Right. I doubt they'll let Garnett go even if we sent Yao there LOL. Um, can I trade my apple for your ipod? I mean my apple. ya. an apple. apple apple. yah. you get the point. I'm really against Gay. this guy just disappears in tight situations. i DON'T like ppl with attitude problems no matter how high he hops!! Swift has the body to become a great player, but this guy doesn't have a healthy attitude. Morrison however, is a stud with a great attitude. this guy loves the game. We're saying he play the same position as t-mac, but hey, you never know when t-mac just breaks his back again or can't start his scoring streak. besides, we can try making him play a little 2 also. he's 41% to 42% at the arc, and possesses the best shooting abilities next to Redick but is all dimensional. Brandon Roy doesn't have a stable 3. So... If we get top three: Morrison stay 8: Brandon Roy/Shelden Williams trade down: maybe JJ, hell knows
If we got the #1 #2 or #3, what might be interesting is to call Boston and offer to swap our spot for theirs plus Gerald Green. That way, we have a very promising SG/SF as well as a chance to pick up a promising PF like Tiago Splitter, Andrea Bargnani, Cedric Simmons or Shelden Williams (depending on JVG's judgment). Boston IMO would do it in a heartbeat in order to pick up Adam Morrison -- reportedly the next Larry Bird in their eyes. Also, Morrison plays the same position as Green, making Green expendable even though highly regarded there. The picks would be a swap and we would use one of our trade exceptions to pick up Green (I believe that's how it could work).
I really like Aldridge, but, it will probably be someone we have never heard of. We will then be told what a sleeper the kid is, how he has great potential, and then the Rockets will sign him to an outrageous contract, and then he will prove to be worthless and will eventually be traded for Moochie Norris. "Stupid" is a virus that has been spreading through the Houston sports community for years. Apparently it is incurable, and affects all sports in the area.
I think that was the point. Morrison fits at SF with Pierce at SG. That is how 82games says where Pierce took his minutes after the trade of Ricky Davis. At SG with Wally Z at SF. So the only question becomes, would the C's part with a rotational SG who splits time with Wally and Tony Allen for Morrison. IMO, they would.
ive been to a few ut games. and personally aldridge did not impress me at ALL. he doesnt apply himself, hes a top prospect that gets out muscled by other PF's in college mind you. i dont see any fire or heart in his game and dont give me that hell make an impact in a few years stuff. its always clear who has the desire. its what makes the potential be actual substance. *cough* swift* to me without question the #1 in this draft is morrison. need or not, you draft the best player in the draft. period. would you pass on jordan or bird cause you already had a great sg or sf. NO! you get the best guy you can get! at age 21 morrison is already doing what dirk couldnt do until he was 26 or 27. i think he has tremendous upside, and hes been a leader for the past 3 years. drafting alidridge would be like drafting marvin williams like the hawks did. investing in a player who hasnt proven squat. aldridge was barely the 3rd best player on the texas team. gibson was often amazing. just my 2 cents
I'm not sure what ludicrous can of worms you are refering to and am puzzled again how my simple ONE sentence reply opened anything. Also I did not forget the definition of a rhetorical question, rather I'm arguing that your sentence is either A. can be read as not rhetorical or B. not an obvious example of a rhetorical question where it's so apparent that most would recognize it as so. and C. rhetorical or not, statements and questions are written to be read and responded, if you dont want other people to comment on them, why post? Rhetorical question usually produce the effect by making its question so obvious that it reasserts the position posed by the question. Hence there is no need to reply to the question, thus its rhetorical. In your case, not only was the question not obviously rhetorical my response was not a direct reply to the question. My reply was instead merely a statement and an observation, arguing against the premise of your question. It did not directly answer your supposed "rhetorical" question (big crime that would be apparently) of "do you see" but rather made the point that you were the only one in this thread expounding that opinion. Again here is your entire statement in response to M_cable who argued that it wasnt a case of stereotyping or bias but rather a practical approach: Here you are asserting "rhetorically" that stereotyping/bias play a role when it comes to judging athletism of white and black players. My reply was simply that only you in this thread are arguing such a claim. Assuming your question is rhetorical, is that an unreasonable observation on my part? Is it unreasonable to argue against your "theory?" (Note: these questions may or may not be rhetorical, but if you aswer them I promise I wont be upset lol.) Where did I state that perumptive and rhetorical statments are mutually exclusive? Where did I state that in all cases presumptive statements and rhetorical statements are mutually exclusive. Perhaps I didnt and thats why I made no mention of that. Clearly I only argued that YOUR specific statement was not rhetorical and that it was in fact presumptive. While a rhetorical statement can be both rhetorical and presumptive it can also be presumptive without being rhetorical dont you think? Speaking of NO mention, you've seem to skip most of my questions about why you were so agitated by the word "athletism" why you characterized my ONE sentence post as attacking, cutting down others, why you erroneously assumed "i needed to relax" "needed to row thicker skin" "how I get swwwerved" "brought this (?) upon myself" and how "my response was pointless or arguing semantics." Yah just a few things. Actually you made another wrong conclusion as apparently I did ponder that fact, for if I didnt realize this I would not have responded to your inital post. Second, obviously nothing written here REQUIRES a reply, but if everyone chose not to what would be the use of a message board? Rhetorical questions are often used to make a point my reply took issue with the premis of that point. Lastly rhetorical questions are commonly answered, if you have a problem with that, perhaps you should in your words "grow thicker skin." LoL you want me to proof read and spell check posts I submit on a sports message board? Sorry but no... I havent the time nor the care to worry about a few mispelled words or tenses lol. But hey if you like picking out spelling mistakes etc... knock yourself out! I'm sure you'll find them in 98% of the posts. O and I'm not sure if you are truly that befudled or tasked by the mispelled words etc but unfortunately for you, the vast majority of posts are going to have them. In fact I'm sure many of your previous posts has a few grammatical and spelling mistakes too, but lucky for me & most here it seems, we dont mind.
i'll make this reply quick. okay, buddy, so you're arguing that my line either wasn't rhetorical or not obviously rhetorical. well, it was, but i respect your opinion, b/c, well, i'm bored with you. and there's no rule that you can't post rhetorical questions/statements, so i posted one. okay, so again you're saying that it being rhetorical was not obvious to you. i'm sorry - for you. and thanks for the wonderful observation that this is MY point. i wouldn't be bringing up this point if someone else had already brought it up. i think everyone is so fed up with our daily exchange that they would rather pass up this thread. you're a funny guy LOL LOL ROFL. ROFL. wow, you have me in STITCHES. for your obvious observation, look to my previous comment. and, i never said it's unreasonable to argue against my theory. well, reasonable minds can differ. and yes, for the record, it was a rhetorical question. the explanation that came afterwards was simply the rationale behind it. here you rigidly stick to your argument that it wasn't rhetorical like a dog that bites onto something and won't let go. and yes, i left out all that English lesson stuff b/c i get tired from reading your posts. stay out of comedy clubs. seriously. i took issue not with the fact that you disagree with my point, but rather that you objected to how i presented the issue. please tell me that makes sense - b/c i'm not sure i can take any more of these "questions on forums are made to be replied to" comments. fat chance. you're right (& also lazy in proofreading), and i'm right. happy? good lord. and don't tell me i have grammar/spelling mistakes, buddy. that's like saying, oh, i'm fat and people don't care so you shouldn't either, and you, DJ, are probably fat, too. don't marginalize your laziness by applying it to others.
What's all the fusss about? Although its hardly ever spoken about these days, with people trying to be politically correct & polite, I thought that it was, by now an accepted truth, that most black athletes are more athletic than most white athletes.
LOL I never stated or implied that you couldnt post rhetorical questions lol. Infact I obviously recognized your first post as rhetorical and hypothetical thus I replied. Your the one who seem to be upset that I replied to your SECOND "rhetorical" question. Umm your sorry for me because I didnt recognize your qustion as rhetorical? lol umm okay thanks! Actually as I posted many times what I'm saying is that your second post was either: A. NOT Rhetorical B. Not obviously rhetorical to anyone who would reads it C. can be read as rhetorical OR NOT rhetorical. Hmm I think I posted this already... yet you seem to always misunderstand. LOL note how you responded to my "rhetorical" question and I am in no way upset, offended, suprised or astonished by it? Thats because I realize rhetorical questions are often not recognized as so. Thanks I love compliments! And I'm known to pretty comedic. But funny how you AGAIN gloss over why my making an observation to your "rhetorical question" was so suprising or offensive to you. Assuming even if your question question was rhetorical, my observation simply argued against the premise of that rationale, again what was so immensely inapporprate or suprising or offensive about that? As to whether I believe the question is rhetorical or not, I personally read it as not rhetorical, though you may have intended for it to be so. Are you saying in no circumstance can that sentence be read as not rhetorical? Is it an absolute that it is, to any and all who reads it? LoL you took ISSUE with me merely pointing out that you were the only one thus far claiming color bias is the main determinant of "athletism?" Wow talk about sensitive. And because you took "ISSUE" with my obseration you read my ONE sentence reply as an "attack" "cutting down" "pointless attack" and deduced that I was "upset or not relaxed" "needed to grow thicker skin" "arguing semantics etc etc." LoL it was a ONE sentence observation, I dont know how you came to all those erroneous conclusion or why you took such "issue" with a simple reply. In fact I'm still trying to understand why you would take issue with it. I mean I can see if you simply disagreed or thought I was wrong, but wow talk about overeacting lol. I'm always happy but thanks for the concern And this discourse while seemingly over tedious, is fun as I get to take a few moments to abstain from reading reports, figures, finaces, and other blah balh bleh lol. Finally actually the chance that you have made grammatical mistakes in your posts are quite high. You do realize failure to properly capitalize is a grammatical mistake right? But hey what do I care lol. As to your analogy, again you are making yet another erroneous conclusion/assumption. No where in my post did I state in any that you should not care about mistakes, in fact I encouraged you to care, hence the "knock yourself out" statement. Also no where did I attempt to marginalize it by applying it to you. I was merely stating another factual observation - that spelling/gram mistakes are common here and if it really befuddles/bothers you that much it will be unfortunate. As for myself I dont care/mind at all lol.
blah, i'm right and you're right. please - i'm done with you. you bore me. and i have a ConLaw final coming up. i have better things to do than talking to you. peace. --------back to basketball------- as un-PC as this sounds, i agree with Yetti - i think it may certainly be genetically possible that blacks are more athletic than whites. i do remember hearing from a med student that blacks form muscles much easier/faster than anyone else.
An open letter from the peanut gallery: DJ , Blah Those big words belong in D and D Just talk about each others mothers.
god, i hope we don't get Tyrus "Inside-Only" Thomas, LaMarcus "Stromile" Aldridge, Adam "Diabetes" Morrison, Andrea "Low Release Point" Bargnani, or Brandon "Bad Knees" Roy. do i honestly believe we can trade our *hopefully* Top 3 Pick down for a lottery pick AND a late 1st rounder? if it is indeed a Top 3 Pick, then yes. Defensive Stopper :: Replace RyBoCop with Bobby Jones [Late 2nd-Round Pick] Athletic 2 :: Replace Keith Bogans with Ronnie Brewer [Lottery Pick] Hustling 4 Spot :: Replace Rubber Chucky with Paul Millsap [Late 1st-Round Pick] Outside Shooting PF :: Replace JudasHoward with Novak/Pittsnogle (yeah, it's true that neither Novak or 'Nogle are good at defense, but neither is Judas, so we don't lose anything here); or replace Judas with Raef [see my sig] Undersized 2 ( ):: Replace Wesley with Taquan Dean [Undrafted] Undrafted Rookies :: Follow Up Rubber Chucky of this year with Rashad Anderson and Denham Brown (smart players who get overlooked) Assuming V-Span will stay in Greece one more year to win their championship :: 1 - Rafer | Luther | Bobby Sura 2 - Brewer (draft down)| Denham Brown (undrafted)| Taquan Dean (undrafted) 3 - TMac | Rashad Anderson (undrafted)| Bobby Jones (acquire via draft trade) 4 - Millsap (draft down)| Novak/Pittsnogle (draft) 5 - Yao | Deke that leaves 2 spots open for veteran/FA help. or 1 - Rafer | Luther | 2 - Ronnie Brewer (draft down)| Brown/Anderson (undrafted) 3 - TMac | Gerald Green (trade)| Bobby Jones (acquire via draft trade) 4 - LaFrentz (trade)| Millsap (draft down)| Novak/Pittsnogle (draft) 5 - Yao | Deke this leaves 3 spots open. it makes no mention of: Rubber Chucky, Keith Bogans, DWesley, RyBoCop, or Magic Lamp; who knows what happens with them. it is also assuming: 1) Bobby Sura overdoses, oops, i mean, retires, 2) the Juwan|Stro for Green|LaFrentz trade goes thru, 3) we trade our top pick down to pick up Brewer and Millsap, 4) we keep our 2nd round pick for Novak/Pitt, 5) we acquire another 2nd Rounder (Bobby Jones) for a future 2nd Rounder + cash
I think given the nature of the thread and the probability of us getting these picks, you have to look at this situation in an optimisticly and say that some of the guys that show potential like Gay and Bargnani will be able to contribute within 2 yrs. Given that presumption my picks are as follow: Rox win 1st: Morrison - TMac has shown that he is physically in a decline and even if he is able to regain his 04/05 production, I do not expect him to last that long. With 3 years playing behind Tmac easing his NBA transition, an NBA ready shooting stroke in case they need to play him extended minutes with Tmacs physical problems, and that fiery competitive personality he displayed that the Rockets need. For those reasons I say pick him at 1. If Morrison is gone: Bargnani - Assuming he displays a decent rebounding ability at the workouts and a good shooting stroke. He is exactly what JVG wants from the 4 position. Frankly JVG is right, nothing will help the Rox offensive spacing more than a 4 that can shoot with consistent 3 point range. If both above are gone: Roy - Simple low risk pick that can make a solid contribution at the 2 guard spot in the least amount of time. Had he shown a good shooting stroke in college I would say take him number 1 or 2, but since shooting is not one of his strong suits take him at 3. Like I mentioned above in picking these guys, I am assuming the above mentioned players are able to have good workouts and their pre nba game potetial translates into the NBA with a marginal decline in statistical production. And as far is trading is concerned, unless it is for a guy like Duhon, Gordon I say no. I trust Dawson and JVG talent evaluation abilities. As long as they employ the same stratergy they used when they picked Luther last year I am confident they will do the right thing in the draft. GO ROX
