Sessions Update:Ramon signs T-Wolves OS (page 310 update)

GHOSTofSIKMA · Post #4221 » by **GHOSTofSIKMA** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:16 am

LUKE23 wrote:
50-55 wins is what.

Wow.

i know. exciting isnt it!!

Post #4222 » by **MickeyDavis** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:17 am

I'd be satisfied with 55 wins.

trwi7 · Post #4223 » by **trwi7** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:18 am

If the Bucks win 50 games, I'll get a Brazilian Wax and a tattoo professing my love for penis.

GHOSTofSIKMA · Post #4224 » by **GHOSTofSIKMA** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:26 am

trwi7 wrote:If the Bucks win 50 games, I'll get a Brazilian Wax and a tattoo professing my love for penis.

the comment was meant to refer to a 2-3 year plan people. i certainly do not think we are set up for that this year...lol
i think .500 would be a nice goal, and the ceiling of this team.

thomchatt3rton · Post #4225 » by **thomchatt3rton** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:46 am

trwi7 wrote:If the Bucks win 50 games, I'll get a Brazilian Wax and a tattoo professing my love for penis.

what happens if they win 49? will you be devastated? :wink:

trwi7 · Post #4226 » by **trwi7** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:52 am

thomchatt3rton wrote:
trwi7 wrote:If the Bucks win 50 games, I'll get a Brazilian Wax and a tattoo professing my love for penis.

what happens if they win 49? will you be devastated?

49 games is just the tattoo.

thomchatt3rton · Post #4227 » by **thomchatt3rton** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:00 am

trwi7 wrote:
thomchatt3rton wrote:
trwi7 wrote:If the Bucks win 50 games, I'll get a Brazilian Wax and a tattoo professing my love for penis.

what happens if they win 49? will you be devastated?

49 games is just the tattoo.

good to see you clearly know which aspect of the two is your priority.

Baddy Chuck · Post #4228 » by **Baddy Chuck** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:01 am

trwi7 wrote:If the Bucks win 50 games, I'll get a Brazilian Wax and a tattoo professing my love for penis.

I think 50 wins is more realistic then two Warrick, Ersan, Delfino, LRMAM, Delfino and Ukic becoming borderline all stars.

MilBucksBackOnTop06 · Post #4229 » by **MilBucksBackOnTop06** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 7:12 am

GHOSTofSIKMA wrote:
trwi7 wrote:If the Bucks win 50 games, I'll get a Brazilian Wax and a tattoo professing my love for penis.

the comment was meant to refer to a 2-3 year plan people. i certainly do not think we are set up for that this year...lol
i think .500 would be a nice goal, and the ceiling of this team.

This team is not done...I am telling you, our team is one or two great trades away from undoubtedly being a playoff contender this year, depending on what it is and who is involved, and still retooling for the future. In the right deal, we can have it both ways...because we drafted well. That sets it all up regardless to who we lost (Villanueva, Jefferson and Sessions) or might lose.

There are a lot of 'they are who they are' complemtary role players in place in which to sandwhich legit stars around now, who can shoulder a load...Redd cannot. He is a specialist. A gunner. That is it...like I've said for 5 years now. Even the Olympic team knows that...he was there to shoot. That's it! He is not a Playmaker but a shotmaker...and there is nothing wrong with that on the right team.

The proposed deal for Rudy Gay (and my added twist of Zach Randolph) would make us an instant threat IMHO...especially if you can manage to pull that off without having to give up Bogut which I highly doubt.

But Hammond has to pull one or two more specifically targeted deals out of his hat in addition to the great additions he has made thus far this Summer.

Not one acquistion this off season was bad in my opinion...not one. Surely Hammond and his staff have turned it around in my eyes, but it remains to be seen what they put into it and what Skiles can get out of them...but that is the easy part.

Skiles is proven...Hammond was not. But he has done well. Now move Sessions in a sign and trade if he can, and if it is up to me package him with Redd and Thomas and bring in Gay and Zach from Memphis if they sign Iverson, and lets go!

Dobber-16 · Post #4230 » by **Dobber-16** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:22 am

trwi7 wrote:If the Bucks win 50 games, I'll get a Brazilian Wax and a tattoo professing my love for penis.

New sig anyone? I'm bookmarking this quote, :eek1:

thomchatt3rton · Post #4231 » by **thomchatt3rton** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:58 am

The proposed deal for Rudy Gay (and my added twist of Zach Randolph) would make us an instant threat IMHO...especially if you can manage to pull that off without having to give up Bogut which I highly doubt.

that deal would make us perhaps a perennial 7 or 8 seed and perennial first-round exits. look at teams like 2004 pistons or any number of teams the spurs won with- were any of them stocked with rudy gay/z randolph types? no, is the answer to that rhetorical question. best we could hope for with that kind of team would be the superficial success of early-round playoff exits. no. i want to build a 2004 detroit pistons type of team, not a george karl, big three era team.

Sigra · Post #4232 » by **Sigra** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 12:55 pm

UoI19 wrote:I know even you don't believe that. A career 13-9 guy is not the 16th best player in the league.

I didn't say 16th best. I said 16th most important. The diference is because of position off course but also because of importance of defense. There are players with more basketball skills (Ben Gordon for example) but they are not as important as Bogut because of position and because of overall impact to the team. As I said at Cavs forum:

When we talk about Bogut then numbers are not most important thing. It is like when we talk about Anderson Varejao. You would all agree that AV is better than what his numbers show wouldn't you? How many of you would prefer Zach Randolph over AV even though Randolph has much better numbers?

When you think about that Bogut is like HUGE Varejao + passing like PG + hook shoot. Andrew is elite defender and elite rebounder. With him the Bucks were elite defanisive team and elite rebounding team. He draw charges, he moves his feets, he is always on the driver's road and he is huge so it is big obstacle for anyone. He is also great one on one defender. His rebounding numbers are great but he box out much more and is responsible for huge majority of our rebounds even when he is not the one who get rebound. He is extreamly inteligent and huge asset when with ball at high post (passing). He doesn't always get credit with assist but many times he is the one who start ball movement and foce oponents to adjust. He has great hands and will catch anything thrown at his direction. He can finish inside with best of them. And now he is double teamed against 90% of NBA teams.

When healthy Bogut is franchise player because of his defense and rebounding. With him alone and with coach like Skiles your team is elite defansive and rebounding team by defult. In terms of pure impact to basketball team there are only 15 players that I would take before Bogut (LeBron, Kobe, Howard, Paul, Wade, Garnett, Duncan, D.Williams, Dirk, Pierce, Parker, Carmelo, Billups, Roy, Gasol.). Don't get me wrong. I don't say that Bogut is 16th best player in NBA. I say he is 16th most important because of his position, his size and his efect to 50% of basketball game (defense) while also being solid at other 50% (offense). In that regard, if all NBA teams cancel their contracts with players and we have draft where teams pick from pool of entire player's base I would take Bogut with 16th pick.

But if you disagree with me then post name of one player that you think is more valuable to basketball game then Bogut (player who is not in my list of players above) and I will tell you why I think he is not as important as Bogut. Then we can discuss

Chapter29 · Post #4233 » by **Chapter29** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:01 pm

I believe that Hammond attempted to select BPA when he selected Jennings for a couple of reasons.

1. He seemed to be the BPA from my eyes. Certainly no expert but my read of the situation is we selected probably the highest risk highest reward player. Thus his ceiling could be fairly high.

2. PG was one of our strongest positions with Sessions, Ridnour and Bell. Certainly stronger than our F positions.

I am of the opinion that you try and maximize your chances at selecting a very good - star player in these lotto picks. Individual talent wins in the NBA. Could care less what position is of need. The lottery is a bit a crap shoot, so try and find the best talent and select him and hope for the best. If he pans out and is better than a secured starter ahead of him, that's a good situation to be in as your picks are actually producing.

I do think though that the later you pick the less important this becomes as somewhere the talent is evaluated very similarly. In this last draft that was earlier then normal, though we felt that Jennings slipped. Hopefully we got lucky and the teams ahead of us blundered by not selecting him.

Nebula1 · Post #4234 » by **Nebula1** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:29 pm

Sessions Rules!

Sigra · Post #4235 » by **Sigra** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:32 pm

Nebula1 wrote:Sessions Rules!

Baruh de Spinoza disagree

Nebula1 · Post #4236 » by **Nebula1** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:37 pm

Sigra wrote:
Nebula1 wrote:Sessions Rules!

Baruh de Spinoza disagree

Not a chance. Spinoza was as humble a lens grinder as there was. Humility is something Ramon has. Mr. Spinoza likes Sessions over Jennings every day. But likes them even better together.

For real though, read any Hegel yet? He's my 6th man. Very interesting stuff and falls in with Taoism pretty nicely.

Sigra · Post #4237 » by **Sigra** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:58 pm

Nebula1 wrote:
Sigra wrote:
Nebula1 wrote:Sessions Rules!

Baruh de Spinoza disagree

Not a chance. Spinoza was as humble a lens grinder as there was. Humility is something Ramon has. Mr. Spinoza likes Sessions over Jennings every day. But likes them even better together.

Humility? He would already be signed if that is true. But he wants more than anybody is ready to offer. Humility? Yeah right. Maybe at surface I guess. Face can fool. Spinoza turned down rewards and honors throughout his life. Ramon wants reward more than anybody is ready to offer. It's like day and night.

What you show in all Ramon related discussions Spinoza would call "passive emotion". As you know, Spinoza teached about active and passive emotions, the former being those that are rationally understood and the latter those that are not. Unlike you, Hammond has active emotion about Ramon and rationally recognize all of his shortcamings.

If you are determinist like Spinoza was then you will accept that Ramon is not with Bucks anymore and you will move on.

aboveAverage · Post #4238 » by **aboveAverage** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:56 pm

For those who want to pretend to know about Spinoza, here's the wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza

Notice that "humble lens grinder" and "turning down rewards in life" appears in the first paragraph. You guys could have at least copied something from deeper in the article.

Nebula1 · Post #4239 » by **Nebula1** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:09 am

How do you know Ramon wants more than anybody wants to offer? I missed that wiretap. Or are you just assuming to know what it happening with the negotiation?

Nebula1 · Post #4240 » by **Nebula1** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:12 am

aboveAverage wrote:For those who want to pretend to know about Spinoza, here's the wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza

Notice that "humble lens grinder" and "turning down rewards in life" appears in the first paragraph. You guys could have at least copied something from deeper in the article.

My undergrad was in Philosophy and my Masters work was in Theology. I'm past Wikipedia.

I've had conversations with Steven Nadler, but didn't get to study under him, however.

But even I don't think Ramon's contract negotiations warrant a deep contextual cross-study with Spinoza's determinations.

Plus I want to talk Hegel now. :wink: