Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25
whatthe_buck!? wrote:ReddWing wrote:Come off it. You all know were drafting Dekker.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RealGM Forums mobile app
Lol. And somehow I wouldn't be upset if that happened considering Dekker as a basketball player is basically a perfect cross between Larry Bird and God himself.
bizarro wrote:whatthe_buck!? wrote:ReddWing wrote:Come off it. You all know were drafting Dekker.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RealGM Forums mobile app
Lol. And somehow I wouldn't be upset if that happened considering Dekker as a basketball player is basically a perfect cross between Larry Bird and God himself.
He was born and raised in Wisconsin, you know. He could pair well with Racine's first son, Caron Butler. Hell, he may even help us lure back our favorite boy, Jon Leuer. It has the makings of a blockbuster offseason. Jeebus, maybe, just maybe, we could even lure one of the Landry brothers. Drooling at the thought of it.
whatthe_buck!? wrote:Simply not true and u know it. Number one, advocating the acquisition of win now assets over playing the young guys and riding out the results is literally the opposite of advocating tanking (i.e. yes u have argued against the tank), and number two I have witnessed u explicitly questioning the value of high draft picks in building good teams, and that's honestly the number one symptom of extreme tank denial. It's deluded enough to believe that top draft position isn't the most important factor in getting the superstars necessary for championship contention, do u really want to now show your delusion now extends to trying to claim you never advocated anti-tank strategies this year or espoused the flawed reasoning for why tanking is a bad strategy??
skones wrote:whatthe_buck!? wrote:Simply not true and u know it. Number one, advocating the acquisition of win now assets over playing the young guys and riding out the results is literally the opposite of advocating tanking (i.e. yes u have argued against the tank), and number two I have witnessed u explicitly questioning the value of high draft picks in building good teams, and that's honestly the number one symptom of extreme tank denial. It's deluded enough to believe that top draft position isn't the most important factor in getting the superstars necessary for championship contention, do u really want to now show your delusion now extends to trying to claim you never advocated anti-tank strategies this year or espoused the flawed reasoning for why tanking is a bad strategy??
This is incredibly off base. You're removing all statements from context, which to be honest, doesn't surprise me seeing as how you called Ben Wallace a "washed up" free agent acquisition. Making statements like that to support your argument don't legitimize it. Whether the Wallace signing worked out for Chicago or not is besides the point. Same goes for Boozer. Both players were marquee free agents at the time of their signing. What that means, is that Chicago is able to lure top free agents from respective classes. In saying that Bosh and Wade also spurned Chicago, you remove the situation from context AGAIN. Miami was the only team that was able to accommodate all three players for a run at a championship.
Advocating the acquisition of Rondo for pennies on the dollar while the team positions itself to win ball games now is NOT advocating against the tank. It's simply looking at the alternative options that fall in line with what management tends to do. It's painfully obvious everyone on this board has been wanting a tanked season for some time. Whether that was to happen or not was a completely different question all together. In saying that I'm advocating "against the tank" and speaking out against it, is simply not true, and it's you putting words in my mouth.
Feel free to dig up ANY post where I said tanking was a bad idea, or said this team shouldn't tank. You'll be digging for a while because you simply won't find any of those statements.
whatthe_buck!? wrote:If u think Wallace and Boozer signing with the Bulls is evidence that Chicago has been able to attract superstars in FA then I don't know what to tell u, if that's ur claim then at this point its time to just step back and let other posters decide who they agree with because u will never get me to concede that point. It's just pure silliness and revisionist history. And considering Wallace didnt sign for the max, didnt get a competitive offer from Detroit to resign, and immediately went from DPOY the year before to being a player the Bulls were desperately looking to trade the one year later I think it's fair to say that they signed a washed up Ben Wallace (whether they knew it at the time they signed him or not).
In fact I would submit the reason they were able to sign Wallace at all is not because of Chicago's attraction as a free agent destination but instead because many GMs around the league recognized that Wallace was in steep decline as a player and they were one of a few -if not the only- team interested in adding him. It's easy to sign FAs when u have no real competition for signing them lol
skones wrote:whatthe_buck!? wrote:If u think Wallace and Boozer signing with the Bulls is evidence that Chicago has been able to attract superstars in FA then I don't know what to tell u, if that's ur claim then at this point its time to just step back and let other posters decide who they agree with because u will never get me to concede that point. It's just pure silliness and revisionist history. And considering Wallace didnt sign for the max, didnt get a competitive offer from Detroit to resign, and immediately went from DPOY the year before to being a player the Bulls were desperately looking to trade the one year later I think it's fair to say that they signed a washed up Ben Wallace (whether they knew it at the time they signed him or not).
In fact I would submit the reason they were able to sign Wallace at all is not because of Chicago's attraction as a free agent destination but instead because many GMs around the league recognized that Wallace was in steep decline as a player and they were one of a few -if not the only- team interested in adding him. It's easy to sign FAs when u have no real competition for signing them lol
And how many teams are truly able to attract these "superstar" free agents? How many superstars are there? Five? Less? How many "superstar" free agents have legitimately switched teams through free agency in recent history rather than trade? Howard, Lebron, Bosh (who was actually traded, not signed outright). Any others? Hell, a strong argument can be made that Bosh wasn't even a superstar. There are a few metrics that might suggest Boozer was a better player, or at the very least on the same plane as Bosh, during the 2009-2010 season than was Bosh. (TS%, eFG%, TRB% all favor Boozer)
You're also saying Los Angeles is that type of destination. While I don't disagree, the reasoning you've provided here depicts Los Angeles as having LESS appeal than does Chicago. You don't have to attract "superstars" to be a destination location. You have to be able to have the marquee guys in each free agency class be interested and Chicago has been in the discussion for many of those players.
Again, more hypocrisy in this post. You reason with revisionist history in one paragraph and then completely ignore it in the second in your discussions about Wallace and him being "washed up." You can keep mentioning the "lack of a competitive offer" for Wallace, but it was reported at the time that the Pistons offered a four year 48 or 49 million dollar deal (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/b ... lace_x.htm) to him. If that's not a sign of a team thinking he's washed up, I don't know what is. You also mention a steep decline. I'd love to see evidence of that given that he was 1st team all Defense, 2nd Team All NBA, an NBA All Star and DPOY in the season leading up to his free agency.
whatthe_buck!? wrote:skones wrote:whatthe_buck!? wrote:If u think Wallace and Boozer signing with the Bulls is evidence that Chicago has been able to attract superstars in FA then I don't know what to tell u, if that's ur claim then at this point its time to just step back and let other posters decide who they agree with because u will never get me to concede that point. It's just pure silliness and revisionist history. And considering Wallace didnt sign for the max, didnt get a competitive offer from Detroit to resign, and immediately went from DPOY the year before to being a player the Bulls were desperately looking to trade the one year later I think it's fair to say that they signed a washed up Ben Wallace (whether they knew it at the time they signed him or not).
In fact I would submit the reason they were able to sign Wallace at all is not because of Chicago's attraction as a free agent destination but instead because many GMs around the league recognized that Wallace was in steep decline as a player and they were one of a few -if not the only- team interested in adding him. It's easy to sign FAs when u have no real competition for signing them lol
And how many teams are truly able to attract these "superstar" free agents? How many superstars are there? Five? Less? How many "superstar" free agents have legitimately switched teams through free agency in recent history rather than trade? Howard, Lebron, Bosh (who was actually traded, not signed outright). Any others? Hell, a strong argument can be made that Bosh wasn't even a superstar. There are a few metrics that might suggest Boozer was a better player, or at the very least on the same plane as Bosh, during the 2009-2010 season than was Bosh. (TS%, eFG%, TRB% all favor Boozer)
You're also saying Los Angeles is that type of destination. While I don't disagree, the reasoning you've provided here depicts Los Angeles as having LESS appeal than does Chicago. You don't have to attract "superstars" to be a destination location. You have to be able to have the marquee guys in each free agency class be interested and Chicago has been in the discussion for many of those players.
Again, more hypocrisy in this post. You reason with revisionist history in one paragraph and then completely ignore it in the second in your discussions about Wallace and him being "washed up." You can keep mentioning the "lack of a competitive offer" for Wallace, but it was reported at the time that the Pistons offered a four year 48 or 49 million dollar deal (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/b ... lace_x.htm) to him. If that's not a sign of a team thinking he's washed up, I don't know what is. You also mention a steep decline. I'd love to see evidence of that given that he was 1st team all Defense, 2nd Team All NBA, an NBA All Star and DPOY in the season leading up to his free agency.
Wtf are u rambling on about?!? LA didnt attract Shaq in free agency?? At a time when he was arguably the second best player in the entire league? And as far as Wallace, it's besides the point we're discussing whether the correct term is 'washed up' or if its 'about to begin his steep decline as an impact player' (he wasn't a superstar at the time, and actually he never was throughout his entire career for that matter) but the fact is I can justify using that term because washed up is exactly what he turned out to be as soon as he stepped on the floor for the bulls (whether they knew he was at the time they signed him or not, obviously they didnt know that when they signed him).
CanadaBucks wrote:
skones wrote:whatthe_buck!? wrote:skones wrote:
And how many teams are truly able to attract these "superstar" free agents? How many superstars are there? Five? Less? How many "superstar" free agents have legitimately switched teams through free agency in recent history rather than trade? Howard, Lebron, Bosh (who was actually traded, not signed outright). Any others? Hell, a strong argument can be made that Bosh wasn't even a superstar. There are a few metrics that might suggest Boozer was a better player, or at the very least on the same plane as Bosh, during the 2009-2010 season than was Bosh. (TS%, eFG%, TRB% all favor Boozer)
You're also saying Los Angeles is that type of destination. While I don't disagree, the reasoning you've provided here depicts Los Angeles as having LESS appeal than does Chicago. You don't have to attract "superstars" to be a destination location. You have to be able to have the marquee guys in each free agency class be interested and Chicago has been in the discussion for many of those players.
Again, more hypocrisy in this post. You reason with revisionist history in one paragraph and then completely ignore it in the second in your discussions about Wallace and him being "washed up." You can keep mentioning the "lack of a competitive offer" for Wallace, but it was reported at the time that the Pistons offered a four year 48 or 49 million dollar deal (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/b ... lace_x.htm) to him. If that's not a sign of a team thinking he's washed up, I don't know what is. You also mention a steep decline. I'd love to see evidence of that given that he was 1st team all Defense, 2nd Team All NBA, an NBA All Star and DPOY in the season leading up to his free agency.
Wtf are u rambling on about?!? LA didnt attract Shaq in free agency?? At a time when he was arguably the second best player in the entire league? And as far as Wallace, it's besides the point we're discussing whether the correct term is 'washed up' or if its 'about to begin his steep decline as an impact player' (he wasn't a superstar at the time, and actually he never was throughout his entire career for that matter) but the fact is I can justify using that term because washed up is exactly what he turned out to be as soon as he stepped on the floor for the bulls (whether they knew he was at the time they signed him or not, obviously they didnt know that when they signed him).
What am I rambling on about? How about providing supporting evidence for my argument? What exactly are you doing to support yours? Oh, that's right, you're stating evidence from a free agency period with dramatically different salary cap rules 17 years ago. Do you REALLY think that this is a legitimate argument?
The point as far as Wallace is concerned, is that you keep making statements that aren't at all true, such as. "He was washed up," clearly not the case, "No competitive offer," also not the case, all the while stating revisionist history in some arguments while ignoring it in a major argument you're making about attracting a key free agent.
I'd also like to point out how you're ignoring true free agency moves by superstars. In making a point about Los Angeles, you had to reach back SEVENTEEN YEARS.
jr lucosa wrote:http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Micic-Distributing-for-Mega--4372
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWvOgG3mUBg#t=524[/youtube]
whatthe_buck!? wrote:It's also the literally the last time LA has had max FA cap space. And yeah I thought the Bulls signed him for 12 mil per and detroits offer was 10 mil per and in actuality it was 15 mil per and his offer from Detroit was 12 mil per but that matters not at all in the context of our discussion. Wallace had no other offer competitive to what the Bulls were offering and, just as importantly, his agent couldn't get him maxed out. Why? Because he wasnt -and and at no point in his career was he ever- a superstar caliber NBA player!!!!1!1! It's really that simple Skones! There is no better evidence in the world that Big Ben wasnt considered a franchise transforming superstar at the time the bulls signed him than how he was treated in free agency!!
skones wrote:whatthe_buck!? wrote:It's also the literally the last time LA has had max FA cap space. And yeah I thought the Bulls signed him for 12 mil per and detroits offer was 10 mil per and in actuality it was 15 mil per and his offer from Detroit was 12 mil per but that matters not at all in the context of our discussion. Wallace had no other offer competitive to what the Bulls were offering and, just as importantly, his agent couldn't get him maxed out. Why? Because he wasnt -and and at no point in his career was he ever- a superstar caliber NBA player!!!!1!1! It's really that simple Skones! There is no better evidence in the world that Big Ben wasnt considered a franchise transforming superstar at the time the bulls signed him than how he was treated in free agency!!
Your tunnel vision is impeding you from making a quality argument here. The point is not that he was or was not a superstar. The point is that he was a MARQUEE FREE AGENT. If you keep to continue to dispute that Boozer and Wallace were marquee free agents at the time of their acquisitions, you're just demonstrating your ignorance on the matter.
As I said, how many "superstars" actually switch teams via free agency. Lebron was the exception, not th rule, which you seem to be ignoring. In order to find another superstar, you had to reach back SEVENTEEN YEARS as already stated to strengthen your argument, a stretch of astronomical proportions when considering todays league and salary cap restrictions.
Chicago demonstrated the ability to attract a marquee free agent TWICE over the last 7 years in the modern era. That speaks volumes to Chicago being an actual destination for free agents, something which you continually refuse to admit.
Your initial use of Wiggins college preference and his suburban Toronto origins as a reason he would be comfortable here in Milwaukee is completely off base, as is your comparison of Chicago to Milwaukee and Toronto as a legitimate NBA market and free agent destination.
whatthe_buck!? wrote:I can't believe I have to spell this out for a purported fan of the NBA: it doesn't matter what label u want to put on Boozer or Wallace, it boils down to whether they chose Chicago because of the city itself or because Chicago made the highest monetary offer. That is why our discussion has to be limited to ACTUAL SUPERSTARS, the attractiveness of a city only factors in when monetary or team quality factors are held relatively equal.
With a true superstar, every team in the league would kill to sign them to a max contract, at that point the FA basically has the choice of whichever team he likes the best out of teams with the necessary cap space. Stop being obtuse.
LUKE23 wrote:I think players are happy if they are playing and winning. Market is overrated. OKC is not a desirable market at all. I wouldn't call Memphis one either. Free agency is based on talent more than anything else. You rarely see players in today's NBA choose a market solely for night life or climate. It's based on what talent is already there, or will be going there. If Milwaukee landed Wiggins this draft and then won high 40's next year, they would have no issue attracting FA's.
LUKE23 wrote:I think players are happy if they are playing and winning. Market is overrated. OKC is not a desirable market at all. I wouldn't call Memphis one either. Free agency is based on talent more than anything else. You rarely see players in today's NBA choose a market solely for night life or climate. It's based on what talent is already there, or will be going there. If Milwaukee landed Wiggins this draft and then won high 40's next year, they would have no issue attracting FA's.
skones wrote:whatthe_buck!? wrote:I can't believe I have to spell this out for a purported fan of the NBA: it doesn't matter what label u want to put on Boozer or Wallace, it boils down to whether they chose Chicago because of the city itself or because Chicago made the highest monetary offer. That is why our discussion has to be limited to ACTUAL SUPERSTARS, the attractiveness of a city only factors in when monetary or team quality factors are held relatively equal.
With a true superstar, every team in the league would kill to sign them to a max contract, at that point the FA basically has the choice of whichever team he likes the best out of teams with the necessary cap space. Stop being obtuse.
No player chooses a city based on the city itself. It comes down to money, the team, and then market size/location. Period. This means that Chicago is a top 5 free agent destination in the league if they pony up the money. That's why comparing Chicago to Milwaukee because they are similar in climate is absolutely ridiculous. Do you honestly think New York is a big time player in the free agency market because of their climate? Market size and potential exposure for an athlete are major factors if that city has pieces in place for a run. If you put all the players in a pool, and gave each team the same amount of money for one player. Chicago would be a top 5 destination throughout the league.
In other news, I'm done with this argument. You aren't able to come up with any legitimate sticking points because you're looking at everything in a vacuum and ignoring dozens of others factors in play for specific situations. Your argument keeps changing when legitimate points are thrown at you. First Wiggins would be comfortable in Milwaukee because he's from Toronto and we have similar climates. Then Chicago isn't a free agent destination. Then Ben Wallace is washed up and everyone knew it and Boozer was not a big deal. Now we must limit our argument to superstars because that is what truly makes an NBA team a free agent destination (hint: it does not). And now players choose the team based on city and city alone, because LA and Miami are pretty neat. You just keep snowballing.
LUKE23 wrote:I think players are happy if they are playing and winning. Market is overrated. OKC is not a desirable market at all. I wouldn't call Memphis one either. Free agency is based on talent more than anything else. You rarely see players in today's NBA choose a market solely for night life or climate. It's based on what talent is already there, or will be going there. If Milwaukee landed Wiggins this draft and then won high 40's next year, they would have no issue attracting FA's.
