I'm saying if Pierce/Allen went out..it wouldn't be consistently but I'm saying he could do it every now and then if need be.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Jul 8 2007, 02:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Playa, Al for 25 a night. Come on, bro.EDIT: Also playa, the Raptors are a little better than you're giving them credit for. They are certainly deeper than the starting 5 + Calderon.</div>thats my point. as good as your team seems to be, ray allen or paul pierce cant do it by themself. now I know this doesn't have to happen, but what if one of them got injured? then you are back to where you started, when pierce demanded the trade because he doesn't have any support.and okay fine, lets just say nobody gets injured or one player gets injured but they can all scorebutwhat about chemistry?I know ray allen is a good mentor but how is he gonna help guys like gerald if hes taking up all the minutes and the plays at the wing positions along with pierce? im not saying your team is bad, im just saying dont get too excited because anything can happen.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (junot111 @ Jul 8 2007, 02:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>thats my point. as good as your team seems to be, ray allen or paul pierce cant do it by themself. now I know this doesn't have to happen, but what if one of them got injured? then you are back to where you started, when pierce demanded the trade because he doesn't have any support. and okay fine, lets just say nobody gets injured or one player gets injured but they can all score but what about chemistry? I know ray allen is a good mentor but how is he gonna help guys like gerald if hes taking up all the minutes and the plays at the wing positions along with pierce? im not saying your team is bad, im just saying dont get too excited because anything can happen.</div> You misunderstood. Are you expecting the 3rd option on ANY TEAM to score 25 a night? Big Al is capable of 16-20 a night (although he may not necessarily get those numbers because of the talent we have, but he's still the same player). He's a legit post option. We have THE best offensive trio in the East, I don't think it's even close. You seem to think in your mind that we will have another injury riddled season, and I don't understand why. Again, to say that this team won't even MAKE the playoffs, then have Toronto at the 2 seed, is absolutely ridiculous. Like playa said, you guys are WAY too cocky about your team right now and you think you're on top of the world while nobody in this division has a chance. That's bullsh**.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Again, to say that this team won't even MAKE the playoffs, then have Toronto at the 2 seed</div>when did I say that?I just said, to sum my point up, anything can happen.
WTF.IN SPORTS you are 1 game over .500 when you have 1 more win then losses. If you're 8-7 yer 1 game over 500. If yer 20-10 yer 10 games over 500.Sports keeps it simple ffs, not complex math crap!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (junot111 @ Jul 8 2007, 02:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>when did I say that? I just said, to sum my point up, anything can happen.</div> You didn't say the Celtics wouldn't make the playoffs, MosDefinitely did. To the people who still seriously don't understand the over/under .500 discussion: :HAHAHA:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (playaofthegame @ Jul 8 2007, 11:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Raptors weren't even close to the best winning percentage in the East.Detroit, Cleveland and Chicago all had better winning percentages. The Raptors are a good team but aren't you guys getting a little cocky now? It wasn't too long ago you guys year after year had one of the worst records in basketball.And for christ's sake they were 6 games over .500 not 12. Why is it so hard to comprehend? 41-41 is .500 and they won 47 games. That's 41 + 6</div>No. He means since January we had the best record, you can look it up.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jul 7 2007, 08:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't understand your point here...If a team is 47-35 than they are 12 games over .500...</div> CB4, your not right percentage wise, but the 'games over .500' is pretty much just a sports phrase where you add or subtract the number on the left to the right....I would say the Raptors were 12 games over .500...thats what most people go by, thats what I've always gone by.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Jul 10 2007, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>CB4, your not right percentage wise, but the 'games over .500' is pretty much just a sports phrase where you add or subtract the number on the left to the right....I would say the Raptors were 12 games over .500...thats what most people go by, thats what I've always gone by.</div>That's what I've been trying to say. That's just what I would call 12 games over .500. It's a sports phrase primarily, not a math equation.
Very Smart Move. Toronto has really been doing a good job with free agency the last 2 years thanks to there new GM. I give the Raps big Props for this.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Jul 10 2007, 03:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>CB4, your not right percentage wise, but the 'games over .500' is pretty much just a sports phrase where you add or subtract the number on the left to the right....I would say the Raptors were 12 games over .500...thats what most people go by, thats what I've always gone by.</div> Wow. I'm actually pretty surprised that so many people think this way. 12 games over .500 is 53 wins. I'm sorry, but you guys are in fact wrong.
It's a sports term. That's what I consider 12 games over .500. If we were talking about being right math wise, then yeah, I'm wrong. But it's a sports term and that's just how I associate with it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jul 10 2007, 07:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's a sports term. That's what I consider 12 games over .500. If we were talking about being right math wise, then yeah, I'm wrong. But it's a sports term and that's just how I associate with it.</div> It's not a matter of being a sports term or a mathematical equation, there is only one answer to it all.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Jul 11 2007, 12:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not a matter of being a sports term or a mathematical equation, there is only one answer to it all.</div>whatever man....
yeah I realize how mathematically you are calculating games over .500 but I watched highlights alot and broadcasters would always refer to our record or any record by subtracting wins from loses.Anyways im really happy with the addition of Kapono to our roster and I cant wait till the 07-08 season begins even if we dont do any drastic moves in the offseason!! Kapono for 6th man!!
Something I didnt notice last year was that we always had problems slashing, and instead of buying a slasher (which were expensive by the way) we bought someone to stretch the D in Kapono. I never thought of it that way, but it was a move that helps our offense a lot when you think about it. In terms of money, maybe he is 1-2 M overpaid, but he is the best at his job. Overrall, I think it is a solid signing.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Jul 10 2007, 10:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not a matter of being a sports term or a mathematical equation, there is only one answer to it all.</div> No, your wrong.
