If Oden doesn't play next season (as he didn't this year), I would take the under. That said, downgrading a position doesn't necessarily mean the team will be worse next year, because there are a bunch of other players who have variance to their performance. Batum could make a jump forward in his development, Aldridge could make another step forward, Roy could re-invent himself. I simply think that whatever the team does accomplish next season, they would have accomplished more with Miller instead of Felton, because I feel Miller is a superior player to Felton.
That's not what I asked. Yes/No. You said the Blazers got worse in the present. Will they lose more than 34 games next year? That's an easy out. Hey, if the Blazers win 50 games with Felton, they would have won more with Miller! Prove that they wouldn't have done so. It's hard to take you seriously at times. I know this routine works on most posters, but never taking a definitive position makes it easy to look like a smart guy. You remind me of every 55 year-old white exec I've ever met. Always leaving a semantic out of a non-decision.
Yup, that's actually a positive. If there was a time to tank, it would be now. The 2012 draft is loaded, and in a (probable) lockout year, dropping into the lottery won't seem so bad.
I'm also wondering how getting younger at PG without losing any core players makes the team worse for the future. Can you 'splain that one to me, Minstrel?
Yes, I said they got worse in the present. They did that by downgrading at a position. Fairly straightforward concept to understand. Thanks. I have found life is easier when one is logical, yes. Where did proof come into the question? I gave my opinion that they downgraded the present by weakening one position. That's not the same, either by logic or common sense, as saying they'll be a worse team next year than they were last year. What it means is that they'll be a worse team than they would have been if they hadn't made that move. There's more than one moving part in this system. I'm sorry, I literally couldn't understand any of this. Was it in English?
Yes, I can. As usual, you didn't read the post you're trying (badly) to criticize. Any other issues I can explain for you while I'm here?
I, I, I, I I'm sure I'll be accused of making this thread about me, though. I do notice you still won't budge off of your vague parameters of how the team is "worse". It's simple. Will the team win more games than last year? Why won't you answer that simple question, since W/L is the easiest way to measure success in the NBA?
To you, "logical" appears to mean making vague statements. To me, "logical" means making a decision, and standing by it.
I used the word "I" in explaining what I think? That's kinda weird...almost creepy. No, I won't budge off my vague parameters of "The team is worse in the present because they downgraded at one of the positions on their team." You know, I really thought so. I'm beginning to wonder, now, though. I don't know. How would I know? I just did. I'm not sure what it has to do with what I said though.
Five "I" references in a row in your parsed and separated response. None of which matter at all to me, since you can't even make a simple prediction to back up your opinion. That's what I'd expect, though. At least you didn't throw some "potentially" references in there. See you soon!
That's the weirdest definition of "logical" I've ever seen, no lie. Thanks for your take on the word, though. But how do you define "decisive" then? As a synonym for "logical" or does it have a creative definition in your dictionary, too?
