Whatever ! I find it completely laughable that Clutch and others declare victory in an argument when nothing has been proven. It is very Trader like. No one knows and all theories are plausible. I am done with this argument as it is pointless to continue... We are all arguing our own opinions.....and that is wasting time. DD
DaDakota: What do we know? [color=777777]Detective:[/color] There are two dead - looks like OJ's Simpson's wife and her friend. We've got 3 witness who say they saw Mr. Simpson do it. We also found Mr. Simpson's wallet, a fingerprint-verified and dated signature on the wall that says "OJ WAS HERE" and bloody footprints that led us directly from the victims to Mr. Simpson standing in front of his house holding the murder weapon. DaDakota: So nothing then. [color=777777]Detective:[/color] (stunned) But... the witnesses say... DaDakota: It's just one person's word against another's. We can't be sure. [color=777777]Detective:[/color] The wallet? DaDakota: Speculation. [color=777777]Detective:[/color] The signature? DaDakota: Business move. [color=777777]Detective:[/color] The footprints that led us to Mr. Simpson holding the weapon? DaDakota: Opinion. [color=777777]Detective:[/color] (confused) Well, we know there are two dead people. DaDakota: We can't even be sure of that. [color=777777]Detective:[/color] Actually sir, there is no pulse and the coroner has pronounced them clinically dead. DaDakota: Maybe, but we have no idea how that happened. [color=777777]Detective:[/color] But all the evidence points to OJ committing the murders. DaDakota: Murder?! Who CARES! [color=777777]Detective:[/color] Come again? Are you saying murder is OK? DaDakota: Oh no, murder is not OK... [color=777777]Detective:[/color] (still stunned) DaDakota: ...but if you know that the possibility exists that your ex-wife might date someone else, you NEVER put yourself in that position. [color=777777]Detective:[/color] But an incredible amount of evidence suggests he did put himself in that position. DaDakota: It's his word against ours. We can't be sure. [color=777777]Detective:[/color] So should we arrest Mr. Simpson? DaDakota: Are you telling me you wouldn't take OJ on your team? Huh? HUH?! [color=777777]Detective:[/color] Excuse me? DaDakota: The Juice ran for over 2000 yards in one season... you wouldn't want that? [color=777777]Detective:[/color] I fail to see h... DaDakota: Son, I eat million dollar contracts for breakfast. (long pause) [color=777777]Detective:[/color] And... that... applies... how... exactly? DaDakota: I'm done explaining this to you. No one has made any case. It's a wash. I'm out!
However, still no proof. Questionable? You bet. Proof, none, and there can never be proof, because it would be illegal and a violation of the CBA now wouldn't it? Sounds to me like the burden of proof has not been adequately given, and therefore there is reasonable doubt. If the glove don't fit, you can't convict. Victory is mine !!! WOOT ! DD
lol!!! that was HILARIOUS. its sad that it was representative of dadakota on the matter too. both sides have done a good job but I believe those saying boozer lied have made a better case. if this was clutch vs. dadakota though it would be reagan-mondale. I was going to relay to you before dakota that you should quit while you're ahead but now I say scrap it and rebuild! youre out of the race!
The Clutch skit was funny...yet, exaggerated. Nobody will know what actually happened. The facts are few and far between.
It only takes one out of a jury of 12. By the way, OJ was found innocent, wasn't he? We all know the real reason you guys are hating on Boozer, it is a racial thing, White versus black...just another case of the white man keeping the black man down. DD
Actually, no, he was not. The standard was just that the jurors said they were not sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. Big difference.
Are we still arguing this? The point I was making isn't about Boozer innocence or anything. If what Cavs said is true, Boozer clearly stabbed Cavs in the back. However, for people to completely put the blame on Boozer, and believe Cavs did this to purely help Boozer, you have to ask you these questions: * Are Gund and Paxson running a charity organzation or corporate business? The answer is corporate. Their goal is to maximimze corporate profit before anything else. * Which side has more to gain if Boozer acceptted Cavs' $41M MLE offer? Boozer would gain $4M since he would got paid $5M instead of 600K for this year. Cavs would gain $27M for next 6 years in this year's FA market. You don't even need to be a math wizard to figure out this one. Some would argue that this year's FA market is totally inflated, which I agree. But you have to be idiot to believe Boozer's market value would be MLE. Boozer is a 22 year old big man, averaged a double double in his second year, and ranked #11 in league's efficiency. Any GM would lolve to pay MLE for a guy like that, 7 days a week, twice on Sunday. Both sides clearly tried their best to take advantage of the situation. You don't even have to be one of the four people in the meeting room on June 30 to figure out that one. The only difference is that in the end Boozer won and Cavs lost.
If Cuban wouldn't help Nash by paying him 30millions more, I don't see Gund would help Boozer by paying him 28 millions more. Cuban repeatedly stated he only considered Nash's market value. Saying "I will sign with you" is a big difference from saying "I'd love to sign with you". The later one implied "if your offer is the best I can get." Boozer is not stupid. Yes, even if there were no telling how much was Boozer's market value before July 1st, everybody knows the value was over the MLE.
