Crisco...OK then!! How do we score Shandon leaving for free agency, or forcing a sign-n-trade? That requires us to replace him, and has nothing to do with you SF advocates saying that SF is top priority. Tell me how you score that, then we can put it in stone, monitored by mango.
dude, you're throwing in a bazillion loop holes! Besides, I think that the Rockets will get Webber. And I think Shandon sucks anyway... other than the fact that he's already said that he's going to opt out he has to be replaced. That has everything to do w/ me thinking that we need a big big guard or SF to start at the three. It's the only reason why I've thought we've needed a SF. I don't just like the SF spot randomly. You must be a b*stard to negotiate contracts with. My bet: On draft night... and I don't even know where the balls fall, the Rockets will choose a SF w/ one of their own first round draft picks or trade into the second if an adequate one still exists. If Moochie leaves and Colson or a separate pg takes over the duties by himself, I win. If any two other pgs sign on, I still win if the SF or big big guard beats Langhi out of his bup spot or if he starts. You're the one that's claimed that the SF spot is unnecessary. You can't be concerned w/ Shandon departing now... Rudy didn't draft Courtney Alexander last year when there was a very real probability that Cuttino could have left. Besides you still have Walt to start at the three. I'm saying regardless of Shandon's plans, regardless of Bullard or Walt... the Rockets will acquire a SF or big big guard on draft night and that person will be slated to either start next season or will beat Langhi off of the bench. Deal? BTW, you can't change my name to anything w/ the word 'Rocket' in it. I'd also appreciate to still have a HEB variant. ------------------ (===)
close the loop-holes then Achebe... I never said anything about a sum gain at SF...I only said a sum gain at PG to make it easy for you. My bet is simple; we will bring a 3rd-string PG to camp, before we will bring a SF who projects higher than Langhi. Forget Walt and Bullard...it doesn't matter. Close your loop-holes. Forget Walt and Bullard. This is about Shandon and Langhi. The loop-hole is stated above...where you fail to get your SF draftee, yet Shandon forces our hand and leaves when we don't want him to, so we must replace him. How do you score that? Here...I'll offer another bone, since you have no betting creativity. 5. If our very 1st pick is projected as a SF by the coaches, you win, as long as he makes it to camp. Don't forget ties. in return for that bone, let me make the trade scenarios crystal clear... 6. If we end up with no 1st round rookie SFs coming to camp (our original picks or not), you never win unless there is a trade made for a SF who is one of 14 NBA SFs (ie, above average), you name them. Again, don't forget the ties. You want to make it simpler If you want to make this simpler, let's bet on who will be the 1st pick...is that the simplicity you are after? Then bring it. There is no way the first pick is a SF who lasts long enough to arrive at camp. No way...you lose that bet. So, make that bet if you want simplicity...or suggest how we close the loop-holes. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited March 23, 2001).]
If Shandon leaves after the SF or big big guard has been acquired, I still win. Remember the Courtney Alexander ex. If Shandon's departure forces the Rockets to acquire a new SF, which they didn't do before he opted out, then it is a draw. I seriously doubt of course that we can get a SF w/ our very first pick. There are potentially 3 or 4 good SFs in the first round. Battier, Griffin (ughh) and Morris. Unless the Rockets can trade into the top 8 or 9, I doubt that they can get Battier (or Griffin). My assumption is that they use their later Mil. pick to acquire Morris or trade into the second round to get someone else. Again, I agree that we have a ton of forwards (I even made a joke about it in another lineup thread)... KT, MO, Carlos, Langhi. The Rockets though could have 3 first round picks. Somewhere they have to solidify the big big guard/SF spot and also the Center position perhaps. They're not going to draft a first round PG. If the skillset is overwhelming, they might shed a PF and pick for a better PF or C/PF. But the swing guard/forward spot will be taken care of this draft. ------------------ tank tank tank tank tank tank tank your booootie.
chicken butt? are you sure you don't want to build in another safety mechanism that if Rudy is still the coach next year you still win? ------------------ (===)
I will take that bet, on the condition we will not draft anyone shorter that 6'5" in the first round. And a big post count is at stake Bart (in Albuquerque) ------------------
I'll take that bet - Heypartner -If you can tell me my new moniker I trust in you... I need a new moniker Actually I agree with you, but the need for a new moniker could be too big. This 2000 thing is getting old. Who on this board has registered as Heath as it wont let me do it. ------------------ We can reach our destination, but it's still a ways away.
