How to become a dynasty....

[AceProfits]

Hello people I am a loong time reader, first time poster! I am glad to post for the first time and am looking forward to be apart of this community for a long time! I've been a Spurs fan since the days of Cummings and Willie Anderson! Not a lot of us here in NY!
I do beleive WE WILL win the championship this year. In the end we will get HCA and will beat the Pistons again in 7. With Duncan starting to slow I think there is one way we can become the greatest dynasty of all time in all sports. We should make a run at aquiring through Free Agency this summer BEN WALLACE. I think with some trades and some freee money cia pop could try to swing it. We would be unstoppable for the next 5 years. Can you say 7-8 championships in 12 years.
Starting 5
PG. Tony Parker (Locked up and young)
SG. Manu Ginobli (Locked up and hitting his prime)
SF. Bruce Bowen (Gets better with age)(will never leave the Spurs)
PF. Tim Duncan (Will slow, but still best PF of all time)
C. Ben Wallace (What can I say he is a spur at heart. Def, Rebs,No Ego)

The bench you let Pop and RC to play with the puzzle adding and subtracting through the years on whatever you need. I beleive we have some great euro picks out there that will also be helping us out in the long run! :lol

What are your thoughts? Is this a possible pick up? Can anybody work out the money to see if it is possible? Ben Wallace says he wants to sign with Pistons, but another loss to the Spurs this summer and I think CIA PoP has his way of convincing people otherwise.

I would love to hear your thoughts. And again I am glad to meet all of you!

[Pistons < Spurs]

LMAO! not happening. :fro

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Even if Big Ben goes elsewhere, which doesn't seem likely, there's always a team like the Hawks who will throw max money at a guy.

[midgetonadonkey]

I doubt he leaves Detroit even if some other team offers him the max.

[Solid D]

Welcome Ace! The Spurs might not be able to afford Ben and the Pistons would probably try to do a sign and trade before they let him walk. I doubt they would deal with the Spurs.

[ducks]

ben is going to get the max and the pistons will be screwed in 3 years with his big bloated contract
he has already lost a step

[ducks]

no turnovers for tp

[whottt]

Aside from all of the other points made...Ben Wallace is 32 years old or something like that. That's not exactly the optimum age for a cornerstone of a dynasty.

Nazr is only 28 or 29...

[angel_luv]

Hi Ace. Welcome to the Forum.

[TDMVPDPOY]

i dont care if we are not label a dynasty for not repeating or 3peat, the spurs are only the consistent team since duncan was drafted.

[JamStone]

Aside from all of the other points made...Ben Wallace is 32 years old or something like that. That's not exactly the optimum age for a cornerstone of a dynasty.

Nazr is only 28 or 29...


Actually, Ben Wallace is 31 years old, about a year and a half older than Tim Duncan. And, Ben Wallace did not get regular starter minutes in the league until the 2000-01 season, so it's more like he's in his 7th or 8th season in the league. In face, he has less NBA wear and tear on his body than a guy like Tim Duncan. And, with his conditioning and weight training regiment, he's the type of athlete that could (not guaranteed, but possible) have a longer career than the average player.


But, the other points made are very valid. The Pistons will likely re-sign Ben. And, if they don't, the Spurs would not be able to afford Ben's asking price unless a sign-and-trade happened, and the Pistons would very unlikely do that to help the Spurs. Ben will command at the very least $10 million a year, and likely closer to $13-15 million a year.

The Pistons will probably be strapped in 3-4 years with Ben's contract, but no more than any other team with an aging star, like Jason Kidd, Chris Webber, Tim Duncan, Steve Nash, Kenyon Martin, or Ray Allen. I don't think any of those players will be worth what they're making in the last one or two years of their respective contracts. Heck, Shaquille O'Neal will probably not play in the last year of his contract, and the Heat will be paying him $20 million that year. That's a part of NBA business.

What Ben Wallace has given the Pistons at a measley $5-6 million over the last 4 years will be reciprocated in part in the contract they give him this summer. And, in many ways, it will be worth it even if it hurts the team financially for a year or two. Joe Dumars will have some very tough decisions to make trying to keep the financial aspect of the Pistons in good and prudent order. But, he's done a pretty good job so far compared to many NBA GMs.

[whottt]

Actually, Ben Wallace is 31 years old, about a year and a half older than Tim Duncan. And, Ben Wallace did not get regular starter minutes in the league until the 2000-01 season, so it's more like he's in his 7th or 8th season in the league. .


.


Oh well shit...in that case the Spurs need to go out and sign Ralph Sampson...he only got regular starters minutes for like 3 years, so even though he's in his 60's or something now he'd really only be in his 4th season.

Mark Eaton didn't even get into the league until he was 28...shit, that means he has 8 years left. Signem up.

:rolleyes


As for the rest of your post...Suck Wallace's dick all you want, but that doesn't change the INarguable fact that 30+ year olds aren't usually viewed as keys to a dynasty...they aren't usually seen as, the future. And if you see Wallace as that...you need better glasses.

[NCaliSpurs]

Ben Wallace at 35 > Mohammed @ 28

[JamStone]

Oh well shit...in that case the Spurs need to go out and sign Ralph Sampson...he only got regular starters minutes for like 3 years, so even though he's in his 60's or something now he'd really only be in his 4th season.

As for the rest of your post...Suck Wallace's dick all you want, but that doesn't change the INarguable fact that 30+ year olds aren't usually viewed as keys to a dynasty...they aren't usually seen as, the future. And if you see Wallace as that...you need better glasses.


Wow ... I sense a lot of unnecessary anger in that post.

First of all, I wasn't making an argument that Ben Wallace should be the key to a dynasty at 31 years old. I was just saying he has less wear and tear on his body than most 31 year old NBA players. Your extreme analogies of Ralph Sampson and Mark Eaton reak of bitterness, and I don't know where it comes from. Apparently 50+ year old former NBA players are equivalent to a 31 year old NBA player. Is that what you're saying?

Karl Malone was effective well past his early 30s. Ben Wallace is the type of work-out junkie that should be able to compete well into his mid-30s if he so desires. I don't know what is so controversial in that sentiment to you.

I don't think Ben Wallace is a franchise player. And, for the good of the Detroit Pistons franchise, I hope he doesn't sign for much more than $11-12 million a year. But, I'm realistic. He'll probably get a contract in the $12-15 million a year range.

Ben is not a franchise player. He's not a key to a dynasty. I didn't make any of those contentions. You need to seriously kill the hate.

[whottt]

Wow ... I sense a lot of unnecessary anger in that post.

I think it was necessary.


First of all, I wasn't making an argument that Ben Wallace should be the key to a dynasty at 31 years old. I was just saying he has less wear and tear on his body than most 31 year old NBA players.

Link to some kind of evidence that having a late start to a career will extend it?

As far as I know...none of the guys known for playing well at an advanced age got late starts to their career...in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career.

It's a meaningless point...





Your extreme analogies of Ralph Sampson and Mark Eaton reak of bitterness, and I don't know where it comes from. Apparently 50+ year old former NBA players are equivalent to a 31 year old NBA player. Is that what you're saying?

It's called sarcasm...and my extreme analogy is supposed to point out the stupidity of your logic...

If we were talking about runningbacks you might have a better point...just barely.


Karl Malone was effective well past his early 30s.

Karl Malone also started playing and was effective at 22...unlike Ben Wallace.



Ben Wallace is the type of work-out junkie that should be able to compete well into his mid-30s if he so desires. I don't know what is so controversial in that sentiment to you.

Well the only guys I see that played at a high level well late into their 30's...aren't guys who sucked until they were 26.




I don't think Ben Wallace is a franchise player. And, for the good of the Detroit Pistons franchise, I hope he doesn't sign for much more than $11-12 million a year. But, I'm realistic. He'll probably get a contract in the $12-15 million a year range.

Suck all you like...but what has that got do with whether or not Wallace is the key to shore up a dynasty over the next 5 years?

And he is declining BTW.


Ben is not a franchise player.

Agree.


He's not a key to a dynasty.
Agree...not for us anyway.


I didn't make any of those contentions.

No...you contended that because Wallace effectively sucked until he was @25 years old, that somehow he is going to be a DPOY candidate until he is 45...

And I am asking you for some kind of evidence to back that theory up...Karl Malone and Kareem Abdul Jabbar are not examples you can use...they didn't suck until they were 25.



You need to seriously kill the hate.

I don't believe I have ever said I hated anyone or anything during our discourse...I only gave a sarcastic response to someone who nitpicked over a years age and followed that up with a badly made, unprovable, with absolutely no factual basis, point, on why Ben Wallace is immortal.

[Sec24Row7]

Ben wallace is a poor man's Dennis Rodman.

:fro

[rayray2k8]

Can you say 7-8 championships in 12 years.
Starting 5
PG. Tony Parker (Locked up and young)
SG. Manu Ginobli (Locked up and hitting his prime)
SF. Bruce Bowen (Gets better with age)(will never leave the Spurs)
PF. Tim Duncan (Will slow, but still best PF of all time)
C. Ben Wallace (What can I say he is a spur at heart. Def, Rebs,No Ego)

I think this is a bit farfetched. :lol
Im referring to Ben Wallace coming to San Antonio. :fro
His loyalties will remain in Detriot.

[JamStone]

I think it was necessary.



Link to some kind of evidence that having a late start to a career will extend it?

As far as I know...none of the guys known for playing well at an advanced age got late starts to their career...in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career.

It's a meaningless point...

Well the only guys I see that played at a high level well late into their 30's...aren't guys who sucked until they were 26.


No...you contended that because Wallace effectively sucked until he was @25 years old, that somehow he is going to be a DPOY candidate until he is 45...

And I am asking you for some kind of evidence to back that theory up...Karl Malone and Kareem Abdul Jabbar are not examples you can use...they didn't suck until they were 25.



Whottt,

Perhaps even though you are a Spurs fan, you may not know of a player named DAVID ROBINSON.

LOL!!!

His first year in the NBA was when he was 25 years old because of his tour in the Navy. He played until he was 37-38 year olds. And, he was actually pretty effective until he was about 35-36. He was also in phenomenal condition late in his career because of the way he kept his body in shape.

How's that example for you, Einstein?

[ChumpDumper]

DAVID ROBINSON I think it's safe to say it's on.

[T Park]

Oh god, he went there.......


(sits back and waits for War and Peace to unfold)

[exstatic]

The Coyote > DRob

[JamStone]

Link to some kind of evidence that having a late start to a career will extend it?

As far as I know...none of the guys known for playing well at an advanced age got late starts to their career...in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career.

It's a meaningless point...


Sorry, but I'm not the idiot who didn't even know that one of the greatest players to play for the team I root for started his career late and played well at an advanced age.

Secondly, mentioning David Robinson was in no way an insult. I was offering an example of an NBA player who didn't start playing in the league at 20-22 and still played through his mid-30s. Apparently Whottt doesn't know much about David Robinson.

[ChumpDumper]

Trust me, he's typing his response.

It will be finished Tuesday.

[FromWayDowntown]

Apparently Whottt doesn't know much about David Robinson.

You should run a search on whottt's other posts.

Whottt's vehement, articulate, and accurate defenses of David Robinson against any and all criticism are the stuff of legend. I doubt that any poster on this board knows more about David Robinson's NBA career than whottt.

I suspect that you're about to find out just how much whottt knows about the Admiral -- and in no uncertain terms. Proverbially, you've awakend the hornet's nest.

[ShoogarBear]

Oh, boy. This is going to be fun.

[T Park]

has there ever been a time where a single post crashed a server?

This could be one of those times.....

[Pistons < Spurs]

http://www.stranger-things.net/forum/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

[ShoogarBear]

has there ever been a time where a single post crashed a server?

This could be one of those times.....JamStone just bumped SequSpur out of my sig.

[CubanMustGo]

Whottt,

Perhaps even though you are a Spurs fan, you may not know of a player named DAVID ROBINSON.


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin

SET PARM CLASSIC_THREAD.STATUS=yes;

[1Parker1]

http://www.stranger-things.net/forum/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

:lol Awaiting, 3 page response by Whott...

[whottt]

Drob might have gotten a late start to his career but...

A.It wasn't due to the fact that he sucked, unlike Wallace.

B.His career started at 24.

C. I wouldn't call Drob's career long...14 years isn't a long time when compared to the careers of many of his contemporaries,and other great C's who started playing younger(and thus had many more miles on them) ...Like Olajuwon, Ewing, Jabbar, Parish etc.

D. It's almost too perfect that Drob was the name you came up with...

Go look at what Drob did the season(and therafter) he was 31 years old. Hint: it was the 96-97 season.


E. I see nothing to prove that Drob losing 2 years off his career, in any way, shape or form, contributed to him having a longer career than he would have had otherwise...in fact, the only thing I see that losing 2 years off his career did was hurt his career numbers so that he is largely regarded as a lesser player than some of his positional peers.


F. Ever hear Emmitt Smith's quote about why he was able to have such a long career?

"I may have lost a step, but I had a step to lose".

Therein lies the reason why exceptionally great players are capable of playing longer than other players...Exceptionally great meaning, they didn't suck for the first 4 years of their career.

Ben Wallace is a one dimensional player, whose late starting star career was built on hard work, not talent...this is why he sucked his first 4 years in the league, as opposed to Drob who was able to throw his hat in the MVP candidate ring from the first day he stepped on the court, after sitting for 2 years...


You could make David Robinson half the player he was(and he was after the age of 31, exactly) and he'd still be an extremely good player...

Or to put it another way, David Robinson did not have a longer career due to less miles his first years in the NBA or a late start to his career...

Even still...David Robinson had a step to lose...

Does Wallace?

[JamStone]

You should run a search on whottt's other posts.

Whottt's vehement, articulate, and accurate defenses of David Robinson against any and all criticism are the stuff of legend. I doubt that any poster on this board knows more about David Robinson's NBA career than whottt.

I suspect that you're about to find out just how much whottt knows about the Admiral -- and in no uncertain terms. Proverbially, you've awakend the hornet's nest.


Indeed I did not know that. Interesting to read that he is such a staunch defender of David Robinson and yet made this comment:

"As far as I know...none of the guys known for playing well at an advanced age got late starts to their career...in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

[whottt]

In David's "advanced" years of 36-37(which is actually a pretty common age for most players to play until) he was about 1/5th of the player he was in his prime and he had a back injury left him with little or no feeling in his legs at times and which also caused him to miss large chunks of the season......


Now that might still leave him looking pretty good when being compared to Ben Wallace(or fans of Ben Wallace's team)...but make Ben Wallace 1/5th of the player he was in his prime and um...No thanks.

[JamStone]

Drob might have gotten a late start to his career but...

A.It wasn't due to the fact that he sucked, unlike Wallace.

You are the one who brought up the notion that Ben Wallace sucked until he was 25. And, when you posed your question, it wasn't about what player sucked and started their career later. It was as I'll quote verbatim:

"As far as I know...none of the guys known for playing well at an advanced age got late starts to their career...in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career. "

It was to question where a player got a late start to his career. Nothing in that quote asked about sucking before starting their career late. Keep playing yourself.



B.His career started at 24.

24 years of age is still a late start for an NBA player. Most players start at age 21-22. And, you cannnot refute that whatsoever. In fact, you are the one who considered 25 getting to a late start in ia career, yet 24 is so much younger? Please, enough with semantical and nit-picking arguments. Be better than that.



C. I wouldn't call Drob's career long...14 years isn't a long time when compared to the careers of many of his contemporaries who started playing(and thus had many more miles on them) and other great C's...Like Olajuwon, Ewing, Jabbar, Parish etc.

You're criticizing Ben's age at 31 years old, but 38 is fine by you for David Robinson. Now you are really not making sense. David Robinson still put up decent numbers at 36 years of age. Ben is 31. Like Robinson, Ben is a work out fanatic who keeps his body in top condition. If Ben could put up numbers at 35-36, he would merit a 5 year contract.



D. It's almost too perfect that Drob was the name you came up with...

Go look at what Drob did the season(and therafter) he was 31 years old. Hint: it was the 96-97 season.

It's almost too perfect that you would mention the season David Robinson had a season ending injury and played only six games.

How about the following season when David Robinson put up 22 ppg and 11 rpg at age 32? Not good enough for you? Age 31 is bad. Is that your argument? Goodness, that's not very strong at all. How about age 33? 16 ppg, 10 rpg. Starting to decline, but any team would take those numbers from their starting center, especially when they have a young stud power forward starting to pick up the slack at both ends. Ages 34, 35, 36, still playing 78 games or more each of those seasons. Still giving at least 29 minutes a game. Still taking down at least 8 rpg. All with a superstar power forward in the frontline with him. Every bit worth whatever money he was making at the age of 36.



E. I see nothing to prove that Drob losing 2 years off his career in any way, shape or form, contributed to him having a longer career than he would have had otherwise...in fact, the only thing I see that losing 2 years of his career did was hurt his career numbers so that he is largely regarded as a lesser player than some of positional peers.

That is purely subjective. I believe it helped. You believe it didn't. Can't be proven either way. But, you were the one who didn't even know that David Robinson started his career late. All you did was state (and do I really have to quote it again?):

"I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

Either you didn't know or you didn't think David Robinson played well when he was 35-36.



F. Ever hear Emmitt Smith's quote about why he was able to have such a long career?

"I may have lost a step, but I had a step to lose".

Therein lies the reason why exceptionally great players are capable of playing longer than other players...Exceptionally great meaning, they didn't suck for the first 4 years of their career.

Therein lies your lack of understanding. These statements are purely hate-driven. First of all, it is your opinion that Ben Wallace sucked his first four years in the league. It is my contention that Ben Wallace did not get his chance to play quality minutes his first four years in the league. The fact that he is a perennial all-star, a three time DPOY, and an NBA champion speaks volumes as to the fact that he really did not suck those first four years, but he wasn't appreciated or given the time to show what he was fully capable of. It might be an overused analogy, but look at Jermaine O'Neal's statistics in his first four years in the league. Come on, dude. Fine, hate Ben Wallace. But, get a better argument.



Ben Wallace is a one dimensional player, whose late starting star career was built on hard work, not talent...this is why he sucked his first 4 years in the league, as opposed to Drob who was able to throw his hat in the MVP candidate ring from the first day he stepped on the court, after sitting for 2 years...

You could make David Robinson half the player he was(and he was after the age of 31, exactly) and he'd still be an extremely good player...

Or to put it another way, David Robinson did not have a longer career due to less miles his first years in the NBA or a late start to his career...

Even still...David Robinson had a step to lose...

Does Wallace?


First of all, I never was comparing Ben Wallace to David Robinson. I merely answered your naive and uninformed conclusion that there are no other players that had a late start play well late in their career. David Robinson is a hall of famer. Ben Wallace is a very good, and yes one-dimensional player. I never compared the two except for what you were asking. Get a clue. It was you who didn't know.

You make an awful lot of assumptions about Ben Wallace. Yes, it took a lot of hard work to get where he is today. But, if you think there is no talent or skill at being able to read offenses, slip picks, play great team defense, knowing when to sag and when to hold ground, to be able to anticipate to get steals, to have the footwork and strength to play Shaquille O'Neal one-on-one, then you're one the most ultimate haters. Ben has a very poor offensive game. David Robinson had one of the worst offensive post games for a hall of fame 7-footer in the history of the league. That doesn't take away from his greatness.

It is even arguable that Ben Wallace has already lost a step. And, yet he's still top 5 in rebounds, he still is among the top big men in steals. He still gets his share of blocks. He is still in the running for DPOY. And, he still anchors the defense of one of the best teams in the league. Which means, Ben is also getting smarter as he gets older. Your theory that David Robinson's greatness allowed him to play longer is absolutely pompous and arrogant. Players play longer because they are great AND they work harder than the average player. Ben Wallace is GREAT. He may not have been his first four years, at least to you, but that doesn't mean he's not great now. So, if he's great now, he does have a step to lose.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

I have a feeling this thread will last for weeks... or even months :lol

[whottt]

David Robinson had one of the worst offensive post games for a hall of fame 7-footer in the history of the league. That doesn't take away from his greatness.


:lol


I'll be back to answer the rest of that drivel in a bit.

[FreshPrince22]

Ben Wallace has less career minutes on his body than Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady, Tim Duncan, etc. Sure, the age will be a factor, but the fact that he didn't play much at the beginning of his career will do nothing be help him extend his career. So, he has less wear on him than the typical 31 year old All-Star. Not to mention the kind of shape he keeps himself in. He's the biggest gym rat in the league.

And no, he will be a Piston for life. He's not going to sign with another team for the MLE :lol. He'll get a good sized contract (not max, but close)from the Pistons for 4-5 years, and then he'll retire.

[JamStone]

Let me repost how this discussion got started ... at least this part of the discussion:




Link to some kind of evidence that having a late start to a career will extend it?

As far as I know...none of the guys known for playing well at an advanced age got late starts to their career...in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career.

It's a meaningless point...

I can keep posting this quote again and again if you want. You wrote it. That's what I was responding to. Now, you go tangental so the argument goes in a different direction so as not to reveal that you were proved wrong. That's fine.




Well the only guys I see that played at a high level well late into their 30's...aren't guys who sucked until they were 26.

Whottt is the one who brought the whole "sucking before a player is 26" argument, which is also completely baseless. I never made any mention of Ben sucking until he was 26. I said he didn't really get starter minutes until he was in his fifth season, so there isn't as much wear and tear on him than most 31 year old NBA players. Still a statement that is not refutable.




And I am asking you for some kind of evidence to back that theory up...Karl Malone and Kareem Abdul Jabbar are not examples you can use...they didn't suck until they were 25.

And, as soon as I offer an example that is not Karl Malone or Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Whottt gets his panties all in a bunch because it is the one man he would leave his wife or girlfriend for and bend over every hour on the hour for. Sorry I didn't know that. But, the example fits. You just don't want it to. So, take the argument into a different direction. It's fine.




I don't believe I have ever said I hated anyone or anything during our discourse...I only gave a sarcastic response to someone who nitpicked over a years age and followed that up with a badly made, unprovable, with absolutely no factual basis, point, on why Ben Wallace is immortal.

If you can't admit you were wrong, might as well start a new argument on how Ben Wallace isn't as great as David Robinson. THAT WASN'T THE ARGUMENT!

A player who started his NBA career late and still played well at an advanced age.

Now, you want say 36-37 isn't that old, and most players play until that age. Well, why is 32 years of age such a decline in your opinion then, as you mentioned before?

[whottt]

And, when you posed your question, it wasn't about what player sucked and started their career later. It was as I'll quote verbatim:


It was to question where a player got a late start to his career. Nothing in that quote asked about sucking before starting their career late. Keep playing yourself.

Um douche...you yourself said this:


Actually, Ben Wallace is 31 years old, about a year and a half older than Tim Duncan. And, Ben Wallace did not get regular starter minutes in the league until the 2000-01 season, so it's more like he's in his 7th or 8th season in the league.











You're criticizing Ben's age at 31 years old, but 38 is fine by you for David Robinson. Now you are really not making sense. David Robinson still put up decent numbers at 36 years of age. Ben is 31. Like Robinson, Ben is a work out fanatic who keeps his body in top condition. If Ben could put up numbers at 35-36, he would merit a 5 year contract.

David Robinson was not the player after 31 he was before...It's one thing to do that with David Robinson...it's entirely another to do it with Ben Wallace.





It's almost too perfect that you would mention the season David Robinson had a season ending injury and played only six games.

How about the following season when David Robinson put up 22 ppg and 11 rpg at age 32? Not good enough for you?

One season does not a dynasty make...in fact it didn't.



Age 31 is bad. Is that your argument? Goodness, that's not very strong at all. How about age 33? 16 ppg, 10 rpg. Starting to decline, but any team would take those numbers from their starting center,

Again, one season does not a dynasty make...in fact 2 and 3 seasons does not a dynasty make...

And yes 16 and 10 is pretty good...wake me when Wallace does it...before or after age 30.







That is purely subjective. I believe it helped. You believe it didn't. Can't be proven either way. But, you were the one who didn't even know that David Robinson started his career late. All you did was state (and do I really have to quote it again?):

"I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

Either you didn't know or you didn't think David Robinson played well when he was 35-36.

He was a shadow of himself pretty much...which means he could still do a pretty good impression of Ben Wallace in his prime...however Ben Wallace being a shadow of himself is another thing entirely.





Therein lies your lack of understanding. These statements are purely hate-driven.
False...I don't hate Ben Wallace in the slightest...I just don't see him as the cornerstone of a dynasty, for us or any other team, at his current age...Regardless of how badly he sucked his first 4 years in the league.


First of all, it is your opinion that Ben Wallace sucked his first four years in the league. It is my contention that Ben Wallace did not get his chance to play quality minutes his first four years in the league.

And it's my contention that Ben Wallace didn't get quality minutes his first 4 years in the league because he sucked.



The fact that he is a perennial all-star,

In a league where guys get voted in as the starter without even playing a game all season.



a three time DPOY, and an NBA champion speaks volumes as to the fact that he really did not suck those first four years, but he wasn't appreciated or given the time to show what he was fully capable of.

No...it just means he stopped sucking.



It might be an overused analogy, but look at Jermaine O'Neal's statistics in his first four years in the league. Come on, dude. Fine, hate Ben Wallace. But, get a better argument.

Jermaine sucked his first 4 years in the league...






First of all, I never was comparing Ben Wallace to David Robinson. I merely answered your naive and uninformed conclusion that there are no other players that had a late start play well late in their career. David Robinson is a hall of famer. Ben Wallace is a very good, and yes one-dimensional player. I never compared the two except for what you were asking. Get a clue. It was you who didn't know.

Didn't know what?


You make an awful lot of assumptions about Ben Wallace. Yes, it took a lot of hard work to get where he is today. But, if you think there is no talent or skill at being able to read offenses, slip picks, play great team defense, knowing when to sag and when to hold ground, to be able to anticipate to get steals, to have the footwork and strength to play Shaquille O'Neal one-on-one, then you're one the most ultimate haters. Ben has a very poor offensive game. David Robinson had one of the worst offensive post games for a hall of fame 7-footer in the history of the league. That doesn't take away from his greatness.

Whatever...you are outta your fucking tree if you think he's deserves a long time high paying contract as anything other than gratuity.



It is even arguable that Ben Wallace has already lost a step. And, yet he's still top 5 in rebounds, he still is among the top big men in steals. He still gets his share of blocks. He is still in the running for DPOY. And, he still anchors the defense of one of the best teams in the league. Which means, Ben is also getting smarter as he gets older.

Well Shaq is getting smarter as he gets older too...but I personally think young and dumb Shaq kicks the living shit out of the old and smart one...as a player.



Your theory that David Robinson's greatness allowed him to play longer is absolutely pompous and arrogant.
No it's not...it's simply the truth.



Players play longer because they are great AND they work harder than the average player. Ben Wallace is GREAT. He may not have been his first four years, at least to you, but that doesn't mean he's not great now. So, if he's great now, he does have a step to lose.

No, he really doesn't...he'll be a back up in 2 years.

[Extra Stout]

JamStone, let me say I feel sorry for you. I have been utterly owned by whottt before, and I know how it feels. You poor bastard.

[picnroll]

JamStone could you slip in somethig about Hakeem. No treatise by whottt on Robinson is complete without a few Olajuwon references.

[whottt]

Point is...

Wallace is being bandied about as a dynastic cornerstone for the next 5 years, at the age of 31.

I say no way, he's too old.

Jamstone says that because he sucked his first 4 years in the league he won't age normally...

I say bullshit...

Jamstone cites David Robinson as some kind of evidence, inspite of Drob not having a particularly long career, inspite of Drob being a pale injured shadow of his formerself for about half of his 6 playing years after the age of 31...

Drob started later and thus had fewer miles on him than many other HOF C's...yet his career was not longer than theirs, he did not play to a later age than them, and he was not substantially more effective than them at the same age...a point Jamstone seems woefully unaware of...


Wallace is a poorman's Dikembe Mutombo without the size and talent...he's not the cornerstone to a dynasty. The fact that he sucked his first 4 years in the league in no way constitutes proof that he is going to be anywhere near as effective through his 30's as he was before them, and it's an assinine point...and David Robinson's career damn sure doesn't disprove that notion.


Bruce Bowen would have been a better Spur to mention...Not a guy who suffered a career altering injury at the very age that Wallace is now...

And BTW, I don't hate Wallace, in fact he's one of my favorite players and I would welcome him on this team with open arms...He's better than any C on our team for damn sure...He's just not a name that needs to be thrown around as being the key to a dynasty...and the fact that he sucked his first 4 years in the league in no way constitutes some kind of proof he is going to be effective into his mid 30's...and mentioning Drob's name doesn't change that fact.

[JamStone]

Let's go then ...



Um douche...you yourself said this:

"Actually, Ben Wallace is 31 years old, about a year and a half older than Tim Duncan. And, Ben Wallace did not get regular starter minutes in the league until the 2000-01 season, so it's more like he's in his 7th or 8th season in the league."


Just because you quote me doesn't mean it makes your point or makes any sense at all. Even in my quote, I never made mention that Ben Wallace sucked before the age of 26. Are all your responses going to have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion???



David Robinson was not the player after 31 he was before...It's one thing to do that with David Robinson...it's entirely another to do it with Ben Wallace.

Hey, dimwit, I was never comparing Ben Wallace to David Robinson. How many times do I have to quote you, dumbass?

"in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

I used David Robinson as an example because you couldn't think of him when you made that comment. It wasn't about me comparing Ben to D-Rob or even intimating that Ben Wallace is or ever has been the player David Robinson was. You're a fucking retard.




One season does not a dynasty make...in fact it didn't.

Well, I was never a proponent of the idea that Ben Wallace for one or two years would make another team a dynasty. But, here's a little deductive reasoning for you stemmed from the original post in this thread. If the Spurs have won three NBA titles already in 7 years, and then they signed Ben Wallace, and he helped win even just two more over the next 4 years, an organization with 5 championships in about 12 seasons might be classified by some as a dynasty. You, however, narrow-minded as you are, view only Ben Wallace's addition and his hypothetical and prospective future with the Spurs not in totality but in a vaccum where as the Spurs could only be a dynasty AFTER the acquisition of Ben Wallace, without considering what they have already accomplished. Therein again lies your naivity and lack of comprehensive logic. But, again, I didn't even make the claim of dynasty or support that contention in the original post. My posts have been primarily to indicate that Ben Wallace could be a very fine player well into his mid-30s.




Again, one season does not a dynasty make...in fact 2 and 3 seasons does not a dynasty make...

And yes 16 and 10 is pretty good...wake me when Wallace does it...before or after age 30.

Again, trying to compare Ben Wallace to David Robinson. Why? Ben Wallace will never average 16 ppg in a season, much less 20 ppg. We all know that. Again, a statement just to put down Ben Wallace. Ben gets 12 rebounds a game, nearly 2 steals a game, and 2-3 blocks a game. Instead of whining about Robinson-Wallace comparisons, evaluate Ben on what he does, not what some other player on another team in a different system does. Are you that hard-headed and that boyishly charmed by David Robinson's greatness not to realize you're making an argument that I am not even disagreeing with.





He was a shadow of himself pretty much...which means he could still do a pretty good impression of Ben Wallace in his prime...however Ben Wallace being a shadow of himself is another thing entirely.

Comparisons versus productivity. If Ben is a shadow of himself but still gives whatever team he plays for 30 minutes a game, 10 rebounds a game, 1.75 blocks a game, 1.0 steal per game, it's still beneficial to a team. Even with lesser stats, if Ben helps his team win, just as good. Were any Spurs fans disappointed in David Robinson's statistics in the 2002-2003 season? Of course not. The alternatives were Malik Rose, Kevin Willis, and Tony Massenburg. And, guaranteed they wouldn't have put up the numbers Robinson did. But, Whottt, you insist on making the comparison between Robinson and Wallace. And, I have not and will continue not to do that. That is not even part of my argument. You are mentally retarded for continuing to hammer that point I am not even debating.




False...I don't hate Ben Wallace in the slightest...I just don't see him as the cornerstone of a dynasty, for us or any other team, at his current age...Regardless of how badly he sucked his first 4 years in the league.

I don't see Ben Wallace as a cornerstone of a dynasty for any team either. I never said that he was. You seriously need to go back to school for reading comprehension. But, if he was a "KEY" to a team that was playing to become a dynasty, he could fit in. Ben would not need to be a cornerstone on a team with Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili. You just don't understand any of this debate, as you keep on making points that have nothing to do with what I am arguing.



And it's my contention that Ben Wallace didn't get quality minutes his first 4 years in the league because he sucked.

Fine, a point I won't disagree with. You believe what you believe, and I'll do the same. Enjoy your jerk off to that.




In a league where guys get voted in as the starter without even playing a game all season.

Even though twice he was named by NBA COACHES ... you are becoming more idiotic in your rants.




Whatever...you are outta your fucking tree if you think he's deserves a long time high paying contract as anything other than gratuity.

Well, call me an apple in autumn because I just fell out the fucking tree. I believe Ben can put up 10 rebounds a game for another 3-4 years. I think he can be a force on defense for another 3-4 years. I think he can be a major key in a championship contending team for 3-4 more years. And, with what Ben Wallace brings and what he's accomplished, he does deserve a high paying contract. I don't think he's a max player at all. I probably won't agree with the contract he'll get. But, tell me he doesn't deserve a contract that is worth more than Carlos Boozer's, Erick Dampier's, Tyson Chandler's. Please ... Ben Wallace is at the very least a $10 million per year player, probably closer to $12 million. You're out of your fucking mind if you think otherwise ... or maybe you got hit in the fucking head with an apple that dropped out the fucking tree.





Well Shaq is getting smarter as he gets older too...but I personally think young and dumb Shaq kicks the living shit out of the old and smart one...as a player.

1995 Finals ... Hakeem Olajuwan v. Shaquille O'Neal.

Shaq might have been better when he was younger and dumber, but he loses when he was younger and dumber. Are you younger and dumber?




No it's not...it's simply the truth.


Your truth isn't very honest ...

[JamStone]

Point is...

Wallace is being bandied about as a dynastic cornerstone for the next 5 years, at the age of 31.

I say no way, he's too old.


By the way, WHOTTT, YOU, yes YOU were the one who brought up the whole notion of "cornerstone of a dynasty." No one else. I didn't say that. The original post did not say that. So, why do you keep bringing it up when no one is making that contention? No one "bandied" about that claim. The original post said acquiring Ben in free agency could help make the Spurs a dynasty. It did not say that Ben would be the cornerstone. You keep making up stuff. You seem to like that.




Jamstone says that because he sucked his first 4 years in the league he won't age normally...

I say bullshit...

Jamstone cites David Robinson as some kind of evidence, inspite of Drob not having a particularly long career, inspite of Drob being a pale injured shadow of his formerself for about half of his 6 playing years after the age of 31...

Drob started later and thus had fewer miles on him than many other HOF C's...yet his career was not longer than theirs, he did not play to a later age than them, and he was not substantially more effective than them at the same age...a point Jamstone seems woefully unaware of...


Changing the subject again ...

First it was playing "at an advanced age" and "played well." Now it's having a "longer career" than other HOF centers and "played more effective at the same age." Do you keep wanting to change the subject and going into tangents?

"in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

Would you like to translate the part that where you ever insinuated that the player had to have LONGER CAREERS and PLAYED BETTER than other hall of fame centers? Woefully, you didn't, Whottt.

That's not what you said, and now that I have responded in kind to effectually call you out, you want to change the subject. You need a woman's group so you can let out your frustrations of not making a good argument. Do you need Oprah's website?




Wallace is a poorman's Dikembe Mutombo without the size and talent...he's not the cornerstone to a dynasty. The fact that he sucked his first 4 years in the league in no way constitutes proof that he is going to be anywhere near as effective through his 30's as he was before them, and it's an assinine point...and David Robinson's career damn sure doesn't disprove that notion.

Attention kids: when someone doesn't understand the discussion, we remain patient and try to help them.

No one claimed Ben was a cornerstone to a dynasty, you fuckwhottt. You said that. You inferred that. You made that shit up. Stop claiming someone said that.

"in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

Using David Robinson as an example RESPONDS to this quote. It's your fucking quote. No mention of sucking before the age of 26. No mention of comparisons to hall of fame centers. No mention about the actual length of the career.

PLAYED WELL AT AN ADVANCED AGE .

GOT A LATE START TO HIS CAREER.

Are you this fucking stupid??




Bruce Bowen would have been a better Spur to mention...Not a guy who suffered a career altering injury at the very age that Wallace is now...

And BTW, I don't hate Wallace, in fact he's one of my favorite players and I would welcome him on this team with open arms...He's better than any C on our team for damn sure...He's just not a name that needs to be thrown around as being the key to a dynasty...and the fact that he sucked his first 4 years in the league in no way constitutes some kind of proof he is going to be effective into his mid 30's...and mentioning Drob's name doesn't change that fact.


Role players can be keys to dynasties. Kevin McHale was a key to Boston's dynasty. Steve Kerr was a key to the Jordan Bulls dynasty. Tommy Heinsohn was a key to the Bill Russell Celtics dynasty. Robert Horry was a key to the Lakers three peat. Adam Vinateiri was a key to the Patriots so-called dynasty. You don't have to be "cornerstone" or superstar to be a key to a dynasty.

Saying that Ben Wallace didn't play the long minutes in his first four years in the league says he doesn't have the wear and tear of the average 31 year old NBA player who has. That's all. And, it doesn't guarantee it, but it sure proves favorable for his body to keep up into the mid-30s to afford him the opportunity to be effect at an older age.

And, mentioning David Robinson's name was to merely respond to your quote. I'll do it again:

"in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

You wrote it. That's why I mentioned David Robinson's name. Not to compare him to Ben Wallace. But, because it speaks directly to that quote. And, he was a San Antonio Spur that you should have thought of before making that statement.

[whottt]

Let's go then ...





Just because you quote me doesn't mean it makes your point or makes any sense at all. Even in my quote, I never made mention that Ben Wallace sucked before the age of 26. Are all your responses going to have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion???


Yeah..you called his sucking, "due to limited minutes".







"in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

I used David Robinson as an example because you couldn't think of him when you made that comment.

Either that...or I was actually watching those games. Drob was broken at the advanced age of which you speak.








Well, I was never a proponent of the idea that Ben Wallace for one or two years would make another team a dynasty. But, here's a little deductive reasoning for you stemmed from the original post in this thread. If the Spurs have won three NBA titles already in 7 years, and then they signed Ben Wallace, and he helped win even just two more over the next 4 years, an organization with 5 championships in about 12 seasons might be classified by some as a dynasty. You, however, narrow-minded as you are, view only Ben Wallace's addition and his hypothetical and prospective future with the Spurs not in totality but in a vaccum where as the Spurs could only be a dynasty AFTER the acquisition of Ben Wallace, without considering what they have already accomplished. Therein again lies your naivity and lack of comprehensive logic. But, again, I didn't even make the claim of dynasty or support that contention in the original post.

Well if you look at the original post in this thread, the poster is talking about winning 7-8 titles in a 12 year period, and that signing Ben Wallace for the next 5 years is the key to doing it...

Well to me, since we have 3 titles now...he is talking about winning 4 or 5 titles in the next 5 years, and I in no way think paying Ben Wallace 9-10 million a year at the age of 31 and beyond, will help us achieve that goal.





My posts have been primarily to indicate that Ben Wallace could be a very fine player well into his mid-30s.

Ben Wallace just might very well be a very fine player into his mid 30's...but the fact that he sucked his first 4 years in the league will have nothing to do with it...and in all likelyhood Ben Wallace's best days are far far behind him...and when you are taliking about an undersized one dimensional guy...I just don't agree with you.





Instead of whining about Robinson-Wallace comparisons, evaluate Ben on what he does, not what some other player on another team in a different system does. Are you that hard-headed and that boyishly charmed by David Robinson's greatness not to realize you're making an argument that I am not even disagreeing with.

Are you so hardheaded that you still don't realize that citing David Robinson's name in no way corrborates your theory that, because Ben Wallace sucked his first 4 years in the NBA he is going to be a great old player?













I don't see Ben Wallace as a cornerstone of a dynasty for any team either. I never said that he was. You seriously need to go back to school for reading comprehension. But, if he was a "KEY" to a team that was playing to become a dynasty, he could fit in. Ben would not need to be a cornerstone on a team with Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili. You just don't understand any of this debate, as you keep on making points that have nothing to do with what I am arguing.

Ben Wallace isn't going to be the cornerstone for shit if he is making 9-10 million a year for the next 5 years....





But, tell me he doesn't deserve a contract that is worth more than Carlos Boozer's, Erick Dampier's, Tyson Chandler's.

He doesn't deserve it...he's too old to deserve it.


Please ... Ben Wallace is at the very least a $10 million per year player, probably closer to $12 million. You're out of your fucking mind if you think otherwise ... or maybe you got hit in the fucking head with an apple that dropped out the fucking tree.


Go ahead and sign him to it...








1995 Finals ... Hakeem Olajuwan v. Shaquille O'Neal.

Shaq might have been better when he was younger and dumber, but he loses when he was younger and dumber.

Yeah....because Hakeem got too old and too smart to beat him anymore...

[Warlord23]

Hmm... JamStone is giving whottt a run for his money

edit: pass the popcorn, folks.

[JamStone]

Are you so hardheaded that you still don't realize that citing David Robinson's name in no way corrborates your theory that, because Ben Wallace sucked his first 4 years in the NBA he is going to be a great old player?

Honestly, how many more times?


"in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."


I cited David Robinson's name because it directly responds to this quote. Forget the fact that you think Ben Wallace sucked his first 4 years in the NBA. David Robinson's name was specifically brought up because of the above quote.

That's why I mentioned David Robinson.

Can you get off of the David Robinson-Ben Wallace comparison already? Why the hell can't you follow?

It's not because Ben Wallace sucked for 4 years. It's because he didn't log the heavy minutes his first four years that he has a better chance at playing longer than the average player. It's not an exact science. And, some players who came out of high school might play well into their mid-30s. That's not my point. My point, as it was from the very beginning, was that Ben Wallace's body doesn't have the wear and tear or the mileage of the average 31 year old NBA player. Shall I say it another way? While you think 32 years old is old for the NBA, I think 10 years in the league is getting old in the NBA. But, if you start at an older age, say 24-25, you don't hit that 10th season until you are 34-35. Follow math, do you?

I could give you a few other examples of players who started later, but you are just so enamored by the fact that I mentioned David Robinson, and you can't seem to pull yourself off his dick enough to address the actual discussion.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Cause I was thinkin', it really don't matter if I lose this fight. It really don't matter if this guy opens my head, either. 'Cause all I wanna do is go the distance. Nobody's ever gone the distance, and if I can go that distance, you see, and that bell rings and I'm still standin', I'm gonna know for the first time in my life, see, that I weren't just another bum from the neighborhood.

[whottt]

Um, Jamstone is definitely giving me the runs....and that's about it.

1.Jamstone is too stupid to figure out why I keep saying Ben Wallace got a late start to his career, even though he himself said as much in the first place...Jamstone is obviously too fucking stupid to read his own posts...

2. Jamstone seems to fucking think that sucking your first 4 years in the league will lead to a longer playing career...Jamstone, for some reason keeps citing David Robinson as proof of this...I have no idea fucking why.

Drob didn't have a long playing career...unless 14 years is considered a long career for HOF'er. It's a shorter career than just about any HOF C I can think of...Walton and Wilt maybe the only other two.

Drob retired at the age of 37, is 37 considered an advanced age for a HOF'er? Those 2 years he didn't play didn't keep him playing longer agewise than Hakeem, or Ewing, or Shaq, or any of them I can fucking think of...

He retired at a younger age then just about all of them.

Drob's last 2 years in the NBA were injury filled struggles...

Drob was not even close to being the same player after the age of 31 that he was before, he didn't have 5 good years after 31.


I am still waiting for Jamstone to pull his head out of his ass, read his own posts, and make his first valid point.

[whottt]

Honestly, how many more times?


"in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."


I cited David Robinson's name because it directly responds to this quote. Forget the fact that you think Ben Wallace sucked his first 4 years in the NBA. David Robinson's name was specifically brought up because of the above quote.

And that quote was in response to your claim that sucking your first 4 years in the league can lead to a longer playing career.


That's why I mentioned David Robinson.

And severely kicking your own ass in doing so...in no way backing up the point you were trying to make or disproving the point you think I was trying to make.


It's not because Ben Wallace sucked for 4 years. It's because he didn't log the heavy minutes his first four years that he has a better chance at playing longer than the average player.

Right...he sucked his first 4 years in the league so you think he's Mathusela and David Robinson proves this to you....Crackhead.



It's not an exact science.

Damn right it's not...it's pulling something completely out of your ass and totally failing to back it up...


And, some players who came out of high school might play well into their mid-30s. That's not my point. My point, as it was from the very beginning, was that Ben Wallace's body doesn't have the wear and tear or the mileage of the average 31 year old NBA player. Shall I say it another way? While you think 32 years old is old for the NBA, I think 10 years in the league is getting old in the NBA. But, if you start at an older age, say 24-25, you don't hit that 10th season until you are 34-35. Follow math, do you?

Name a player to back that up can you?

[timvp]

Good to see Whotttt back in action :tu

[1Parker1]

Classic Threads Forum

[JamStone]

1. whottt is apparently clueless to the fact that not playing a lot of minutes early in a career doesn't mean you suck. Just like having over 10,000 posts in a Spurs messageboard doesn't mean you aren't a fucking retard. Case in point: whottt is a fucking retard with over 10,000 posts on this messageboard.

2. whottt keeps making shit up, like claiming that I said that sucking for the first four years in an NBA career will make a player play longer. While in fact, all I said is that Ben Wallace has less wear and tear on his body than an average NBA player at the age of 31 has. That's still not refutable. And, that does bode well for Ben Wallace to play longer and be more effective longer and later in his career. I never guaranteed that. I said it wasn't an exact science. But, whottt got so offended at the idea that I would bring up David Robinson's name that he had to circle jerk with David Robinson himself and start a tirade of irrelevant facts to argue with me.

3. whottt continues to confuse "playing well at an advanced age" with "having a long career." He seems incapable of understanding simple differences in phrases he in fact was the first to use in this discussion. And, as soon as he realized he couldn't keep up the original argument, he changed it to "longer career" and "better numbers than other hall of fame centers." Did I mention whottt is a fucking retard?

4. whottt's obsession with hanging on David Robinson's testicles appear to blur his sense of reality as he keeps on wanting to delineate the differences between David Robinson and Ben Wallace when in fact I only mentioned David Robinson as an example of a player who started his NBA careere late and still played well at an advanced age. There was not mention of playing AS WELL AS HIS PRIME or playing AS WELL OR BETTER THAN OTHER HALL OF FAME CENTERS. And, I absolutely never claimed that Ben Wallace was as good as David Robinson. I never compared them but for the fact they both started their NBA careers later than most. But, the D-Rob jizz on his lips won't let it go.

5. whottt wants other examples, fine I'll give other examples of players who started their career late and still were effective and played well at an advanced age. Mind you, whottt thinks 32 years old is too old in the NBA:

-Elvin Hayes: He turned 24 years old in his rookie season. He was still effective at age 36 when he averaged 37 minutes per game, 16 ppg, 9 rpg.

-Dennis Rodman: He was 25 when he was drafted in 1986. He started getting regular minutes in 1987-88 when he was 26. He was still playing well in 1997-98 season at the age of 36 with the Chicago Bulls when he played 80 games, averaged 15 rebounds a game in 36 minutes a game for a CHAMPIONSHIP team.

-Dikembe Mutombo: Dikembe was 25 years old his first season in the NBA. He remained pretty effective until the 2001-02 season at the age of 35 where he still played 36 minutes a game and hauled 11 rebounds a game down.

-Sam Cassell: Sam was 24 years old in his first season in 1993-94. He got his first all star selection in 2003-04 at the age of 33. His numbers this season are still very good at age 35.

So what does all of this mean? Nothing really. But, YOU WHOTTT were the one who typed:

"Link to some kind of evidence that having a late start to a career will extend it?

As far as I know...none of the guys known for playing well at an advanced age got late starts to their career...in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career.

Well the only guys I see that played at a high level well late into their 30's...aren't guys who sucked until they were 26.

And I am asking you for some kind of evidence to back that theory up...Karl Malone and Kareem Abdul Jabbar are not examples you can use...they didn't suck until they were 25."

You said don't use Karl Malone and Kareem Abdul Jabbar as examples. So, it's fair to say using other players as examples is what you were looking for. You're the one who typed, "guys that played at a high level well late into their 30's."

You think 32 is old. Those players above played well in their mid-30s.

Ben is 31 years old. I think he can play well into his mid-30s.

There is no guarantee that starting his career late will definitely allow him to play well and longer. But, I think it helps. And, the wear and tear he has not been as much of toll on his body as other 31 year olds. That should help. That's not the only reason though. Ben Wallace is a workout beast. He's in great condition and is one of the strongest players in the league. He doesn't drink alcohol and keeps a good diet. And, Arnie Kandor is one of the best if not the best strength and conditioning coaches in all professional sports. All of those will help Ben play longer and play well when he is older in the league. You just chose to ignore the fact that I mentioned Ben is a workout junkie just like D-Rob, and I did mention that. That is also a factor.


And, whottt, you're still a fucking retard.

[ShoogarBear]

Cause I was thinkin', it really don't matter if I lose this fight. It really don't matter if this guy opens my head, either. 'Cause all I wanna do is go the distance. Nobody's ever gone the distance, and if I can go that distance, you see, and that bell rings and I'm still standin', I'm gonna know for the first time in my life, see, that I weren't just another bum from the neighborhood.
:lol

[picnroll]

Pistons have four players the Wallaces, McDyess and Billups that will be 32, 32, 32 and 30 next season. They have little in the way of bench depth. They will be tapped out for some time salary cap-wise. By the '08 season strong odds are they will be an aging team fighting injury problems, not a dynasty.

[Dunc]

We eagerly await Whottt's response. Looks like Jamstone's holding his own here...

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

This guy just don't want to win you know. He wants to bury you, he wants to humiliate you, he wants to prove to the whole world that you was nothing but some kind of a... a freak the first time out.*







*I hope this thread goes long enough where I can squeeze a quote from all the sequels in here...

[Vingianx]

some serious posting going in here

[JamStone]

Actually, Ben Wallace is 31 years old, about a year and a half older than Tim Duncan. And, Ben Wallace did not get regular starter minutes in the league until the 2000-01 season, so it's more like he's in his 7th or 8th season in the league. In face, he has less NBA wear and tear on his body than a guy like Tim Duncan. And, with his conditioning and weight training regiment, he's the type of athlete that could (not guaranteed, but possible) have a longer career than the average player.

[Obstructed_View]

What the fuck is a "weight training regiment"?

[AceProfits]

Im glad my first post ever on this site has caused so much ruckus, but I beleive you are going off topic. The biggest point was I never said Wallace was to be the "cornerstone" of this dynasty. He would just be a perfect piece to our dynasty so that we may continue it.

[SpursWillOwn]

Spurs should get in eddie griffin he's a reliable shot blocker and a relatively consistent scorer off the bench but to build a dynasty spurs would need a new young phenom forward to lessen the weight on Duncan

[JamStone]

What the fuck is a "weight training regiment"?


My apologies. I meant regimen. That must be the first misspelling ever in the history of this messageboard, right?

[MadDog73]

Hmmm....

Maybe we should get Ben Wallace? :rolleyes

Oh, wait, since that's very unlikely, isn't this whole thread a moot point?

[whottt]

We eagerly await Whottt's response. Looks like Jamstone's holding his own here...


Holdinh his own what? Ass?


Jamstone not only doesn't read his own posts, he also doesn't read mine, and he counts on others not reading them either.

[whottt]

Im glad my first post ever on this site has caused so much ruckus, but I beleive you are going off topic. The biggest point was I never said Wallace was to be the "cornerstone" of this dynasty. He would just be a perfect piece to our dynasty so that we may continue it.


Cornerstone, perfect piece...whatever...

31 years old and the word, "dynasty". aren't words that usually fit well together.

[JamStone]

Holdinh his own what? Ass?


Jamstone not only doesn't read his own posts, he also doesn't read mine, and he counts on others not reading them either.


When all else fails, just insult the other person and just call him stupid.

The great art of debate on sports messageboards ...

[whottt]

2. whottt keeps making shit up, like claiming that I said that sucking for the first four years in an NBA career will make a player play longer.

You did say that.



While in fact, all I said is that Ben Wallace has less wear and tear on his body than an average NBA player at the age of 31 has. That's still not refutable.

And it means exactly jack shit....


And, that does bode well for Ben Wallace to play longer and be more effective longer and later in his career. I never guaranteed that. I said it wasn't an exact science.

It doesn't bode for shit...

Look at the guys who played the longest...were they guys who sucked early in their careers?

Karl Malone? Nope.
Kareem? Nope.

Age is age...and you seem to think we are talking about football.







3. whottt continues to confuse "playing well at an advanced age" with "having a long career." He seems incapable of understanding simple differences in phrases he in fact was the first to use in this discussion. And, as soon as he realized he couldn't keep up the original argument, he changed it to "longer career" and "better numbers than other hall of fame centers." Did I mention whottt is a fucking retard?

No I didn't tool....You are the one backtracking like a motherfucker...you started out talking about advanced age as being 36 and 37, brought up David Robinson, and kicked your own ass severely in doing so...and now you have backtracked to 35...

On top of that...I included both having a long career and advanced age in disproving your point, several times...You are just too fucking stupid to read evidentally.


5. whottt wants other examples, fine I'll give other examples of players who started their career late and still were effective and played well at an advanced age. Mind you, whottt thinks 32 years old is too old in the NBA:

-Elvin Hayes: He turned 24 years old in his rookie season. He was still effective at age 36 when he averaged 37 minutes per game, 16 ppg, 9 rpg.

Elvin Hayes didn't suck his first 4 years in the league...neither did David Robinson, or Karl Malone...unlike Ben Wallace.


-Dennis Rodman: He was 25 when he was drafted in 1986. He started getting regular minutes in 1987-88 when he was 26. He was still playing well in 1997-98 season at the age of 36 with the Chicago Bulls when he played 80 games, averaged 15 rebounds a game in 36 minutes a game for a CHAMPIONSHIP team.


He hd also played in the finals and went into the conference finals half a dozen times by that age....exactly how is that having less miles than a typical player of the same age?


Having less miles on him didn't keep him from missing half the season in 94-95 either...you fucking douche.


-Dikembe Mutombo: Dikembe was 25 years old his first season in the NBA. He remained pretty effective until the 2001-02 season at the age of 35 where he still played 36 minutes a game and hauled 11 rebounds a game down.

Didn't suck his first 4 years in the league...unlike Ben Wallace.


-Sam Cassell: Sam was 24 years old in his first season in 1993-94. He got his first all star selection in 2003-04 at the age of 33. His numbers this season are still very good at age 35.


Sam Cassell also broke down in the playoffs that first year he made the All Star game...fucking his team in the process and last year he sucked total ass...

Not as good investment for a 5 year 10 mil a year deal.

You complete fuckwit.

I can't help it that you don't realize your examples suck ass, don't back up your point, and only serve to make you look even stupider to the knowledgable fan than you already look.







You think 32 is old.

No I don't...I just don't think it's a good age at which to sign players to 5 year deals at 10 million a year and consider them a cornerstone...er, "the perfect piece", to a 5 year dynasty run.


Those players above played well in their mid-30s.

It also didn't take them 4 years to stop sucking...


Ben is 31 years old. I think he can play well into his mid-30s.

You would...you'd also lick his nuts if he let you...but the point is...you'd be a total dumbass to sign him to a 5 year deal making 10 mil a year if you are trying to make a dynasty run.




There is no guarantee that starting his career late will definitely allow him to play well and longer. But, I think it helps. And, the wear and tear he has not been as much of toll on his body as other 31 year olds.

Prove it...

Hell my examples of Bruce Bowen and Mark Eaton are better than any you have come up with...but you'd stil be a dumbass to count on them for 5 years as of major contributions at high $$$$$, at the age of 32 and beyond.



That should help. That's not the only reason though. Ben Wallace is a workout beast. He's in great condition and is one of the strongest players in the league. He doesn't drink alcohol and keeps a good diet. And, Arnie Kandor is one of the best if not the best strength and conditioning coaches in all professional sports. All of those will help Ben play longer and play well when he is older in the league. You just chose to ignore the fact that I mentioned Ben is a workout junkie just like D-Rob, and I did mention that. That is also a factor.


Yet Drob being a work out junkie didn't stop him from getting a career altering injury at the very age Wallace is now...and neither did getting a late start to his career...You utter dumbass.

[ShoogarBear]

I beleive you are going off topic.

Welcome to the internets.

[JamStone]

You did say that.

Not once in this thread did I say "sucking for the first four years in an NBA career will make a player play longer." Find the fucking quote, fuckwhottt. Find it and quote me. Find it and quote me. You take someone's comments and then twist them into something you believe they mean. Find where I said sucking for the first four years in an NBA career will make a player play longer. Does David Robinson's jizz in your eyes give you trouble reading?




And it means exactly jack shit....

Ok, and? In your opinion it means jack shit. In my opinion, I think it (bear with me now) COULD help Ben Wallace play longer. I dont' speak in absolutes. There are no certainties in professional sports.




It doesn't bode for shit...

Look at the guys who played the longest...were they guys who sucked early in their careers?

Karl Malone? Nope.
Kareem? Nope.

Age is age...and you seem to think we are talking about football.

Your opinion that it doesn't help. You can't prove it doesn't not help.





No I didn't tool....You are the one backtracking like a motherfucker...you started out talking about advanced age as being 36 and 37, brought up David Robinson, and kicked your own ass severely in doing so...and now you have backtracked to 35...

On top of that...I included both having a long career and advanced age in disproving your point, several times...You are just too fucking stupid to read evidentally.

You included having a long career about 10 posts later. Your first post on this spoke of not thinking of any single player "PLAYING WELL AT AN ADVANCED AGE" who had a late start in their career.

Several posts later you started comparing Hall of Fame centers and started comparing career years. You fucking twisted your original argument so that you could make a stronger one. Playing well at an advanced age doesn't mean the player should have career years at an advanced age. You keep making nonsensical conclusions, and you continue to change your argument so that it sounds stronger.

Tell me I backtrack all you want. You're still trying to find ways to morph your original argument, while you wiggle on David Robinson's lap.




Elvin Hayes didn't suck his first 4 years in the league...neither did David Robinson, or Karl Malone...unlike Ben Wallace.

You stupid little man. YOUR FUCKING ORIGINAL comment was:

"I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

Where is there anything about a player sucking early on in his career? You yourfuckingself spoke of a player "that got A LATE START TO HIS CAREER." Doesn't matter the reason. LATE START.

READING IS FUNDAMENTAL.

You fucking toilet brain. Your words. Your fucking words. LATE START TO CAREER. Nothing about sucking. Why do you keep retorting with that point?? I can't believe how much of a fucking retard you are. They were your words. Late start to his careere. Not, sucking to start a career. Read your own words. I can't believe you are still making that stupid fucking point.





He hd also played in the finals and went into the conference finals half a dozen times by that age....exactly how is that having less miles than a typical player of the same age?

Who said Dennis Rodman had less mileage at 36? Again, you don't understand your OWN FUCKING COMMENT.

"I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

Dennis Rodman played well at an advanced age, and he was an NBA player that got a late start to his career. It responds to YOUR OWN STATEMENT. Stop changing the argument. Take a deep breath. Let the oxygen get into your brain. Now, take your time and STOP BEING A FUCKING RETARD.



Having less miles on him didn't keep him from missing half the season in 94-95 either...you fucking douche.

Michael Jordan missed his most of his second season in 1984-95 when he was 21 years old. Was that wear and tear and mileage? You stupid fucking baboon.

Injuries can happen early on in your career, the middle of your career, or at the end of your career. Injuries are a variable. They can happen to best conditioned atheletes. Amare Stoudemire doesn't have a lot of wear and tear on his body yet. Just because Rodman had a season injury in 94-95 doesn't mean it was due to the mileage on his body ...you fucking douche.

I cannot even take you seriously ...




Didn't suck his first 4 years in the league...unlike Ben Wallace.

Dikembe didn't play in the NBA until he was 25. That's the analogy with Ben Wallace. You honestly don't understand simple question and answer type of discussion do you?

"I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

I listed players who played well at an advanced age that got late starts to their careers. It was responding to your statement that you couldn't think of any. It has nothing to do with any of them sucking their first 4 years in the league. Now you sound like a fucking 4 year old just repeating the same thing to annoy his mommy.

I want some candy!
I want some candy!
I want some candy!
I want some candy!
I want some candy!
I want some candy!
I want some candy!

Maybe sooner or later the mommy will get the kid some candy. But, in a discussion like this, repeating something that is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with the argument doesn't make it more credible the more times you say it. Do you want some candy?





Sam Cassell also broke down in the playoffs that first year he made the All Star game...fucking his team in the process and last year he sucked total ass...

Not as good investment for a 5 year 10 mil a year deal.

You complete fuckwit.

I can't help it that you don't realize your examples suck ass, don't back up your point, and only serve to make you look even stupider to the knowledgable fan than you already look.


Every example responded to this:

"I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

They may not prove that starting later in a career definitely leads to a playing longer, but that's not why I listed them. I listed them to respond to your FUCKING QUOTE FOR THE FUCKING 100th TIME.

I don't claim that it is an absolute guarantee that starting a career late definitely will allow a player play longer. You INFERRED THAT. You're the fucking moron who first made that statement. It wasn't even something I wrote in the first place.

"Actually, Ben Wallace is 31 years old, about a year and a half older than Tim Duncan. And, Ben Wallace did not get regular starter minutes in the league until the 2000-01 season, so it's more like he's in his 7th or 8th season in the league. In face, he has less NBA wear and tear on his body than a guy like Tim Duncan. And, with his conditioning and weight training regiment, he's the type of athlete that could (not guaranteed, but possible) have a longer career than the average player."

You are the imbecile who twisted that into an ABSOLUTE THEORY claiming I believe anyone who sucks their first four years in the league will play longer.

FUCKWHOTTT, YOU made that shit up.

I said it COULD help.


Then you started rambling all about not thinking of any player who played well at an advanced age who got a late start to his career. That's where David Robinson and the other players I listed come int. Can you follow a simple discussion?





No I don't...I just don't think it's a good age at which to sign players to 5 year deals at 10 million a year and consider them a cornerstone...er, "the perfect piece", to a 5 year dynasty run.

I would actually agree. I don't think 32 is a good age to sign players to a 5 year 10 million dollar contract. But, it's going to happen. In fact, Ben will get more than that. He may not earn his salary the last few years of his contract, but he can still be a key player on a championship contending team.

There probably have been plenty of players on championship teams that were making more than they were worth, but still they were keys to those championship teams.




It also didn't take them 4 years to stop sucking...

I want some candy!
I want some candy!





You would...you'd also lick his nuts if he let you...but the point is...you'd be a total dumbass to sign him to a 5 year deal making 10 mil a year if you are trying to make a dynasty run.

How do licking someone's nuts taste like, since you're the foremost expert on the subject?

And, what you don't realize is that I don't THINK Ben should get a 5 year deal. I think it should be a four year deal with a team option on the last year. But, I know that's not realistically going to happen. And, I know that Ben will command at the very least $10 million a year. That's the reality of NBA contracts.

Your favorite boyfriend, David Robinson, at age 37, when you admittingly said he was 1/5 the shell of the player he was in his prime was paid $10 million that year. 37 years old. Shell of a player.

Maybe you also disagree with him being paid that much at his age. But, again, that's the way of NBA contracts.






"And, the wear and tear he has not been as much of toll on his body as other 31 year olds."

Prove it...

Simple math, dumbass.

Rasheed Wallace and Ben Wallace are the same age, in fact they were born within in a week of each other. Rasheed got into the league a year before Ben, and started playing big minutes right away.

RASHEED: 777 games, 26,841 minutes
BEN: 682 games, 21,169 minutes

That's why I think Ben has less wear and tear on his body.

Heck, Tim Duncan is YOUNGER than Ben and came into the league a year after Ben, and I think Ben has less wear and tear on his body.

TIM: 651 games, 24,741 minutes

30 fewer games than Ben Wallace and over 3,500 more minutes played.




Hell my examples of Bruce Bowen and Mark Eaton are better than any you have come up with...but you'd stil be a dumbass to count on them for 5 years as of major contributions at high $$$$$, at the age of 32 and beyond.

How many all-star games did Bruce Bowen and Mark Eaton make? One?

You can't compare, because even in their prime in their mid-20s, they wouldn't be worth a 5 year contract at high $$$$$. Even at age 27, you wouldn't give those players a big contract. But, you want to use them in comparison?

I haven't said this in a little while. whottt, you're a fucking retard.





Yet Drob being a work out junkie didn't stop him from getting a career altering injury at the very age Wallace is now...and neither did getting a late start to his career...You utter dumbass.

True, David Robinson didn't have quite the work ethic Ben Wallace has in keeping their respective bodies in great shape.

Do you want some candy?

[whottt]

Not once in this thread did I say "sucking for the first four years in an NBA career will make a player play longer." Find the fucking quote, fuckwhottt. Find it and quote me. Find it and quote me. You take someone's comments and then twist them into something you believe they mean. Find where I said sucking for the first four years in an NBA career will make a player play longer. Does David Robinson's jizz in your eyes give you trouble reading?

Ok


Actually, Ben Wallace is 31 years old, about a year and a half older than Tim Duncan. And, Ben Wallace did not get regular starter minutes in the league until the 2000-01 season, so it's more like he's in his 7th or 8th season in the league. In face, he has less NBA wear and tear on his body than a guy like Tim Duncan. And, with his conditioning and weight training regiment, he's the type of athlete that could (not guaranteed, but possible) have a longer career than the average player.


You clearly think that a player who sucks his first 4 years(translated for dumfuck Pistonsfans: and therefore can't get his worthless ass on the court to see meaningful minutes) will be benfitted by the early sucking later in his career.



Ok, and? In your opinion it means jack shit. In my opinion, I think it (bear with me now) COULD help Ben Wallace play longer. I dont' speak in absolutes. There are no certainties in professional sports.

Excellent...now shut the fuck up about it.






Your opinion that it doesn't help. You can't prove it doesn't not help.

Sure I can...I can look at the all time greats in terms of longevity(this means both in terms of years played, as well as age played too, dumbass)...and see that none of them sucked ass like Wallace their first 4 years in the league.







You included having a long career about 10 posts later. Your first post on this spoke of not thinking of any single player "PLAYING WELL AT AN ADVANCED AGE" who had a late start in their career.

Several posts later you started comparing Hall of Fame centers and started comparing career years. You fucking twisted your original argument so that you could make a stronger one. Playing well at an advanced age doesn't mean the player should have career years at an advanced age. You keep making nonsensical conclusions, and you continue to change your argument so that it sounds stronger.

Tell me I backtrack all you want. You're still trying to find ways to morph your original argument, while you wiggle on David Robinson's lap.


Lie...I said all this in the same post you keep quoting...


Link to some kind of evidence that having a late start to a career will extend it?

As far as I know...none of the guys known for playing well at an advanced age got late starts to their career...in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career.



Karl Malone was effective well past his early 30s.

Observe idiot from the same thread a quote from you....you were the one who started bringing up HOF'ers...


Where was I...oh yeah...in the middle of exposing you as full of shit.


Karl Malone also started playing and was effective at 22...unlike Ben Wallace.

More...


Well the only guys I see that played at a high level well late into their 30's...aren't guys who sucked until they were 26.


And...





No...you contended that because Wallace effectively sucked until he was @25 years old, that somehow he is going to be a DPOY candidate until he is 45...

And I am asking you for some kind of evidence to back that theory up...Karl Malone and Kareem Abdul Jabbar are not examples you can use...they didn't suck until they were 25.



Back to the lies of Jamstone...






You stupid little man. YOUR FUCKING ORIGINAL comment was:

"I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

Where is there anything about a player sucking early on in his career? You yourfuckingself spoke of a player "that got A LATE START TO HIS CAREER." Doesn't matter the reason. LATE START.

READING IS FUNDAMENTAL.

You fucking toilet brain. Your words. Your fucking words. LATE START TO CAREER. Nothing about sucking. Why do you keep retorting with that point?? I can't believe how much of a fucking retard you are. They were your words. Late start to his careere. Not, sucking to start a career. Read your own words. I can't believe you are still making that stupid fucking point.








Injuries can happen early on in your career, the middle of your career, or at the end of your career. Injuries are a variable. They can happen to best conditioned atheletes. Amare Stoudemire doesn't have a lot of wear and tear on his body yet. Just because Rodman had a season injury in 94-95 doesn't mean it was due to the mileage on his body ...you fucking douche.

I cannot even take you seriously ...

Hey dumbass...how many 50 years old are currently playing in the NBA? Now why do you think that is...you dumbfuck.





And, what you don't realize is that I don't THINK Ben should get a 5 year deal. I think it should be a four year deal with a team option on the last year.

Then shut the fuck up...and go find a thread that you have something to contribute towards...




30 fewer games than Ben Wallace and over 3,500 more minutes played.

Stop trying to turn Ben Wallace's sucking into a positive...it's not.





How many all-star games did Bruce Bowen and Mark Eaton make? One?

Idiot...when was this ever a discussion about All Stars?

[JamStone]

"I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

[whottt]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=809873&postcount=15

[JamStone]

I You clearly think that a player who sucks his first 4 years(translated for dumfuck Pistonsfans: and therefore can't get his worthless ass on the court to see meaningful minutes) will be benfitted by the early sucking later in his career.

Your troglodyte translation was not what I wrote or meant. That's what I've been saying this entire time. You inferred shit I didn't even say. All I said is that Ben had less wear and tear on his body than most 31 year old NBA players. Refute that. I just showed you examples of Rasheed Wallace and Tim Duncan who are the same age or younger than Ben and have played MORE NBA MINUTES than Ben. Your infantile mind cannot make a simple dedcutive conclusion that fewer minutes over that stretch of time can equate to less wear and tear on a player's body.


Excellent...now shut the fuck up about it.

How can I shut up about it when you keep bringing it the fuck up? You misquote me, mistranslate me, and put words in my mouth, and you can't even deny it. Go sit on a fucking cucumber. Better yet, go call your boyfriend, Admiral Fuckingwhottt.



Sure I can...I can look at the all time greats in terms of longevity(this means both in terms of years played, as well as age played too, dumbass)...and see that none of them sucked ass like Wallace their first 4 years in the league.


Still stuck on "sucking" when that was never any argument I made. And, how about the all time greats who only played through til their early 30s and only had 11-12 year careers? Does that mean starting early and being great means you sucked later? You keep trying to speak in absolutes, when each player is a case-by-case study, each independant of each other. I say starting late can help a player play longer. You twist it to become an absolute theory that I believe any and all players who start late or who suck early in their career will have longer careers. You take in no variables such as career ending or career altering injuries, the way those players keep their body in shape, or just finding the right situation and team to play longer. Every NBA player is different, otherwise you would want to suck the penis of every NBA player who has ever played the game like you do David Robinson.


<<more to come>>

[NCaliSpurs]

Your troglodyte translation was not what I wrote or meant. That's what I've been saying this entire time. You inferred shit I didn't even say. All I said is that Ben had less wear and tear on his body than most 31 year old NBA players. Refute that. I just showed you examples of Rasheed Wallace and Tim Duncan who are the same age or younger than Ben and have played MORE NBA MINUTES than Ben. Your infantile mind cannot make a simple dedcutive conclusion that fewer minutes over that stretch of time can equate to less wear and tear on a player's body.

Not to interrupt or to make sense or anything. But at some point, the wear and tear thing is irrelevant and age becomes the most dominant factor.

Besides, the minutes Tim Duncan put in at the age of 21-26 are much different than the minutes Ben Wallace put in at 26-31. The body recovers worse the older you get. It just does. So it isn't really fair to use any kind of "he only logged x number of minutes argument." If Ben Wallace lasts, it will be because of his freaky genetics, and not because he logged less minutes as a young player.

That is all. Continue.

[JamStone]

Link to some kind of evidence that having a late start to a career will extend it?

As far as I know...none of the guys known for playing well at an advanced age got late starts to their career...in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career.

It's a meaningless point...


"Your extreme analogies of Ralph Sampson and Mark Eaton reak of bitterness, and I don't know where it comes from. Apparently 50+ year old former NBA players are equivalent to a 31 year old NBA player. Is that what you're saying?"




It's called sarcasm...and my extreme analogy is supposed to point out the stupidity of your logic...

If we were talking about runningbacks you might have a better point...just barely.


"Karl Malone was effective well past his early 30s."



Karl Malone also started playing and was effective at 22...unlike Ben Wallace.




"Ben Wallace is the type of work-out junkie that should be able to compete well into his mid-30s if he so desires. I don't know what is so controversial in that sentiment to you."




Well the only guys I see that played at a high level well late into their 30's...aren't guys who sucked until they were 26.


You didn't start mentioning "longer careers" in this quote. In a later post, you changed your argument to say that 37, 38 was an average age for a HOF center to end his career. But, in this post, you talk about mid-30s as being your benchmark of "advanced age."

And, I brought up Karl Malone not because he was a hall of famer, but because he was well known for how hard his off-season workouts were and how well he kept his body in tip top shape. I didn't start listing a bunch of hall of fame centers. Notice how I talked how Ben Wallace was a workout junkie ...

And, then in LATER POSTS, you changed your argument of "playing well" into some jibberish about not playing as well as in their prime. Playing well does not have to mean playing the best or having career numbers. All of Tim Duncan's numbers are down this year and he's been bad in some games, but overall Tim Duncan is "playing well" this season.

Seriously, do I have to spell out everything so you can understand where you went wrong?

Again, notice you were the first one who equated not playing early in a career to sucking. My point for a long time now that you felt the need to change what I wrote and what I meant in order for you to stroke your D-Rob inflateable doll.



Hey dumbass...how many 50 years old are currently playing in the NBA? Now why do you think that is...you dumbfuck.

Hey not-so-smartass...why mention an injury to a player when it doesn't have anything to do with age or wear and tear on the body? What the hell is your point with 50 year old players currently in the NBA? What 50 year old player did I fucking reference? You fumbduck.



Then shut the fuck up...and go find a thread that you have something to contribute towards...


Sounds like the beginning of a meltdown. I envision tears running down your face, and lubrication on the palm of your hand preparing for the assfuck you dream about by some 7-foot-1 Naval officer.



Idiot...when was this ever a discussion about All Stars?

Hey, numbnuts, when would Bruce Bowen or Mark Eaton every going to get a five year deal for major $$$$$???? Not at 18, not at 21, not at 27, not at 32. I mentioned the fact that they were not all stars (except for Eaton ONE season) because they would never get a five year deal for major $$$$$ anyway. It makes your point about them completely and utterly nonsensical.

Would you give Devean George or Jason Collins 5 years and $10 million a year at age 32? No of course not, but you wouldn't give them that deal at if they were 22, 25, or 28 either.

That's why bringing up Bowen and Eaton and asking if they would deserve a 5 year $10 million per year contract makes no sense.

[WayDowntownBang]

Jam, I'm impressed. You've come a long way since our days back at p.com.

I don't think whott was expecting this.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Clubber Whott: I reject the challenge, 'cause Jam is no challenge, but I'll be happy to beat up on him some more.

JamStaStone: You don't look so bad to me.

[coz]

I've honestly just read this entire thread.......

And for all the lurkers who enjoy a good conversation:

"STFU Jamb!"

Dude, quality beats quantity. You keep saying the same things. Come up with something that refutes the "but they didn't suck until they were 26" argument and come back.

[san antonio spurs]

i respectfully disagree.
I think Whottt is really being owned since Jamstone brought more facts to his arguments.
________
GIMMESEX (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/gimmesex)

[Pistons < Spurs]

i respectfully disagree.
I think Whottt is really being owned since Jamstone brought more facts to his arguments.

Agreed.

Whott seems to be too focused in saying that "Ben sucked in his early years". Which really has nothing to do with the argument. It clouds his main message when he continues to state how much Ben sucked in every other sentence.

Good reading though. Keep it up guys!

[Bruno]

i respectfully disagree.
I think Whottt is really being owned since Jamstone brought more facts to his arguments.

Agree too.

I can add that Big Ben will likely sign a 4 years contract (and not a 5 or 6 years contract) this summer because of the over-36 rule.

[DarkReign]

Honestly, I cant stand when arguments go into the toilet.

This argument was close in the beginning, then it got really one-sided.

whott = pwned

[NCaliSpurs]

You guys are wrong.

Whott outdueled him.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I didn't hear no bell...

[ShoogarBear]

I didn't hear no bell...
:lmao :lmao

[Pistons < Spurs]

This argument was close in the beginning, then it got really one-sided.




Very true.

[Winnipeg_Spur]

I don't think this measure of nba wear and tear is that significant in extending your career, as there are AT LEAST 3 other factors more important in my mind:

1. Luck in avoiding major injuries (which Ben has had)
2. Strength and conditioning work (which Wallace excels at)
3. Actual age

So overall I don't think Ben is in bad shape for the future, but not neccessarily because of lack of wear and tear or whatever.

The bottom line is the Pistons pretty much have to give Wallace whatever he needs to stay in Detroit, and they will. Sure if they give him a 5 year deal he might end up being overpaid the last year or two, but he's been underpaid for the a while, so it all evens out. Most importantly though, there's no way Detroit would sabotage their championship hopes over the next couple of years just to avoid paying a 35 yo Wallace, defensive anchors don't grow on trees...

[smeagol]

I once argued with whottt for 10 pages about fucking rugby.

Welcome back, motherfucking wrestlemania fan! :tu

[ShoogarBear]

I once argued with whottt for 10 pages about fucking rugby.

:lmao :lmao :lmao Talk about your classics.

[1Parker1]

I once argued with whottt for 10 pages about fucking rugby.

Welcome back, motherfucking wrestlemania fan! :tu


:lol Did he manage to slip in a David Robinson plus into the argument?

[1Parker1]

PS. Whottt, we have missed you!!! Especially, when everyone jumped back on the Brent Barry wagon when he started playing good for that 6 game stretch after his near-trade. I thought of you often then...:)

[ambchang]

This thread is just way too funny, but even as a Spurs fan who loved David Robinson like his own brother, I have to give this to JamStone.
But it's lovely seeing Whott at his pissed off best, not even the Black Mamba himself can have this much venom.

[whottt]

Smeagol and 1p1, thanks it's good to be back. Nice av BTW 1p1 :).

Now then...any tool that thinks Jamstone is even coming close to holding his own in this argument is a bigger dumbass than Jamstone himself...

Want some facts?

Fact: Jamstone said that because Ben Wallace didn't get many minutes his first 4 years in the NBA, IE he sucked ass, that somehow he will probably have a longer career because of it...

I asked for proof...

Fact:

His proof was to name a guy that:
A. Didn't suck his first 4 years in the NBA.
B. Had a career altering injury at the age of 31.
C. Didn't play to a particularly old age and
D. Spent the last 2 years of his career battling a severe back condition that caused him to miss large swaths of the season both years...including most of the playoffs one year.


IOW, Drob getting limited mileage early in his career(because he was in the Navy, not because he sucked ass, unlike Ben Wallace) didn't keep him from breaking down unusually young.

That is backing up his argument? That's like asking someone to prove to you the world is round and being handed a frisbee in return.


That's the fact.


His other facts are even more stupid...he doesn't name anyone that sucked his first 4 years in the NBA, as Wallace did...in fact he names one guy that got an assload of minutes in the NBA beginning at age 22...Karl Malone didn't get limited minutes early in his career...he got heavy minutes, because he didn't suck, unlike Ben Wallace.

He then goes on to name Sam Cassell, a guy who, in addition to not sucking his first 4 years in the NBA, unlike Ben Wallace, completely broke down physically in the playoffs, costing his team a finals appearance, at the age of 33.


Jamestone has in no way backed up his point...He's destroyed his own point, it's just that he is too stupid to see it.

He seems to think people are cars...
He seems to be unable to grasp that what separates Ben Wallace from every player he named...is that they didn't suck their 4 years in the NBA, they were actually good relatively quickly, unlike Wallace.
He doesn't seem to understand that a guy can play 1 year in the NBA and if he plays a physical game, in that one season he can get more "miles", or let's just call it bodily wear and tear, on him than some guy that has been a starter for 3 years that plays a non physical game.




He hasn't named anyone that proves his point, he hasn't backed it up in any way, and most of his examples contradict the very point is trying to make, if anything.


People aren't cars...Just because some guy sucked his first 4 years in the league doesn't mean he is going to keep his athleticism longer because he didn't play...that's an incredily stupid point.

What Wallace does, or does not do, has nothing to do with how badly he sucked his 4 years in the NBA, er excuse me, how little he played...he's not a car. He either has the genes to do it, or he doesn't.

Apart from all of that...he is already obviously in decline, he is undersized, and doesn't have much athleticism to begin with...which means he has less to lose...unlike every other player Jamstone named. That's part of the reason why they didn't suck their first 4 years in the NBA, unlike Ben Wallace.

[ShoogarBear]

JamStone (in one of his earliest posts, I believe) unknowingly lights the fuse.