JMac1 wrote:NavLDO wrote:JMac1 wrote:
That was all said after the billion retorts for my saying I wanted Buddy #4. That was it, then all hell broke lose.
Are you on drugs!?! I am open to everyone, if you don't know that by now, you are either a jackass or new to the conversation or don't know how to read......What a crock of ****!
So, you never said this?
...we'll all be crying because he's awesome in Minny/New Orleans?
...or that it's basically Hield or bust earlier?
So, cool. You ar open to Bender over Hield? Chriss? Ellenson? Brown? Dunn? Poeltl?
You tell me who you would be ok with over Hield at 4, then. Because earlier, you simply stated that it was the end of the conversation, and Hield is the guy we should draft at 4, right??
On earlier days, yes, you've been open, but ALL DAY today has been 'Hield or bust' with you, so don't act like you've been 'open to everyone' today; everything before today is negated by your earlier comment:
JMac1 wrote:Bottomline, to argue against Hield is ludicrous (Speed). I am not going back an forth about Buddy. He is a baller, period!
I also stated:
You mean like have fewer TOs? Have comparable EFF, EFF/40, PER, TS%, eFG%, FT%, and has been referred to as the most athletically gifted prospect in 15 years? That kind of 'done nothing'?? Just checking. Especially considering he was much further ahead of Dunn and Hield in these areas as Freshman, and while that doesn't portend future success, the point is, he was more advanced than either Hield or Dunn at the same age. Oh, and then there's the fact that we don't have any PFs, yet have 5-6 Guards on the roster.
So it's not as if Chriss is some 2nd Rd talent being considered at 4th overall, and that he "hasn't performed"...he's raw, and young, but again, was wll ahead of where Dunn and Hield were at their respective positions at the same points in their careers.
A Freshman PF that averages 35% from 3, 69% from FT% is an offensively gifted talent, even if extremely raw, and claiming he 'hasn't performed" is a tad bit on the hyperbolic side.
to your post of:
Then people say what's wrong with you how can you like the guy who did something over a guy who has done nothing? are you crazy? Then make excuses about why the guy who performed isn't worthy and then tell me the guy who hasn't performed is a better pick and tell me I am crazy? Wow!
Ignore what is and create what isn't. I understand potential, but I also understand a dude who can ball.
You have literally shot down any other prospect @ 4 today in favor of Hield, so don't tell me it's a 'crock of ****'
You show me ONE post from you today saying [b]you'd be happy with any other prospect over Hield at 4, and I'll recant, but you can't, because you didn't.[/b] So don't act like you've been so magnanimous and open-minded about our selection @ 4 that involves us taking anyone other than Hield @ 4 if Hield is there for the taking.
You've basically stated that Hield has proven himself, and no one else has that is a Freshman; Hield's ONE Senior Season is proof, but anyone else's Freshman season "has done nothing" or "hasn't performed". Just because a guy has played 4 seasons DOESN'T mean he's played 4 seasons at a high-level. And that is the case with Hield. Had he come out after his Junior season, we wouldn't even be talking about him in the 1st Rd. Ellenson, Chriss, Murray, Poeltl, and Davis' Freshman/Sophomore seasons were ALL better than what Hield did during his Junior season.
So no, I am NOT on drugs, I am NOT crazy, I'm NOT delusional, I DO know how to read, and I am NOT a jackass...well, ok I am, but that's beside the point--you've been on the Hield Hype Train ALL DAY, and everyone else here can see it,
and you have not entertained a SINGLE other option @ 4 than Hield, all day, so don't act like you've been 'open' to other prospects at 4, and have madeit abundantly clear that Hield is your choice, and no one else deserves to be considered over him, and I'm pretty sure there are at least 10 posters here that can back me up on that statement.
Would you like to recant your whole post?
-- I'm sorry, I didn't see in there where you said you'd prefer Bender or Chriss over Hield; the only you said is that you will 'clap and cheer' and 'smile ruefully', so yes, at least in that ONE post you showed some semblance of 'openmindedness', so yes, I'll recant that portion (underlined/italicized above), but nowhere in this quote do you say you'd be happy with Bender or Chriss over Hield, so again, no, I will not recant my entire post.
I want Buddy. I would like to draft Buddy, but I didn't say anyone else wasn't deserving, all I have said this whole day was Buddy was deserving. -- NO!! That is not 'all you've said' that Hield was 'deserving'; you've made statements to the fact that we will all be 'crying' about how good Hield is on another team. You also, which I've quoted you on, several times, that I can't believe that was a crime. I like Buddy. I never said I would lose my mind if we drafted so and so nor would I hate MC'D or this team. I like Buddy at four is all I said. People stated why they didn't like him, I stated why I did and WHAT IF his games translated. I would expect, "yea, if his game translated, but I don't think it will." I got "no way, he can't this and that, he could bust, et al" I know this, if Buddy is going to bust, do I want to draft him? No. I hope and think he won't, but maybe he will. I would like to take that chance. "Cool" is all that needed to be said. Then you say, "I think he will bust and don't want to draft him." I can't rebut that, but I will rebut poster insinuating my opinion was pulled out of my ass.
My defending my POV on Buddy was turned into me hating all the other prospects somehow, when I stated this today, so recant!
JMac1 wrote:Damkac wrote:Agree, I would love that for Suns
Furkan's GIF
I trust McD when it comes to draft.
If he will choose Chriss before Bender then I will assume he knows more than us.
At the end of the day, I believe that is who it will come down to and I will trust him over me. Hield, Dunn, Brown, and Murray are all in the mold of Bledsoe, Booker, TJ, Archie and Knight in some form or fashion. BW said unless the difference is clear, which it isn't, you go for need.
I think it will be Chriss because he is a dynamic athlete, but I like the length and skill of Bender. I'll clap and cheer if it is Bender and I will smile ruefully shrug my shoulders and say "ok, we will see" if it is Chriss and hope Ellenson falls.
I know someone doesn't like smiles, but how apropos
Here are the quotes I speak of above:
JMac1 wrote:Bottomline, to argue against Hield is ludicrous (Speed). I am not going back an forth about Buddy. He is a baller, period!
-- Excellent example of 'open mindedness' right there, I tell ya...JMac1 wrote:Can't wait til you guys are crying in your bed at night watching Buddy light it up EARLY in the season for Minny or NO. I can't wait
"How did Minny get so lucky?" is what I will be hearing. This is so 2009 all over again.
-- Then there is this 'gem' of 'humility' aimed at anyone not on board with Hield as their 1st desired choice at 4th overall.
JMac1 wrote:Then people say what's wrong with you how can you like the guy who did something over a guy who has done nothing? are you crazy? Then make excuses about why the guy who performed isn't worthy and then tell me the guy who hasn't performed is a better pick and tell me I am crazy? Wow!
Ignore what is and create what isn't. I understand potential, but I also understand a dude who can ball.
-- Then, my favorite--the 'hyperbole'. Not sure which 18YO this is aimed at, but assume it's Chriss or Bender. You 'claim', and 'act', as if Hield, 'the guy who did something' and 'the guy who performed' is basically proven and anyone who thinks differently is 'crazy'. And what was brought to light regarding Hield weren't 'excuses', it was 'evidence'--big difference.
And yet, you still conveniently continue to ignore/fail to respond to this:
NavLDO wrote:You mean like have fewer TOs? Have comparable EFF, EFF/40, PER, TS%, eFG%, FT%, and has been referred to as the most athletically gifted prospect in 15 years? That kind of 'done nothing'?? Just checking. Especially considering he was much further ahead of Dunn and Hield in these areas as Freshman, and while that doesn't portend future success, the point is, he was more advanced than either Hield or Dunn at the same age. Oh, and then there's the fact that we don't have any PFs, yet have 5-6 Guards on the roster.
So it's not as if Chriss is some 2nd Rd talent being considered at 4th overall, and that he "hasn't performed"...he's raw, and young, but again, was wll ahead of where Dunn and Hield were at their respective positions at the same points in their careers.
A Freshman PF that averages 35% from 3, 69% from FT% is an offensively gifted talent, even if extremely raw, and claiming he 'hasn't performed" is a tad bit on the hyperbolic side.
You want Hield over any of the other prospects? Cool, but when those that disagree bring up evidence to the fact why they do NO feel Hield is worthy of he 4th overall selection, or actually, better representative of the opposing views are that Hield is a ONE position player; he does not facilitate the flow of the ball through the offense as evidenced by his .66 A/TO as a Senior; he's had 3 very average seasons and one great one; and most importantly, we have our starting SG of the future, not to mention, Bogdanovic coming over in '17 at the latest, a Combo Guard in Knight, a pretty good bench dude in Jenkins, another bench player in Goodwin, and then 2 PGs in Bledsoe and Price. You say to make room. Why should we, unless McD is sitting on a few trades? Otherwise, he's negotiating from a postion of weakness; other GMs will see we have no PFs, but a gluttony of Guards.
All of us Hield 'naysayers' are basically asking WHY take another starting SG, when he isn't any better than 4-5 other prospects/options at positions of need? So yes, we are going to bring up Hield's flaws/weaknesses, as well as, Hield is simply a poor fit for us right now.
So anyway, bottom line, I will recant a portion of what I said. And I'll also apologize for coming across as a jackass yesterday; I could/should have 'toned down' my attitude yesterday. But please understand that a good portion of us RealGMers on the Suns board desire, and will likely continue to desire, that we address our position of weakness at PF, absent of any clear-cut better prospect. And after Simmons and Ingram, I think most would agree that Hield falls somewhere in a similar 'tier' of players like Chriss, Bender, Dunn, Ellenson, Brown, Murray, Poeltl, Skal, and Davis. So, if that is the case, which I believe most (not all, but most) would agree that it is, then why not take one of the PFs. My position, all along has been along the lines of let's take McD's highest rated PF at 4th overall, THEN, at 13, take BPA at whatever position--doesn't matter. But let's take advantage of the fat that we have 2 lotto picks , and the fact that we have ZERO PFs on our roster, and knowing there are 6-7 PF types that are lotto-level guysagain, take the highest rated PF to AT LEAST ensure we have the PF we desire. And while not likely, but what if all these PFs get swooped up before 13, an we are left with ONE option, and that option isn't one that McD particularly cares for.
OK, I'm done. Sorry again, JMac--no need for my jackass-ery yesterday.
If we draft Chriss I will tell myself Chriss is skinny shoulder Amare with a 3pt shot.
