Thank the Lord Otis traded Ariza!

[TheGlyde]

lol, maginno i'll give you some credit, you and richboy would make good roaches, any time someone thinks they have you, you scuttle out from under the fridge for another go around.

But, I've said my piece and won't be altering my view, you've said yours and won;t be altering it, you'll argue that my view is illogical and therefore you win, and I'll disagree...

I don't see a point in continuing to repeat ourselves back and forth. Anyone else still reading the thread can decide for themselves what they think is logical.

[maginno]

lol, maginno i'll give you some credit, you and richboy would make good roaches, any time someone thinks they have you, you scuttle out from under the fridge for another go around.

Glyde do you really think you can offend me by comparing me to a roach? Thats kids stuff. I actually love that you guys recently are exposing yourself for what you are really about. and I'm glad that lurkers can see what name calling you will reduce yourselves to . I love it more when your comrades come rushing in after statements like that to defend you or even remain silent because frankly it exposes them too.

Please continue. I mean it. It becomes more obvious with each statement like that that all you and yours really care about is who agrees with you and who doesn't not what is proper behaviour or respectful on these boards. For my money I'd just as well you keep calling me all kinds of names.

Even when provoked you'll never see me comparing people to roaches. Its beneath me. What proves your irrationality is that you sat down and wrote that not realizing that its childish. I could hardly illustrate it better myself. I think this is even better than ORl's post which was backed up by a number of your friends when he said

For what it's worth, I'll put down whomever I feel like putting down at any time if I feel like that poster merits being put down

As far as what merits being slammed, I'll keep my own criteria for me for the time being.

Keep it up. You guys are doing a fine job proving me right

[TheGlyde]

Well there you go joining the dots without all the info, you jump to the conclusion that the roach comparison was a 'kiddie insult' when I wasn't comparing you in the sense of being a slimey insect, I didn't realise I would have to spell it out, I did after all think you could read. "You scuttle out from under the fridge for another go" I was comparing the traits of persistence, determination and perserverence, sure a roach can irk you at times but their presence keeps you from getting complacent.

I enjoy a good debate on the board, and without guys like you and richboy it would get pretty boring fast, I can just recognise we're at a dead end on this issue, so if anything, it was a compliment, but since you are so much morally higher than myself I guess it was far too much beneath you for you to get the meaning.

[maginno]

I enjoy a good debate on the board, and without guys like you and richboy it would get pretty boring fast, I can just recognise we're at a dead end on this issue, so if anything, it was a compliment,

of coure Glyde saying I would make a good roach was a compliment. uh -huh. add obvious dishonesty to your character traits. No one in their rational minds would think that them making a good roach was meant as a compliment and it most certainly wasn't. you are just out and out lying. You didn't think for a moment I would be complimented by it. We both know it and so does everyone reading this whether they choose to join you in the lie or not.

Like i said. Keep it up. You ARE doing a fine job. NO dots required. Its all there and you don't need an Xray or a doctors report you don't have in order to read it.

[BassMaster]

-= original quote snipped =-



of coure Glyde saying I would make a good roach was a compliment. uh -huh. add obvious dishonesty to your character traits. No one in their rational minds would think that them making a good roach was meant as a compliment and it most certainly wasn't. you are just out and out lying. You didn't think for a moment I would be complimented by it. We both know it and so does everyone reading this whether they choose to join you in the lie or not.

Like i said. Keep it up. You ARE doing a fine job. NO dots required. Its all there and you don't need an Xray or a doctors report you don't have in order to read it.

maginno are you the King BS artist here that is my take on your posts.
BTW Ariza is now said to have structural problems with both of his feet that lead to constant injuries I found that at several sources HoopsWorld and HoopsHype all mentioning that Ariza was not the bargain that the Lakers thought that they were getting.
So yes it does look that Otis did a very smart move in trading Ariza for Evans and Cook who are both getting good minutes on the team compared to Ariza sitting in street clothes not helping the Lakers at all.
Now I see why TheGlyde loves to push your buttons you just make it so easy to do with the BS you post.
Just my take on reading too many of your posts. After reading several this is what I thought would feel better

[Shishnizzle]

I agree. I just love busting the guy's chops because he just keeps defending his position. For the record I never called you any names. I said you were the loser in this argument and that you are wrong because I think that is your main problem. You have a problem with admiting you could be wrong. Just give a post stating that as of right now it looks like a good trade for the Magic but time will ultimately tell, and you would gain alot more respect. I will state that there is really no way to prove it without the passage of time but I was never a fan of Trevor and I all way's felt this board over rated the guy. As a Magic player I could see the potential and hoped he would eventually get there, and I hope he can come back and play agian some day.

[MagicFan32]

-= original quote snipped =-



And who is? I agreed with Craig that at this point no side can make the claim that its proven one way or another. otis screwup hardly depend on that issue though

At this point any claim that Otis screwed up, is flatout looney. We got a starter out of the trade. You don't have to say the magic 'won' the trade, but it's worked out well. I like Trevor as much as anyone but he would not be helping us by being on IR.

[aleZ]

I'm late to the party again, but Maginno is really looking like a fool with all this Otis hatin', I don't like our GM one bit but we must be blind to say it hasn't helped us more than LA. No offense mag, but to me you're just starting crap for the sake of being at center stage.

Time to whip up an avatar and signature, buddy

[maginno]

I'm late to the party again, but Maginno is really looking like a fool with all this Otis hatin', I don't like our GM one bit but we must be blind to say it hasn't helped us more than LA. No offense mag, but to me you're just starting crap for the sake of being at center stage.

Time to whip up an avatar and signature, buddy

AleZ you usually exhibit little more sense than the kiddies but my point in this thread is clear to anyone that has a standard IQ. No one can claim that anyone won a trade because a player is temporarily injured. It is the central theme of this thread and no matter what you claim its an illogical premise. Logic is not up for a vote. If youattach yourself to it then you are being Illogical.

I've already agreed with Craig that either way no one can draw a conclusion form the trade pro or con. Otis? I have far better subject matter to make my case there.


Oh an Alez. this will be condescending to you and others I am sure but given the arguments that some of you make trust me I never ever worry about looking like a fool in your eyes. I mean how could I? this is the crowd that says that a player being temporarily injured proves you won a trade. I'd be worried if you thought i was smart.

What do you think insane people's opinion of sane people is - that sane people are smart?

[maginno]

BTW Ariza is now said to have structural problems with both of his feet that lead to constant injuries I found that at several sources HoopsWorld and HoopsHype all mentioning that Ariza was not the bargain that the Lakers thought that they were getting.

Already covered. Try and keep up. Glyde tried floating hoopshype and it was shown to depend on another article that spells out that "whispers out of Orlando" is the only source so far. you got more then post the links. Surely you know how to do that. well....

Now I see why TheGlyde loves to push your buttons you just make it so easy to do with the BS you post.

Judging by the very emotional responses whose touching whose buttons again? ops

BigCityCat

I will state that there is really no way to prove it without the passage of time

Excellent. You have finally stumbled upon the rationality of my main argument and objection to the premise of this thread. despite your claims to the contrary my time here helping to clean out young minds is of value to you even if you won't admit it. I also promise I will work on my dance moves.

:

[mhectorgato]

gato no one needs run away from any point you ever make. all your "slices" have been answered.

A) the point of contention in this thread isn't even whether or not Evans is a good player for the Magic. Its in who won the trade because Ariza is injured. Read the thread and stop wasting my time.win implied several times in this thread is who got the better value. When Ariza was healthy they were getting plenty

I'm sorry that you're hanging off my every word ....

I understand the point of the thread. But you said:

There is no such thing as winning a trade short term unless that team gets a championship ring.

And that's what you and I have been discussing. Of course you've continued to try to defend the indefensible.

B) You've said several times that short term its a win situation. I have said multiple times that you do not evaluate a trade based on a few months term. Trading is one of the ways you build a team toward building a championship team so you look at it from a longer term than a few months. If you cannot get the pure logic of that I cannot help you.

Well if you say that's the only way ... well then that must be it, because you can never be wrong.

Sorry. Not buying it remotely.

If you think it's better to have a player who's going to leave at season's end and was getting inconsistent playing time is better than having an extra starter and F who is a rotation player then you must not know what logic is, as you keep saying that I don't get the logic.

Your point about two people in the rotation is a function of trying to look at the short term because even you admit they might not be in less than a year

Well I've said it's too early for long term discussions. That's why you and I have been going back (except that you keep evading the crux of the matter) about the short term ... please try to follow along.

plus its also based on the fact that we are alot weaker at the positions they play than the Lakers are. of course if you move scrubs to a weaker team (we'd get our rear ends kicked pretty good in the West) they have a better chance at being in the rotation.

If Evans is a step - no matter how small of a step up - then it's an improvement.

It's like asking which is more $1 or $2 and saying that $2 isn't much more. But in reality you have more.

How can we foresee the possibility of Evans becoming uncemented as a starter? easy. its not a position he's held very long.
You want to make the illogical argument that a player thats been a starter for a relative short term CANNOT revert his play to be a backup again ? Go for it. I have no idea whether he will be but it wouldn't be surprising either way given the short record.

31 games in a row with no negative words from his coach indicates that he's cemented in.

This can be seen by the starting rotation that SVG uses at the spot next to him. Had he started, came off the bench, and then started, then you would have had a point.

Even if he wasn't cemented in, then it's 2 rotation players for 1 non-rotation player.

That's the simple logic behind why we improved our team in the short term - which is what the discussion was started by you saying:

There is no such thing as winning a trade short term unless that team gets a championship ring.

Back to the thread:

and sorry you don't get the sign off on what is or is not a part of my position. As long as you are debating me my position will be a part of what the discussion is. You will just have to learn to live with that or debate someone else.

So your position is based not on logic. I can live with that.

I've always felt that getting a real PF should have been a priority and that trading for players should always be evaluated based on need. So I am perfectly within my rights to point out that a better trade could have been made if you trade both JJ and ariza. You don't get the common sense so you don't even see how getting Evans and keeping him has alot to do with what happens with JJ and lends to the rationale that he should have been packaged and traded if you were even going to consider bringing yet another guard to bury him on the bench. again if you can't see how that relates to the kind of trade you do I can't help you but sorry it WILL be and IS a part of any discussion you have with me.

That has no bearing on whether we made more a lateral move or not in the short term. That's a completely separate discussion.

Well we're back and forth with me offering logical proofs based on facts and your essentially saying "I don't need to offer proofs, just my opinion".

Say goodnight Hector. "Good night Hector".

*probably only Craig01 will get that ... *

[maginno]

I'm sorry that you're hanging off my every word ....

Its "hanging on my every word". IF there is a typo you were copying from then my apologies and fix it accordingly. Wouldn't want you using my expressions as you have come to be doing often (imitation they say is the greatest form of flattery) incorrectly

That has no bearing on whether we made more a lateral move or not in the short term. That's a completely separate discussion.

Not at all. IF you made a trade that only marginally helped your team when you could have made a trade that made more sense and filled a more pressing need with better players you certainly can't say that you won any trade. You lost because you didn't make the right move. Pretend not to get that point. Its what gets you through. Not saying you couldn't argue that such a trade wouldn't have happened or that it would but it IS a part of the discussion. Again if you don't like that. choose someone else to debate. You will never be able to censor out a viewpoint me until you can show it doesn't logically fit.

Well we're back and forth with me offering logical proofs based on facts

Of course Gato. Of course.

Of course you've continued to try to defend the indefensible.

Wow. You really are borrowing my expressions heavily for someone not hanging on my every word. perhaps it wouldn't hang with you much if you hadn't defended the indefensible. Are you still saying the ORL is right and I have the right to put down anyone I wish? WHy argue with me then?

If you think it's better to have a player who's going to leave at season's end and was getting inconsistent playing time is better than having an extra starter and F who is a rotation player then you must not know what logic is, as you keep saying that I don't get the logic.

Well last time I checked Evans can walk as well. Just plain left that out eh? logical to do so? and no we had no idea whether Ariza would have left. For all we know if Evans even shows a little better he might get an offer he won't refuse from somewhere else. CLEARLY Otis stated Ariza wanted to keep him even after doctors had looked at the foot last year - a fact stated several times for which you have NO answer.

Besides once again you are merely veering off point. If your point is you got two bodies one of which doesn't give you anything you really need out of a PF (so much so you still think you have the same need you had before at PF) instead of One body then I guess you can claim two is better than one. Unfortunately thats not how things work in the NBA. Its not how many players you got back. and if your team is weaker than the team the players left its not an automatic win that their being a part of the rotation has any bearing on who won.

The premise of this thread again is that someone won the trade. Not even that it was mutually beneficial. So if you are going to make those ridiculous claims based on injury then you have to look at what the "loser" got out of it. All you are doing is saying - it suits us for the short term (which trades are never judged without an immediate championship on no matter how you protest) without looking at what LA got. Lets say that Ariza returns and is an instrument in getting them a championship this year or next. If we don't have a championship what idiot would say we won the trade? This trade would if Ariza is an integral part of that push delivered them the ultimate prize of every NBA team. Get it?

Then its premature. Premise of thread destroyed. Can you float the same theory about Cook or Evans actually getting us a championship? Of course. has either happened? Is this trade even a year old? Even 6 months? NO? Premature then

IS IT SO HARD TO SEE COMMON SENSE LOGIC????? Or is just that you can't bare to agree with Maginno? hmmmmm I think I hit upon the truth of the matter there.

Even Craig who doesn't agree with me for the fun of it made a statement that I entirely agree with. NO one can make any pronouncements on either side about this trade yet. end of story.

Now could Ariza really have a problem? You bet. But theres a reason we don't convict people based on what could be and connecting incomplete dots. Its because half the time we will be right and half we would be wrong (doesn't break down neatly like that but just saying). In either scenario we would be always wrong for not starting and ending on the evidence we have before draing conclusions. Again if you can't see that then you and others will just have to take the illogical characterization. Its
not up for a vote. Logic is logic and its obvious here.

[damo[23]]

This thread is going way off topic, and just getting plain petty and childish now.

Correcting expressions that you know full well what they mean? Think on. I dont want to see any more examples of this, and it goes for everyone; before people think I am picking on 1 poster. This is petty, its completely irrelevant to the thread and just serves to aggrivate other posters, to which I can only think is intentional.

Argue amongst yourselves by all means, but keep it productive.

[maginno]

This thread is going way off topic, and just getting plain petty and childish now.

Correcting expressions that you know full well what they mean? Think on.

that happens quite a bit in many threads so I welcome the direction to all participants however I have to say- If thats a violation that needs correcting I have to wonder what the official stand is on comparing people to cockroaches. I don't think that one of the things anyone should have any problems knowing what it means right?

I can hardly think of anything more childish in this thread and yet I haven't seen a moderator object to it. Maybe just an oversight. Its a long thread so perfectly understandable if it was missed. If it wasn't missed by all mods then thats sad

[mhectorgato]

Not at all. IF you made a trade that only marginally helped your team when you could have made a trade that made more sense and filled a more pressing need with better players you certainly can't say that you won any trade. You lost because you didn't make the right move. Pretend not to get that point. Its what gets you through. Not saying you couldn't argue that such a trade wouldn't have happened or that it would but it IS a part of the discussion. Again if you don't like that. choose someone else to debate. You will never be able to censor out a viewpoint me until you can show it doesn't logically fit.

I'm not trying to censor you, just trying to keep you on point.

Well we're back and forth with me offering logical proofs based on facts

Of course Gato. Of course.

Glad we've reached some common ground.

Wow. You really are borrowing my expressions heavily for someone not hanging on my every word. perhaps it wouldn't hang with you much if you hadn't defended the indefensible. Are you still saying the ORL is right and I have the right to put down anyone I wish? WHy argue with me then?

Do you have ADD that you're changing the topic so often?

Well last time I checked Evans can walk as well. Just plain left that out eh? logical to do so? and no we had no idea whether Ariza would have left. For all we know if Evans even shows a little better he might get an offer he won't refuse from somewhere else.

Please stay on topic, we're talking short term here and if the trade helped the team in the short term.

Ariza can also walk from the Lakers. Ariza can test the FA waters as well.

CLEARLY Otis stated Ariza wanted to keep him even after doctors had looked at the foot last year - a fact stated several times for which you have NO answer.

Please, try to stay on topic. I'm not providing an "answer" because his injury is not why I think we improved the team, and didn't make a lateral move, in the short term.

Besides once again you are merely veering off point. If your point is you got two bodies one of which doesn't give you anything

That one you say doesn't give "anything", is giving more than Ariza did.

That right there shows that we didn't make a lateral move, and improved the team in the short term.

quote="maginno"]you really need out of a PF (so much so you still think you have the same need you had before at PF) instead of One body [/quote]

Again, off topic. We're not discussing whether we brought Cook to be a typical PF or not, or if we should have made a different move to sure up the PF spot.

then I guess you can claim two is better than one.

It's not just 2 are better than one.

Obviously if we traded Howard for Cook and Evans, then I wouldn't be making this statement. Because of the production of Howard >> Evans + Cook.

You know for such a proponent of reading comprehension, I am amazed that you missed the word "production" so many times.

How about this way:

M = The Magic roster this season, not including Ariza, Cook and Evans.
E = Production from Evans
C = Production from Cook
A = Production from Ariza

M + (B +C) > M + A

Unfortunately thats not how things work in the NBA. Its not how many players you got back.

That's why I've repeatedly said the "production" from the 2 is better than production from 1 sporadically used player we traded.

and if your team is weaker than the team the players left.

Again, do you think the team would be better by keeping a sporadically used Ariza than it's now?

And please stay on topic and don't bring up who else we could have traded Ariza for or what need we should have filled, as that's not in the scope of our discussion.

its not an automatic win that their being a part of the rotation has any bearing on who won.

I thought I had stated it clearly enough ...

Production from 1 non-rotation player <<< production from 2 rotation players.

I did previously say, had we traded Ariza for someone who would be used just as sporadically as he did, then it would be a lateral move.

BUT, that's not what I've said repeatedly.

So again ... in the short term, trading a non-rotation player for 2 rotation players is not a lateral move.

The premise of this thread again is that someone won the trade.

And our side discussion was on the short term. Please try to stay on point.

Not even that it was mutually beneficial. So if you are going to make those ridiculous claims based on injury then you have to look at what the "loser" got out of it. All you are doing is saying - it suits us for the short term (which trades are never judged without an immediate championship on no matter how you protest) without looking at what LA got.

OK. You want to factor in that in the short term and see what LA get vs what what we got.

LA got a player that's been injured for how many games now? Ignoring that, they got a single rotation player.

We got 2 rotation players.

Again 2 > 1 at this point for the Magic, and being that we're all Magic fans, isn't that what's important.

We traded a non-rotation player for 2 rotation players. Not only that, the production from the 2 rotation players >> production from what we sent out.

Lets say that Ariza returns and is an instrument in getting them a championship this year or next.

Do you think that Ariza would be a key for them winning a championship?

If we don't have a championship what idiot would say we won the trade? This trade would if Ariza is an integral part of that push delivered them the ultimate prize of every NBA team. Get it?

Of course you can't look at it that way, since they also acquired an all-star big man which has had an infinitely larger impact than Ariza has this season.

Unless you want to say that Ariza is key in them making the playoffs, while sitting on the bench.

Then its premature. Premise of thread destroyed.

Can't stay on topic of our conversation, or because I've proved my point rather convincingly.

Again you ignored the point of 2 > 1. $2 is more that $1.

Can you float the same theory about Cook or Evans actually getting us a championship? Of course. has either happened? Is this trade even a year old? Even 6 months? NO? Premature then

And yet one can see that we gained more than what we sent out, ignoring the injury.

IS IT SO HARD TO SEE COMMON SENSE LOGIC?????

For you, apparently so.

Common sense logic says production from 2 rotation players >> production from 1 sporadically used player.

Or does common sense

Or is just that you can't bare to agree with Maginno? hmmmmm I think I hit upon the truth of the matter there.

Well if you stayed on topic and used common sense, then no problem.

Even Craig who doesn't agree with me for the fun of it made a statement that I entirely agree with. NO one can make any pronouncements on either side about this trade yet.

I have. Others have.

end of story.

Says you.

Now could Ariza really have a problem? You bet. But theres a reason we don't convict people based on what could be and connecting incomplete dots. Its because half the time we will be right and half we would be wrong (doesn't break down neatly like that but just saying).

In either scenario we would be always wrong for not starting and ending on the evidence we have before draing conclusions. Again if you can't see that then you and others will just have to take the illogical characterization.

ADD? Please stay on topic of our conversation.

Its not up for a vote. Logic is logic and its obvious here.

And it's what you're choosing to ignore.

From our standpoint:

Production from Brian Cook and Mo Evans > production from Ariza.

[MagicalMan]

But its so much fun to lurk in these threads (guess im no longer lurking but you get the point). Watching one person talk down to everyone else, and calling everyone else emotional is so entertaining.

Oh wait, if im enjoying this, then im experiencing an emotion and therefore im an emotional poster with a low iq.

As for the topic I, as most, disliked the trade at first. But in retrospect im satisfied (not thrilled) with the results. We have two rotational players contributing more than Ariza ever did, so in the short term I would say we got the better end of the deal. But since we dont know the future and what will happen long term, its hard to say flat out we won on this trade. Its impossible to know that at this point.

[maginno]

Gato theres little in your post that isn't rehash and so I can skip that . Asked and answered several time.

As to the hypothetical of Ariza helping them win a championship I made it very clear if you read it that HE ARIZA would have to be an instrumental part of them winning the championship not that they had other ALL Star players. So the hypothetical is quite clear. You as I said are perfectly within your rights to claim the same hypothetical for COok or Evans.

The point is that there are things that can happen over the course of the next few months that can change short term projections. Thats just life. Less than 6 months to determine the win and lose of a trade is just not logical. temporary injuries don't determine anything avbout the merits of winning a trade. What happens if Evans gets injured now. What would you say that LA won the trade? Its just silly and always will be you can claim I have ADD that I'd make a good cockroach or any of the things said in this thread because I question your logic. Doesn't matter. its a simple common sense point.

[maginno]

But since we dont know the future and what will happen long term, its hard to say flat out we won on this trade. Its impossible to know that at this point.

See your emotions can be over ruled by common sense. Good job. rest of the banter can be ignored if you agree with the rational conclusion. Pretty easy to dismiss the banter when Comparing people to roaches isn't putting people down. Quite funny really

[mhectorgato]

Gato theres little in your post that isn't rehash and so I can skip that . Asked and answered several time.

Too bad you "danced" around the production from 2 players vs 1 every single time, because you know it would blow your argument.

As to the hypothetical of Ariza helping them win a championship I made it very clear if you read it that HE ARIZA would have to be an instrumental part of them winning the championship not that they had other ALL Star players.

The team they have right now - with Ariza on the bench - are a championship contending team because of Kobe, Pow and Odom.

That's the short term reality of the situation.

So the hypothetical is quite clear. You as I said are perfectly within your rights to claim the same hypothetical for COok or Evans.

Except I am dealing in realities of the production from 2 rotation players giving more production than one sporadically used player.

The point is that there are things that can happen over the course of the next few months that can change short term projections. Thats just life. Less than 6 months to determine the win and lose of a trade is just not logical.

There is more than just a long-term view to a trade.

temporary injuries don't determine anything avbout the merits of winning a trade.

I agree. You've been the one in our discussion continually going off topic bringing up the injury.

What happens if Evans gets injured now.What would you say that LA won the trade?

Not dealing in "What ifs", been talking about the reality of the situation.

Even if he did, his past contributions + Cook's past & future contributions > Ariza's.

Its just silly and always will be you can claim I have ADD that I'd make a good cockroach or any of the things said in this thread because I question your logic. Doesn't matter.

No I bring up ADD because you continually veer off topic.

its a simple common sense point.

We both know that you're just dancing around the ring avoiding the fact that:

From the Magic's point of view: Production from Cook + Evans - who's started 31 games in a row for us >> production from Ariza.

That's the short-term view of the trade, no matter how you want to bring up injuries, or how little you think of Cook, etc, and change the discussion.

I'm done with this pointless conversation, as you can't/won't admit that in this case 2 > 1.

[MagicalMan]

-= original quote snipped =-



See your emotions can be over ruled by common sense. Good job. rest of the banter can be ignored if you agree with the rational conclusion. Pretty easy to dismiss the banter when Comparing people to roaches isn't putting people down. Quite funny really

Actually the funny part is your sense of entitlement and how you talk down to others, while trying to disguise it as some sort of logic.