I mean honestly, do you think it was wise to pass on Miller/Salmons?
(We didn't. How did WE pass on them, explain? Since you obviosuly know what happened...)
Ummm.. actually it was
you who said you knew what happened in your W&G thread remember? You said we wanted to get Camby and Salmons and when that fell through it led to us needing to move to plan B.... Do I need to quote you?
You also said you were disappointed that we didn't make a trade... How can you be simultaneously disappointed decisions were made to stand pat and that's then say that's right decision?
(Because deals take two parties, sometimes three paerties to agree. Did we have that ? Tell me which deals where we had that. Obviosuly you know more of what went on.
Do I? Ya know, I'm not trying to rile up the resident "insider" because I know where that goes, but it wasn't me who claimed that moves were being made, etc etc. It was
you. I should be asking you these questions, as should everyone else.
I wish we could have found a deal that could have improved us, but to play the blame game is not something I can do here. )
Well.. GM's, coaches, and players have to bear the responsibility of their actions. They can't just wash their hands of the situation if it doesn't pan out how they "planned." Assuming there was any serious planning whatsoever, which to me, I can't see any. Shaq in the final hour, eh? C'mon...
That seems extremely contradictory to me. I mean, if you were responsible for the Cleveland Cavaliers, would you gamble on making a trade at the last minute or making a smart move initially without being -for lack of a better word- greedy?
(It's called evaluating the risk/reward factor. The early trades that may have been available would have taken us out of possible deals later on that could have possibly served us better.
From my point-of-view the benefit did not outweigh the risk, especially being that we didn't end up improving our team, a team that needed improvement. That's not called evaluating risk/benefit, that's called gambling. Apparently Ferry did not factor all the other variables in the equation besides (Amare+LeBron=rings) -- like regular season games being played by other teams not named the Cleveland Cavaliers, other franchises' fanbases not wanting superstar players to get traded for expirings named Szczerbiak, teams getting a feeling that they're winning games and can compete for an 8th seed (the Bucks), etc etc etc.. A far more prudent move would've been to make a trade that would have substantially improved the quality of our roster and given that player ample time to adjust to Mike Brown's system and the players around them. This seems "bush-league" to me. In the extreme.
Whever you make a decision to make a deal or turndown a supposed deal, you are in fact making an estimation that that wil be the best deal you can come up with. Danny Ferry never felt that he was ever offered a deal that was equitable, and met what he wanted to achieve in terms of the risk/reward factor. Thus, no deal was ultimately made.
In order to say that, you need to evaluate the state of inaction - or in this case, the present. Is the present Cavaliers roster of greater value than a roster with a starting shooting guard putting up 16-22 (J-Rich,RJ, Carter) ppg and Delonte on the bench? I think you'd be hard pressed to make that case; therefore the benefit of waiting until the deadline was not, by definition, greater than the risk of inaction. I don't get how anyone can make that claim, unless they're assuming Wally alone was going to net some massive improvement, and if that's the case then some people need to take today as a lesson learned.
We all would have liked for that to have been the reality, but, it wasn't.)
Exactly why the benefits of inaction didn't outweigh the risks. Such a sentiment is contradictory.
Furthermore, I just can't stand how one minute everyone agrees we need to make changes, and now it's Ferry knows what's best. I might not be the GM of the Cavaliers or some insider with secret knowledge, but that doesn't mean I can't be one pissed off fan. As far as I can tell, and without further hard evidence, the Cavaliers front-office blew it. And I'm not the only one that believes that. Until someone can tell me different, with more than just "I know and you don't," then my opinion stands.
(Again, you assume any move we make would end up being a psotive for the team. That's not the case. Wgat deals were we offered that you would have taken, that Ferry turned down..? What specific deals do you know about, the exact players involved ?)
I
never said any move is a good move. I said the moves that have been discussed ad infinitum would have been superior to seeing Wally come off the bench. As as far as deals being discussed,
why don't you illuminate us W&G instead of asking me and claiming I'm wrong? The deal that I would have jumped on that we know was on the table was Miller/Salmons which
you said we didn't even discuss because we weren't interested. You also said we were hoping (gambling) that we could work out a Camby/Salmons deal which means we wanted Salmons but not Miller. How
asinine to end up with neither and then claim it's okay to stand pat because the risk that we took didn't pan out, especially when neither player is really that exceptional in anyway.
p.s.
I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but honestly, to ask me a question like "What deals did we turn down?" as if to say, "I'm an insider so you need to accept my opinion as fact, yet I'm not Danny Ferry" is pretty intellectually dishonest. If anything you would be privy to any private information before I would, but since it hasn't been made public I can only go off of what I see and read in the media, the same as 100% of every person that posts on RCF. I'm not an insider, but I know a **** up when I see one, and today was obviously a mistake -- I think the writing is on the wall. And until some concrete evidence comes up to suggest otherwise, I think ESPN is right to state rather openly that Danny Ferry blew it. Sorry LeBron? Dunno, we'll see won't we.
