Reply With Quote
I never said a single word ever about ratings being important. Never. Not once. Not me. That's not the point. What I obviously meant was if my team was lame to watch like the Spurs, I would probably stop watching basketball.
It's not on his profile. It's right under his username. Are you telling me you never once looked to see someone's username, and didn't happen to catch a glimpse of what their favorite team is?
I never said a single word ever about ratings being important. Never. Not once. Not me. That's not the point. What I obviously meant was if my team was lame to watch like the Spurs, I would probably stop watching basketball.
is this the most idiotic thing ever written on SpursTalk? Do we need a poll for this?
Nope. Didn't bother. Who cares?
i think we do.
Do you think I care that I had to arbitrarily choose a Del Negro Avatar, or pick a player type? Do you think I chose to have "believe" under my name? I really don't care, but I guess y'all are obsessed with trivialities.
Point being your a dumb . When a Spurs fan says the Suns dont play d, we dont watch the games. Then you call the Spurs boring cheap etc., I suppose you watch all their games right?
Then you claim Joe Johnson and Q left the team, and a much, much more knowledgable poster es you, and you have no reply. Your a ing idiot with nothing to add, so just shut the up.
Well me sideways for not being able to post replys to all the no-life ers on here at once. I'm at work, and there's one of me and several of you to respond too.
I never said you did. I quoted exactly what you said. Maybe you should stop being so sensitive about the posts, and thing about who I could possibly be referring to, considering you were whining and ing about how a few of us like to make fun of a certain idiot suns fan who always talks about having great ratings.
And how is it that they are so lame to watch? They score points. They defend. They rebound. Most importantly, they win.
So now are you telling me that winning is lame? Okay, ing genius, try to be the GM of a team, and make the tiest ing team possible. A team that will get no wins, since winning is lame. Then let's all watch as the NBA ratings skyrocket to record levels, since winning is lame.
Obviously you care enough, considering you took the time to change yours to say "Phoenix Suns"
He demanded more money than they could afford to pony up. Because of the contracts of Marion, Nash, Amare, and others that were guaranteed contracts. Even now years later, after ditching Kurt Thomas's contract, the Suns are well over the luxury tax threshhold. So it may have been fair market value, but it was more than they could really give him. And I remember the whole thing living here in Phoenix. He got pissy and refused to even talk to anyone from the organization after the Suns didn't extend his contract over the summer.
It was mandatory at sign-up
You could have left it to just say San Antonio Spurs, since no one, especially yourself, doesn't care.
Good suggestion genius. That's probably the one option during the mandatory sign-up process that I actually did care about, for obvious reasons since I despise the Spurs.
You clearly don't watch very much of it as is.
Holy , excuse me for not explaining myself more thoroughly. I thought it was obvious. What are we talking about here?
When I asked which players "Redeemed" themselves, I was asking which one of these so called "talented" players who couldn't get off D'Antoni's bench later proved he was a legitimate player in this league.
Joe Johnson led the league in minutes in 04-05. Im pretty sure Mike D recognized Joe's talents. Same with Q. Mike D' took Joe from a guy who refused to shoot with Frank Johnson to the player he is today.
Regardless, which players redeemed themselves? There has to be one, right?
The Joe Johnson/Phoenix Suns timetable...
- After averaging 16.7 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 4.3 apg in the 2003-04 season, including a 5-game stretch where he averaged over 20 ppg, Johnson asks for a 6 year, 50 million dollar deal, roughly the same as Quentin Richardson and Manu Ginobili.
- Robert Sarver decides to offer no more than 45 million over six years, letting negotiations stall simply because he refused to meet market value. He tells JJ to earn his money.
- When JJ goes out and bests those previous season's averages (17.1 ppg, 5.1 rpg, and 3.5 apg with immensly better shooting percentages), Sarver withholds his offer until the market dictates the going rate.
- With horror Sarver sees inferior players like Larry Hughes getting 5 year, 70 million offers and promtly "ups" his offer to 6 years, 60 million.
- Unfortunately, it came after JJ received a 5 year, 70 million offer from Atlanta.
- In one last attempt to sign JJ, Sarver, for the third time, low balls JJ with an offer of five years, 60 million.
LINK: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...arc&id=2120105
I mean, how many times would you be insulted with below-market-value offers before you decided you were underappreciated and chose to move on?
JJ gave the Suns every opportunity to sign him to market value, yet Sarver abjectly refused to pay it, not once, not twice, but three times.
Ah yes...the "Suns fans only care about ratings" argument.
Here's a little history.
1) Spurs get bad ratings and are labeled as boring
2) Spurs fans say thats only because they're in a small market
3) Da Suns Fan shreds that argument. Small market teams have previously gotten good ratings and large market teams have gotten smaller ratings.
4) Spurs fans counter by saying Suns fans only care about ratings.
Well at least you all bailed on that "small market" excuse.
Danny b, owned again
Really though, if ratings are the only negative thing you can add about the Spurs, you dont have much.Ah yes...the "Suns fans only care about ratings" argument.
Here's a little history.
1) Spurs get bad ratings and are labeled as boring
2) Spurs fans say thats only because they're in a small market
3) Da Suns Fan shreds that argument. Small market teams have previously gotten good ratings and large market teams have gotten smaller ratings.
4) Spurs fans counter by saying Suns fans only care about ratings.
Well at least you all bailed on that "small market" excuse.
notice the words "win" and "championship" don't appear anywhere in his post.Ah yes...the "Suns fans only care about ratings" argument.
Here's a little history.
1) Spurs get bad ratings and are labeled as boring
2) Spurs fans say thats only because they're in a small market
3) Da Suns Fan shreds that argument. Small market teams have previously gotten good ratings and large market teams have gotten smaller ratings.
4) Spurs fans counter by saying Suns fans only care about ratings.
Well at least you all bailed on that "small market" excuse.
Regardless, what the is stretch talking about.
He claimed that JJ "redeemed" himself.
Redeemed himself after what? Playing the most minutes with D'Antoni?
Mike D KNEW what he had in Joe Johnson....and like I said, he took Joe from a shy player who wouldn't assert himself to a top 30 player in the league.
No one can deny that Mike knows talent when he sees it. You can't fault him for not playing guys who don't even belong in the league.
Fault Sarver, not D'Antoni.
That one was for Danny B, trying his hardest to balance work and getting owned at the same time.
No...Stretch brought up Joe Johnson as a response to "which player redeemed himself" question.
I also asked which player did better when leaving Phoenix (which is definately arguable about Joe), but I was asking about the guys who couldn't get minutes with Mike D.
And there you have it, except for one thing. I'm no defender of Sarver's moves so far, but he knew at the time that the team was going to be well over the luxury tax threshold within the next few years (due to scheduled salary increases for several players). People always want to call him cheap, and he may be. But what's he supposed to do? Spend money like the Knicks? Nobody wants to pay dollar for dollar luxury tax on contracts worth tens of millions!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions