ImageImage

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

Moderators: paulpressey25, MickeyDavis

User avatar
blkout
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,689
And1: 1,914
Joined: Dec 12, 2005
Location: Melbourne
 

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#181 » by blkout » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:15 pm

It's called a projection


Exactly! That is my point. It's not reality because it hasn't happened, but it is a projection because it is possible. I can't make it much more clearer though obviously I'm doing a bad job at it because people trying to disagree with me are actually making the point for me.
Image
User avatar
europa
RealGM
Posts: 44,919
And1: 471
Joined: Jun 25, 2005
Location: Right Behind You

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#182 » by europa » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:16 pm

If you can rebound, you typically get paid. There were only six players who averaged 10 rebounds or more last season (Bogut didn't qualify):

Howard
Murphy
Lee
Duncan
Okafor
Bosh

Of that group, the only one making less than $10M a year was Lee.
Nothing will not break me.
Newz
Banned User
Posts: 42,327
And1: 2,551
Joined: Dec 05, 2005

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#183 » by Newz » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:17 pm

Citizen.Eras3d wrote:
It's called a projection


Exactly! That is my point. It's not reality because it hasn't happened, but it is a projection because it is possible. I can't make it much more clearer though obviously I'm doing a bad job at it because people trying to disagree with me are actually making the point for me.


Right, in reality he is a 16/12 guy and thus you have to believe he is worth the near max amount of money because of it.

I don't see how you can have it both ways, considering a legit 16/12 guy (in reality) would demand a massive amount of money.
User avatar
blkout
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,689
And1: 1,914
Joined: Dec 12, 2005
Location: Melbourne
 

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#184 » by blkout » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:19 pm

LukePliska wrote:
Citizen.Eras3d wrote:
It's called a projection


Exactly! That is my point. It's not reality because it hasn't happened, but it is a projection because it is possible. I can't make it much more clearer though obviously I'm doing a bad job at it because people trying to disagree with me are actually making the point for me.


Right, in reality he is a 16/12 guy and thus you have to believe he is worth the near max amount of money because of it.

I don't see how you can have it both ways, considering a legit 16/12 guy (in reality) would demand a massive amount of money.


In reality he averaged 16 points and 12 rebounds last season. That's it. That's not to say that means he's worth a max contract (because he doesn't create his own shot and lives off rebounds etc) but it just means the statement of fact is that he averaged 16 points and 12 rebounds. I don't have to directly translate that into a market value because there is more to signing a player than what their numbers are. If that was not the case Andrew Bogut wouldn't be making 10 mil+ a season.
Image
User avatar
Bernman
RealGM
Posts: 27,901
And1: 8,404
Joined: Aug 05, 2004
     

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#185 » by Bernman » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:19 pm

paul wrote:Yeah I think citizen was more arguing the definition of 'reality' rather than disagreeing with you as such.


But it's kind of like saying the reality is that Paris Hilton is a successful business woman. She's had much different circumstances as the rest to where if she applies here name to any product, it gets sold. The reality is if she didn't inherit her wealth and status, but instead she grew up in a trailer park, she'd be a nobody right now. The reality is if David Lee is transferred from a run and gun high possession offense, into the Bucks' standard medium possession offense, he's not the same player in that reality. And in that reality is where it matters what he's worth when figuring out what the Bucks should be willing to acquire him at. If his market is being dictated by New York's reality, the Bucks should not desire him.
apdamico
Senior
Posts: 680
And1: 2
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#186 » by apdamico » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:20 pm

blueedwards wrote:Did 76ers sign a free agent pg yet? Thought they were trading Miller or just going after Bibby? Is it possible there the third team after Sessions?


They seemed to be locked into Watson and/or Tinsley; maybe even Felton, but I haven't heard a word from them concerning Sessions. For the recored, I always thought Philly was in the picture for Sessions.

Portland seems to be the only team that has the cap space to sign Miller, so you'd think once that deal is completed, then Philly's interest could shift towards Ramon, if he's still unsigned.
Never under estimate the value of a Buck!
User avatar
blkout
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,689
And1: 1,914
Joined: Dec 12, 2005
Location: Melbourne
 

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#187 » by blkout » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:20 pm

The reality is if she didn't inherit her wealth and status, but instead she grew up in a trailer park, she'd be a nobody right now.


How do you know that? You're presenting opinions as facts, that's the thing. You can make educated guesses and projections etc but you don't know anything for a fact because it hasn't happened.
Image
User avatar
paul
RealGM
Posts: 32,398
And1: 1,038
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
 

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#188 » by paul » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:21 pm

Oh dear. Someone needs to change the conversation topic, quickly.

Slow news day.....
Newz
Banned User
Posts: 42,327
And1: 2,551
Joined: Dec 05, 2005

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#189 » by Newz » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:22 pm

Citizen.Eras3d wrote:In reality he averaged 16 points and 12 rebounds last season. That's it. That's not to say that means he's worth a max contract (because he doesn't create his own shot and lives off rebounds etc) but it just means the statement of fact is that he averaged 16 points and 12 rebounds. I don't have to directly translate that into a market value because there is more to signing a player than what their numbers are. If that was not the case Andrew Bogut wouldn't be making 10 mil+ a season.


Andrew Bogut got paid 10+ million because in reality he was the number one pick in the draft and plays the position that is most devoid of talent in the entire NBA.

David Lee's career numbers are 11/9 and they would be much worse than that if he was playing in any system besides New York's and possibly Golden State's system last season... Because his stats wouldn't be inflated the way that they are.

Reality is that REAL 16/12 players (Like you believe David Lee is) that shoot 55% demand near max dollars to max contracts.
User avatar
blkout
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,689
And1: 1,914
Joined: Dec 12, 2005
Location: Melbourne
 

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#190 » by blkout » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:25 pm

You're right, David Lee is a pretend basketball player averaging pretend statistics made up by pretend statisticians who are watching pretend games. Please.

Andrew Bogut got paid 10+ million because in reality he was the number one pick in the draft and plays the position that is most devoid of talent in the entire NBA.


So did Michael Olowokandi and no one gave him Bogut money.
Image
User avatar
Bernman
RealGM
Posts: 27,901
And1: 8,404
Joined: Aug 05, 2004
     

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#191 » by Bernman » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:25 pm

Citizen.Eras3d wrote:
The reality is if she didn't inherit her wealth and status, but instead she grew up in a trailer park, she'd be a nobody right now.


How do you know that? You're presenting opinions as facts, that's the thing. You can make educated guesses and projections etc but you don't know anything for a fact because it hasn't happened.


She's a talentless, plain looking, idiot. Therefore, it's a pretty easy projection of what her reality would be. In the .0000001 percent chance that she actually would have been successful given another environment, I apologize to her, and I apologize to David Lee if he translates to being better than a mediocre starter in a typical system. But all I can do is develop opinions and make decisions, based on probabilities. I guess I'm just weird like that.
User avatar
blkout
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,689
And1: 1,914
Joined: Dec 12, 2005
Location: Melbourne
 

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#192 » by blkout » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:27 pm

Bernman wrote:
Citizen.Eras3d wrote:
The reality is if she didn't inherit her wealth and status, but instead she grew up in a trailer park, she'd be a nobody right now.


How do you know that? You're presenting opinions as facts, that's the thing. You can make educated guesses and projections etc but you don't know anything for a fact because it hasn't happened.


She's a talentless, plain looking, idiot. Therefore, it's a pretty easy projection of what her reality would be. In the .0000001 percent chance that she actually would have been successful given another environment, I apologize to her, and I apologize to David Lee if he translates to being better than a mediocre starter in a typical system. But all I can do is develop opinions and make decisions, based on probabilities. I guess I'm just weird like that.


I don't disagree with you at all. Opinions aren't facts though. I mean how many trailer park trash people have won millions in the lottery? Weird **** happens, educated guesses and projections and whatever are cool and you can't argue with logic but to present something as fact when it's basically an opinion is what my dispute is with.
Image
Newz
Banned User
Posts: 42,327
And1: 2,551
Joined: Dec 05, 2005

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#193 » by Newz » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:30 pm

Citizen.Eras3d wrote:David Lee is really a 16/12 player and one of the best power forwards in the NBA. He should demand max money because in reality he is a 16/12 player on 55% shooting and you cannot prove he wouldn't have done that in any other system.


Fixed.

Citizen.Eras3d wrote:
Andrew Bogut got paid 10+ million because in reality he was the number one pick in the draft and plays the position that is most devoid of talent in the entire NBA.


So did Michael Olowokandi and no one gave him Bogut money.


... The difference between Michael Olowokandi and Andrew Bogut is that Olowokandi was a total pile of dung and Andrew Bogut is a center that can shoot with both hands and has turned into a very good defender/rebounder.

It's okay, you are just trying to be difficult because you are upset that in reality David Lee isn't a 16/12 player. Just like Boris Diaw (in reality) isn't a center, though I suppose you believe he was since he played that position when he was with the Suns.
User avatar
Bernman
RealGM
Posts: 27,901
And1: 8,404
Joined: Aug 05, 2004
     

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#194 » by Bernman » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:33 pm

Citizen.Eras3d wrote:I don't disagree with you at all. Opinions aren't facts though. I mean how many trailer park trash people have won millions in the lottery? Weird **** happens, educated guesses and projections and whatever are cool and you can't argue with logic but to present something as fact when it's basically an opinion is what my dispute is with.


Ok, it's not an undeniable fact that David Lee is not a mediocre player. It's an opinion and a strong probability, based upon all the evidence that lies before us today. So given the probability that David Lee would be a mediocre starter in the Bucks' system, you think it'd be a prudent decision by the Bucks to allocate him above average starter money?
User avatar
blkout
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,689
And1: 1,914
Joined: Dec 12, 2005
Location: Melbourne
 

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#195 » by blkout » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:36 pm

... The difference between Michael Olowokandi and Andrew Bogut is that Olowokandi was a total pile of dung and Andrew Bogut is a center that can shoot with both hands and has turned into a very good defender/rebounder.


But you're the one saying I should claim Lee is worth the max because of his numbers alone. I do believe I was the one who mentioned variables when it comes to contract value, which you ignored and continued to push your opinion that I somehow think he should be worth the max. You can't have it both ways.

Fixed.


But I said the opposite of that (re: his contract value). Aren't you reading my posts? Or are you just seeing what you wish I was saying in order to strengthen your silly argument that reality is opinion.

It's okay, you are just trying to be difficult because you are upset that in reality David Lee isn't a 16/12 player.


I'm not being difficult, it isn't my fault that you don't seem to have an understanding of what the word "reality" means. I can help with that:

re⋅al⋅i⋅ty
  /riˈælɪti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ree-al-i-tee] Show IPA
Use reality in a Sentence
–noun, plural -ties for 3, 5–7.
1. the state or quality of being real.
2. resemblance to what is real.
3. a real thing or fact.

4. real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs: the reality of the business world; vacationing to escape reality.
5. Philosophy.
a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
b. something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.
6. something that is real.
7. something that constitutes a real or actual thing, as distinguished from something that is merely apparent.


It's a fact that David Lee averaged 16 points and 12 rebounds last season. You can't dispute that because it is a fact. You can claim on another team he might've averaged less, but that is not a fact because it did not happen. How is this not clear to you.
Image
User avatar
Dobber-16
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,486
And1: 439
Joined: May 19, 2009

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#196 » by Dobber-16 » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:36 pm

LukePliska wrote:I would rather just let them have Sessions than take back Telfair... Unless their 2010 first is coming along with him.

Which first rounder would youm prefer? Clips 2010 first, or the Wolves' 2011 unprotected first, which the Clips own? :nod:
GHOSTofSIKMA wrote: all you guys bitching sound like fixed income grandmas at the grocery store.
Newz
Banned User
Posts: 42,327
And1: 2,551
Joined: Dec 05, 2005

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#197 » by Newz » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:36 pm

Bernman wrote:So given the probability that David Lee would be a mediocre starter in the Bucks' system, you think it'd be a prudent decision by the Bucks to allocate him above average starter money?


Duh...

He is a 16/12 guy and you cannot prove he wouldn't have done that outside of the Knicks system since in reality he is actually a 16/12 guy.

I mean, completely ignore he has average 5/5, 11/10, 11/9 during his first three seasons and 11/9 for his entire career... He is a 16/12 guy, without a doubt, in any system... And there is nothing you can do to prove otherwise since in reality he is a 16/12 guy!
User avatar
blkout
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,689
And1: 1,914
Joined: Dec 12, 2005
Location: Melbourne
 

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#198 » by blkout » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:38 pm

So given the probability that David Lee would be a mediocre starter in the Bucks' system, you think it'd be a prudent decision by the Bucks to allocate him above average starter money?


Personally I do, because at the moment the Bucks have the worst PF rotation in the entire NBA so regardless of anyone's opinion of Lee as a player, he would be the best PF on the team by default purely because the others are so bad. So by Bucks standards he is an above average starter. If I were another team would I give him above average starter money? That's a whole nother matter.
Image
Newz
Banned User
Posts: 42,327
And1: 2,551
Joined: Dec 05, 2005

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#199 » by Newz » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:38 pm

Citizen.Eras3d wrote:It's a fact that David Lee averaged 16 points and 12 rebounds last season. You can't dispute that because it is a fact. You can claim on another team he might've averaged less, but that is not a fact because it did not happen. How is this not clear to you.


When did I say that he didn't average 16/12? I have said MULTIPLE TIMES that he averaged 16/12 on 55% shooting.

You are asking me if I am reading your posts, are you reading mine?
User avatar
Dobber-16
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,486
And1: 439
Joined: May 19, 2009

Re: David Aldridge: Knicks No Longer Interested In Sessions 

Post#200 » by Dobber-16 » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:39 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:Frankly I'm still bummed that we aren't talking about Batum. I gave that thread last night 125 percent cred once I saw Europa was the one posting it.

Ten minutes of pure giddyness.

This is like 10 guys sitting around the barbershop waiting for something to happen.

:hug: :hug: :gossip: :gossip: :gossip:
GHOSTofSIKMA wrote: all you guys bitching sound like fixed income grandmas at the grocery store.

Return to Milwaukee Bucks