The Cs should have signed Powe

[Fafnir]

The quote boxes have rendered me blind.....

[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.

 

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....

  You're entitled to that belief. ML had value for us as a towel waver, right? But I think it's silly to call it a miscalculation unless his value to us includes actual contributions on the court.

[BballTim]

The quote boxes have rendered me blind.....

  I actually cut them back once or twice in this thread.

[winsomme]

  You're entitled to that belief. ML had value for us as a towel waver, right? But I think it's silly to call it a miscalculation unless his value to us includes actual contributions on the court.

depends on what it allows to happen....If it enables you to make a trade, I'd call Leon more than a towel waiver...

[BudweiserCeltic]

  You're entitled to that belief. ML had value for us as a towel waver, right? But I think it's silly to call it a miscalculation unless his value to us includes actual contributions on the court.

depends on what it allows to happen....If it enables you to make a trade, I'd call Leon more than a towel waiver...

Having Leon or not won't change our willingness to make trades. We have a lot of players in our team that can play the 4 position.

[Fafnir]

The quote boxes have rendered me blind.....

  I actually cut them back once or twice in this thread.

I know you did, its scary that they've built up to blinding levels three times! 

Don't mind me though guys, I apologize for the interjection.

[scoop]

I have no idea if Powe is going to be able to contribute in a basketball court again, much less at his pre-injury level. Personally, I'm inclined to think he won't - I'd rate his chances of reaching his previous level of modest starter/quality 3rd big as bellow 10%.

However, the kind of contract he got made his signing worth the risk especially for a team that wouldn't need him to contribute this season.

[BballTim]

  You're entitled to that belief. ML had value for us as a towel waver, right? But I think it's silly to call it a miscalculation unless his value to us includes actual contributions on the court.

depends on what it allows to happen....If it enables you to make a trade, I'd call Leon more than a towel waiver...

  Ok, for the 20th time. How does having a player that you can't really expect to be healthy next week enable you to make trades? Are you trading someone else who waives towels? What happens if we trade Sheldon and Powe has a relapse? Do we happily watch Leon in street clothes and reminisce about how much fun it used to be when Leon played for us? Do we jump right into a 20 page thread about how important is is for Danny to sign Leon AGAIN because he might come back from his 4th surgery better than he came back from his third?

[BballTim]

The quote boxes have rendered me blind.....

  I actually cut them back once or twice in this thread.

I know you did, its scary that they've built up to blinding levels three times! 

Don't mind me though guys, I apologize for the interjection.

  No, its a pet peeve of mine that people can't take the 5-10 seconds to cut out the earlier parts of the conversation, especially as they're rarely relevent after 5-6 posts.

[BudweiserCeltic]

The quote boxes have rendered me blind.....

  I actually cut them back once or twice in this thread.

I know you did, its scary that they've built up to blinding levels three times! 

Don't mind me though guys, I apologize for the interjection.

  No, its a pet peeve of mine that people can't take the 5-10 seconds to cut out the earlier parts of the conversation, especially as they're rarely relevent after 5-6 posts.

That's what I like about vBulletin... it only quotes the last post you're responding to.

[winsomme]

  You're entitled to that belief. ML had value for us as a towel waver, right? But I think it's silly to call it a miscalculation unless his value to us includes actual contributions on the court.

depends on what it allows to happen....If it enables you to make a trade, I'd call Leon more than a towel waiver...

  Ok, for the 20th time. How does having a player that you can't really expect to be healthy next week enable you to make trades? Are you trading someone else who waives towels? What happens if we trade Sheldon and Powe has a relapse?

for the same reason that CLE signed him....there is a reasonable expectation that he would come back at a certain level this year....

the Cs must have agreed because they clearly tried to sign him away from CLE. If BOS did not think there was a reasonable chance that he could contribute for CLE, then why would they have tried to sign him away from them....

then, if you agree that the Cs thought there was a reasonable chance he could contribute for the CLE, then there is, like i have said, a reasonable chance that he could provide depth for our team.

If he could provide depth for our team, then he could make you feel better about including a player that also adds depth to our front court in a trade.

this doesn't happen in a bubble, by the way....you only make the trade if the rehab is going well and you see signs of Leon being able to fill that added depth role...

as far as the potential for a relapse, are the chances any higher for that happening on CLE than it would be on BOS?.....so the risk then of BOS trading Shelden for instance wouldn't carry any greater risk than the decision for CLE to have signed Leon in the first place..

in fact, the risk would be less because the Cs would be trading Shelden (as an example) knowing how the rehab for Leon had progressed.

[BballTim]

  You're entitled to that belief. ML had value for us as a towel waver, right? But I think it's silly to call it a miscalculation unless his value to us includes actual contributions on the court.

depends on what it allows to happen....If it enables you to make a trade, I'd call Leon more than a towel waiver...

  Ok, for the 20th time. How does having a player that you can't really expect to be healthy next week enable you to make trades? Are you trading someone else who waives towels? What happens if we trade Sheldon and Powe has a relapse?

for the same reason that CLE signed him....there is a reasonable expectation that he would come back at a certain level this year....

the Cs must have agreed because they clearly tried to sign him away from CLE. If BOS did not think there was a reasonable chance that he could contribute for CLE, then why would they have tried to sign him away from them....

then, if you agree that the Cs thought there was a reasonable chance he could contribute for the CLE, then there is, like i have said, a reasonable chance that he could provide depth for our team.

If he could provide depth for our team, then he could make you feel better about including a player that also adds depth to our front court in a trade.

this doesn't happen in a bubble, by the way....you only make the trade if the rehab is going well and you see signs of Leon being able to fill that added depth role...

as far as the potential for a relapse, are the chances any higher for that happening on CLE than it would be on BOS?.....so the risk then of BOS trading Shelden for instance wouldn't carry any greater risk than the decision for CLE to have signed Leon in the first place..

in fact, the risk would be less because the Cs would be trading Shelden (as an example) knowing how the rehab for Leon had progressed.

  As I said, you're not listening to a word I'm saying.

[winsomme]

  As I said, you're not listening to a word I'm saying.

answer me this, how is a decision to trade Shelden under the situation discussed any more risky than the decision for CLE to have signed Leon in the first place?

[Tai]

I have a suggestion for everyone.

We bring this up again when Powe is actually playing.  

You know, playing. In an actual NBA Basketball game. Not "being cleared for full 5on5 practice". Not all this good news from a giddy Mike Brown that he's "looking good". When Powe is actually playing in a NBA Basketball game, actually in uniform.

To me, outside of this, this has only been complicated by the fact that the Celtics were silly enough to try and get Powe back simply cause the Cavs offered him a contract. Oops! Guess the Cavs called Danny's bluff. Oh well. Outside of that, I'm glad we ended up with Shelden instead of Powe, because Shelden filled in well when BBD was hurt. How would Powe do that? By smiling off the bench and getting his 5-star suit parallel to that TNT guy who KG told to "burn it"?

And whoever said it made him mad to see Powe in a suit on the Cavs bench...I'm sorry, with all due respect, I do not even notice Powe on the bench. Maybe I need to look harder. Or maybe you need to stop looking AS hard. Either way, has nice and classy a guy as Powe is, he's not useful to anyone in a basketball sense until I hear news that he'll play this game or next. Besides, at least KG will stand up off the bench and sneer in Ben Gordon's ear.  

[BballTim]

  You're entitled to that belief. ML had value for us as a towel waver, right? But I think it's silly to call it a miscalculation unless his value to us includes actual contributions on the court.

depends on what it allows to happen....If it enables you to make a trade, I'd call Leon more than a towel waiver...

  Ok, for the 20th time. How does having a player that you can't really expect to be healthy next week enable you to make trades? Are you trading someone else who waives towels? What happens if we trade Sheldon and Powe has a relapse?

for the same reason that CLE signed him....there is a reasonable expectation that he would come back at a certain level this year....

the Cs must have agreed because they clearly tried to sign him away from CLE. If BOS did not think there was a reasonable chance that he could contribute for CLE, then why would they have tried to sign him away from them....

then, if you agree that the Cs thought there was a reasonable chance he could contribute for the CLE, then there is, like i have said, a reasonable chance that he could provide depth for our team.

If he could provide depth for our team, then he could make you feel better about including a player that also adds depth to our front court in a trade.

this doesn't happen in a bubble, by the way....you only make the trade if the rehab is going well and you see signs of Leon being able to fill that added depth role...

as far as the potential for a relapse, are the chances any higher for that happening on CLE than it would be on BOS?.....so the risk then of BOS trading Shelden for instance wouldn't carry any greater risk than the decision for CLE to have signed Leon in the first place..

in fact, the risk would be less because the Cs would be trading Shelden (as an example) knowing how the rehab for Leon had progressed.

  As I said, you're not listening to a word I'm saying.

and I think it's the other way around....

  No, I've heard you. We should have signed Leon. Even if he never plays in a game for us all year he can still have contributed to the team. Even if we can't count on his remaining healthy we can feel comfortable trading away other bigs because of the "depth" he provides. If he never plays for us and is re-injured he'll have made just as much of a contribution to us as he would to Cleveland if he'd PLAYED IN GAMES for them and then been re-injured. It doesn't make any sense that a team without a lot of depth at the 4 would be more likely to take a chance on an injured player than an team with 3 players at that spot that he's unlikely to get playing time ahead.

  Did I miss anything?