Messages

16

NBA Discussion / Re: Spurs season officially over!!!

« on: January 24, 2011, 10:20:02 AM »

Rolando as much as said it in the other thread;  the Spurs are about Duncan.  Duncan goes down, the team goes down.  Blair is a nice bit player, but that's all he is - a lesser-talented version of Paul Millsap.

17

NBA Discussion / Re: Viks or Chargers to L.A.? Or both?

« on: January 24, 2011, 09:59:08 AM »

Ah, there's nothing quite like the sound of a team preparing to alienate the fanbase that has supported it, all for the promise of a bigger fan base.

Yo - George Shinn - how'd that Charlotte-to-New Orleans move work out for you?

There is a reason that the Rams left Los Angeles.  San Diego needs to work on winning when it counts, or their new fan base will be just as frustrated as their old fan base.

18

NBA Discussion / Re: Spurs season officially over!!!

« on: January 24, 2011, 09:54:57 AM »

To be followed by 7 points, 6 rebounds, in a loss.

[sarcasm]
I don't know why I ever doubted you.
[/sarcasm]

19

NBA Discussion / Re: Kobe Pelosi

« on: January 21, 2011, 03:11:39 PM »

That's just it, thought, Rolando - "if it wasn't for all the championships."  If it wasn't for all the championships, Jordan and Bryant would be nothing more than Dr. J, Connie Hawkins, Pete Maravich, or pick your poison.  The championships *DO* indicate something.

More on topic of mine and Reality's discussion - how much should being "the man" count for when a championship is obviously a shared thing?  How do you divide the contributions to, for instance, the 1980 Lakers championship appropriately between Magic, Abdul-Jabbar, Nixon, and Wilkes?  Should the fact that Paxson - who is nowhere near "the man" - hit the series-deciding shot against Phoenix count against Jordan's "the man" claim?  How do we appropriately divide credit for the 1990 Detroit championship between Dumars and Isiah?

I maintain that in a team environment where duties are somewhat - but not entirely - divided, like basketball, the "the man" tag is overblown.  Jordan doesn't win without Pippen, Kobe doesn't win without Shaq/Gasol, Shaq doesn't win without Kobe/Wade.  Therefore, discounting a player's obvious accomplishments (at a high level) when he was an obvious crucial key element, but not specifically "the man" is an error.

20

NBA Discussion / Re: Understanding Missouri

« on: January 21, 2011, 12:02:24 PM »

and the open containers of alcohol in moving cars?

I honestly don't know the law, but the article doesn't speak the law as I know it.  I believe an open alcoholic beverage is tolerated only that it is not within reach of the driver, but I'm not sure.

As for folks flocking here to buy cigarettes, again, I wouldn't know.

Then again, smoking and drinking aren't my area of expertise.  But I do know the anti-tax sentiment in Missouri.

21

NBA Discussion / Re: Kobe Pelosi

« on: January 21, 2011, 11:58:07 AM »

Jordan won 6 championships, with Scottie Pippen a common teammate for every one of them.  Kobe's "common teammate" is Derek Fisher. 

And here a lot of us thought it was Shaq and Gasol who benefitted Kobme the most.
So lets see, Fisher is as good as Shaq?  And Gasol?

Not my point.  My point is that Kobe has done it with DIFFERENT teammates.  His only common teammate for all the championships is Derek Fisher.  Jordan *ALWAYS* had a common teammate for *ALL* his teams that won, and that guy was one of the best at his position.  Kobe's teammate in such a similar situation has changed.

The fact that Jordan was "the man" is over-emphasized.  He was the feature player.  While Bryant was not the feature guy on the first three Laker championships with him on the team, that does not invalidate his place.  Jordan was the league's top 2 guard at the time of his championships, and Bryant has been the league's top two-guard at the time of his.  The fact that Bryant played alongside the league's best center at the time shouldn't invalidate his own place.

6 legit championships as the unquestionable leader is = to 2 as the (debateable) leader.  Mmmmkay.

And, again, you over-emphasize the importance of being "the man."  The fact that Worthy and Abdul-Jabbar were MVPs in the playoffs for the Lakers doesn't diminish the fact that Magic Johnson was instrumental to the picture.  Heck, one year, Abdul-Jabbar was the LEAGUE MVP, but Magic was the PLAYOFF MVP.  So which one was "the man"?  Answer:  it doesn't matter.  BOTH were critical to the mix.  Just like Shaq/Gasol and Kobe or Pippen and Jordan.

And as for having Bill Wennington as a center, I could point out that Kobe had Greg Foster.  Wennington, like Foster, was never a starter.

Get this weak stuff out.
Classic Laker posterism.
Foster played 3 freaking minutes the entire playoffs!  The one and only season he was with Kobme.
Foster started 8 games for the Lakers. 
Wentington started 50+ games for the Bulls during 3 seasons of their second 3 peat.

Minutes?  Foster 7.3
Wentington double digits pretty much thruout.  15 13 and 10.
Oh i guess we need to go on to Luc Longely.  Since he is just as good as Shaq and Gasol too. 

Now tell me who Jordans *minimum of two All Stars on every team* were.
Then tell me who Lebron James were in Cleveland.

NO comparison.
Bird had plenty of help?  You betchya. 
He was playing against Mo Malone, Dr. J, and Bobby Jones just to win the Division, let alone the Conf.
Kobme lined up against Golden State. 

You go ahead and slobber over his last two *Championships*.
I'll take quality over quantity any time.

THIS IS THE *LAST* TIME YOU WILL *EVER* ACCUSE ME OF "LAKER POSTERISM."  UNDERSTAND THAT NOW.  I'M TIRED OF DEALING WITH ANYTHING THAT DISAGREES WITH YOUR WARPED SENSE OF THINGS BEING TIED TO THE F****** LAKERS.  TIE ME TO THE LAKERS JUST ONE MORE TIME - EVEN JUST INSINUATE IT IN ANY WAY, AS OBLIQUELY AS YOU THINK YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH - AND I'M ADDING YOU TO THE IGNORE LIST.  BE WARNED!

Wennington started 50 plus games?  I think not.  20 games in 1996 (none playoff), 19 games in 1997 (wasn't even on the playoff roster), and 8 in 1998 (none playoff).  Had you used Luc Longley at the start, you would have had a point - assuming, of course, that your point is that center is the most critical place to have a star player.  At which point, I'm going to start bad-mouthing pretty much everyone who isn't a center (including your precious Larry Bird, who had Parish with him for every championship), and point out that my "greatest ever" list, includes 3 centers in the top 4 (along with Jordan).

Jordan teamed with Cartwright, Pippen, and Grant in his first three championships, and Pippen and Rodman in his second three.  (Not going to reach onto the deep bench for Parish and the like.)  Kobe had his help in the first two (Shaq, Green/Grant, Rice/Richmond), and the last (Gasol/Artest).  But two years ago?  Or the third?

When did LeBron James get into this discussion?  He plays a different position, hasn't won a championship yet, and hasn't even been discussed in this thread for *ANY* reason yet (and is at least three or four years removed from being there, since this is a CAREER summary).

22

NBA Discussion / Re: Understanding Missouri

« on: January 19, 2011, 05:28:44 PM »

The article is missing the point, as many articles do.

There's a reason Missouri legislators have an issue when trying to raise a tax on cigarettes:  IT'S A TAX.  Missourians are pretty much anti-tax.  We've got one of the more tax-hostile states, with ANY tax increase mandated to go before the voters.  And let me tell you, that whether it's a raising a tax on cigarettes, income, or watching pro basketball (we've got no teams near us), Missourians are going to say *NO*. 

We've got two major elements to political parties at work in Missouri - conservative Republicans and "Dixie-Crat" Democrats.  Both are anti-tax, just like the general population.

I'm not exactly sure what our government here in Missouri is doing, but locally, there's definitely a push to ban smoking, well, just about anywhere.  It's causing a bit of a controversy, but does seem to be generally supported.  Libertarians are especially up at arms about all of this.  Not really sure where it's going, but it does seem to be a battle.  There are battles regarding adult book/novelty stores and strip clubs - but not using tax as the methodology. 

I think it's just a general aversion to taxes in general.  And that is something that I've grown up, living here all my life.  The going thought is "I work too hard for what is mine to let anyone take it away, for ANY reason."

23

NBA Discussion / Re: Kobe Pelosi

« on: January 19, 2011, 05:11:13 PM »

No, I don't think so.  At this stage, I don't think I can place Kobe any lower than the top 20 in NBA history,

This part comes within the real of reasonableness.

Bryant may very well figure in the Jordan category.

How so?
Jordan lead the Bulls to 6 Championships with Bill Wentington at Center for a time.
Kobme most assurably did not lead the 1st repeat and you and i can agree to disagree that he lead the 2nd one.
6-24 in a game 7 and yet named the MVP?  Tell me when any legit star has been given that kind of pampering.  What fertilizer.  Bailed out by Gasol, Ray Allens choking etc.

He may figure in with the Bird/Magic category.

I don't think he comes close to Magic but to say he may figure in with Bird is just absurd.

Take away Shaq, the Kings fix, the Gasol/Fisher collusion and the gawd awful ongoing reffing favoritism and does he have much more of a career then Dominique Wilkens?
Does he even exceed 'Nique?
See 2004-07 for your answer.

Anywho i posted the pic mostly for RoBlackman sake who's been out.

Jordan won 6 championships, with Scottie Pippen a common teammate for every one of them.  Kobe's "common teammate" is Derek Fisher.  Jordan was "the leader," but he had a MINIMUM of two all-stars with him on every championship team he had.  He also appeared in 6 finals - one LESS than Kobe Bryant *SO* *FAR*.  And as for having Bill Wennington as a center, I could point out that Kobe had Greg Foster.  Wennington, like Foster, was never a starter.

The fact that Jordan was "the man" is over-emphasized.  He was the feature player.  While Bryant was not the feature guy on the first three Laker championships with him on the team, that does not invalidate his place.  Jordan was the league's top 2 guard at the time of his championships, and Bryant has been the league's top two-guard at the time of his.  The fact that Bryant played alongside the league's best center at the time shouldn't invalidate his own place.

Why shouldn't he come close to Bird?  After all, Bird wasn't even the MVP of one of his championship teams, using the same argument you used for Jordan against Kobe.  Bryant wears more rings, and had even fewer stars alongside him.  And I have Magic in front of Bird.

Take away the Parish and McHale for Joe Barry Carrol trade, Johnson for Rick Robey, stealing plays from the 76er huddle via the TV in the locker room when you're thrown out of games, ridiculous numbers of excellent players, some stars on their former teams, flocking to your team to play, and what has Bird accomplished?  You cannot start taking away the good fortune ANY top player enjoyed from them when considering where they were in regard to the rest of the league.  It's blatantly unfair - and ANY star level player will have his share of baggage.

24

NBA Discussion / Re: Kobe Pelosi

« on: January 18, 2011, 04:48:43 PM »

Greatest of all times?  Not while Russell figures into the equation.  Not while Kareem Abdul-Jabbar figures into the equation.  After those two, THEN we'll talk Kobe.

The one notable think about Russell and Abdul-Jabbar (and Chamberlain) was that they changed the game.  Kobe really hasn't done that.

Keep going about 45 more names.

No, I don't think so.  At this stage, I don't think I can place Kobe any lower than the top 20 in NBA history, and very likely top 10.  Just because I dislike the guy, it's not enough to keep him out.  After all, I'm not *THAT* big of a fan of Jordan, Chamberlain, or Baylor, either, and at least two of those guys have to be top 10 (at worst).

Bryant may very well figure in the Jordan category.  He may figure in with the Bird/Magic category.  I don't think these are unreasonable things.  I *DO* think it's unreasonable to put him with Russell and Abdul-Jabbar.

A REALLY interesting debate would ensue in the "Who's greater:  Shaq or Kobe?" argument.  My reasoning here is that O'Neal *DID* trigger a rule change (illegal defense softening), and that's a big thing when describing a "game changer" to me.

Make no mistake - I can argue *EITHER* side of the "Jordan vs. Kobe" coin, and handle it respectably, even though, for my take, Jordan was the greater of the two.  I can't argue Kobe's side against Abdul-Jabbar or Russell well enough to convince myself it's not completely done just for the sake of argument.

25

NBA Discussion / Re: Give Advice to Player

« on: January 18, 2011, 10:59:07 AM »

LeBron:  Apologize to Cavalier fans.  The bad boy attitude is NOT something you want kids copying.  Remember that you'll be in your late 30's someday, and will have to play with kids who looked to you as an example.  Want them acting like you have?

Carmelo:  Make up your freakin' mind.  This stuff is getting old!

26

NBA Discussion / Re: Kobe Pelosi

« on: January 18, 2011, 10:54:44 AM »

Greatest of all times?  Not while Russell figures into the equation.  Not while Kareem Abdul-Jabbar figures into the equation.  After those two, THEN we'll talk Kobe.

The one notable think about Russell and Abdul-Jabbar (and Chamberlain) was that they changed the game.  Kobe really hasn't done that.

27

NBA Discussion / Re: My Carmelo Anthony proposal

« on: January 14, 2011, 11:35:51 AM »

Reality,

Here it is:

Denver gets:
Prince (1 year, 11.1M)     from Detroit
Fields  (2 years, 473.6K)   from NY
Gallinari (2 years, 3.3M)  from NY
Walker (2 years, 854.3K) from NY
#1 draft pick from NY

Detroit gets:
Curry (1 year, 11.2M) from NY
Chandler (1 year, 2.1M) from NY
Williams (1 year, 854.3K) from NY
Azubuike (1 year, 3.3M) from NY
Randolph (2 years, 1.9M) from NY
#2 draft pick from NY
$3M cash

NY gets:
Anthony (17.1M 2 Years, but extended as a condition of trade) from Denver
Hamilton (12.5M 3 Years) from Detroit

Why they do it:

Denver gets Prince's expiring deal, plus Fields and Gallinari - two young players - plus a draft pick.  This makes J.R. Smith expendable, and they don't lose Billups.  They take on no long term money.

Detroit gets rid of Hamilton's contract, and exchanges Prince's deal for Curry's deal, and takes on only Randolph's deal as anything over a year.  And Randolph is essentially being paid by NY to play for Detroit - if they don't want him, he's essentially pre-bought-out.

NY gets Anthony and Hamilton, but decreases their depth.  However, they now have the star core that they wanted.

I think NY gets the worst of this deal, personally, and I like Detroit's step into rebuild mode best.

28

NBA Discussion / Re: The payoff for Carmelo is nebulous

« on: January 14, 2011, 11:23:16 AM »

Hey Joe!
  
IMHO, any trade for Carmelo is fraught with uncertainty, if not sheer peril.  He is a classic example of the me~only superstar that has become predominant in the churlish, cruel post~Jordan SportsCenter highlights era. I'm not going to write any more about this now, because I'm getting really hater~pissed!
  
Shaq #1

I don't disagree with you.  But the Knicks want him, and he wants to go there.  I have a proposal that makes it work.

29

General Discussion / Re: Am I blind, or just lacking in discernment?

« on: January 13, 2011, 06:20:52 PM »

Actually, Rolando, I don't mind fielding this one.

I never heard of Palin until I visited Alaska, on a cruise, in 2007.  While touring Mendenhall glacier up there - which is receding, and the change in the past 21 years has been INCREDIBLY notable, causing me to re-think my stance on global climate change - we took a tour of Juneau.  The tour guide on the bus mentioned in glowing tones that Alaska loved it's governor, and how she had done a lot of good for the state.  This caught my attention, because 1) no one ever talks about their state's governor, and 2) it was a woman governor.

Never gave it another thought at the time.

Fast forward to when McCain announced his running-mate.  My mom reminded me of the tour guide in Alaska.

From what I read of Palin following that, I found her to be plain-spoken, which is something I particularly like.  (See Barack Obama's speech last night.  Excellent work, because it cut through the BS to get to the heart of the truth.)  I read that she took on her own political party in Alaska - which I *ALSO* liked, because I had always considered the long-time Senator from up there (Stephens) to be more than just a bit crooked.  When I listened to the MEDIA, however, they made a well-liked governor into some sort of incompetent boob.  Yet when Palin spoke, she was up-front, honest, and while ultimately unprepared to be Vice President, definitely a breath of fresh air in the stale political climate of Washington, DC.  Add to that that I've always considered Biden to be a crook, and amongst the worst that Washington has to offer.

I understand Palin's value system, because it's not all that unlike the one I was brought up under and still find myself clinging to.

My problem with Palin - and really the only one - is that she's becoming part of the collective national windbag rather than the breath of fresh air she used to represent.  Her brash style fits in WAY too well with what we have coming out of Washington.  I don't like being told by my government, "We know more than you do, so listen to us."  And I believe that her quitting as governor of Alaska, while undeniably due to the media craze surrounding her, really invalidates her as a Presidential/Vice Presidential candidate.  But this is a lady who's proven she can accomplish good things in a state, and that, in my opinion, is the type of person we need more of.

The Tea Party is another issue.  I understand the Tea Party.  I identify myself more with the Tea Party than with the Republican or Democratic parties at the present.  I believe spending is out of control, that we need to get under control not just the "deficit," but the "debt."  In all the important ways, the Tea Party is reminiscent of what I supported when I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996.  And I think Claire McCaskill, Democratic Senator from here in Missouri, really hit the nail on the head in terms of public temperature - people have a right to be mad at how things are in Washington - especially after two stimulus packages and a National Health Care package that most independent people feel will WORSEN the debt rather than decrease the deficit (as the CBO predicts).

Obviously, I'm on the other side of the political fence than many here, although I consider myself a moderate.  I support our efforts in Iraq in cleaining up the mess that we made (a view shared by Huckabee, who was my choice for President last time around).  I support the continued war in Afghanistan.  I believe in sealing our borders, but in immigration reform, with A DEGREE of amnesty.  I believe in birth-right citizenship.  I believe it doesn't matter where Obama was born, since, if either of his parents were citizens of the U.S. at the time of his birth, he's an American by birth.  I believe in the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and feel that it should be the guiding document to everything the government does.  I believe that the only thing the government has ever really done right is defend the country, and am not eager to have it prove its incompetence in other areas.

In addition, I do *NOT* consider myself a die-hard capitalist, since pure capitalism by itself seems to violate too many of my ethics.  I think the government has no business "outsourcing" military operations to private firms (e.g. American companies that act as security firms (which I call mercenaries) in Iraq). 

I think earmarks are a problem, and should go away.  I think the deficit should not be REDUCED, but ELIMINATED, and I don't think it takes more than a two-year election cycle to do it.  I think the current tax system has too many loopholes.  I also think it is unfair to the wealthy.  I think the estate tax is among the most evil of taxes, and I think that the estate tax is responsible for the upper middle class being prevented from rising into the upper class.  And I think taxes are too high because we waste too much money.

And with all of that, I won't vote for a Republican just because he's a Republican.  You want to lead me?  IMPRESS ME.  Make me think that you're headed the same direction I am.

When last election rolled around, I was happy - I thought there were two good candidates that I could support in McCain and Obama.  And then they both voted for TARP - when I was DECIDEDLY against it.  That told me that both would be an addition to the money-wasters and the corrupt.  So, in protest, I voted for Barr.

I'm the kind of person Palin appeals to.  She's not a Washington insider.  Unfortunatley, I'm finding her to be more and more over her head in an overly hostile environment.  I don't think she'll survive it without a unified America supporting her, and I don't think that's where she thinks she needs to be, which constitutes, in my opinion, a serious error in judgement.

I'm definitely on the pro-Palin side, but just not for political office (meaning President/Vice President) - at least not in 2012.  I could have been in 2008, but I think the situation in America has changed since that time.  I think she has a lot to learn to work at the National level.  But I think she's got the potential to do it.

30

NBA Discussion / My Carmelo Anthony proposal

« on: January 13, 2011, 04:37:05 PM »

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4cq4q3l

This is the trade I worked up for Carmelo.

Include a #2 pick from the Knicks to Detroit, and a #1 pick from the Knicks to Denver, along with $3 million to Detroit.