Slam Online: Spurs Preview

[implacable44]

This part irks me. What the do you know about what I can comprehend or not? I have a very celar understanding of the cap. Dan Rosenbaum made it easy for me to understand how it all works. Any other questions I had, were answered by Larry Coon. So yeah. I COMPREHEND THE CAP.



Dude...do you understand how dense you can be?
It's very apparent that you will not budge on your opinion. I say fiscally responsible and it shows with all of their signings, including Rose & Nesterovic if you look at it in terms of applied over time. Signing Parker to $66 Mill and Manu to $58 Mil was downright amazing, when you consider the terms of many of the contracts around the L with other lesser talented players. Rasho's contract is such that if Nazr doesn't want to re-sign at a Spur level, then he could easily be going away.

I mean really. Eddie Najera would have sold tickets how? Now freing up cash to sign Karl Malone? I recall Mr. Malone signed for the league minimum. It was never about money for Karl and he seriously considered signing with SA but got a recruitment phone call from Shaq. I'll bold it for you to make it crystal clear...IT WAS NEVER ABOUT MONEY FOR MALONE

You know you remind me of Shaq...Like him you like to Self Proclaim. He wasn't the MDE and I find your opinions to be self-centered.

Whatever, I've yet to see one article support any of your self-procliamed opinions and hypotheses.

It's more of that, well...I ball better than you so I know the game better stuff. I disagree.

I can't question your ability to comprehend the salary cap like you did mine ?

I don't know what Tony PArker, Manu or anyone else has to do with Malik Rose? We are talking about the fiscal nature of malik rose and his contract which I think was a poor decision and was done more out of fear of losing him to the LAkers than it was of wanting him to be a Spur.

[Solid D]

Perhaps Devin Brown should be consulted regarding our main man Mark's ball skills. Not doubtin'. Just, you know, due diligence and all.

[Man In Black]

I don't know what Tony Parker, Manu or anyone else has to do with Malik Rose? We are talking about the fiscal nature of malik rose and his contract which I think was a poor decision and was done more out of fear of losing him to the LAkers than it was of wanting him to be a Spur.

Okay let me lay this out so anyone can understand a line of thought.

I said the Spurs were fiscally responsible.

You asked if Malik Rose was a fiscally responsible decision.

I said that if you apply his contract 1 year at a time for salary cap purposes, then the Spurs made a fiscally responsible decision.

FWD gave you some more input as to why it's was fiscally responsible.

You then said I probably can't comprehend the cap.

I countered back by saying that I've read the Rosenbaum articles fully and got any other questions answered by noted Cap genius Larry Coom.

You now are asking what TP & Manu have to do with the Spurs being fiscally responsible.

What it means is that the contracts they sign for players are at rates they feel they can absorb AND send out players & salaries when the time calls.

[implacable44]

Okay let me lay this out so anyone can understand a line of thought.

I said the Spurs were fiscally responsible.

You asked if Malik Rose was a fiscally responsible decision.

I said that if you apply his contract 1 year at a time for salary cap purposes, then the Spurs made a fiscally responsible decision.

FWD gave you some more input as to why it's was fiscally responsible.

You then said I probably can't comprehend the cap.

I countered back by saying that I've read the Rosenbaum articles fully and got any other questions answered by noted Cap genius Larry Coom.

You now are asking what TP & Manu have to do with the Spurs being fiscally responsible.

What it means is that the contracts they sign for players are at rates they feel they can absorb AND send out players & salaries when the time calls.

actually lets try to be completely honest about this - and point out your initial comment that prompted my response :


Originally Posted by Man In Black
Far be it for me to explain the cap to a genuis who can both ball at the D-League level or better and graduated in the top 10% of his law class but hey,okay.


I sense slight hints of sarcasm and jabs at me - especially in the sense that I would need you to explain the cap to me.

[ambchang]

Whatever happened to me editing my post now? I want replies, I believe you owe me an apology for continuously insinuating that I had lied and questioned my integrity.
BTW, you are now complaining about people taking jabs at you? What happened to the Mr. tough guy at the beginning of the post?
To wit:

here is your link punk : http://slamonline.com/links/10032005/index1.html

dont question me - and if you don't think that ray allen and jerome james would be an upgrade to this roster you are as dumb as you appear.

It is funny you can call him ovary but if he was a Spur and Bowen was a Sonic you would be calling Bowen dirty - I guess you hate that Finley is here too - maybe he should be Uterus or fallopian tube because he complained more than Ray Allen ever did.

In response to

No link. No cred.

and

He lost me when he fantasized about trading Bowen away, and getting Jerome James and ovary in return.

Neither of them was sarcastic nor offensive.
and who can forget gems like this?

thanks for the comment - no link though - no cred and your opinion is pointless.

Oh, and let's not forget

well God never dies so - nobody I guess. Dont question me is advice because I will prove you wrong. - case in point - man requested a link and he got a link.

Then later on plea that it was a joke.

[Man In Black]

Look you asked if the signing of Malik was fiscally responsible.

If you knew the cap, you would've known that, applied over time, the contract was in no way egregious as many perceive it was. The fact that RC was able to parlay Malik contract into Nazr and some draft picks shows that it was indeed moveable.

Hint of sarcasm? I admit that there was but I'll say that your style comes across as abrasive so I answered back in kind.

It's weird, when I get this way, I'm normally talking to a la"K"er fan.

[implacable44]

Look you asked if the signing of Malik was fiscally responsible.

If you knew the cap, you would've known that, applied over time, the contract was in no way egregious.

that wasnt the point of your last post - you made a statement that I dont agree with - Ambchang - I reply to all -- I didnt see you wrote me - where is it and I will quote it and reply when i get home tonight. and I dot care if people take jabs at me - It doesn't bother me at all.

I dont plea anything. the thing is this is a message board - full of opinions - i posed a write-up I did for Lang - you and others took offense to certain parts of it that I found humor in and thus the conversations etc. ensued. At the end of the day none of it matters anyway - I'm wrong- you're wrong - who cares? We are talking about basketball here - a game. opinions about players and comments on hypothetical situations. the game and this board are for entertainment purposes.

[implacable44]

the contract was in no way egregious ? THat is highly debatable.

[sprrs]

that wasnt the point of your last post - you made a statement that I dont agree with - Ambchang - I reply to all -- I didnt see you wrote me - where is it and I will quote it and reply when i get home tonight. and I dot care if people take jabs at me - It doesn't bother me at all.

I dont plea anything. the thing is this is a message board - full of opinions - i posed a write-up I did for Lang - you and others took offense to certain parts of it that I found humor in and thus the conversations etc. ensued. At the end of the day none of it matters anyway - I'm wrong- you're wrong - who cares? We are talking about basketball here - a game. opinions about players and comments on hypothetical situations. the game and this board are for entertainment purposes.

Had you said that from the beginning you wouldn't have started a flame war

[samikeyp]

the contract was in no way egregious ? THat is highly debatable.

It may have been finacially suspect but...

adj : con uously and outrageously bad or reprehensible; "a crying shame"; "an egregious lie"; "flagrant violation of human rights"; "a glaring error"; "gross inep ude"; "gross injustice"; "rank treachery

might be a little strong. :p

[ambchang]

that wasnt the point of your last post - you made a statement that I dont agree with - Ambchang - I reply to all -- I didnt see you wrote me - where is it and I will quote it and reply when i get home tonight. and I dot care if people take jabs at me - It doesn't bother me at all.

I dont plea anything. the thing is this is a message board - full of opinions - i posed a write-up I did for Lang - you and others took offense to certain parts of it that I found humor in and thus the conversations etc. ensued. At the end of the day none of it matters anyway - I'm wrong- you're wrong - who cares? We are talking about basketball here - a game. opinions about players and comments on hypothetical situations. the game and this board are for entertainment purposes.

You are not getting off the hook that easily. I don't mind either me or you, or anybody else getting the facts wrong about the game of basketball, the fact is you continuously attacked my integrity and refused to admit it EVEN after I pointed out to you that I had never changed my post to make you look bad. I am not even talking about your "opinions" on whether people who disagreed with your are irrelevant, stupid or wrong, it's about questioning my integrity and doing absolutely nothing to admit you were in the wrong and apologize for it.