Reply With QuoteHuh?
Anyway- I never said you are wrong Jim. I've already said that I can understand why anyone would choose O'Neal over Brand. I just like Brand better. It is okay when people don't agree with you Jim.
BTW Scott, did you ever bust open that wine I sent to you?
How was it?
Huh?
Anyway- I never said you are wrong Jim. I've already said that I can understand why anyone would choose O'Neal over Brand. I just like Brand better. It is okay when people don't agree with you Jim.
Haven't yet Jim. I'm waiting to pop it open on my house warming next month. I'll let you know how I liked it, I'm sure its gonna be great.
It is okay when people don't agree with you Jim.
I am seeking therapy, so I will learn to play nicely with those who disagree with me....it is a work in progress.
I will send you something for your house warming too, remind me when you move in...ok? I will probably lose to you in near future anyway, I suck at betting....just ask around.
I have it on good intel that Payton is going to LA as in Lakers, so Ghost you can give it up man.
Jim, you have no room to talk, son, especially after the blistering @ss-busting you've received from others in this thread.
Marcus, Payton at $10 million for 3 years is a superior value than Kidd at $13 million for 6 seasons.
Only in your twisted world it is.
Well, if you say so.
Try backing up your opinions with logic or at least some substance.
Payton and Kidd will be playing at relatively the same level over the next three seasons. Why spend more money and commit to more dollars for Kidd, a poor shooter?
Question.
You are the last person who should ever attempt to criticize me for that, Mr. Salary Cap.
More insults with no substance.
Please inform us all why giving Kidd max dollars and 5 years is shrewder than giving Payton less money and only three years.
I'm waiting.
Ghost, even Ali got beat a few times...the champ will be back. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.....that's me.
Jim, at least you have the testicular for ude to stand behind your opinions and back them up.
I'm still waiting for Marcus to explain how Kidd would be a better value than Payton.
<sound of crickets>
Ghost, Matt is just like me, he will keep to an opinion no matter how much evidence proves the contrary is correct. He just keeps digging and digging his hole deeper and deeper, just as I tend to do...is must be something in this College Station water. I like O'Neal, and he likes Kidd, that is the way it is, and we can not convince you guys that our man is the one, so be it.
I like O'Neal better than Brand, too, even though most statistical data gives a slight edge to Brand. I still think O'Neal is just scratching the surface of his game while Brand is more polished.
I just wonder why paying Kidd $13 million for 5 seasons is smarter than paying Payton like $10 million for 3 years.
for payton and zo.:p
as you were...:argue
IF both Payton and Kidd were knocking on the Spurs door saying "Please, please let me in.", then I would be hard-pressed to choose. Both of them present the same minutes-sharing problem with Tony and Manu that get mentioned in other threads, but somehow not here. Even three years is a long time to wait when you think you're a starter. Both Kidd and Payton will change the offense though in different ways. I think Kidd > Payton, but not that much. Also, Payton is older. But in your scenario, that is balanced by a less expensive contract for Payton with more money for a better bigman.
However, it appears that it is Kidd knocking on the door, not Payton. That is why the Spurs will prefer Kidd over Payton.
Payton has proven that he can play an effective off-guard next to a PG like Sam Cassell. Kidd has not.
Next.
The problem with bringing in Kidd or Payton and not getting quality in the post is kind of like this pic.
You get stronger at the point of attack but you end up lacking down low...if you know what I mean...and I think you do...
Yeah Ghost, you wouldn't know about posting insults without a shred of argument. Yeah. If you cannot see why having a 33 year old player under contract instead of a 38 year old player's contract ending with you still being capped out after he comes off the cap then that's your problem, ' .©2003 GhostWhiner,Inc.
You assume we'll be capped out in 2006. I don't. Plus, Payton's $10 million will be coming off the books, Kidd-lover.
The Spurs will be hard pressed to not be capped out in 2006. How do you expect them to retain the talent otherwise? Next, ' .
How do you expect them to retain the talent with Kidd on the books through 2008, dope?
Question.
P.S.
Your insistance on Kidd can be killed with two Questions:
Who plays center?
Who goes to the bench?
?
By being capped out in the first place. You're slippin'.
Now you've got me confused.
Why do you think the Spurs will throw all their money at the current players?
Payton represents a cost savings over Kidd and a reduced committment in years.
When he would retire or move on, the Spurs could use his salary slot to bring in someone new, like we're doing now that Robinson is retired.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions