I don't want to make another post that speculates about who the quick chat targets are, or who they aren't, but rather I wanted to check out the rational behind making a deal before the break, and not making a deal.
Regarding a trade, there are a few theoreticals that we would have to get out of the way, such as who we're giving up and who is coming in. Obviously, if LBJ is getting sent over, you do the deal no matter how you feel about midseason deals, but that's not what I'm getting at. Let's assume it's an acceptable deal that makes the team better in the short term, doesn't sacrifice their long term potential, and fits the opposing team's needs as well (which will probably be cap relief and a couple nice, young players).
I've seen several of these acceptable-level deals that have been suggested on this, but there are still quite a few folks out there who seems to be really insistent on not making a deal and getting the cap space. The thing I don't understand, is how this approach is categorically better than making a deal?
By passing up an offer that fits the scenario above (good for me, good for you) in order to be a player in free agency, isn't that simply rolling the dice, getting a 4, and deciding that you'd rather roll again than keep the 4? There is no guarantee anything better is going to come up, and if you consider the odds of rolling higher than a 4 (read: upper level SF), the smart money is on taking the play when available. Poker Heads should get this "play the odds" mentality.
At least with a trade, we'll know who is coming in and who is going out. There's no guarantee that anything productive is going to come out of free agency.
This is how I look at the whole situation. Am I wrong? When I say that I don't understand why free agency is a better approach, I'm not belittling it by saying the argument sucks, but rather, I truly don't understand it and want someone to explain it to me.
Holler at the poll and explain why you voted like you did.