Re: Stop. Reverse.

[Ryan W <ubiquitous_am_i@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Kestutis Kveraga <Kestutis.Kveraga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> --- You wrote:
> Danny basically says (a)
> everybody--except him, the owners, and O'Brien--is
> stupid 
> --- end of quote ---
> 
> What he said was that most fans and sportswriters
> don't understand the internal
> dynamics 
> of his team as well as he does, which is hard to
> argue with. This is a list of
> mostly hard-core fans, who  follow the team a lot
> closer and understand it a
> lot better than the average fan (at least from my
> experience talking to other
> Celtics fans).  Most sporstwriters, especially the
> out-of-town ones, similarly
> have no idea what goes on in a particular team's
> locker room. In fact, a lot of
> the syndicated columnists are not very competent at
> all, as far I'm concerned.
> They tend to go mostly by stats, honors, and
> highlights. 
> 

I agree with all you said, Kestas.  But it's not a
valid form of justifying this trade to say that he
simply knows more than the rest of us...  In fact,
isn't that exactly what people say when they act in
ways that are questioned?
> 
> --- You wrote:
> (b) both teams were improved by the trade (this
> is what teams that got the short end of a trade
> always
> say..."both teams will benefit".  Since when is that
> a
> good thing?  I thought you made trades that helped
> your team and hurt the other team...we compete with
> every team in this league and we can't go around
> making trades that improve another team...it only
> lessens our ability to win a
> championship...hypothetically, if we traded with
> every
> team in the league and each trade "benefits each
> team"
> then we would never get better, since better-ness is
> measured against other teams....trades are made to
> screw people and to make yourself better. 
> --- end of quote ---
> 
> No, not necessarily. You don't seem to understand
> that getting better does not
> ipso facto mean getting better BY AN EQUAL AMOUNT.
> Both teams may benefit from
> a trade, but one may benefit more, and not
> necessarily by getting the "better"
> player in the trade. The NBA, as any other league,
> has an imperfect
> distribution of players across teams, meaning that
> not all players fit
> optimally with their respective teams. Trades is one
> way to try to improve
> that. It's entirely possible that both teams (or any
> number of teams involved)
> benefit from the trade, but they don't all benefit
> equally. If we traded with
> every team in the league and the trade benefitted
> every team involved, the
> league as a whole would get better (because every
> team got better), but we
> wouldn't necessarily be back where we started. 
> You're committing a logical
> fallacy here. 

You're right, Kestas, about the logical fallacy
issue...  It's an interesting thought experiment to
wonder if every team traded with every other team in a
trade that benefitted each team if the league as a
whole would improve.  It would seem like it would not,
since the objective talent level would remain the same
regardless of the distribution.  But of course that's
not taking into account alot of illogical
factors...like "chemistry" and what-not...of course,
if we take into account such illogical concepts as
"chemistry" then that negates the logical fallacy,
doesn't it (btw, this is the second post in the last
couple days where you've pulled out the logical
fallacy phrase...do you happen to be in a logic class,
by chance?  Reason I ask is that back when I was in
symbolic logic I started to attack each
problem--and/or post on this board--from a purely
logical slant.  That only lasts so long, however,
because while we communicate and think in purely
logical terms--A either equals A or it does not--we
don't act nor experience life in logical terms.  Point
being, logic is a limited domain and doesn't encompass
total reality so lets not make it the end-all and
be-all). 

Furthermore, what's the definition of benefit? 
Surely, every team, because they intentionally trade
someone, are benefitting in some way...if not for the
simple fact that they were able to execise their will
(any volitional act, being volitional, is thought, at
the time it is executed, to be beneficial in some way,
even if it doesn't subsequently end up being
beneficial).  But is that really a benefit?  What I'm
talking about is what Billy Beane does....he fools
people, he comes away with the greater benefit by
making the other team assume incorrectly that they are
receiving a benefit...and isn't that what a barter or
a trade is meant to be....getting people to give you
what you want by making them want what you have in a
degree that is disproportionate to what you have.  Is
that not a good trade?  

> 
> 
> --- You wrote:
> You know what he can wave hello to?  Championships,
> an
> owner that likes him and rewards him for hard work,
> and a GM that will work to get the best out of him. 
> And you know what?  If somebody gets injured (say
> Dirk
> or Finley) Antoine will be a All-Star on that team. 
> And, depending on how well Dallas plays, Antoine
> could
> be an all-star...it's not out of the realm of
> possibility that Antoine could average 15 points, 10
> boards, 7 assists as a small forward...plenty good
> to
> be an All-Star.
> --- end of quote ---
> 
> Well, even if that were to be the case (unlikely,
> IMO), so what? To rue the
> loss of such a good player if he could become this
> type of player ONLY when
> traded to Dallas is silly. It's crying over losing
> something we never could've
> had. 
> Kestas

I'm not exactly ruing his loss as much as Danny's
deficiencies as a GM (i.e., if I were the GM instead
of Danny, I would have been able to bring out the best
in Antoine...and if I can do it....)

Ryan


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com