The Cs should have signed Powe

[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.

  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?

so CLE can count on Leon to add depth to their front court, but the Cs can't? see my question above...

if a team doesn't have depth at position, using your reasoning, shouldn't they be signing someone they could rely on if needed?

[BballTim]

 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?

so CLE can count on Leon to add depth to their front court, but the Cs can't? see my question above...

  Half right. We can't really count on his adding depth this year, and neither can Cleveland. That's why he was available for so cheap. They took a flier on him based on the chance that he'll be healthy enough to play for them this year.

  Do you think that, if Leon gets back onto the court, the Cavs are going to assume that Leon will be healthy for the season and make personnel moves based on their confidence in his health?

[winsomme]

 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?

so CLE can count on Leon to add depth to their front court, but the Cs can't? see my question above...

  Half right. We can't really count on his adding depth this year, and neither can Cleveland. That's why he was available for so cheap. They took a flier on him based on the chance that he'll be healthy enough to play for them this year.

  Do you think that, if Leon gets back onto the court, the Cavs are going to assume that Leon will be healthy for the season and make personnel moves based on their confidence in his health?

you stated that CLE has no depth in their front court, yes?  So a team with no depth in the front court adds a player that has no reasonable chance to add depth to the position?

and as for your question, the answer is yes if it means trading their third big off the bench...which is what we were talking about in the Leon on the Cs situation...

[BballTim]

 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?

so CLE can count on Leon to add depth to their front court, but the Cs can't? see my question above...

  Half right. We can't really count on his adding depth this year, and neither can Cleveland. That's why he was available for so cheap. They took a flier on him based on the chance that he'll be healthy enough to play for them this year.

  Do you think that, if Leon gets back onto the court, the Cavs are going to assume that Leon will be healthy for the season and make personnel moves based on their confidence in his health?

you stated that CLE has no depth in their front court, yes?  So a team with no depth in the front court adds a player that has no reasonable chance to add depth to the position?

and as for your question, the answer is yes if it means trading their third big off the bench...which is what we were talking about in the Leon on the Cs situation...

   I see the problem. When I say he adds depth, I don't just mean that exact moment in time. If I can't count on Leon being healthy then I can't count on his being in the lineup. If I can't count on his being in the lineup then I can't make personnel decisions based on his future availability. This is apparently different from your thoughts of how a GM does his job. "Leon's healthy today? Great. He might not be able to play next week but I'm still going to trade away our other backup pf!".

  So Leon gets healthy, you trade away one of your bigs, then Leon gets hurt and you're smiling up a storm because of the great contribution you got from Leon that year.

[winsomme]

 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?

so CLE can count on Leon to add depth to their front court, but the Cs can't? see my question above...

  Half right. We can't really count on his adding depth this year, and neither can Cleveland. That's why he was available for so cheap. They took a flier on him based on the chance that he'll be healthy enough to play for them this year.

  Do you think that, if Leon gets back onto the court, the Cavs are going to assume that Leon will be healthy for the season and make personnel moves based on their confidence in his health?

you stated that CLE has no depth in their front court, yes?  So a team with no depth in the front court adds a player that has no reasonable chance to add depth to the position?

and as for your question, the answer is yes if it means trading their third big off the bench...which is what we were talking about in the Leon on the Cs situation...

   I see the problem. When I say he adds depth, I don't just mean that exact moment in time. If I can't count on Leon being healthy then I can't count on his being in the lineup. If I can't count on his being in the lineup then I can't make personnel decisions based on his future availability. This is apparently different from your thoughts of how a GM does his job. "Leon's healthy today? Great. He might not be able to play next week but I'm still going to trade away our other backup pf!".

  So Leon gets healthy, you trade away one of your bigs, then Leon gets hurt and you're smiling up a storm because of the great contribution you got from Leon that year.

again, I'm pointing to a move made by a team that you have agreed has no depth at a position adding a player that plays this position...

as for the trading situation, we're talking about Leon in the role of third or even fourth big off the bench if we traded Shelden....

[winsomme]

  So Leon gets healthy, you trade away one of your bigs, then Leon gets hurt and you're smiling up a storm because of the great contribution you got from Leon that year.

what's CLEs plan if one of their bigs gets hurt....?

[BballTim]

  So Leon gets healthy, you trade away one of your bigs, then Leon gets hurt and you're smiling up a storm because of the great contribution you got from Leon that year.

what's CLEs plan if one of their bigs gets hurt....?

  Right now they're trying to trade for a big, aren't they?

[winsomme]

  So Leon gets healthy, you trade away one of your bigs, then Leon gets hurt and you're smiling up a storm because of the great contribution you got from Leon that year.

what's CLEs plan if one of their bigs gets hurt....?

  Right now they're trying to trade for a big, aren't they?

by trading a big....and not to be their 3rd or 4th big off the bench...

[BballTim]

  So Leon gets healthy, you trade away one of your bigs, then Leon gets hurt and you're smiling up a storm because of the great contribution you got from Leon that year.

what's CLEs plan if one of their bigs gets hurt....?

  Right now they're trying to trade for a big, aren't they?

by trading a big....and not to be their 3rd or 4th big off the bench...

  The plan is to trade Z to a team that will cut him and let him coem back to the Cavs.

[winsomme]

  So Leon gets healthy, you trade away one of your bigs, then Leon gets hurt and you're smiling up a storm because of the great contribution you got from Leon that year.

what's CLEs plan if one of their bigs gets hurt....?

  Right now they're trying to trade for a big, aren't they?

by trading a big....and not to be their 3rd or 4th big off the bench...

  The plan is to trade Z to a team that will cut him and let him coem back to the Cavs.

maybe they will cut him...who knows? but Z, again, would not be the third or fourth big off the bench....which is what we were talking about with Leon on the Cs....

[BballTim]

  So Leon gets healthy, you trade away one of your bigs, then Leon gets hurt and you're smiling up a storm because of the great contribution you got from Leon that year.

what's CLEs plan if one of their bigs gets hurt....?

  Right now they're trying to trade for a big, aren't they?

by trading a big....and not to be their 3rd or 4th big off the bench...

  The plan is to trade Z to a team that will cut him and let him coem back to the Cavs.

maybe they will cut him...who knows? but Z, again, would not be the third or fourth big off the bench....which is what we were talking about with Leon on the Cs....

  I have no idea where you're trying ot go with this.

[winsomme]

  So Leon gets healthy, you trade away one of your bigs, then Leon gets hurt and you're smiling up a storm because of the great contribution you got from Leon that year.

what's CLEs plan if one of their bigs gets hurt....?

  Right now they're trying to trade for a big, aren't they?

by trading a big....and not to be their 3rd or 4th big off the bench...

  The plan is to trade Z to a team that will cut him and let him coem back to the Cavs.

maybe they will cut him...who knows? but Z, again, would not be the third or fourth big off the bench....which is what we were talking about with Leon on the Cs....

  I have no idea where you're trying ot go with this.

I making the same point I have been making for a while now....that Leon at 75% would have value on the Cs because he would make you feel better about including a guy like Shelden (who is the 3rd or 4th big off our bench) in a trade package....which is less than the 100% you require for him to have value and still not actually getting that much PT....

just like he has value to CLE who signed him to a position they have little depth at...because it was not unreasonable to think that he could get to a level where he could contribute and add depth...

[Chris]

  So Leon gets healthy, you trade away one of your bigs, then Leon gets hurt and you're smiling up a storm because of the great contribution you got from Leon that year.

what's CLEs plan if one of their bigs gets hurt....?

  Right now they're trying to trade for a big, aren't they?

by trading a big....and not to be their 3rd or 4th big off the bench...

  The plan is to trade Z to a team that will cut him and let him coem back to the Cavs.

maybe they will cut him...who knows? but Z, again, would not be the third or fourth big off the bench....which is what we were talking about with Leon on the Cs....

  I have no idea where you're trying ot go with this.

I making the same point I have been making for a while now....that Leon at 75% would have value on the Cs because he would make you feel better about including a guy like Shelden (who is the 3rd or 4th big off our bench) in a trade package....which is less than the 100% you require for him to have value and still not actually getting that much PT....

just like he has value to CLE who signed him to a position they have little depth at...because it was not unreasonable to think that he could get to a level where he could contribute and add depth...

Leon at 75% is not an NBA player.  He needs his quickness and explosiveness to be able to score inside and rebound, and without that, he is a pretty terrible player. 

[BballTim]

  So Leon gets healthy, you trade away one of your bigs, then Leon gets hurt and you're smiling up a storm because of the great contribution you got from Leon that year.

what's CLEs plan if one of their bigs gets hurt....?

  Right now they're trying to trade for a big, aren't they?

by trading a big....and not to be their 3rd or 4th big off the bench...

  The plan is to trade Z to a team that will cut him and let him coem back to the Cavs.

maybe they will cut him...who knows? but Z, again, would not be the third or fourth big off the bench....which is what we were talking about with Leon on the Cs....

  I have no idea where you're trying ot go with this.

I making the same point I have been making for a while now....that Leon at 75% would have value on the Cs because he would make you feel better about including a guy like Shelden (who is the 3rd or 4th big off our bench) in a trade package....which is less than the 100% you require for him to have value and still not actually getting that much PT....

  So you're saying that even if you had no reason to expect Powe to remain healthy for the remainder of the season that you'd feel better about trading Williams during the small window when Powe was healthy? Why? And how much value is there in being able to trade a player that nobody else in the league tried to sign for the minimum last summer?

[winsomme]

  So Leon gets healthy, you trade away one of your bigs, then Leon gets hurt and you're smiling up a storm because of the great contribution you got from Leon that year.

what's CLEs plan if one of their bigs gets hurt....?

  Right now they're trying to trade for a big, aren't they?

by trading a big....and not to be their 3rd or 4th big off the bench...

  The plan is to trade Z to a team that will cut him and let him coem back to the Cavs.

maybe they will cut him...who knows? but Z, again, would not be the third or fourth big off the bench....which is what we were talking about with Leon on the Cs....

  I have no idea where you're trying ot go with this.

I making the same point I have been making for a while now....that Leon at 75% would have value on the Cs because he would make you feel better about including a guy like Shelden (who is the 3rd or 4th big off our bench) in a trade package....which is less than the 100% you require for him to have value and still not actually getting that much PT....

  So you're saying that even if you had no reason to expect Powe to remain healthy for the remainder of the season that you'd feel better about trading Williams during the small window when Powe was healthy? Why? And how much value is there in being able to trade a player that nobody else in the league tried to sign for the minimum last summer?

you do have reason to expect Powe to remain healthy...you're the one arguing that it is a foregone conclusion that he would get re-injured....

I'm adding to that expectation by pointing out that even if he did get re-injured, you still have Baby and Sheed....

as for trading, if Shelden doesn't do it for you then maybe it's Scals that it allows you to trade (although I don't see why we couldn't look at moving Scals just like you noted for CLE moving  Z and coming right back)...maybe Shelden is just included in a deal for financial reasons....it doesn't just have to be a team taking him because they really want him on their team...

it is strange, though, that you are saying that Shelden couldn't be traded by the Cs with Leon back at 75% and now pointing out that he has no trade value...