skones wrote:whatthe_buck!? wrote:skones wrote:
No player chooses a city based on the city itself. It comes down to money, the team, and then market size/location. Period. This means that Chicago is a top 5 free agent destination in the league if they pony up the money. That's why comparing Chicago to Milwaukee because they are similar in climate is absolutely ridiculous. Do you honestly think New York is a big time player in the free agency market because of their climate? Market size and potential exposure for an athlete are major factors if that city has pieces in place for a run. If you put all the players in a pool, and gave each team the same amount of money for one player. Chicago would be a top 5 destination throughout the league.
In other news, I'm done with this argument. You aren't able to come up with any legitimate sticking points because you're looking at everything in a vacuum and ignoring dozens of others factors in play for specific situations. Your argument keeps changing when legitimate points are thrown at you. First Wiggins would be comfortable in Milwaukee because he's from Toronto and we have similar climates. Then Chicago isn't a free agent destination. Then Ben Wallace is washed up and everyone knew it and Boozer was not a big deal. Now we must limit our argument to superstars because that is what truly makes an NBA team a free agent destination (hint: it does not). And now players choose the team based on city and city alone, because LA and Miami are pretty neat. You just keep snowballing.
I get that u want to play dumb and change the focus of the discussion back to something where we can go in circles for a bit longer before u once again eventually lose the argument and thats cool. If u dont want to participate in a discussion of which top prospects have a personality and background that would make them more or less likely to be happy in Milwaukee long term relative to each other thats cool too, just in the future dont try to shut down other's dicussions of that subject, just abstain altogether and u wont be made to look foolish. Speaking of snowballing, watching some snowballing porn would be between 1 million and 1 zillion orders of magnitude more exciting and satisfying than continuing a discussion with such someone with so much difficultly conceding even the most painfully obvious points. And I'm off!!!
LOL. Yet another post with no substance. I don't question backgrounds or personalities, I question the conclusions you were drawing based upon the "Well he's from Canada" and the "He went to school in Kansas! What's in Kansas?!" statements and directly attributing that to his potential happiness in a city like Milwaukee. The definition of foolish: resulting from or showing a lack of sense. I'd say that's pretty much in line with your reasoning throughout this discussion.
I should really just learn to let sleeping irrelevant posters lie but I'm a complete idiot so I can't help myself, this is just too rich. There u were accusing me earlier of hypocrisy (in a general and vague manner which u couldn't actually articulate when invited to) and u have the nerve to accuse my posts in our debate here of lacking substance?? Oh the ironing my friend!!!!!!
Point being if I was debating someone who was constructing substantive arguments, well to be accurate if I realized I was about to enter a debate with someone with a history of making well-supported and substantive arguments I would likely duck out or concede immediately to avoid actually having to put forth real effort, but lets say YOU were unexpectedly making well-supported and substantive arguments, well then I would have to also wouldn't I? Remember, u were originally the one who engaged me not the other way around.
Anyway back to the main thing I'm driving at, your "substantive" (rofl) argument is basically that I'm ignorant for trying to use what little info we have about Wiggins to try to divine whether he is an egotistically driven ahole or a hard working lunchpail blue collar type who would be happy toiling away in the relative anonymity of a small market such as Milwaukee (or where he falls on the spectrum between those two extremes). But keep in mind I'm just asking the question, I'm not claiming to have any definitive or even remotely accurate answers.
As far as arguing about it, being as there is very little known publicly to this point about Wiggins and his personality (I mean he's 18, I'm assuming his personality is still very much a quite malleable work-in-progress), it seems strange to expect a substantive case to be made in either direction. Let me interpret that for u genius: there is VERY LITTLE SUBSTANCE TO DISCUSS, that is if u are silly enough to want to turn the lighthearted discussion i was trying to initiate into a a vitriol-filled knock down drag out debate!
And just to be clear, and it seems I have to be more than clear with u to have any chance to penetrate the impressive and imposing fog surrounding ur consciousness, considering u were the one who tried and succeeded turning this topic I brought up into a vitriol-filled knock down drag out debate yes, I am in fact accusing u of being a silly little man (note: "little" added for effect, "man" assumed, no offense intended).
