FavreFan wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Hatchetman wrote:
Cutler cost dozens of people their jobs....Angelo, Lovie, how many OC's and all the other assistants that lost their jobs in the transitions. Emery hired Trestman because of Cutler. Cutler committed career genocide.
All of that is irrelevant apparently. Still a great trade according to Frank and Vegan
Jerry Angelo should be sued for knowingly acquiring a player who was projected to cost dozens of people their jobs.
Nope, just fired for making one of the worst trades in Bear history, and he was fired for that reason so it's all good.
You can't keep your revisionist history straight. Angelo was fired for sucking at drafting, and the whole Sam Hurd thing might have played a role too. Cutler was still "the guy" when Angelo left. In fact they started 7-3 that year before Cutler got hurt, and went to the NFC championship game the year before, so you're way off.
You can't keep your philosophies straight. Can Angelo be criticized for his bad drafts or did he just get unlucky and buy the wrong lottery numbers?
Angelo's record probably proves my point about the crapshoot that is any league's draft: During the first half of his tenure with the Bears, he built the core of a team that went to the Superbowl. Over the latter half of his tenure, his drafts did not produce the same quality of players that his initial drafts did. Did he become a worse GM over time? The more likely explanation is that this shit is random and, while you need to prepare and whatnot, the fact is there are too many variables involved for the success or failure of a player to be solely pinned on the GM. Some of those factors include draft placement, a player's personal demons or lack thereof, player development systems, coaches, workplace environment, opportunities, etc. Unless a GM goes out of his way to acquire a specific player I'm not sure we can assign credit or blame so easily when a player turns out to be a stud or dud.
FavreFan wrote:
Hockey Gay wrote:
So vegan thinks since the intent of the trade was good that it makes it a good trade.
FavreFan thinks since it didn't work out it makes it a bad trade even if the intent was good.
Intent or Result?
Hmmmm...I'd go with FavreFan here. Results are everything.
I see vegan's point though.
I get what vegan is saying, but if you go with his philosophy then we basically can't argue about sports anymore. No coaching move, trade, free agent signing, draft pick, or roster transaction can ever be criticized, because the team had a reason for doing it.
You can always judge the merits of the reasoning plus the "goods" that are exchanged the during any transaction. Let's go back to the Wallace deal: I think there are plenty of reasons to criticize the deal, including reasons that undermine your hypothetical points in favor of the deal. I already mentioned the team's thirst for offense that was not going to be solved by adding Wallace. In fact, Wallace would make those problems even worse because he can't play offense for shit. That's a major point against the deal. You mentioned leadership but that's easily rebutted by the cost it took to add that "leadership," (i.e. was "leadership" worth however much money he signed for at his age? No. Just sign Popeye Jones or PJ Brown or whatever for the veteran's minimum if you really need leadership) plus how it meant Tyson Chandler, a younger asset, would likely be benched or moved to make room for Wallace. Then there's Wallace as a player: on the wrong side of 30, declining athleticism, short for his position, limited game, and so on. In short, this is not someone who is going to take your team to the next level. So yes Paxson had reasons for the deal, but those reasons do not act as self-justifications - they can and should be scrutinized.
FavreFan wrote:
Well, there's no way to know if he was smarter or not, since he picked afterwards. Maybe he would've made the same mistake. But we do know that it would've been a mistake. You seem to be saying it wasn't a mistake to draft guys like Oden and Bowie first since it was impossible to know at the time.
Yes, in terms of pure logic I think it's sound to say drafting Oden over Durant was not a "mistake." Like I said before, there's too much luck and chance involved for me to credit Seattle for drafting Durant and make fun of Portland for drafting Oden. In this case I simply think Portland was unlucky while Seattle was lucky. If it became known that Seattle pushed hard for Durant and wouldn't have taken Oden or whatever then that's slightly different.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
