Re: Aldridge still using fallacious reasoning

[Ryan W <ubiquitous_am_i@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mr. Logic Strikes Again!  You need your own TV show
(this week, on Mr. Logic, Kestas explains why the
concept of 'ethics' is meaningless because it purports
to use logical analysis to discover inherently
illogical determinations).  Ok, Kestas, here is what I
think is D.A. is getting at: leverage.  By trading the
second-best player (our second best assest), we should
be afforded greater trade leverage than Dallas should
be afforded by trading their 5th or 6th best player. 
Taking into account this relative rank, we should able
to say to Dallas (when attempting to get more out of
them), "hey, this is our second-best player....he
plays like 2 positions for our team.  We've asked for
Raef and Jiri...two players that you won't really miss
and who aren't really important long term
either...plus Raef has a long contract at big
money...do you think you could throw in a little
more?"  Thus, D.A.'s argument isn't as much a logical
fallacy (way to pull out "fallacious" in the subject
line) as much as it is a plea for a better negotiation
ploy.  Of course, Danny probably tried that and got
Mills' expiring contract and the first rounder...  

Ryan    

--- Kestutis Kveraga <Kestutis.Kveraga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> From his yesterday's chat:
> 
> Rodney(Los Angeles): What's up D.A.!!! Bad shot
> selection, 68% from the charity
> stripe, questionable dribbling skills(try bending
> the knees),and doesn't get
> back on defense. How can you say that the Celtics
> made a mistake trading
> Walker? I do think he can be a better player if he
> changed some bad habits.
> 
> David Aldridge: As I wrote the other, I think I just
> like Antoine better than
> most folks. I believe he's shot a lot in Boston
> because, until Pierce's
> emergence, there really wasn't anyone better around
> to shoot. My criticism of
> Boston is simple: I've been told by people smarter
> than I that you just don't
> trade your best assets for lesser assets. If you
> think you have to trade
> Walker, then you have to hold out until you get a
> better deal.
> 
> MY COMMENT: That reveals a lot about Aldridge's
> putative "expertise" and bias. 
> There wasn't anybody better (other than Pierce) to
> shoot the ball than a .38
> gunner with no conscience, it turns out. The poor
> fellow HAD to do it, was
> forced to by his coach - an argument we've read more
> than a few times on this
> list, too.  And his rationale for the famous
> rank-based trading strategy
> apparently is "I've been told by people smarter than
> I". Now, that's what I
> call an impressive argument - "I don't really know
> why that is, but someone who
> I think is smarter than me told me this, so it must
> be true".
> 
> 
> 
> Robin (Chicago): David, I've always seen Antoine
> Walker not as an elite,
> difference-making player but as simply a guy who
> plays the whole game with
> role-player per-minute stats. He may be a leader,
> but on a well-coached team
> that wouldn't be a problem, and I believe you could
> get the same contribution
> out of two role players sharing his minutes. What
> does Walker do that makes him
> unique and irreplaceable -- i.e., why will the
> Celtics miss him?
> 
> David Aldridge: Robin, you may be right. It's not
> that I believe he's
> irreplaceable (though they will miss him as a
> scoring threat); just that his
> worth to Boston (as one of its two best players)
> required the Celtics to get
> "equal" value if they were to trade him. And that
> means you have to get one of
> the other team's best two or three players. I don't
> think anyone would put Raef
> in Dallas's top four at least. 
> 
> MY COMMENT: Oh, OK, so if Lafrentz had still been in
> Denver, then Boston
> would've gotten "equal value", because Raef would've
> been one of the top 2-3
> players? Better yet, if Danny changed his mind,
> apologized to Toine, and
> executed the same trade in reverse, then the Celtics
> would get a steal, right?
> How not - we'd be trading our #2 player, Lafrentz,
> for Dallas's #4 player,
> Toine!
> Kestas


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