RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

New York, Seattle, Phoenix, Minnesota, Dallas trades
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Who came out on top here?
New York
70%
 70%  [ 29 ]
Seattle
9%
 9%  [ 4 ]
Phoenix
12%
 12%  [ 5 ]
Minnesota
7%
 7%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 41

Author Message
root_thing



Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 6259
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/13/21 4:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

As I’ve said before, I can’t imagine that Dan Hughes didn’t have a lot of input into these moves by the Storm. And there was likely some level of consent from Bird and Stewart. It comes down to whether you trust the coach and your two stars. It’s easy to be angry with a faceless bureaucrat – in this case, Alisha Valavanis – because it’s hard to blame the people you admire. I once got into an argument with someone on YouTube over the casting of Emmy Rossum in the movie of Phantom Of The Opera. That person and other posters were blaming “some Hollywood casting director” for what they felt was a horrible decision. In fact, Rossum said in an interview that she had to audition for Andrew Lloyd Webber. His company produced the movie, so he had final casting approval. But these fans just couldn’t find it in themselves to blame their hero composer who created the show. It was much easier to find fault with the unknown casting director.

No doubt Seattle overpaid for Samuelson based on market value. But sometimes GMs and coaches decide to trust their own talent evaluation and not worry over what anyone else thinks. According to that tweet that was linked, KLS is leading Euroleague in scoring. Add to that, she maybe had a really good camp with USA Basketball. I know after her first three years at UConn, I thought Samuelson was the leading candidate to be the #1 pick. Then, she fell off in her senior year. It’s possible that Hughes is looking at 3 situations (college, overseas, USA camp) where KLS did well and decided that outweighs her brief, undistinguished WNBA career that was hindered by injury -- at least in Chicago.

Speaking of putting stock into overseas performance, it’s interesting to note that Stephanie Talbot also excelled this past season. Not only did she beat out Liz Cambage for MVP in Australia, she also became the first woman to win both MVP and Defensive Player of the Year in the same season. Another surprising bit of information came from Bec Allen. When she was asked to describe her Opals teammates in one word, she chose “athletic” to describe Talbot. Bec speculated that Talbot could dunk if she wanted to. This certainly surprised me because I always thought of Talbot as strong, but not particularly athletic. It just goes to show you that what we as WNBA fans think is not necessarily how others perceive these players.



_________________
Aside from separately going on trial for murder and treason, Aaron Burr seemed like a pretty nice guy.
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10738



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/13/21 4:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

There have been numerous cases of players developing after a few years, often due to improved physical conditioning, acquired skills, or simply better health.

There have been numerous cases where players don't get better no matter what.

KLS was a high school and college star who admittedly battled mental health issues and has struggled in the WNBA. It is certainly possible she is who she is.

It is also possible she's got herself together and will, as Alysha Clark and Adia Barnes did, blossom in Seattle as a small forward.

Again, given the available choices at No. 1, for a team that wants to win now, I think rolling the dice on KLS is a better gamble than rolling the dice on whoever the Storm would have chosen at No. 1.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 22778
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/13/21 4:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Again, given the available choices at No. 1, for a team that wants to win now, I think rolling the dice on KLS is a better gamble than rolling the dice on whoever the Storm would have chosen at No. 1.

But is she appreciably better than rolling the dice with Talbot, or throwing a little more money at someone like Sykes, while also getting to roll the dice with whoever you fancy at #1?

I mean, if it was all about winning right now, the best move might well have been to see if Natasha Howard really wanted to go to New York enough to pass on a quarter of a million bucks for 4 months' work.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10738



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/13/21 6:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
ClayK wrote:
Again, given the available choices at No. 1, for a team that wants to win now, I think rolling the dice on KLS is a better gamble than rolling the dice on whoever the Storm would have chosen at No. 1.

But is she appreciably better than rolling the dice with Talbot, or throwing a little more money at someone like Sykes, while also getting to roll the dice with whoever you fancy at #1?

I mean, if it was all about winning right now, the best move might well have been to see if Natasha Howard really wanted to go to New York enough to pass on a quarter of a million bucks for 4 months' work.


Good points all ...

I think we have to assume Howard wanted out.

And apparently they felt KLS was better than Sykes plus No. 1, which makes little sense to me, but then again, I'm an amateur and have no WNBA titles to my name.

Really, I was just trying to think how you would justify that move ...



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 1744



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/13/21 8:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
... And apparently they felt KLS was better than Sykes plus No. 1, which makes little sense to me, but then again, I'm an amateur and have no WNBA titles to my name...


I don't know anything about college basketball, but there's no chance that Samuelson is worth Sykes and the #1 Overall. I wouldn't take Samuelson over Sykes, straight up.



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 2229
Location: Seattle, WA


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/14/21 4:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

root_thing wrote:
As I’ve said before, I can’t imagine that Dan Hughes didn’t have a lot of input into these moves by the Storm. And there was likely some level of consent from Bird and Stewart. It comes down to whether you trust the coach and your two stars. It’s easy to be angry with a faceless bureaucrat – in this case, Alisha Valavanis – because it’s hard to blame the people you admire.
...
what we as WNBA fans think is not necessarily how others perceive these players.

Ultimately, it's the nature of the GM position to take the credit/blame for any move made. Other people (head coach, star player, owner, etc.) may have the 'final say', but the GM is in fact the face for who's making these transactions. They need to be able to own it. Good moves lead to good press & maybe a good reputation; bad moves lead to getting canned. In this case, the performance on the court has been exemplary for the past three years, so since no one was already calling for Hughes' head, there's not enough momentum for them to be doing it now along with Valavanis'. That's at least how I look at it all, even if it's admittedly on the black-and-white side.

If the GM is unable to put their foot down if the people around them are telling them to make a move the GM thinks is bad, then they're a token GM. Here though, Valavanis' trades were honestly bad consistently before Hughes got here in 2018. And Loyd & Stewart were too young to truly be in consultant roles their first couple years (and so hopefully weren't put in that position). The only other common denominator in Valavanis' early years with the team is Bird. So even if I spread a chunk of the blame on Bird, that's still just two people, where Valavanis basically gets to own those moves anyway.

2015:
Camille Little + Shekinna Stricklen to the Sun for the #3 (used on KML) + the #15 + Renee Montgomery.
The #15 we got from the Sun to the Mystics (where the pick was used on Natasha Cloud) for Quanitra Hollingsworth + the #20 (used on Vicky McIntyre [who?]).
Renee Montgomery + 2016 2RP to the Lynx (where the pick would become the #14 used on Jazmon Gwathmey, and then traded to the Stars for Jia Perkins straight-up) for an injured Monica Wright.

2016:
Rights to Angel Robinson to the Mercury for Noelle Quinn.

2017:
The #6 + #18 to the Mystics (where the picks were used on SWK and Jennie Simms, respectively) for the Liberty’s Carolyn Swords + the #15 (used on Alexis Peterson). Liberty got Bria Hartley + Kia Vaughn in the 3-team deal.

———

Montgomery was a vital piece of the Lynx's 2015 & 2017 title-winning teams. Stricklen as a starter helped the Sun appear in the 2019 Finals. Both Cloud developed & led the way for the 2019 title-winning Mystics as their starting PG; SWK did her part as a bench player in their rotation as well. Meanwhile, Hollingsworth and all our late-round picks those first three years fizzled out. Wright never got healthy. Swords averaged the lowest PPG of her career in her one year here, leaving for Vegas after that. Quinn is asst. coaching us now and Angel Robinson's been out of the League; so even though Quinn did very little for us in her second stint with the team as a player, I suppose one could argue we won that trade, if anyone...

The bigger/more involved the trades have gotten, the worse off we've done. (The trade to get Howard as we know ended up being pretty uninvolved with the whole pick-swapping rights thing going unexercised.) In trying to utilize as much historical evidence here as possible, that doesn't bode well for the trades we made in the past week – specifically the Howard trade & the #1-Pick trade. The jury's technically still out on last year's Tuck trade, but that of course isn't looking good either. Not to mention, the #7 Pick we could've had (Ty Harris) objectively-speaking had a better rookie year than the #6 we just traded for (Herbert Harrigan). Confused Again, other than getting Natasha Howard in 2018 (I wonder how much Hughes actually fought to keep Howard considering he was the one who really wanted her back in 2018), the quality of trades have seemed to be of the same poor quality. The common denominators are the GM and the longest-tenured player in the League, but the GM still takes responsibility for it all.



_________________
"It's not a game of 'how to', it's a game of 'when to.'" –Sue Bird, on basketball but probably also life
canadaball



Joined: 24 May 2013
Posts: 395



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/14/21 12:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stormeo wrote:
root_thing wrote:
As I’ve said before, I can’t imagine that Dan Hughes didn’t have a lot of input into these moves by the Storm. And there was likely some level of consent from Bird and Stewart. It comes down to whether you trust the coach and your two stars. It’s easy to be angry with a faceless bureaucrat – in this case, Alisha Valavanis – because it’s hard to blame the people you admire.
...
what we as WNBA fans think is not necessarily how others perceive these players.

Ultimately, it's the nature of the GM position to take the credit/blame for any move made. Other people (head coach, star player, owner, etc.) may have the 'final say', but the GM is in fact the face for who's making these transactions. They need to be able to own it. Good moves lead to good press & maybe a good reputation; bad moves lead to getting canned. In this case, the performance on the court has been exemplary for the past three years, so since no one was already calling for Hughes' head, there's not enough momentum for them to be doing it now along with Valavanis'. That's at least how I look at it all, even if it's admittedly on the black-and-white side.

If the GM is unable to put their foot down if the people around them are telling them to make a move the GM thinks is bad, then they're a token GM. Here though, Valavanis' trades were honestly bad consistently before Hughes got here in 2018. And Loyd & Stewart were too young to truly be in consultant roles their first couple years (and so hopefully weren't put in that position). The only other common denominator in Valavanis' early years with the team is Bird. So even if I spread a chunk of the blame on Bird, that's still just two people, where Valavanis basically gets to own those moves anyway.

2015:
Camille Little + Shekinna Stricklen to the Sun for the #3 (used on KML) + the #15 + Renee Montgomery.
The #15 we got from the Sun to the Mystics (where the pick was used on Natasha Cloud) for Quanitra Hollingsworth + the #20 (used on Vicky McIntyre [who?]).
Renee Montgomery + 2016 2RP to the Lynx (where the pick would become the #14 used on Jazmon Gwathmey, and then traded to the Stars for Jia Perkins straight-up) for an injured Monica Wright.

2016:
Rights to Angel Robinson to the Mercury for Noelle Quinn.

2017:
The #6 + #18 to the Mystics (where the picks were used on SWK and Jennie Simms, respectively) for the Liberty’s Carolyn Swords + the #15 (used on Alexis Peterson). Liberty got Bria Hartley + Kia Vaughn in the 3-team deal.

———

Montgomery was a vital piece of the Lynx's 2015 & 2017 title-winning teams. Stricklen as a starter helped the Sun appear in the 2019 Finals. Both Cloud developed & led the way for the 2019 title-winning Mystics as their starting PG; SWK did her part as a bench player in their rotation as well. Meanwhile, Hollingsworth and all our late-round picks those first three years fizzled out. Wright never got healthy. Swords averaged the lowest PPG of her career in her one year here, leaving for Vegas after that. Quinn is asst. coaching us now and Angel Robinson's been out of the League; so even though Quinn did very little for us in her second stint with the team as a player, I suppose one could argue we won that trade, if anyone...

The bigger/more involved the trades have gotten, the worse off we've done. (The trade to get Howard as we know ended up being pretty uninvolved with the whole pick-swapping rights thing going unexercised.) In trying to utilize as much historical evidence here as possible, that doesn't bode well for the trades we made in the past week – specifically the Howard trade & the #1-Pick trade. The jury's technically still out on last year's Tuck trade, but that of course isn't looking good either. Not to mention, the #7 Pick we could've had (Ty Harris) objectively-speaking had a better rookie year than the #6 we just traded for (Herbert Harrigan). Confused Again, other than getting Natasha Howard in 2018 (I wonder how much Hughes actually fought to keep Howard considering he was the one who really wanted her back in 2018), the quality of trades have seemed to be of the same poor quality. The common denominators are the GM and the longest-tenured player in the League, but the GM still takes responsibility for it all.


By narrowly constricting your points, this ia a misleading analysis. The acquisition of Howard (for basically nothing) is one of the all time great personnel moves in W history. How bout picking up Sami and Russell (both contributors in title runs) for free, when no one else wanted them? Even another freebie, Prince, helped in the 2020 title series. You think Ezi might be worth a bit more than last pick in first round? In fact, since Hughes' arrival, the Storm roster moves have been brilliant, which, of course, makes this week's decisions so (ahem) unusual.


craigmont



Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 670
Location: Bing-town


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/14/21 3:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

canadaball wrote:
Stormeo wrote:
root_thing wrote:
As I’ve said before, I can’t imagine that Dan Hughes didn’t have a lot of input into these moves by the Storm. And there was likely some level of consent from Bird and Stewart. It comes down to whether you trust the coach and your two stars. It’s easy to be angry with a faceless bureaucrat – in this case, Alisha Valavanis – because it’s hard to blame the people you admire.
...
what we as WNBA fans think is not necessarily how others perceive these players.

Ultimately, it's the nature of the GM position to take the credit/blame for any move made. Other people (head coach, star player, owner, etc.) may have the 'final say', but the GM is in fact the face for who's making these transactions. They need to be able to own it. Good moves lead to good press & maybe a good reputation; bad moves lead to getting canned. In this case, the performance on the court has been exemplary for the past three years, so since no one was already calling for Hughes' head, there's not enough momentum for them to be doing it now along with Valavanis'. That's at least how I look at it all, even if it's admittedly on the black-and-white side.

If the GM is unable to put their foot down if the people around them are telling them to make a move the GM thinks is bad, then they're a token GM. Here though, Valavanis' trades were honestly bad consistently before Hughes got here in 2018. And Loyd & Stewart were too young to truly be in consultant roles their first couple years (and so hopefully weren't put in that position). The only other common denominator in Valavanis' early years with the team is Bird. So even if I spread a chunk of the blame on Bird, that's still just two people, where Valavanis basically gets to own those moves anyway.

2015:
Camille Little + Shekinna Stricklen to the Sun for the #3 (used on KML) + the #15 + Renee Montgomery.
The #15 we got from the Sun to the Mystics (where the pick was used on Natasha Cloud) for Quanitra Hollingsworth + the #20 (used on Vicky McIntyre [who?]).
Renee Montgomery + 2016 2RP to the Lynx (where the pick would become the #14 used on Jazmon Gwathmey, and then traded to the Stars for Jia Perkins straight-up) for an injured Monica Wright.

2016:
Rights to Angel Robinson to the Mercury for Noelle Quinn.

2017:
The #6 + #18 to the Mystics (where the picks were used on SWK and Jennie Simms, respectively) for the Liberty’s Carolyn Swords + the #15 (used on Alexis Peterson). Liberty got Bria Hartley + Kia Vaughn in the 3-team deal.

———

Montgomery was a vital piece of the Lynx's 2015 & 2017 title-winning teams. Stricklen as a starter helped the Sun appear in the 2019 Finals. Both Cloud developed & led the way for the 2019 title-winning Mystics as their starting PG; SWK did her part as a bench player in their rotation as well. Meanwhile, Hollingsworth and all our late-round picks those first three years fizzled out. Wright never got healthy. Swords averaged the lowest PPG of her career in her one year here, leaving for Vegas after that. Quinn is asst. coaching us now and Angel Robinson's been out of the League; so even though Quinn did very little for us in her second stint with the team as a player, I suppose one could argue we won that trade, if anyone...

The bigger/more involved the trades have gotten, the worse off we've done. (The trade to get Howard as we know ended up being pretty uninvolved with the whole pick-swapping rights thing going unexercised.) In trying to utilize as much historical evidence here as possible, that doesn't bode well for the trades we made in the past week – specifically the Howard trade & the #1-Pick trade. The jury's technically still out on last year's Tuck trade, but that of course isn't looking good either. Not to mention, the #7 Pick we could've had (Ty Harris) objectively-speaking had a better rookie year than the #6 we just traded for (Herbert Harrigan). Confused Again, other than getting Natasha Howard in 2018 (I wonder how much Hughes actually fought to keep Howard considering he was the one who really wanted her back in 2018), the quality of trades have seemed to be of the same poor quality. The common denominators are the GM and the longest-tenured player in the League, but the GM still takes responsibility for it all.


By narrowly constricting your points, this ia a misleading analysis. The acquisition of Howard (for basically nothing) is one of the all time great personnel moves in W history. How bout picking up Sami and Russell (both contributors in title runs) for free, when no one else wanted them? Even another freebie, Prince, helped in the 2020 title series. You think Ezi might be worth a bit more than last pick in first round? In fact, since Hughes' arrival, the Storm roster moves have been brilliant, which, of course, makes this week's decisions so (ahem) unusual.


It's premature to judge these roster moves. With Howard, Whitcomb, Russell etc. we have the benefit of hindsight. They were not sure things.


Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 1744



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/14/21 4:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Has literally anything the Storm front office has done in twenty-one years, other than drafting Stewart, a "sure thing"? Even drafting Jackson and The Compiler could be argued wasn't a sure thing. Like, what are we doing here?



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
blaase22



Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 3883
Location: Paradise


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/14/21 5:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

canadaball wrote:
Stormeo wrote:
root_thing wrote:
As I’ve said before, I can’t imagine that Dan Hughes didn’t have a lot of input into these moves by the Storm. And there was likely some level of consent from Bird and Stewart. It comes down to whether you trust the coach and your two stars. It’s easy to be angry with a faceless bureaucrat – in this case, Alisha Valavanis – because it’s hard to blame the people you admire.
...
what we as WNBA fans think is not necessarily how others perceive these players.

Ultimately, it's the nature of the GM position to take the credit/blame for any move made. Other people (head coach, star player, owner, etc.) may have the 'final say', but the GM is in fact the face for who's making these transactions. They need to be able to own it. Good moves lead to good press & maybe a good reputation; bad moves lead to getting canned. In this case, the performance on the court has been exemplary for the past three years, so since no one was already calling for Hughes' head, there's not enough momentum for them to be doing it now along with Valavanis'. That's at least how I look at it all, even if it's admittedly on the black-and-white side.

If the GM is unable to put their foot down if the people around them are telling them to make a move the GM thinks is bad, then they're a token GM. Here though, Valavanis' trades were honestly bad consistently before Hughes got here in 2018. And Loyd & Stewart were too young to truly be in consultant roles their first couple years (and so hopefully weren't put in that position). The only other common denominator in Valavanis' early years with the team is Bird. So even if I spread a chunk of the blame on Bird, that's still just two people, where Valavanis basically gets to own those moves anyway.

2015:
Camille Little + Shekinna Stricklen to the Sun for the #3 (used on KML) + the #15 + Renee Montgomery.
The #15 we got from the Sun to the Mystics (where the pick was used on Natasha Cloud) for Quanitra Hollingsworth + the #20 (used on Vicky McIntyre [who?]).
Renee Montgomery + 2016 2RP to the Lynx (where the pick would become the #14 used on Jazmon Gwathmey, and then traded to the Stars for Jia Perkins straight-up) for an injured Monica Wright.

2016:
Rights to Angel Robinson to the Mercury for Noelle Quinn.

2017:
The #6 + #18 to the Mystics (where the picks were used on SWK and Jennie Simms, respectively) for the Liberty’s Carolyn Swords + the #15 (used on Alexis Peterson). Liberty got Bria Hartley + Kia Vaughn in the 3-team deal.

———

Montgomery was a vital piece of the Lynx's 2015 & 2017 title-winning teams. Stricklen as a starter helped the Sun appear in the 2019 Finals. Both Cloud developed & led the way for the 2019 title-winning Mystics as their starting PG; SWK did her part as a bench player in their rotation as well. Meanwhile, Hollingsworth and all our late-round picks those first three years fizzled out. Wright never got healthy. Swords averaged the lowest PPG of her career in her one year here, leaving for Vegas after that. Quinn is asst. coaching us now and Angel Robinson's been out of the League; so even though Quinn did very little for us in her second stint with the team as a player, I suppose one could argue we won that trade, if anyone...

The bigger/more involved the trades have gotten, the worse off we've done. (The trade to get Howard as we know ended up being pretty uninvolved with the whole pick-swapping rights thing going unexercised.) In trying to utilize as much historical evidence here as possible, that doesn't bode well for the trades we made in the past week – specifically the Howard trade & the #1-Pick trade. The jury's technically still out on last year's Tuck trade, but that of course isn't looking good either. Not to mention, the #7 Pick we could've had (Ty Harris) objectively-speaking had a better rookie year than the #6 we just traded for (Herbert Harrigan). Confused Again, other than getting Natasha Howard in 2018 (I wonder how much Hughes actually fought to keep Howard considering he was the one who really wanted her back in 2018), the quality of trades have seemed to be of the same poor quality. The common denominators are the GM and the longest-tenured player in the League, but the GM still takes responsibility for it all.


By narrowly constricting your points, this ia a misleading analysis. The acquisition of Howard (for basically nothing) is one of the all time great personnel moves in W history. How bout picking up Sami and Russell (both contributors in title runs) for free, when no one else wanted them? Even another freebie, Prince, helped in the 2020 title series. You think Ezi might be worth a bit more than last pick in first round? In fact, since Hughes' arrival, the Storm roster moves have been brilliant, which, of course, makes this week's decisions so (ahem) unusual.


Storm might have run out of lucky charms.


craigmont



Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 670
Location: Bing-town


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/14/21 11:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Silky Johnson wrote:
Has literally anything the Storm front office has done in twenty-one years, other than drafting Stewart, a "sure thing"? Even drafting Jackson and The Compiler could be argued wasn't a sure thing. Like, what are we doing here?


My point was that some moves were being judged based on how they worked out rather than how they appeared at the time.


root_thing



Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 6259
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/15/21 12:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stormeo wrote:

Ultimately, it's the nature of the GM position to take the credit/blame for any move made. Other people (head coach, star player, owner, etc.) may have the 'final say', but the GM is in fact the face for who's making these transactions. They need to be able to own it. Good moves lead to good press & maybe a good reputation; bad moves lead to getting canned. In this case, the performance on the court has been exemplary for the past three years, so since no one was already calling for Hughes' head, there's not enough momentum for them to be doing it now along with Valavanis'. That's at least how I look at it all, even if it's admittedly on the black-and-white side.

If the GM is unable to put their foot down if the people around them are telling them to make a move the GM thinks is bad, then they're a token GM. Here though, Valavanis' trades were honestly bad consistently before Hughes got here in 2018. And Loyd & Stewart were too young to truly be in consultant roles their first couple years (and so hopefully weren't put in that position). The only other common denominator in Valavanis' early years with the team is Bird. So even if I spread a chunk of the blame on Bird, that's still just two people, where Valavanis basically gets to own those moves anyway.


I was commenting on this year only. If you want to blame Valavanis for moves in the past, be my guest -- although I think Canadaball makes some good counterpoints. The thing I would emphasize is that power relationships change depending on the characters involved. When Valavanis was hired with Jenny Boucek in 2015, neither was a proven "name" in their field. So, it would be proper to assume that Valavanis as GM was the boss. She probably had the most say in player moves. However, once Dan Hughes took over as coach, things likely changed. Hughes already had a long, mostly successful career as a coach. Since then, he has technically added two championships in Seattle (the last one coached by Kloppenburg). I'm guessing Valavanis has a lot more respect and is much more deferential to him than she was to Boucek. However, if push came to shove, in a showdown between Hughes and Valavanis would ownership chose him or her? I'm guessing him. Similarly, Brianna Stewart has now achieved superstar status. Again, in a showdown, who would ownership side with? I'm not suggesting that there actually is a behind the scenes power struggle going on. I'm just saying that it would be foolish for Valavanis to not heed advice from Hughes and Stewart -- both from a basketball point of view and from a survival point of view. And with a significant makeover of the team, I can't believe that Hughes, Stewart, and Sue Bird as well, didn't offer a lot of advice.



_________________
Aside from separately going on trial for murder and treason, Aaron Burr seemed like a pretty nice guy.
Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 2229
Location: Seattle, WA


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/15/21 6:02 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

root_thing wrote:
I was commenting on this year only.

Ahh, gotcha...

canadaball wrote:
By narrowly constricting your points, this is a misleading analysis. The acquisition of Howard (for basically nothing) is one of the all time great personnel moves in W history. How bout picking up Sami and Russell (both contributors in title runs) for free, when no one else wanted them? Even another freebie, Prince, helped in the 2020 title series. You think Ezi might be worth a bit more than last pick in first round? In fact, since Hughes' arrival, the Storm roster moves have been brilliant, which, of course, makes this week's decisions so (ahem) unusual.


What you're saying only highlights all the good moves that directly led to our championships, so under that logic, you may as well trust that this past week’s moves will work out instead of finding them unusual. But anyway, if y’all find what I wrote above to be misleading, then I will give you my full analysis of how I see things, as objectively as possible (which isn’t too much of the time, admittedly) – even if you find it more misleading. Laughing

———

Hughes said he wanted Howard after seeing her sit behind good players in Minnesota, which is why I’ll give him more of the credit at least for the act of us going after her in the first place. We were able to get her in large part because Cheryl Reeve didn’t see value in her the way he did. As good a GM as she usually is, that was one of the very few deals where everyone can now agree she got fleeced (and she still perhaps unfairly gets hammered on here to this day). But if anything, considering the terms of that deal (which is likely where Valavanis comes in), it could’ve worked out terribly if we hadn’t finished above Minnesota (I don’t think many people were anticipating that at the time of the trade). Seemed riskier than it needed to be, though at least it more than paid off. But even one fabulous trade, while it should absolutely be highlighted when talking about how we’ve won multiple titles the past few years, shouldn’t erase the other trades that have basically all been duds as it relates to doing a postmortem on how we got to the state of the team now in the wake of last week's trades.

The 2015 hard-reset trade with Connecticut was ultimately fine & understandable at the time – but it still didn't work out. Ditto the Hollingsworth trade. Trading Montgomery who was doing well off the bench midseason for an injured Wright (with a knee issue, no less) did feel unwise at the time. The Swords trade at the time for less obvious reasons also felt unwise: Even though the 2017 Draft was considered weak (like 2021’s, hmm), we had a top-half pick that still would’ve come with 4 years of control, while in the midst of rebuilding. We traded for one year of Swords who was putting up very modest numbers as a very specific role player for New York, and had been consistently doing that her whole career. I don’t know what we were expecting when we got her, cuz then she proceeded to have an even quieter year, and of course subsequently left when her contract was up. Now let's fast-forward a few years to 2020, where we traded back in the Draft and got a last-one-off-the-bench in Tuck in the process. And no matter what one thinks of drafting a deferral pick, Laksa is a curious choice considering she’s older and apparently wasn’t putting up great numbers overseas at the time, in the wake of healing from a devastating ACL injury. There were healthier, younger options to use as deferral picks (the German players who got drafted later on, for example). Though we'll see just how far Laksa makes it, now won't we.

In terms of Valavanis' total signings, I'll start off by saying I don’t think highly of Prince, since she had done very little for us before her one or two great playoff games. I also didn't see her path to getting good minutes at the time of the signing. Now, she’s one year older & is set to have a bigger role, but with less talent around her – an unstable combination of circumstances. Anyway, similarly to Howard: yes, Russell & Whitcomb were indeed underrated pickups. Though that, as it relates to the here & now, shouldn’t erase the many signings before and after them that were duds – Bishop, Tokashiki, Gatling, K. Thomas, Paris, Zellous, Dietrick. There are enough of them to where it makes me at least wonder how much the pickups of Russell & Whitcomb could be more attributed to sheer luck rather than Valavanis having a legitimate hunch they’d become valuable.

Same deal with the Draft picks. Besides the ones who were obvious choices (the #1s, especially Stewart), there are more than enough bad ones to where I wonder how much of the good ones were more luck than anything as well. The bad ones: KML (who everyone knew would be a one-trick pony no matter how successful she were to get), and all 10 of the 2nd & 3rd round picks we’ve drafted since 2015 (you’d think one of them would’ve stuck, like, while we were still rebuilding or something). The good ones: Magbegor and Canada (although Canada will need to be able to hit her jump shots whenever she takes over Birdy's starting spot).

If nothing else, I will give Valavanis credit for hiring Hughes. This ended up being the right situation for him after many forgettable years in San Antonio. But as it relates to the recent trades, to me they all felt like trades that Valavanis herself came up with – or at the very least readily approved. I can understand passing around the credit/blame to the coach (especially given he was a former GM himself) or the star players, since no doubt they have a say on things at this point. But since I already wasn’t expecting much from Valavanis as illustrated, that’s why I place the bulk of the criticism on her. To me, there is this consistency to the moves made while she has been GM, in a “once in a while, a good acquisition happens to carry us through the numerous bad ones” kind of way. Do these good ones happen out of luck or calculated skill? It’s probably a combination of both; I say more luck than skill (especially considering the timing of when we've won our #1 Picks, never mind us winning them in the first place), but that’s just me – by now, you know how glass-half-empty I tend to run. And no matter what I think of our GM, she gets to take the credit for being the “roster architect” that put together our previous successful contending teams – that's something I'm still having to accept. Laughing


TL;DR – the trading has been bad overall before & after hiring Hughes, the signings & drafting while not as bad as the trading have still been mostly spotty, but she got us the right coach & we got lucky with our #1s so she has rings herself anyway.



_________________
"It's not a game of 'how to', it's a game of 'when to.'" –Sue Bird, on basketball but probably also life
root_thing



Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 6259
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/15/21 11:32 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stormeo, judging from the volume you've written, it must be cathartic to get this all off your chest. Wink



_________________
Aside from separately going on trial for murder and treason, Aaron Burr seemed like a pretty nice guy.
Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 2229
Location: Seattle, WA


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/15/21 1:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

root_thing wrote:
Stormeo, judging from the volume you've written, it must be cathartic to get this all off your chest. Wink

Embarassed I have a lot of opinions about my teams at all times, I just don't necessarily express all of them all in one go until the opportunity presents itself. Even then, for me, there's always more to say...


Sorry for hijacking this thread into all things Storm. Laughing I'll pivot a bit here by saying, what Phoenix gave up vs. what they received is low-key bad imo. Is this another team that has all of a sudden developed a UConn-player fascination? (We should give this "UConn-player fascination syndrome" a proper moniker of some sort.) Phoenix gave up two significant future assets for two players that had horrible seasons last year and, while there's every indication that both their 2021 seasons will be better, they still may not be good enough to validate doing this deal (particularly Walker's). I can understand not valuing this year's 1RP, but next year's too? Shocked

Too, Nurse is due for a new contract after 2021. If she does have a good year, she might command a higher salary elsewhere since Phoenix as of right now still have the pricey contracts of DT, BG, SDS, and Hartley on the books through 2022. And if Nurse doesn't have a good year, well then, was this trade really worth it?



_________________
"It's not a game of 'how to', it's a game of 'when to.'" –Sue Bird, on basketball but probably also life
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10738



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/15/21 2:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stormeo wrote:
root_thing wrote:
Stormeo, judging from the volume you've written, it must be cathartic to get this all off your chest. Wink

Embarassed I have a lot of opinions about my teams at all times, I just don't necessarily express all of them all in one go until the opportunity presents itself. Even then, for me, there's always more to say...


Sorry for hijacking this thread into all things Storm. Laughing I'll pivot a bit here by saying, what Phoenix gave up vs. what they received is low-key bad imo. Is this another team that has all of a sudden developed a UConn-player fascination? (We should give this "UConn-player fascination syndrome" a proper moniker of some sort.) Phoenix gave up two significant future assets for two players that had horrible seasons last year and, while there's every indication that both their 2021 seasons will be better, they still may not be good enough to validate doing this deal (particularly Walker's). I can understand not valuing this year's 1RP, but next year's too? Shocked

Too, Nurse is due for a new contract after 2021. If she does have a good year, she might command a higher salary elsewhere since Phoenix as of right now still have the pricey contracts of DT, BG, SDS, and Hartley on the books through 2022. And if Nurse doesn't have a good year, well then, was this trade really worth it?


If Phoenix wins the title, it's worth it. If the Mercury get to the Finals, it's probably worth it.

Otherwise, I agree -- this deal will look worse every year.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
J-Spoon



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 5947



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/15/21 2:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stormeo wrote:
root_thing wrote:
Stormeo, judging from the volume you've written, it must be cathartic to get this all off your chest. Wink

Embarassed I have a lot of opinions about my teams at all times, I just don't necessarily express all of them all in one go until the opportunity presents itself. Even then, for me, there's always more to say...


Sorry for hijacking this thread into all things Storm. Laughing I'll pivot a bit here by saying, what Phoenix gave up vs. what they received is low-key bad imo. Is this another team that has all of a sudden developed a UConn-player fascination? (We should give this "UConn-player fascination syndrome" a proper moniker of some sort.) Phoenix gave up two significant future assets for two players that had horrible seasons last year and, while there's every indication that both their 2021 seasons will be better, they still may not be good enough to validate doing this deal (particularly Walker's). I can understand not valuing this year's 1RP, but next year's too? Shocked

Too, Nurse is due for a new contract after 2021. If she does have a good year, she might command a higher salary elsewhere since Phoenix as of right now still have the pricey contracts of DT, BG, SDS, and Hartley on the books through 2022. And if Nurse doesn't have a good year, well then, was this trade really worth it?


I actually think if Walker had stayed at UConn she probably would be in the conversation for a first round pick maybe even lottery (Yes her minutes might have been impacted by the arrival of Buekers and Westbrook but Walker was on a continual upward trajectory in her years at UConn). The future pick is where it gets tricky if PX finishes top 5 it probably isn't that bad of a move. Nurse is a lot better than how she performed last year and when surrounded by better talent which she will be in PX will probably be a very useful addition to PX, but if PX has a couple of injuries and ends up 7 8 or in the lottery than yes giving up the future first was a huge mistake. Also if Burse plays great and PX can't afford her after the following season that might be a downer but as a RFA they could probably benefit from a great season by Nurse whether it is through matching or trade. OK, yeah risky but I won't say bad yet.


Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 2229
Location: Seattle, WA


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/15/21 4:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

J-Spoon wrote:
I actually think if Walker had stayed at UConn she probably would be in the conversation for a first round pick maybe even lottery (Yes her minutes might have been impacted by the arrival of Bueckers and Westbrook but Walker was on a continual upward trajectory in her years at UConn). The future pick is where it gets tricky if PX finishes top 5 it probably isn't that bad of a move. Nurse is a lot better than how she performed last year and when surrounded by better talent which she will be in PX will probably be a very useful addition to PX, but if PX has a couple of injuries and ends up 7 8 or in the lottery than yes giving up the future first was a huge mistake.

I think Walker wisely cashed in on her junior season by early-declaring. She put up numbers that I really don't think she would've replicated in a senior season, particularly because she doesn't have that take-over-a-game instinct. To me, she simply made the most out of her opportunity of being a go-to player that year, and would've regressed & become a Christyn Williams-like wallflower this year with the arrival of Bueckers & Westbrook.

J-Spoon wrote:
Also if Burse plays great and PX can't afford her after the following season that might be a downer but as a RFA they could probably benefit from a great season by Nurse whether it is through matching or trade. OK, yeah risky but I won't say bad yet.

For a second there, I was reminded of Ja— you know what, I'm not in the mood to revisit her here on this day. Mr. Green



_________________
"It's not a game of 'how to', it's a game of 'when to.'" –Sue Bird, on basketball but probably also life
TotalCardinalMove



Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1255



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/15/21 4:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Plus, who is to say DT doesn’t retire after this season? Sure she signed for 2 years, but her health these days is always a question mark.


craigmont



Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 670
Location: Bing-town


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/15/21 6:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stormeo wrote:
root_thing wrote:
I was commenting on this year only.

Ahh, gotcha...

canadaball wrote:
By narrowly constricting your points, this is a misleading analysis. The acquisition of Howard (for basically nothing) is one of the all time great personnel moves in W history. How bout picking up Sami and Russell (both contributors in title runs) for free, when no one else wanted them? Even another freebie, Prince, helped in the 2020 title series. You think Ezi might be worth a bit more than last pick in first round? In fact, since Hughes' arrival, the Storm roster moves have been brilliant, which, of course, makes this week's decisions so (ahem) unusual.


What you're saying only highlights all the good moves that directly led to our championships, so under that logic, you may as well trust that this past week’s moves will work out instead of finding them unusual. But anyway, if y’all find what I wrote above to be misleading, then I will give you my full analysis of how I see things, as objectively as possible (which isn’t too much of the time, admittedly) – even if you find it more misleading. Laughing

———

Hughes said he wanted Howard after seeing her sit behind good players in Minnesota, which is why I’ll give him more of the credit at least for the act of us going after her in the first place. We were able to get her in large part because Cheryl Reeve didn’t see value in her the way he did. As good a GM as she usually is, that was one of the very few deals where everyone can now agree she got fleeced (and she still perhaps unfairly gets hammered on here to this day). But if anything, considering the terms of that deal (which is likely where Valavanis comes in), it could’ve worked out terribly if we hadn’t finished above Minnesota (I don’t think many people were anticipating that at the time of the trade). Seemed riskier than it needed to be, though at least it more than paid off. But even one fabulous trade, while it should absolutely be highlighted when talking about how we’ve won multiple titles the past few years, shouldn’t erase the other trades that have basically all been duds as it relates to doing a postmortem on how we got to the state of the team now in the wake of last week's trades.

The 2015 hard-reset trade with Connecticut was ultimately fine & understandable at the time – but it still didn't work out. Ditto the Hollingsworth trade. Trading Montgomery who was doing well off the bench midseason for an injured Wright (with a knee issue, no less) did feel unwise at the time. The Swords trade at the time for less obvious reasons also felt unwise: Even though the 2017 Draft was considered weak (like 2021’s, hmm), we had a top-half pick that still would’ve come with 4 years of control, while in the midst of rebuilding. We traded for one year of Swords who was putting up very modest numbers as a very specific role player for New York, and had been consistently doing that her whole career. I don’t know what we were expecting when we got her, cuz then she proceeded to have an even quieter year, and of course subsequently left when her contract was up. Now let's fast-forward a few years to 2020, where we traded back in the Draft and got a last-one-off-the-bench in Tuck in the process. And no matter what one thinks of drafting a deferral pick, Laksa is a curious choice considering she’s older and apparently wasn’t putting up great numbers overseas at the time, in the wake of healing from a devastating ACL injury. There were healthier, younger options to use as deferral picks (the German players who got drafted later on, for example). Though we'll see just how far Laksa makes it, now won't we.

In terms of Valavanis' total signings, I'll start off by saying I don’t think highly of Prince, since she had done very little for us before her one or two great playoff games. I also didn't see her path to getting good minutes at the time of the signing. Now, she’s one year older & is set to have a bigger role, but with less talent around her – an unstable combination of circumstances. Anyway, similarly to Howard: yes, Russell & Whitcomb were indeed underrated pickups. Though that, as it relates to the here & now, shouldn’t erase the many signings before and after them that were duds – Bishop, Tokashiki, Gatling, K. Thomas, Paris, Zellous, Dietrick. There are enough of them to where it makes me at least wonder how much the pickups of Russell & Whitcomb could be more attributed to sheer luck rather than Valavanis having a legitimate hunch they’d become valuable.

Same deal with the Draft picks. Besides the ones who were obvious choices (the #1s, especially Stewart), there are more than enough bad ones to where I wonder how much of the good ones were more luck than anything as well. The bad ones: KML (who everyone knew would be a one-trick pony no matter how successful she were to get), and all 10 of the 2nd & 3rd round picks we’ve drafted since 2015 (you’d think one of them would’ve stuck, like, while we were still rebuilding or something). The good ones: Magbegor and Canada (although Canada will need to be able to hit her jump shots whenever she takes over Birdy's starting spot).

If nothing else, I will give Valavanis credit for hiring Hughes. This ended up being the right situation for him after many forgettable years in San Antonio. But as it relates to the recent trades, to me they all felt like trades that Valavanis herself came up with – or at the very least readily approved. I can understand passing around the credit/blame to the coach (especially given he was a former GM himself) or the star players, since no doubt they have a say on things at this point. But since I already wasn’t expecting much from Valavanis as illustrated, that’s why I place the bulk of the criticism on her. To me, there is this consistency to the moves made while she has been GM, in a “once in a while, a good acquisition happens to carry us through the numerous bad ones” kind of way. Do these good ones happen out of luck or calculated skill? It’s probably a combination of both; I say more luck than skill (especially considering the timing of when we've won our #1 Picks, never mind us winning them in the first place), but that’s just me – by now, you know how glass-half-empty I tend to run. And no matter what I think of our GM, she gets to take the credit for being the “roster architect” that put together our previous successful contending teams – that's something I'm still having to accept. Laughing


TL;DR – the trading has been bad overall before & after hiring Hughes, the signings & drafting while not as bad as the trading have still been mostly spotty, but she got us the right coach & we got lucky with our #1s so she has rings herself anyway.


Couldn't you do this with every team though? Trades that don't go well, draft picks and FA signings that don't make the team?

Of course the franchise has been lucky in the lottery with 4 #1 picks in years where there was an obvious #1. I don't have a strong opinion either way on Valavanis, but I think your logic is selective and retroactive. We don't know how the team makes its personnel decisions, but you give her no credit when things go well and all the blame when they don't.


bcdawg04



Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Posts: 412
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/15/21 8:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If I'm not mistaken, the Storm have won the draft lottery 3 times.

We were, of course, the first beneficiary of the lottery rule change to base the odds on the 2-year records.

Valavanis has made decisions that I liked and she has made decisions that I did not agree with or like. Storm fans have been very fortunate. It may be fair to say that we have been spoiled. This business of free agents wanting to leave Seattle just because is pretty new to us. Valavanis isn't faceless or anonymous to season ticket holders, but I think for a lot of Storm fans it is easier to blame her for losing Clark and Howard rather than believing that Clark and Howard just wanted to leave.

I'm still disappointed that we flipped the #1 pick, but Samuelson will have my support. Any player who puts on the Storm jersey, as long as she is a good teammate and a good citizen, has my support. I won't write Valavanis off either, as long as she keeps Sue happy and she keeps Stewie happy.


PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 15541
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/15/21 8:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

bcdawg04 wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, the Storm have won the draft lottery 3 times.


That's right. They got Jackson just from having the worst record the year before.


Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 2229
Location: Seattle, WA


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/16/21 5:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

craigmont wrote:
Couldn't you do this with every team though? Trades that don't go well, draft picks and FA signings that don't make the team?

Of course the franchise has been lucky in the lottery with 4 #1 picks in years where there was an obvious #1. I don't have a strong opinion either way on Valavanis, but I think your logic is selective and retroactive. We don't know how the team makes its personnel decisions, but you give her no credit when things go well and all the blame when they don't.


You're not wrong. Guess that makes me just a typical sports fan. Laughing This franchise has had so much luck on its side (and not just luck with getting player talent), that I just feel like it should've made making good personnel decisions a lot easier. As for being selective/retroactive, I'm just offering perspective as to why that #1-Pick trade that all of us Storm fans were dismayed by was made. I genuinely tried being objective about everything with both when it happened & how it aged, but much of it was still under my emotional lens. As shocking as the move itself was (because who would've known that we, the defending champs, would actually possess the #1 Pick this year?), the pure atrocity of that type of move didn't come out of thin air for me. But anyway, I think I only got started on these tangents cuz of a misunderstanding over what root said, so it's probably best that I quit my yappin'. Razz Now that we're stuck with her, I hope Peanuts turns herself into a whole-ass garden. If there's any team with the combination of opportunity, talent, and cultural stability to help support her in those efforts, it really is this one.



_________________
"It's not a game of 'how to', it's a game of 'when to.'" –Sue Bird, on basketball but probably also life
canadaball



Joined: 24 May 2013
Posts: 395



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/17/21 6:33 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stormeo wrote:
craigmont wrote:
Couldn't you do this with every team though? Trades that don't go well, draft picks and FA signings that don't make the team?

Of course the franchise has been lucky in the lottery with 4 #1 picks in years where there was an obvious #1. I don't have a strong opinion either way on Valavanis, but I think your logic is selective and retroactive. We don't know how the team makes its personnel decisions, but you give her no credit when things go well and all the blame when they don't.


You're not wrong. Guess that makes me just a typical sports fan. Laughing This franchise has had so much luck on its side (and not just luck with getting player talent), that I just feel like it should've made making good personnel decisions a lot easier. As for being selective/retroactive, I'm just offering perspective as to why that #1-Pick trade that all of us Storm fans were dismayed by was made. I genuinely tried being objective about everything with both when it happened & how it aged, but much of it was still under my emotional lens. As shocking as the move itself was (because who would've known that we, the defending champs, would actually possess the #1 Pick this year?), the pure atrocity of that type of move didn't come out of thin air for me. But anyway, I think I only got started on these tangents cuz of a misunderstanding over what root said, so it's probably best that I quit my yappin'. Razz Now that we're stuck with her, I hope Peanuts turns herself into a whole-ass garden. If there's any team with the combination of opportunity, talent, and cultural stability to help support her in those efforts, it really is this one.


If u want to cheer up a bit, look at 21 year old Ezi, drafted as last pick in first round 2 years ago. No doubt that she would be the clear #1 pick in this year's weak draft, but would be that high in several other stronger years. This kind of great move means the Seattle GM deserves some room to wait and see what happens with Samuelson (tho I share your skepticism).
On a related topic, I do not think the Olympics will have any effect upon Aussie players in the WNBA. Brondello, national team coach, is in Phx, and Australia has instituted extreme viral precautions, both of which lead me to suspect that the Opals pre-Tokyo preparations could easily be centered in the USA.


Force10rulz



Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Posts: 1949
Location: Puget Sound


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/17/21 1:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

bcdawg04 wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, the Storm have won the draft lottery 3 times.

We were, of course, the first beneficiary of the lottery rule change to base the odds on the 2-year records.

Valavanis has made decisions that I liked and she has made decisions that I did not agree with or like. Storm fans have been very fortunate. It may be fair to say that we have been spoiled. This business of free agents wanting to leave Seattle just because is pretty new to us. Valavanis isn't faceless or anonymous to season ticket holders, but I think for a lot of Storm fans it is easier to blame her for losing Clark and Howard rather than believing that Clark and Howard just wanted to leave.

I'm still disappointed that we flipped the #1 pick, but Samuelson will have my support. Any player who puts on the Storm jersey, as long as she is a good teammate and a good citizen, has my support. I won't write Valavanis off either, as long as she keeps Sue happy and she keeps Stewie happy.


I admit I was not happy, but We have been lucky, there are many teams that haven’t even won their first ship. We have four, we are spoiled and I hope we continue to be spoiled. At least I like the Liberty and Mystics, so I’m glad Alysha and Natasha are on teams I can root for. Like you said if they are in a Storm uni I’m going to suppor them.



_________________
Seattle Storm 3 times Champions
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin