DMC: "They aren't losing because of Kawhi".. Others: "Kawhi is the straw"

[DMC]

DMC: He (Draymond Green) doesn't fit.

I stick by that. I didn't say he's a bad player, just that he doesn't fit in that system. He'll probably be traded in the off season because some team will overpay him.

[spurraider21]

I stick by that. I didn't say he's a bad player, just that he doesn't fit in that system. He'll probably be traded in the off season because some team will overpay him.

Exhibit a: Steve Kerr Says Draymond Green Will Be With Warriors “For The Next 8, 10 Years”

Exhibit b: Kerr: One of the keys to our defense is our ability to switch on the perimeter. We have a lot of like-sized guys. And Draymond [Green], to me, is the key to our defense. He's the key figure, because as the power forward, he's frequently involved in screen-and-rolls. And because he's quick enough and active enough to switch out onto a point guard, we're able to stifle a lot of the first options out of the opponent's attacks. And when that happens and the shot clock starts to wind down, we're able to stay in front of people and force a tough shot.

[DMC]

Exhibit a: Steve Kerr Says Draymond Green Will Be With Warriors “For The Next 8, 10 Years”

Exhibit b: Kerr: One of the keys to our defense is our ability to switch on the perimeter. We have a lot of like-sized guys. And Draymond [Green], to me, is the key to our defense. He's the key figure, because as the power forward, he's frequently involved in screen-and-rolls. And because he's quick enough and active enough to switch out onto a point guard, we're able to stifle a lot of the first options out of the opponent's attacks. And when that happens and the shot clock starts to wind down, we're able to stay in front of people and force a tough shot.

Then it's settled. When Steve says it, it's etched in stone. Nevermind it's a 1st year coach. How did it go for Mark?

What's the better odds here, that Draymond Green will remain a life long Warrior, or that Steve Kerr won't be around then to take responsibility for his comment?

[spurraider21]

Then it's settled. When Steve says it, it's etched in stone. Nevermind it's a 1st year coach. How did it go for Mark?

What's the better odds here, that Draymond Green will remain a life long Warrior, or that Steve Kerr won't be around then to take responsibility for his comment?

you sure you've edited your comment enough, and have it up to standards? got all your zingers in? ok.

i don't know about any of what you said. kerr's comments dont mean green will stay, he can get overpaid and signed elsewhere. but this notion that they are going to move him is bogus. as opposed to your "poor fit" narrative, he's an integral glue guy for them

[DMC]

you sure you've edited your comment enough, and have it up to standards? got all your zingers in? ok.

i don't know about any of what you said. kerr's comments dont mean green will stay, he can get overpaid and signed elsewhere. but this notion that they are going to move him is bogus. as opposed to your "poor fit" narrative, he's an integral glue guy for them

You posted Kerr's comments in bold as if it's proof that Green will stay. If they don't mean that, what the do they mean any why bold? The Warriors will be at 77M before even discussing salary with the RFA Green, so you do the math. We'll see soon enough, and you'll ignore it if you're wrong.

They can't "move" him. He becomes a restricted free agent. He can move himself.

[spurraider21]

You posted Kerr's comments in bold as if it's proof that Green will stay. If they don't mean that, what the do they mean any why bold? The Warriors will be at 77M before even discussing salary with the RFA Green, so you do the math. We'll see soon enough, and you'll ignore it if you're wrong.

They can't "move" him. He becomes a restricted free agent. He can move himself.

so now you are moving the goalpoasts by blabbering on about salary when you were so adamant he was a poor scheme fit.

I personally think Draymond Green needs to be traded or just benched. He doesn't fit.

He doesn't fit.

They are all getting better and better, he doesn't fit into their scheme. He's the odd man out. Trust me on this.

[DMC]

so now you are moving the goalpoasts by blabbering on about salary when you were so adamant he was a poor scheme fit.

If he wasn't a bad fit they'd pay to keep him.

[spurraider21]

If he wasn't a bad fit they'd pay to keep him.

and i'm sure OKC thought Harden was a poor fit

[DMC]

and i'm sure OKC thought Harden was a poor fit

refresh refresh ad nauseum....

They probably did, ergo he's gone. Are you comparing Draymond Greed (will be his new name to Warrior's fans if he ends up in Detroit) to James Harden?

Why didn't you address the point I made earlier? Why did you post a quote from Kerr then claim it doesn't mean anything?

[FkLA]

2014 DMC: Spurs are a fools gold regular season team. Will not win another le in the Duncan era.

2014 Spurs: you.

[spurraider21]

refresh refresh ad nauseum....

as opposed to this nugget of brilliance^

They probably did, ergo he's gone.

... yeah, lets act like we all don't know why harden was dealt. intellectual dishonesty is a forte of yours

Are you comparing Draymond Greed (will be his new name to Warrior's fans if he ends up in Detroit) to James Harden?

sure. not in talent, but in that they could both become cap casualties

Why didn't you address the point I made earlier? Why did you post a quote from Kerr then claim it doesn't mean anything?

i never said Kerr's comments mean nothing. your reading comprehension is slipping with age. ergo, your point was moot

[DMC]

DMC: Spurs are regular season fodder. Will not win another le in the Duncan era.

2014 Spurs: you.

I was right about Leonard. That's why you're mad.

[FkLA]

I was right about Leonard. That's why you're mad.

Why did you change your response?

Not mad, I think you're a good poster. Just pointing out that the Spurs on you not too long ago tbh.

[DMC]

as opposed to this nugget of brilliance^

Attempt at deflection.

... yeah, lets act like we all don't know why harden was dealt. intellectual dishonesty is a forte of yours

A: Harden was already on the bench
B: Harden didn't think he fit that role and refused a near max contract

Way to illustrate your inability to put square pegs in square holes.

sure. not in talent, but in that they could both become cap casualties

Not every "non fit" is from the team standpoint. Some is from the players'. Regardless, every NBA player has some ability to play, but not every team agrees to pay said player what said player feels he's worth. That has almost everything to do with how said player will fit into the team under said player's contract.

I don't expect you to ever catch on to this stuff, you've got a superficial view of how things work.

i never said Kerr's comments mean nothing. your reading comprehension is slipping with age. ergo, your point was moot

You said they don't mean what you were using them to obviously mean. That's saying they don't mean anything. Plus you abandoned it rather quickly. Would you actually call a 1st year head coach, half way into his 1st season, to the witness stand to testify about the franchise's 10 year plan?

[DMC]

Why did you change your response?

Not mad, I think you're a good poster. Just pointing out that the Spurs on you not too long ago tbh.

Start a thread about it. This one is about how the team has a problem that's not solved by the return of one person. Obviously you realize that's the case now which is why you too are attempting to deflect to "you've been wrong before".

[TheGreatYacht]

FkLA is such a poster

[spurraider21]

A: Harden was already on the bench

this was never refuted. it's also irrelevant. his being on the bench didn't make him a poor fit. manu was never a poor fit for the spurs.

B: Harden didn't think he fit that role and refused a near max contract

harden was willing to stay in OKC. he wanted a max, and OKC ownership wouldn't pony it up. houston gave him a max

Not every "non fit" is from the team standpoint. Some is from the players'. Regardless, every NBA player has some ability to play, but not every team agrees to pay said player what said player feels he's worth. That has almost everything to do with how said player will fit into the team under said player's contract.

blablabla... you keep trying to move goalposts to this salary issues. you indicated green was a poor scheme fit. you were incorrect.

You said they don't mean what you were using them to obviously mean. That's saying they don't mean anything. Plus you abandoned it rather quickly. Would you actually call a 1st year head coach, half way into his 1st season, to the witness stand to testify about the franchise's 10 year plan?

no. your reading comprehension is still bad. Kerr's comments about Green staying with the Warriors doesn't necessarily mean that the GM and Green will come to terms on an agreement. it shows Kerr's enthusiasm about Green's long term prospects as a player.

in the other quote, which you ignore, Kerr was raving about how green was a perfect fit

[FkLA]

Start a thread about it. This one is about how the team has a problem that's not solved by the return of one person. Obviously you realize that's the case now which is why you too are attempting to deflect to "you've been wrong before".

You were right in this case, if makes you feel better. Kawhi didn't fix everything. Just don't tell people to 'learn basketball' when you've made your fair share of dumb calls.

Why did you change your response?

[DMC]

this was never refuted. it's also irrelevant. his being on the bench didn't make him a poor fit. manu was never a poor fit for the spurs.

Now you're going on another tangent from the tangent of Harden.

It absolutely matters. My comment was that Green should be traded or benched. Harden was benched so I couldn't use the same comment. The two have different characteristics, so why use them? I'm not going to address Manu. Stay on ing topic or stop responding.

harden was willing to stay in OKC. he wanted a max, and OKC ownership wouldn't pony it up. houston gave him a max

You don't give max contracts to bench guys. OKC didn't need three max guys, couldn't afford them. They got lucky in the draft (or good) and eventually those picks grow up and grow legs. Green isn't a bench guy. He's going to want the max. He doesn't provide cost justification. If he does, then David Lee will have to go.

blablabla... you keep trying to move goalposts to this salary issues. you indicated green was a poor scheme fit. you were incorrect.

You've moved the goalposts to Harden and Manu. I've stuck with Draymond Green. In fact, this entire tangent is a moving of the goalpost. The thread is about Kawhi Leonard. Why haven't the Spurs been world beaters since he returned to the lineup?

no. your reading comprehension is still bad. Kerr's comments about Green staying with the Warriors doesn't necessarily mean that the GM and Green will come to terms on an agreement. it shows Kerr's enthusiasm about Green's long term prospects as a player.

Last I checked, Kerr isn't the GM of the Warriors. There was no debate about Kerr's enthusiasm. You obviously feel it meant more than that, that it was relevant to the discussion because you bolded it as if was the smoking gun. Just admit you didn't really even give it much thought, that being wrong is your strong suit.

in the other quote, which you ignore, Kerr was raving about how green was a perfect fit

When Green departs, Kerr will say "wish we could have kept him but we wish him well and we're moving forward and are excited about this new acquisition".

[DMC]

You were right in this case, if makes you feel better. Kawhi didn't fix everything. Just don't tell people to 'learn basketball' when you've made your fair share of dumb calls.

Why did you change your response?

This wasn't a binary guess. It was seeing an obvious fact and calling it for that. I didn't say they won't start winning games, just that Kawhi wasn't the reason they were losing. Most of you don't know jack about basketball. If you did you'd never think a 2nd tier guy like Leonard is the reason the Spurs are losing a few months after they rang, as if Leonard grabs every rebound and makes every shot.

Don't make stupid arguments and I won't have to shove them down your throats.

[spurraider21]

DMC Dont think the wall of text format is aesthetically appealing so i'll leave it at this

a) bringing up points of comparison is not going on a tangent. there is a possibility that Draymond Green leaves the team due to salary purposes. Every time a player isn't retained, it's not an indication of scheme fit. Harden is a prime example of this. that is not a tangent. that is a comparison.

b) you accuse me of going off on tangents then start writing about Harden's OKC situation. cool. in any event, Harden came off the bench, but played starters minutes and closed the game. you are being intellectually dishonest here.

c) you speak of moving goalposts, yet this whole discussion of cap issues is a complete diversion and goalpost shift, considering your original point was that Green was a poor scheme fit.

[FkLA]

This wasn't a binary guess. It was seeing an obvious fact and calling it for that. I didn't say they won't start winning games, just that Kawhi wasn't the reason they were losing. Most of you don't know jack about basketball. If you did you'd never think a 2nd tier guy like Leonard is the reason the Spurs are losing a few months after they rang, as if Leonard grabs every rebound and makes every shot.

Don't make stupid arguments and I won't have to shove them down your throats.

But Im the angry one? Why did you change your response?

Again, you were right on this one. But you were dead wrong about the '14 Spurs, Curry and Draymond Green. You don't get to play the 'I know so much more about basketball than you' card after making some of those idiotic calls.

[DMC]

DMC Dont think the wall of text format is aesthetically appealing so i'll leave it at this

a) bringing up points of comparison is not going on a tangent. there is a possibility that Draymond Green leaves the team due to salary purposes. Every time a player isn't retained, it's not an indication of scheme fit. Harden is a prime example of this. that is not a tangent. that is a comparison.

The entire side note is a tangent ITT. If you want to talk about Draymond Green, I think you have thread starting ability. That said, yes it is. Every time you say "well what about this guy.." you are dragging a red herring across the scene. You seem to fall back on that most of the time (what's the top 5 PGs? does that ring any bells?... Was MJ a chucker? How about that?). You're trying to show by comparison that since one person fits a certain bill they both do. In doing so all you do is take the conversation on a tangent. Then you do it again. Instead of providing evidence or a case for or against a statement, you argue by comparison.

b) you accuse me of going off on tangents then start writing about Harden's OKC situation. cool. in any event, Harden came off the bench, but played starters minutes and closed the game. you are being intellectually dishonest here.

You brought it up. I couldn't use the same statement against Harden as I did Green. Green is a starter, I suggested he be benched. Harden is benched already, regardless of his role. That's the last I'll say about that.

c) you speak of moving goalposts, yet this whole discussion of cap issues is a complete diversion and goalpost shift, considering your original point was that Green was a poor scheme fit.

My original post had nothing to do with Green. It was about Kawhi Leonard and people like you needing to learn basketball if you're going to discuss it.

[DMC]

But Im the angry one? Why did you change your response?

Again, you were right on this one. But you were dead wrong about the '14 Spurs, Curry and Draymond Green. You don't get to play the 'I know so much more about basketball than you' card after making some of those idiotic calls.

Where's your thread calling me out? Start one so I can show you the difference between a prediction and an explanation.

[dabom]

Where's your thread calling me out? Start one so I can show you the difference between a prediction and an explanation.

DMC with overtime.