contribute on CLE at 75%, then why can't he add depth on the Cs?

remember, the question being asked is at what point in his recovery would Leon have value on our roster....

and add to the list of considerations at what point Leon could contribute with Baby not being able to knock down that midrange jumper he was hitting last year due to his injured hand?

  Baby's hand will probably be better before Powe's knee. And come on. You can't understand that even if he comes back and plays a few games for Cleveland he can still have a relapse? If you can guarantee that he'll have a flawless recovery, no setbacks and he comes back faster than about 90% of the people who are coming bck from their FIRST knee injury, not signing him was a miscalculation. If he comes back as you'd expect and you can guarantee that he won't have a relapse he makes Sheldon Williams expendable. Other than that it's no big deal either way.

guarantees? where are the guarantees for any player....plus, you're moving into a different question.

the question is at what point in Leon's recovery would it be worth having signed Leon in the off season. And I'm arguing that he has value on a roster before he is 100% recovered which like you asserted is probably why CLE signed him (noting that at 75% he would be better than say Hickson)...

he also could have value as a trade chip considering he could be back to 100% next year and be locked up for that same $900,000...

  You're just refusing to listen to what I'm saying. If Leon works his way back to 75% by April and suffers a relapse 3 weeks later then he's provided some value to Cleveland because, at 75%, he was able to contribute in some games. If he does the same thing for us then he's not likely to have made a contribution on the court and all he's done for is is given us the illusion of depth for a few weeks.

[winsomme]

  If Leon comes back playing well enough to beat Baby or Sheed out of a spot in the rotation you can say that it was a miscalculation.

that certainly would be one (and biggest) element, but I think even having him now with the reports of Leon being able to scrimmage would be a benefit. I think we could feel more comfortable about including Shelden in a deal for instance with Leon's return on the horizon.

  No, that's the only thing. If he can't get playing time he's not fully recovered. If he's not fully recovered you can't trade away other players that provide depth in that spot. What if we make a trade and Powe has a relapse?

you already agreed that a 75% Leon could help CLE....are you going back on that?

  I said that Leon could come back to play well enough to help Cleveland and still not be able to help us. It probably started with "even if Powe is able to come back at 75%..." which isn't a given. I never said it was probable that he'd come back that far this year nor did I say that it's unlikely that he'll have a relapse.

I'm not talking about what you predicted his recovery would be, I'm talking about at what point you conceded Leon would be worth having on your roster.

you claimed that Leon needed to be fully recovered for the Cs decision to not sign him to be considered a miscalculation. yet you noted he could be considered him at 75% to be valuable to CLE (which is in theory why they signed him).

I think the problem is that you are not making a distinction between "able to contribute" and "adding depth" as far as him having a role on the Cs.

If you acknowledge that he could contribute on CLE at 75% certainly he could add depth to the Cs at that level of recovery....and thus be a miscalculation even if that is as far as his recovery gets this year (less than the full recovery you required just a few posts back).

  So he can add depth to the team, although probably not be playing well enough to crack the rotation, and you can't count on his availability because of the likelihood of a relapse. That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds, any size you like. You can't trade away some other player because Leon gets back to 75% because you can't count on his remaining healthy. If he's not contributing on the court he offers no value to us this year, other than keeping him from contributing to a team with worse players in their frontcourt rotation.

there is a contradiction inherent in your position. If Leon can contribute on CLE at 75%, then why can't he add depth on the Cs?

remember, the question being asked is at what point in his recovery would Leon have value on our roster....

and add to the list of considerations at what point Leon could contribute with Baby not being able to knock down that midrange jumper he was hitting last year due to his injured hand?

  Baby's hand will probably be better before Powe's knee. And come on. You can't understand that even if he comes back and plays a few games for Cleveland he can still have a relapse? If you can guarantee that he'll have a flawless recovery, no setbacks and he comes back faster than about 90% of the people who are coming bck from their FIRST knee injury, not signing him was a miscalculation. If he comes back as you'd expect and you can guarantee that he won't have a relapse he makes Sheldon Williams expendable. Other than that it's no big deal either way.

guarantees? where are the guarantees for any player....plus, you're moving into a different question.

the question is at what point in Leon's recovery would it be worth having signed Leon in the off season. And I'm arguing that he has value on a roster before he is 100% recovered which like you asserted is probably why CLE signed him (noting that at 75% he would be better than say Hickson)...

he also could have value as a trade chip considering he could be back to 100% next year and be locked up for that same $900,000...

  You're just refusing to listen to what I'm saying. If Leon works his way back to 75% by April and suffers a relapse 3 weeks later then he's provided some value to Cleveland because, at 75%, he was able to contribute in some games. If he does the same thing for us then he's not likely to have made a contribution on the court and all he's done for is is given us the illusion of depth for a few weeks.

which is all he needs to do under those circumstances because that's all someone providing depth on a roster needs to do...

I am listening, but you are not for some reason seeing the contradiction in it...

here is what you said about Leon on CLE:

Powe at 75% might be able to make a decent contribution for Cleveland

CLE could have signed some other player who is healthy to add depth to their roster.....in fact, under your assessment with their weak front court they should have been more motivated to sign a player who would be able to contribute and not have the risk of a relapse..

but instead they decided to sign Leon because they recognized that even before he was 100% recovered he had value....

[BballTim]

  If Leon comes back playing well enough to beat Baby or Sheed out of a spot in the rotation you can say that it was a miscalculation.

that certainly would be one (and biggest) element, but I think even having him now with the reports of Leon being able to scrimmage would be a benefit. I think we could feel more comfortable about including Shelden in a deal for instance with Leon's return on the horizon.

  No, that's the only thing. If he can't get playing time he's not fully recovered. If he's not fully recovered you can't trade away other players that provide depth in that spot. What if we make a trade and Powe has a relapse?

you already agreed that a 75% Leon could help CLE....are you going back on that?

  I said that Leon could come back to play well enough to help Cleveland and still not be able to help us. It probably started with "even if Powe is able to come back at 75%..." which isn't a given. I never said it was probable that he'd come back that far this year nor did I say that it's unlikely that he'll have a relapse.

I'm not talking about what you predicted his recovery would be, I'm talking about at what point you conceded Leon would be worth having on your roster.

you claimed that Leon needed to be fully recovered for the Cs decision to not sign him to be considered a miscalculation. yet you noted he could be considered him at 75% to be valuable to CLE (which is in theory why they signed him).

I think the problem is that you are not making a distinction between "able to contribute" and "adding depth" as far as him having a role on the Cs.

If you acknowledge that he could contribute on CLE at 75% certainly he could add depth to the Cs at that level of recovery....and thus be a miscalculation even if that is as far as his recovery gets this year (less than the full recovery you required just a few posts back).

  So he can add depth to the team, although probably not be playing well enough to crack the rotation, and you can't count on his availability because of the likelihood of a relapse. That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds, any size you like. You can't trade away some other player because Leon gets back to 75% because you can't count on his remaining healthy. If he's not contributing on the court he offers no value to us this year, other than keeping him from contributing to a team with worse players in their frontcourt rotation.

there is a contradiction inherent in your position. If Leon can contribute on CLE at 75%, then why can't he add depth on the Cs?

remember, the question being asked is at what point in his recovery would Leon have value on our roster....

and add to the list of considerations at what point Leon could contribute with Baby not being able to knock down that midrange jumper he was hitting last year due to his injured hand?

  Baby's hand will probably be better before Powe's knee. And come on. You can't understand that even if he comes back and plays a few games for Cleveland he can still have a relapse? If you can guarantee that he'll have a flawless recovery, no setbacks and he comes back faster than about 90% of the people who are coming bck from their FIRST knee injury, not signing him was a miscalculation. If he comes back as you'd expect and you can guarantee that he won't have a relapse he makes Sheldon Williams expendable. Other than that it's no big deal either way.

guarantees? where are the guarantees for any player....plus, you're moving into a different question.

the question is at what point in Leon's recovery would it be worth having signed Leon in the off season. And I'm arguing that he has value on a roster before he is 100% recovered which like you asserted is probably why CLE signed him (noting that at 75% he would be better than say Hickson)...

he also could have value as a trade chip considering he could be back to 100% next year and be locked up for that same $900,000...

  You're just refusing to listen to what I'm saying. If Leon works his way back to 75% by April and suffers a relapse 3 weeks later then he's provided some value to Cleveland because, at 75%, he was able to contribute in some games. If he does the same thing for us then he's not likely to have made a contribution on the court and all he's done for is is given us the illusion of depth for a few weeks.

which is all he needs to do under those circumstances because that's all someone providing depth on a roster needs to do...

I am listening, but you are not for some reason seeing the contradiction in it...

here is what you said about Leon on CLE:

Powe at 75% might be able to make a decent contribution for Cleveland

CLE could have signed some other player who is healthy to add depth to their roster.....in fact, under your assessment with their weak front court they should have been more motivated to sign a player who would be able to contribute and not have the risk of a relapse..

but instead they decided to sign Leon because they recognized that even before he was 100% recovered he had value....

  Fine, By your standards if Leon never plays of us and is only healthy enough to be considered "depth" for a few weeks then he was worth having. I disagree with this. I also disagree with your assumption that any player who might be valuable to any other team in the league would also be valuable to us.

 

[winsomme]

  If Leon comes back playing well enough to beat Baby or Sheed out of a spot in the rotation you can say that it was a miscalculation.

that certainly would be one (and biggest) element, but I think even having him now with the reports of Leon being able to scrimmage would be a benefit. I think we could feel more comfortable about including Shelden in a deal for instance with Leon's return on the horizon.

  No, that's the only thing. If he can't get playing time he's not fully recovered. If he's not fully recovered you can't trade away other players that provide depth in that spot. What if we make a trade and Powe has a relapse?

you already agreed that a 75% Leon could help CLE....are you going back on that?

  I said that Leon could come back to play well enough to help Cleveland and still not be able to help us. It probably started with "even if Powe is able to come back at 75%..." which isn't a given. I never said it was probable that he'd come back that far this year nor did I say that it's unlikely that he'll have a relapse.

I'm not talking about what you predicted his recovery would be, I'm talking about at what point you conceded Leon would be worth having on your roster.

you claimed that Leon needed to be fully recovered for the Cs decision to not sign him to be considered a miscalculation. yet you noted he could be considered him at 75% to be valuable to CLE (which is in theory why they signed him).

I think the problem is that you are not making a distinction between "able to contribute" and "adding depth" as far as him having a role on the Cs.

If you acknowledge that he could contribute on CLE at 75% certainly he could add depth to the Cs at that level of recovery....and thus be a miscalculation even if that is as far as his recovery gets this year (less than the full recovery you required just a few posts back).

  So he can add depth to the team, although probably not be playing well enough to crack the rotation, and you can't count on his availability because of the likelihood of a relapse. That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds, any size you like. You can't trade away some other player because Leon gets back to 75% because you can't count on his remaining healthy. If he's not contributing on the court he offers no value to us this year, other than keeping him from contributing to a team with worse players in their frontcourt rotation.

there is a contradiction inherent in your position. If Leon can contribute on CLE at 75%, then why can't he add depth on the Cs?

remember, the question being asked is at what point in his recovery would Leon have value on our roster....

and add to the list of considerations at what point Leon could contribute with Baby not being able to knock down that midrange jumper he was hitting last year due to his injured hand?

  Baby's hand will probably be better before Powe's knee. And come on. You can't understand that even if he comes back and plays a few games for Cleveland he can still have a relapse? If you can guarantee that he'll have a flawless recovery, no setbacks and he comes back faster than about 90% of the people who are coming bck from their FIRST knee injury, not signing him was a miscalculation. If he comes back as you'd expect and you can guarantee that he won't have a relapse he makes Sheldon Williams expendable. Other than that it's no big deal either way.

guarantees? where are the guarantees for any player....plus, you're moving into a different question.

the question is at what point in Leon's recovery would it be worth having signed Leon in the off season. And I'm arguing that he has value on a roster before he is 100% recovered which like you asserted is probably why CLE signed him (noting that at 75% he would be better than say Hickson)...

he also could have value as a trade chip considering he could be back to 100% next year and be locked up for that same $900,000...

  You're just refusing to listen to what I'm saying. If Leon works his way back to 75% by April and suffers a relapse 3 weeks later then he's provided some value to Cleveland because, at 75%, he was able to contribute in some games. If he does the same thing for us then he's not likely to have made a contribution on the court and all he's done for is is given us the illusion of depth for a few weeks.

which is all he needs to do under those circumstances because that's all someone providing depth on a roster needs to do...

I am listening, but you are not for some reason seeing the contradiction in it...

here is what you said about Leon on CLE:

Powe at 75% might be able to make a decent contribution for Cleveland

CLE could have signed some other player who is healthy to add depth to their roster.....in fact, under your assessment with their weak front court they should have been more motivated to sign a player who would be able to contribute and not have the risk of a relapse..

but instead they decided to sign Leon because they recognized that even before he was 100% recovered he had value....

  Fine, By your standards if Leon never plays of us and is only healthy enough to be considered "depth" for a few weeks then he was worth having. I disagree with this. I also disagree with your assumption that any player who might be valuable to any other team in the league would also be valuable to us.

 

well "valuable" in a very specific sense (with differences depending on the make up of the team in question)....I mean, I can acknowledge that Leon has a different value to CLE than he would have for us (after adding Shelden for instance)...but I just don't think he ONLY has value to us once he is 100% recovered. I think he has value before that point in his recovery....