BaNT Draft - 10 rounds complete

Post #241 » by **Gremz** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:20 pm

CellarDoor wrote:Copy sent for your viewing please. By reading you're agreeing not to draft any of those players, FYI.

And there's like 17 on there. So that hurts. Muahahaha

I have no need to read your terrible list, and even if I did, they're probably all reaches anyway. Wouldn't effect me in the slightest.

Post #242 » by **Snakebites** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:25 pm

I can't believe we actually gave LMA to dENIed. :nonono:

Post #243 » by **CellarDoor** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:28 pm

Snakebites wrote:I can't believe we actually gave LMA to dENIed.

I'm not sure who the "we" is. Some of us gave our opinion, made a judgement call and stuck to it. Gremz got annoyed into submission by denied's "proxy". Nothing to do at this point. To be honest, for this year only I'd take Boozer over LMA anyways.

BlackIce · Post #244 » by **BlackIce** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:30 pm

Thats what I was thinking why would you take Aldridge over Boozer? I only take Aldridge if I need better spacing at PF.

Post #245 » by **CellarDoor** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:32 pm

BlackIce wrote:Thats what I was thinking why would you take Aldridge over Boozer? I only take Aldridge if I need better spacing at PF.

Boozer's a great mid-range shooter in his own right. How much better spacing is LMA going to really give you? Neither's stellar defensively, and while I think part of LMA's lack of rebounding comes from being on a team that rebounds very well, he's still not in Boozer's class as a rebounder either.

Post #246 » by **Gremz** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:35 pm

I made a choice and I'm sticking to it. I'm sorry if some of you don't agree with me, but it's just what I felt was right by myself. I could have made a greater effort to get to a working computer to make my pick in hindsight.

I'm not a fan of these games when arguments are created, so hopefully this is the end of it.

Post #247 » by **CellarDoor** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:40 pm

Gremz wrote:I made a choice and I'm sticking to it. I'm sorry if some of you don't agree with me, but it's just what I felt was right by myself. I could have made a greater effort to get to a working computer to make my pick in hindsight.

I'm not a fan of these games when arguments are created, so hopefully this is the end of it.

Hey, i'm not worried about your choice. Like I said, I think Boozer's the better guy for this year anyhow. Just correcting Snakebites. I wouldn't want someone thinking I made a mistake.

Post #248 » by **Snakebites** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:43 pm

Why did you assume I meant you when I said "we"?

By "we" I meant the draft as a whole. Ironically, I thought that would mean I WASN'T blaming anyone in particular. We is a plural pronoun, after all.

Its not a big deal. They are at worst comparable in this game. If Gremz is cool with it I guess all of us should be.

I'll say no more.

Post #249 » by **CellarDoor** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:47 pm

Snakebites wrote:Why did you assume I meant you when I said "we"?

By "we" I meant the draft as a whole. Ironically, I thought that would mean I WASN'T blaming anyone in particular. We is a plural pronoun, after all.

Its not a big deal. They are at worst comparable in this game. If Gremz is cool with it I guess all of us should be.

I'll say no more.

If it wasn't clear, I was implementing sarcasm

Post #250 » by **dockingsched** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:49 pm

vc4p has 1hr and 12 minutes left. anyone have any conversations that would indicate who he would pick?

Post #251 » by **Snakebites** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:50 pm

CellarDoor wrote:
Snakebites wrote:Why did you assume I meant you when I said "we"?

By "we" I meant the draft as a whole. Ironically, I thought that would mean I WASN'T blaming anyone in particular. We is a plural pronoun, after all.

Its not a big deal. They are at worst comparable in this game. If Gremz is cool with it I guess all of us should be.

I'll say no more.

If it wasn't clear, I was implementing sarcasm

Sorry, its early morning here. I tend to be particularly obtuse during this time.

Post #252 » by **Gremz** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:53 pm

dcash4 wrote:vc4p has 1hr and 12 minutes left. anyone have any conversations that would indicate who he would pick?

Sorry, I haven't heard anything from him.

Post #253 » by **CellarDoor** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:00 pm

Snakebites wrote:

Sorry, its early morning here. I tend to be particularly obtuse during this time.

The only reason i'm even somewhat functional is because I've been at work since 830am and I'm leaving for Chicago after. If those weren't the case, chances are my BAC would be higher than Gremz' chance of winning if the other 15 participants died in a plan crash.

Which is still only about 12%

Post #254 » by **Gremz** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:06 pm

CellarDoor wrote:
Snakebites wrote:

Sorry, its early morning here. I tend to be particularly obtuse during this time.

The only reason i'm even somewhat functional is because I've been at work since 830am and I'm leaving for Chicago after. If those weren't the case, chances are my BAC would be higher than Gremz' chance of winning if the other 15 participants died in a plan crash.

Which is still only about 12%

Score! I knew I was getting better.

Post #255 » by **CellarDoor** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:08 pm

Yep. 12 times out of 1000 I'd go Vintage Cellars lose in 5, but that'd be a 'win' for you, the other 88 times it's Raptors in 4.

Post #256 » by **Gremz** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:15 pm

CellarDoor wrote:Yep. 12 times out of 1000 I'd go Vintage Cellars lose in 5, but that'd be a 'win' for you, the other 88 times it's Raptors in 4.

The other 900 times you just wouldn't waste your time judging my contests?

Post #257 » by **CellarDoor** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:16 pm

Ouch. I'm just being sloppy lately.

Well played, Space Ghost.

Post #258 » by **CellarDoor** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:08 pm

VC4P's time is up...we're still on the AJ thing, but he selected KG, so my recommendation is we move onto the next highest ppg player at a position he isn't already solidified at. That takes us past Zach Randolph as well and to Stephen Jackson, who actually makes some sense here with chemistry with Baron and being a position of need.

Can we agree to give VC4P Stephen for now and he can adjust it when he comes back, but continue without him?

Post #259 » by **Gremz** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:13 pm

I don't know, perhaps it's just me but I'm not so sure that SJax is a good pick right now.

Post #260 » by **CellarDoor** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:16 pm

Eh, I'm inclined to agree (to be fair, three people have been drafted I wouldn't even consider third round talents), but what's the other option? Extend the three hour rule?