My position has always been an assumption that he would be willing to take less to play with the players we have. My phrases were "I believe" & "I assumed". There was never a statement, implied or otherwise, that attempted to make it fact. Here's my exact statement in post #1. I assumed Gordon would be looking for a contract in the first year $8.0 million range... I didn't waive it off. There was no point in responding since I made it perfectly clear in my first post that I was assuming he would take less money than previously reported. Do I have to respond everytime someone forgets what I said in the first post & never backed away from, with the exception of later indicating I would be reluctant to pay him more than that? Perhaps I shouldn't have said it like that, but I finally got tired of reading the same false statements as if they were fact. One person makes a statement that Gordon shoots too much & others just pick up the torch & run with it without checking the facts first. If they had said "I believe" or "I assume", I wouldn't have responded at all. The stats I provided proved that the statements of Gordon being shot happy were not true. Why? It plainly stated "I assumed". As for the dumping Thomas statement, I can prove that if you want. I just thought it was common knowledge that they were very disappointed in him. While many have disagreed with the $8.0 million price tag, I believe that the majority of the posts were geared more towards us not needing an offensive infusion from the bench & their reluctance to give up our only viable trading chip in Battier. As for the documentation, I made it perfectly clear in my first post that it was an assumption on my part. I later indicated that I wouldn't be willing to pay any more than the $8.0 million first year contract. This was purely a "Would you do this?" thread from the beginning. The whole premise of this thread was based upon the article where he reportedly said he wouldn't accept their one year offer, was exploring S&T options, & that he would consider playing overseas. Knowing we didn't have much to trade with, I made an assumption & asked everyone if they would make the deal. Of course, if he wouldn't accept less money than he's reportedly turned down, then the question of trading for him would be a moot point. After all, the point of this board is to throw ideas around & try to be one of the first to guess what the GM will do. Right?
Hottoddie We can sit here and parse words all day & all night, but will remain opposed. I was done posting in this thread when you continued with the ethereal assumption: <I> I assumed Gordon would be looking for a contract in the first year $8.0 million range</I> and could not provide any documentation to support it. As you probably know, documentation matters greatly to me and it was pointless to continue when it was evident that you had none. My core complaint is that you were <I>Fuzzy</I> in the initial post: <I> I assumed Gordon would be looking for a contract in the first year $8.0 million range</I> Fine, choosing to be <I>Fuzzy</I> supports this thread and makes it sustainable for you. But to come back later in the same thread and thump others for being <I>Fuzzy</I> with their facts just doesn't seem right when you used an ethereal foundation to start this thread. Having both ethereal facts and documentation used by the same person in the same thread just doesn't strike me as the way to go. Since it is your thread, do as you like.
The trade is feasible for the wage limit. But,it is we want? we want to have a guy who will can help T-MAC and YAO ! And NOT a guy only must have a ball will be offensive.and no de ddfa only a one ball !! YAO . T - MAC . .......
Surprised this thread still keeps going. There is fortunately no way we would do this, there is no way Gordon would take less money, as documented by Mango, and there is no way we would want to or be able to pay Gordon as much as he wants. On top of that, I still think that Battier is way more valuable to this team than a Cat like scorer off the bench. I am in favor of starting Battier and using Artest as our Ginobili. Also, to whoever said Artest is a way better defender than Battier: I think Battier is a better team defender.
Also, to whoever said Artest is a way better defender than Battier: I think Battier is a better team defender.[/QUOTE] very good!!
He's right! Chicago isn't going to trade Thomas. He's an athletic freak of nature that has an upside of shawn kemp in his prime. Also, Gordon has made it very vocal that he would like to play on a team where he can start.
