Reply With Quote
The bottom line is the Celtics are improved and have a legitimate chance to go far in the playoffs with the moves they have made and that is a successful offseason.
And of course everyone is going to hand the champs great players for nothing. And of course contracts, the salary cap, and sticking with the program that has produced 3 les in 5 years don't matter.
You numbskulls don't deserve to be fans of such a team.
The bottom line is the Celtics are improved and have a legitimate chance to go far in the playoffs with the moves they have made and that is a successful offseason.
ROFL. I think I've been clear that there are some trades that make sense and may be available. I'm just not going to slit my wrists and whine like a little if they don't happen.
They tried and failed to land the top free agents. So there you have it the spurs are not successful in landing top free agents or making big trades and rely on lottery lucky ping pong ball bounces to be successful. Duncan has made the franchise a winner not front office personal moves.
Agreed, but since they didn't land a Duncan, it took years of draft lotteries and subsequent trades to "get back," Spurm.
And the Spurs, having a legitimate chance to go far in the playoffs without having made any substantial moves, had a failure of an offseason?
rascal, you must be so unhappy rooting for the Spurs.
rascal's measure of success is blockbuster trades, not rings.
He has dismissed the 4 rings the Spurs won because they were lucky in the lotto.
I think he is actually unhappy for those rings. They don't help them push his agenda.
It can be argued that the front office was fooled into thinking the Spurs did not have room to improve, because they won the le.
If you really analyze the 2007 playoffs, the Spurs finally benefitted from some breaks.
So, without knowing what will happen in the 2008 playoffs, you're ready to say that the Spurs failed in the summer of 2007, even if they eventually have more success than the Celtics do?
Um, what?
I'm ready to say exactly what I said in my last post.
the spurs traded a seasons worth of playing for purposely tanking games to get a shot at duncan. savvy front office move.
That post deserves a *
Compare the Celtics' record from this year with last year. If you can't see a VAST improvement, you are either stupid or dishonest.
And stop putting words in my mouth. I never "crowned" the Celtics. I was merely using them as an example of how trades can improve a team, because some bag (can't remember who) asked the facetious question "Why do trades matter?".
Again, if any sports fan cannot understand why trades are "important", they are either stupid or dishonest.
When have we been in a position to improve our team by 40 games in the past 10 years? The Celtics gutted their roster, which had been built on years of Lottery picks because of how bad they were. How can you possibly compare their situation to ours?
No one ever said anything about "blockbuster" trades. You are putting words in people's mouths instead of responding honestly and intelligently to their statements.
Rascal and others are talking about good trades for starting-caliber players. Not "blockbuster". Just a good, solid trade.
What's the difference between major and blockbuster? And if we're not talking about blockbuster trades, why are we talking about the Celtics?
Isn't is amazing and sad how these losers keep putting words in our mouths instead of actually responding to what we did write?
I don't recall any of us (me, Rascal, you) saying we aren't happy with the Spurs' championships or saying that we won't win this year.
I never made a comparison of the Celtics to the Spurs. I used the Celtics as an example of how trades matter. Do you know what an example is? It is NOT a comparison. It is an example. If you ask me "don't all mammals live on land?", and I respond "dolphins don't", I am using dolphins as an EXAMPLE. I am not comparing them to anything.
In this case, someone asked the question "Why do trades matter?". I responded by using the Celtics as an example. Neither the question nor my response said ANYTHING about the Spurs.
I could have used MANY examples of other teams that have made trades that "matter". I just happened to use the Celtics, because anyone who's not being obtuse can clearly see that trades can and do matter.
Again, please try to comprehend the difference between an example and a comparison.
And the Spurs don't have a legitimate chance to go far in the playoffs on account of their having failed to make trades.
It's amusing that the 1st reaction of a rather small minority is to about a franchise that's delivered 3 les in 5 years. Especially when the ing is about something so open ended and non-specific as 'Spurs need to make trades'.
Trades don't matter. Building a winning roster matters. Please explain to me what damn difference it makes whether that roster is built via the draft, via free agency, or via trades. So they haven't made a major trade in 10 years, during which time they've only won 4 freaking championships. Who gives a rat's ass? Are you just one of these RealGM geeks who gets more of a woody from your team's churning the roster than you do from their winning actual games?
These are not scientific terms, but I think most of us know the difference. Shaq going to Miami was a blockbuster trade. Garnett going to Boston was a blockbuster trade.
Gasol going to the Lakers was not a blockbuster trade, but it was major. Kyle Korver going to Utah was not blockbuster, but it was major.
When a franchise player (or perennial all-star) is traded, that is usually blockbuster. A major trade is one which involves a starter. A lesser trade is one which involves bench players and scrubs. The last one is the specialty of the Spurs' FO.
I have to say, I appreciate that Ghost Writer's presence emboldens the other nancies to out themselves.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
