Well, that's simple. Doing everything possible to avoid the luxury tax. To be fair, while it looks bad to give away picks left and right, it is a better alternative than selling Shawn Marion for 50 cents on the dollar. In a basketball forum I frequent, I've seen proposals for Marion that you would hate much more than the draft pick fire sale.
At any rate, let's go through the Suns major transactions since the decision to maximize cap space in 03/04 as well as picks in the next few years.
2004 salary cap trades (Marbury, Gugliotta, Jahidi White). Suns got 2 1's from the Knicks, which were both sent to the Jazz in the Gugliotta trade. Suns give 2005 1st that was part of the 1997 McDyess trade (pick was Sean May) to make White disappear.
2004 draft: agreed to trade #7 overall Luol Deng for worthless crap thinking Andre Igoudala would not be available. He was. The Suns received a 2005 1 (nate robinson). I don't understand why they couldn't back out since their guy was available.
2004 FA's: Nash (good), Q-Rich (ehh)
2005 Draft: Nate & q-rich for Kurt Thomas
2005 FA's: Raja Bell (good), Brian Grant (bad)
2005 trades: Joe Johnson for Boris & 2 1's (the first); acquired James Jones for a 2
2006 draft: used an Atlanta 1 (#21 Rajon Rondo) to make Grant disappear and get 2007 #1 from Boston; sold #27 (own pick) Sergio Rodriguez
2006 FA: Marcus Banks (ugh), Barbosa and Diaw extensions (good, ?)
2007 Draft: drafted Tucker, Strawberry; used Boston 1 to make James Jones disappear.
2007 FA: Grant Hill (should be positive)
2007 Trade: Thomas plus 2 1's for a conditional second in 2009 (most likely the condition specifies which of Seattle's two seconds Phoenix gets). I think (but am not positive) that Seattle used the Lewis trade exception to get Thomas. I don't think there's any value to the Suns--as I posted elsewhere, it is not a village bicycle. not that the suns would use it anyway.
2008: have Hawks #1 and Cleveland's #2; traded own 1 to Sea and own 2 to Indiana (James Jones)
2009: have their #1 and #2, and have 2's coming from Sea (Sea or Orl) and Golden State
2010: traded their #1 to Sea; still have #2
2011: have both picks.
So for Rodney Rogers and Tony Delk, the Suns have Diaw, Atlanta's 2008 #1, Cleveland's '08 #2 and $6 million (est) . Pretty good.
Conversely, the decision to create cap room to sign QRich has amounted to only a 2009 2nd to show for Luol Deng/Andre Igoudala and 2008/2010 #1s
And then there's Marcus Banks.
Anyway, I think the frustrating thing about the sale of the picks is that there are other options to get rid of the slotted salary, such as this year, drafting Tiago Splitter. But then james jones is still around, and who wants that?
So if the Suns can scrape up a decent big, they'll be fine, even if lacking in depth a bit. In hindsight, the machinations of the last two years are entirely the result of trading the #7 pick in 2005. If they draft Igoudala, there's no QRich (most likely--offer may not have been big enough, or the Clips would have matched), which means no Thomas trade (either of them), and probably no James Jones. Igoudala's contract is also smaller, so no need to get rid of Grant. In keeping picks in either 05 or 06, Suns draft a jarret jack or marcus williams (or keep rondo) type, so need for Banks.
Not that this is supposed to make Suns fans feel better.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Not a professional
So, back in the day, I was a big minesweeper guy. Thought I was pretty good--my best time is 98 seconds on expert. Joked about how I thought about dropping out of school and going pro.
Turns out that would have been a mistake.
38 seconds!
So watching this, it reminds me of what I always knew was holding me back--control/speed of the mouse (a three button helps and fast control) and of course the incessant need to mark almost every bomb (I counted Dion marking 54 bombs). i just didn't realize it was holding me back that much!
Turns out that would have been a mistake.
38 seconds!
So watching this, it reminds me of what I always knew was holding me back--control/speed of the mouse (a three button helps and fast control) and of course the incessant need to mark almost every bomb (I counted Dion marking 54 bombs). i just didn't realize it was holding me back that much!
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Bad timing
Saturday night (July 21), Joanne & I watched a couple of episodes of "From the Earth to the Moon", an HBO miniseries from 1998 about the Apollo missions. One of the episodes was "Mare Tranquilitatis", which was the lunar landing... on July 20, 1969. So close!
We picked up the set earlier this year at Costco--it was cheap (under $25), and I heard it was good. And it is. The story is engaging, production detail is outstanding, the sense of wonder/fear at being in space is palpable. Sometimes the rhythm and pacing is a little odd, though, because the series is often plot driven (the Apollo mission), rather than character driven (the cast is huge and rapidly changing that you only get into a character or three per episode, and those change each episode. It's not like Band of Brothers, which has a much more stable crew of characters).
But this isn't a DVD review.
The credits open with JFK's speech announcing the goal: "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
And it strikes me what do we, as a country, strive to do that is noble and with purpose? That is positive and based on hope, rather than a reduction of a negative?
I guess that narrows possibilities quite a bit--government, even when seen as an agent of change, focuses on raising to a median standard (welfare, healthcare) or limiting activity (environment). Areas of discovery are limited to science, and there's only so many activities that can capture the public's interest. The Arizona Republic hits on this to some degree in Sunday's lead editorial, stating "America needs another Sputnik moment."
Of course it's easy to look back on the Apollo missions with pride because it was successful. But that wasn't ordained. There was opposition to the cost or need or such exploration, and the sense of accomplishment only did so much--the 70's were wonderful after all.
Joanne asked where I was going with this, as the easy comparison is Iraq, which isn't really were i wanted to go, but there are parallels. And differences.
Perhaps I'm thinking too big picture. Maybe the real lesson is at a more individual level, about setting goals (or dreams), and creating an incremental plan of action to achieve that.
OK, I'm babbling now.
We picked up the set earlier this year at Costco--it was cheap (under $25), and I heard it was good. And it is. The story is engaging, production detail is outstanding, the sense of wonder/fear at being in space is palpable. Sometimes the rhythm and pacing is a little odd, though, because the series is often plot driven (the Apollo mission), rather than character driven (the cast is huge and rapidly changing that you only get into a character or three per episode, and those change each episode. It's not like Band of Brothers, which has a much more stable crew of characters).
But this isn't a DVD review.
The credits open with JFK's speech announcing the goal: "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
And it strikes me what do we, as a country, strive to do that is noble and with purpose? That is positive and based on hope, rather than a reduction of a negative?
I guess that narrows possibilities quite a bit--government, even when seen as an agent of change, focuses on raising to a median standard (welfare, healthcare) or limiting activity (environment). Areas of discovery are limited to science, and there's only so many activities that can capture the public's interest. The Arizona Republic hits on this to some degree in Sunday's lead editorial, stating "America needs another Sputnik moment."
Of course it's easy to look back on the Apollo missions with pride because it was successful. But that wasn't ordained. There was opposition to the cost or need or such exploration, and the sense of accomplishment only did so much--the 70's were wonderful after all.
Joanne asked where I was going with this, as the easy comparison is Iraq, which isn't really were i wanted to go, but there are parallels. And differences.
Perhaps I'm thinking too big picture. Maybe the real lesson is at a more individual level, about setting goals (or dreams), and creating an incremental plan of action to achieve that.
OK, I'm babbling now.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Back in business?
Maybe. Let's see what the two month summer hiatus did do the readership...
Some randomness:
Joanne & I will commonly pick up a baguette to go along with dinner. Not a big deal, right? Turns out, according to the side panel, each of the 24 servings has 160(!) calories, for a total of a whopping 3,840 calories. Which is more than twice what is in the entire tub of whipped butter that we sometimes use! So my tubbiness is not a result of my need to get jacked up, but it's the bread.
Who knew?
My latest internet distraction is the Comics Curmudgeon, which snarks on the multitude of bad comic strips in the world today. Doing a little research last night, I discovered that one guy, Nicholas P. Dallis, is responsible for the horror that is Judge Parker, Apartment 3-G and Rex Morgan, MD.
I sold our GE shares this week after it hit my $40 target this week. That looked good on Monday, bad on Tuesday, inconsequential yesterday, and bad again today. Let's hear it for randomly chosen sell targets. It's all relative, though. The "loss" of value since the sale is peanuts with the change in Motorola from October to now. Although I do feel guilty about complaining about that when we missed out on the 2000 crash.
Came across The Tyranny of Choice, a short article by Barry Schwartz that appeared in Scientific American around the time his book, Paradox of Choice, was published. You may also remember it being mentioned in my "classic" 3 parter on my no crap philosophy. It includes a 13 question test re if you are a maximizer or a satisficer.
Are you glad I'm back?
Some randomness:
Joanne & I will commonly pick up a baguette to go along with dinner. Not a big deal, right? Turns out, according to the side panel, each of the 24 servings has 160(!) calories, for a total of a whopping 3,840 calories. Which is more than twice what is in the entire tub of whipped butter that we sometimes use! So my tubbiness is not a result of my need to get jacked up, but it's the bread.
Who knew?
My latest internet distraction is the Comics Curmudgeon, which snarks on the multitude of bad comic strips in the world today. Doing a little research last night, I discovered that one guy, Nicholas P. Dallis, is responsible for the horror that is Judge Parker, Apartment 3-G and Rex Morgan, MD.
I sold our GE shares this week after it hit my $40 target this week. That looked good on Monday, bad on Tuesday, inconsequential yesterday, and bad again today. Let's hear it for randomly chosen sell targets. It's all relative, though. The "loss" of value since the sale is peanuts with the change in Motorola from October to now. Although I do feel guilty about complaining about that when we missed out on the 2000 crash.
Came across The Tyranny of Choice, a short article by Barry Schwartz that appeared in Scientific American around the time his book, Paradox of Choice, was published. You may also remember it being mentioned in my "classic" 3 parter on my no crap philosophy. It includes a 13 question test re if you are a maximizer or a satisficer.
Are you glad I'm back?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
