This franchise doesn't want to win a title

[LogGrad98]

Yeah.

If it's about management, then leave it there. Don't blame the star players for that same management's ineptitude.

It seems that your too inept to, ironically, follow what this thread was about, even while trying to turn that same issue into pedagogic polemic. What an embarrassment especially since, as you pointed out, it was such a simple topic.

If team result is the only measure for a player, then perhaps Robert Horry>Jordan.



As far as I know, it was your lacking logic I was very directly replying to. Reading comprehension may help, as redundancy is becoming squared with (attempted) condescension from your side; by missing my point, the question becomes whether you've then missed your own.

Specifically, the reductive, as reductio ad absurdum, assumption that TD+DR>JS+KM because of championships.

By that reasoning, Chauncey Billups>John Stockton.



Arbitrary? Do you understand what that means, particularly when discussing individual players?

Conspicuously, you judge the worth of star players -- their overall skill and ability to effect a game -- through team result. The argument is contradictory, myopic and, in total, an oxymoron.

Meanwhile, you think that matchup battles, favoring one player to a ridiculous degree over another, are..."arbitrary".

Congratulations. You've shown the analytical ability of a bandwagoner attending a game 7 at Staples Center.



So individual greatness is beside the point.

OK. Then, by your own stated and implied standard, that then means that Luc Longley>>David Robinson.

Any other analysis would be both a strawman and emotionally capricious.

By having me argue within your, yes, convenient and capricious standards, it only becomes more obvious how ill-thought and implosive these elements are.

So, bravo.



Ginobli+Parker>David Robinson.



Note the bold. Still confused?

So do you have an actual argument or just personal attacks?

 

[LogGrad98]

All I pointed out was that the thread is about winning a championship and the organization's commitment to do so. So yes that is the argument and viewpoint in the context of the thread (highlighted in bold). Sorry to bring logic into your very emotional response.

If you would like to discuss largely arbitrary ranking as to "who owned whom" in various aspects of the game then feel free to start said thread. But to frame other posters comments in such a way as to fit your argument is just a straw man.

Now going from the position of career accolades and head to head matchups you could really make a case that the reverse is true. Say, why don't you go ahead and do some research and start that kind of thread with some numbers and such to back your viewpoint and we can rip it apart then.

Mmmkay?

Yeah.

If team result is the only measure for a player, then perhaps Robert Horry>Jordan.

Specifically, the reductive, as reductio ad absurdum, assumption that TD+DR>JS+KM because of championships.

By that reasoning, Chauncey Billups>John Stockton.

Arbitrary? Do you understand what that means, particularly when discussing individual players?

Conspicuously, you judge the worth of star players -- their overall skill and ability to effect a game -- through team result. The argument is contradictory, myopic and, in total, an oxymoron.

Meanwhile, you think that matchup battles, favoring one player to a ridiculous degree over another, are..."arbitrary".

Congratulations. You've shown the analytical ability of a bandwagoner attending a game 7 at Staples Center.

So individual greatness is beside the point.

OK. Then, by your own stated and implied standard, that then means that Luc Longley>>David Robinson.

Any other analysis would be both a strawman and emotionally capricious.

By having me argue within your, yes, convenient and capricious standards, it only becomes more obvious how ill-thought and implosive these elements are.

So, bravo.

Ginobli+Parker>David Robinson.

Note the bold. Still confused?

You do realize that you supported my argument right? Framed in the context of the discussion, as I stated before. Then I state that individual accolades can be discussed separately since they were not part of the thread, which is about winning championships. Then I state that by individual accolades you could make a case for the revers. Then you go on to put words in my mouth (re: bold above) and build an argument against things I never said or even implied, since I kept to the context (Spurs vs. Jazz and TD,DV vs. KM, JS in terms of championships won) and you did not.

Broadening the argument beyond what the other person has said and putting words in their mouth to then argue against, that is the very definition of a straw man.

Oh nevermind, if you don't understand context and rational thought you will never get it.

 

[VINYLONE]

WTF just happened.

 

[moevillini]

WTF just happened.

simple...

someone made a post, and somebody else didn't understand it

I think that happens frequently around here...
and not just to me - - or with my posts!

;-)

 

[LogGrad98]

simple...

someone made a post, and somebody else didn't understand it

I think that happens frequently around here...
and not just to me - - or with my posts!

;-)

Uh...I don't get it.


That is the truest post in this thread, maybe on this board.

 

[cyclo]

another blow out loss

Just watched the Jazz get blown out again by the Lakers...

Raja Bell shot 1-7 from the field for 2 points.

Meanwhile, Wesley Matthews, whom the Jazz owner didn't want to pay even the mid-level exception of $6 million a year, is a strong candidate for Most Improved Player averaging 16.2 points per game and doing a great job for Portland.

This isn't a hating on Raja Bell thread, but a thread about Jazz ownership never wanting to spend the money necessary to make the Jazz a championship team.

Jazz ownership is content with the Jazz being KO'd in the first round of the playoffs, so long as Energy Solutions is selling out, the franchise is turning a profit, and he's not paying the luxury tax.

 

[Jeditiger]

Just watched the Jazz get blown out again by the Lakers...

Raja Bell shot 1-7 from the field for 2 points.

Meanwhile, Wesley Matthews, whom the Jazz owner didn't want to pay even the mid-level exception of $6 million a year, is a strong candidate for Most Improved Player averaging 16.2 points per game and doing a great job for Portland.

This isn't a hating on Raja Bell thread, but a thread about Jazz ownership never wanting to spend the money necessary to make the Jazz a championship team.

Jazz ownership is content with the Jazz being KO'd in the first round of the playoffs, so long as Energy Solutions is selling out, the franchise is turning a profit, and he's not paying the luxury tax.

Please. Nobody in the league thought that the Matthews contract was good at the time of signing. NOBODY.

 

[LogGrad98]

Please. Nobody in the league thought that the Matthews contract was good at the time of signing. NOBODY.

Um, Portland did. Looks like they were the smart ones.

 

[Jeditiger]

Um, Portland did. Looks like they were the smart ones.

They guessed right. Props to them.

 

[JAZZFAN_2814]

You do realize that you supported my argument right?

I believe I pointed out that the argument was so simplistic, and through your responses redundant, that it was becoming squared by that very selfsame standard or stricture.

In other words, I doubt it's possible to miss your reasoning. Which is the problem, since that very same application and standardization is ratiocination-free oxymoron.

The square-root of a negative integer, in other words.

Framed in the context of the discussion, as I stated before. Then I state that individual accolades can be discussed separately since they were not part of the thread, which is about winning championships.

As I pointed out, the thread was about management, not individual players. You've obfuscated that point -- or at least tried to -- and thus now are attempting to shift the burden from that management group to a dyad of star players who weren't making personnel decisions.

Pathetic.

Further, how it is that you think we can judge these guys as stars without looking at their career-achievements as individuals is a great mystery.

Well, it would be if it wasn't quite clear that you have no ****ing idea what you're positing.

Then I state that by individual accolades you could make a case for the revers. Then you go on to put words in my mouth (re: bold above) and build an argument against things I never said or even implied, since I kept to the context (Spurs vs. Jazz and TD,DV vs. KM, JS in terms of championships won) and you did not.

Broadening the argument beyond what the other person has said and putting words in their mouth to then argue against, that is the very definition of a straw man.

Within your own standard, how does one spot a star player to begin with?

Oops.

In other news, you created the strawman by, first, conflating Stockton and Malone with management and, then, simply confusing the matter altogether.

So, either you're failing at sophistry or have managed to miss your own point. Both?

Quite the equation, especially for an argument that isn't even half-baked.

Oh nevermind, if you don't understand context and rational thought you will never get it.

It was laid out, tautologically, as to what the problem is with your point: that is, simply, that it's reductive to a degree of/in retardation.

No point missed. The point itself, from you, is so dim that it's nearly pointless and, possibly worse, is implosive.

To extrapolate, you somehow think that it's kosher to separate individual accolades from this discussion and measurement while still judging certain players as franchise standards and stars. An argument that halves in such a way as to make no sense whatsoever.

Really, really dumb.

Your viewpoint is myopic. And a perfect example of reductio ad absurdum, as already pointed out. One hopes that you learn what the term means before you again reply...or, better yet, that you don't burden the board or yourself with yet more in-depth argumentation of such a ridiculous and substance-free asseveration.

Circular.

 

[cyclo]

Raja Bell tonight vs. San Antonio.

0 points on 0-3 shooting from the field in 34 minutes.

Jazz owner didn't want to pay the MLE ($6 mil per) to Wesley Matthews, this is what you get.

Oh, and Al Jefferson has been a downgrade from Carlos Boozer.

How did the Jazz expect to compete after downgrading two spots in the starting lineup?

I wouldn't be surprised if the tailspin continues and the Jazz miss the playoffs.

Might as well trade D-Will now. Either way, he's gone.

 

[unluckyseventeen]

I believe I pointed out that the argument was so simplistic, and through your responses redundant, that it was becoming squared by that very selfsame standard or stricture.

In other words, I doubt it's possible to miss your reasoning. Which is the problem, since that very same application and standardization is ratiocination-free oxymoron.

The square-root of a negative integer, in other words.



As I pointed out, the thread was about management, not individual players. You've obfuscated that point -- or at least tried to -- and thus now are attempting to shift the burden from that management group to a dyad of star players who weren't making personnel decisions.

Pathetic.

Further, how it is that you think we can judge these guys as stars without looking at their career-achievements as individuals is a great mystery.

Well, it would be if it wasn't quite clear that you have no ****ing idea what you're positing.



Within your own standard, how does one spot a star player to begin with?

Oops.

In other news, you created the strawman by, first, conflating Stockton and Malone with management and, then, simply confusing the matter altogether.

So, either you're failing at sophistry or have managed to miss your own point. Both?

Quite the equation, especially for an argument that isn't even half-baked.



It was laid out, tautologically, as to what the problem is with your point: that is, simply, that it's reductive to a degree of/in retardation.

No point missed. The point itself, from you, is so dim that it's nearly pointless and, possibly worse, is implosive.

To extrapolate, you somehow think that it's kosher to separate individual accolades from this discussion and measurement while still judging certain players as franchise standards and stars. An argument that halves in such a way as to make no sense whatsoever.

Really, really dumb.

Your viewpoint is myopic. And a perfect example of reductio ad absurdum, as already pointed out. One hopes that you learn what the term means before you again reply...or, better yet, that you don't burden the board or yourself with yet more in-depth argumentation of such a ridiculous and substance-free asseveration.

Circular.

 

[vj_74]

Raja Bell tonight vs. San Antonio.

0 points on 0-3 shooting from the field in 34 minutes.

Jazz owner didn't want to pay the MLE ($6 mil per) to Wesley Matthews, this is what you get.

will you stop bitching about this? Wes is'nt the permanent solution at SG. He is just another good role player like Milsap. No one thought that his contract was reasonable. I think even Porty did'nt think that his contract was reasonable. Looks like they just wanted to screwed us and in the end they ended up getting Mathews. Mathews might make them look smart now but I bet 29 other GMS in the league thought at the time that Porty was just playing hardball. Of course Porty has the deep pockets to do that.

And it is not like as if they knew all along that Mathews was going to average 16ppg for them this year, especially when they still had Brandon. If Brandon had been healthy WEs would be averaging 10-12 ppg at best coming off the bench.So dont act like as if Porty had him pegged for a starting spot and they smartly planned all this. They did'nt.
Mathews is just making the best of Roy's absence and credit goes to him for that.If Roy were healthy or if Wes was still with the Jazz he would be 10-12 ppg player at best.

Anyways, I liked Wes a lot but have gotten over his departure. I also realize he might be better than whoever we have at SG now, but he also isnt the long term solution at SG.We are'nt winning against the Lakers(or the Spurs of this year) with him at SG in a 7 game playoff series, without homecourt.

Also, We already have enough role players starting for us like Millsap and AK. We dont need another one. Right now this team looks like Deron+role players anyways on most nights.

If the Jazz let a guy like Iguodola or Jason Richardson or Eric Gordon get away you can bitch all you want. But nobody except Porty(who have deep pockets) wanted Wes for that price.

 

[Revolution 9]

Sloan's glorious system...

"Jazz's Miles breaks it down again: "[The Lakers] take us out of our plays. They know the plays. They sit on them."

 

[cyclo]

Wesley Matthews tonight 2/5/2011:

31 pts. 4 rebs. 3 asts. 2 stls. 11-17 fg. 4-4 ft. 5-7 3fg.

Also couldn't help but notice Oklahoma City has a better backup PG than the Jazz have. Helped blow out the Jazz tonight. Fella by the name of Eric Maynor who played a productive 13 minutes and scored 10 points 4-4 from the field 2-2 from three point land with 3 assists. The Jazz were too cheap to pay even a quality backup PG.

 

[vj_74]

I'd rather have Watson than Maynor for this season or the next

 

[Chad Feldheimer]

Wesley Matthews tonight 2/5/2011:

31 pts. 4 rebs. 3 asts. 2 stls. 11-17 fg. 4-4 ft. 5-7 3fg.

Also couldn't help but notice Oklahoma City has a better backup PG than the Jazz have. Helped blow out the Jazz tonight. Fella by the name of Eric Maynor who played a productive 13 minutes and scored 10 points 4-4 from the field 2-2 from three point land with 3 assists. The Jazz were too cheap to pay even a quality backup PG.

You can bitch that they made mistakes for letting some players go BUT to say they are cheap is just wrong. They have the 6th highest payroll in the NBA in probably the smallest market. So STFU about them being cheap. In fact they are the opposite of cheap.