I like Hagel and when Tampa needs to make salary cap moves he will get more minutes for sure.
The real way the 'hawks win that trade is whatever those picks turn out to be turn into a tangible asset for the 'hawks within their rebuild. We won't know that for quite some time but being realistic here: With the dearth of *any* blue chip defensive prospect or player anywhere within the 'hawks system, by the time the 'hawks will be be ready to compete again at the earliest Hagel would be in his 30's--as well as being expensive enough not to be able to pull in the same kind of assets that he did while he was young, good, and cheap. There's no way the 'hawks would be able to pick up the D, G, and C prospects they need via free agency without blowing past the cap ceiling so hard keeping Hagel in that situation wouldn't be an option. Just look at what Seth Jones commanded. Granted, that deal was made by a reject from H&RBlock, but still--deveoping from within is a lot less expensive.
That's the name of the game....the trade wasn't Hagel for Raddysh and Katchouk. What the Hawks wanted was the the two first round picks. I mean if one of these two guys work out, hey great. But what Davidson does with those picks will ultimately decide if it was a good trade for the Hawks.
Exactly. So for now it's a waiting game. Right now my only hope is that the 'hawks hold position for the rest of the season and get the best odds to NOT pick 1st or 2nd. Next year should be VERY bad, but potentially 2 1st rounders in a very deep draft, if played right, can help a lot in the long game.
If Raddysh can replace Hagels production on top of two first rounders the Hawks took them to the cleaners.
Just to clarify,are you saying Radish 57gms 7gls 16pts and Katchouk 42gms 2gls 6pts are equal to Hagel's 111gms 31gls and 62pts at a younger age than either is equal value w/o the picks?
No, Bob, that's not my meaning whatsoever. Perhaps an illustration will help:
You just made me re-examine my portfolio and it's allowcations....LOL!
Nope, you are missing my point entirely.
disagree you need to look at the whole thing in a few years. It would be like me saying I cashed out my 401K and took it to Vegas and traded it in for chips for a poker tournament and if a lose it all, nobody is going to be saying I got fair value on those poker chips on that first transaction.
Disagree, you did indeed get fair value for trading your 401k proceeds to an equivalent cash value of poker chips. It's unquestionably a fair transaction. End of transaction, end of story. All you did was increase your risk profile because there is far greater volatility and beta risk in holding poker chips as compared with 401k investments. It does not change the fact that you received fair value for your 401k.
Perhaps, but ultimately the analysis of every trade always has to take into account what the actual results become, not just what was offered at value initially. The 'hawks could receive fair market value for a trade an ultimately win or lose it, and that win/loss will be what the perception of the trade is--irrespective of fair market value because in a lot of cases the GM that makes the trade also oversees the disposition of of the draft picks that come back.
Respectfully disagree. Davidson made a fair trade , period. If Davidson subsequently drafts poorly with the picks acquired in the trade, then he did a shitty job at drafting. It does not change the fact that he made a fair trade.
I get the point that two 1st's are a good return on their face for the player at this point in time even if they're not used properly but don't we have to see how Hagel progresses as a player over time to make a final analysis?
Yes I did get fair value on those poker chips, but nobody is going to judge my decision on it being a success or complete failure based on the poker chips fair value. It all depends on what happens at the poker table and if I now have no retirement or I won millions.
