(11-05-2024, 12:12 PM)mvossman Wrote: This is ridiculous. If you think a couple of seconds have any bearing on a Giannis trade you have lost all perspective. 

Din being useful to that team is a different conversation than saying he was worth both 18 mil in cap and significant assets.

(11-05-2024, 12:52 PM)F Gump Wrote: I don't agree with any of this. I still think you were way off base because your reply under discussion tried to paint someone as inaccurate, by stating as NBA facts what was at best just your opinion (and imo, a really wrong belief based on tons of evidence to the contrary). You did it with none of the explanation or any disclaimer of "it's just my opinion, but ..." that you somewhat kinda added later. It muddied what was being offered as facts to consider.

In doing that, I think you owe an apology to them, and need to do better to have comments that contribute to helpful discussion. I thought (and still believe) posts and comments like that are not helpful to a good forum meant for friendly discussion. I'll leave it at that.

(11-05-2024, 12:12 PM)mvossman Wrote: This is ridiculous. If you think a couple of seconds have any bearing on a Giannis trade you have lost all perspective.  And when somebody says he cost three picks and the response says one first, the implication is clarification, not contradiction. I think you are being very pedantic with this.

So you called me out for stating an opinion as fact, and now you are stating your opinion as fact.  Din being useful to that team is a different conversation than saying he was worth both 18 mil in cap and significant assets.

(11-05-2024, 01:35 PM)mvossman Wrote: I don't agree with any of this.  I think you are being wildly pedantic and this feels more like its coming from a grudge based on earlier disagreements.

If your intent was really to be helpful, you could have said something like "you should probably clarify that only one of the picks was a first and why don't you think Din was an asset?".  But instead you come out with an attack.  Why don't you call out anyone else who is stating opinion as fact?  It happens all the time on this board, including the guy you are "protecting".  I think you owe me an apology for a malicious attack, but I'm not holding my breath.

(11-05-2024, 01:35 PM)mvossman Wrote: I don't agree with any of this.  I think you are being wildly pedantic and this feels more like its coming from a grudge based on earlier disagreements.

If your intent was really to be helpful, you could have said something like "you should probably clarify that only one of the picks was a first and why don't you think Din was an asset?".  But instead you come out with an attack.  Why don't you call out anyone else who is stating opinion as fact?  It happens all the time on this board, including the guy you are "protecting".  I think you owe me an apology for a malicious attack, but I'm not holding my breath.

(11-05-2024, 02:32 PM)F Gump Wrote: Am I being pedantic? Yes. But imo that is necessary at times. 

Did I "attack" you? Not intended to be that. I can see how you may have  seen it as personal, but it was not (and if i stepped over the line somewhere, did not intend it that way, and my apologies.) I did object to the comments, which i saw to be both objectively untrue (not hint they were an expression of an opinion) and somewhat deceptive in the context offered of what you replied to and quoted, and I still feel that way. 

You say I could have replied differently, but to do it  as you suggest, I would have had to seen a clue that you saw your statement as merely your own opinion and not fact. That was nowhere to be found, and I responded to what WAS written rather than trying to imagine what was not. That's on you, as is the fact that when I objected to what WAS written, you attack rather than say "Oops, i said that wrong", which would have avoided all that ensued when you tried to prove what you said was somehow right.

If you mean to say that I don't think the 2nds should be counted, then say that and try to justify its validity. (I disagree 100% and think that ignores very clear and ongoing NBA operations that are easy to see.) If you want to say YOU didn't see SD as an asset [at all, apparently], then say it that way rather than simply saying he wasn't as a blanket statement. Objectively that blanket statement is false, because of all the reasons I have already offered and more. But the main point is that there was no indication you were saying "this is just MY opinion" and that part is not on the reader.

Again, my apologies if you thought my comments were personal attack. That was not my intent at all. I didn't think what was said was true as stated, and that was what I was addressing.

(11-05-2024, 03:27 PM)mvossman Wrote: I respect your mature response.

Could I have specified only one of the picks was a first?  Yes.  Could I have put the phase "I don't think" in front of Dinwiddie not being an asset?  Yes.  I thought those were implied, but I do see that it was not specifically worded and it could be read differently.  I generally try to be clear and specific in my posts, but sometimes you make a distracted post that doesn't perfectly dot the eyes.

As for the seconds, I'm not saying that second round picks have no value, but when we are talking about a trade that would require many, may firsts, their value seems inconsequential to me.  

As we have both pointed out a while ago, this is a pointless discussion as neither of us believe there is a reasonable path to a Giannis trade to the Mavs.  After reading the several childish responses from the OP, I put on ignore and don't intend to engage again.

(11-05-2024, 12:12 PM)mvossman Wrote: This is ridiculous. If you think a couple of seconds have any bearing on a Giannis trade you have lost all perspective.  And when somebody says he cost three picks and the response says one first, the implication is clarification, not contradiction. I think you are being very pedantic with this.

So you called me out for stating an opinion as fact, and now you are stating your opinion as fact.  Din being useful to that team is a different conversation than saying he was worth both 18 mil in cap and significant assets.

(11-05-2024, 03:27 PM)mvossman Wrote: I respect your mature response.

Could I have specified only one of the picks was a first?  Yes.  Could I have put the phase "I don't think" in front of Dinwiddie not being an asset?  Yes.  I thought those were implied, but I do see that it was not specifically worded and it could be read differently.  I generally try to be clear and specific in my posts, but sometimes you make a distracted post that doesn't perfectly dot the eyes.

As for the seconds, I'm not saying that second round picks have no value, but when we are talking about a trade that would require many, may firsts, their value seems inconsequential to me.  

As we have both pointed out a while ago, this is a pointless discussion as neither of us believe there is a reasonable path to a Giannis trade to the Mavs.  After reading the several childish responses from the OP, I put on ignore and don't intend to engage again.

(11-05-2024, 04:03 PM)F Gump Wrote: Thanks for the reasonable reply. Moving on ...

I agree that GA-to-DAL won't happen. It's not really a fit financially, and that matters more than everyone realizes. I think it's the MAIN obstacle. Luka's supermax is looming. The Mavs COULD put enough assets on the table if they had to imo, I just don't expect they would do so. 

If he is traded, I think it would look a lot like when AD went to LA, and I think GA would drive the destination. I don't buy that he's traded for a pile of picks.

I'm skeptical he gets traded at all. I would think MIL has other avenues they would pursue 1st, making it moot. They don't need to panic over some bad games, as they have some huge chips in their favor, one being they did win a title, another being they have been a great support for GA as he has become an MVP-caliber player. GA is under contract for 3 years AFTER this one. Yes, they need major changes, but they do have the stars to build around, which puts them way ahead in getting good again. 

Their big issue is Middleton's lack of impact, when they need him to be stellar (and healthy, which is a major part of the equation). Losing the 2-way contributions of both Holiday and Middleton has crippled them. And their payroll is massive (over Apron 2, with all that entails) but the depth is very thin. It's like the Mavs trying to win at the end of 2023 with just Luka and Kyrie to make significant contributions. But DAL dug out of their hole without major assets to offer, and MIL could as well.

(11-05-2024, 04:03 PM)F Gump Wrote: Thanks for the reasonable reply. Moving on ...

I agree that GA-to-DAL won't happen. It's not really a fit financially, and that matters more than everyone realizes. I think it's the MAIN obstacle. Luka's supermax is looming. The Mavs COULD put enough assets on the table if they had to imo, I just don't expect they would do so. 

If he is traded, I think it would look a lot like when AD went to LA, and I think GA would drive the destination. I don't buy that he's traded for a pile of picks.

I'm skeptical he gets traded at all. I would think MIL has other avenues they would pursue 1st, making it moot. They don't need to panic over some bad games, as they have some huge chips in their favor, one being they did win a title, another being they have been a great support for GA as he has become an MVP-caliber player. GA is under contract for 3 years AFTER this one. Yes, they need major changes, but they do have the stars to build around, which puts them way ahead in getting good again. 

Their big issue is Middleton's lack of impact, when they need him to be stellar (and healthy, which is a major part of the equation). Losing the 2-way contributions of both Holiday and Middleton has crippled them. And their payroll is massive (over Apron 2, with all that entails) but the depth is very thin. It's like the Mavs trying to win at the end of 2023 with just Luka and Kyrie to make significant contributions. But DAL dug out of their hole without major assets to offer, and MIL could as well.

(11-05-2024, 06:52 PM)Scott41theMavs Wrote: The easiest move for the Bucks to make that would raise their win total by around ten games this year in spite of their roster/lineup troubles would be immediately to go get a coach who isn't the punch line to sports jokes.

(11-06-2024, 01:18 PM)Jmaciscool Wrote: Just wait, Doc's going to get that team to the playoffs, take a 3-1 series lead and then...

(11-05-2024, 06:52 PM)Scott41theMavs Wrote: The easiest move for the Bucks to make that would raise their win total by around ten games this year in spite of their roster/lineup troubles would be immediately to go get a coach who isn't the punch line to sports jokes.

(11-13-2024, 11:18 AM)SleepingHero Wrote: NBACentral (@TheDunkCentral)
The Lakers are the favorites to land Zion Williamson if the Pelicans decide to trade him, per @BovadaOfficial

Los Angeles Lakers: +600
Houston Rockets: +750
Los Angeles Clippers: +850
New York Knicks: +900
Atlanta Hawks: +1200
Brooklyn Nets: +1800
Memphis Grizzlies: +2500
Chicago Bulls: +2800