# My Bulls Announce



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

Options are picked up on crawford, fizer AND vomitbags


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I have to admit i am a little suprised on the fizer one i thought he would be gone jamal and bagaric i figured would be extended- on a side note krause said in that article that jamal and fizer would be a starter on a great many NBA teams- that was strange to me because neither appear to be starters for the future here- is that just krause trying to make them sound better to other teams?


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

There was little doubt. Krause would swear off donuts before he let a player get away for nothing.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Here is the quote i was referring to about jamal and fizer:

“Jamal has the ability to be an outstanding all around player in the NBA for a long time. Marcus is an outstanding low post scorer and rebounder who has improved in every area of the game. Both Jamal and Marcus would be key starters on a great many NBA teams. Dalibor was drafted as an 18-year-old we thought would develop into a quality NBA player and we still think will in time.”


I didnt even catch it until now krause said marcus is an outstanding rebounder?!- are you kidding me?


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> There was little doubt. Krause would swear off donuts before he let a player get away for nothing.


Hmmm....

BJ Armstrong
Corie Blount
AJ Guyton
Khalid El-Amin
Michael Ruffin
Dickey Simpkins


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

Bagastiff can be a great big man? LMAO. The guy has much chance of turning the corner as Preist Lauderdale. Give Krause the tall freak from the movie _Bubbleboy_ and he'd pick up his option too.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Does this move all but disqualify us from signing any free agents this next offseason? Assuming we don't trade these guys for cash, a draft pick, or fodder.... are we missing out arguably the best FA class in many years?




VD


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Nater</b>!
> 
> Hmmm....
> 
> ...


I am starting to chuckle already.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> Does this move all but disqualify us from signing any free agents this next offseason? Assuming we don't trade these guys for cash, a draft pick, or fodder.... are we missing out arguably the best FA class in many years?
> 
> 
> ...


That would be my take. I think he is wisely not going to partake of the cap room he could have and stick with the MLE, which would not be that much less.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

*Typical backhanded BCH comment...*



> Originally posted by <b>Nater</b>!
> 
> Hmmm....
> 
> ...


...and yet another donut reference. How original.

The notion that Krause doesn't admit mistakes and doesn't give up on players "for nothing" is rediculous.

I could add to the list Hersey Hawkins, Matt Maloney, Chris Anstey, Corey Benjamin, Dragan Tarlac, Will Perdue, John Starks, Scott Burrell, Ron Harper, Rusty LaRue, Kornel David, Travis Knight, Greg Foster, etc., etc.


----------



## Peter Vescey (Oct 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Here is the quote i was referring to about jamal and fizer:
> 
> “Jamal has the ability to be an outstanding all around player in the NBA for a long time. Marcus is an outstanding low post scorer and rebounder who has improved in every area of the game. Both Jamal and Marcus would be key starters on a great many NBA teams. Dalibor was drafted as an 18-year-old we thought would develop into a quality NBA player and we still think will in time.”
> ...


If thats the quote, it says to me "Jamal would be a key starter on a great many NBA teams, but not here".

To me it sounds like Williams is starting and Krause inadvertently tipped it---assuming the starters haven't been named publicly somewhere already.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*I don't get it*



> BJ Armstrong
> Corie Blount
> AJ Guyton
> Khalid El-Amin
> ...


What does this list of players prove?

Maybe BJ, Blount and Knight made other team's 8 to 10 man rotations but that is about it.

Does it prove that Krause keeps players long enough so that not only the Bulls know they have no value, but everyone else does too?


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Guys there is justice afterall Bagaric was placed on injured list today along with Brunson and of course Roger Mason- this means Baxter made the 12 man active roster- congrats to him he deserves it- this does undoubtedly leave us thin at C but curry,blount of course will play there but also possibly Chandler and against certain teams Marshall will- oh and this info is according to bulls.com


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: I don't get it*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> What does this list of players prove?
> ...


Good point J797.

Kneepad, the list you mentioned were not lottery picks. Many of them were acquired through trade, signings, second rounds picks or late first rounders, etc. In other words, they went through the revolving door of NBA journeymen that so many players on so many different organizations go through.

I wish Jerry K would just realize that he banked a ton of his team's interests (6 picks of the top 34) on the 2000 draft, one of the worst in recent NBA history. This netted us two players no longer in the NBA (Guyton, El-Amin), two spot starters (Voshkul and Crawford), one sixth man (Fizer) and one stretch of a backup center (DBags).

I am still baffled by the signing of these three. DBags could have been re-signed for cheaper, Fizer should be traded or let go. I see the reasoning behind Crawford however. Signing all three handcuffs us from making any moves next offseason.



VD


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Oh this is the injury they are claiming Bagaric has:


Lower Leg Tenosynovitis


Now pardon me but what in the H*** is that? haha i find it very funny this guy is a joke-


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Looks like Bags came down with a bad case of "lower leg tenosynovitis"

_....musta picked that up over in Europe_


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Oh this is the injury they are claiming Bagaric has:
> 
> 
> ...


DBags must have been tearing up the dance floor at his wedding.




VD


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: I don't get it*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> What does this list of players prove?
> 
> Maybe BJ, Blount and Knight made other team's 8 to 10 man rotations but that is about it.
> ...


I'm not trying to prove any big point, johnston, other than certain posters here will take any chance they get to take a backhanded slap at Krause and Bulls management. Granted, some of the players I listed were out of the league soon after leaving the Bulls. But go check-- Maloney, Starks, Burrell, Harper, LaRue, and Foster (in addition to BJ, Blount, and Knight) all made significant contributions to other teams after leaving the Bulls. And Krause let all these players "get away" for nothing.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: I don't get it*



> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> I am still baffled by the signing of these three. DBags could have been re-signed for cheaper, Fizer should be traded or let go. I see the reasoning behind Crawford however. Signing all three handcuffs us from making any moves next offseason.
> VD


*Vin!*

I can think of three reasons for the signing.

First, some teams may be unwilling to deal, thinking they can just come in and make an attractive offer next season. Now, though, they know that is not a way to get these players. If they want them, they will have to eventually offer something to Jerry. This may actually encourage other teams to approach the trade table rather than wait in the wings.

Second, these guys are the ideal pieces for a sign and trade. Recall the summer of Duncan, TMac, Hill, etc. None of these guys signed outright for the max. Instead, each had their team negotiate a sign-and-trade. If we have nothing to trade, that option is not open to us.

Third, Krause may actually feel they're worth the money. Personally, I doubt they'd earn less than rookie scale in their fourth seasons.

Just my take, but whether we plan to trade them or keep them, the rookie contract is a big plus for us.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> DBags must have been tearing up the dance floor at his wedding.




I keep trying to picture Bags dancing -- what I see in my minds' eye is an outtake of a musical number from "Bear in the Big Blue House."

If you want to read about his "injury" here's a link:
http://www.medinfo.co.uk/conditions/tenosynovitis.html

Basically, a sore tendon from heavy, repetitive stress. So the surprising thing about this is that he developed it in his lower leg, like from frequently running instead of in his butt, from frequently hitting the bench.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: I don't get it*



> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> I am still baffled by the signing of these three. DBags could have been re-signed for cheaper, Fizer should be traded or let go. I see the reasoning behind Crawford however. Signing all three handcuffs us from making any moves next offseason.


I can see the logic for extending, but Krause must think all 3 of these guys are likely to contribute on an NBA level over the next few years.

First, the Bulls have a lot more negotiating power by extending these 3. They are now RFAs in 2 years vs. UFAs next yeat. 

If we had let all three of them go we would have maybe $6M in cap space + whatever it increases from this year ($40M) to next. Instead, we have the $4.5 or so mid-level exception. Seems like you could argue that Craw, Fiz, and Bags are worth the difference between those 2 numbers.

From a team unity standpoint, I do like that the entire team is signed for next year. That should help keep siome harmony this year when we hit a rough patch.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL.


Lest we forget the presence of 390 guests including: Toni Kukoc, Marcus Fizer and Tyson Chandler. Wow. Talk about a crowded dance floor.



VD


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: I don't get it*



> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> I'm not trying to prove any big point, johnston, other than certain posters here will take any chance they get to take a backhanded slap at Krause and Bulls management. Granted, some of the players I listed were out of the league soon after leaving the Bulls. But go check-- Maloney, Starks, Burrell, Harper, LaRue, and Foster (in addition to BJ, Blount, and Knight) all made significant contributions to other teams after leaving the Bulls. And Krause let all these players "get away" for nothing.


Kneepad, 

U da man, but that is a pretty sorry group of players with the exception of Harper whose contributions to the Lakers were not insignificant.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Oh this is the injury they are claiming Bagaric has:
> 
> 
> ...


No need to mask hell here. You can say that


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: I don't get it*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> ...that is a pretty sorry group of players with the exception of Harper whose contributions to the Lakers were not insignificant.


No one said they were all-stars.

But I never intended to get into a debate about this. I was just weary of the 358th donut joke I've seen posted here. Let's just drop it.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Dalibor was drafted as an 18-year-old we thought would develop into a quality NBA player and we still think will in time.”


Isn't someone's third NBA season enough? If three years isn't enough time to show he belongs, he should pack his bags.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*I can vividly see...*



> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


one episode of the Muensters where HERMAN was dancing with Marilyn!!! He had more moves than Vomitbags ever thought of....:laugh:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: I can vividly see...*



> Originally posted by <b>BamaBull</b>!
> 
> 
> one episode of the Muensters where HERMAN was dancing with Marilyn!!! He had more moves than Vomitbags ever thought of....:laugh:


The Munsters! That's IT! Can't you picture Bags stomping his feet midcourt yelling Darn! Darn! Darn! DAAARN! a la Herman Munster?


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: I don't get it*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Kneepad,
> ...


There was never a qualification in this argument that the players had to be *significant* (i.e., not sorry). BCH stated, "Krause would swear off donuts before he let a player get away for nothing."

So what did I, and subsequently Kneepad, do? We listed players that Krause has let get away for nothing. We're not saying Krause was wrong to let them go -- we're simply straightening out some facts. Sure, the value of most of those players was questionable... but so is the value of players we're currently discussing: Bags, and even Fizer occasionally.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*He should pack his "bagarics?"*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Isn't someone's third NBA season enough? If three years isn't enough time to show he belongs, he should pack his bags.


No pun intended....eh?:laugh:


----------



## Bayonet (Jun 3, 2002)

*BJ was not let go for nothing*

He was taken in an expansion draft. There are only so many players that be protected and this was off a top 5 team. Someone had to go and it appears it bothered JK so much that he has brought him back in the front office.

Of the others, I don't see a "player" on the list.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get it*



> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> No one said they were all-stars.
> 
> But I never intended to get into a debate about this. I was just weary of the 358th donut joke I've seen posted here. Let's just drop it.


I call it like I see it and Krause has invested enough in those players professionally by constantly hyping them that he would not let them walk for nothing. The donut reference was a statement based on the reported love of Krause for junk food. It is not like it was pulled out of thin air, it was based on fact. Sorry if it upsets your sensibilities.


----------



## settinUpShop (Jun 8, 2002)

BCH, would you say that digging on someone's eating habits if they are over weight should not be taken seriously, because overweight people are in control of their own destiny and therefore open themselves up for this type of ridicule? If that's your logic we could also talk about GM's/players who've been unfaithful to their wives, ala MJ. But what's the point, it's got nothing to do with basketball.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>settinUpShop</b>!
> BCH, would you say that digging on someone's eating habits if they are over weight should not be taken seriously, because overweight people are in control of their own destiny and therefore open themselves up for this type of ridicule? If that's your logic we could also talk about GM's/players who've been unfaithful to their wives, ala MJ. But what's the point, it's got nothing to do with basketball.


For all I know Krause could have a medical condition that contributes to his weight. I am merely commenting on his documented love of donuts/junk food. That is about all I know of the guy's private life. I was using it to reinforce the idea that it was unlikely, in no way did I mention his weight or his appearance.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Isn't someone's third NBA season enough? If three years isn't enough time to show he belongs, he should pack his bags.


Yet someone payed Larry Hughes $4.5M after 4 average seasons because of his ding ding... yup you guessed it ...upside

On your harsh premise Lozza should be out of the league by now 

Yell would not have made it this far either


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Yet someone payed Larry Hughes $4.5M after 4 average seasons because of his ding ding... yup you guessed it ...upside
> ...


And which of the three are you comparing to Hughes? None of them have even approached doing what Hughes has done for any stretch at all. That is not hyping up Hughes, merely a question of the validity of the comparison.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> For all I know Krause could have a medical condition that contributes to his weight. I am merely commenting on his documented love of donuts/junk food. That is about all I know of the guy's private life. I was using it to reinforce the idea that it was unlikely, in no way did I mention his weight or his appearance.


Or you could say about MJ that it is as likely for him to letting XYZ players go as it is for him to stop cheating and disrespecting his wife and his family and shagging a dozen chicks a week.


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

okay -- what about Krause letting go of Bruce Bowen?


is this guy not a player??
(it's the one move - the ONE move of the last four years that i just totally did not get at all... especially when he KEPT Starks!?)


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Or you could say about MJ that it is as likely for him to letting XYZ players go as it is for him to stop cheating and disrespecting his wife and his family and shagging a dozen chicks a week.


Where exactly is that alleged or documented?


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> And which of the three are you comparing to Hughes? None of them have even approached doing what Hughes has done for any stretch at all. That is not hyping up Hughes, merely a question of the validity of the comparison.


All of the above actually

None of them have lived up their billing in their first two seasons and over 4 seasons neither has Lozza ( relative to their individual hype quotients ) 

And it was Mike's premise that if you had nt proved it by year 3 that you were a bum that did not deserve to be in the league 

Obviously Loz had not proved it enough for Philly, the Bulls and the Waz who all could have had him but passed him over during this 3 year period

Y'all tell me that Loz is firing in the pre and Wash is the land of milk and honey for loz so I guess this season will confirm once and for all what he is about


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Where exactly is that alleged or documented?


You are reaching a bit are you not 

He is suing one of his groupies at the moment


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

"hype quotients"

I am glad you have a way to measure this especially considering I doubt there has been a more hyped player the past few years that Jamal Crawford at point.

I loved the rhetoric of last summer indicating he had grown 3 inches and put on 25 pounds of muscle, or something similar.

Out of curiousity what exactly are all 4 players hype quotient to productivity ratio?


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> 
> 
> You are reaching a bit are you not
> ...


Am I reaching? I am trying to understand how something thathappened 10 years ago relates to shagging a dozen chicks a week.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> No need to mask hell here. You can say that


 [You can say the word but you can't tell someone to go there -- personal attack (I know it was a joke, but still... TB#1] 

:upset: 

Ahhh... That felt nice!


----------



## Nobull1 (Oct 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BamaBull</b>!
> Options are picked up on crawford, fizer AND :hurl: vomitbags


:devil:


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Am I reaching? I am trying to understand how something thathappened 10 years ago relates to shagging a dozen chicks a week.


Are we still talking about Larry Hughes's 
"ding-ding"?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Yet someone payed Larry Hughes $4.5M after 4 average seasons because of his ding ding... yup you guessed it ...upside
> ...


... I've heard of the propensity of Wiz fans to come on here and "hijack" threads, now I finally see it.

Here we are, talking about the Bulls, and someone pops up and diverts the topic to the Wiz. Only thing is, I didn't know F.Jerzy was a Wiz fan.

Interesting... :devil: 

----------------------------------------

Back on topic, I'm not really surprised Bag's option was taken up. If he can be at all effective, $1-1.5M really isn't bad for a backup center, and if he doesn't work out, then it's still not an amount that will kill us cap wise.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Am I reaching? I am trying to understand how something thathappened 10 years ago relates to shagging a dozen chicks a week.



Yeah he shagged a charlie 10 years ago and has had his chastity belt on ever since

:angel: 

Krause may have eaten a donught 10 years ago too but you know as to how regularly and in what quantities he consumes as to what I know the who why and when of Jordan's chicky consumption

See how ridiculous this conversation has become ?


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

The thread is getting ridiculous from your input. You are free to try and stretch what I said and throw in as many Wizards references as you want. Jerry will still eat his donuts, oblivious to it all.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> ... I've heard of the propensity of Wiz fans to come on here and "hijack" threads, now I finally see it.
> ...


Bit misguided are we not ?

You have shown yourself to be a Wiz fan 

You also came out and made the big statement

I was just wondering whether you also think that should apply to players on the Wiz because it did not appear so given your harsh criteria 

I was just interested in your take on this as a Wiz fan and then how could it be rationalised with the Larry Hughes signing who had underachieved and disappointed in his previous campaigns

In short I was saying that you were contradicting yourself


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> The thread is getting ridiculous from your input. You are free to try and stretch what I said and throw in as many Wizards references as you want. Jerry will still eat his donuts, oblivious to it all.


And MJ will still shag his Charlies

And we will still speculate about both 

And until you have driven through A Krispy Kreme drive through and I have gone tag team in one of his free for alls - that is all we doing is speculating


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

For those of you who've just joined us, here's a recap of this thread. We've learned:

1. 360+ Donut jokes have been reported
2. Herman Munster - Not a good dancer
3. The truth about Larry Hughes's "ding-ding"
4. Someone has indeed "shagged a charlie" whatever that means. Farrah Fawcett perhaps? Stay tuned...
5. BCH once again steers a thread into the South Holland Quarry


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> For all I know Krause could have a medical condition that contributes to his weight. I am merely commenting on his documented love of donuts/junk food. That is about all I know of the guy's private life. I was using it to reinforce the idea that it was unlikely, in no way did I mention his weight or his appearance.


oh c'mon 

the least you could do is be a man and admit it was a dig at Krause due to his appearance 

the hiding behind "all i know about him personally is that he likes snacks" argument does nothing but either say you lack the common sense to know that it would be taken as a dig on his weight(which i doubt) or that anyone reading what you say lacks the mental ability to know you are full of it (far more likely)

either way it doesn't paint a pretty picture of you


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Electric Slim</b>!
> For those of you who've just joined us, here's a recap of this thread. We've learned:
> 
> 5. BCH once again steers a thread into the South Holland Quarry


Uh, I believe F.Jerzy is the one who took things off topic (Hint: please stop).


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Uh, I believe F.Jerzy is the one who took things off topic (Hint: please stop).


actually it was the bch donut comment 

and posters taking exception to it 

once again the fault lies with a wiz poster making snide comments


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Uh, I believe F.Jerzy is the one who took things off topic (Hint: please stop).


Yup, I'm the bad guy.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Uh, I believe F.Jerzy is the one who took things off topic (Hint: please stop).


Oh I get it 

It seems you and BCH can make your inflammatory comments - you with the get out after 3 years if you have not done it theory and BCH with his thinly veiled and inappropriate dig at Krause and his junk food fetishes 

And no one is to respond in kind

Get a grip

Don't come out all sanctimonious and wag the finger 

You make the statement expect the responses

I simply asked you if the same rules apply to Wizards players ( the 3 year thing ) in the Context of you being a Wizards fan

There is no hijacking - merely paranoia and fan flaming which I find unnecesary . Your initial comment was in context with the thread and as part of a bigger broader issue I was bringing up the issue of deservation of players that were also underachievers up until this point - like a Loz - a player from a team you support and made the statement in reply that such issue of deservation ( IE deserving to still be in the league ) should also apply to Loz who you could sucessfully argue given the evidence had had a rocky rookie contract period - playing for two teams in that time with a 3rd team passing him over.

If you made the initial statement (which you did ) yet also believe he was such a you beaut signing for the Wiz then by your definition that you gave on this thread - you have contradicted yourself 

You can divert this truth as much as you like with bleating about how I have hijacked the thread while you and BCH were at choir practise with the other altar boys

Or you could be a man about it and stop diverting the truth away from your own contradiction


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Thanks you Grinch and Slim for seeing the truth as what it is 

Sometimes people are not as impartial as they need to be - even people charged with the responsibility of running and moderating a site 

Still does not mean that they are beyond reproach when they are out of line


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

FJerzy - you've been around long enough to know that arguing with BCH is futile. I think BCH is hilarious actually, but it's rather annoying that he always has to get the last word. Whether who started whatever argument, or who is right or wrong, who cares? A veteran poster like BCH should know when to quit. 

Out.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> 
> If you made the initial statement (which you did ) yet also believe he was such a you beaut signing for the Wiz then by your definition that you gave on this thread - you have contradicted yourself
> 
> ...


If you start questioning people's manhood you're going to get yourself in trouble. I daresay you wouldn't be doing that if you were sitting across from me. Even though you're not, I'd ask for the same courtesy.

As for your understanding of my position of Bags vs. Hughes, you've misinterpreted it fairly completely.

Hughes, though underachieving, has at least shown he can play at an NBA level. Bagaric hasn't.

You'll note that I didn't say something like what you're implying to me me, which seems to be "a player should reach his full potential after 3 years". That's not at all what I said or implied. It'd be a gross simplification to say that, and I thought you were smart enough that such an obvious line of discussion was unnecessary.

However, to spell it out, there's an obvious difference between a player I see who has underachieved or just not reached their potential after three years, but at least shown a propensity to be able to play the game at an NBA level, and a player who, going into his third year, has shown no such propensity.

Sorry for my omission of that point earlier. It was so obvious that I didn't think it required any explanation.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Electric Slim</b>!
> FJerzy - you've been around long enough to know that arguing with BCH is futile. I think BCH is hilarious actually, but it's rather annoying that he always has to get the last word. Whether who started whatever argument, or who is right or wrong, who cares? A veteran poster like BCH should know when to quit.
> 
> Out.


Some people are just obsessed by verbal ping pong I guess


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> Thanks you Grinch and Slim for seeing the truth as what it is
> 
> Sometimes people are not as impartial as they need to be - even people charged with the responsibility of running and moderating a site
> ...


Glad you're here to reproach us :| If you've got a problem, please take it up via PM.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> Thanks you Grinch and Slim for seeing the truth as what it is


I'm not particularly on your side. Sorry.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Electric Slim</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not particularly on your side. Sorry.


NOt about sides Slimbo m'boy

Just gave you your props for your post - I didnt thank you for "being on my side"

There is a difference and that is not what I "thanked you"

Frankly, a reprobate punk rocker like yourself would be a questionable ally in any event.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> If you start questioning people's manhood you're going to get yourself in trouble. I daresay you wouldn't be doing that if you were sitting across from me. Even though you're not, I'd ask for the same courtesy.


No need for the argy bargy and the tough guy threats - that's not very appropriate and frankly whether you were sitting across from me or not has got nothing to do with anything . I never questioned anyone's "manhood" Asking someone to be a man about something is to ask them to be a stand up guy - to be fair dinkum - it has nothing to do with the personal context you infer. If you want to use this in what you interpret it as - knock yourself out . I was just saying that you were contradicting yourself in what had been a literal interpretation of what you wrote 

Where we have such a means of communication - all we have are our words in the literacy of what we say to convey meaning

You will forgive me if I have doubts as to what you mean to say wherein on the same page later in the thread after you have accused me of hijacking - you then flip flop and decide that you "can understand Bags's option getting picked up that $1.5M is not bad for a back up center

You see - its a little bit hard to get a "read" on what you think - with positions on things being changed on the same page ) let alone the same thread ) 

Where the literal form of what you write contrradicts itself how the hell do you expect me to be on a Cosmic wave length with you where I am just supposed to automatically understand what you really meant ( without explaining it )

Maybe its just me. Yes . I'm sure it is 

My mistake


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> 
> 
> No need for the argy bargy and the tough guy threats - that's not very appropriate and frankly whether you were sitting across from me or not has got nothing to do with anything .


I didn't intend to threaten you at all. I do think, however, that you'd be taking a different tone if you were sitting face to face with me. If you take that as a threat, I'd guess it's because you see a difference in your tone here and the tone you normally take when speaking to people.

All I'm asking is that you exercise the latter. Despite it's ease of use, the internet is a hard medium to communicate through for the precise reason that it desensitizes people from the fact they're talking to... other people.



> I never questioned anyone's "manhood" Asking someone to be a man about something is to ask them to be a stand up guy - to be fair dinkum - it has nothing to do with the personal context you infer. If you want to use this in what you interpret it as - knock yourself out .


Well, you need to realize that when you tell someone to "be a man", that can easily be interpreted as insulting. Again, you're smart enough to know this, but forcing me to point it out anyway. Why?



> I was just saying that you were contradicting yourself in what had been a literal interpretation of what you wrote


I don't see how you got "underachieving" from my original statement about Bagaric, since I literally never used that word. Instead, I said "If three years isn't enough time to show he belongs, he should pack his bags."

Literally, does he belong in the NBA? An entirely seperate question from "does he reach his potential" or "does he underachieve"?



> Where we have such a means of communication - all we have are our words in the literacy of what we say to convey meaning
> 
> You will forgive me if I have doubts as to what you mean to say wherein on the same page later in the thread after you have accused me of hijacking - you then flip flop and decide that you "can understand Bags's option getting picked up that $1.5M is not bad for a back up center
> 
> You see - its a little bit hard to get a "read" on what you think - with positions on things being changed on the same page ) let alone the same thread )


Well, part of that is because I have conflicted feelings on the issue, and part of it is because I have some hope that he (Bagaric) will come around. So there's some inconsistency in my thought. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. I'd suggest that if anyone looks at most any NBA player and doesn't have any questions about some aspect they're fairly simple-minded.

Another part of that is that my two statements weren't contradictory. I said:

1. Three years is enough to prove you belong in the NBA (this is Bag's third year).

2. Picking up option isn't a big risk even if he doesn't work out (ie, if he can't prove over this, his third year, that he belongs).

3. I said picking up his option isn't a big risk, that I can understand it, and that I'm not surprised. I didn't say I would have done it.

Also, you were suggesting that I was contradicting myself on Bagaric vs. Hughes... now you're switching in the middle of the stream and saying I'm contradicting myself on Bagaric? Maybe, but that's getting away from whatever your original point was. I guess I could have come off as contradictory, and if so, I'm somewhat sorry, but I don't think in this case there's any fundamental inconsistency in what I was saying.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

I seriously think everyone is way too sensitive about Krause and donuts. You can either take my word for it for the second time that it had little to do with his weight and more to do with his proclivity to eat them. If you want to associate his eating of donuts to his weight that is fine and acceptable. I do not control your thought process. However, your assumptions are your own, and whatever you infer is what yyou infer and may not be by my implication.

Trying to use the argument that my donut joke opened the door to a series of posts about MJ is going to lose because it is wrong. Even if my joke offended you, it served its purpose to enforce my thoughts on Krause and his handling of players.

Play nice, enjoy. The donut jokes may happen again one day.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

I could care less what Jerry eats, bear claws, long johns, boston cremes it makes no difference. What does concern me is that Jerry has had numerous lottery picks and I am still waiting for a franchise player to emerge from all of them. Maybe Jay Williams will be that special player, I sure hope so. 

I don't like Krause because I don't think he's a good gm and he traded Elton, not because he's the NBA's version of Jabba the Hut.


----------



## Nobull1 (Oct 6, 2002)

.:topic: 
You know we place where everybody can hammer out their differences with other posters. I for one really find it highly annoying. That goes for Mike,Bch,Fat.

I know all of you have a lot to say as far as basketball. I could careless about your differences or who is going to do this and that. I find the most dangerous people are not the ones who talk about. They are usually that a whole lot of mouth


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> I seriously think everyone is way too sensitive about Krause and donuts. You can either take my word for it for the second time that it had little to do with his weight and more to do with his proclivity to eat them. If you want to associate his eating of donuts to his weight that is fine and acceptable. I do not control your thought process. However, your assumptions are your own, and whatever you infer is what yyou infer and may not be by my implication.
> 
> Trying to use the argument that my donut joke opened the door to a series of posts about MJ is going to lose because it is wrong. Even if my joke offended you, it served its purpose to enforce my thoughts on Krause and his handling of players.
> ...


have you ever seen Krause eat a donut ? probably not 

have you seen him eat enough of them to think he eats the on a regular basis? of course you haven't 

what you are doing is obvious but you wont admit it and want to go on silly and quite frankly insulting little diatribes on how you are too clueless to know that commenting on how JK likes donuts somehow illustrates a point of yours which in all honesty if it was valid(which it probably wasn't) i have already forgotten and that if by the magic of fairies or some other odd way has left people to think it was a fat joke which of course it was

you are not nearly as slick as you think you are 

grow up and move on


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Let us try this again.

I fully understand where you think my comment on Krause had something to do with his weight. It doesn't. In fact, his nickname "Crumbs" has little to do with his physical appearance and more to do with his proclivity to eat fastfood. You apparently are incapable of separating the two points of view, and I am sorry for that. If you want to judge feel free, but from now on do it through a PM to me directly. This forum is not for you to take out your frustrations over a legit comment about Jerry Krause in a conversation with me. I am sorry you don't see it that way, and you are welcome to voice your complaints to me directly.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

This topic is locked for now obvious reasons.


----------

