PDA

View Full Version : What teams struck out on deadline day?



KniCks4LiFe
02-21-2013, 11:23 PM
I'm putting 4 teams, 2 on the east and west.

Knicks
I think the Knicks needed to do something and they struck out on deadline day. It's not a popular thought but I would've dealt Shump. Now we gotta pray Melo has enough in the tank and the energy in the team returns, Tyson looks worn down, Kidd is dead, Prigg is overrated, Felton *I can't even believe ppl thought this fool was or is still something*.

Hawks
Man were they screwed. You waited on a big deal and got nothing. The draft isn't even that big. Josh is going to walk.

Lakers
you're still keeping Dwight ok. When he leaves you I'm going to be at that thread.

Jazz
you're not going anywhere, you needed a forward or a SG. And you did nothing. Milsap, Jefferson, you're keeping both? you know you can't.

So those are my four.

RipCity32
02-21-2013, 11:28 PM
Everyone was just looking to dump salaries with the new CBA getting ready to take effect.None of those teams could even make moves right now besides for minor ones.Except Atlanta and LA are taking gambles but Atlanta could probably keep Smith but Lakers will be really screwed if Howard leaves but I think he stays.

KniCks4LiFe
02-21-2013, 11:33 PM
I don't even see Smith staying.

dhopisthename
02-21-2013, 11:34 PM
the problem is if that bucks offer was the hawks best I would rather have cap space. that trade was atrocious. As for the jazz its entirely possible that they didn't get an offer better then cap space or was offered something similar to the offer for smith then most teams would prefer cap space.

KniCks4LiFe
02-21-2013, 11:42 PM
I mean is the space that much more important? who are they trying to get?

BigBlueCrew
02-21-2013, 11:49 PM
Nets - wanted to do something (regardless of what posters will respond), but no-one bit on their offers.

Jazz - should have really moved Jefferson or Millsap

Wizards - rly? the best they could do for Jordan Crawford was jason collins and Leandro Barbosa? ok

KniCks4LiFe
02-21-2013, 11:58 PM
The Wizards are clearing up space. But only getting Barbosa for Crawford is a choke job.

LAKobeBryant
02-22-2013, 12:09 AM
what do you mean by struck out

kobe4thewinbang
02-22-2013, 12:10 AM
Damn, anti-Knicks much? I disagree with everything you said.

Avenged
02-22-2013, 12:13 AM
I wouldn't call the Lakers striking out by keeping one of the better players in the game.

The "reasoning" that he'll leave in the off-season is not really a valid reason.. You don't know that. Not even he does.

Dade County
02-22-2013, 12:15 AM
I am disappointed that the HEAT didn't get a big man, or upgraded the pg position.

KniCks4LiFe
02-22-2013, 12:24 AM
I wouldn't call the Lakers striking out by keeping one of the better players in the game.

The "reasoning" that he'll leave in the off-season is not really a valid reason.. You don't know that. Not even he does.

so if and when he leaves, what then?

Avenged
02-22-2013, 12:27 AM
so if and when he leaves, what then?

if he doesn't, what then?

KniCks4LiFe
02-22-2013, 12:28 AM
if he doesn't, what then?

a very slim if he doesn't.

*Superman*
02-22-2013, 12:30 AM
Nets/Hawks

j-bay
02-22-2013, 12:30 AM
Guys for the last time. First of all Crawford wanted out. If he didn't get out i'm sure it would get Nasty for the last 2 months for the Wizards. 2nd of all he was complaining about his role and stats. The Wizards want to go with Beal and he wasn't happy. He had the biggest ego out of anyone on the team.

TrAv=MaGiCfReAk
02-22-2013, 12:54 AM
Hawks for not getting something for j smith ... getting marshon brooks, humphries(could trade him next year as an expiring) and a pick, would have been better then nothing when Smith walks ... don't get it

Also jazz for not moving milsap or Jefferson

Boring deadline man

topdog
02-22-2013, 01:14 AM
The Wizards are clearing up space. But only getting Barbosa for Crawford is a choke job.

:confused: What were they supposed to get? He's a chucker. Notice how they started winning when his role was reduced. I know there are other factors in their improvement, but this is addition by subtraction.

I don't know what happened with the Jazz. Seems like they could have at least gotten a pick for Millsap and that San Antonio deal sounded pretty nice for Big Al a few weeks back.

I can understand the Hawks not dealing if they didn't see a deal they liked for Smith. Trading him away kills any chance whatsoever of re-signing him and his buddy Dwight so a deal had to be at least decent to pull the trigger.

bahama0811
02-22-2013, 01:19 AM
I was really hoping the Nuggets could find a shooter. I didn't think they would make a move but we need someone that can knock down the 3 consistently.

mdm692
02-22-2013, 01:25 AM
Watch when the playoffs come the Knicks are going to wish they had someone else out there instead of Shump.

KniCks4LiFe
02-22-2013, 01:50 AM
Watch when the playoffs come the Knicks are going to wish they had someone else out there instead of Shump.

:(

hugepatsfan
02-22-2013, 01:55 AM
Celtics need to blow it up at some point. They can wait until the offseason to do it though.

Chronz
02-22-2013, 10:39 AM
You can only say a team struck out if you knew of a better deal that they could have made.

Saying a team should have traded a player without suggesting for what is pointless. Since we dont know what gos on backstage, its pretty hard to know when a team makes a mistake not trading someone. As opposed to bad trades we know shouldn't have happened.

Some are saying the Hou-SAC trade was horrible. And if Im the Hawks or the Jazz, or some team with a surplus, I rather keep my assets than exchange them now for 40-cents on the dollar.

Hawks standing pat was the right thing to do, no sense in trading him now when you have all the flexibility in the world going forward. Lakers took a bigger risk keeping Dwight considering their lack of leverage and financial flexibility, but they are the Lakers and he is the best C in the game. I would make the same risk, dare him to leave us, even if it looks like Houston/Dallas might be his biggest suitors.

I think lots of teams stood pat knowing this off-season will be a hectic one.

D-Leethal
02-22-2013, 10:46 AM
You can only say a team struck out if you knew of a better deal that they could have made.

Saying a team should have traded a player without suggesting for what is pointless. Since we dont know what gos on backstage, its pretty hard to know when a team makes a mistake not trading someone. As opposed to bad trades we know shouldn't have happened.

Some are saying the Hou-SAC trade was horrible. And if Im the Hawks or the Jazz, or some team with a surplus, I rather keep my assets than exchange them now for 40-cents on the dollar.

Hawks standing pat was the right thing to do, no sense in trading him now when you have all the flexibility in the world going forward. Lakers took a bigger risk keeping Dwight considering their lack of leverage and financial flexibility, but they are the Lakers and he is the best C in the game. I would make the same risk, dare him to leave us, even if it looks like Houston/Dallas might be his biggest suitors.

I think lots of teams stood pat knowing this off-season will be a hectic one.

Sometimes 40 cents on the dollar is better than 0 cents on the dollar - which is likely what Utah will get for Al Jeff and Millsap and Atlanta will get for Smith.

But I agree about Atlanta, they were better off letting him walk than replacing his salary with another salary. I still think they should have taken SOMETHING along with an expiring for him though.

As far as striking out, I think the Nets have to be that team. Its not like Knicks were out there making a ton of offers, they were fielding offers but weren't really initiating them, at least as far as we know and based on what we can go off of. Nets were out there offering Humphries and Brooks for anything with a pulse and came back empty, I think thats the definition of striking out.

I wouldn't say anyone who didn't initiate the deals 'struck out'. It seems like ATL was content keeping Smith unless they found the right deal, so I don't see that as striking out. And Utah could have dealt their guys if they wanted to, so I don't see that as striking out. It might not have been smart to accept losing them for nothing, but its not striking out unless your desperate to deal and come up empty.

Chronz
02-22-2013, 11:00 AM
Sometimes 40 cents on the dollar is better than 0 cents on the dollar - which is likely what Utah will get for Al Jeff and Millsap and Atlanta will get for Smith.
Key word being sometimes, and I dont buy those odds with regards to Atlanta. They (Unlike the Lakers) can actually sign and trade Smith in the off-season, and from what I heard, the offers they were getting were crap. Id rather get nothing in his case.


But I agree about Atlanta, they were better off letting him walk than replacing his salary with another salary. I still think they should have taken SOMETHING along with an expiring for him though.
Why not wait a year when teams are more willing to add to their core (thanks to cap relief and the availability of training camp). In this case, I dont see any trade that wouldn't be available the following year. No sense in weakening your team at this point, even if they tanked hard they seem to be too high up for a good pick, possibly already a lock for the playoffs. May as well let Smith play in the post-season, see if he raises his stock because it was obviously very low at the moment. Especially if the best trade they were offered is still available in the off-season or possibly next deadline if he re-ups.


As far as striking out, I think the Nets have to be that team. Its not like Knicks were out there making a ton of offers, they were fielding offers but weren't really initiating them, at least as far as we know and based on what we can go off of. Nets were out there offering Humphries and Brooks for anything with a pulse and came back empty, I think thats the definition of striking out.
You say they struck out, but how can you say that without knowing what offers they rejected? I need to know more than just the players on Brooklyns end. Nets tried to make a move for J.Smith, but I can TOTALLY understand why the Hawks rejected that poo poo platter. Thats not striking out, you cant force teams to take garbage.

Striking out is when you fail to move when there is a great deal to be made, not when other teams reject your bad proposal.




I wouldn't say anyone who didn't initiate the deals 'struck out'. It seems like ATL was content keeping Smith unless they found the right deal, so I don't see that as striking out. And Utah could have dealt their guys if they wanted to, so I don't see that as striking out. It might not have been smart to accept losing them for nothing, but its not striking out unless your desperate to deal and come up empty.
Agreed. Its the ones who make bad trades or fail to make a great trade that is available that struck out. The latter are hard to prove.

king4day
02-22-2013, 11:39 AM
Milsap and Jefferson remaining was the biggest surprise for me.

I predict Jefferson will get a huge offer from Charlotte this offseason.

JiffyMix88
02-22-2013, 11:55 AM
Nets - wanted to do something (regardless of what posters will respond), but no-one bit on their offers.

Jazz - should have really moved Jefferson or Millsap

Wizards - rly? the best they could do for Jordan Crawford was jason collins and Leandro Barbosa? ok

They just wanted to get him out because of his actions and attitude the last couple of weeks. Enough is enough I guess is how to make sense of the trade.

D-Leethal
02-22-2013, 12:18 PM
Key word being sometimes, and I dont buy those odds with regards to Atlanta. They (Unlike the Lakers) can actually sign and trade Smith in the off-season, and from what I heard, the offers they were getting were crap. Id rather get nothing in his case.


Why not wait a year when teams are more willing to add to their core (thanks to cap relief and the availability of training camp). In this case, I dont see any trade that wouldn't be available the following year. No sense in weakening your team at this point, even if they tanked hard they seem to be too high up for a good pick, possibly already a lock for the playoffs. May as well let Smith play in the post-season, see if he raises his stock because it was obviously very low at the moment. Especially if the best trade they were offered is still available in the off-season or possibly next deadline if he re-ups.


You say they struck out, but how can you say that without knowing what offers they rejected? I need to know more than just the players on Brooklyns end. Nets tried to make a move for J.Smith, but I can TOTALLY understand why the Hawks rejected that poo poo platter. Thats not striking out, you cant force teams to take garbage.

Striking out is when you fail to move when there is a great deal to be made, not when other teams reject your bad proposal.




Agreed. Its the ones who make bad trades or fail to make a great trade that is available that struck out. The latter are hard to prove.

Its obviously hard/impossible to prove so I'm basically going on what we get reported to us. Its 50% nonsense but thats all we have to go on. I agree with your assessment on Smith and the Hawks. Might as well find a team he is willing to sign with and create a sign and trade this offseason, even if its minimal value they get in return. Why exactly can they do the S & T and the Lakers can't though? Because Lakers traded for Dwight last off season?

Me and you differ on our definitions of striking out though. I look at a guy who strikes out at the bar as a guy who's going up to every chick, starting with the dime pieces, slowly but surely lessening his standards until he goes home to his right hand at 4am. Thats basically how I view the Nets success this trade deadline with their power package of Hump and Brooks.

Your definition works too, but I view that as one big swing and miss moreso than 3 strikes and a full blown strike out. Thats basically the guy who had the dime piece begging for him to give her the business but he got too drunk and passed out on the bar. Which in reality is probably worse than striking out. But I would liken it more to getting a 60 mph fastball right down the the center of the strikezone and deciding to take a strike.

BKLYNpigeon
02-22-2013, 12:19 PM
Nets.. they needed to get better.

Hawks - they'll probably lose Josh Smith for nothing

Bucks - Might lose Jennings and Eliis for nothing.

TheNumber37
02-22-2013, 12:32 PM
Knicks shoulda kept brewer, cut white and sign Kmart.
brewer> white especially when guarding LeBron. dumb move ...

hawks need to sign and trade this summer.... but Smith wants max money... good luck with that.

D-Leethal
02-22-2013, 12:35 PM
Knicks shoulda kept brewer, cut white and sign Kmart.
brewer> white especially when guarding LeBron. dumb move ...

hawks need to sign and trade this summer.... but Smith wants max money... good luck with that.

I think a big part of the Ronnie deal was doing him a solid in a contract year. Hes been a grade A teammate and person and Grunwald even said they wanted to send him somewhere that was a great situation. He wasn't going to get any PT here so we opted to let him shine on a contender and get himself a long term deal this offseason. Dumb move? Probably slightly. But I don't think Ronnie was jumping back into the rotation just to guard LeBron and it doesn't seem Woody had any intention of working him back in.

MrfadeawayJB
02-22-2013, 01:11 PM
Hawks are obvious losers in the trade deadline

Lakers will be too cause i see Dwight running away, very fast to houston after this season

Jazz needed to deal a big

*Silver&Black*
02-22-2013, 01:27 PM
If you take the Bucks offer, you just want it for cap space. With keeping Josh, you still get cap space and still have a small (very small) chance of getting Dwight Howard. Would you rather accept that Bucks offer or give yourself a chance at Howard?

zoombat19
02-22-2013, 01:35 PM
GM Mitch Kupchak dropped the ball, howard doesn't want to be a laker, he's gonna bolt for the door this summer and the lakers get nothing in return

futureman
02-22-2013, 01:42 PM
If all the Jazz were offered for Milsap and Jefferson were bad contracts, why would they make a deal. Especially if they wanted the young guys. The Young guys ate OKC's starters alive last week. The starters for the Jazz were benched the entire 4th quarter. I would rather lose Milsap and Jefferson for nothing than take on the likes of a guy like Kris Humphires, who is a former Jazz cast off btw.

YoungOne
02-22-2013, 01:53 PM
jazz&hawks if they are unable to make good sign and trade deals in the offseaon

Lab Rat Robby
02-22-2013, 01:58 PM
i think the jazz are the biggest losers. they needed to make a move, they have too many bigs.

i think the hawks or lakers messed up. probably the hawks. they shoulda just gave smith for gasol and clark. the lakers are gonna make a run for buss, and dwight is gonna end up staying because of it.

i think the clippers might shoulda cashed in on bledsoe/ jordan. watching them last night, they need offense. they coulda got smith and korver for bledsoe/jordan + green? smith woulda stayed for his buddy dwight. paul woulda stayed cause he woulda had a monstar team.

homer pick is my spurs. we needed to dump blair really bad. he is worthless. it wouldn't have changed much, but blair wants to go and he needs to. we woulda been better off with a open roster spot and a late 2nd.

IndyRealist
02-22-2013, 02:11 PM
I think a big part of the Ronnie deal was doing him a solid in a contract year. Hes been a grade A teammate and person and Grunwald even said they wanted to send him somewhere that was a great situation. He wasn't going to get any PT here so we opted to let him shine on a contender and get himself a long term deal this offseason. Dumb move? Probably slightly. But I don't think Ronnie was jumping back into the rotation just to guard LeBron and it doesn't seem Woody had any intention of working him back in.

I like that deal a lot better with the explanation. Personally I would have moved Felton to the bench and started Kidd and Brewer. Shumpert may be a defensive beast, but Brewer is no slouch and the Knicks were better when he was playing. And the whole point right now is to get past Miami and Indiana, which would be a lot easier if they could play Lebron and Paul George single coverage.

waveycrockett
02-22-2013, 02:57 PM
Lakers/Knicks

rockbottom2010
02-22-2013, 03:04 PM
I am disappointed that the HEAT didn't get a big man, or upgraded the pg position.

they don't need to...they sign andersen for a reason

rockbottom2010
02-22-2013, 03:05 PM
honestly..the lakers are in a tough position right now...i don't know if its going to come to a decision of kobe or dwight?.....it'll be deja vu all over again when shaq was traded to the heat back in 2004

Sactown
02-22-2013, 08:03 PM
Hawks : Josh Smith is unlikey to resign, especially since the Hawks were trying to deal him
Utah : Can't sign both Milsap and Al Jefferson and could possibly lose both in the off season for nothing.
Sacramento Kings: Traded T-Rob for Cash and didn't even improve our salary cap position
Milwaukee: Wasn't able to land Josh Smith, traded for another Reddick which makes no sense unless Ellis is gone
Lakers: Surprised they weren't able to land bench help or at least unload cap

Winners

OKC: Added another defensive wing for nothing
Rockets: Received young talent and improved cap for next season
Boston: Received a nice SG for nothing

futureman
02-23-2013, 01:50 PM
Hawks : Josh Smith is unlikey to resign, especially since the Hawks were trying to deal him
Utah : Can't sign both Milsap and Al Jefferson and could possibly lose both in the off season for nothing.Sacramento Kings: Traded T-Rob for Cash and didn't even improve our salary cap position
Milwaukee: Wasn't able to land Josh Smith, traded for another Reddick which makes no sense unless Ellis is gone
Lakers: Surprised they weren't able to land bench help or at least unload cap

Winners

OKC: Added another defensive wing for nothing
Rockets: Received young talent and improved cap for next season
Boston: Received a nice SG for nothing

Thats winning as far as I'm concerned. Who gives a damn if we lose them in the offseason? Why in the hell do we have to take back a bad contract when we are dealing players who have youngs guys who are a million times better than them waiting to start?

Explain to me why taking back garbage like Kris Humphries or Drew Gooden would make us winners? They just get in the way of signing Favors and Hayward to extensions.

alexander_37
02-23-2013, 05:58 PM
Hawks should have taken anything even a second round pick, he won't resign for anything under 12 million a year which is way over paying. At least a second round pick can get you a decent role player.

ThunderousDemon
02-23-2013, 06:11 PM
I hate to admit it, but I think we did.

Sactown
02-24-2013, 03:03 AM
Thats winning as far as I'm concerned. Who gives a damn if we lose them in the offseason? Why in the hell do we have to take back a bad contract when we are dealing players who have youngs guys who are a million times better than them waiting to start?

Explain to me why taking back garbage like Kris Humphries or Drew Gooden would make us winners? They just get in the way of signing Favors and Hayward to extensions.
Where did I say they should of taken humphries or dew gooden?
But making a move for Eric Blodsoe would of made sense for the Jazz....

lol, please
02-24-2013, 05:28 AM
Obviously the Kings.