Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 115
  1. #76
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,617
    I'd love to know whether there was some sort of recent trigger to RD's erotically-influenced nervous breakdown? It's even featuring stalker behavior, really fascinating tbh... Like did it all really start at that trade deadline thread? Was the Spurs' inactivity the "straw on the camel's back", were there previous incidents? I don't think I saw him following you or me around before that... Certainly a case for not-so-serious study

    Better prepare some more GIFs before he logs into his alt to talk back and like his own posts
    All I know is that it makes my day when RD gives me attention. I love when he replies to my posts. Nothing thrills me on this board than going back and forth with him, tbh

  2. #77
    Veteran Sugus's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Post Count
    3,379
    And just as an addendum, I'll leave this very interesting post from Spursfanfromafar, which seems relevant to the discussion;

    Interesting what John Hollinger had to say about Spurs waiving Aldridge, getting paid to take Chriss, and later release him to make a spot for Dieng:

    • Three players officially completed buyouts over the weekend. While LaMarcus Aldridge gave back a staggering $7.25 million to the Spurs (which will be “just” $5.8 million in his wallet after factoring in the league’s escrow cut), the pay cuts for Andre Drummond and Gorgui Dieng were more typical. Drummond gave back $794,536 to the Cavs and Dieng returned $699,952 to the Grizzlies; not coincidentally, these are likely the exact amounts of the minimum contracts each will sign upon clearing waivers.

    • San Antonio gained breathing room for both the Chriss trade and the Dieng signing when Aldridge put 7.25M back on their cap in his buyout. Otherwise, the Spurs would have been over the tax with either move. The Spurs, incidentally, ended up saving money while getting a better player at the same position for their playoff run. Not too shabby.

    Basically Hollinger still holds to the $7.25 million theory...
    I think, given this information, we can infere the most likely scenario was that the FO saw that the huge amount LMA gave back opened both the possibility of making a profit move, and a roster upgrade; and before you say it, Chino, there's literally no way to know whether the Dieng signing was talked with him beforehand, with how much time in advance, etc, in terms of knowing whether it factored in the Chriss move or not. This could literally be: Spurs get an agreement with Dieng, and knowing how much he was bought out for, know that they'll have money to spare after signing him -> they see there's more unused room on the cap -> Pop or whomever calls Golden State, a known financially-struggling team (at least in terms of luxury tax), to see if any deal can be had -> cue in the Chriss trade.

    I guess you can argue the Spurs could've gotten a second rounder or something out of the effort? I don't even know which picks GS could trade, but that would be a fair assessment/criticism. But not the wild speculation about ownership shooting the team in the foot for quick cash or whatever, that's simply unfounded at this point with the evidence we have (and lack).

  3. #78
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,990
    Chinook

    All in all, you pointed out the possibilty that the ownership is meddling in the basketball side of things by prioritizing financial gains.

    I say possibility because there is no hard evidence of that, and judging by the subsequent move, it likely is a non-issue.

    But, having no definite information means that there is something to keep an eye on.
    I'm basically fine with this. But it'd be hard to see how making a deal to give the owners a cash payment is not something the owner has input on. It would be one thing if cash given was added to a team's limit of cash they could pay out. Then you could say they took the cash as a potential basketball asset. As it is, though, that money goes right to the org's profits and thus into the owner's pockets. Even if PATFO gave their bosses money all on their own, that doing so is considered a desirable goal has to come from ownership setting that goal or allowing that goal to exist. Remember, this type of trade isn't something the Spurs have done in decades.

  4. #79
    Still Sporting Ben Davis Allan Rowe vs Wade's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Post Count
    3,617
    san antonio spurs had a small slice of cake and ate it

    ergo las vegas spurs

  5. #80
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Post Count
    5,337
    I've read this thread...and I can't conclude (with the info we have) that the Chriss trade was a bad trade... As close as I can come is that it could have been a bad trade if certain assumptions are applied... if the LMA buyout is as currently reported it looks like the FO got exactly what they wanted and got a little free money to boot... is that absolutely the case? Idk...maybe what's currently reported is wrong... but I need verification on that before I could conclude this was a bad trade.

  6. #81
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,990
    I'll just respond to this instead of the quote you quoted for me (since it was really long, and the arguments I mainly wanted to make have been put forward by Dejounte and company afterwards).

    Chino, take a step back, my guy. You are definitely over-analyzing this. And it's the worst case of over-analysis - baseless one. There is literally no source on any of your conjurations, besides the "logical trail" that you weave, where one conjecture makes the other conjecture sound more reasonable because it "couldn't be any other way".
    Don't confuse a counter-argument with a constructive. I don't need to have a concrete source for why the "Chriss paid for Dieng" argument, because that argument itself is just a theory built on premises, one of which I challenged in that sequence of texted that was apparently so bad.

    It's perfectly reasonable to assume the Spurs would've found the way to shed LMA's salary even if he didn't ask to be traded,
    That's not the argument I was making. It's not whether the Spurs could've gotten rid of Aldridge; it's whether they felt like they needed to shed salary in order to stay under budget. If the Spurs set a budget of, say, $131.7 Million rather than the $132.7-Million tax line to the point that they knew they weren't going to be able to keep LMA on his salary for the whole year if they were going to add any money to their books, they could've easily just waived Lyles and pocketed the $4 Million or whatever. Right, like they didn't need to do any buyout or cash-infusion shenanigans to stay within budget. They openly chose to commit to paying more than they had to. Ultimately, all three transactions combined netted the Spurs less money than simply waiving Lyles would have, so the idea that the team NEEDED to get cash for Chriss to pay Dieng is wrong. It's not even just wrong for that, since the Spurs would've paid more for the Iwundo/Melli trade they tried to do before the Chriss trade.

    The argument that the Spurs needed the Chriss transaction is not the reasonable interpretation of what happened. It is possible, since we don't know if some event happened that made the Spurs extremely cash poor at the very last second. But that possibility is not likely enough to be the leading theory. It's way more likely that they're just to mostly unrelated transactions, the first to give the owners some money and the second to try to increase the Spurs' chances to make the playoffs.

    first, his acceptance of a bench role and eagerness to play into that role would've benefited both the Spurs, and himself, and made him a much more enticing asset to be traded for by contenders looking to bolster up their benches (you can also perfectly argue that LMA asking out publicly significantly reduced his trade value, as we've seen that most contenders that could've traded for him, chose to wait out SA like vultures and get him off a buyout, which wouldn't've been a possibility had LMA not wanted out at all); and second, even if interest in trading for him was low, the Spurs could've easily shipped him off alongside a second or two second round picks, if they truly were in such a dire economical state. I'm absolutely certain that, given a scenario where LMA isn't pouting due to being benched, and actively embraces that role, there's no need to add any picks at all to ship him off, since he'd be looked at as a productive, yet overpaid, player, the likes of which are easily moved around every year ( , this very season, Morey actually got a positive asset out of dumping Horford of all contracts).
    This is just the rest of the first paragraph before I cut it off. I don't actually agree it was easy to move Aldridge. Not may teams had the salary flexibility to take him, especially to give the Spurs salary relief. We still don't even know for sure how much the Spurs saved by waiving him, so we don't know that there was a possible trade out there that would've netted the Spurs more savings. It's also a poor standard to hold the argument to that the Spurs had to be willing to dump a bunch of basketball assets to save any amount of money in order for us to accuse them of having meddling ownership. That's a really extreme position.

    So, there you have it. We can go back and forth on this, and other aristas, all day - because it's baseless speculation at its core. I don't think anyone's so much "defending" the Chriss trade (frankly, I don't give two s about it right now, especially after getting Dieng), so much as pointing out the flawed assumptions that you take in order to make this post, and try to "remain correct" in your original stance, which IMO hasn't aged as gracefully as you want it to.
    It's not speculation that the Spurs sold salary space for cash. Me saying that them doing that is intrinsically wrong is not based on a tower of assumptions. Arguing things like the Holts being cash-poor or that the team needed Chriss to pay for Dieng -- those things are based on assumptions.

    There is literally no point in saying the Spurs would be hindered by Chriss' salary in future moves that they could make when, 1) they've already made a pretty huge move after the trade, and weren't hindered by said salary, and 2) we literally do not know whether they want, or care to, make any other moves at all in the first place.
    I never said the Spurs would be hindered by Chriss salary hold. I did say that losing salary hurt their compe ive position. It limits their options and leverage to take advantage of those options, whether they want to take those options or not. It's like if they traded a draft pick for cash and you jumped in here to say "They didn't want to pick anyone anyway." Its like, sure, but that doesn't mean that trading picks for cash is not bad.

    This is crying-over-spillt-milk taken to the upteenth... With no other point (as you say, you don't even expect a debate!) other than you saying "no, I'm still right, y'all don't understand!!", which frankly, I think we do... We just disagree, tbh.
    I actually legit don't think you do, given that the majority of the word count of your post was dedicated to a point that had nothing to do with what I was saying. Like it came from directly misunderstanding what I said, so to come in here and go, "We do understand" doesn't really work.

  7. #82
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,748
    To look into Hollinger's statements a little closer...

    While LaMarcus Aldridge gave back a staggering $7.25 million to the Spurs (which will be “just” $5.8 million in his wallet after factoring in the league’s escrow cut)
    Hollinger was in an NBA front office not too long ago so his info should be good. Aldridge's buyout math went off track because Woj decided to use a post-escrow number for an unknown reason (no one uses post-escrow numbers, tbh). He also worded it weird.



    That makes it sound like the Spurs paid Aldridge $5.8 million to settle the amount owed to him. That's how Bobby Marks interpreted it...



    Also, Bobby Marks didn't use post-escrow numbers.

    So, back to square one, if the Spurs still owed Aldridge $8.5 million, it's now sounding like Aldridge only asked for $1.25 million more in the buyout, which left the Spurs will $7.25 million. If that's the case, the Spurs could have had ~$6.4 million in salary cap space after the Aldridge buyout and before the Dieng signing.

    If you want to translate those numbers to post-escrow, Aldridge was owed $6.8 million and asked for exactly $1 million in the buyout, which left the $5.8 million that Woj referenced. That $1 million is such a round number that now I'm thinking this is what really happened

    Pop: "Sorry to see you go, LA. How much do you want in your buyout?"
    Aldridge: "Since you guaranteed my contract when you didn't have to, give me a million and we'll call it even."

  8. #83
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,990
    No one is getting mad. I'm putting the same level of effort as you into this thought process, and trust me, it's not very hard. If you want to go into each other's post history like you insistently have, then we can go there.


    You good? You done? Or are you going to keep coming into this thread to talk about how little you care? You've always had thin skin since you've become a regular poster. That's just you. You do a lot of good things, but you spiral into personal grudges and have a hard time letting disagreements go, hence why you're posting basically as much as I am in this thread despite it being my topic and a thread you supposedly don't think matters.

    We can keep going on this thread. I think at this point though, you know what I'm saying, but rather than just disagreeing with it, you're letting it break your brain as if it's some ever-shifting Gordian knot when it's just a simple value argument.

    1) Trading basketball assets for pure cash is intrinsically bad

    2) The Chriss trade was a trade of basketball assets for pure cash

    3) Therefore, the Chriss trade is intrinsically bad

    So any point that doesn't address 1) or 2) is irrelevant. That's not closed-mindedness. It's how arguments work. We all agree 2) is true. So the only potentially contentious element is 1). A lot of folks don't care about 1). They don't care about having a "moral philosophy" about trades. They don't see the wall between business and production as sacred. I and some others have written a ton of words now laying out why we do think this type of transaction violate the "moral philosophy" of trades and breaches the wall, and why those breaches cause concern. You can disagree with that stance -- and indeed some people have. I have actually not hammered those people for disagreeing with 1) on philosophical grounds or who don't want to engage with the "moral philosophy" at all. All I've said was, "That's cool, this system of arguments will be here if you change your mind."

  9. #84
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,990
    To look into Hollinger's statements a little closer...



    Hollinger was in an NBA front office not too long ago so his info should be good. Aldridge's buyout math went off track because Woj decided to use a post-escrow number for an unknown reason (no one uses post-escrow numbers, tbh). He also worded it weird.



    That makes it sound like the Spurs paid Aldridge $5.8 million to settle the amount owed to him. That's how Bobby Marks interpreted it...



    Also, Bobby Marks didn't use post-escrow numbers.

    So, back to square one, if the Spurs still owed Aldridge $8.5 million, it's now sounding like Aldridge only asked for $1.25 million more in the buyout, which left the Spurs will $7.25 million. If that's the case, the Spurs could have had ~$6.4 million in salary cap space after the Aldridge buyout and before the Dieng signing.

    If you want to translate those numbers to post-escrow, Aldridge was owed $6.8 million and asked for exactly $1 million in the buyout, which left the $5.8 million that Woj referenced. That $1 million is such a round number that now I'm thinking this is what really happened

    Pop: "Sorry to see you go, LA. How much do you want in your buyout?"
    Aldridge: "Since you guaranteed my contract when you didn't have to, give me a million and we'll call it even."
    I really want to see how many more times you have to edit that thread le.

    The implications this is going to have on everything from Dieng's potential deal (not whether it's good but like, what it is) to whether the Spurs can or could scour the international buyout market are just going to stay in flux. It remains possible that having an extra $1.8 Million in salary space could've helped in all of those scenarios, though. But I think Dieng is a good pickup regardless.

  10. #85
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,617


    You good? You done? Or are you going to keep coming into this thread to talk about how little you care? You've always had thin skin since you've become a regular poster. That's just you. You do a lot of good things, but you spiral into personal grudges and have a hard time letting disagreements go, hence why you're posting basically as much as I am in this thread despite it being my topic and a thread you supposedly don't think matters.

    We can keep going on this thread. I think at this point though, you know what I'm saying, but rather than just disagreeing with it, you're letting it break your brain as if it's some ever-shifting Gordian knot when it's just a simple value argument.

    1) Trading basketball assets for pure cash is intrinsically bad

    2) The Chriss trade was a trade of basketball assets for pure cash

    3) Therefore, the Chriss trade is intrinsically bad

    So any point that doesn't address 1) or 2) is irrelevant. That's not closed-mindedness. It's how arguments work. We all agree 2) is true. So the only potentially contentious element is 1). A lot of folks don't care about 1). They don't care about having a "moral philosophy" about trades. They don't see the wall between business and production as sacred. I and some others have written a ton of words now laying out why we do think this type of transaction violate the "moral philosophy" of trades and breaches the wall, and why those breaches cause concern. You can disagree with that stance -- and indeed some people have. I have actually not hammered those people for disagreeing with 1) on philosophical grounds or who don't want to engage with the "moral philosophy" at all. All I've said was, "That's cool, this system of arguments will be here if you change your mind."
    Again, I'm not the one bringing up post history but since you do we can begin (let me eat lunch first tho). Sounds like I've ruffled your feathers a bit, we've got the Chinook throwing mud version and I like that. This whole shaninigan has really broken your brain. I haven't attempted to cross boundaries here, but here we go.

  11. #86
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,990
    Again, I'm not the one bringing up post history but since you do we can begin (let me eat lunch first tho). Sounds like I've ruffled your feathers a bit, we've got the Chinook throwing mud and I like that. This whole shaninigan has really broken your brain. I haven't attempted to cross boundaries here, but here we go.
    You:"Lol, I'm just sitting pretty."

    Also you: "I've just waiting by the computer for him to post."

    It looks like this thread is going to still have relevance outside of this little back-and-forth. I'm willing to basically to call a truce so the thread doesn't just become a bunch of unrelated quotes from other threads or whatever you're envisioning.

  12. #87
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,617
    You:"Lol, I'm just sitting pretty."

    Also you: "I've just waiting by the computer for him to post."

    It looks like this thread is going to still have relevance outside of this little back-and-forth. I'm willing to basically to call a truce so the thread doesn't just become a bunch of unrelated quotes from other threads or whatever you're envisioning.
    It's a hobby on top of my other hobbies.

    No need for unrelated quotes.

    Funny how we go from "hey, let me bring up so and so about you from back then and there" to "you're probably gonna bring up unrelated quotes" as if the former wasn't unrelated.

    Chinook so feisty. I like it.

  13. #88
    Remember Cherokee Parks The Truth #6's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Post Count
    6,113
    Nice to see other people waking up to the truth... Both he and his alt can not spend a day without talking about, or fantasizing about, other men, erotic tendencies, and spewing out phobic insults... Frankly, too stereotypically closeted- -macho-beta to not be hilarious , but I do hope he finds happiness and realizes what his heart desires sooner than later.

    We all deserve to be happy in this life...
    "He doth protest too much..."

  14. #89
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,617
    Post #1

    So I don't normally make a thread to post my thoughts if they can fit into an existing topic. I think, though, that this is a good time for an exception.

    A lot of posters seem to think that Dieng's signing disproved the concern that came from the Chriss trade. This is not true. Most of the "cliff-jumping" started before the news broke that Chriss' insurance payments meant he had to stay on the roster. The points in that thread up to that point about selling salary space and opportunity cost strictly for the owners' profit remain. This is actually pretty obvious when you look at the Dieng signing.

    According to timvp, the Spurs had about $1.8 Million of cap space after the trade and Aldridge buyout. Let's say for argument sake that Dieng's contract is counting for $1 Million flat. That means the team has something like $700k for the final roster spot that Reynolds is currently taking up with his 10-day. If all the Spurs do is sign 10-days and eventually a guy for the rest of the season, this is enough money. However, if the Spurs want to do a "Hinkie special" and use the MLE to sign a rookie to a long-term deal by giving that player more guaranteed money in this season so they can get multiple non-guaranteed years, they are going to have a harder time doing that. Remember that the Spurs sold $1.8 Million in salary space, not just the remain balance of his contract. If anything, it's almost worse that they sold it for almost a million bucks less than they originally were slated to get because of this waiving.

    The Chriss trade was bad. Nothing, from LMA's buyout to Reynold's 10-day to landing Dieng changed that. Fans need to accept that rather than trying to find excuses for the front office. The trade at its best was the owners meddling in basketball operations for a quick buck. At its worst, it's the owners meddling for a quick buck but then relenting after the damage was done and getting back an even smaller drop in the bucket. Kudos to the Spurs for landing Dieng, and kudos to them for getting LMA to still give back three times as much as he had to (wanted the buyout to be official before mentioning that, lest we find out the amount was even smaller). Without the Chriss trade, this would've been a coup. Rather, if the Chriss trade had included draft compensation like the needed to, it would've been a mega coup.

    But as constructed, the Chriss trade looks even worse than it did 24 hours ago. The Spurs damaged their compe ive position for no reason now that they aren't getting the insurance payments (though are we sure they aren't? The CBA FAQ doesn't seem to say that a player can't be waived). It's lucky that they didn't need that extra salary space to win the Dieng sweepstakes -- it certainly could've been a difference-maker to be able to give him three or four times what other teams could. We don't know if it will affect their ability to get an optimal deal with Reynolds or Renfro or anyone else -- including perhaps a young player who gets waived unexpectedly ala Jimmer Freddette back in the day. The Spurs should still be able to get their roster filled. This didn't kill them this year, but it definitely restricted the leeway they have to build the best team they can.

    So PATFO and Ownership: Sure, my opinion for them is more hopeful now than it was before. They have enough sway with ownership to be able to talk them out of a bit of cash. That's seriously important when trying to evaluate the state of the Spurs as an organization. Their inability to negotiate any basketball assets is disheartening, but if they're still going to be able to convince ownership that winning games matters, we don't yet have a reason to believe that this upcoming summer will be terrible. However, that this trade ever happened means folks should still be concerned between the relationship between PATFO and this new ownership coalition. This type of trade should've never come up for a team seriously looking to win games. The liquidation efficiency for this move, even had Chriss' full insurance payout occurred, was always bad. There's no reason to believe that this was a complete one-off impulse by ownership. Liquidating assets for higher dividends is what capital firms do. They aren't interested in long-term growth. Even if the Holts believe in the Spurs as a culture and service to their fans, they will face increasing pressure from their cash-rich minority partners to make money. Without an obvious contender to market, the fastest way to increase profit is by reducing expenses. The Chriss trade is the same canary it was on Wednesday, even if the mine hasn't exploded yet.
    "According to timvp, the Spurs had about $1.8 Million of cap space after the trade and Aldridge buyout. " - Conjecture #1, proven to be false later on

    "
    That means the team has something like $700k for the final roster spot that Reynolds is currently taking up with his 10-day." - Proven false

    "However, if the Spurs want to do a "Hinkie special" and use the MLE to sign a rookie to a long-term deal by giving that player more guaranteed money in this season so they can get multiple non-guaranteed years, they are going to have a harder time doing that. " - Assumption #1 that the Spurs didn't review alternatives

    "
    The Chriss trade was bad. Nothing, from LMA's buyout to Reynold's 10-day to landing Dieng changed that. Fans need to accept that rather than trying to find excuses for the front office. The trade at its best was the owners meddling in basketball operations for a quick buck. At its worst, it's the owners meddling for a quick buck but then relenting after the damage was done and getting back an even smaller drop in the bucket." - Hyperbole #1

    "
    The Spurs damaged their compe ive position for no reason" - Hyperbole #2, we've gone over this. Assumes a magical player falls out of a sky and planning around that when the schedule is condensed.

    " now that they aren't getting the insurance payments (though are we sure they aren't? The CBA FAQ doesn't seem to say that a player can't be waived)." - Conjecture #2, you almost made it here. If somehow you can research deeper into it, kudos to you.

    "It's lucky that they didn't need that extra salary space to win the Dieng sweepstakes -- it certainly could've been a difference-maker to be able to give him three or four times what other teams could. " - Conjecture #3 - Love the use of the word "lucky" here. Unless you knew what was going behind closed doors, we don't know what confidence level the Spurs had.

    "
    We don't know if it will affect their ability to get an optimal deal with Reynolds or Renfro or anyone else -- including perhaps a young player who gets waived unexpectedly ala Jimmer Freddette back in the day." Conjecture #4 - Good job. You used the word "we don't know". That's a step in the right direction....until you used it as a con to support your line of reasoning.

    "
    Their inability to negotiate any basketball assets is disheartening, but if they're still going to be able to convince ownership that winning games matters, we don't yet have a reason to believe that this upcoming summer will be terrible. " -Conjecture AND hyperbole - We don't know if ownership needs to be "convinced winning matters"

    "There's no reason to believe that this was a complete one-off impulse by ownership. Liquidating assets for higher dividends is what capital firms do. They aren't interested in long-term growth. Even if the Holts believe in the Spurs as a culture and service to their fans, they will face increasing pressure from their cash-rich minority partners to make money. Without an obvious contender to market, the fastest way to increase profit is by reducing expenses." -Conjecture #6 - Say that is what capital firms do. There's no proof the Spurs did it for this reason. The trade helps the Warriors more than it does the Spurs. That is an actual fact.

  15. #90
    Remember Cherokee Parks The Truth #6's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Post Count
    6,113
    I will agree with Chinook that the trade was bad. But there are levels to this. Much of the motivation or at least context is unknown as far as I can tell, which tempers any outrage on my part so far. Sacrificing available money under the luxury tax is lame, I agree with that as well. That may be the biggest problem with this trade as far as how it potentially affects the product on the court.

    But I will be more concerned if the Holts pursue other actions in the future that begin to suggest they are cash strapped and want to move the team. That's my bigger concern, though ungrounded so far, that the Holts are not invested in the team financially and emotionally, so to speak. The team moving is the doomsday scenario to me as a fan. In that regard I want to be informed. But what if they are doing weasle moves like this to save money so they don't sell? Again, we're mired in hypotheticals without more knowledge and context.

    So, let's file this trade the back of our minds and move forward. Because this is such an outlier in the technical sense, the ramifications are unknown. If Chinook or anyone else has chisme on the financial operations that are interesting to note, then I'm intrigued to know about it.

  16. #91
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,990
    It's a hobby on top of my other hobbies.

    No need for unrelated quotes.

    Funny how we go from "hey, let me bring up so and so about you from back then and there" to "you're probably gonna bring up unrelated quotes" as if the former wasn't unrelated.

    Chinook so feisty. I like it.
    The former is related, because you're doing to me what you do to a lot of posters. You're an extremely combative poster for a guy who's basically not an edgelord.

    What I'm trying to prevent isn't so much you making any personal evaluations of me or my history as much as you spamming the thread with a long series of quotes no one but you cares about. Like I'm willing to own my history as a poster. I've been wrong a lot, and I've been cringe way more than I wish I had been. But what I rarely do is try to drag people into unrelated threads because I am trying to get a dig in. There are posters I disagree with and even posters I don't enjoy conversing with. But I don't go around demanding they get notified whenever I make a comment about them.

    Regardless, you see the premises of the argument I've been making. The only valid ways of arguing against the argument is to disprove 1) or 2) or to argue that 1) and 2) don't lead to 3). I don't see any way 1) and 2) don't lead to 3). It's a valid syllogism. The only argument against 2) is the "Chriss paid for Dieng" argument, which I've argued against in good faith, whatever side you take on that. I think there is a philosophical argument against 1), but what a lot of people are doing is trying to twist the absolute, "moralistic" statement I'm making and twisting it into a specific context-dependent sub-statement and then trying to disprove that.

    For example:

    "The Spurs didn't need that basketball asset." -- Okay, but that doesn't mean that turning in into cash wasn't a bad thing. The very fact that the team sought to do so is what's concerning, not whether the action immediately or noticeably damaged the team.

    "It's a pandemic; the Holts might need cash." -- So? Explaining why you did something bad doesn't mean what you did wasn't bad.

    "For all we know, it's a one-time thing." -- Let's hope so, but doing a bad thing one time doesn't stop it from being a bad thing.

    "I don't care." -- That's cool. This thread will be here if you do decide to care later.

  17. #92
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,617
    The former is related, because you're doing to me what you do to a lot of posters. You're an extremely combative poster for a guy who's basically not an edgelord.

    What I'm trying to prevent isn't so much you making any personal evaluations of me or my history as much as you spamming the thread with a long series of quotes no one but you cares about. Like I'm willing to own my history as a poster. I've been wrong a lot, and I've been cringe way more than I wish I had been. But what I rarely do is try to drag people into unrelated threads because I am trying to get a dig in. There are posters I disagree with and even posters I don't enjoy conversing with. But I don't go around demanding they get notified whenever I make a comment about them.

    Regardless, you see the premises of the argument I've been making. The only valid ways of arguing against the argument is to disprove 1) or 2) or to argue that 1) and 2) don't lead to 3). I don't see any way 1) and 2) don't lead to 3). It's a valid syllogism. The only argument against 2) is the "Chriss paid for Dieng" argument, which I've argued against in good faith, whatever side you take on that. I think there is a philosophical argument against 1), but what a lot of people are doing is trying to twist the absolute, "moralistic" statement I'm making and twisting it into a specific context-dependent sub-statement and then trying to disprove that.

    For example:

    "The Spurs didn't need that basketball asset." -- Okay, but that doesn't mean that turning in into cash wasn't a bad thing. The very fact that the team sought to do so is what's concerning, not whether the action immediately or noticeably damaged the team.

    "It's a pandemic; the Holts might need cash." -- So? Explaining why you did something bad doesn't mean what you did wasn't bad.

    "For all we know, it's a one-time thing." -- Let's hope so, but doing a bad thing one time doesn't stop it from being a bad thing.

    "I don't care." -- That's cool. This thread will be here if you do decide to care later.
    1) I had no intention of spamming your thread with quotes not from this thread
    2) I take pride in being combative. Come at me, bro!
    3) You took my digs (or @'s) as personal and not playful jabs. R. DeMurre took it a certain way, too. It usually means I like you as a poster, and not anything else. You don't see me @'ing these trolls.

  18. #93
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,990
    Post #1



    "According to timvp, the Spurs had about $1.8 Million of cap space after the trade and Aldridge buyout. " - Conjecture #1, proven to be false later on

    "
    That means the team has something like $700k for the final roster spot that Reynolds is currently taking up with his 10-day." - Proven false

    "However, if the Spurs want to do a "Hinkie special" and use the MLE to sign a rookie to a long-term deal by giving that player more guaranteed money in this season so they can get multiple non-guaranteed years, they are going to have a harder time doing that. " - Assumption #1 that the Spurs didn't review alternatives

    "
    The Chriss trade was bad. Nothing, from LMA's buyout to Reynold's 10-day to landing Dieng changed that. Fans need to accept that rather than trying to find excuses for the front office. The trade at its best was the owners meddling in basketball operations for a quick buck. At its worst, it's the owners meddling for a quick buck but then relenting after the damage was done and getting back an even smaller drop in the bucket." - Hyperbole #1

    "
    The Spurs damaged their compe ive position for no reason" - Hyperbole #2, we've gone over this. Assumes a magical player falls out of a sky and planning around that when the schedule is condensed.

    " now that they aren't getting the insurance payments (though are we sure they aren't? The CBA FAQ doesn't seem to say that a player can't be waived)." - Conjecture #2, you almost made it here. If somehow you can research deeper into it, kudos to you.

    "It's lucky that they didn't need that extra salary space to win the Dieng sweepstakes -- it certainly could've been a difference-maker to be able to give him three or four times what other teams could. " - Conjecture #3 - Love the use of the word "lucky" here. Unless you knew what was going behind closed doors, we don't know what confidence level the Spurs had.

    "
    We don't know if it will affect their ability to get an optimal deal with Reynolds or Renfro or anyone else -- including perhaps a young player who gets waived unexpectedly ala Jimmer Freddette back in the day." Conjecture #4 - Good job. You used the word "we don't know". That's a step in the right direction....until you used it as a con to support your line of reasoning.

    "
    Their inability to negotiate any basketball assets is disheartening, but if they're still going to be able to convince ownership that winning games matters, we don't yet have a reason to believe that this upcoming summer will be terrible. " -Conjecture AND hyperbole - We don't know if ownership needs to be "convinced winning matters"

    "There's no reason to believe that this was a complete one-off impulse by ownership. Liquidating assets for higher dividends is what capital firms do. They aren't interested in long-term growth. Even if the Holts believe in the Spurs as a culture and service to their fans, they will face increasing pressure from their cash-rich minority partners to make money. Without an obvious contender to market, the fastest way to increase profit is by reducing expenses." -Conjecture #6 - Say that is what capital firms do. There's no proof the Spurs did it for this reason. The trade helps the Warriors more than it does the Spurs. That is an actual fact.
    A lot of this is you misusing the terms conjecture and hyperbole, like a lot. Like I was about half-way through a line-by-line and I just stopped. This is just a really bad sinkhole that comes from you trying to scattershot arguments and then puffing up when I'm like, "that's just random shrapnel".

    Like you didn't quote this part:

    The Spurs should still be able to get their roster filled. This didn't kill them this year, but it definitely restricted the leeway they have to build the best team they can.
    That's directly saying that SA is going to be able to sign guys regardless. Therefore, patting yourself on the back that the Spurs signed guys is sort of weird.

    You also sometimes accuse me of saying the opposite of what I'm saying? Like, that I didn't say that capital firms do, while quoting me saying that's what capital firms do.

    It's just meh, man. Complete filler.

  19. #94
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,617
    A lot of this is you misusing the terms conjecture and hyperbole, like a lot. Like I was about half-way through a line-by-line and I just stopped. This is just a really bad sinkhole that comes from you trying to scattershot arguments and then puffing up when I'm like, "that's just random shrapnel".

    Like you didn't quote this part:



    That's directly saying that SA is going to be able to sign guys regardless. Therefore, patting yourself on the back that the Spurs signed guys is sort of weird.

    You also sometimes accuse me of saying the opposite of what I'm saying? Like, that I didn't say that capital firms do, while quoting me saying that's what capital firms do.

    It's just meh, man. Complete filler.
    Conjecture - an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information

    I mean, it's alright if you're too lazy to actually come back with a real rebuttal. No need to disguise it with another personal dig. Is this a part of your schtick now?

  20. #95
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,990
    1) I had no intention of spamming your thread with quotes not from this thread
    2) I take pride in being combative. Come at me, bro!
    3) You took my digs (or @'s) as personal and not playful jabs. R. DeMurre took it a certain way, too. It usually means I like you as a poster, and not anything else. You don't see me @'ing these trolls.
    Man, basically, it's cool. I don't like that mentions are in a separate place than quotes. It makes it annoying to look at them. So when they're from a topic I wasn't trying to join I'm like, "Ugh, what is this? Do I have to reply?" As I've said, you've been a net-plus to the board. But like eventually we reach a point of consensus or detente, you know?

  21. #96
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,990
    Conjecture - an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information

    I mean, it's alright if you're too lazy to actually come back with a real rebuttal. No need to disguise it with another personal dig. Is this a part of your schtick now?
    Ugh, no. Like it's not a conjecture on my part that timvp said the Spurs had that much space. That's a statement of fact. Then using that statement of fact I used rough math to paint a picture of what the Spurs' financial situation would be, (Which is something that's basically expected of it, to the point that folks with tag me to ask me to do it.) You flagging it as a conjecture implied to me that you saw it as a pillar to my argument rather than an avenue to explore the argument. It's in the same way that the "Chriss paid for Dieng" rationale is completely dependent on Dieng being a min deal.

    Maybe I made a couple of bad assumptions for why you were flagging certain sentences. I figured you were flagging those things as a way of showing why my argument is weak, so I was more saying that you're applying those labels to situations where it doesn't really make sense to.

  22. #97
    Veteran RD2191's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Post Count
    51,854
    This guy is attracted to men and has a super hard time with it.
    Nice to see other people waking up to the truth... Both he and his alt can not spend a day without talking about, or fantasizing about, other men, erotic tendencies, and spewing out phobic insults... Frankly, too stereotypically closeted- -macho-beta to not be hilarious , but I do hope he finds happiness and realizes what his heart desires sooner than later.

    We all deserve to be happy in this life...
    Look at these two gots blowing each other online. Please keep me out of your erotic fantasies, thanks.

  23. #98
    Veteran RD2191's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Post Count
    51,854
    This guy is attracted to men and has a super hard time with it.
    All I know is that it makes my day when RD gives me attention. I love when he replies to my posts. Nothing thrills me on this board than going back and forth with him, tbh

  24. #99
    First Rule weeks's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Post Count
    3,085
    Adderall: the thread

  25. #100
    Believe. hombre's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Post Count
    498
    Look at these two gots blowing each other online. Please keep me out of your erotic fantasies, thanks.
    https://www.livescience.com/52146-ho...ty-traits.html

    You're overacting, real straight men don't behave like you, we're not threatened by the gays. Seek help, you could be out dating men and free from all your inner conflict and public anger.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •