Thursday, August 20, 2009
Mike: Okay, so what if I don't want to give up on her?
Rob: You don't call.
Mike: But you said I don't call if I wanted to give up on her.
Mike: So I don't call either way?
Mike: So what's the difference?
Rob: There is no difference right now. See, Mike, the only difference between giving up and not giving up is if you take her back when she wants to come back. But you can't do anything to make her want to come back. In fact, you can only do stuff to make her not want to come back.
Mike: So the only difference is if I forget about her or just pretend to forget about her?
Mike: Well that sucks.
Rob: Yeah, it sucks.
Mike: So it's just like a retroactive decision, then? I mean I could, like, forget about her and then when she comes back make like I just pretended to forget about her?
Rob: Right. Although probably more likely the opposite.
Mike: What do you mean?
Rob: I mean at first you're going to pretend to forget about her, you'll not call her, I don't know, whatever... but then eventually, you really will forget about her.
Mike: Well what if she comes back first?
Rob: Mmmm... see, that's the thing, is somehow they know not to come back until you really forget.
Mike: There's the rub.
Rob: There's the rub.
-Swingers, 1996 (Thanks, IMDB!)
Watched pots and boiling.
Hitting the button on the elevator sixteen times to try and hurry things along.
Checking online and email every day to see if Joe Smith signed with the Hawks.
Now, if this were like waiting for someone to show up or waiting for my food at a restaurant, I would simply slip off to the bathroom, thereby guaranteeing an immediate arrival of the that which I was waiting for previously.
If I were a betting man (Note: World's Worst Gambler. Seriously--like bet against the Globetrotters bad), I would be thinking that maybe the Hawks organization was writing the contract with a hammer and chisel and waiting for Moses to come down from the mountain with the terms etched in stone.
Still, you have to believe Sekou Smith when he writes that it's just a matter of when, not if, Joe Smith signs. Don't you?
When the news first broke (Actually, breaking may be too strong a word. Maybe drifted in is a more appropriate term) from ESPN's Ric Bucher, we at the HHB immediately stepped into the Cynical Chamber of Wisdom and emerged with visions of a plot by Smith's reps to leak the terms to the other teams in the league, via the media, to let folks know that their client was about to take the veteran minimum in case some other team wanted to chime in and up the ante.
The terms do seem a little low for Smith, considering others in his production bracket scored more loot from teams this offseason and the Hawks certainly wouldn't leak a perceived bargain out before a deal was done. But, so far, no takers---but no signed contract either.
So, in the end if Smith signs, we're left with two feelings:
1. What a good deal by Rick Sund, scoring the guy they wanted for the vet minimum.
2. Why isn't anybody paying more than the vet minimum for him?
As others "race" to get their two cents in on this roster happening, Mark Bradley shamefully parrots Bret's Hoopinion piece regarding the actual impact this player might have. (Note: We are not seriously indicting a man who links the HHB in his AJC.com Blog. No sir. No way.)
We are still optimistic that this will have a positive effect, though we admit it's little more than a placebo potentially at this point given those darn statistics.
We'll hold off on a full blown "Smith Signs" piece until the deal is actually done. Ha. We'll not be the ones that people shake their internetty fingers at and say, "But he's not signed!" We'll let others make that ghastly mistake.
Last Sidenote: We have been talking about this particular--umm--chase--since the last week of July. Too long! Get it done already, Moses and let's get on with the pan-in-the-face boredom that is summertime in the NBA offseason.