# Will the MM deal happen?



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

supposedly, MM has told Hap and a couple others the details so if there is a trade, it can be varified. Do you think the MM deal will happen?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Just so you all know I voted yes.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Just so you all know I voted yes.



Surprised you didnt vote for pudding.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Just so you all know I voted yes.



I thought for sure you would go with the pudding.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

No, unless it is Jack for the #11. The Blazers are probably going to pick Durant and that will probably nulify the deal.

gatorpops


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Its hard to vote on the opinion of a deal that I do not know the details of, so my vote is pudding.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

I voted pudding because, well, it's pudding.

You will be happy to know though that MM wrote a book about this proposed trade whose key details are secretly encoded in its text. I'm deciphering it right now and I should be done around 2015.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Without knowing the details, ya gotta vote pudding.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

probably not going to happen because we dont even know who we are picking yet....deal comming "soon"...soon as is 4 months haha...jokes


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Despite the criticism, MM has posted on this board for a long time. I don't think he would have posted about this unless he was sure. I believe.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Reep said:


> Despite the criticism, MM has posted on this board for a long time. I don't think he would have posted about this unless he was sure. I believe.


You believe what?

That he posted or that he posted about knowing something about a trade?

I have no doubt that Dwight..err I mean MM actually knows someone up in the higher ranks of a different NBA organization and that that person feeds him some quasi-information.

But really, MM's just getting teased because he can't say anything if he does know something.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

As far as I know, mm IS Hap and a few others so, he'll back himself up after something or other happens.

Anything less than a PM from him to me describing the deal before it goes down will leave me no choice but to call BS.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Regardless, I'm increasingly hoping not much happens, actually. I'd be okay with moving someone (Jack, a resigned Outlaw, maybe Webster) and picks for a shot at one of the many SFs or some other relatively small deal, but more and more I like the idea of Randolph playing with Aldridge and Oden. At the very least, I think Randolph's value would rise and it's possible that it'd really be worth building around that core. All three rebound well, two are great defenders, two seem pretty strong inside offensively , two seem pretty strong outside offensively, etc. Nate would have a lot to work with there. If Pritchard can figure out another way to improve the SF position, this group might really be something if kept intact.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I love pudding but I love a good Blazer trade as well

I think MM's deal will happen. 


:wave: Zach


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

The "MM deal?" If I understand correctly, the "MM deal" was an attention-getting thread. That's the "deal."

The trade prediction itself was that a trade will happen on or before draft day, and that is pretty much the most obvious thing anyone could have guessed. On any subject.

That thead has way too many pages already, he got his attention. Then the other threads about that thread were made, and they were also not needed.

Now there's a poll about the thread, and yeah I voted pudding.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

MMMMMM.....pudding!


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

Pudding. MM and Hap don't know squat.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Pudding out in front!


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

It's BS. If he really knew the rumor, why not come out with it? Rumors are spread all over message boards all the time, sometimes they happen, sometimes they don't. Do you really think GMs of other teams uses message boards as a reliable source?


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

I thought Pudding would just be the spoiler for No, but it's looking like Pudding has a chance.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Verro said:


> I thought Pudding would just be the spoiler for No, but it's looking like Pudding has a chance.


I love a three party system


----------



## DamDweller (Jun 7, 2007)

Don't know him well enough to vote yes and I am not a big fan of pudding, so I voted a big fat NO! Besides that, I mean you no disrespect MM, but you have to earn my trust before I am going to believe you. So, let's just look at this as the testing grounds.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

DamDweller said:


> Don't know him well enough to vote yes and I am not a big fan of pudding, so I voted a big fat NO! Besides that, I mean you no disrespect MM, but you have to earn my trust before I am going to believe you. So, let's just look at this as the testing grounds.


No is a partial vote for the notion that there is a deal that won't go through.

Pudding is a vote that says he'll confirm whatever happens.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> It's BS. If he really knew the rumor, why not come out with it? Rumors are spread all over message boards all the time, sometimes they happen, sometimes they don't. Do you really think GMs of other teams uses message boards as a reliable source?


I agree. How hard is it to speculate a trade is happening and get a few friends on the board to back what ever happens as I predicted that. Maybe he has inside information, but if he knows something it is impossible to verify unless he just he gives people he doesn't know a enough info to know his perdiction is true. If he gave out two teams the deal could be with, many on this board would predict who and what and if it happens, but at least it would verify he knew something. Telling a couple friends means nothing to verify he knows anything. I think everyone thinks someone will be dealt and with 4 2nd round picks, we know something will happen.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Nate McVillain said:


> supposedly, MM has told Hap and a couple others the details so if there is a trade, it can be varified. Do you think the MM deal will happen?


MM said he was going to tell me, but hasnt. So after the deal is announced, if Hap or someone else makes available the information MM supposedly gave them before it was announced, how are we supposed to know MM actually *did* give them the information before it was announced?

In other words: I havent seen anything so far that would convince me MM hasnt been pulling our legs this whole time, and I dont think someone else presenting MMs info after an announcement would convince me, either.

PBF


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

Not unless there is a time machine involved in the deal. That thread was started 2 and a half weeks ago. "Soon" has been over for a while.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> MM said he was going to tell me, but hasnt. So after the deal is announced, if Hap or someone else makes available the information MM supposedly gave them before it was announced, how are we supposed to know MM actually *did* give them the information before it was announced?
> 
> In other words: I havent seen anything so far that would convince me MM hasnt been pulling our legs this whole time, and I dont think someone else presenting MMs info after an announcement would convince me, either.
> 
> PBF


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it MM who said Miles was traded at the deadline, yet he is still a Blazer? He must be laughing at getting 900 post on the deal coming soon thread. Expect: " A deal was done, but they decided to look at other options that are even better."


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

So what "if" MM does have insider knowledge. If he can't or won't share it, what's the use in even bringing it up? It serves absolutely no purpose.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

pudding....I was going to vote yes but i want info! it wont hurt it this close to the draft since tomorrow is the 48 hours!


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> As far as I know, mm IS Hap and a few others so, he'll back himself up after something or other happens.
> 
> Anything less than a PM from him to me describing the deal before it goes down will leave me no choice but to call BS.


Well I can tell you that MM isn't Hap, but you'd think that I might be Hap, well in fact, we're all Hap and you have been talking to me, I mean us all this time. We are the only two people on this board...........or are we? :biggrin: 

Just so everyone knows.......I voted yes. :yay:


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

HOWIE said:


> Well I can tell you that MM isn't Hap, but you'd think that I might be Hap, well in fact, we're all Hap and you have been talking to me, I mean us all this time. We are the only two people on this board...........or are we? :biggrin:


I always knew that the entire universe was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by the one supreme being just for my benefit, but I never understood why. Tell me, great one!


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Entity said:


> I always knew that the entire universe was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by the one supreme being just for my benefit, but I never understood why. Tell me, great one!


Because HOWIE said so. :lol:


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

HOWIE said:


> Because HOWIE said so. :lol:


:worthy:


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

so howie what do you know?


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Utherhimo said:


> so howie what do you know?


I know lots of stuff, why.....what do you know? :biggrin:


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

HOWIE said:


> I know lots of stuff, why.....what do you know? :biggrin:


I know lots of things. But if I told you, I would have to kill you!:yay:


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

howie you know me  back in our olive days  you can pm me please


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

And AG casts the 27th vote for pudding, putting it into the lead...


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Nate McVillain said:


> supposedly, MM has told Hap and a couple others the details so if there is a trade, it can be varified. Do you think the MM deal will happen?


Um... What deal would that be, exactly?

PBF


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

In another thread Nightfly reported that his sources tell him Oden will be the pick. Many people included myself believe him and are relieved. However, the reason I believe him is because he is a moderator.

Which got me thinking. If MM was a moderator, would you believe the deal then?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

wizmentor said:


> In another thread Nightfly reported that his sources tell him Oden will be the pick. Many people included myself believe him and are relieved. However, the reason I believe him is because he is a moderator.
> 
> Which got me thinking. If MM was a moderator, would you believe the deal then?


I fail to grasp how being a moderator of an internet forum would indicate that someone had more access to KP or his underlings, who are probably the only ones who get a whiff of these deals.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

wizmentor said:


> In another thread Nightfly reported that his sources tell him Oden will be the pick. Many people included myself believe him and are relieved. However, the reason I believe him is because he is a moderator.
> 
> Which got me thinking. If MM was a moderator, would you believe the deal then?


Not only would I believe him, but all the supermodels say they would too. Moderators don't just make stuff up, after all.

barfo


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

wizmentor said:


> Which got me thinking. If MM was a moderator, would you believe the deal then?


I think that most of the long-time regulars here have been mod at one point or another...

Ed O.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Samuel said:


> I fail to grasp how being a moderator of an internet forum would indicate that someone had more access to KP or his underlings, who are probably the only ones who get a whiff of these deals.


It's not that he would have more access, it's that he wouldn't cite inside info he didn't believe if he was a moderator.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

barfo said:


> Not only would I believe him, but all the supermodels say they would too. Moderators don't just make stuff up, after all.
> 
> barfo


Do you change the supermodels out year after year? Because otherwise, those have got to be some old supermodels...

I've always figured the moderators had a little pool going to figure out which rumor they could dupe the most people with. I'm still waiting for them to bring up MJ coming out of retirement one more time to play for us...


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

For Three! Rip City! said:


> So what "if" MM does have insider knowledge. If he can't or won't share it, what's the use in even bringing it up? It serves absolutely no purpose.


Look at all of the attention he's getting. How can you say it serves no purpose? That is the porpose. Hell, he's even getting attention on other boards.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

blakejacked said:


> Look at all of the attention he's getting. How can you say it serves no purpose? That is the porpose. Hell, he's even getting attention on other boards.




LOL you are so wise. Getting called a liar and an attention monger is exactly the kind of attention everyone wants.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> LOL you are so wise. Getting called a liar and an attention monger is exactly the kind of attention everyone wants.


Well what do you expect when first you guarantee that Zach is traded before the last trade deadline and then he isn't, and then you make a new guarantee and say that you will let posters like ProudBfan have knowledge before the trade to prove/disprove that any trade is/isn't the trade you heard about. Then you don't tell ProudBfan or at least give anything specific, like which teams will be involved. When you first posted, I believed you had inside info, now I think you are full of it. Hey, I don't trust a lot of posters, now you are one of them.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

and - Pudding


----------



## talman (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm voting yes because I choose to believe the best in people and there are others on this forum that have vouched for MM. Until he has given me reason otherwise, I'll choose to believe him.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

whats the deal with dangling this 'news' in the forum then not sharing like some lil kids in play-school? weak sauce.

first time since ive been on this board when one of our longer term members has pulled this - kinda surprising to me.

its like a joke without a punchline, feel me?....


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

BlayZa said:


> whats the deal with dangling this 'news' in the forum then not sharing like some lil kids in play-school? weak sauce.
> 
> first time since ive been on this board when one of our longer term members has pulled this - kinda surprising to me.
> 
> its like a joke without a punchline, feel me?....




Yes, I learned my lesson. Next time I will not share anything. Even if what I did share wasn't a lot.


----------



## DamDweller (Jun 7, 2007)

> Oreginally Posted by *mediocre man*
> _Yes, I learned my lesson. Next time I will not share anything. Even if what I did share wasn't a lot._


Oh you share them dang it! We need a board insider even though it may kill us not to know!


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Everyone is dying to shoot the messenger...

why is this thread still open?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I think that most of the long-time regulars here have been mod at one point or another...
> 
> Ed O.


+1


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Everyone is dying to shoot the messenger...
> 
> why is this thread still open?


Because there is no reason to close the thread. MM purports to know something and hence has opened himself up to analysis. Some believe him and some don't, but people aren't namecalling or doing anything else against the rules. 

Although I don't believe MM, I hope he gives some people info and let's us know who, and that he proves us wrong when a trade comes down. But we are talking about someone who has done this before. He said that he had inside knowledge in the past that Zach was going to be traded to the Bulls before the last trade deadline, and that did not happen. I think he may also have said that Miles would be traded, but I am not sure that he guaranteed that or that was just prognostication. 

But is someone repeatedly says something will happen and it doesn't, then his credibility does become an issue that can be discussed, so long as it is done in an appropriate manner without namecalling. 


Pudding


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> Everyone is dying to shoot the messenger...
> 
> why is this thread still open?


Because it give people something to talk about...???

The draft can't come soon enough, that's for sure.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I voted "pudding". Because I have no idea.

I believe that MM got legit info from a real source... I don't think that he's a liar... BUT...

Even the best sources aren't very good. So much can change so quickly, that even if Portland and, say, New Jersey (or Atlanta, or the Bucks) had a deal in principle, a lot can happen over a month to change their minds.

Ed O.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I voted "pudding". Because I have no idea.
> 
> I believe that MM got legit info from a real source... I don't think that he's a liar... BUT...
> 
> ...


Yes, but he did not say that a deal was close to being made, he said the deal was done. That's black or white, either it was or it wasn't.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Yes, I learned my lesson. Next time I will not share anything. Even if what I did share wasn't a lot.


You know what, I know I'm the minority here, but I'm glad you DID share. There are those who feel they have wasted entirely too much time on this subject, well shame on them. Nobody put a gun to their heads . . . It's been entertaining (if nothing else) to imagine what this "deal" is. I've rather enjoyed imagining what it could be. Maybe next time (MM), you can preface your inside info for those who just can't handle not knowing to move on.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Nate McVillain said:


> Yes, but he did not say that a deal was close to being made, he said the deal was done. That's black or white, either it was or it wasn't.


I don't recall if he said that or not, but even if he said it, no one should have believed him. No deal is done until it's approved by the commissioner's office.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Nate McVillain said:


> Yes, but he did not say that a deal was close to being made, he said the deal was done. That's black or white, either it was or it wasn't.


I believe he said done in principle...

Like Ed said.. many things can change over a months time.. deal sdo fall apart or get trumped. They may get a better offer to take.

I am positive he will tell us what he knew then... and if it does not come about I am not going to be upset at him. He is just sharing what he knew.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Other than "board cred," I don't see the point in leaking that you know of a deal that is going to be completed soon. I fell for it too, joining in on the wild speculation of who it could be for, how many draft picks we might lose or end up with, whether or not Zach would be shipped out, etc.

But now I just find myself irritated with the whole stupid thing.

I have a hard time truly getting upset with MM. I can't say I wouldn't be itching to share info that I knew with other fans. It's human nature to want to be the one to break news or give something of value to others with similar interests. But I really wish he had never said anything at all, since no news was really broken. At the end of the day, it really equates to a grown-up version of a child's teasing phrase ... "I know something you don't know."

-Pop


----------



## talman (Dec 31, 2002)

kaydow said:


> You know what, I know I'm the minority here, but I'm glad you DID share. There are those who feel they have wasted entirely too much time on this subject, well shame on them. Nobody put a gun to their heads . . . It's been entertaining (if nothing else) to imagine what this "deal" is. I've rather enjoyed imagining what it could be. Maybe next time (MM), you can preface your inside info for those who just can't handle not knowing to move on.


BEST POST EVER!!!


:clap2: :cheers:


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> I voted "pudding". Because I have no idea.
> 
> I believe that MM got legit info from a real source... I don't think that he's a liar... BUT...
> 
> ...


Exactly...we can talk about the deals that could or couldn't happen without bringing up anyone's credibility or even name into it for that matter.

I'll admit I am biased having been on the same end of it as MM....it sucks to be called a liar and I suggest to everyone that you think long and hard before sharing rumours here. This is why I haven't shared anything since.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

I would submit that it would have been much easier on mm if he hadn't been so adamant that a deal was DONE and for sure would happen.

If you just say, "I have what I consider a very good source who is passing on information - that's a RUMOUR ladies and gentlemen - that a deal in principal has been agreed to and is supposed to happen soon......... As you well know, sometimes these things get delayed or fall apart, and I can't give specifics at this time sworn to secrecy. So, NO GUARANTEE that anything will actually happen or at a particular time. For those that enjoy this sort of thing, guess away. For those that get annoyed, please ignore this."

I think that would have helped.

You just set yourself up to be pounded when you make absolute statements. "This is guaranteed true and guaranteed to happen."


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Exactly...we can talk about the deals that could or couldn't happen without bringing up anyone's credibility or even name into it for that matter.
> 
> I'll admit I am biased having been on the same end of it as MM....it sucks to be called a liar and I suggest to everyone that you think long and hard before sharing rumours here. This is why I haven't shared anything since.


If I recall correctly, you shared nothing, just as MM has done, and it turned out to be a total non-event (BREAKING NEWS!!! Telfair owns a handgun). I own several guns, have travelled often with them, but nobody seems to feel it's worth reporting.

I don't think anyone actually called you a liar though. They simply asked you to put up or shut up.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Masbee said:


> I would submit that it would have been much easier on mm if he hadn't been so adamant that a deal was DONE and for sure would happen.
> 
> If you just say, "I have what I consider a very good source who is passing on information - that's a RUMOUR ladies and gentlemen - that a deal in principal has been agreed to and is supposed to happen soon......... As you well know, sometimes these things get delayed or fall apart, and I can't give specifics at this time sworn to secrecy. So, NO GUARANTEE that anything will actually happen or at a particular time. For those that enjoy this sort of thing, guess away. For those that get annoyed, please ignore this."
> 
> ...


I thought Ed O. was the resident lawyer on this board.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

sa1177 said:


> Exactly...we can talk about the deals that could or couldn't happen without bringing up anyone's credibility or even name into it for that matter.
> 
> I'll admit I am biased having been on the same end of it as MM....it sucks to be called a liar and I suggest to everyone that you think long and hard before sharing rumours here. This is why I haven't shared anything since.


MM didn't share anything.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> If I recall correctly, you shared nothing, just as MM has done, and it turned out to be a total non-event (BREAKING NEWS!!! Telfair owns a handgun). I own several guns, have travelled often with them, but nobody seems to feel it's worth reporting.
> 
> I don't think anyone actually called you a liar though. They simply asked you to put up or shut up.


I said some trouble would arise concerning Telfair, and it definetly did regardless of whether or not it ended up being of any significance. It's quite significant now after his recent incidents.

As for your example about yourself traveling with guns Mary...I would assume you claim having then when flying, check them properly through security and secure them while flying rather then hiding them in a suitcase. See the difference?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> I would submit that it would have been much easier on mm if he hadn't been so adamant that a deal was DONE and for sure would happen.
> 
> If you just say, "I have what I consider a very good source who is passing on information - that's a RUMOUR ladies and gentlemen - that a deal in principal has been agreed to and is supposed to happen soon......... As you well know, sometimes these things get delayed or fall apart, and I can't give specifics at this time sworn to secrecy. So, NO GUARANTEE that anything will actually happen or at a particular time. For those that enjoy this sort of thing, guess away. For those that get annoyed, please ignore this."
> 
> ...


Pretty much. I believe MM has a legit source, but that either he or his source might have overstated the certainty of the trade going through. Is that pudding?


----------

