Camden wrote:I'm sure practically everyone that's been on this forum for a couple years knows that khans and I have a history of getting into heated debates here, but khans does tend to consistently have solid points -- right or wrong -- and plenty of supporting data to back himself up, which is completely respectable. He adds plenty of value to the overall direction of most topics and I feel confident that he knows the game of basketball as well as the overall landscape of the NBA.
Now, take all of what I just said and try to apply it to Jason and you will come up empty. Whether it's a half-assed rebuttal, a weirdly incorrect stance [like Eric Gordon not being a good 3P-shooter] or making up past opinions of the opposing poster in an attempt to gain SOME credibility, you never know what you're going to get with this guy. His activity here is as eradic his basketball takes. Not to mention the uncalled-for passive aggressive insults within the majority of his comments. I could do without another exchange with him and I'm confident that I'm not the only one here that feels that way.
Paint me as the bad guy and argue that I'm attacking someone. That's fine with me. I'll end with this, though. One of the two posters involved in that recent Eric Gordon debate had sound reasoning and a past of being right about some things, and the other person is Jason -- all over the place.
Ok. Let's pump the brakes here. Some guy accuses anyone who disagrees with him as "bitching". I go at him, tell him he 100% full of crap and nowhere near that important, and you chose to...back him up?
As far as I know, you and I are complete strangers. Therefore, there is NOTHING I could have done to make it so you would agree with someone who accuses you of "bitching". If there is, and I feel it's worthy of an apology, I will. Otherwise grow some pride.
"Otherwise grow some pride"
Jason these kinds of statements come across as insults.
Sorry. This whole thing set me off. It's more important to come at me than someone who says you're bitching? I don't get it.
I don't have the numbers in front of me...(ok that's a bad joke) but quite a few of your posts have stuff like I quoted. It can get under people's skin. I'm thinking you are partly trying to be funny. I'd say maybe keep the quirky humor directed more at players organizations situations other than fellow posters. If you feel someone is going at you say "hey man what's the deal I feel attacked" or whatever. That's advice we can all benefit from. I'm trying to be helpful. I think you have some amusing takes (in a good way).
I'm not mad at you. I think you're the best guy on this board (no offense to anyone else). But a statement like the one Khans made is throwing down the Gauntlet. And he didn't qualify it. So anyone whose ever disagreed with him (and if you haven't: WOW) needs to address that and not me. Because if that's a thing, we're all done here. We might as well start reading all the books we bought off of Amazon and haven't got around to yet.
You seem to be blowing the bitching comment way out of proportion as an assault on this board for having any disagreements with me. That's simply not the case and is a projection you are making as my intention when it just wasn't. Sorry you took it way further than it was intended, but I can't control that. I didn't blanket accuse the whole board of bitching. I specifically said it about the people who both ripped Thibs to shreds for two summers for not getting 3pt shooting and then who proceeded to declare the Gordon trade a disaster if made. That's a small group on this board, not the whole board as you seem to think.
Kahns - I've complained about Thibodeau not adding enough 3-point shooting to the roster. And I've also complained about being last in the NBA last season in 3-point attempts, which shouldn't happen even with the roster we had. But I still have no interest in acquiring Gordon in spite of his good (not great) record as a three-point shooter. That's because of his injury history, relatively poor defense, age and fairly hefty contract. It's certainly fair for you to disagree with anyone who shares my view, I hope you can see that it's over the top to suggest that no one who wants more 3-point shooting can reasonably hold that view and then refer to people with that view as "bitching."
I know there are some folks who have expressed many times their desire that the Wolves add an inside shot-blocking presence to our roster, but some of those same people oppose taking back Whiteside in a Butler deal. That's fine because there are reasons to not want Whiteside in spite of his shot-blocking prowess just as there are reasons to not want Gordon in spite of his three-point shooting. Your opinion that people who want more three point shooting on the team have no right to "bitch" about (translation: oppose) trading for Gordon was unnecessarily hostile in the way you presented it. And it doesn't make much sense either because it's based on the false premise that wanting more 3-point shooting necessarily means you want any player with a good three-point percentage without regard to other aspects of that player's game or fit for the team.
Camden wrote:I'm sure practically everyone that's been on this forum for a couple years knows that khans and I have a history of getting into heated debates here, but khans does tend to consistently have solid points -- right or wrong -- and plenty of supporting data to back himself up, which is completely respectable. He adds plenty of value to the overall direction of most topics and I feel confident that he knows the game of basketball as well as the overall landscape of the NBA.
Now, take all of what I just said and try to apply it to Jason and you will come up empty. Whether it's a half-assed rebuttal, a weirdly incorrect stance [like Eric Gordon not being a good 3P-shooter] or making up past opinions of the opposing poster in an attempt to gain SOME credibility, you never know what you're going to get with this guy. His activity here is as eradic his basketball takes. Not to mention the uncalled-for passive aggressive insults within the majority of his comments. I could do without another exchange with him and I'm confident that I'm not the only one here that feels that way.
Paint me as the bad guy and argue that I'm attacking someone. That's fine with me. I'll end with this, though. One of the two posters involved in that recent Eric Gordon debate had sound reasoning and a past of being right about some things, and the other person is Jason -- all over the place.
Ok. Let's pump the brakes here. Some guy accuses anyone who disagrees with him as "bitching". I go at him, tell him he 100% full of crap and nowhere near that important, and you chose to...back him up?
As far as I know, you and I are complete strangers. Therefore, there is NOTHING I could have done to make it so you would agree with someone who accuses you of "bitching". If there is, and I feel it's worthy of an apology, I will. Otherwise grow some pride.
"Otherwise grow some pride"
Jason these kinds of statements come across as insults.
Sorry. This whole thing set me off. It's more important to come at me than someone who says you're bitching? I don't get it.
I don't have the numbers in front of me...(ok that's a bad joke) but quite a few of your posts have stuff like I quoted. It can get under people's skin. I'm thinking you are partly trying to be funny. I'd say maybe keep the quirky humor directed more at players organizations situations other than fellow posters. If you feel someone is going at you say "hey man what's the deal I feel attacked" or whatever. That's advice we can all benefit from. I'm trying to be helpful. I think you have some amusing takes (in a good way).
I'm not mad at you. I think you're the best guy on this board (no offense to anyone else). But a statement like the one Khans made is throwing down the Gauntlet. And he didn't qualify it. So anyone whose ever disagreed with him (and if you haven't: WOW) needs to address that and not me. Because if that's a thing, we're all done here. We might as well start reading all the books we bought off of Amazon and haven't got around to yet.
You seem to be blowing the bitching comment way out of proportion as an assault on this board for having any disagreements with me. That's simply not the case and is a projection you are making as my intention when it just wasn't. Sorry you took it way further than it was intended, but I can't control that. I didn't blanket accuse the whole board of bitching. I specifically said it about the people who both ripped Thibs to shreds for two summers for not getting 3pt shooting and then who proceeded to declare the Gordon trade a disaster if made. That's a small group on this board, not the whole board as you seem to think.
Kahns - I've complained about Thibodeau not adding enough 3-point shooting to the roster. And I've also complained about being last in the NBA last season in 3-point attempts, which shouldn't happen even with the roster we had. But I still have no interest in acquiring Gordon in spite of his good (not great) record as a three-point shooter. That's because of his injury history, relatively poor defense, age and fairly hefty contract. It's certainly fair for you to disagree with anyone who shares my view, I hope you can see that it's over the top to suggest that no one who wants more 3-point shooting can reasonably hold that view and then refer to people with that view as "bitching."
I know there are some folks who have expressed many times their desire that the Wolves add an inside shot-blocking presence to our roster, but some of those same people oppose taking back Whiteside in a Butler deal. That's fine because there are reasons to not want Whiteside in spite of his shot-blocking prowess just as there are reasons to not want Gordon in spite of his three-point shooting. Your opinion that people who want more three point shooting on the team have no right to "bitch" about (translation: oppose) trading for Gordon was unnecessarily hostile in the way you presented it. And it doesn't make much sense either because it's based on the false premise that wanting more 3-point shooting necessarily means you want any player with a good three-point percentage without regard to other aspects of that player's game or fit for the team.
There's a difference between not wanting the trade and calling the trade a disaster.
Let's talk about fit for a second. Gordon made the 8th most 3's in the league last year. Outside of Wayne Elllington, the other 6 guys above him are all-stars who aren't getting traded. So he's not some run of the mill 3 pt shooter for the sake of adding shooting. He's a top 10 3 pt shooter in the entire league. He has deep range and stretches the floor significantly better than Jimmy to open up space for guys like Teague and Wiggins to get to the rim. You cite his age as a detriment. He's 30 and his best skill of shooting is not a skill that ages. He has two years on his deal (this one and next) at an extremely reasonable 14 million for a top 10 3 pt shooter in today's game. He has a good handle and has been running the second unit for the second best team in the league. You bring up his injury history, but we have a first round pick to develop in Okogie and a guy like Gordon gives us the perfect chance to develop Okogie to be his replacement after next year while still having a prayer at winning in the meantime when Gordon plays.
Gordon fits this team everywhere but defensively and he could help open the floodgates for us offensively. He's a top 10 3 pt shooter in the league. He has a short and very reasonable contract and an injury history that allows us to develop his replacement who's already on the team. Oh and he comes with a bunch of picks setting up even more for the future after he's long gone. Meanwhile Richardson only fits this team because of his contract and his defense which if it isn't Jimmy level isn't gonna make much of a difference for this defense anyway. Richardson doesn't fit this team and if you get him that's your middling team for the next 3 years.
Khans, If we are just comparing Richardson and Gordon without regards to the other parts of the deals, I take Richardson every time. He's younger, cheaper, and his 3-point shooting volume has taken a step up this year and he hits them at a similar clip to Gordon's career average. And he's the better defender. Now if you feel the rest of the Houston deal more than makes up for it, then fair enough. But I think Richardson is a tier above Gordon as an overall player.
Q12543 wrote:Khans, If we are just comparing Richardson and Gordon without regards to the other parts of the deals, I take Richardson every time. He's younger, cheaper, and his 3-point shooting volume has taken a step up this year and he hits them at a similar clip to Gordon's career average. And he's the better defender. Now if you feel the rest of the Houston deal more than makes up for it, then fair enough. But I think Richardson is a tier above Gordon as an overall player.
I think they both fit the team in different ways, but Gordon is coming with multiple first round picks and can be gone much sooner if it doesn't pan out while Richardson is coming with a bad deal whether it's Whiteside or someone else and is here for 3 more years after this one if it doesn't work out. The contracts are a wash. It's 4 million difference, but neither version of the team has cap space so that 4 million doesn't matter. Richardson is a good deal for multiple years and Gordon gets off our books quickly. They're both underpaid relative to the value they bring to a team so it's a wash for me.
Richardson is younger, but with that comes with being locked in with him longer. A young player like that doesn't do us any good of it doesn't push the needle very far next to Wiggins and Towns. Locking in young talent is always nice in theory, but it also can become an anchor on the team if it doesn't work out. If Richardson comes here and we're the 10 seed what is our way to improve from there? Conversely if Gordon is the same way he can be gone after next season and we'd have multiple picks to fall back on.
One is pretty much all in and locked into a team for several years after this one. The other is highly flexible and gives us a multiple tools/avenues to rebuild this franchise. At the end of the day is Josh Richardson the 3rd wheel to take this team to the playoffs? If you can confidently say that then I can buy that argument. If it's a maybe you're talking about a 3 year setback of it fails. That's a much tougher sell. I haven't really seen anyone confidently say Richardson is that guy. A lot of "could be's" isn't really a convincing argument. Is he 3 to 4 first round picks worth of play that actually helps this team make the playoffs or is he just another piece that needs another piece for us to get there?
Kahns - Your responses to me an Q are perfectly reasonable even though I disagree. Now you're making arguments and we're all free to disagree on things. That's part of what this board is about. Making an argument and disagreement is a far cry from telling fellow posters to "stop bitching" when you disagree with them. That's all I was saying. I'm with Q in preferring Richardson by a ton over Gordon. Factoring in the 4 picks would be the centerpiece of the Houston deal, which is why I wouldn't hate that deal. I'd just prefer getting Richardson and Adebayo along with Miam's 2019 pick. Gordon doesn't move the needle for me on the Houston deal.
Screw it just move Butler we don't need him. Take whatever you can get (i'll Even take all those Houston picks) play some other guys and let's get going. Sure it's irrational to some extent after the Utah game but we played well and had to play with C.J. Williams at PG and still won the game. Let's start building like we are a contender type team that can actually get something out of the lower assets.
