The small talk is wearing thin

[elindholm]

For the last time:

I agreed with you, not disagreed. You said your trade would never happen. I proposed a trade that was equally unlikely.

Which is more realistic: that I suddenly decide to give you $10,000 for no reason, or that I suddenly decide to give you $100,000 for no reason? Answer: Neither is more realistic, because they both have zero chance of happening. The second one might strike us as more absurd, but that does not make the first one "more realistic."

When you wrote, "it would NEVER happen," you apparently meant something else -- perhaps something along the lines of, "it is unlikely, but not so impossible that I don't indulge the fantasy that it could happen." Now you're all pushed out of shape because I responded to what you wrote, rather than what you meant. Next time, write what you mean, and then I won't offend you by posting something in agreement.

 

[Starbury]

Originally posted by elindholm
For the last time:

I agreed with you, not disagreed. You said your trade would never happen. I proposed a trade that was equally unlikely.

Which is more realistic: that I suddenly decide to give you $10,000 for no reason, or that I suddenly decide to give you $100,000 for no reason? Answer: Neither is more realistic, because they both have zero chance of happening. The second one might strike us as more absurd, but that does not make the first one "more realistic."

When you wrote, "it would NEVER happen," you apparently meant something else -- perhaps something along the lines of, "it is unlikely, but not so impossible that I don't indulge the fantasy that it could happen." Now you're all pushed out of shape because I responded to what you wrote, rather than what you meant. Next time, write what you mean, and then I won't offend you by posting something in agreement.

Dude,
I already said I'm out. You're right I'm wrong whatever else... Now have fun with the rest of the people here and I'll be at azcentral.com

Can we drop it now?

 

[elindholm]

Can we drop it now?

Not quite. I just went back and saw that you added "probably" to your original post. I'm not sure why you did that. It really looks as though you were trying to change history in order to strengthen your side of this argument.

Had you written "probably" in the first place, I would have been more discreet with my first post. I consider your Gugliotta-Ilgauskas trade absurd, and I thought you did too. Had I known otherwise, I would have used a different tone.

Ah, and now I see you've done the same thing with your "robotic" post.

The Cavs on the other hand KNOW they are not contenders and will be building around a core of James--Davis--Miles--Boozer--Wagner--maybe Diop. I don't know where you get the idea that they would get the "luxury" of paying Googs contract. His contract is 1 year shorter than Z's, thus more cap room to recruit/resign their own FA's after this season. THAT is the point I was trying to make.

Saying "it would NEVER happen" is a strange way to make that point.

 

[Starbury]

Originally posted by elindholm
Can we drop it now?

Not quite. I just went back and saw that you added "probably" to your original post. I'm not sure why you did that. It really looks as though you were trying to change history in order to strengthen your side of this argument.

Had you written "probably" in the first place, I would have been more discreet with my first post. I consider your Gugliotta-Ilgauskas trade absurd, and I thought you did too. Had I known otherwise, I would have used a different tone.

Ah, and now I see you've done the same thing with your "robotic" post.

The Cavs on the other hand KNOW they are not contenders and will be building around a core of James--Davis--Miles--Boozer--Wagner--maybe Diop. I don't know where you get the idea that they would get the "luxury" of paying Googs contract. His contract is 1 year shorter than Z's, thus more cap room to recruit/resign their own FA's after this season. THAT is the point I was trying to make.

Saying "it would NEVER happen" is a strange way to make that point.

OH NO!!! I forgot a word in my first post. Then I added it after rereading it, TRUELY a Tragedy!

Anyways, to the rest of the posters take care, and lets hope the Suns have a great season! And to those of you in fantasy league 2, good luck with your teams, see you there!

To "the expert",
You can have the last word. I'm DONE here

 

[elindholm]

Then I added it after rereading it, TRUELY a Tragedy!

But you're upset with me for having responded in kind to your original post! What am I supposed to do, wait a fixed amount of time to see if you want to edit it first? How do I know when you mean what you've written and when you don't?

Never mind. Joe Mama will be locking this thread soon.

Oh, and as far as I'm concerned, you'll always be welcome here. Chances are you'll come back once you settle down, and that will be good for all of us.

 

[wager323]

im new here and i juss love all this drama...keeps me interested... 2 thumbs up!

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Man, look at all the fun I missed in the last 2 hours.

BTW starbury, the reason I think that Cleavland would like Zs cap room instead of Googs:

First off, it is more relief. Z makes 14.6 mil in his last year, where googs only makes 11.6


Also, Cleavland is not in danger of the luxary tax (as far as I know, didnt look it up), therefor an immediate salary break would not be overly beneficial. It is better timed to have the relief after they have fully evaluated Miles and Wagner. Not to mention Lebron would be coming into his own if he pans out.


BTW, my mention of a new member was only because we have had a few trolls in past months, and when first reading your post, I just assumed thats what you were. However, I was mistaken, and I apologize.

I do however fail to see the need to get irate over a little comment, especially when it was simply playing off of another dream trade.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Hmmm...

Well I think you are welcome here Starbury. Elindholm takes a long time getting used to.

Basically he has a very dry sense of humor. It is easy to misinterpret.

 

[Joe Mama]

I honestly can't believe you two (Eric and Starbury) wasted this much time arguing about whether a trade might be probable.

For the record... and a little late... I didn't think Starbury's proposal was THAT outrageous. I mean it would probably never happen, but neither would 90% of the trades mentioned on this and other message boards.

Starbury, don't get so bent out of shape. The trade proposal you made might not have been 100% out of the realm of possibilities, but it was definitely lopsided. Eric poked fun at the proposal. So what? If you think that's bad wait until Chaplin gets started with you also.

If you want to see what it is like to really catch some crap around here try sticking up for Antoine Walker.

Stick around. I think we have a great group of posters here, who for the most part know their stuff. We have some dreamers. We have some cynics. We have some people that are dreamers one minute and cynics the next. It makes for a great mix.

Now let's get this season started!

Joe Mama

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by Joe Mama

Starbury, don't get so bent out of shape. The trade proposal you made might not have been 100% out of the realm of possibilities, but it was definitely lopsided. Eric poked fun at the proposal. So what? If you think that's bad wait until Chaplin gets started with you also.


Joe Mama

HEY!