<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 23 2008, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 23 2008, 12:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wow! One sentence responses! If you think I misunderstood your point, just address that. You go off on so many tangents it's impossible to have a focused discussion with you.</div> I would be happy to address your misunderstanding of my point if you would refrain from impregnating your responses with insults and sarcastic insinuations that I (or anyone espousing a different view) is ignorant, silly, or just plain stupid. You really have been sounding more and more like cpawfan, and, as Mark Jackson would say, "You're better than that!" What I'm trying to convey is that the speculative component in any assessment of a draft prospect should (and often does) weigh into the "value" of that prospect. Some players exhibit "can't miss" NBA superstar talent and skill at the time of the draft much more than others. Examples of the former include LeBron James and Shaquille O'Neal. Others, either because of age/experience, level of prior competition, current development, and other factors are not quite as "can't miss". For example, many bright basketball minds felt Orlando would be better served by drafting Emeka Okafur over Dwight Howard because Howard was a high schooler with little basketball skill and elite competition under his belt while Okafur was the premiere player on a big-time college team that had a lot of success. To those people/GM's, before either guy played an NBA game, Okafur had more "value" as a prospect and they would have presumably been willing to give up more in a trade to acquire his draft rights. Their valuations at that time are not necessarily wrong just because Howard turned out to be a far, far more valuable NBA player than Okafur. He might have also turned out to be Michael Olawikandi. So because of the frustrating compenent of speculation and uncertainty, the value of Dwight Howard on draft night was not what his value became after he'd played his first 30 games, and certainly no where near what it is today. If you doubt that, imagine this time-warped scenario: you run a team that has a 25 year-old Shaq on the roster, but, for whatever reasons (a lot of other bad contracts, lack of depth, personnel conflicts, financial problems, etc.) you entertain trade offers for your franchise center. Another team offers you their 2nd year point guard, Deron Williams, and the draft rights to #1 pick Dwight Howard, fresh out of high school and yet to play even in NBA summer league (forget the CBA for a minute and just assume the numbers work). Do you make that deal at that time? If not, you and I both know it's because you have no idea that Howard will actually turn out to be arguably as good as Shaq. If so, it's at least partly because you already assess Williams to be a terrific NBA point guard and therefore added value to protect you against the risk that Howard will not pan out as anything close to Shaq in the NBA. In both cases, the offer will only be made (and only accepted or rejected) because of the uncertainty of what Howard will become. His VALUE will be fluid (depending upon the prescience of the person performing the valuation and their propensity for risk-taking). That deal would never happen after Howard has played a year because it's obvious after that point that the value given and received is unequal. Now, how does that relate to the disucssion of Beasely? I made the point that -- based solely on what I have read -- he doesn't seem to be as "can't miss" as some picks are in that range (e.g., James, O'Neal), partly due to repeated questioning of his character (I evidently put a lot more weight on that than you in terms of guaging what ultimate impact a player will have on a team). You may disagree and believe he is "can't miss", that he will have a career along the lines of a KG. That's fine. You've seen him play, so I concede you have a much better basis for your opinion on that point than I do. Ultimately, however, if there is truth in the reports that Riley would trade the draft rights to Beasley, I conclude that it's because HE (Riley) isn't certain that Beasley is going to be the next KG and would prefer to parlay his draft rights into assets that have a less speculative, more definite value. If his own assessment told him Beasley was "can't miss" as a franchise PF, why (given his team's needs) would he be open to trading him? So if the report is true, he will likely hook up with a trading partner that IS subjectively certain that Beasley is the next KG or who simply is much more comfortable taking risks. And that partner will offer enough certain value to satisfy Riley, and that value may or may not end up looking equal in a couple of years. That's what I've been saying. If this post taxes your patience, or if you feel its full of terrible digressions, you obviously don't care for nuance and detail and linear argumentation in a discussion, which is your prerogative. In that case, you are best off not engaging me on matters like these. One sentence replies may be your forte, but they are not mine. </div> Just a heads up. Your verbosity doesn't give your posts any more substance or make you look smarter.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 23 2008, 02:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Just a heads up. Your verbosity doesn't give your posts any more substance or make you look smarter. </div> Here's a reciprocal heads up: if my "verbosity" bothers you and others, why can't you just ignore my posts? Why do you presume that I'm the one with a fragile ego when I'm not the one who couches my opinion or point in terms that seek to denigrate another's intelligence? Did it ever occur to you that THOSE individuals are the ones lacking intellectual security and who would be desperate enough to seek it from total strangers on a basketball board? I honestly try to communicate with precision for the sake of GOOD COMMUNICATION and thorough argumentation of my POV, not because I think a lot of words are, in and of themselves, impressive. And having posted for many years on many forums covering a wide array of topics, this is the first place where anyone sees that quality as a detriment. Maybe it's an age thing, since I presume most people here are far younger (I'm 43) and grew up entirely in an age where video games, MTV, action movies, and media generally nurture attention spans lasting no longer than a few seconds. But I still don't see why incivility is the appropriate response to boredom. You have a scroll button. Use it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 23 2008, 06:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 23 2008, 02:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Just a heads up. Your verbosity doesn't give your posts any more substance or make you look smarter. </div> Here's a reciprocal heads up: if my "verbosity" bothers you and others, why can't you just ignore my posts? Why do you presume that I'm the one with a fragile ego when I'm not the one who couches my opinion or point in terms that seek to denigrate another's intelligence? Did it ever occur to you that THOSE individuals are the ones lacking intellectual security and who would be desperate enough to seek it from total strangers on a basketball board? I honestly try to communicate with precision for the sake of GOOD COMMUNICATION and thorough argumentation of my POV, not because I think a lot of words are, in and of themselves, impressive. And having posted for many years on many forums covering a wide array of topics, this is the first place where anyone sees that quality as a detriment. Maybe it's an age thing, since I presume most people here are far younger (I'm 43) and grew up entirely in an age where video games, MTV, action movies, and media generally nurture attention spans lasting no longer than a few seconds. But I still don't see why incivility is the appropriate response to boredom. You have a scroll button. Use it. </div> You talkin loud, but ain't sayin nothin.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ May 23 2008, 06:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's true; I am younger. FAR younger.</div> Yeah, rub it in. Although, having been young once myself, I can say that it's quite a bit overrated in our culture, considering what you gain in judgment and understanding as you age. I believe it was Mark Twain (who else?) that said, "It's a pity that youth is wasted on the young."
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 23 2008, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I turn 13 next week.</div> If you're serious, that explains a lot.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 23 2008, 10:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 23 2008, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I turn 13 next week.</div> If you're serious, that explains a lot. </div> Because I said something you didn't like, you'd assume I'm a young'n?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 23 2008, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 23 2008, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I turn 13 next week.</div> If you're serious, that explains a lot. </div> It's hard to believe, but he is roughly 22.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 23 2008, 09:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ May 23 2008, 06:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's true; I am younger. FAR younger.</div> Yeah, rub it in. Although, having been young once myself, I can say that it's quite a bit overrated in our culture, considering what you gain in judgment and understanding as you age. I believe it was Mark Twain (who else?) that said, "It's a pity that youth is wasted on the young." </div> I belive it was Douglas Adams that said, "Life is wasted on the living."
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ May 24 2008, 10:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 23 2008, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 23 2008, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I turn 13 next week.</div> If you're serious, that explains a lot. </div> It's hard to believe, but he is roughly 22. </div> What's hard to believe?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 23 2008, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 23 2008, 10:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 23 2008, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I turn 13 next week.</div> If you're serious, that explains a lot. </div> Because I said something you didn't like, you'd assume I'm a young'n? </div> no, its because you're stupid
I just have a tough time following a debate when there are posts that are about 10 paragraphs long that could be summed down to about 2 sentences. It's un-necessary.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jizzy @ May 24 2008, 05:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 23 2008, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 23 2008, 10:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 23 2008, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I turn 13 next week.</div> If you're serious, that explains a lot. </div> Because I said something you didn't like, you'd assume I'm a young'n? </div> no, its because you're stupid </div> Here is a perfect example of the types of personal attacks that aren't acceptable around here. KC, please don't respond to Jizzy's post. You don't need to waste your time going through all of Jizzy's posts and copying examples to prove the inanity of Jizzy's comment.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 24 2008, 05:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I just have a tough time following a debate when there are posts that are about 10 paragraphs long that could be summed down to about 2 sentences. It's un-necessary.</div> "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parceque je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte."
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 24 2008, 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I just have a tough time following a debate when there are posts that are about 10 paragraphs long that could be summed down to about 2 sentences. It's un-necessary.</div> If you could so easily "sum down to 2 sentences" everything I stated, first, feel free to do so so that I can list all the valuable amplification and nuance you missed. Second, if you could really sum up my arguments so succinctly, you clearly didn't have a "tough time following the debate," and your excuse for elbowing your way into the insult line is a naked fraud to justify your own hostility to another poster. Here's an option you didn't explore, which would have been preferable to the tact you chose: Don't follow the debate or read long posts! If it's so taxing, if the task of actually reading 3 or 4 (NOT 10) paragraphs in a post is too tough for you, stick to the threads or portions of threads that contain the 4-8 word nuggets of wisdom you seem to crave.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 24 2008, 06:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 24 2008, 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I just have a tough time following a debate when there are posts that are about 10 paragraphs long that could be summed down to about 2 sentences. It's un-necessary.</div> If you could so easily "sum down to 2 sentences" everything I stated, first, feel free to do so so that I can list all the valuable amplification and nuance you missed. Second, if you could really sum up my arguments so succinctly, you clearly didn't have a "tough time following the debate," and your excuse for elbowing your way into the insult line is a naked fraud to justify your own hostility to another poster. Here's an option you didn't explore, which would have been preferable to the tact you chose: Don't follow the debate or read long posts! If it's so taxing, if the task of actually reading 3 or 4 (NOT 10) paragraphs in a post is too tough for you, stick to the threads or portions of threads that contain the 4-8 word nuggets of wisdom you seem to crave. </div> Now I think you're just doing it on purpose.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 24 2008, 06:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 24 2008, 06:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 24 2008, 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I just have a tough time following a debate when there are posts that are about 10 paragraphs long that could be summed down to about 2 sentences. It's un-necessary.</div> If you could so easily "sum down to 2 sentences" everything I stated, first, feel free to do so so that I can list all the valuable amplification and nuance you missed. Second, if you could really sum up my arguments so succinctly, you clearly didn't have a "tough time following the debate," and your excuse for elbowing your way into the insult line is a naked fraud to justify your own hostility to another poster. Here's an option you didn't explore, which would have been preferable to the tact you chose: Don't follow the debate or read long posts! If it's so taxing, if the task of actually reading 3 or 4 (NOT 10) paragraphs in a post is too tough for you, stick to the threads or portions of threads that contain the 4-8 word nuggets of wisdom you seem to crave. </div> Now I think you're just doing it on purpose. </div> It seems like a reasonable request from him, can you do it?
