Tyson Chandler traded to Dallas

[DPG21920]

So, long story short, I wasn't wrong then.

So your smack is mocking someone who wasn't wrong for objectively assessing what the trade was about, but not mocking a complete meltdown and someone who was very wrong with their stated stance on the subject even though it was GNSF levels (which you mock all the time).

Ya, that doesn't scream shield.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So, long story short, I wasn't wrong then.

So your smack is mocking someone who wasn't wrong for objectively assessing what the trade was about, but not mocking a complete meltdown and someone who was very wrong with their stated stance on the subject even though it was GNSF levels (which you mock all the time).

Ya, that doesn't scream shield.

You were wrong about Tyson Chandler being an expiring contract they were using to buy time. That's not at all what happened.

[DPG21920]

You were wrong about Tyson Chandler being an expiring contract they were using to buy time. That's not at all what happened.

How was that wrong? Where did I say they must trade him? I said he was an expiring contract so it allowed them more time to search for other trades. That was a part of what happened. I never said "I am 100% sure they are going to trade him". I objectively assessed the angles and how the trade could be ok.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

How was that wrong?

Because that's not what happened.

[DPG21920]

Because that's not what happened.

I didn't say he would be traded. Please link to where I did. You are being obtuse because you need to sheild all that .


What is hard to understand about someone stepping back and essentially saying:

Here is why the trade could be ok: Since Tyson is also an expiring and Dampier was a use it or lose it chip, they bought themselves more time to look at other trades. They are also taking a risk, but there are some ways it could work out.

So you are saying no additional time was bought by flipping Damp for an expiring Tyson Chandler and I was wrong about that?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I objectively assessed the angles and how the trade could be ok.

You hedged your prediction such that it allowed for every possible outcome, i.e., you didn't really make a prediction......until the Mavs were 23-5.

[log in/log out goods]

[DPG21920]

You hedged your prediction such that it allowed for every possible outcome, i.e., you didn't really make a prediction......until the Mavs were 23-5.

So then by that very nature, if I hedged, how can I be wrong

So even if you believe that to be true, you are now talking out of both sides of your infested mouth. You are saying I am wrong and "scoffing posters who are wrong" while at the same time saying I didn't make a prediction and hedged so that I could not be wrong.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So basically DPG is upset no one wants to give him credit for saying, "It could be good, bad, or somewhere in between!"

[DPG21920]

You hedged your prediction such that it allowed for every possible outcome, i.e., you didn't really make a prediction......until the Mavs were 23-5.

Also, this was not about making a prediction. This was not a bet or a back and forth (like when you tried to go at me about Bargnani and we both went on record and I was correct).

This was a reaction to a trade. M>S made his assessment (melted down and saw no potential failing to see some of what was going on). I made my assessment which was more level headed and objective while outlining some of the logic behind the move.

I really don't see your angle here and the stuff that happened later was another extension essentially saying the Mavs took a large risk and got luckier than anyone, including myself, could have imagined.

You look like a sheild tbh

[DPG21920]

So basically DPG is upset no one wants to give him credit for saying, "It could be good, bad, or somewhere in between!"

- Not looking for credit. Wondering why you are going to such great lengths to fight Tyson's battles and not scoffing him like you do other GNSF posters who are wrong and meltdown like he did. While also taking up a cause to scoff someone for being "wrong" when you essentially said they took a stance where they "hedged so they couldn't be wrong".

[DPG21920]

I said they bought more time to poach someone. I wasn't making a prediction - I was assessing the details of the trade and the logic behind it.

I wasn't acting like a maniac and quitting on the team because they don't understand contracts or anything beyond their immediate primal emotions.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So then by that very nature, if I hedged, how can I be wrong

Because there's an obvious implied meaning to what you said. You're deliberately ignoring what the implied meaning was.

So even if you believe that to be true, you are now talking out of both sides of your infested mouth. You are saying I am wrong and "scoffing posters who are wrong" while at the same time saying I didn't make a prediction and hedged so that I could not be wrong.

I'm saying you were wrong because it's wildly obvious what you meant at the time. I know you're pretending that all along, you believed the Mavs traded for Tyson because he could provide the missing piece at center that they need, but it's obvious to anyone with semi-decent critical thinking skills you did not in any way think the Tyson trade would turn out the way it did.

That is why I'm arguing with you. Seeing you do mental backflips to try and convince yourself and others that your post meant something different than it actually did, even though the meaning at the time was obvious, is something I find hilarious. I know you're never going to admit what you actually meant, but seeing you continue to hedge, pretend you meant something you didn't mean, and work the term " shield" into your posts because you're mad at me calling out your indirect predictions is hilarious.

[DPG21920]

So I absolutely love how when it suites your mopping duties, you can make this awesome assumptions and infer everything, but when it comes to me doing it (how I described in two very different posts that one aspect was buying more time and the other was the "risk") you try and scoff and say "you can't infer anything from that!"

[DPG21920]

Because there's an obvious implied meaning to what you said. You're deliberately ignoring what the implied meaning was.


I'm saying you were wrong because it's wildly obvious what you meant at the time. I know you're pretending that all along, you believed the Mavs traded for Tyson because he could provide the missing piece at center that they need, but it's obvious to anyone with semi-decent critical thinking skills you did not in any way think the Tyson trade would turn out the way it did.

That is why I'm arguing with you. Seeing you do mental backflips to try and convince yourself and others that your post meant something different than it actually did, even though the meaning at the time was obvious, is something I find hilarious. I know you're never going to admit what you actually meant, but seeing you continue to hedge, pretend you meant something you didn't mean, and work the term " shield" into your posts because you're mad at me calling out your indirect predictions is hilarious.

No guy, I am not pretending and have already admitted and will admit again that I thought the main reason they traded for Tyson was to buy more time - but I understood that there was an off chance (and by no stretch did I think it was likely) that he could actually work out on the court. So there goes det theory.

[DPG21920]

It also wasn't a prediction. I can't say it any more directly but maybe the in your eye keeps you from seeing me post that over and over. This wasn't a thread where someone said "post your predictions on how so and so will end up". This was a thread to discuss initial reactions to the trade and assess it. Which I did. And so did Tyson - with a meltdown.

[DPG21920]

Also, Tyson, look at this: http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201806

[DPG21920]

Why? Don't all your little buds follow you on FB and know what you look like (I know they do because I have seen the picture). Are you embarrassed? Your name won't be used and its not going to be some close up. If you are so awesome what is the big deal and what is the risk?

[DPG21920]

What do guys who say they don't want to play basketball with guys on the internet do? I guess they don't start GTG basketball threads....

[DPG21920]

Yeah I'm not posting video or pictures of myself on a site with a bunch of weirdo's and trolls, I will kick your ass one on one though. Although I will point out, that people who aren't obviously mad about internet arguments wouldn't challenge someone to a compe ion to settle said internet beef, but whatever floats your boat . if you want me to kick your ass then lets do it.

I don't get the risk - how will we have proof? You are the biggest weirdo (storing pics of families and making real life threats..) so you have nothing to worry about. What can they do without your name or any kind of close up picture video?

I mean, if you are willing to meet up with possible internet weirdos in real life + post your pictures on websites like Facebook, how is that any different?

[DPG21920]

Meeting up to play pickup basketball isn't the same as challenging someone 1 on 1 for internet glory

It's not glory. It's just hoops bruh. You seem to love internet glory because you get ultra excited about pickles under peoples avatars and getting to say that you got people "buttmad"

[DPG21920]

It's not like me beating you in 1 v 1 will settle any internet beef If you keep posting like an annoying tool and following me around, I will still find you annoying even if I win.

[DPG21920]

Meeting up to play pickup basketball isn't the same as challenging someone 1 on 1 for internet glory

Also, it's even more funny that this means so much to you that you are willing to drive hundreds of miles for it. You're kind of creeping me out.

So it wasn't creepy when you invited me to drive hundreds of miles to play basketball with guys I have already balled with in a city from which I just moved with lots of friends there, but it is creepy when I accept ? Your logic is kind of terrible bruh.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

DPG really seems to like

[DPG21920]

DPG really seems to like

that's the response you can muster up?

Nice attempt to steer the argument in a tangent away from your re ed assertion that David Lee's bread and butter is the mid range jumper and all he contributes on offense is jump shots off assists after I've provided stats that on said assertion, but it's not gonna work.

I'm still waiting to hear how all David Lee contributes on offense is jump shots off assists when only 32.3% of his points come off jumpers and he's less reliant on assists than Diaw.

I hope that's not the case. You don't need a stud free safety with a 3-4 defense, just one who keeps the offense in front of him and can prevent big plays. That's why Rex Ryan (someone who knows WAAAAAAAAAAY more about an attacking 3-4 defense than Whisenhunt or any Steeler dip he's hired) willingly dumped Kerry Rhodes like a used rag after one year of coaching him.

As a matter of fact, having a free safety who knows his role, doesn't gamble and plays within the system is more important to a 3-4 defense than having a free safety who can be out of position in coverage and still make an interception.

To being Hakeem Olajuwon's rag tbh

All cool ST scros use the lingo