Reply With Quote
You and the Spurs can celebrate your Special Olympics victory while me and Durant are in Brazil.
Indiana drafted him, then we traded George Hill for him.
You and the Spurs can celebrate your Special Olympics victory while me and Durant are in Brazil.
In other words I'm being captain contrarion in mom's basement and won't.
Scola was 2002, Manu 1999 and parker 2001.
Prearranged deal genius.
I've already posted a list of the relevant players the Spurs have drafted. I've got no need to "win" arguments against anyone online.
So the Spurs traded for a pick they wanted. Wow.
What would Durant want to do with you in Brazil?
lol rich fantasy life
Yep.
lol Brazil
I wrote it that way so my sentence structure wasn't so repe ive. I compared your e-win/the Spurs' victories in the bottom of the draft to the Special Olympics (because who cares?), while I compared the Thunder's premium wins to the actual Olympics.
Get it?
I get that you will do anything to avoid listing the picks as requested.
I've already given you the win Chump.
Which makes your continued stalling even more entertaining.
I'm tanking for a lotto pick. There's no stalling, only losing.
Can't argue with your losing.
man first paul george, now this guy.
For the two dudes arguing regarding SAS v. OKC draft picks over the past 10 years, it's obviously OKC > SAS... Durant, Westbook, Ibaka, Green, Harden...cmon now, but when you consider that the Thunder pick in the top 10 because they've sucked, it really isn't much of a comparison/i.e. unfair comparison to begin with.
The arguement was the Spurs have been the gold standard in the draft but when pointing out how most of their picks didn't pan out or were moved to other teams the only defense was to look at where they were drafting. Can't have it both ways, either they drafted great or they just picked whoever was left.
There have been long stretches of draft picks that didn't make sense, tons of short combo guards and euros who we may never see and not enough tape to know if they would be worth while. Lots of standing pat, not a lot of trying to move up in the draft to secure better players outside of Kawhi which was smart. I'll concede that but in hindsight there have been a handful of picks that were flat out silly when there were better options and were team needs.
They drafted great.
Idk that Indiana would of drafted him without the Spurs consent. It's hard to imagine that wasn't by design.
Exactly. There's this little rule that you can't trade your first rounder in consecutive drafts. The loophole is that you can have a team interested in your pick, agree on the particulars of the trade, and then you draft the player FOR them, and then trade the player, not the pick. Most, if not all draft night trades go down like this.
Right idea, wrong rule. The rule is that teams can't trade picks on draft day (actually after a certain point the day before). They have to make the pick themselves. That rule does allow for the loophole you've stated, but in fact EVERY draft-night trade must happen this way, not just ones that need the loophole.
Last edited by Chinook; 12-28-2013 at 06:06 PM.
I think everyone gets this. The only reason why I was saying he didn't count is because the other guy was trying to claim players like Dragic (instead of Malik) and Barbosa in addition to Kawhi. Double dipping.
You can't seriously go through the draft's history and act like any time a player was taken with a pick after the one the Spurs picked was a terrible pick if one of the dudes later panned out to be a better player.
If the Spurs pick at 28, that's 32 chances someone's going to pan out better. It doesn't mean anything if it happens every now and then. No team is always going to be super clairvoyant and always take the maximum possible guy. If you get anywhere close to that so late in the draft, it's a success. Plus normally teams getting such late picks are just picking what they need most, not who the best available dude is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
