PDA

View Full Version : About this 'three years in a row' thing.



Hicks
02-25-2011, 11:25 AM
I've seen people saying this is the 3rd straight year Bird has 'screwed it up' at the deadline.

I believe the idea is that 2 years ago it was the Tinsley to Orlando deal he somehow botched. That was Orlando getting a better offer from Houston (Rafer Alston) that killed said trade.

Last year was the TJ/Rush to Charlotte trade. That was The Bobcats' owner nixing the deal after it had otherwise been agreed to.

This year we're getting mixed reports, but no where that I'm aware of does it say (besides Memphis' proven-idiot owner Hiesley pointing a finger) Indiana is the one that screwed it up, and no one is saying that Indiana backed out or Indiana took too long. It's been said New Orleans backed out and Memphis was taking too long.

Given all of that, I'm not claiming it's 100% fact that Indiana didn't screw up, but I am claiming it's at least 51% that they did NOT screw it up. With regards to this year. It IS 100% that it wasn't their fault the previous two years.

So I would hope that the people crying about 'three years in a row' would back off.

graphic-er
02-25-2011, 11:34 AM
I agree I dont' think its a case of we F'd up. If Bird was late in the paperwork then he would have just asked for an extension. Somebody backed out. The league would give us an extension to work out a deal, they do it every year.

90'sNBARocked
02-25-2011, 11:38 AM
I've seen people saying this is the 3rd straight year Bird has 'screwed it up' at the deadline.

I believe the idea is that 2 years ago it was the Tinsley to Orlando deal he somehow botched. That was Orlando getting a better offer from Houston (Rafer Alston) that killed said trade.

Last year was the TJ/Rush to Charlotte trade. That was The Bobcats' owner nixing the deal after it had otherwise been agreed to.

This year we're getting mixed reports, but no where that I'm aware of does it say (besides Memphis' proven-idiot owner Hiesley pointing a finger) Indiana is the one that screwed it up, and no one is saying that Indiana backed out or Indiana took too long. It's been said New Orleans backed out and Memphis was taking too long.

Given all of that, I'm not claiming it's 100% fact that Indiana didn't screw up, but I am claiming it's at least 51% that they did NOT screw it up. With regards to this year. It IS 100% that it wasn't their fault the previous two years.

So I would hope that the people crying about 'three years in a row' would back off.

I dont blame Bird, I blame the NBA with their utterly idiotic rule of having a hard 3pm deadline, and not allowing a deal to go through at 3:01pm

Does Stern get a woody every time he shts on the Pacers?

I think I actually have found another human being in the NBA that I dislike more than our former coach

Unclebuck
02-25-2011, 11:44 AM
The league would give us an extension to work out a deal, they do it every year.

I asked you this question in another thread. How do we know the league has given extensions in the past. I really want to know, not a trick question.

binarysolo
02-25-2011, 11:48 AM
I can't provide a source but I also recall the league granting extensions.

Hicks
02-25-2011, 11:48 AM
The Orlando deal was one but we had another deal with the Bobcats that fell through, I remember because I was the one that posted about the Orlando deal when I hear Kravitz talking about it on the radio(in his radio show) and everybody here was already freaking out about the Bobcats deal.

Which, again, was another trade their owner said no to. Both Bobcat trades were agreed to, but the owner said no both times.

SMosley21
02-25-2011, 11:49 AM
Bird knows that the deadline is a 3pm, it was his f****** fault the trade didn't go through in the last second.

How is that his fault if New Orleans pulled out at the last minute?

Hicks
02-25-2011, 11:49 AM
Bird knows that the deadline is a 3pm, it was his f****** fault the trade didn't go through in the last second.

That is wrong. New Orleans backed out, and Memphis was taking too long.

If it's true extensions can be granted, I have to assume it's ultimately New Orleans' fault. If there are no extensions, then it was Memphis and/or New Orleans.

You just want to blame Bird.

Hicks
02-25-2011, 12:03 PM
Yeah so we are right in saying the three years in a row thing, Orlando/Bobcats 1, Bobcats again 2, Memphis/NO 3.

:laugh: Not at all. You are wrong in saying the three years in a row thing, because you're trying to say it was Bird Fails Part 1, Bird Fails Part 2, and Bird Fails Part 3, as if each time it would have worked out if not for something Bird did wrong. That's completely inaccurate.

SMosley21
02-25-2011, 12:04 PM
Yeah so we are right in saying the three years in a row thing, Orlando/Bobcats 1, Bobcats again 2, Memphis/NO 3.

I'm seriously starting to wonder if you have some sort of reading comprehension problems, or if you just don't understand the crazy concept that if the other party doesn't agree to a trade or pulls out at the last minute, there's nothing Bird can do about that. He is not allowed to strong arm other team's GMs and force them to make trades if they don't want to. Look at all the facts and then try to criticize the moves instead of just looking at the things that help support your argument.

I knew there was a reason I had you blocked on here. Back to that...

Hicks
02-25-2011, 12:07 PM
I don't want just to blame Bird, my issue is that this is not the 1st time with him, he should have known this, how many last second deals need to fall through before he gets it? why we never hear about this happening to other teams? name me another team that couldn't get the deal together and were rejected, anybody from this year or any other year.

I don't have a catelog of every failed trade in the last 10 years of the league, so I can't throw out instant examples, but two things to that point.

1) We can't assume it's never happened to anyone else.

2) Even if we could, that doesn't make this any more Bird's fault. He did his part, the other side knocked it down.

You can not like it until the day you die, but you can't say it's Larry's fault that someone else's owner shot down a trade, and you can't say it's Larry's fault that a team pulls out of a 3-way deal at 11:59 on the hour.

Hicks
02-25-2011, 12:08 PM
I'm not saying that is 100% Birds fault I kind of agree with you about the 51% thing, but to me the three year thing is accurate, maybe no 3 years in real years but it happened 3 times in three different seasons.

It's not accurate if the point is to say it's Bird's fault for each one not happening. It's not. Saying it was doesn't make it so. The known facts support me, not you.

Roaming Gnome
02-25-2011, 12:23 PM
I dont blame Bird, I blame the NBA with their utterly idiotic rule of having a hard 3pm deadline, and not allowing a deal to go through at 3:01pm

Does Stern get a woody every time he shts on the Pacers?

I think I actually have found another human being in the NBA that I dislike more than our former coach

To everyone wanting to blame the league for the deadline being firm... Put your damn blue & gold glasses down for one damn minute. The deadline has been the same for a long time. I'm sure you wouldn't be so hell bent on bending the rules if it were the Knicks, Heat or the Pistons wanting an extra few minutes... Would ya?

It's a set "DEADLINE"! I still fail to understand how this is the leagues fault other than just another chance to whine about Stern.

Extension or not.... It sounds like this deal was going to fail regardless whether the call was made at 3:01 or 2:01 considering NOLA backed out of the deal.

MTM
02-25-2011, 12:28 PM
My only critique with the three years in a row thing is that Bird acknowledged players by name that he attempted to trade. I can't help but think that morale is affected by that habit. And right now team morale was at a high we haven't seen in a decade.

BillS
02-25-2011, 12:34 PM
My only critique with the three years in a row thing is that Bird acknowledged players by name that he attempted to trade. I can't help but think that morale is affected by that habit. And right now team morale was at a high we haven't seen in a decade.

Where does this come from? You think it'd be better to have the kind of person who would be heavily affected by knowing he was involved in a trade negotiation just thinking he was involved in a trade negotiation because someone was involved but we aren't telling who?

The FO is really in a lose-lose situation. Don't try the trade - you aren't trying to improve the team. Try the trade - you're hurting the morale of your players. Execute the trade - you made a mistake by trading (away/for) player X.

I really think these guys are more grown-up than that, especially if morale on the team is as good as we say and the other guys support the ones who would have been traded.

A player getting in a funk because he thought he was being discussed is a Ron Artest-like personality problem, not a normal reaction by a professional sports figure.

wintermute
02-25-2011, 02:18 PM
Very tricky thing to argue who's to blame, if any, since we know so few details of the actual negotiations. Much of this is guesswork and I freely admit that just about any opinion is as valid as mine, given how little facts we have. So having said that, here's my view of Bird's trading strategy.

I think Bird likes to 'win' trades. Nothing wrong with that, after all why make a trade unless you improve the team? But I think there are different degrees to it, there are what I would call 'win-win' trades, where both parties benefit almost equally. It should be obvious that it's easier to pull off 'win-win' deals as opposed to those that are grossly in favor of one party - no GM after all wants to look like he got robbed.

Part of getting 'win-win' deals is being willing to give up just a bit more than you have to. That is, you don't try to extract every last possible advantage from the other party. You try to find a fair and equitable deal - doing so, I believe, reduces the chance that the other side will pull out. It also means the other side is likelier to work with you in the future - which is important since there are only 29 possible trading partners.

Now, we know of at least 2 deals involving the Pacers where another team decided to pull out in the last minute (Charlotte and New Orleans). It could mean we're incredibly unlucky in drawing fickle GM's - or you might suspect that our trade partners weren't getting enough really to make it worth their while.

Is it Bird's fault if the other GM backs out? Hard to judge, actually, without knowing details. What if all it took was something minor, like a 2nd round pick or cash? The original deal must have been pretty close to get to that stage. Surely a little extra sweetener would have sealed the deal. Just speculation on my part of course, but it seems reasonable.

In that light, you'd have to wonder whether the Orlando deal with Tinsley could have been closed a little earlier if we had given the Magic something extra. By holding out, we may have given the opening for Houston to swoop in. Again, just my speculation.

Btw, I'm still generally supportive of Bird as GM. I don't think he's terrible at all. But I do think we have a difficult time making trades - where it not for the Collison deal I would have doubts about whether we can execute any trade at all. But results are what count, and I'm pretty happy with the resulting product so far. With the caveat that I don't like our trading strategy.

Fire away.

NapTonius Monk
02-25-2011, 02:26 PM
Do you think Brandon will be affected mentally, knowing TBLB were trying to deal him two years straight?

avoidingtheclowns
02-25-2011, 03:45 PM
Do you think Brandon will be affected mentally, knowing TBLB were trying to deal him two years straight?

I'm pretty sure Brandon will find a way to take the edge off.

croz24
02-25-2011, 03:50 PM
any time a deal doesn't go down like that, you can always find a way to place the vast majority of the blame on one side or another. similar to taking personal accountability. the pacers could have always provided an extra incentive to make the deal work, or could have negotiated better, or not waited until the last minute to make things work, etc.

NapTonius Monk
02-25-2011, 03:57 PM
I'm pretty sure Brandon will find a way to take the edge off.:hippie:

Trader Joe
02-25-2011, 03:59 PM
Why did vnzla delete all his posts?

cdash
02-25-2011, 05:09 PM
Why did vnzla delete all his posts?

I was wondering that too. If he didn't want people to see what he was saying, it doesn't matter--almost all of them are quoted in other responses.

bulldog
02-25-2011, 06:49 PM
It's not accurate if the point is to say it's Bird's fault for each one not happening. It's not. Saying it was doesn't make it so. The known facts support me, not you.

NBA trades are a negotiation. Your skill in negotiation is about your ability to persuade the other party.

It's ridiculous to say that since the other teams said no, the Pacers weren't responsible. The whole point of trade negotiations is to get the other teams to say yes!

What do we know?
1) Three years in a row, the Pacers were very close to making trades that IMHO would have made the team better.
2) Three years in a row, Larry Bird was not able to close the deal.

These deals were close. It's not like we called Miami and said "Rush for Wade, straight up?", and they laughed and hung up. These deals could have been made, with a few additional tweaks or better persuasion, and they weren't. So I think it is absolutely fair to say that Larry Bird is a poor negotiator, even if I actually like the overall job he's done as GM.

Furthermore, leaking news of a trade that gets cancelled three years in a row is just a team morale killer and PR disaster. So it is fair to criticism him for that too.

pwee31
02-25-2011, 07:05 PM
I never "cried" about 3 years in a row, I just found it interesting we missed out in the final minutes of trade deadline for 3 straight years.

Apparently Pacers had deal w/ Memphis with 5 minutes to go and they pulled out with 2 minutes left, had nothing to do with 3:01

Sandman21
02-25-2011, 07:16 PM
Furthermore, leaking news of a trade that gets cancelled three years in a row is just a team morale killer and PR disaster. So it is fair to criticism him for that too.
Except Bird has no control over Memphis's idiot of an owner, especially since we now know it WASN'T the Pacers who messed up.

90'sNBARocked
02-25-2011, 07:17 PM
To everyone wanting to blame the league for the deadline being firm... Put your damn blue & gold glasses down for one damn minute. The deadline has been the same for a long time. I'm sure you wouldn't be so hell bent on bending the rules if it were the Knicks, Heat or the Pistons wanting an extra few minutes... Would ya?

It's a set "DEADLINE"! I still fail to understand how this is the leagues fault other than just another chance to whine about Stern.

Extension or not.... It sounds like this deal was going to fail regardless whether the call was made at 3:01 or 2:01 considering NOLA backed out of the deal.

I understand your point

I just think to have a deadline so hardcore that if a trade comes in one minute late, the league would rather have both teams look stupid by announcing a trade in the media, instead of honoring the trade

so I think the rule in itself, is stupid

Hicks
02-25-2011, 07:32 PM
NBA trades are a negotiation. Your skill in negotiation is about your ability to persuade the other party.

It's ridiculous to say that since the other teams said no, the Pacers weren't responsible. The whole point of trade negotiations is to get the other teams to say yes!

What do we know?
1) Three years in a row, the Pacers were very close to making trades that IMHO would have made the team better.
2) Three years in a row, Larry Bird was not able to close the deal.

These deals were close. It's not like we called Miami and said "Rush for Wade, straight up?", and they laughed and hung up. These deals could have been made, with a few additional tweaks or better persuasion, and they weren't. So I think it is absolutely fair to say that Larry Bird is a poor negotiator, even if I actually like the overall job he's done as GM.

Furthermore, leaking news of a trade that gets cancelled three years in a row is just a team morale killer and PR disaster. So it is fair to criticism him for that too.

All three trades were agreed to. An additional event screwed them up. You're trying to act like none of them were agreed to, that the negotiations were still taking place and we just weren't willing to improve our offers enough to 'close the deal.' That is just plain inaccurate.

Orlando agreed to our deal with them, but they also wisely decided to wait on calling the league office on it just in case of a better last-second offer, and Houston came knocking.

The Tinsley to Charlotte deal earlier that year was agreed to between Bird and their GM, but Charlotte's owner vetoed it after the fact.

It's pretty ridiculous to criticize him for not adding additional assets just to flush Tinsley in a second, bad deal after a good deal that had been already agreed to died off because of a better offer from Houston or a Charlotte owner vetoing his General Manager/President. It's to his tremendous credit that twice he actually had a deal in place at all for Tinsley.

Then last year with Charlotte, same thing. He and Cha's GM had a deal. That's the most you can ask of Bird. Its not his fault their owner vetoed it after the fact, and even if he would have still had time left to work with (which he did not) he would have been foolish to make it a bad trade just so he could say he made a move.

So the closest thing to legit criticism is that he failed to get TWO SEPARATE trades agreed to on top of one another, involving the same Pacer players, 'just in case,' and I think that borders on the absurd.

That brings us back to yesterday, and it's similar to the second Charlotte trade. Bird had an agreement made in principle with all involved. He'd done his job. Blaming him for New Orleans agreeing to the deal, then saying they changed their minds literally as they were all calling to tell the league what they'd just agreed to, is also bordering on the absurd.

Lastly, this bit about bad PR, blaming that on Bird is just plain ridiculous. It was Memphis's dumb *** owner who was spilling on it to his local press, not Larry. You make it sound like Larry was texting Mike Wells on what he should tweet.

bulldog
02-25-2011, 08:00 PM
All three trades were agreed to. An additional event screwed them up. You're trying to act like none of them were agreed to, that the negotiations were still taking place and we just weren't willing to improve our offers enough to 'close the deal.' That is just plain inaccurate.

You're making him sound even worse. So he had the deals negotiated, and then he got outbid (in the case of Orlando), didn't correctly read the managerial hierarchy of his trade partner (Charlotte), and got blindsided that a team he thought had agreed to a trade actually wasn't on board at all (New Orleans).

How does this not make him bad at negotiating trades? All these deals were agreed to from a basketball perspective, your description actually makes him sound MORE incompetent, bungling the interpersonal and price-setting aspects of a negotiation.


Lastly, this bit about bad PR, blaming that on Bird is just plain ridiculous. It was Memphis's dumb *** owner who was spilling on it to his local press, not Larry. You make it sound like Larry was texting Mike Wells on what he should tweet.

A GM is responsible for the actions of his personnel. Larry is in charge of basketball operations for this organization, he is the Pacer's basketball CEO. Even if he's not the one leaking the information, he is ultimately responsible for how it plays out. He gets paid a tremendous amount of money; in return, he is supposed to manage this multi-million dollar enterprise effectively, and that includes the relationship between his organization and other organizations, and between his personnel and the media.

Next you'll be telling me that he's not responsible if the team has a bad season - he's not the one playing the games! How is it his fault that our team isn't very good?

Hicks
02-25-2011, 08:18 PM
:picard:

Wow.

I having nothing else left to say. Just wow.

BringJackBack
02-25-2011, 08:19 PM
Bird during halftime, "3:01 had nothing to do with it."

Strummer
02-25-2011, 09:36 PM
Furthermore, leaking news of a trade that gets cancelled three years in a row is just a team morale killer and PR disaster. So it is fair to criticism him for that too.

There's not even a question that the leak came from Memphis. And it wasn't even a leak, it was more of a press release. The Memphis owner does something idiotic and you blame Larry Bird for it. That's beyond unfair. Your argument/opinion is dishonest and therefore worthless.

Hoop
02-25-2011, 09:50 PM
I don't know who's fault it is or was, I just found it funny/strange that whom ever was involved didn't get it done in time.

Roaming Gnome
02-25-2011, 10:53 PM
You know... We can stop carping about the time! One side didn't like the deal, so it died. End of story!

Cherokee
02-25-2011, 11:10 PM
I doubt the 3:01 did have anything to do with it. One report I saw somewhere said Bird was on hold with the league office when the deadline passed, and before the league office answered NOLA pulled the plug on the deal. There was nothing Bird could do about it.

bulldog
02-26-2011, 01:14 AM
:picard:

Wow.

I having nothing else left to say. Just wow.

Hahaha. Isn't it fun having a discussion board where instead of discussion, you can just post funny pictures to trivialize people's opinions?

I still think Bird's a good GM. He just sucks at negotiating deals. How is that not a valid opinion?

Hicks
02-26-2011, 10:43 AM
There's nothing left to discuss. It's your valid opinion that the sky is red.

bulldog
02-26-2011, 12:43 PM
There's nothing left to discuss. It's your valid opinion that the sky is red.

:rolleyes:

So if three years in a row we have deals that go bad at the deadline, the ONLY possible explanation is that we did nothing wrong? And if I don't believe that I'm just stupid?

You have NO idea how these deals went down. None at all. You read a few media reports here and there, but you have no clue what really happened. So how in the world can you say with absolute certainty that Bird did nothing wrong? We're each interpreting an incomplete set of facts. Your "sky is red" comment is just pouty and arrogant.

Hicks
02-26-2011, 12:52 PM
:rolleyes:

So if three years in a row we have deals that go bad at the deadline, the ONLY possible explanation is that we did nothing wrong? And if I don't believe that I'm just stupid?

I don't believe I said either of those things, but since you asked, I'll go ahead and answer: No, and no.


You have NO idea how these deals went down. None at all. You read a few media reports here and there, but you have no clue what really happened. So how in the world can you say with absolute certainty that

Stop right here. How does the above not apply every bit as much to your opinion on the matter?


We're each interpreting an incomplete set of facts.

Right, but IMO I'm much more in line with what information we have to work with, and I think you're way off base. That's my opinion. I'm still allowed to have an opinion when I don't agree with yours, right?


Your "sky is red" comment is just pouty and arrogant.

I don't know about pouty, but I can understand where you get arrogant. My apologies if that was upsetting, but I just feel strongly that I'm seeing what's going on here, and I feel even more strongly that you're really off base with your conclusions based on the given set of (incomplete, yes) facts. We are just really, really far apart on our opinions here, and frankly I'm flabbergasted by you on this one.

bulldog
02-26-2011, 06:56 PM
I don't know about pouty, but I can understand where you get arrogant. My apologies if that was upsetting, but I just feel strongly that I'm seeing what's going on here, and I feel even more strongly that you're really off base with your conclusions based on the given set of (incomplete, yes) facts. We are just really, really far apart on our opinions here, and frankly I'm flabbergasted by you on this one.

Thank you for the apology, much appreciated, and I likewise hope you weren't insulted by my posts. I get that you're flabbergasted, but I think you can see how your posts are could be interpreted as stating that there can't possibly be any alternative explanations than that Bird is blameless.

I think he does deserve some blame, but whatever, like we both said we can't really know 100% and we each interpreted the facts differently. Most importantly, this is a situation where I think there's plenty of room for interpretation.

troyc11a
02-26-2011, 07:23 PM
You're making him sound even worse. So he had the deals negotiated, and then he got outbid (in the case of Orlando), didn't correctly read the managerial hierarchy of his trade partner (Charlotte), and got blindsided that a team he thought had agreed to a trade actually wasn't on board at all (New Orleans).

How does this not make him bad at negotiating trades? All these deals were agreed to from a basketball perspective, your description actually makes him sound MORE incompetent, bungling the interpersonal and price-setting aspects of a negotiation.



A GM is responsible for the actions of his personnel. Larry is in charge of basketball operations for this organization, he is the Pacer's basketball CEO. Even if he's not the one leaking the information, he is ultimately responsible for how it plays out. He gets paid a tremendous amount of money; in return, he is supposed to manage this multi-million dollar enterprise effectively, and that includes the relationship between his organization and other organizations, and between his personnel and the media.

Next you'll be telling me that he's not responsible if the team has a bad season - he's not the one playing the games! How is it his fault that our team isn't very good?


Larry Bird is not in charge of Memphis, Orlando, Charlotte, or New Orleans. Therefore, if the other teams pull out, it is not his fault. If he did not want to give anymore than was offered, I salute him for holding his ground. People who have never ran any business or had people's livelyhood in their hands should be slow to judge someone who is a million more times experienced and successful then they are!

bulldog
02-26-2011, 09:29 PM
Larry Bird is not in charge of Memphis, Orlando, Charlotte, or New Orleans. Therefore, if the other teams pull out, it is not his fault. If he did not want to give anymore than was offered, I salute him for holding his ground. People who have never ran any business or had people's livelyhood in their hands should be slow to judge someone who is a million more times experienced and successful then they are!

1) If you take that attitude, then there is no purpose for this message board to exist. We couldn't criticise anyone, there'd be two threads, "Larry Bird is great!" and "Wasn't Jim O'brien just the best?"

2) How do you know whether his critics have run businesses or had people's livelihood in their hands?

3) I think many people from the business world would agree with my contention that negotiation is a two-way street, and that failing to close a deal is a failure on the part of BOTH parties.

4) I really have no idea why I'm wasting so much time on this thread. :laugh:

wintermute
02-26-2011, 10:02 PM
I think many people from the business world would agree with my contention that negotiation is a two-way street, and that failing to close a deal is a failure on the part of BOTH parties.



This is the key point really that seems very difficult to grasp for some people. The ideal negotiator isn't some badass uncompromising only-accept-a-deal-on-my-terms tough guy; you'd get very few deals done if that's how you conduct trades.

To answer the question, if the other party does not like your offer, then no, you don't just hold your ground. That's a surefire way to an impasse and hence no deal. Offer up other pieces, in return for a few more of the other guy's. Show a little flexibility.

Obviously you can't just cave in to the other side's demands. It's a delicate balance between presenting your position and being flexible in looking for suitable compromises.

I'm not saying that Bird is a bad negotiator. Getting the deal set up in the first place is just as important as the ability to close, and you have to give credit to Bird for getting that far. But these failed negotiations seem to happen to us more than to other teams. Is it just coincidence, perhaps. But at some point you'd have to wonder why the guy you're sending to the negotiating table isn't getting the job done.

troyc11a
02-26-2011, 10:08 PM
1) If you take that attitude, then there is no purpose for this message board to exist. We couldn't criticise anyone, there'd be two threads, "Larry Bird is great!" and "Wasn't Jim O'brien just the best?"

2) How do you know whether his critics have run businesses or had people's livelihood in their hands?

3) I think many people from the business world would agree with my contention that negotiation is a two-way street, and that failing to close a deal is a failure on the part of BOTH parties.

4) I really have no idea why I'm wasting so much time on this thread. :laugh:

I do not believe in criticizing people when I do not have the facts. If other teams pull out of a deal so be it. They must have wanted more than Bird was willing to part with. It was not like he was trying to get Kobe or Lebron. He was going after a bust with a poor attitude. If we knew what was on the table and what was sought, then we could say Larry failed. All we know is that Larry didnt get a deal done. But just because he didnt does not mean he failed. He could have very easily failed to make a bad deal too.

Naptown_Seth
02-27-2011, 03:08 AM
There's nothing left to discuss. It's your valid opinion that the sky is red.
I don't think that's a fair read at all Hicks. I don't really have a dog in this fight because I was neutral in each case and STRONGLY suspect that these were more deals-just-missed for show than real efforts.

But Bulldog makes a great case. The entire, brilliant film/play GlenGary GlenRoss is about exactly this issue. COFFEE IS FOR CLOSERS, period. That's the fact.

Sales/trading isn't about the video game or Real GM version where you just line up salaries and ratings until they match. A great trader makes a sucker feel like he won and gets him to push to close the deal. A poor trader can only get deals completed if he gives up too much.


So if these 3 deals were real then Bulldog is correct in each case. You don't have a deal pending if it can really be outdone that easily at the last second, and you definitely don't have a deal done if you aren't talking to the person that actually gets to make the call.

Again, this is the plot to GGGR. They talk about getting stuck pitching sales to people that don't have the clout to actually make the purchase, a character makes a big sale only to find out the couple can't go through with it, and the top sales guys just have that way of making people want to do the deal. NONE of the deals they are pitching are good, but some characters make the sales and some don't.

NSFW...(language)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-AXTx4PcKI


By the way, I'm not saying I could do better because I 100% couldn't. Sales/dealing is tough and it takes the right type of person to be good at it. And being great at basketball means jack squat in terms of sales skills, just like it doesn't make you a legal genius or a great accountant.

Whatever Bird has or will do as a GM has come from someplace far different than what made him a champion basketball player. Personally I think deals like JO and Bayless deals looks pretty darn smart, so I don't think he's a flop.

But that doesn't mean he can't catch a low grade for not landing the big fish when he needs to, if the stories are to be believed.

Eleazar
02-27-2011, 09:14 AM
I don't get what the big deal is. Rarely are the mid-season trades the trades that really improve your team. It is offseason trades that really matter because those are the trades where you get Collision for only giving up Murphy.

vnzla81
02-27-2011, 09:21 AM
I don't get what the big deal is. Rarely are the mid-season trades the trades that really improve your team. It is offseason trades that really matter because those are the trades where you get Collision for only giving up Murphy.

Yeah go ahead and tell that to NY,NJ,Portland and the rest of the teams that got better.

bulldog
02-27-2011, 11:55 AM
I don't think that's a fair read at all Hicks. I don't really have a dog in this fight because I was neutral in each case and STRONGLY suspect that these were more deals-just-missed for show than real efforts.

But Bulldog makes a great case. The entire, brilliant film/play GlenGary GlenRoss is about exactly this issue. COFFEE IS FOR CLOSERS, period. That's the fact.



I was actually thinking of GGGR when I wrote it. Or the sequel...

http://www.hulu.com/watch/3362/saturday-night-live-glengarry-glen-christmas