heat4life wrote:GreenHat wrote:a bunch of jiberish... and
You keep asking me to name a player but I am not arguing for/against the trade. I am arguing against your illogical position of the 2 yr 2.2 million deal hurting flexibility. I have literally debunked all of your specific flexibility claims while wading through all of your logical fallacies (strawmen and appeals to authority all over the place) and contradictions.
If you so desperately need the last word in something that you are so completely wrong about then keep it brief and I'll ignore it. If you attempt your circus of logical fallacies again I will debunk it again. The choice is up to you if you would like to prolong this argument. The only thing I ask is that you confine that resumption to my actual argument and stop making up positions for me.
Either way its pretty obvious that having a 2.2 mil/2 year contract on the books last year for whichever player the Heat determined to have the best chance of becoming a rotation player would not have hurt our flexibility in any meaningful way. Or that stashing a player in Europe would have been a logical and easily solvable solution if that tiny shred of flexibility, like absolutely needing Juwan Howard, was absolutely needed.
I am not even going to address most of the nonsense on your self-serving "biblical" post. What I will point out is your hypocrisy in attempting to categorize my discussion as me "desperately needing the last word" and "making positions" for you. Really? Read your "biblical" post again and focus on your use of words.
Yes you have created several positions for me. I pointed out several times where you did so. What positions are you saying that I created for you? If anything I am the one trying to limit the scope of the argument while you are trying to expand it to tangents that I am not even arguing.
And yeah I gave you the opportunity for a brief response to end it. That doesn't seem like someone desperately trying to to get the last word to me. If you offered me the same I would have made a short two sentence reply, instead of wading into more ****.
Not sure what you mean by "biblical" in this context. I am thorough because I want to address all of your points. I could take the intellectually lazy way out like you did and call it jibberish but that's not me. I debunk all of your jibberish piece by piece.
Finally, I conceded awhile back to certain points you made but you choose to ignore it and prefer not to recognize what the original question was - all the way on page 2! - from the original poster:
That's awesome. Except that wasn't what I was writing about. I quoted your post instead of his for a reason. I specifically limited the scope of my argument to your ludicrous flexibility comment. Which I reminded you of on several occasions. All I was talking about was the flexibility. Once you realized you were wrong on that front you kept dragging the argument into whether the trade was good or not, who we should have picked instead and the effect the contract would have even when it was a team option. Again let's revisit my original post:
We are way past the luxury tax line, there is no flexibility with a pick or not.
That's all I have been arguing this whole time while you try to spin it in a dozen different ways.
Original poster felt it was a mistake we didn't pick a player in the 2012 draft. I pointed out "flexibility" - in every sense, not just the part that you decided to hang your hat on - as the reason why I felt it was not a mistake. You feel it doesn't make a difference. I think it does for reasons I have covered extensively already.
I did not ignore any part of flexibility that you have brought up. I have addresses every facet of the word you have brought up including your ridiculous 2014 hypotheticals that don't even matter because the contract isn't guaranteed past then anyway.
I have gone through all of your reasons and explained why none of them are actual reasons.
We disagree in the effect level of the Heat's flexibility on every stand point discussed, I can handle that, obviously you can't. What I don't understand is why you refuse to give us the name of the 2012 draftee you feel was worth picking in the first round which was the original conversation. This is how this conversation started, no? Whatever. I am sure you will comeback with something since you have made clear what your true intentions are. As far as I am concerned, this discussion is done with on my end.
Feel free to feed your internet-ego now.
No this is not how the conversation between me and you started at all. That seems to be the confusion for you.
My name is not John Thomas.
The disagreement started with your flexibility comment that I quoted. Who we should have picked instead or if the trade was good or not is irrelevant to this post:
We are way past the luxury tax line, there is no flexibility with a pick or not.
You not being able to understand that basic fact or even where the conversation started between us (even though I quoted my initial post several times) explains completely why you keep trying to branch off into other areas once you were thoroughly proved wrong in the original arena.
Glad the discussion is done with on your end. If you can't even keep track of where the discussion started or what the scope of the argument is then its a discussion not worth having.
I guess we will see what is bigger, your desire to get the last word or your desire to prove me wrong on points I'm not making.
Your emotions fuel the narratives that you create. You see what you want to see. You believe what you want to believe. You ascribe meaning when it is not there. You create significance when it is not present.
