Rockets signed Sean Colson for rest of season

so, who still wants to bet me that we have a extra PG in camp before we have an extra SF.

 

Hello CWebb

------------------
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."-
(Aldous Huxley)

 

we didn't draft colson Heypee.



------------------
snap crackle pop

 

Draft or no. The bet is a 3rd PG in camp before we draft *any* SF projected higher than Langhi, or trading for *any* SF as the primary player in the deal. And like Bob* pointed out, in case of a tie, I win if we get Webber...just because!

You really don't think that was a good bet for you? Chicken.

Where is my chicken butt smilie face?! Clutch!!! We need a chicken butt.

 

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/Forum3/HTML/011614.html

Go to the botom of the first page and scroll back up a few posts to catch the orginal conversation on this bet.


Mango

------------------
Get it right or just don't do it!
Resistance is futile....you will be assimilated

 

This is only sure to further hinder Francis' development. ---> <---

------------------
"There's a lot of things you can say about playing with Dream, but I get to say, `I played with the Dream.' That speaks for itself." --Walt Williams

"****!" --Kenny Thomas

 

hp, why don't you go to Jeff's big thread and talk that smack. I don't recall seeing you there.

------------------
"There's a lot of things you can say about playing with Dream, but I get to say, `I played with the Dream.' That speaks for itself." --Walt Williams

"****!" --Kenny Thomas

 

TheFreak,

What? You mean me enter a dreamcasting thread. Speculation is the Devil.

 

so what are the stakes, and in camp by next year?

What do you mean by "the"?

------------------
snap crackle pop

 

"the" bet is a 3rd PG arrives in camp...I win.

We draft a SF in the 1st round projected ahead of Langhi, or we trade for a starting SF on another team...you win.

On a tie, I win if we land Webber. just because!


The stakes are the loser changes their moniker.

If I lose, I become heykidd

If you lose, you become CriscoPartner

 

hmmm...

mebbe. lemme mull it over.

------------------
snap crackle pop

 

what the hell, this is too interesting to pass up.

I'll accept, provided that there is no post count transfer ala Francis3.

You still game heykidd?

------------------
snap crackle pop

 

see below

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited March 22, 2001).]

 

repost so no "edit shows" when CriscoPartner comes back to look for a loop-hole in October.

OK. Let me clarify some things then. Remember the original argument was (see Mango's link above). The spirit of the bet is I say the SF position is our lowest priority, and you say it is one of our highest, if not the highest. To put your moniker where your mouth is, I am willing to bet anyone that a 3rd string PG is higher priority than improving our SF position. (To me it is not loaded enough for a 3 guard system, while SF is actually a very loaded position for us.) That is the spirit of the bet: SF is low priority vs high priority.
A couple of other things:

1. Any trade must be primarily for that SF. He can't be a toss in. Fair enough.

2. If we draft a SF, he must be projected higher than Langhi (at the beginning of camp). We will determine that by having Clutch ask the coaches that question in camp.

3. example of a Webber tie scenario: If we get a 3rd PG, trade Shandon and Cato for a SF, then land Webber, that is the tie I was talking about...and I win, just because.

4. The tough scenario to agree on is this one: If we draft a sharpshooting SF and trade Shandon and Mo for a better PF, how do we score that? We beefed up the PF position primarily, and just re-filled Shandon's position??? Maybe we need outside opinions on this.

 

Man it must have sucked to play games with you as a kid heyp. You're claiming both the PF and the PG spot. What gives?

You can't have a billion draws. The bet is that a third pg shows up at camp before a new SF (or big big guard slated to either start at 3 if Shandon leaves or backup Shandon before Langhi comes off of the bench). If they show up at the same time, Crisco and I win... no take backs.

This is a SF(6'5" or bigger guard works) vs. PG thing. No triple dog Mo gets 12 boards in a game before the end of season conditionals. You game?

------------------
(===)

 

No achebe, look at the original talk that mango stated.

I'm not saying PF. I'm just say I win on a tie if we get Webber.

I'm asking how we score trading Shandon and X for a PF.

Nevermind, I'll give you that too.

The bet is SF's are not important. Keep it simply, suggest how we score it.

 

HeyP,

Simplify the scoring and I'm in, forget about Webber, he has nothing do with SF or PG acquisitions, either we get Webber or keep Taylor, the only way Webber comes into the scoring is if we get him and also keep Taylor.

Smeg

------------------
"Repression never did me any harm (I finally ceased to include "stop masturbating" as one of my guilt ridden New Year's resolutions, but that's a different topic)." Achebe - programmer by day, Mrs Palmers Husband by night

 

I'm in.

------------------
snap crackle pop

 

I've afford a bet. No takers except Crisco who wanted clarification.

I'm out unless someone offers to close the loop-holes, like I attempted.

The stakes are that if I lose, I will change my moniker to hey????? whatever you want. If you lose, I get to change your moniker.

The bet in spirit must be that we won't get a new starting SF before we get a 3rd string PG. Look, I am the only person on this board with enough confidence in a 3 guard system to even offer that bet. You guys are chicken for not taking that bet, especially since we have 3 1st round picks next year....sheesh.

My only requirement is that if we get Webber, I win any ties, since getting Webber throws out all my arguments for needing a 3rd string PG.

My bet is not saying we will build up the frontcourt before getting another SF, which many of you SF guys deny still...that is not my bet, because it is way too easy for me to win...uh, can we say Cato is our Center for the future?! My bet...which should be in favor of all SF advocates...my bet is that we will bolster the Pg position with a 3rd stringer *before* we will seek a new starter for the SF position.

Come on...no one but me has ever said that on this board, and I said it before this post by Clutch about Colson. Are you really afraid to bet me?

It is very simple. Propose a bet, or accept my offer as first stated in the thread Mango posted, with my "no gray area" clarification above.

Achebe is a chicken butt.


[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited March 23, 2001).]