How is the opinion on Rashad McCants now?...

will · Post #61 » by **will** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:08 pm

He really needs to tone down on the fouling.

It's getting in the way of him staying on the court.

If he can stay on the court, he's productive.

horaceworthy · Post #62 » by **horaceworthy** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:37 pm

deeney0 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

No, this next draft is going to make or break the Wolves; I don't want the Wolves picking Beasley or Jordan because they think McCants is something he's not. Conversely, I don't want the Wolves picking Rose or Mayo and prematurely giving up on McCants. That's why the next 40 games are so important.

The next 40 games aren't that important for McCants, although it will help his case if he can be consistently good. The next 40 games are more important for Smith, Gomes, Telfair, and to some extent, Green.

The Wolves shouldn't be basing who they pick on McCants whatsoever. It should be the BPA, unless the line between a prospect at a position we need and a position we're thin at is incredibly small.

casey · Post #63 » by **casey** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:40 pm

big3_8_19_21 wrote:Obviously stating something as fact does not make it fact, but it is a vastly different level of confidence in or assertion of your statement than saying that it is your opinion that something is so. It's very, very simple and very rudimentary. Saying I THINK he will improve means I'm leaving open the possibility that he will not whereas saying he WILL improve means I cannot accept the possibility that he will not improve.

Yeah. And I didn't even say either one. I supposedly implied it in a statement that you just said was actually pretty accurate.

big3_8_19_21 wrote:To a certain extent, yes, you are correct. However those two things are not nearly as absolutely hand-in-hand correlated as you are making them out to be. You make it sound as though you MUST be a homer to think that he has a shot at fixing his flaws.

I think to have the level confidence that you do about the likelihood of him fixing those flaws that yes, you do have to be a homer. And considering that the people who have disagreed with me have said that part of their reasoning was because they are homers, I think I have a point there. Not that there's anything wrong with it, I have no problem with you thinking the way you do.