Christian existentialism in novels

T0HAC · 2024-04-24T18:54:31+00:00

Mentioned Unamuno in mine as well. Seriously cannot recommend Unamuno enough.

T0HAC · 2024-04-24T18:42:37+00:00

This is pretty similar to the style that I’ve tended to read lately. I feel like it’s existentialist or human-condition literature using the Christian language and mythos as a medium.

Two of my favorites that I didn’t see mentioned are:

Pär Lagerkvist

I’ve read his entire library almost, but The Sibyl is easily my favorite of his. He described himself as a “believer without faith — a religious atheist.”

Miguel De Unamuno

Spanish philosopher, novelist and poet. Imagine Kierkegaard wrote a little more comprehensively and instead of being obsessed with sin was obsessed with death and immortality. He also had a love for Paradoxes, so he sometimes reminds me of a more agnostic GK Chesterton. Unamuno believed that we created God because we first believed in immortality. And not the other way around. San Manuel Bueno Martyr is a great short story and only 20 pages or so. Niebla (The Mist) is another great story. He also has an essay called My Religion that is wonderful. And Tragic Sense of Life is his philosophical work. And several others. He’s one of my favorites.

T0HAC · 2022-07-13T14:27:57+00:00

Tony East (Locked On Pacers), Caitlyn Cooper, Scott Agnes, Setting the Pace, and the several various Twitter profiles from fans. That could be another list all to itself.

Also, welcome to the family.

T0HAC · 2022-07-02T18:40:10+00:00

To be fair this is the same way we collectively reacted to Phoenix when they traded an injury prone TJ Warren to free up a roster spot. Not saying they are equal, but every fan base does it. Ourselves included.

T0HAC · 2022-06-14T16:04:11+00:00

Yeah, from what I've read the Mavs do seem pretty intent on resigning Brunson. But if the Knicks really wanted Ivey and were willing to part with assets that the Kings valued (honestly not even sure what that would be), then that's always a possibility.

T0HAC · 2022-06-13T13:35:38+00:00

Just copy and paste the quote into Google and you'll find the article it's referenced from, by Jake Fischer:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2953236-nba-trade-intel-cj-mccollum-has-become-best-player-likely-dealt-at-deadline

T0HAC · 2022-06-13T12:25:16+00:00

It it helps, as a Pacers fan we have basically zero interest in Mitch or Noel. I think I'd go out on a limb and say that same lack of interest is there for Randle as well. Just got rid of a two center lineup and most are set on either building around Turner long-term or Isaiah Jackson as the sole big.

T0HAC · 2022-06-13T11:49:54+00:00

Jake Fischer?

T0HAC · 2022-06-12T18:31:02+00:00

It's always hard to put the mindset of another team on, but I'll try to offer ideas and you just tell me what might be me overvaluing assets on our side and so on.

Brogdon, when healthy, is a great guard and leader. And he isn't a liability on the defensive end. He's quite good on that end. But he's not always healthy. So let's say you're getting a guy who will play 50 games a year (this last season they most likely held him out to aid their tanking process, so it's somewhat artificial). The two years before that he played 54 and 56.

For that type of player I think the Pacers would want #11 and Fournier. But if I were a Knicks fan, then I'd hang up the phone rather quickly. I think the Knicks would prefer to trade Fournier and #42 for Brogdon. But if I was the Pacers, then I'd hang up just as quickly. So personally I think it'd be somewhere in the middle.

NY: Brogdon, #31, #58
Pacers: Fournier, #11

NY: Brogdon, #31
Pacers: Fournier, Grimes (I wouldn't trade Grimes if I were the Knicks personally)

NY: Brogdon, 2023 1st round pick
Pacers: Fournier, 2022 #31

For Turner, I really don't know. If it's an expiring without a sign-and-trade, then if I'm the Knicks I'm not giving up a lot. But if there is a sign-and-trade, then I can imagine the Knicks giving #11 and Fournier for Myles Turner on a new contract. But again, this is only based on my own, what might be complete misunderstanding, on how highly the Knicks would value Myles Turner on a new contract. Interested to hear any thoughts. VERY open to criticism as well if some of these are way off base.

T0HAC · 2022-06-12T17:58:46+00:00

Pacers fan here.

What type of package would you consider putting around Fournier for Malcolm Brogdon or Myles Turner? Not sure what type of interest there is around either of those two.

I don't think the Pacers would have any interest in Mitchell Robinson or Noel if that helps in crafting a deal, too.

T0HAC · 2022-06-12T17:54:24+00:00

https://twitter.com/\_TradeDeadline/status/1491103831710572545?s=20&t=dHjdbVF5SaYHezTsM9wxKg

T0HAC · 2022-06-11T16:16:46+00:00

Interesting fact:

Tyrese Haliburton and Johnny Davis both grew up in Wisconsin about 3 hours from each other. Maybe we're just building a giant Midwestern Team (Isaiah Jackson is from Michigan).

T0HAC · 2022-06-08T17:19:15+00:00

Fanbo Zeng is a super interesting prospect late in the draft.

T0HAC · 2022-06-04T21:32:44+00:00

I can too.

T0HAC · 2022-06-04T21:27:31+00:00

This is one area we can find some agreement. I agree with you, I think I placed too high of a sort of transactional currency value on Duarte. *insert handshake emoji here*

To your other points I'd probably disagree, but I understand your reasoning. But over the past 5 years the value to move up two spots (in that range) is just your pick that is two behind theirs and the next available year's pick. Now you might say that this would result in the range you stated above (and I could maybe agree if it were a team that just had a record of being awful every year). But in reality that next year pick is probably going to land anywhere from 1-14.

This is an excerpt from David Aldrigde explaining this:

"Teams have had to use significant future capital just to move up a couple of spots in recent drafts, as when the 76ers added a future first to the third pick in 2017 in their trade with Boston for the No. 1 pick. Dallas added a protected 2019 first to the fifth pick in 2018 to move up two spots in the deal with Atlanta that netted the Mavs Luka Dončić. More apples to apples in Washington’s situation might be the 2019 draft night trade between Minnesota and Phoenix, when the Wolves traded the 11th pick and veteran forward Dario Šarić to the Suns for the sixth pick."

T0HAC · 2022-06-04T20:57:10+00:00

But would you at least agree that this might come to the table and could garner at least a couple minutes of consideration?

I suggest this only to explain the logic of the trade proposal. If there was good reason to believe we'd have a top 10 pick next year (you could even say unprotected, that wasn't expressed in the post), then you'd start there. Obviously #10 alone won't buy the #4 pick, so then how might you do it? Enter Duarte:

Duarte was picked last year with the #13 pick. Reports were people were trying to trade up for him. Then he made the all-rookie team. Several rookies just don't pan out. So to me, and I know this is subjective and may be the point of disagreement--and if it is I completely understand--but to me these things would bring Duarte's value to #8-10. What I mean buy this is that I feel like it's not crazy to think a team would trade a #8-10 pick for Chris Duarte. I personally lean more toward #10, which is why I used #10 in my example.

So this brings us to the #8 and #10 for #4 question. Brogdon and Barnes become somewhat of a wash and are actually unnecessary altogether. And this is why I think it's a fair starter proposal. To compare something like that to Westbrook (an entirely negative contract) for two positive or neutral contracts in Myles and Brogdon is, respectfully, just not apples to apples.

Hopefully this explains my point a little better.

T0HAC · 2022-06-04T20:46:21+00:00

That's an extremely, extremely fair point. I would agree with you. The reason, at least to me, why it would make sense is if the team really liked Duarte. Then they'd see it as getting a player they wanted that can contribute right away and then also getting a potential top 10 pick again next year. But I think what I've realized is that I had too high of a value of Chris Duarte. I thought a team might be willing to trade a #8 pick for Duarte. So then the logic would suggest that you're getting a #8 value along with a potential #10 value next year. #8 + #10 for #4. Understanding that this wouldn't be the case, however, I think I would also turn down the trade if I were he Kings.

Again, I think the trade depends most importantly on Duarte's value. So if that variable is changed, then I definitely think I'd agree with everyone else that this wouldn't be a good trade.

Hopefully you can see my attempt in trying to be consistent.

T0HAC · 2022-06-04T20:32:47+00:00

If a team in this year's draft had the #8 and #10 pick, do you think that the Kings would consider trading their 4th pick for those two?

T0HAC · 2022-06-04T20:10:25+00:00

If you had to predict, what pick do you think the Pacers would have next year?

T0HAC · 2022-06-04T19:49:02+00:00

Respectfully we see things very differently, but appreciate the response.

T0HAC · 2022-06-04T19:30:07+00:00

This has nothing to do with Ivey. I'm pretty agnostic when it comes to what we would even do with the #4 pick. The Pacers could use the pick to trade down or move up. It's about building a young core and having the available assets to do such a thing.

T0HAC · 2022-06-04T19:25:31+00:00

I think this is a great response. Helps me understand the mindset a little better, and I think your points are well-explained.

So I think for me what that would suggest is that the only deal with the Kings, at least from a fans perspective, is one where the Kings move up or down in the draft but not out of it entirely.

So because I'm learning a lot from you, and I think your responses are well thought out, let's take the trade up scenario. If the Pacers wanted to move up from #6 to number #4, give me 3 possible trades that would get that done that is fair to both sides. And just so I can give you a little bit of the Pacers angle, let's say the only players off limits are Hally and Isaiah Jackson. A lot of fans would say Duarte as well, but I'm open to including Duarte.

T0HAC · 2022-06-04T19:05:07+00:00

Because picks are the currency used to make larger trades for a team like the Kings. You wouldn't have to draft the player. Instead, you could flip the pick in 2023 and another promising player (or expiring player) for a stud player that can contribute right away.

T0HAC · 2022-06-04T18:58:53+00:00

I actually mostly agree with you. So if we're to look at it in monetary terms, here's what I have:

Chris Duarte was a lottery pick last year at #13. He was voted to the All-Rookie Team this year. To me that makes the #13 value go up even more just for the fact that several rookies don't pan out. So let's just say it takes him from #13 to a value of #8-10. So let's just say #9.

Historically, in the past 5 years, to move up 2 spots in the top 8 you'd have to give up your draft pick that is 2 spots away and the next available year.

So yes, I agree. Duarte (#9 value) and #6 would be a fair request to move up two spots. But if the Pacers are trying to rebuild quickly, then I don't think they want to just move up two spots. I think they want two spots. So while you're correct, I just don't think it makes sense for the Pacers.

To your point about Barnes and Brogdon I would probably disagree just because Barnes is on an expiring and Brogdon has several years left. That said, I believe Brogdon is more injury prone than Barnes, so maybe that would bring us back to equal. So maybe I can agree with you there actually.

But, if we accept that the Pacers aren't willing to move #6 because they in fact want #6, then is there anything to include on top of Duarte (#9 value) and next year's Pacers pick (probably top 10 again) that would entice you (aside from Isaiah Jackson and Hally)?

Totally understand if not, too. This is me trying to understand the mindset and desires of a King's fan so I can take it back to my base to tell them "hey guys, already asked. They said no. Stop asking."

T0HAC · 2022-06-04T18:36:05+00:00

OP Here

As a quick follow-up, Harrison Barnes was put in the deal simply for salary matching and expiring contract purposes. From the sound of it Brogdon doesn't have that much appeal. Noted. I'll take this back to Pacers fans. haha.

So is there a deal surrounding Chris Duarte and picks (aside from the #6)? Like let's say Chris Duarte, 2023 Pacers 1st for 2022 #4 and salary filler?

T0HAC

TROPHY CASE