PDA

View Full Version : Get Gary.



Ghost Writer
06-26-2003, 03:31 PM
What do you think The Glove's going rate will be this summer?

Why let him re-sign with Milwaukee?

Wouldn't a cheaper Payton be better than a max Kidd?


Questions.

:cooldevil

scott
06-26-2003, 03:37 PM
Any Payton would be better than Kidd for us.

Gary can easily play the 2 and the 2 PG combination would be a lot smoother.

Gary can shoot (.469 career), score (18.3 ppg career), and dish (7.4 apg career including 8.3 last season, only .6 less than Kidd).

Gary is also a better defender.

Kidd has a definite edge on rebounding- but Gary just fits better into the Spurs "system." Payton is a half court PG.

Ghost Writer
06-26-2003, 03:45 PM
Payton has proven to be effective in a backcourtwith another shooting PG by the name of Cassell.

Payton has the fiery temperment, veteran leadership and committment to winning that the Spurs locker room needs next year.

And Payton will not be expecting a 6 year contract for the max like Kidd.





Get Gary.


:cooldevil

travis2
06-26-2003, 03:48 PM
hmmmmm....I guess Payton would be a reasonable substitute for Speedy...:wink

scott
06-26-2003, 03:50 PM
The one problem to "Get Gary" is one of the same ones involved with getting Kidd. He doesn't play center.

I'd love to have Gary on our team, especially ahead of Kidd, but he also requires bringing in a big with him.

How much would Gary command? A David Robinson like 10 mil?

He would leave a little more money open to get a big- but not a tremendous amount more.

IcemanCometh
06-26-2003, 03:50 PM
only a dumbass like ghost would think payton won't want a 6 year max deal.

baseline bum
06-26-2003, 03:50 PM
Payton + Olowokandi would be a very successful summer if O'Neal says no.

Ghost Writer
06-26-2003, 03:53 PM
Ice seems to be the only person who thinks at his age, Payton would still command a six-year max salary. And how many teams can accommodate that, 'tard?


scott, I'm saying that if the choice is between Kidd or Payton, then I want Payton, because the years and money will be less and we could still get a decent big to start at center.

:cooldevil

scott
06-26-2003, 03:56 PM
I understand what you are saying Ghost, and we are in agreement on Payton vs. Kidd.

But lets expand our thinking a little further.

If we sign Payton, we still don't have a starting center.

How much money do we have left to try and get one?

Who do we get?

IcemanCometh
06-26-2003, 03:58 PM
when in the history of the nba has a star player ever signed with a team for less money than he thought he was worth. (charles barkley does not count because he had plenty of money in endorsements and was near the end of a career desperately trying to win a ring. and we all know he was paid later on)

what in paytons history makes you think he would even consider taking less than a 6 year deal.

milwaukee wants to keep him thats 1 team right there,you fucking moron.

Ghost Writer
06-26-2003, 04:34 PM
scott, I'll keep the conversation going with you, because IceMan's hitting the pipe again.

The choice between Kidd and Payton has to be Plan C after O'Neal or Brand say 'No'.

Perhaps we can afford Payton and Howard or Brown.

Archie thinks these dudes will go for around the MLE.

Alll I am saying is if it's between paying the max and 6 years for Kidd or $9 million and 4 for Payton, you gotta go with The Glove.

:cooldevil

IcemanCometh
06-26-2003, 04:37 PM
you guys sound like mavs fans

scott
06-26-2003, 04:43 PM
Just like "Kidd + big man to be named at some amount to be named" isn't good enough, neither is "Payton + big man to be named at some amount to be named."

Let's start talking specifics- I like this idea, let's see if it works.

spurster
06-26-2003, 04:44 PM
Payton turns 35 this summer. I believe any contract over 3 years for Payton triggers the over-36 rule.

IcemanCometh
06-26-2003, 04:45 PM
payton is not going to come cheaper than kidd. lay off the rock

God Almighty
06-26-2003, 05:30 PM
Payton can't be signed to a 6 year deal. Lay off the freon, ice.

Ghost Writer
06-27-2003, 11:31 AM
scott, use your own imagination. The nice thing is that Payton wouldn't be signed to as much money or as many years as Kidd. There would be more flexibility to sign a starting quality center. Who?

Who knows?





Milwaukee drafted the best PG in the draft last night. I can't see them bringing back Cassell and Payton now.

:cooldevil

Mark in Austin
06-27-2003, 11:43 AM
The only teams that can offer Payton more than the MLE are Milwaukee, Utah, Denver, and the Clips.

I think Payton will be hard pressed to secure a salary for more than about 7 million a year, no matter how much he wants.

Ghost Writer
06-27-2003, 12:35 PM
So, let's say we strike out on O'Neal and Brand, Mark.

Wouldn't you rather have Payton for like $8 million than Kidd for $15 balls?

:cooldevil

scott
06-27-2003, 12:37 PM
Whats your obsession with overpaying Payton?

I'd much rather have Payton at 7 million than Payton at 8 million.

Marcus Bryant
06-27-2003, 12:39 PM
Kidd's price tag will be $12.5 mil, give or take a few $100k. Not $15.

Ghost Writer
06-27-2003, 12:39 PM
If Payton can get $7 million elsewhere, how could he turn down $8 million from us?

$8 million is not overpaying for Payton, scott.

Connect the dots.


:cooldevil

scott
06-27-2003, 12:42 PM
Maybe you are okay with paying 14% more than Market Value for everything- but most people with a brain would call that overpaying.

Connect the math, goof.

Whottt
06-27-2003, 12:42 PM
Payton is much better than Kidd, he's not gonna get great offers from anyone.

**** Kandi, I'd rather Bateer..

Who was playing Center for the Clips when Shaq scored 60 points?

Marcus Bryant
06-27-2003, 12:44 PM
Payton is much better than Kidd...

Not in 2003.

scott
06-27-2003, 12:48 PM
G GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
80 80 40.1 .454 .297 .710 1.00 3.20 4.20 8.3 1.66 .25 2.34 2.30 20.4
80 80 37.4 .414 .341 .841 1.40 4.90 6.30 8.9 2.24 .31 3.70 1.60 18.7

I'll take the first line at 60% of the cost, please.

Ghost Writer
06-27-2003, 12:49 PM
scott, get a clue on how things work. If three teams offer the same star the same money, the one that ups the ante has the competitive advantage.

We paid Avery Johnson $8 million acouple of season ago, scared money.

:cooldevil

Marcus Bryant
06-27-2003, 12:51 PM
Kidd's worth the difference.

scott
06-27-2003, 12:52 PM
What difference?

Ghost Writer
06-27-2003, 12:53 PM
I disagree with that vehemently.

Kidd is not $5 million a year better than Payton... and that's not even considering that The Glove would bode better in the backcourt with Parker than Kidd.

:cooldevil

Marcus Bryant
06-27-2003, 12:54 PM
Flash forward to 2005 do you honestly think that Payton is going to be putting up similiar numbers then?

I disagree with your price for GP as well. No way he goes for less than $10 mil.

scott
06-27-2003, 12:56 PM
Get a clue, Ghost- when the only other teams in the running are Milwaukee (with two PGs already), Utah (who is rebuilding and will not be interested in an aging PG to join John Stockton sipping Mai Tai's in a few years), Denver (not likely) and the Clippers (are you kidding me)- there is no need to "up the ante."

scott
06-27-2003, 12:57 PM
Flash foward to 2005 when Kidd won't be put up those numbers either.

Both have peaked.

Ghost Writer
06-27-2003, 12:58 PM
Who can afford to pay him $10 million?

Who will pay him more than $10 million.

We got people her saying $8 million is too high, for krissakes.

Playing alongside Duncan could extend Payton's longevity.

Of course, Kidd will be playing at a higher level in 2005. He'll also be making a lot more.

I can't see Payton signing for as many years as Kidd anyway. He's older.


:cooldevil

scott
06-27-2003, 12:59 PM
I believe any deal over 3 years would invoke the over 36 rule for Payton anyway. He is looking at a 2 year deal, tops.

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 01:00 PM
Payton is too freaking grumpy, he will have all the Spurs at each other's throats all the time.

Ghost Writer
06-27-2003, 01:00 PM
Great. Even better!

:cooldevil

Marcus Bryant
06-27-2003, 01:00 PM
Plenty of teams will be interested in GP and will be willing to send back talent in a S&T. He's a marquee name. Given that some of you think his game is going to be at such a high level over the next 5 years then surely NBA front offices will agree and bid up his price accordingly.

Marcus Bryant
06-27-2003, 01:02 PM
Right. The 'over 35' rule would place some pressure on a team to pay GP a higher rate for fewer years.

scott
06-27-2003, 01:02 PM
There you go again, putting words in other's mouth to justify your man love for Kidd.

Gary would be a 1 or 2 year signing. I dont think anyone here gives a shit how good he'll be in 5 years.

Marcus Bryant
06-27-2003, 01:04 PM
Sorry, I was just exposing the stupidity of your argument that the Spurs should pass on signing Kidd for Payton. And no way GP gets anything less than 3 years.

Yeah man, I guess its "man love" because I'd like to see the Spurs end up with a great player. Come with something better, scotty, instead of that drivel.

scott
06-27-2003, 01:05 PM
Gary signing for 3 years invokes the over 36 rule. Not gonna happen.

Ghost Writer
06-27-2003, 01:33 PM
Um, if Payton is so coveted, how come his name is not linked to a single team other than Milwaukee at this point?


Payton is clearly the better value than Kidd. Period.


:cooldevil

scott
06-27-2003, 01:35 PM
Unless we are playing fantasy basketball- then I take Kidd.

Too bad we aren't and playing style is a factor.

For the Spurs, Brand >= O'Neal >>> Payton > Kidd

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 02:01 PM
Scott! Brand is not > O'Neal....O'Neal is much better than Brand for SA. He is a lot closer to DRob than anyone out there. Brand is Rose with 2 more inches.

scott
06-27-2003, 02:03 PM
Brand is a 20 point scorer, the best offensive rebounder in the game, and the 4th leading shot blocker in the game.

Comparing him to Malik Rose is just stupid.

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 02:09 PM
Scott, you are wrong. O'Neal is much better than Brand. I did not say Rose was a good, but he is the same type of player, an over-achiever, he was in college and he is now. I want a grade A stud and that is O"neal.

Ghost Writer
06-27-2003, 02:27 PM
So anyway, back to Payton.

Some people here simply have a hard-on for Kidd.

Payton can play a much better off-guard than Kidd and will require less money and years to sign.


:cooldevil

MI21
06-27-2003, 02:32 PM
With Cassell potentially being traded, do you think it's easier for the Spurs to acquire Payton, or harder?

Question.

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 02:39 PM
I would rather have Cassell over Kidd and Payton to be frank. He is a great shooter, passer and one of the most competitive players I have ever seen.


To answer you query, I think Payton stays put for sure now that Cassell is gone.

Ghost Writer
06-27-2003, 02:43 PM
More difficult now, MI21.


Jimmy, Cassell in a grade below both Kidd and Payton.


:cooldevil

scott
06-27-2003, 03:07 PM
If Cassell is gone, I think Payton is a near lock as possible to stay with the Bucks- especially if MJ comes in and woos Payton into a false sense of hope for the franchise.

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 03:23 PM
Ghost.

Cassell = 2 rings

Kidd and Payton= 0 rings

As far as what the Spurs need, Cassell fills the bill. He can breakdown the defese with either pentrations or shooting with a high FG %. When he is hot, he is unstopable, Kidd is never hot, and Payton is getting long in the tooth and is not the defender he once was. I say Cassell is now on par with Payton and Kidd.

scott
06-27-2003, 03:26 PM
Steve Kerr = 5 Rings

that doesn't mean I'll take Kerr over Payton. Get a grip, Jim.

Ghost Writer
06-27-2003, 03:36 PM
Awesome comeback, scott. You took the words off of my keyboard.

I like the little Jimmy vs. scott rivalry brewing here. Very reminiscent of Archie and myself.

:cooldevil


I'm disappointed that Cassell is being moved. Either the Bucks know they are re-signing Payton or they have b@lls of brass.


:cooldevil

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 04:00 PM
Scott, why do you keep taking my posts out of context???

Check these numbers out:

YEAR G GS MIN FG FG% 3P 3P% FT FT% STL BLK TO PF OFF DEF TOT AST PTS
2002-2003 78 77 34.6 7.0-14.9 .470 0.8-2.1 .362 4.9-5.7 .861 1.13 0.2 2.3 2.8 0.7 3.7 4.4 5.8 19.7
This is not a player who is a step down from any pointguard.

47% shooting from that position is great, and he does not get the layups that Kidd gets so that makes his % even better considering that he shoots from outside more. The man can flat out shoot the rock.

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 04:04 PM
Awesome comeback, scott. You took the words off of my keyboard.

I like the little Jimmy vs. scott rivalry brewing here. Very reminiscent of Archie and myself.



Ghost, that comeback was not a good one at all, because Kerr was not the cog in his championships that Cassell was, by in any way shape of form. Cassell is and was then a great guard and was instrumental in Houston's championships.

Ghost Writer
06-27-2003, 04:08 PM
For the record, Jim, you seriously would want Cassell over Payton or Kidd, all things being equal?



Question.


Intriguing.



:cooldevil

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 04:14 PM
For the money, yes. You will get 3 more assists from Kidd and maybe 2 more from Gary and the points will be a wash, but Kidd will take 5 more shots to get the same amt of points that Sam can get. Gary shoots a high %, but is too old to give more than a 3 yr deal. And Sam is best FTer of the bunch, so might be able to teach the Spurs how to shoot a freakin FT.

Since you guys are so interested in savingmoney then Sam would make more sense....More bang for your buck I say.

scott
06-27-2003, 04:14 PM
Cassell is a nice player- but he isn't half the defender the Glove is.

Payton > Cassell

And lucky us we get to see Alien Head feeding off KG 4 times next year.

scott
06-27-2003, 04:15 PM
I dont think Sam would save you any money over Payton at this point.

I see Gary being a 2 year guy as a positive. In two years, Parker will be better than both Gary and Kidd.

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 04:17 PM
Payton is not the defender he once was...not even close. TP schooled him last year and Kidd schooled him this year. Also his steals are down .5 a game from his career average.

TwoHandJam
06-27-2003, 04:44 PM
Scott, you are wrong. O'Neal is much better than Brand. I did not say Rose was a good, but he is the same type of player, an over-achiever, he was in college and he is now. I want a grade A stud and that is O"neal.

I love O'Neal as much as the next guy and I think we have a better shot at him since he's an UFA but you are way off base about Brand. Brand is a better shotblocker and rebounder than O'Neal and he's been putting up 20/10 numbers in the west since he entered the league, even with having to share the ball will a brain dead Kandiman. How is he less of a stud than O'Neal who plays in the east and has the offensive run exclusively through him yet puts up lesser numbers?

scott
06-27-2003, 04:54 PM
Indeed, THJ.

Also notice my relationship was:

Brand >= O'Neal >>> Payton > Kidd

While I like Brand over O'Neal for some specific things he brings to the table, namly his offensive rebounding and ability to score without having a lot of plays run for him, I don't put him very far ahead of O'Neal. Both play different games and are very good at those games. I look at is as Brand = 1 O'Neal = 1a.

If we get either one, it will be the greatest offseason we've ever had.

TwoHandJam
06-27-2003, 05:54 PM
If we get either one, it will be the greatest offseason we've ever had.

It's what I dream about.

*salivate*

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 06:16 PM
If O'Neal was on Clippers, his numbers would be 25 pts/game and 15 rebs. In Indy, O'Neal has to share scoring with 5 other players and renbounding with 3 other players and he has to win. Brand can play for stats only, he does not have to win games.It is much easier to have stats when you do not have to win games, that is a fact. O'Neal scores more points/game and Brand has 1 more reb/game , but plays 2 more mins/game. Their blks are even. Did you watch the Allstar game? O'Neal was playing great defense, swatting two of TD's shots right back in his face.

Brand is a nice player, but can not carry a team on his shoulders into the playoffs like O'Neal can. (Not that he will have to, unless Tim goes down)

timvp
06-27-2003, 06:16 PM
I think Payton has run his course. He doesn't have too much left.

He'd work as like a Terry Porter on steroids, but I wouldn't expect too much from him.

If he signed with the Spurs, I'd be surprised if he averaged over 14 points or over 5 assists.

scott
06-27-2003, 06:19 PM
Brand doesn't have to share scoring? He has your man Maggette, Odom, Andre Miller, Q Richardson and Olowosuckass on his team.

You are just being a fool now, Jim.

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 06:21 PM
And Brand sucks at FTs...we have enough 60 something % shooters on this team already...O'Neal is in mid 70% Brand in high 60%....

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 06:22 PM
Scott, does Brand have to win??????????????????????????????????????????????? ??? **** no. Is it not true that your stats are better when you do not have to, or are expected to win games??????????????????????????????????



Nuff said!

scott
06-27-2003, 06:25 PM
Everyone HAS TO WIN GAMES- that's the point of the game, genius.

Just because Brand plays with a buch of clowns doesn't take away from his skills.

Brand does what he does out west.

Give it a rest Jim. It's one thing to like O'Neal over Brand. That is understandable. You don't have to BS to do it though.

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 06:29 PM
Ask any GM who they would rather have on their team, Brand or O'Neal....I will bet you any amt of money that O'Neal would be the choice by 80% of them.


You can not get enough 6'11" post players that play great D and O who are athletic and can jump out of the gym. You can not coach hieght.

There are a plethora of 6'7 inch players who can can play Brand's game with hard work.

T Park Num 9
06-27-2003, 06:31 PM
Either one is a coo.


Jermaine O'Neal and Elton Brand would both be all stars in the western and eastern conference.

Second superstars.

A guy to help ease the scoring load off Duncan.

Someone to help back up Duncan on D.

Someone that will help win back to back rings. :hat

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 06:33 PM
Scott, it is a bball fact that you can pad your stats on a losing team.

Put that player on a winning team and the stats drop off.

Brand does not have any pressure on him, he is a loser, his team is a loser, he does not need to win games to keep his stature on the Clippers....He has ZERO pressure on his shoulders, anyone can play better with nothing to lose.

Of you do not know that, then you are ignorant.

TwoHandJam
06-27-2003, 06:36 PM
Ask any GM who they would rather have on their team, Brand or O'Neal....I will bet you any amt of money that O'Neal would be the choice by 80% of them.

Great argument. Very easy to disprove.


There are a plethora of 6'7 inch players who can can play Brand's game with hard work.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Name me one player who puts up numbers like Brand does with his height right now.

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 06:40 PM
I want players who have been through the Wars,players that have a knowledge of what it is like to play a must win game, a player that will not shrink under the bright lights. Brand has never played in the NBA playoffs, you do not know how he will respond. O'Neal plays big when he has to. If his team played better this year against Boston, he might have played against SA. O'Neal had 2 more pts/game in postseason and get this 7 more rebs/ game in playoffs...that my friend is coming through when the bright lights are on you, that is what we want.

scott
06-27-2003, 06:42 PM
Jim, every time you post you sound dumber and dumber.

Just stop while you are ahead.

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 06:44 PM
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Name me one player who puts up numbers like Brand does with his height right now.

I said with hard work. It would take being an over achiever...I do not want a little man that has to do that, I prefer a big man like DRob and O'Neal.

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 06:45 PM
Jim, every time you post you sound dumber and dumber.

Just stop while you are ahead.


Ok, You admit, I am ahead.**** off now....I won.

TwoHandJam
06-27-2003, 06:49 PM
The fact is their aren't many guys like Brand because ..... wait for it.... he's talented. If it was just so easy to be like Brand by working harder, don't you think more guys would have accomplished it by now? Please.

You don't get to the NBA in general by not being an overachiever. Why isn't Malik as good as Brand? He works his ass off. Fact is, he's not that talented, that's why.

You don't become the #1 offensive rebounder in the league at 6'8" without some pretty insane talent.

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 07:04 PM
So what...My whole arguement was O'Neal is better for SA than Brand....True? Or not true? Scott turned this into a pissing contest again.


ONeal brings a lot more to the table than Brand....the best arguement I made, Scott has no answer for. Brand is a loser, he has never had to win games with any pressure on him, he has never played a playoff game. O'Neal has not only played playoff games, he has excelled in them...Like TD, when the lights are on him, he comes through.

TwoHandJam
06-27-2003, 10:32 PM
Not true.

Yes, playing in playoff games is a positive but it's not the whole story. How can you possibly say Brand is a loser? You base this argument on the fact that he's never played in the playoffs? Maybe that has something to do with the fact that Sterling isn't interested in putting together a playoff team and Indiana is. How many veterans are on the Clippers to show the young guys the way? If that is the crux of your argument then it's a pretty bad one.

O'Neal hardly has a lot of postseason success. When your team has never made it out of the first round and you're the man, it doesn't reflect well on you. To be a real franchise player you're supposed to make your team better.

Brand is just in a bad situation. He has to share the offense with Kandi who's a total moron, and a bunch of other young hotheads who don't know the first thing about winning. It's amazing he puts up the stats he does.

That's another reason he would be a better fit. He doesn't need to have a lot of plays run for him. He doesn't need to command the ball like O'Neal does (who very much plays the role Tim does for us) so he wouldn't step on any toes. Christ, with averaging 4+ offensive rebounds a game, he could in theory score 8-10 points off putbacks alone and not get in Tim's way. He's a much better fit any way you slice it.

Jimcs50
06-27-2003, 11:50 PM
Who is more like DRob? O'Neal or Brand? O'Neal is, by far. Brand is a banger, a Rose type of player with more innate talent, yet in the same mold. O'Neal is like a young DRob, a player that can take over offensively or defensively in a game. He can shoot better from the elbow than Brand,has much better range on his jumpshot like the old DRob and I think he can pass better than Brand. The High/ Low set will work well with him and TD, much better than with Brand. I want to duplicate the Twin Towers offense and defense, and that is with O'Neal andd TD....not Brand.

TwoHandJam
06-28-2003, 11:01 AM
Brand is a better shotblocker and rebounder so in those respects he is actually closer to the DRob we need and he's just as proficient a scorer as Jermaine. O'Neal is like Robinson as well but the problem with him is that he generally looks to score in the post often in the same way and in the same spots Tim does. This could pose a problem for us since he's not as efficient as Tim. O'Neal is the main conduit for offense in Indy. Brand is used to sharing the offense with Kandi, is more unselfish and can score well even without many plays run through him (hence the offensive rebound stat).

Brand is closer to the DRob we need, the guy who doesn't try to take over on offense but finds his points within the offense and gives us good shotblocking and rebounding. O'Neal is more like Dave in his prime who might cause problems because he wants to score too much. We need a guy who's going to defer to Tim. I don' t know about you but I see Brand deferring to Tim more easily than Jermaine based on his character and the nature of his game.

I also don't see how you come to the conclusion that O'Neal is a better passer since Brand averaged 2.5 apg last year to O'Neal's 2 apg. You also claim O'Neal shoots better from the elbow. While almost impossible to prove unless we review tapes and record stats for jumpshots, I point to the fact that Brand has shot >50% the last 2 seasons while Jermaine has never cracked the 50% mark. This doesn't seem to support your argument.

Bottom line, I'd be elated with either but slightly more so with Brand. Too bad he's a RFA. We have a better shot at O'Neal.

scott
06-28-2003, 01:14 PM
Your entire arguement is based around the idea that Brand is not a winner.

This arguement, however, does not seem to apply in your desire for signing Maggette.

For Maggette, you point us to a Duke team where Maggette played for a winner.

Of course, that was the same Duke team that was led and carried by Elton Brand.

Again Jim, its one thing to think Jermaine is better for the Spurs- but not when you come out spewing a bunch of BS.

We'll all understand if you think O'Neal is better. But none of us are stupid and can see through your childish attempts to get us to agree with you that O'Neal is better- as if it matters.

Jimcs50
06-28-2003, 05:11 PM
You guys have never even watched Brand play. You do not have the League Pass. I watched Brand since his Freshman at Duke with my college bball package, and watched him last year quite a few games. I have watched O'Neal play all year because I have been scouting him. Brand can not shoot from further than 15 ft, he is just like Rose in his range. O'Neal can shoot from 17 ft with a good %.

Scott, you started calling me names when all I said was O'Neal was better, you are the childish one my friend, so keep your mouth shut if you can not tell the truth. Read this exchange:

Jimcs50
Homer -- run!
Posts: 2416
(6/27/03 12:01 pm)
Reply | Edit Re: Get Gary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott! Brand is not > O'Neal....O'Neal is much better than Brand for SA. He is a lot closer to DRob than anyone out there. Brand is Rose with 2 more inches.
A friend is always good to have, but a lover's kiss is better than angels raining down on me.



scott
Help me -- God?
Posts: 1676
(6/27/03 12:03 pm)
Reply
Re: Get Gary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brand is a 20 point scorer, the best offensive rebounder in the game, and the 4th leading shot blocker in the game.

Comparing him to Malik Rose is just stupid.

scott
06-28-2003, 07:11 PM
I didn't call you names.

I said comparing Elton Brand to Malik Rose is stupid. Which it is.

Get a grip fella.

Jimcs50
06-28-2003, 07:41 PM
And Scott, you have NOT seen Brand play, have you?
There is noway that you have, because they are never on tv, unless you have League Pass, whicjh you don't, so you are the fool, for pimping a player that you have not even watched. I have watched both players a lot while comparing the two, and I know what I see, O'Neal is better and he is better for SA.
I do not care for Elton, you do...so what, he is just not my brand. :)

Marcus Bryant
06-28-2003, 10:57 PM
The Over 36 Rule doesn't matter for contracts of less than 4 years, so saying that Payton wouldn't get a 3 year deal because of said rule is incorrect, despite what some would have you believe.



members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#46 (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#46)

46. Are there restrictions based on a player's age?

Not on contract length, but the player's age does affect how the player counts in the team salary. In some cases, the affect on team salary is accelerated -- the salary payable for seasons beginning after the player turns 36 is treated as deferred compensation (and therefore counts as team salary) in the preceding seasons of the contract. The CBA calls this the "Over 36 Rule." This only happens when the contract is for at least four seasons, and at least one of those seasons commences after the player has turned 36. The exact details depend on the player's age, whether he signs his contract using the Larry Bird exception, and the length of the contract...

scott
06-29-2003, 12:40 AM
unless you have League Pass, whicjh you don't,

Wrong again Jim. Thanks for participating.

First your argument was Brand doesn't play on a winneing team. When we bring up the fact that you've been pimping Maggette despite having the same record of playing on losing teams, you change your arguement to "you haven't seen him play because you don't have league pass."

Well guess what genuis, I have had league pass for 2 years running.

Care to try again?

Thanks for bringing up that Over 36 rule, MB. Gary might get his three to four year deal after all, although I see him signing for one year somewhere unless its Mil.

He's still a better fit than Kidd- but both options are less attractive than Brand or O'Neal.

TwoHandJam
06-29-2003, 12:59 AM
I also have league pass for the past 2 years. You're 0 for 2 Jim. You might want to ask us first before looking like an idiot.

Don't think you have a monopoly on scouting players for the Spurs because I have been watching both of these guys and I say Brand is the better fit. I notice you still haven't rebutted any of the things I said in my last post which shot down your arguments. I watch Brand and O'Neal and I posted stats which back up my argument.

So far the support for your take amounts to "oh I know O'Neal is a stud because he's not a loser like Brand and he's been in the playoffs, trust me on this guys".

Sure. I'm a believer.:rolleyes

Guru of Nothing
06-29-2003, 01:13 AM
Double-H, Jim is a ham. Don't grill him; just add mustard.

Jimcs50
06-29-2003, 11:40 AM
Two hand jam, I knew you had the pass because you live out of town, but I still do not think Scott has it. He lives in SA and can watch the Spurs for free and can not get them on the Pass(blackout) so why would he subscribe to the Pass?

Scott, you are full of shit, I call BS on you on that. BTW...any Clipper is a loser in my book. You lose 60% of every game you play=LOSER. Would you call that a being winner???? My softball team 2 yrs ago lost every game but one, we were LOSERS.....last year we won the championship in our division, we were WINNERS....It is simple.

scott
06-29-2003, 12:07 PM
I just moved back to SA 2 months ago after living in Dallas for 2 years and New York for 6 months Jim.

You're 0-3

So any Clipper is a loser in your book- but we need Maggette? Consistency is a bitch, isn't it Jim?

Jimcs50
06-29-2003, 01:56 PM
OK ,ok I lose to you again...I fought the good fight and was outnumbered...but that is the way I like it, that is why I lose so often, but to me it is more fun to be in the minority and lose.


One of these days I will beat you Scott.

Jimcs50
06-29-2003, 01:57 PM
PS.Maggette is a loser as well.

Jimcs50
06-29-2003, 02:05 PM
If we do not get O'Neal, we will get Nesterovic and Kevin Ollie if we do not re-sign Speedy.

Ollie is a great defensive pointguard, Pop likes that type of player. Nesterovic will play better D for Pop, and has the offensive skills and rebounding talent to replace DRob.

I think Denver will make maggette too good an offer for him to come to SA for less $.

Jimcs50
06-29-2003, 11:30 PM
Who is the top free agent the Spurs should go after?

Votes
Jason Kidd 5% 6
Jermaine O'Neal 71% 78
Elton Brand 15% 17
Michael Olowokandi 1% 2
Karl Malone 1% 2
PJ Brown 2% 3
Other 0% 1

109 votes total


Scott, suck on this!

scott
06-29-2003, 11:35 PM
When I live my life in accordance with a popularity poll, you'll be the first I tell, Jim.

Jimcs50
06-29-2003, 11:37 PM
This flies against what I have seen in here, I am the only one that says O'Neal is better than Brand, so you are in the majority Scott, I am the rebel in here.

Jimcs50
06-29-2003, 11:39 PM
BTW Scott, did you ever bust open that wine I sent to you?
How was it?

scott
06-29-2003, 11:40 PM
Huh?

Anyway- I never said you are wrong Jim. I've already said that I can understand why anyone would choose O'Neal over Brand. I just like Brand better. It is okay when people don't agree with you Jim.

scott
06-29-2003, 11:41 PM
Haven't yet Jim. I'm waiting to pop it open on my house warming next month. I'll let you know how I liked it, I'm sure its gonna be great.

Jimcs50
06-29-2003, 11:43 PM
It is okay when people don't agree with you Jim.


I am seeking therapy, so I will learn to play nicely with those who disagree with me....it is a work in progress.:)

Jimcs50
06-29-2003, 11:45 PM
I will send you something for your house warming too, remind me when you move in...ok? I will probably lose to you in near future anyway, I suck at betting....just ask around. :)

Jimcs50
06-30-2003, 10:14 AM
I have it on good intel that Payton is going to LA as in Lakers, so Ghost you can give it up man.

Ghost Writer
06-30-2003, 10:40 AM
Jim, you have no room to talk, son, especially after the blistering @ss-busting you've received from others in this thread.


Marcus, Payton at $10 million for 3 years is a superior value than Kidd at $13 million for 6 seasons.

:cooldevil

Marcus Bryant
06-30-2003, 10:41 AM
Only in your twisted world it is.

Ghost Writer
06-30-2003, 10:48 AM
Well, if you say so.

Try backing up your opinions with logic or at least some substance.

Payton and Kidd will be playing at relatively the same level over the next three seasons. Why spend more money and commit to more dollars for Kidd, a poor shooter?





Question.


:cooldevil

Marcus Bryant
06-30-2003, 10:53 AM
You are the last person who should ever attempt to criticize me for that, Mr. Salary Cap.

Ghost Writer
06-30-2003, 11:03 AM
More insults with no substance.

Please inform us all why giving Kidd max dollars and 5 years is shrewder than giving Payton less money and only three years.


I'm waiting.


:cooldevil

Jimcs50
06-30-2003, 11:37 AM
Ghost, even Ali got beat a few times...the champ will be back. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.....that's me.

Ghost Writer
06-30-2003, 11:39 AM
Jim, at least you have the testicular fortitude to stand behind your opinions and back them up.

I'm still waiting for Marcus to explain how Kidd would be a better value than Payton.






<sound of crickets>


:cooldevil

Jimcs50
06-30-2003, 11:50 AM
Ghost, Matt is just like me, he will keep to an opinion no matter how much evidence proves the contrary is correct. He just keeps digging and digging his hole deeper and deeper, just as I tend to do...is must be something in this College Station water. I like O'Neal, and he likes Kidd, that is the way it is, and we can not convince you guys that our man is the one, so be it.

Ghost Writer
06-30-2003, 12:04 PM
I like O'Neal better than Brand, too, even though most statistical data gives a slight edge to Brand. I still think O'Neal is just scratching the surface of his game while Brand is more polished.


I just wonder why paying Kidd $13 million for 5 seasons is smarter than paying Payton like $10 million for 3 years.

:cooldevil

bigzak25
06-30-2003, 12:11 PM
for payton and zo.:p

as you were...:argue

spurster
06-30-2003, 12:29 PM
IF both Payton and Kidd were knocking on the Spurs door saying "Please, please let me in.", then I would be hard-pressed to choose. Both of them present the same minutes-sharing problem with Tony and Manu that get mentioned in other threads, but somehow not here. Even three years is a long time to wait when you think you're a starter. Both Kidd and Payton will change the offense though in different ways. I think Kidd > Payton, but not that much. Also, Payton is older. But in your scenario, that is balanced by a less expensive contract for Payton with more money for a better bigman.

However, it appears that it is Kidd knocking on the door, not Payton. That is why the Spurs will prefer Kidd over Payton.

Ghost Writer
06-30-2003, 12:34 PM
Payton has proven that he can play an effective off-guard next to a PG like Sam Cassell. Kidd has not.


Next.

:cooldevil

Solid D
06-30-2003, 01:00 PM
The problem with bringing in Kidd or Payton and not getting quality in the post is kind of like this pic.

You get stronger at the point of attack but you end up lacking down low...if you know what I mean...and I think you do...

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2003/Jun/30/spa.jpg

Marcus Bryant
06-30-2003, 01:28 PM
Yeah Ghost, you wouldn't know about posting insults without a shred of argument. Yeah. If you cannot see why having a 33 year old player under contract instead of a 38 year old player's contract ending with you still being capped out after he comes off the cap then that's your problem, 'tard.©2003 GhostWhiner,Inc.

Ghost Writer
06-30-2003, 01:51 PM
You assume we'll be capped out in 2006. I don't. Plus, Payton's $10 million will be coming off the books, Kidd-lover.

:cooldevil

Marcus Bryant
06-30-2003, 01:53 PM
The Spurs will be hard pressed to not be capped out in 2006. How do you expect them to retain the talent otherwise? Next, 'tard.

Ghost Writer
06-30-2003, 02:00 PM
How do you expect them to retain the talent with Kidd on the books through 2008, dope?


Question.

:cooldevil


P.S.

Your insistance on Kidd can be killed with two Questions:

Who plays center?

Who goes to the bench?

Marcus Bryant
06-30-2003, 02:02 PM
?

By being capped out in the first place. You're slippin'.

Ghost Writer
06-30-2003, 02:15 PM
Now you've got me confused.

Why do you think the Spurs will throw all their money at the current players?

Payton represents a cost savings over Kidd and a reduced committment in years.

When he would retire or move on, the Spurs could use his salary slot to bring in someone new, like we're doing now that Robinson is retired.

:cooldevil

Marcus Bryant
06-30-2003, 02:16 PM
Is it really that hard to understand?

No matter who they sign this summer they will still have to retain other players on the team. That's it.

Next.

Ghost Writer
06-30-2003, 02:21 PM
No sh1t.

Pay attention.

The Spurs will have freed up money this summer to get a passable big and lots more money in 2006 after Payton's contract is up.

Your way with Kidd leaves no flexibility until about 2008.

I guess you want Rose starting.

:cooldevil

Marcus Bryant
06-30-2003, 02:23 PM
:sleep

Oh man you've lost it. So the Spurs are not going to sign anyone in 2004? 2005? Fucking figure it out you damn cap expert.

Marcus Bryant
06-30-2003, 02:25 PM
Shit, I suppose I will have to spell it out for the 'tard:

The Spurs will not have cap room in 2006 should they sign a Payton to a 3 year deal this summer because they will be signing other players to contracts in the interim.

I don't care how long you have been posting you are a fucking moron.

Ghost Writer
06-30-2003, 02:28 PM
What is you point?

Payton = less money & less years.

Even if the Spurs are filling out a roster before 2006, they don't have to sign those players long term.

Money would be freed up in 2006 with Payton gone, whereas we'd be locked in to Kidd under your plan.

You're acting like it's a necessity to have Kidd here for the long term instead of Payton for the short term.

Why?

Marcus Bryant
06-30-2003, 02:29 PM
Doesn't matter. Are the Spurs going to let Ginobili and SJackson walk? Parker? If Parker is dealt then the Spurs will have to pay whoever the **** they received in return. Dammit learn something already.

Ghost Writer
06-30-2003, 02:33 PM
Fine.

But all of that stuff has to be resolved whether we have Kidd here at $13 million for 5 years or Payton here for 3 years at $10 million.

The cost savings with Payton is evident.

:cooldevil

Marcus Bryant
06-30-2003, 02:37 PM
Um, yeah. Again you miss the fucking point. They will be capped out regardless if they sign Payton for 3 years or Kidd for 6. There's no benefit with respect to cap room with Payton's deal ending after 3 years.

Next.

Ghost Writer
06-30-2003, 02:40 PM
$10 million off the books in 2006 would do nothing for the Spurs?


Incredible.



:cooldevil

Marcus Bryant
06-30-2003, 02:42 PM
Um, yeah. What do you expect them to pay Ginobili, SJackson, and Parker?

Show us. Show us the salaries of them in 2006. If you think Parker will be dealt then show us the salary of whoever he is dealt for. Bring the substance. Now's your chance.

Ghost Writer
06-30-2003, 02:45 PM
That's not my point.

My point is that Payton represents cost savings and less year at relatively the same value than Kidd.

You've doine nothing to refute that expect stray from the argument with an assumption that saving money won't matter.


:cooldevil