|
|
Post by princemaharajah on Oct 16, 2009 16:28:39 GMT -5
I don't need to assume they wouldn't have gotten a better offer, I said they should make a trade block and see who gives them the best offer be it you or someone else. You, however, keep on assuming nobody could beat your offer which is an illogical fallacy based on the premise that you don't know what other teams would have offered. Actually you did say they would have gotten a better offer had they made a trade block...but thats an assumption...my assumption is that he had not gotten a better offer yet...maybe he should have posted a trade block, but he didn't nor did he get a better offer. My offer was not the end all be all of offers...and if you would have traded Nazr and two picks for my first...you are idiotic, cause I would then have traded so that I could win I see you have decided to banter the topic to name-calling which is all fun but the reality of the situation is that I don't assume anything since I never made an exclusion on who is giving the better deal whether it be you or anyone else, the premise of my argument rests on the shoulders of the clippers GM as he didn't know what other GMs could have offered be it worse or better without seeking such a trade. The fact, and not assumption would be was that based on the trade block he'd be able to gauge the what deals were offered and what deals weren't offered. In your premise you are precluding that regardless of what alternative he choose, your offer would have been the best. This posits a false dilemma as the clippers are faced with your trade as the best trade without making the trade block. |
|
|
|
Post by Contract Year on Oct 16, 2009 16:40:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on Oct 16, 2009 16:51:49 GMT -5
Actually you did say they would have gotten a better offer had they made a trade block...but thats an assumption...my assumption is that he had not gotten a better offer yet...maybe he should have posted a trade block, but he didn't nor did he get a better offer. My offer was not the end all be all of offers...and if you would have traded Nazr and two picks for my first...you are idiotic, cause I would then have traded so that I could win I see you have decided to banter the topic to name-calling which is all fun but the reality of the situation is that I don't assume anything since I never made an exclusion on who is giving the better deal whether it be you or anyone else, the premise of my argument rests on the shoulders of the clippers GM as he didn't know what other GMs could have offered be it worse or better without seeking such a trade. The fact, and not assumption would be was that based on the trade block he'd be able to gauge the what deals were offered and what deals weren't offered. In your premise you are precluding that regardless of what alternative he choose, your offer would have been the best. This posits a false dilemma as the clippers are faced with your trade as the best trade without making the trade block. You stated I am *sure* the Clippers would have gotten a better offer. That=assumption. I am not saying he couldn't have gotten a better offer, I am saying he didn't and I was making this trade or I was going to trade for Miner, which would have decreased the value of my pick, and hurt what he could have gotten. Maybe he shouldn't have caved, but he did....and got what could be the most value out of the pick. I mean, what if he had posted a block for the pick, I trade to win, and Miner makes me start winning. Bye Bye trade value |
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on Oct 16, 2009 16:53:57 GMT -5
Wow..that guy is an idiot...and thats hilarious |
|
|
|
Post by kobe24 on Oct 16, 2009 16:57:34 GMT -5
Damn at ILikeGifs.com
|
|
|
|
Post by princemaharajah on Oct 16, 2009 17:01:23 GMT -5
I see you have decided to banter the topic to name-calling which is all fun but the reality of the situation is that I don't assume anything since I never made an exclusion on who is giving the better deal whether it be you or anyone else, the premise of my argument rests on the shoulders of the clippers GM as he didn't know what other GMs could have offered be it worse or better without seeking such a trade. The fact, and not assumption would be was that based on the trade block he'd be able to gauge the what deals were offered and what deals weren't offered. In your premise you are precluding that regardless of what alternative he choose, your offer would have been the best. This posits a false dilemma as the clippers are faced with your trade as the best trade without making the trade block. You stated I am *sure* the Clippers would have gotten a better offer. That=assumption. I am not saying he couldn't have gotten a better offer, I am saying he didn't and I was making this trade or I was going to trade for Miner, which would have decreased the value of my pick, and hurt what he could have gotten. Maybe he shouldn't have caved, but he did....and got what could be the most value out of the pick. I mean, what if he had posted a block for the pick, I trade to win, and Miner makes me start winning. Bye Bye trade value Let's leave out the strawman arguments, I never claimed in the above post that I was sure. I never made the exclusion of you to any other GM had trade offers been sent or had they not been sent. The fallacy of your arguments sets upon this illogical paradigm where you have made the best offer. |
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on Oct 16, 2009 17:04:01 GMT -5
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. oops..... |
|
|
|
Post by princemaharajah on Oct 16, 2009 17:06:31 GMT -5
I never claimed in the above post that I was sure. |
|
|
|
Post by princemaharajah on Oct 16, 2009 17:07:48 GMT -5
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. oops..... Clearly you aren't aware of what an above post is. |
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on Oct 16, 2009 17:10:48 GMT -5
actually that post that I quoted is an above post, and you said it what 2 hours ago...seriously....
|
|
|
|
Post by princemaharajah on Oct 16, 2009 17:15:06 GMT -5
actually that post that I quoted is an above post, and you said it what 2 hours ago...seriously.... The above post is in reference to the one directly above. Not all of them ones preceding it. |
|
|
|
Post by DB on Oct 16, 2009 17:34:42 GMT -5
I dont think it is that bad for mike to be honest.
|
|
|
|
Post by ashes on Oct 16, 2009 17:44:38 GMT -5
because you are a festigio
|
|
|
|
Post by House on Oct 16, 2009 17:47:47 GMT -5
I dont think it is that bad for mike to be honest. |
|
|
|
Post by Contract Year on Oct 16, 2009 18:25:08 GMT -5
Agreed. Kwame and Earl look like nice prospects. This could work out for both parties.
The issue of leverage is another story though. How exactly does a team practically begging to get their pick back have any leverage in a deal? Either get that person to extremely overpay, or call his "bluff." If Miner really did make the Nets amazing (which I doubt. Consider the fact that Miner makes 13 mil and the Nets are forced to either destroy their depth or give up their only decent big man in Howard), tough break. Now the Nets can sleep easy and re-up for the next season with their lotto addition.
|
|
