# Portland talking to Memphis?



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

I concur with the opinion that this should be in a new thread. Mediocre man reports we are talking to Memphis. Who could we be interested in? Maybe Mike Conley but why would Memphis want to trade him. They do have four point guards on their roster, are we interested in somebody like Juan Carlos Navarro? They wouldn't want any of our PG's back in trade so why would we want 5 or 6 point guards on our team?

I have read they want to trade Mike Miller (clear salary and get someone more amenable to Antonini's style?). With Jones out and Webster struggling offensively, maybe Portland would be interested. Who do we give back, they certainly don't want anymore point guards. If Portland has reached a decision that Webster will never be that great, then maybe him. or maybe Memphis thinks Frye would fit really well in their style of play. Since Miller's salary is so big, the only way to make a trade work is to include LaFrentz, but then our side is so big we have to take back Cardinal. This seems like the kind of deal that would be more to help us try to make the playoffs this year, not for the future, so I can't see us doing that.

Anybody else into speculating?


----------



## thaKEAF (Mar 8, 2004)

I would not want to do a deal with you guys is Travis Outlaw wasn't included. I want that guy on our team so bad, he'd be a great addition. Doubt that Conley is the player getting traded, it would most likely be Mike Miller. We haven't gotten enough time to see what Conley can do, and I doubt they'd move him this fast. Anything can happen though, we've learned that in these past four weeks.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Ukrainefan said:


> I concur with the opinion that this should be in a new thread. Mediocre man reports we are talking to Memphis. Who could we be interested in? Maybe Mike Conley but why would Memphis want to trade him. They do have four point guards on their roster, are we interested in somebody like Juan Carlos Navarro? They wouldn't want any of our PG's back in trade so why would we want 5 or 6 point guards on our team?
> 
> I have read they want to trade Mike Miller (clear salary and get someone more amenable to Antonini's style?). With Jones out and Webster struggling offensively, maybe Portland would be interested. Who do we give back, they certainly don't want anymore point guards. If Portland has reached a decision that Webster will never be that great, then maybe him. or maybe Memphis thinks Frye would fit really well in their style of play. Since Miller's salary is so big, the only way to make a trade work is to include LaFrentz, but then our side is so big we have to take back Cardinal. This seems like the kind of deal that would be more to help us try to make the playoffs this year, not for the future, so I can't see us doing that.
> 
> Anybody else into speculating?


Memphis is not trading Mike Conley. C'mon.

Though I guess wouldn't mind Miller and Cardinal for Outlaw and LaFrentz. That's not something actively being discussed however.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

Rawse, I think that's what I said; why would Memphis want to trade Conley?

thaKEAF, why do you want Travis? Isn't he similar to Hakim Warrick? What about Kyle Lowry, what do you think about him?


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

miller for martell is a serious upgrade on our part.
i really cant see them giving up on Conley.
JCN would be interesting, but we already have a bunch of average pg's
i like warrick some.
dont wanna trade outlaw though.
not really sure whats goin on.
maybe they are looking to move crittendon?
maybe they like frye?
who ****ing knows.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

I would be OK with losing Outlaw or Martell if it meant we would be getting Miller.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

I can see Portland having interest in Warrick. Mike Miller would be a good fit at SF as well.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Ukrainefan said:


> I concur with the opinion that this should be in a new thread. Mediocre man reports we are talking to Memphis. Who could we be interested in? Maybe Mike Conley but why would Memphis want to trade him. They do have four point guards on their roster, are we interested in somebody like Juan Carlos Navarro? They wouldn't want any of our PG's back in trade so why would we want 5 or 6 point guards on our team?
> 
> I have read they want to trade Mike Miller (clear salary and get someone more amenable to Antonini's style?). With Jones out and Webster struggling offensively, maybe Portland would be interested. Who do we give back, they certainly don't want anymore point guards. If Portland has reached a decision that Webster will never be that great, then maybe him. or maybe Memphis thinks Frye would fit really well in their style of play. Since Miller's salary is so big, the only way to make a trade work is to include LaFrentz, but then our side is so big we have to take back Cardinal. This seems like the kind of deal that would be more to help us try to make the playoffs this year, not for the future, so I can't see us doing that.
> 
> Anybody else into speculating?


MM reported it. Well, deal coming soon :biggrin::biggrin:


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

thaKEAF said:


> I would not want to do a deal with you guys is Travis Outlaw wasn't included. I want that guy on our team so bad, he'd be a great addition. Doubt that Conley is the player getting traded, it would most likely be Mike Miller. We haven't gotten enough time to see what Conley can do, and I doubt they'd move him this fast. Anything can happen though, we've learned that in these past four weeks.


In no way would I think Outlaw would be traded. We've spent 4 years grooming this guy, and we're not going to give him away right when he's getting better and better.


----------



## thaKEAF (Mar 8, 2004)

Ukrainefan said:


> Rawse, I think that's what I said; why would Memphis want to trade Conley?
> 
> thaKEAF, why do you want Travis? Isn't he similar to Hakim Warrick? What about Kyle Lowry, what do you think about him?


Travis is a better player than Hakim Warrick at least IMO. Every since I saw him live when the Grizz played Portland in 2005 I've been a fan. He plays with more passion on the court, has shown signs of being clutch and most importantly is waaay better on defense than Hakim Warrick. Hak is an average offensive player and that's about it, he doesn't do anything else. Outlaw is growing as a player and Hakim seems to still be stuck in his sophmore season. Lowry could definitely be traded. He's a nice spark off the bench but so far he doesn't look like he'll ever be a starter in the NBA, which is what I think Portland is looking for.


----------



## thaKEAF (Mar 8, 2004)

B-Roy said:


> In no way would I think Outlaw would be traded. We've spent 4 years grooming this guy, and we're not going to give him away right when he's getting better and better.


True but if you guys were willing to give him up, I'd be happy as hell for him to be sporting our uniform.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

outlaw > miller for this team. outlaw just needs to START AT SF NOW WHERE HE BELONGS, instead of spending most of his minutes as an overmatched backup PF. miller needs the ball a LOT to be effective - hardly a good fit for roy, and even worse with rudy potentially looming.

if they're talking hopefully it's just jack for lowry because they both need a change of scenery, or something else inconsequential.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

crowTrobot said:


> outlaw > miller for this team. outlaw just needs to START AT SF NOW WHERE HE BELONGS, instead of spending most of his minutes as an overmatched backup PF. miller needs the ball a LOT to be effective - hardly a good fit for roy, and even worse with rudy potentially looming.
> 
> if they're talking hopefully it's just jack for lowry because they both need a change of scenery, or something else inconsequential.


I think it's fine for Outlaw to be benched for now. Gotta have a couple good bench players who can get things done when your starters need a break.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

B-Roy said:


> I think it's fine for Outlaw to be benched for now. Gotta have a couple good bench players who can get things done when your starters need a break.



that should be martell instead of outlaw. would probably be good for both of them to switch rolls at this point.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm sure that Oden would be super happy if Pritchard landed Mike Conley. I don't think that Conley is the guy Memphis is looking to move. Maybe something like Mike Miller and Kyle Lowry. I'd hope that the price tag for that move wouldn't be as steep as the rumored Devin Harris deal. Miller would be an up grade to Webster. I don't know, we really don't have to make a move that is going to leave our bench looking bare.

I'd like Miller and Conley, but I doubt that something like that happens. Miller makes Portland better IMO. Man this is going to be a long week.....it's All Star Week and things are going to be happen.....should be fun.

Would Darko be an upgrade to Frye? Would a trade for Miller and say Conley be worth throwing out the Capspace in 2009? Would it be worth Outlaw? :whoknows:


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

would conley ever be able to defend the tony parkers chris paulses baron davises and the deron williamseses of the west?


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

To this team..

Outlaw > Miller > Webster.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

crowTrobot said:


> would conley ever be able to defend the tony parkers chris paulses baron davises and the deron williamseses of the west?


Yes, he would - about 10x better than anyone we currently have on our roster. Conley Jr. is an excellent on-the-ball defender, extremely athletic and very strong.

But, the point is moot. He's one of the young guys Memphis is building around, not someone they're looking to trade.

BNM


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

NewAgeBaller said:


> To this team..
> 
> Outlaw > Miller > Webster.


Dude... this is not to offend you. It's not trash talk, but why is Miami so bad? I honestly don't get it. How does a team go from championship to a team that is unable to win 10 games before the All Star break while still having its best player? How does that happen? And like I think I've told you before, I rooted for them in 06 and it was a great run. But this is one of the most mindboggling stories every in the history of the NBA. 9 wins? I just don't get it. I think it will work out in the long run though. You should get a great pick and the team should bounce back because Wade is a stud.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

NewAgeBaller said:


> To this team..
> 
> Outlaw > Miller > Webster.


This is why I don't like the name Outlaw being mentioned in the trade. I could live with Webster, Frye, of course Raef would have to be in there and some picks for Miller & Conley. Maybe Memphis would be intersted in Sergio? I'm sure that there is going to be alot of speculation over the next6 days. If you coul dget Darko for Frye that would be kinda intersting. 

If Portland is talking to Memphis Miller is the guy they are after, he shoots over 50% from behind the arch and would move right into the starting role IMO. Memphis let Gasol go for nothing which is why I wouldn't pay out huge for a deal with them. Portland does have young players and a lot of second rounds and cash they could throw their way.

Maybe they move Jack to Cleveland for a trade exceptiona and........oh man........this is going to be interesting.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

HOWIE said:


> If Portland is talking to Memphis Miller is the guy they are after, he shoots over 50% from behind the arch



well.433 anyway lol, which is very good.

i dunno though - he's a below average defender and turns the ball over as much as jack. outlaw is really a better all-around fit for us at SF - he just needs to start there (broken record).


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

I have no clue how credible MM is with this rumor, however....

for the purposes of conjecture, assume that the short-term goal(next 2 seasons) of Memphis is to shed some long-term contracts. 

Then make a further assumption that Portland's stated desire for cap-space in 2009 has faded with the dawning reality that the list of likely free agents that summer is unimpressive, and that several teams besides portland will also have substantial cap-space.

Then I can see a couple of trade possibilities that might interest both teams.

*Portland sends Raef Lafrentz, James Jones, & Jarret Jack

for

Mike Miller, Kyle Lowry, & Brian Cardinal*

For Memphis, that gets an extra year of the Miller and Cardinal off their books as well as moving the PG they are apparently interested in moving. Jones replaces Miller as far as outside shooting in their lineup, and Jack as a combo-guard is better then their current 4 PG mix.

Portland may actually not want this trade because when healthy, Jones has a better all-around game when defense is considered. And Cardinal is useless to them. Lowry is an upgrade as far as a backup PG, but he's a lousy perimeter shooter...something that would be a poor backcourt match for Roy.

So I don't think portland would do that deal unless Lowry was replaced in the trade with Conley. But memphis would likely balk at that. Portland might have to send their 2009 1st round pick to possibly convince memphis.

*Portland sends Lafrentz, Jones, Jack, and their 2009 1st round (lottery protected)

for

Miller, Conley, & Cardinal*

Looking at those 2 trades, the chances are Portland would say no to the first and Memphis would say no to the second. But you never know.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

moldorf said:


> I have no clue how credible MM is with this rumor, however....
> 
> for the purposes of conjecture, assume that the short-term goal(next 2 seasons) of Memphis is to shed some long-term contracts.
> 
> ...


Memphis. Is. Not. Trading. Mike. Conley.

The only way Conley would be on the block is if the Grizzlies drafted Derrick Rose in June. Until then, he and Rudy Gay aren't going anywhere.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

^^ I agree, there's no way Conley is moving in a trade with us. As nice of a story as it would be to have GO and Conley reunited, he's an ideal piece for Memphis going forward -- small contract, producing beyond his salary, and a great complimentary piece with Rudy Gay as a great potential backcourt of the future.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Rawse said:


> Memphis. Is. Not. Trading. Mike. Conley.
> 
> The only way Conley would be on the block is if the Grizzlies drafted Derrick Rose in June. Until then, he and Rudy Gay aren't going anywhere.


I would assume probably that's correct and I certainly implied that in my post.

However...after the Gasol trade, flatly stating that Memphis "won't trade this player for that player" or that a certain player is 'untouchable' simply isn't credible.

But assuming Gay and Conley, and to a lesser extent Darko, are the core for the moment, that still leaves portland room to make a deal for a package that includes Miller.

And if it's true that Memphis is 'insisting' that Cardianl is part of any Miller deal, then memphis isn't going to be getting a lot in return other then expiring contracts this summer or the next.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

crowTrobot said:


> well.433 anyway lol, which is very good.
> 
> i dunno though - he's a below average defender and turns the ball over as much as jack. outlaw is really a better all-around fit for us at SF - he just needs to start there (broken record).


Well to be fair it was a stat from NBA.com. Might not have been updated in awhile. I'd like to get Miller, but I also want to keep Outlaw.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

i'd trade outlaw for miller..


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Man this trade has good and bad sides as far as I can tell. Millers would be an upgrade for offensive side of the ball, but he sucks defensivly. He ends up on the bad side of more ESPN highlight's all the time. He is a good role player though. He would also be a vet that could teach younger players. 

As for Outlaw, quit over valuing him folks. Sure he has won us games this year. But until he becomes consistent, he is just another streaky player. The one common denominator when you look at the good teams is consistency. Guys show up and every night you know what you are going to get from them. Remember when the Blazers were good, you knew what you were going to get every night. Clylde 25. Porter 18. Jerome 14. Buck 12 Duck 12. Cliff 14. Ainge 16. All day long. Now what do we have? Well Outlaw scores 13 but he does it all in the 4th. Martell, you might get 4, you might get 24. Aldrige is it a 6 point night or a 26 point night. Its a mystery. Tune in at game time to find out if more than one player has a game that is worth a damn. 

Half of the problems the team is having would go away if the players would just nut up and hit their open shots, and if they aren't hitting, learn to get to the rim. Right now if the shots aren't falling, the young guys are just freezing up, afraid to shoot. Get to the rim. Make something happen.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

moldorf said:


> However...after the Gasol trade, flatly stating that Memphis "won't trade this player for that player" or that a certain player is 'untouchable' simply isn't credible.


I suppose it wouldn't be credible if I were just some random Grizzlies fan...

(Also, the Gasol situation isn't comparable, since it was well-publicized that he was on the block for over a year and the fan base had completely turned on him. Gasol being traded for nothing was unexpected, but Gasol being traded was not.)


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

moldorf said:


> However...after the Gasol trade, flatly stating that Memphis "won't trade this player for that player" or that a certain player is 'untouchable' simply isn't credible.


It is quite credible. There's a clear difference between Gasol and Conley Jr. Gasol was being paid market value and was a veteran...unlikely to still be in his prime for the next very good Grizzlies team. Conley Jr. is the type of very young building block that they are trying to acquire. While the Gasol trade may not have been impressive, it is clear _why_ they traded him. And why the trade rationale for Gasol does not fit for Conley or Gay.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> It is quite credible. There's a clear difference between Gasol and Conley Jr. Gasol was being paid market value and was a veteran...unlikely to still be in his prime for the next very good Grizzlies team. Conley Jr. is the type of very young building block that they are trying to acquire. While the Gasol trade may not have been impressive, it is clear _why_ they traded him. And why the trade rationale for Gasol does not fit for Conley or Gay.


Where've *you* been?!


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

Funny the last time I ran a poll on "would you involve Webster in a Miller deal" most of the votes went to Hell no Millers overated. I read now most of you would be all for it? Funny how minds can change so fast. Ya though I think Miller would be a great fit here.:cheers:


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

Martell and whatever to make the numbers work for Mike Miller seems to be the best choice.

Who knows?


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

hasoos said:


> As for Outlaw, quit over valuing him folks. Sure he has won us games this year. But until he becomes consistent, he is just another streaky player. The one common denominator when you look at the good teams is consistency. Guys show up and every night you know what you are going to get from them. Remember when the Blazers were good, you knew what you were going to get every night. Clylde 25. Porter 18. Jerome 14. Buck 12 Duck 12. Cliff 14. Ainge 16. All day long. Now what do we have? Well Outlaw scores 13 but he does it all in the 4th. Martell, you might get 4, you might get 24. Aldrige is it a 6 point night or a 26 point night. Its a mystery. Tune in at game time to find out if more than one player has a game that is worth a damn.


BIG Difference - those great Blazer teams were loaded with veteran players in the primes of their careers. Other than Uncle Cliffy, all the guys you mentioned had between 6 and 10 years of NBA experience and had been starters for most of their careers. And guess what, of the seven guys you mentioned, Cliffy, the youngest of the bunch at 24, was by far the least consistent. Don't believe me, go back and look at his game logs for the 1990-91 season. His scoring numbers look a lot like Outlaw's this year. If anything TO is MORE consistent this year than Cliffy was back then.

Plus, all seven of those guys had significant college experience. Clyde and Buck both played three years of college ball - all the others on your list played a full four years of college ball.. That's an average of 3.7 years of college experience. Travis Outlaw has exactly zero years of college experience. Same for Martell Webster.

So, yes, this young team, the third youngest team in NBA history, lacks the consistency of those great veteran teams. No surprise there. I wouldn't expect any different. It's part of the growing process and what separates veteran teams from young teams. If anything, this very young team is way ahead of schedule on transitioning from inexperienced, mistake-prone young team to a more consistent veteran team. Yes, they are still very young and inconsistent, but they are getting better. It helps that they have a young leader who is consistent, but that may be why we are expecting so much from our other young guys. EVERY other 2nd year player in the league looks inconsistent compared to Brandon Roy. The thing that will help this team the most is time. They need time to grow and become that consistent veteran team you desire.

Yes, Travis is in his 5th season, but he came straight out of high school, only played a total of 19 minutes his first season, is still only 23 and has made GREAT strides this year. Likewise, Martell also came right out of high school and only recently turned 21. And, as far as consistency goes, Travis recently had a streak of 13 games where he scored at least 13 points (something Uncle Cliffy couldn't come close to matching back in 1990-91 - the closest he came was 7 games in a row with at least 10 points).

I like Mike Miller, I really do. He's a great role player and and an excellent 2nd or 3rd option on offense. If this team was in a win now, or even win soon mode, I'd be willing to give up some of our young players to get him. I think he'd help us win more games this year, and maybe next. In fact, he was one of the guys I wanted the Blazers to try to land LAST year at the trade deadline. But, that was before we landed Greg Oden and Rudy Fernandez and shipped out, or let walk, most of our guys over 25 years of age. So, right now, today, I'd rather keep Travis Outlaw (especially) and Martell Webster. While he still isn't exactly old, Miller will be on the decline by the time the Blazer are legitimate title contenders. He's a stop gap filler at the small forward position for a couple years. Do we want to give up young talent that will be peaking at the same time as our core, for a short term fix at the small forward position? I know I don't.

Of course, if the deal was for Miller AND Conley Jr. that would be a different story. I like Conley Jr. far better than any PG we have on our roster, or whose NBA rights we hold. He's a pass first PG who plays great defense and is extremely athletic. He has the kind of quickness to guard the smaller, faster PGs that Brandon Roy can't cover. And, he's only 20. Of course, he's one of two guys on the Memphis roster (the other being Gay) that aren't on the trading block. 

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Not to belabor the point, but if Travis Outlaw had played four years of college ball (like Cliff Robinson and most the other guys on your list) he'd be a rookie right now. The numbers he's putting up this year are better than anything Cliff posted until his fourth season in the league.

And, of course, had Martell gone to college he'd be in his junior season right now. And, his numbers this year, as a 21-year old are better than the numbers Cliff was posting at 23.

Of course, neither of them went to college, so we get to see their inconsistency and growing pains at the NBA level. My point is these guys are still very young and have shown enough promise that I'm not ready to give up on them yet - even though they lack consistency.

That doesn't mean I consider them untradeable. They aren't. I'd trade either one (or both) in a heartbeat for the right player - someone young and talented that addresses a specific need.

BNM


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Rawse said:


> Where've *you* been?!


On a top secret mission for the government. I'd tell you _which_ government, but Homeland Security is pretty active in watching the Internet.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

Rawse said:


> *Memphis. Is. Not. Trading. Mike. Conley.*
> 
> The only way Conley would be on the block is if the Grizzlies drafted Derrick Rose in June. Until then, he and Rudy Gay aren't going anywhere.


How. Do. You. Know?

YOU DON'T!!! So stop acting like you do!


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Resume said:


> How. Do. You. Know?
> 
> YOU DON'T!!! So stop acting like you do!




Memphis is not trading Conley


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

mediocre man said:


> Memphis is not trading Conley


Yeah like you have any credibility on this forum...


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Resume said:


> Yeah like you have any credibility on this forum...


More than you give him credit for Resume. How many days till your birthday dude! :biggrin:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Resume said:


> How. Do. You. Know?


Common sense, largely.

Though, rawse is wrong. Memphis would trade Conley for Lebron James.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

HOWIE said:


> More than you give him credit for Resume. How many days till your birthday dude! :biggrin:


366 days.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Common sense, largely.
> 
> Though, rawse is wrong. Memphis would trade Conley for Lebron James.


True, Pritchard said he would have moved the number one pick (Greg Oden) for Lebron James.

I think that the only way that Portland is able to land Conley is if they move their pick, but not before the dead line, but after the lottery shakes out. Portland could be in a position to move up and get a Rose, Gordon, Beasley player if they wait. Adding Miller and Conley now would take the place of a lottery pick. Conley is a pretty good point guard.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Resume said:


> 366 days.


That was a leap year joke.....right? :lol:


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

ZackAddy said:


> Dude... this is not to offend you. It's not trash talk, but why is Miami so bad? I honestly don't get it. How does a team go from championship to a team that is unable to win 10 games before the All Star break while still having its best player? How does that happen? And like I think I've told you before, I rooted for them in 06 and it was a great run. But this is one of the most mindboggling stories every in the history of the NBA. 9 wins? I just don't get it. I think it will work out in the long run though. You should get a great pick and the team should bounce back because Wade is a stud.


:sigh:

Yea we suck right now, I have no idea why. Actually I do - prior to the Marion trade, half our team has been D-League'ers and the other half (the _good_ half) has been washed up or cancer players.. Then we've had Shaq sitting out with an _injury_ and D-Wade/Haslem with their own injuries,
and the fact that Ricky Davis refuses to pass to Wade ever.. But even with all that, we shouldn't be this bad. We should have won atleast like 12-15 

It should get a little better with Marion/Banks here now (though we're 0-3 so far lol but 2 of those were good games), but when you're bigman line-up looks like this you're not gona win many games;

5: Mark Blount (been playing surprisingly well) / Earl Barron (lol) / Joel Anthony (who?)
4: Haslem (been injured for a while) / Alexander Johnson (um)



hoojacks said:


> Martell and whatever to make the numbers work for Mike Miller seems to be the best choice.


I agree.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

HOWIE said:


> That was a leap year joke.....right? :lol:


Ooops, I meant 367 days.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

HOWIE said:


> More than you give him credit for Resume. How many days till your birthday dude! :biggrin:


No worries Howie. He doesn't need to know who, what or how. It's my fault for trying to share stuff I hear is happening instead of waiting until it's final or out in the news like the fish hacks do


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

mediocre man said:


> No worries Howie. He doesn't need to know who, what or how. *It's my fault for trying to share stuff I hear is happening* instead of waiting until it's final or out in the news like the fish hacks do


Yeah just like a trade is coming huh?
Are you the isfinaw guy?


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Resume said:


> How. Do. You. Know?
> 
> YOU DON'T!!! So stop acting like you do!


Actually, hate to break it to you, but I do. In fact, I can guarantee it.

You think everyone who posts on this board is some foam-finger waving, ticket-paying fanboy like you?


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> On a top secret mission for the government. I'd tell you _which_ government, but Homeland Security is pretty active in watching the Internet.


I can't ever tell if you're 100-percent joking, but just in case, I'm deleting everything in my "My Movies" file when I get home.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Rawse said:


> You think everyone who posts on this board is some diaper-wearing, ticket-paying fanboy like you?



i'd argue but i have to go change myself.


----------

