|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on Oct 16, 2009 14:12:02 GMT -5
Look what Miner is doing for the Pacers..... He has single handedly made the Pacers a playoff team...I am pretty sure I would have been fine, especially since Chauncey comes back for 12 games at the end of the season. and I have a better team than the Pacers First off, it's too early to tell. Second getting Miner would have depleted any front court that you have left as both Howard and Brown would no longer be on the team. The magic would have still had a better team than you with the addition of Miner and they are currently seeded for the lottery. Except I wasn't starting Juwan anyway, Korleone was in my starting lineup, except he got injured...Juwan just came off the bench. I would have been confident in a Foyle+Korleone starting lineup, Howard only offers scoring, something that with Miner I would have had Korleone can block shots and score and rebound, Howard is playing PF for me, but his D isn't a B+ there but rather a B...so trading him wouldn't have been a big loss, Foster can get 10 rebounds a game off the bench, so I would really have had no post issues.. Now of coursethere are never any guarantees, but Miner is carrying the Pacers on his back |
|
|
|
Post by princemaharajah on Oct 16, 2009 14:18:11 GMT -5
First off, it's too early to tell. Second getting Miner would have depleted any front court that you have left as both Howard and Brown would no longer be on the team. The magic would have still had a better team than you with the addition of Miner and they are currently seeded for the lottery. Except I wasn't starting Juwan anyway, Korleone was in my starting lineup, except he got injured...Juwan just came off the bench. I would have been confident in a Foyle+Korleone starting lineup, Howard only offers scoring, something that with Miner I would have had Korleone can block shots and score and rebound, Howard is playing PF for me, but his D isn't a B+ there but rather a B...so trading him wouldn't have been a big loss, Foster can get 10 rebounds a game off the bench, so I would really have had no post issues.. Now of coursethere are never any guarantees, but Miner is carrying the Pacers on his back You missed the underlying point, I would have offered more than you did. Even if you added Miner you still aren't better than the Magic who are currently seeded out of the playoffs. Regardless, Howard started for you the first couple of sims and losing both would have given you the worst front court in the east (From those teams who aren't rebuilding). |
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on Oct 16, 2009 14:22:37 GMT -5
Except I wasn't starting Juwan anyway, Korleone was in my starting lineup, except he got injured...Juwan just came off the bench. I would have been confident in a Foyle+Korleone starting lineup, Howard only offers scoring, something that with Miner I would have had Korleone can block shots and score and rebound, Howard is playing PF for me, but his D isn't a B+ there but rather a B...so trading him wouldn't have been a big loss, Foster can get 10 rebounds a game off the bench, so I would really have had no post issues.. Now of coursethere are never any guarantees, but Miner is carrying the Pacers on his back You missed the underlying point, I would have offered more than you did. Even if you added Miner you still aren't better than the Magic who are currently seeded out of the playoffs. Regardless, Howard started for you the first couple of sims and losing both would have given you the worst front court in the east (From those teams who aren't rebuilding). Thing is he doesn't want to win...so Unless you were offereing Artest or Parker, I doubt he is interested...(by the way, if you would offer those, PM me) |
|
|
|
Post by princemaharajah on Oct 16, 2009 14:26:44 GMT -5
You missed the underlying point, I would have offered more than you did. Even if you added Miner you still aren't better than the Magic who are currently seeded out of the playoffs. Regardless, Howard started for you the first couple of sims and losing both would have given you the worst front court in the east (From those teams who aren't rebuilding). Thing is he doesn't want to win...so Unless you were offereing Artest or Parker, I doubt he is interested...(by the way, if you would offer those, PM me) So Nazr isn't worth the pick either? I could have given him expirings, plenty more than what you offered. You don't seem to understand you had no leverage in this deal. As for trading a player to you for your pick, do you not understand this would make your team better if I gave you a good player? The incentive to trade with another team to a pick that doesn't belong to them is much greater. The fact that you can't seem to understand this is borderline absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on Oct 16, 2009 14:37:21 GMT -5
Thing is he doesn't want to win...so Unless you were offereing Artest or Parker, I doubt he is interested...(by the way, if you would offer those, PM me) So Nazr isn't worth the pick either? I could have given him expirings, plenty more than what you offered. You don't seem to understand you had no leverage in this deal. As for trading a player to you for your pick, do you not understand this would make your team better if I gave you a good player? The incentive to trade with another team to a pick that doesn't belong to them is much greater. The fact that you can't seem to understand this is borderline absurd. As I said, He doesn't want to win...I put Jerry Stackhouse on the table and he turned it down....He wanted only young players...I gave him two. You think I had no leverage, however, I had a 55 win team last year...but I lost Chauncey Billups in the first sim, for all but the last 12 games of the season. Chauncey is my best player, and carries much of the scoring load for my team, while creating for his teammates, which is currently my problem, I lack a playmaker. Miner would have solved that problem, so there is no reason to think I wouldn't have climbed... |
|
|
|
Post by princemaharajah on Oct 16, 2009 14:56:40 GMT -5
So Nazr isn't worth the pick either? I could have given him expirings, plenty more than what you offered. You don't seem to understand you had no leverage in this deal. As for trading a player to you for your pick, do you not understand this would make your team better if I gave you a good player? The incentive to trade with another team to a pick that doesn't belong to them is much greater. The fact that you can't seem to understand this is borderline absurd. As I said, He doesn't want to win...I put Jerry Stackhouse on the table and he turned it down....He wanted only young players...I gave him two. You think I had no leverage, however, I had a 55 win team last year...but I lost Chauncey Billups in the first sim, for all but the last 12 games of the season. Chauncey is my best player, and carries much of the scoring load for my team, while creating for his teammates, which is currently my problem, I lack a playmaker. Miner would have solved that problem, so there is no reason to think I wouldn't have climbed... Again, what you're missing here is that other teams could have given him better deals. If he didn't want to win I would have given him two first round picks and expirings. There is no reason to think you had leverage without Billups on your team. You're obviously blinded by your bias as you're the only person here who thinks this wasn't a bad deal. |
|
|
|
Post by Contract Year on Oct 16, 2009 15:00:10 GMT -5
You say that as if your two #1s are > Kwame and Watson. Clippers should have waited, that is all. Still early in the season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on Oct 16, 2009 15:03:49 GMT -5
As I said, He doesn't want to win...I put Jerry Stackhouse on the table and he turned it down....He wanted only young players...I gave him two. You think I had no leverage, however, I had a 55 win team last year...but I lost Chauncey Billups in the first sim, for all but the last 12 games of the season. Chauncey is my best player, and carries much of the scoring load for my team, while creating for his teammates, which is currently my problem, I lack a playmaker. Miner would have solved that problem, so there is no reason to think I wouldn't have climbed... Again, what you're missing here is that other teams could have given him better deals. If he didn't want to win I would have given him two first round picks and expirings. There is no reason to think you had leverage without Billups on your team. You're obviously blinded by your bias as you're the only person here who thinks this wasn't a bad deal. Actually Kru said it wasn't a bad deal for him...and you are missing the fact that if I didn't get this pick, I was going to do everything in my power to make it worthless...Nobody had offered him better deals...and why would two firsts be better than two good prospects? He knows that Kwame is a 7' 19 year old Center, with already good rebounding, and B- D , and Watson went up 1 outside, Two Defense one rebounding and Scouted went to an A. |
|
|
|
Post by princemaharajah on Oct 16, 2009 15:04:01 GMT -5
You say that as if your two #1s are > Kwame and Watson. Clippers should have waited, that is all. Still early in the season. Not really, my point is the Clippers posted no trade block that they were dealing away the Nets pick. I'm sure he could have netted a better offer than Kwame and Watson. |
|
|
|
Post by princemaharajah on Oct 16, 2009 15:06:37 GMT -5
Again, what you're missing here is that other teams could have given him better deals. If he didn't want to win I would have given him two first round picks and expirings. There is no reason to think you had leverage without Billups on your team. You're obviously blinded by your bias as you're the only person here who thinks this wasn't a bad deal. Actually Kru said it wasn't a bad deal for him...and you are missing the fact that if I didn't get this pick, I was going to do everything in my power to make it worthless...Nobody had offered him better deals...and why would two firsts be better than two good prospects? He knows that Kwame is a 7' 19 year old Center, with already good rebounding, and B- D , and Watson went up 1 outside, Two Defense one rebounding and Scouted went to an A. Strawman arguments and crazymike never put up a trade block for the nets pick how are we supposed to know no one could have beaten your offer? |
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on Oct 16, 2009 15:08:33 GMT -5
Actually Kru said it wasn't a bad deal for him...and you are missing the fact that if I didn't get this pick, I was going to do everything in my power to make it worthless...Nobody had offered him better deals...and why would two firsts be better than two good prospects? He knows that Kwame is a 7' 19 year old Center, with already good rebounding, and B- D , and Watson went up 1 outside, Two Defense one rebounding and Scouted went to an A. Strawman arguments and crazymike never put up a trade block for the nets pick how are we supposed to know no one could have beaten your offer? Well you could have offered him two firsts...woo...I doubt anybody trades a young prospect for a could be good first......and I haven't seen anybody making a deal for Celtics pick or Hornets pick this year. |
|
|
|
Post by princemaharajah on Oct 16, 2009 15:10:29 GMT -5
Strawman arguments and crazymike never put up a trade block for the nets pick how are we supposed to know no one could have beaten your offer? Well you could have offered him two firsts...woo...and I haven't seen anybody making a deal for Celtics pick or Hornets pick this year. Hornets pick were never up for trade and the Knicks made a trade block for the Celtics pick. You can't claim, "Nobody had offered him better deals", when nobody knew it was up for trade. |
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on Oct 16, 2009 15:18:48 GMT -5
Well you could have offered him two firsts...woo...and I haven't seen anybody making a deal for Celtics pick or Hornets pick this year. Hornets pick were never up for trade and the Knicks made a trade block for the Celtics pick. You can't claim, "Nobody had offered him better deals", when nobody knew it was up for trade. He tried to get Baron Davis, no luck, and he did shop it some....Thing is, I am the team who values the pick most,a s it is my pick, you stated the best you could have offered is two firsts...so I don't get where you are coming from saying teams could have offered more. he was not looking to win, therefore he wants prospects...he got the number 10 pick from last year, and a player who exploded in TC, for what, If I didn't acquire it, would be at best the 11th or twelfth pick overall in this draft |
|
|
|
Post by ashes on Oct 16, 2009 15:23:48 GMT -5
So Nazr isn't worth the pick either? I could have given him expirings, plenty more than what you offered. You don't seem to understand you had no leverage in this deal. As for trading a player to you for your pick, do you not understand this would make your team better if I gave you a good player? The incentive to trade with another team to a pick that doesn't belong to them is much greater. The fact that you can't seem to understand this is borderline absurd. As I said, He doesn't want to win...I put Jerry Stackhouse on the table and he turned it down....He wanted only young players...I gave him two. You think I had no leverage, however, I had a 55 win team last year...but I lost Chauncey Billups in the first sim, for all but the last 12 games of the season. Chauncey is my best player, and carries much of the scoring load for my team, while creating for his teammates, which is currently my problem, I lack a playmaker. Miner would have solved that problem, so there is no reason to think I wouldn't have climbed... My point was, you saying basically "Well either I get my pick back or I go trade for Miner" is a threat, and a threat that would have a lot of work to do to catch up to being remotely credible. Prince is right, in a deal like this, you're supposed to have no leverage because your at the disadvantage. Yet I guess you were able to convince mike otherwise. This was awful for mike because right now, I'd rather take my chances on the pick than Kwame or Watson. If I were a GM and you had presented this pitch and threat to me, I would've said "Go for it." |
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on Oct 16, 2009 15:24:54 GMT -5
As I said, He doesn't want to win...I put Jerry Stackhouse on the table and he turned it down....He wanted only young players...I gave him two. You think I had no leverage, however, I had a 55 win team last year...but I lost Chauncey Billups in the first sim, for all but the last 12 games of the season. Chauncey is my best player, and carries much of the scoring load for my team, while creating for his teammates, which is currently my problem, I lack a playmaker. Miner would have solved that problem, so there is no reason to think I wouldn't have climbed... My point was, you saying basically "Well either I get my pick back or I go trade for Miner" is a threat, and a threat that would have a lot of work to do to catch up to being remotely credible. Prince is right, in a deal like this, you're supposed to have no leverage because you do in face have none. Yet I guess you were able to convince mike otherwise. This was awful for mike because right now, I'd rather take my chances on the pick than Kwame or Watson. If I were a GM and you had presented this pitch and threat to me, I would've said "Go for it." I had a deal in place for Miner...so I had no issues with it |
|
