# Josh Smith to Clippers



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/621786946835124224


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Interesting...


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

I really like this for both parties. Clippers add a much needed big man and Josh gets a chance to play for a ring on a team where he could really fit well.


----------



## scdn (Mar 31, 2011)

Imagine if Josh Smith had to be their Jordan replacement.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Josh Smith averaged 12 pts, 6 rebs, 3 assts in 25 minutes last season

T Thompson averaged 8, 8, 1 in 26 minutes last season

how do you compare Smith's to Thompson's contract?


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

This is shaping up to be one of the most interesting years ever. Its going to be a great season.

Oh, and $20 on cp3 flipping on smith, lance or Jordan at least once per game


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

really good pickup for the clippers. pretty sure the rockets were offering more money but on the clippers he's guaranteed to be the 3rd big while on the rockets he could have been anywhere from starting to being the 5th big in some matchups.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

nice add - the Clips suddenly have a decent bench + even better than decent if they can keep Crawford


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

A good second half of one season and Josh Smith has gone from being a cancer to a good addition according to BBF.

Josh and Lance are going to be best friends. What a terrible decision


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

It kind of sucks for the Rockets since for 2.5 mil a year Smith's a good insurance policy for their frontcourt considering all 3 of their guys (Dwight/Jones/DoMo) were injured last year. But then again if all 3 of them are healthy then there will be no need for Smith.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Marcus13 said:


> A good second half of one season and Josh Smith has gone from being a cancer to a good addition according to BBF.
> 
> Josh and Lance are going to be best friends. What a terrible decision


Agreed. 

The Clippers just took seconds off their ticking time bomb in my opinion. A team full of selfish cry babies isn't beating any of the real contending teams.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

I'm not impressed. The Clippers were "stacked" a few years ago too when they had Grant Hill, Lamar Odom and Billups off the bench. What happened? Flame out in the playoffs. Then the next year the acquired Redick, Danny Granger, Jared Dudley, Antawn Jamison, Byron Mullens and Darren Collison off the bench. People were were lauding them for being stacked again before the season started. What happened?? Rinse and repeat. Truth is that they're soft and weak minded. Smoove doesn't fix that.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> I'm not impressed. T Truth is that they're soft and weak minded. Smoove doesn't fix that.


Spurs or Thunder are able to knock out Clippers in the first round? I still think Wizards have better chance to advance to the 2nd round.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Ballscientist said:


> Spurs or Thunder are able to knock out Clippers in the first round? I still think Wizards have better chance to advance to the 2nd round.


I'd take the Spurs, Golden State and Memphis over the Clippers. If the Thunder can stay healthy Id take them too but they need to prove they can do that. Houston losing Smoove hurts them more than it helps the Clippers.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> I'd take the Spurs, Golden State and Memphis over the Clippers. If the Thunder can stay healthy Id take them too but they need to prove they can do that. Houston losing Smoove hurts them more than it helps the Clippers.


Rockets save the money for February. Clippers have spent 120 million+.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

If you beat them, join them?


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Marcus13 said:


> A good second half of one season and Josh Smith has gone from being a cancer to a good addition according to BBF.


and? the people calling him a cancer were wrong. nice to see them change their minds.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

rocketeer said:


> and? the people calling him a cancer were wrong. nice to see them change their minds.


How were they wrong? A half season of decent play changes years of history?


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

rocketeer said:


> and? the people calling him a cancer were wrong. nice to see them change their minds.


Lance

Jordan debacle in which Rivers looks more like a snake I thought he was

and now they bring in the cancer himself in J.Smith

I called him a cancer when the Pistons signed him. I called him a cancer when he forced the Pistons to trade him with his BS antics and he's still a cancer in two other uniforms.....


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

I'm going to love to hate these Clippers possibly more than any other team I can remember.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

Clippers might be weak-minded but you all are forgetting they still have Pierce to take care of things in the clutch.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

I've never really liked Paul. Jordan being a bitch this summer puts a target on his back too. Lance is a doofus. The Truth has my respect, but I'd still throw a spear at him. 

I wish Reddick would leave, then I can truly hate them.


----------



## JonMatrix (Apr 8, 2003)

Paul Pierce probably still takes the last shot in a playoff game for this team.

If he doesn't beat the shit out of Lance or Smith first.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

Jon, are those jugs real? Can't be


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

R-Star said:


> How were they wrong? A half season of decent play changes years of history?


his time in detroit cancels out all the good he did for years in atlanta? he's always had some issues as a player but that doesn't make him a cancer or a negative for his team.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

rocketeer said:


> his time in detroit cancels out all the good he did for years in atlanta? he's always had some issues as a player but that doesn't make him a cancer or a negative for his team.


A lot of his time in Atlanta was looked at as a negative, was it not?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

R-Star said:


> A lot of his time in Atlanta was looked at as a negative, was it not?


Not really. The Hawks players actually liked Josh Smith. He was the captain of the team for the last 3 years of his time there not to mention the team made the playoffs for 7 straight years. He shared captain duties with Joe Johnson and Horford 1 year and after Johnson left it was Horford and him and finally Josh Smith was the sole captain. Why would the Hawks pick him as their leader if he was a locker room cancer?

That's why your image of him as being some sort of troublemaker never had any basis to begin with. His game might have started going downhill towards the end of his tenure in Atlanta but it was never due to his personality or him clashing with the coaching staff. Every player is limited in what they can do. The Hawks after Joe Johnson left tried to run their offense through Smith and the Pistons tried to turn Smith into a 3. Both had poor results and now Smith is some sort of cancer because he couldn't do those things.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

Porn Player said:


> I've never really liked Paul. Jordan being a bitch this summer puts a target on his back too. Lance is a doofus. The Truth has my respect, but I'd still throw a spear at him.
> 
> I wish Reddick would leave, then I can truly hate them.


Read this and you will be fine - you will also hate Reddick.

http://deadspin.com/how-j-j-redicks-abortion-contract-was-conceived-912727291


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Bill Walton said this Clippers team had 5 or 6 all-stars.

Rockets:
Ty Lawson
Harden
Howard
Ariza
Brewer


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> and? the people calling him a cancer were wrong. nice to see them change their minds.


If Josh Smith is in anything less than an ideal situation he IS a cancer. You saw half a season of him in Houston, where he got to play with his best buddy and thanks to injuries was thrust into an ideal situation with minimal positional competition on a contending team. If anything I said above goes the other way - Josh Smith is a cancer. I'm not changing my mind, because the sample size saying he is a cancer is MUCH larger than the sample size saying he is not.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> Not really. The Hawks players actually liked Josh Smith. He was the captain of the team for the last 3 years of his time there not to mention the team made the playoffs for 7 straight years. He shared captain duties with Joe Johnson and Horford 1 year and after Johnson left it was Horford and him and finally Josh Smith was the sole captain. Why would the Hawks pick him as their leader if he was a locker room cancer?
> 
> That's why your image of him as being some sort of troublemaker never had any basis to begin with. His game might have started going downhill towards the end of his tenure in Atlanta but it was never due to his personality or him clashing with the coaching staff. Every player is limited in what they can do. The Hawks after Joe Johnson left tried to run their offense through Smith and the Pistons tried to turn Smith into a 3. Both had poor results and now Smith is some sort of cancer because he couldn't do those things.


Two points...

a) In the NBA a team captain's responsibilities aren't as significant as they are in other sports, making it easier to "appease" a player with the title.

b) Is every team captain a good team captain? Sure the players loved Josh Smith... I've got kids on my school's team that everybody loves. Even guys that wind up in "leadership" roles by their senior year. It doesn't make them mature, even by high school standards. And in the NBA being a team captain doesn't guarantee maturity either.

From what I've heard: Josh Smith isn't a locker room cancer. But he is an on-the-floor cancer. He does his own thing, fuck the coaches and fuck his teammates.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

@rocketeer Yeah, Josh Smith was so great in Houston that everyone locally is glad he left. Listen to The Blitz, go to ClutchFans, the consensus is that he's useless because you can't play him and Dwight at the end of games and D-Mo or Capella are both going to give more than him next year.

@seifer0406 Josh is worse than he thinks he is. You're trying to deflect with that strawman about whether or not he is a cancer but what's important is the guy thinks he's better than he is and has refused to listen to coaching direction his entire career. Mike Woodson told him not to shoot threes and he pouted. Larry Drew told him not to shoot threes and he pouted.

The Rockets were devastated by injury otherwise he plays a third of the minutes he played in the playoffs. And I don't know why you keep applauding his performance during the playoffs. I still don't think he can produce off the bench behind better players, and you're overrating a few games where he was given more opportunity than a bench player would otherwise get, effectively pressed into a core role (started eight out of twelve games in the second and third round), and his team lost 4-1 to Golden State. He hit some threes and his entire team outplayed a fraud, weak LA Clippers team. I just think it's ridiculous to say stuff like he saved them, but I also wouldn't go around pointing out the numerous mistakes he made in those games (even though there's a youtube video that does).

If he had actually played an effective role off the bench behind D-Mo, instead of confirming to me that he's a mediocre starter, I would maybe see the point you're trying to make. There's a reason why in an off-season where Aminu got $30 million Josh Smith is playing for the veteran's minimum.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> Not really. The Hawks players actually liked Josh Smith. He was the captain of the team for the last 3 years of his time there not to mention the team made the playoffs for 7 straight years. He shared captain duties with Joe Johnson and Horford 1 year and after Johnson left it was Horford and him and finally Josh Smith was the sole captain. Why would the Hawks pick him as their leader if he was a locker room cancer?
> 
> That's why your image of him as being some sort of troublemaker never had any basis to begin with. His game might have started going downhill towards the end of his tenure in Atlanta but it was never due to his personality or him clashing with the coaching staff. Every player is limited in what they can do. The Hawks after Joe Johnson left tried to run their offense through Smith and the Pistons tried to turn Smith into a 3. Both had poor results and now Smith is some sort of cancer because he couldn't do those things.


What the hell is this shit


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> Two points...
> 
> a) In the NBA a team captain's responsibilities aren't as significant as they are in other sports, making it easier to "appease" a player with the title.
> 
> ...


The point has been whether or not Josh Smith is a cancer to his team. When you call someone a cancer it means that he either feuds with teammates or is a distraction to his team. There just hasn't been any evidence of Josh Smith being that guy.

Josh Smith in Atlanta was a good player. Sure he has flaws in that he shoots way too many 3s but does that erase everything else he did on the court? I don't think so.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

To me a guy who doesn't listen to his coach or teammates and just goes out and does whatever he feels like on the court can be called a cancer. 

I haven't seen one team where Josh Smith left where anyone was sad he was going.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Adam said:


> @rocketeer Yeah, Josh Smith was so great in Houston that everyone locally is glad he left. Listen to The Blitz, go to ClutchFans, the consensus is that he's useless because you can't play him and Dwight at the end of games and D-Mo or Capella are both going to give more than him next year.
> 
> @seifer0406 Josh is worse than he thinks he is. You're trying to deflect with that strawman about whether or not he is a cancer but what's important is the guy thinks he's better than he is and has refused to listen to coaching direction his entire career. Mike Woodson told him not to shoot threes and he pouted. Larry Drew told him not to shoot threes and he pouted.
> 
> ...


You mean this thread? Hard to see a consensus there. I went through about 15 pages and it's mostly people pissed about Smith leaving.

The only strawman that is being made here is this notion that I'm arguing that Smith is a great player. Nobody is saying that. He's not a great player and he's not a good fit for every team. This is why I said in another thread that I find it puzzling that people in BBF can't seem to grasp the concept of risk and reward. If you're paying Josh Smith 30 million like the Blazers are paying Aminu, then sure you have a a point that it might be a bad decision. The fact is for 2 mil a year last year it was a great addition for the Rockets and for the vet minimum next year it would be a great addition for the Clippers.

The point you made about the Rockets injury was exactly my point a few months ago when the Rockets added Smith. But did people like the Smith addition back then? Did you like it? No they didn't. Now the same people are coming back and telling me that the only reason why Smith succeeded last year was because of the injuries. No shit Sherlock, that's why they got Smith in the first place. Glad to have you on board, you're a bit late but I'm still glad to have you.

This is why it has gotten tiring posting on these boards the past year or so. People here seems to have a simple, one-pathed mind. Just because you sign some player doesn't mean that he has to be the greatest player in the world. This is how most free agent signings work. Your team has a void, you try to fill that void by spending the least amount of assets. The Rockets did that last year and the Clippers just did that this year.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> The point has been whether or not Josh Smith is a cancer to his team. When you call someone a cancer it means that he either feuds with teammates or is a distraction to his team. There just hasn't been any evidence of Josh Smith being that guy.
> 
> Josh Smith in Atlanta was a good player. Sure he has flaws in that he shoots way too many 3s but does that erase everything else he did on the court? I don't think so.


By your limited definition of a "cancer" he has not been a cancer. But frankly I don't agree with your definition of cancer.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

ChrisWoj said:


> By your limited definition of a "cancer" he has not been a cancer. But frankly I don't agree with your definition of cancer.


Exactly. But he's going to fight you tooth and nail and call you an idiot for not agreeing. Not really worth wasting your time.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

R-Star said:


> Exactly. But he's going to fight you tooth and nail and call you an idiot for not agreeing. Not really worth wasting your time.


I'm laying around on Percocet recovering from major surgery. I don't have anything else to do to fill the time right now, aside from Netflix on my other screen. So, why not? Eh? haha


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Adam said:


> @rocketeer Yeah, Josh Smith was so great in Houston that everyone locally is glad he left. Listen to The Blitz, go to ClutchFans, the consensus is that he's useless because you can't play him and Dwight at the end of games and D-Mo or Capella are both going to give more than him next year.
> 
> @seifer0406 Josh is worse than he thinks he is. You're trying to deflect with that strawman about whether or not he is a cancer but what's important is the guy thinks he's better than he is and has refused to listen to coaching direction his entire career. Mike Woodson told him not to shoot threes and he pouted. Larry Drew told him not to shoot threes and he pouted.
> 
> ...


Make no mistake, he started those games because he was outplaying Terrence jones. He wasn't "pressed" into it. He pressed jones to the bench. Don't be a blind hater. 

Smith has become like zbo pre-Memphis. A player that's cool to hate.


----------



## JonMatrix (Apr 8, 2003)

JT said:


> Jon, are those jugs real? Can't be


haha, not sure, but I'd say no


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Make no mistake, he started those games because he was outplaying Terrence jones. He wasn't "pressed" into it. He pressed jones to the bench. Don't be a blind hater.
> 
> Smith has become like zbo pre-Memphis. A player that's cool to hate.


You do know that D-Mo is the starter and not Terrence Jones, right?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> By your limited definition of a "cancer" he has not been a cancer. But frankly I don't agree with your definition of cancer.


How about you define what cancer is first and then we can examine Josh Smith's career and see whether or not he has been a cancer for a major portion of his career. By the way, keep that in mind I might bring up other players that would be defined as cancer under your definition.

It's good that we at least established that he doesn't feud with teammates and cause locker room trouble. R-Star would've jumped on you on this point had you said this a few months ago.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

Smith was in no way shape or form a cancer in Houston. Sure he had a few head scratching games here and there, but overall I would say his impact was positive. His play-making ability will be really missed. His inability to shoot free throws though was a major weakness and a point of frustration.

If anything the Clippers added depth at a low cost, high reward price. Something they were sorely missing last year.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> How about you define what cancer is first and then we can examine Josh Smith's career and see whether or not he has been a cancer for a major portion of his career. By the way, keep that in mind I might bring up other players that would be defined as cancer under your definition.
> 
> It's good that we at least established that he doesn't feud with teammates and cause locker room trouble. R-Star would've jumped on you on this point had you said this a few months ago.


Cancer, to me, is basically anything uncontrollable and negative in nature. Josh Smith's insistence that his style of play is that of an outside shooter is uncontrollable and negative in nature. The evidence I have for this is year over year, and not just a single season, not just a couple of seasons, but many seasons of evidence that he will not listen to coaches and will play his own style of game regardless of the impact on his team.

Additionally: his one season of truly conservative play, where he "bought in" proved that this isn't the case of his only having one style of play to go to. He's willfully chosen to go against coaches on the court despite having proof in his own numbers that he's capable of playing a different game. 

As basketball is a team game I know that this isn't the only reason.. but coincidentally - that was the only time during his Hawks tenure that they won 50 games.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

R-Star said:


> A lot of his time in Atlanta was looked at as a negative, was it not?


in hindsight by idiots, yes


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Adam said:


> @rocketeer Yeah, Josh Smith was so great in Houston that everyone locally is glad he left. Listen to The Blitz, go to ClutchFans, the consensus is that he's useless because you can't play him and Dwight at the end of games and D-Mo or Capella are both going to give more than him next year.


wait, you mean fans of a team are trashing a player (who they wanted to keep) after they left? holy shit. that's crazy.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> Cancer, to me, is basically anything uncontrollable and negative in nature. Josh Smith's insistence that his style of play is that of an outside shooter is uncontrollable and negative in nature. The evidence I have for this is year over year, and not just a single season, not just a couple of seasons, but many seasons of evidence that he will not listen to coaches and will play his own style of game regardless of the impact on his team.
> 
> Additionally: his one season of truly conservative play, where he "bought in" proved that this isn't the case of his only having one style of play to go to. He's willfully chosen to go against coaches on the court despite having proof in his own numbers that he's capable of playing a different game.
> 
> As basketball is a team game I know that this isn't the only reason.. but coincidentally - that was the only time during his Hawks tenure that they won 50 games.


I disagree with your definition of cancer and heres why. There have been plenty of players in the past and now that have aspects of their game that the player refuses to follow conventional wisdom. Take Rasheed Wallace for example. For an entire decade the entire basketball world pleaded for him to utilize his back to the basket offense. But the guy just refused to do it and when he used it occasionally it was an unstoppable move, that fadeaway was cash money. Had he focused his game on it he would've been 20+ppg scorer easily and perhaps one of the best big men of his generation. But for some reason he ended up being a career 15 ppg player and generally viewed as an underachiever. Was that part of his game uncontrollable? Was it a negative part of his game? Definitely.

But you wouldn't call Rasheed Wallace's failure to score a cancer. He might be known as a cancer for other reasons, i.e. Prone to technical fouls , feuding with coaches, and being a distraction in the locker room, but the fact that he didn't use his potential to be a dominant scorer isn't something that defined him as a cancer. 

When you examine a player you need to examine his entire game. You consider the positives and the negatives, whether the positives outweigh the negatives. When you use that standard, Josh Smith in Atlanta was not a net negative player. He was one in Detroit but I'm saying it's because the Pistons didn't know what they were doing putting him next to Drummond and Monroe. When he went to Houston he wasn't a net negative and my view is he's not going to be a net negative in LAC. Add to the fact that his current salary is only a vet minimum, there is nothing not to like about this signing.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> wait, you mean fans of a team are trashing a player (who they wanted to keep) after they left? holy shit. that's crazy.


To be fair to the Rocket fans most of them as far as I know are reasonable and said that they're not happy about Josh Smith leaving. I don't know where Adam got his consensus from but I didn't see any consensus.

A lot of the Houston fans did feel insulted that Josh Smith said that he picked LAC because he wanted to "win". If Josh Smith gets booed next year in Houston it would likely be because of that rather than his play.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Mike Woodson asked him to stop shooting threes and he refused. He took bad shots and hurt his team. Larry Drew asked him to stop shooting threes and he refused. His team was hurt. Mo Cheeks asked him to stop shooting threes. All were fired. All teams suffered. If that's not cancer I don't know what is. Hell, just blatantly ignore the fact that Larry Drew and Danny Ferry suspended him for "conduct detrimental to the team."

It's not "haters" that criticize Josh Smith. GM's, coaches, players, former players, former front office personnel have gone on radio, television, or print and criticized him. The nearly universal opinion among these basketball people is that Josh Smith squanders his physical gifts, he takes bad shots, he has not improved his game, and he refuses to play the style of basketball his team asks him and needs him to play. How is that not reproachable? How are we haters for Josh Smith's refusal to play team basketball? It's so absurd that some people are trying to act like those of us who criticize Josh Smith are the minority or the extremists. And if you're going to play gotcha and act like Josh Smith has, "Silenced all the critics!" then don't come back after his time in Houston where he got benched and his cumulative stats added up to his second lowest PER in his career. Houston gave him the starting job for free and he lost it.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> To be fair to the Rocket fans most of them as far as I know are reasonable and said that they're not happy about Josh Smith leaving. I don't know where Adam got his consensus from but I didn't see any consensus.
> 
> A lot of the Houston fans did feel insulted that Josh Smith said that he picked LAC because he wanted to "win". If Josh Smith gets booed next year in Houston it would likely be because of that rather than his play.


I should not have said consensus, wrong word. But a large number don't care that he has left. Also, during the playoffs when Terrence Jones was missing layups and Josh Smith was having terrible 1st quarters, plenty of people were wondering if the Rockets shouldn't just start Capella.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Adam said:


> Mike Woodson asked him to stop shooting threes and he refused. He took bad shots and hurt his team. Larry Drew asked him to stop shooting threes and he refused. His team was hurt. Mo Cheeks asked him to stop shooting threes. All were fired. All teams suffered. If that's not cancer I don't know what is. Hell, just blatantly ignore the fact that Larry Drew and Danny Ferry suspended him for "conduct detrimental to the team."
> 
> It's not "haters" that criticize Josh Smith. GM's, coaches, players, former players, former front office personnel have gone on radio, television, or print and criticized him. The nearly universal opinion among these basketball people is that Josh Smith squanders his physical gifts, he takes bad shots, he has not improved his game, and he refuses to play the style of basketball his team asks him and needs him to play. How is that not reproachable? How are we haters for Josh Smith's refusal to play team basketball? It's so absurd that some people are trying to act like those of us who criticize Josh Smith are the minority or the extremists. And if you're going to play gotcha and act like Josh Smith has, "Silenced all the critics!" then don't come back after his time in Houston where he got benched and his cumulative stats added up to his second lowest PER in his career. Houston gave him the starting job for free and he lost it.


You are really all over the place here. Are we using PERs to decide whether a player is doing well now? If we're going to use PERs then this discussion is over. Josh Smith was a career 18.4 PER player in Atlanta. Not allstar numbers but definitely respectable.

If you want to talk about consensus, most Houston fans felt that the Josh Smith tenure in Houston was mostly positive. Feel free to go to any Rockets forum out there. Let me know if you find one that feels otherwise. You are the one that's talking against what the local fans feel. Call it consensus or the majority, your view on the issue is the opposite of that.

I've already covered the shooting 3s part in my last post. It was definitely a negative part of Josh Smith's game but he did much more in other facets of the game. If you want to pin a player down because of one thing I just don't see it as how most GMs view players.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> I disagree with your definition of cancer and heres why. There have been plenty of players in the past and now that have aspects of their game that the player refuses to follow conventional wisdom. Take Rasheed Wallace for example. For an entire decade the entire basketball world pleaded for him to utilize his back to the basket offense. But the guy just refused to do it and when he used it occasionally it was an unstoppable move, that fadeaway was cash money. Had he focused his game on it he would've been 20+ppg scorer easily and perhaps one of the best big men of his generation. But for some reason he ended up being a career 15 ppg player and generally viewed as an underachiever. Was that part of his game uncontrollable? Was it a negative part of his game? Definitely.
> 
> But you wouldn't call Rasheed Wallace's failure to score a cancer. He might be known as a cancer for other reasons, i.e. Prone to technical fouls , feuding with coaches, and being a distraction in the locker room, but the fact that he didn't use his potential to be a dominant scorer isn't something that defined him as a cancer.
> 
> When you examine a player you need to examine his entire game. You consider the positives and the negatives, whether the positives outweigh the negatives. When you use that standard, Josh Smith in Atlanta was not a net negative player. He was one in Detroit but I'm saying it's because the Pistons didn't know what they were doing putting him next to Drummond and Monroe. When he went to Houston he wasn't a net negative and my view is he's not going to be a net negative in LAC. Add to the fact that his current salary is only a vet minimum, there is nothing not to like about this signing.


For most of his time in Detroit I considered Rasheed Wallace a cancer. He willfully lowered the team's chances of winning games out on the floor. Was Josh Smith a net negative in Atlanta? No. He did plenty of positive things. But he willfully avoided being the best player he could in favor of being the player he wanted to be, team be damned. You can be a net positive and still be a cancer. He wasn't a "net" negative but he certainly did his best to avoid playing the way his coaches want him to play, and thus to my eyes was a negative for the team. He maintained a "net positive" on talent, but willfully harmed his team relative to what he could have done. Sheed was the same. I feel like you brought up Sheed thinking I, as a Pistons fan, would disagree - but I'm objective. Sheed was a cancer on the floor for virtually his entire time in Detroit. By memory I think he wasn't a cancer for all of... I dunno, maybe 100 games of his tenure?

With both Sheed and Smith - they showed at times what they could be, and then willfully stayed away from that successful formula because they didn't WANT to play that way. I don't see what is positive about that. Just because you're a superstar talent is no reason to be lauded because you managed to be a solid starter throughout your career through your own unwillingness to play the way your coaches wanted you to play.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> For most of his time in Detroit I considered Rasheed Wallace a cancer. He willfully lowered the team's chances of winning games out on the floor. Was Josh Smith a net negative in Atlanta? No. He did plenty of positive things. But he willfully avoided being the best player he could in favor of being the player he wanted to be, team be damned. You can be a net positive and still be a cancer. He wasn't a "net" negative but he certainly did his best to avoid playing the way his coaches want him to play, and thus to my eyes was a negative for the team. He maintained a "net positive" on talent, but willfully harmed his team relative to what he could have done. Sheed was the same. I feel like you brought up Sheed thinking I, as a Pistons fan, would disagree - but I'm objective. Sheed was a cancer on the floor for virtually his entire time in Detroit. By memory I think he wasn't a cancer for all of... I dunno, maybe 100 games of his tenure?


Actually I wasn't even talking about Sheed's time in Detroit. I was referring to his prime years which was in Portland. When he got to Detroit he was on the other side of 30 and was clearly declining. I still feel like he was a good player in Detroit but I guess we'll just disagree on that.

I think your definition of the term cancer is a strange one. If a player is a net positive and if that positive warrants his contract then I don't know what the problem would be. Josh Smith in Atlanta had a fair contract, some would even consider it a bargain. When you consider what the Hawks got out of Smith, I don't see how you can call that a cancer.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> You are really all over the place here. Are we using PERs to decide whether a player is doing well now?


Statistically or subjectively his season in Houston was a failure. His stats were bad, he was benched, and the team chose to sign KJ McDaniels instead of him.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> Actually I wasn't even talking about Sheed's time in Detroit. I was referring to his prime years which was in Portland. When he got to Detroit he was on the other side of 30 and was clearly declining. I still feel like he was a good player in Detroit but I guess we'll just disagree on that.
> 
> I think your definition of the term cancer is a strange one. If a player is a net positive and if that positive warrants his contract then I don't know what the problem would be. Josh Smith in Atlanta had a fair contract, some would even consider it a bargain. When you consider what the Hawks got out of Smith, I don't see how you can call that a cancer.


Some guys can't help but make a "positive" contribution, because their talent level is just so absurd. Just because Josh Smith in his prime could fall out of bed and be a "net positive" on the floor because of the things he could do athletically doesn't mean he's not a cancer. Again: he willfully sabotaged his coach's ideas for the offense because he didn't want to be the guy they wanted him to be, despite showing in the past that a) he was capable of being that guy and b) his teams would benefit greater by it. Smith could fall out of bed and be a net positive on the floor. But what does that tell the rest of the guys, the role players, the other guys - when Josh Smith gets to do what he wants when he wants because overall he's a positive impact? He can sabotage the offense all he wants willfully because he's going to give them back more than he takes away through his rebounding and defense? What?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

rocketeer said:


> in hindsight by idiots, yes


Says you because he played decently in his brief stint in Houston?

He played bascially 10 minutes under his career average in Houston and played a highly reduced role. To act like people who complained about him jacking up 3's and doing whatever he wanted on the court in Atlanta were idiots is utterly asinine. 

If anything, you're the idiot for acting like he was some kind of stud in ATL. He's either had the door opened for him to leave on every team he's been on, or he's been utterly chased out of said door. So really, what the hell are you even talking about?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Adam said:


> Statistically or subjectively his season in Houston was a failure. His stats were bad, he was benched, and the team chose to sign KJ McDaniels instead of him.


If we are basing his play on PER then you have just lost your argument. He had an excellent PER when he was in Atlanta so no, for the majority of his career he was not a cancer. Discussion over.

p.s. If you want to look at other stats then his stats in Atlanta were good as well. For the most part of his time in Atlanta he was a 17/8/4 guy that gave you couple blocks and a steal while shooting 46-50% from the field.

And by the way, I think it's retarded to use PER as the main tool in assessing players. This is your choice, not mine.

I just need to edit this in. Ed Davis's season was just as good as John Wall's season when we define their season using PER. Just keep this in mind the next time you bring it up.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> Some guys can't help but make a "positive" contribution, because their talent level is just so absurd. Just because Josh Smith in his prime could fall out of bed and be a "net positive" on the floor because of the things he could do athletically doesn't mean he's not a cancer. Again: he willfully sabotaged his coach's ideas for the offense because he didn't want to be the guy they wanted him to be, despite showing in the past that a) he was capable of being that guy and b) his teams would benefit greater by it. Smith could fall out of bed and be a net positive on the floor. But what does that tell the rest of the guys, the role players, the other guys - when Josh Smith gets to do what he wants when he wants because overall he's a positive impact? He can sabotage the offense all he wants willfully because he's going to give them back more than he takes away through his rebounding and defense? What?


Let's see. If I'm a team owner and I'm paying someone 10 mil a year and he's giving me around 10 mil a year worth of net positive, then no, he wouldn't be a cancer. From where I'm sitting the only argument you have now is that Josh Smith in Atlanta didn't produce what he was paid for. I don't think you have enough evidence to back it up. Perhaps he could've been a better player but then again Shaq could be a much better player had he been able to increase his free throw percentage by 5% over his career or at least stay fit and not be fat. Are you telling me that every player that couldn't produce at a level acceptable to you should be called cancer? I don't think so.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> If we are basing his play on PER then you have just lost your argument. He had an excellent PER when he was in Atlanta so no, for the majority of his career he was not a cancer. Discussion over.
> 
> p.s. If you want to look at other stats then his stats in Atlanta were good as well. For the most part of his time in Atlanta he was a 17/8/4 guy that gave you couple blocks and a steal while shooting 46-50% from the field.
> 
> ...


You're mixing my argument up with another's because him having a decent PER in Atlanta doesn't refute anything I've said. I only brought it up relative to his career PERs to show that he did not have any statistical improvement in Houston. That's in addition to me already pointing out that he was given a starter's role and then subsequently benched due to poor performance. The point being that you could argue his time in Houston was subjectively and statistically a failure, so I don't get why we're even debating Josh Smith. Maybe if the narrative was different you would have your "gotcha" moment (flourished as a starter or reinvented himself as a bench player), but he was unspectacular and the team didn't seek to bring him back either.

To jump into your discussion with Chris, why are you ignoring the fact that Josh disregards coaching demands? His coaches have asked him to play a certain style and he refuses. He was even suspended for "conduct detrimental to the team" in Atlanta. Mo Cheeks benched him. Stan Van Gundy waived him. How do you think a player undermining a coach and the team's offensive identity impacts the team's success?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Adam said:


> You're mixing my argument up with another's because him having a decent PER in Atlanta doesn't refute anything I've said. I only brought it up relative to his career PERs to show that he did not have any statistical improvement in Houston. That's in addition to me already pointing out that he was given a starter's role and then subsequently benched due to poor performance. The point being that you could argue his time in Houston was subjectively and statistically a failure, so I don't get why we're even debating Josh Smith. Maybe if the narrative was different you would have your "gotcha" moment (flourished as a starter or reinvented himself as a bench player), but he was unspectacular and the team didn't seek to bring him back either.
> 
> To jump into your discussion with Chris, why are you ignoring the fact that Josh disregards coaching demands? His coaches have asked him to play a certain style and he refuses. He was even suspended for "conduct detrimental to the team" in Atlanta. Mo Cheeks benched him. Stan Van Gundy waived him. How do you think a player undermining a coach and the team's offensive identity impacts the team's success?


I'm not mixing up anything. This discussion started with R-Star questioning Josh Smith's time in Atlanta as being a failure and me refuting that. You jumped into the discussion and I'm assuming that you also believe that Josh Smith has been a cancer for most of his career. If you don't share that believe then we can drop that point. Using PER as a tool of assessment, Smith was not a cancer in Atlanta, period.

As for that suspension that you guys are bringing up, I wasn't aware of that history and after I looked it up, the incident was after a game where the Hawks got blown out. Smith in frustration got into an argument with some coaches and teammates during practice the next day and he got suspended for 1 game.

Again, I think you folks need to decide once and for all what is the definition of cancer. When you guys wanted to say that cancer means a player causes locker room issues, I pointed out that there hasn't been enough evidence and even Chris conceded that under that definition Josh Smith isn't considered a cancer. Now that I point out that his play in Atlanta is above average and shouldn't be considered cancer, you guys are going back to the locker room issue. So which is it? Are we playing tennis without the net or what?

Like I said, using PER as a measurement has a ton of problems. Even if I agree with you that Josh Smith's numbers in Houston was the worst numbers he ever had in his career. So what? He took a decreased role on a winning team instead of trying to be the man and failing on a shitty Detroit team. The Rockets benefited from having Josh Smith did they not? Were they better with Smith or were they worse with him? Instead of making things up and saying that fans were cheering for his departure (which most Rockets fans clearly didn't), perhaps you should rethink your argument and come back when your head is clear. You are all over the place and not making much sense.


----------



## hroz (Mar 4, 2006)

I'm disappointed Smith left and I think the Rockets have a better team now with the Lawson signing. 

I liked Smith Jones rotation at PF. Energy player and a unique play maker at PF.
How many PFs can play pick and roll with Dwight.

Moti and Dwight don't gel together imo. They are both post players.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

What does R-Star have to do with anything I just said? Perhaps you should rethink your argument because when you argue with Chris about the true worth of a player and ignore synergism in a team sport and the information that I just gave you about him feuding with Larry Drew and Mo Cheeks it shows that you're more concerned with winning individual arguments.

I'll make it very clear so you can desist in claiming some supposed disorganization of very clear points. Josh Smith refuses to play basketball correctly. Every coach has demanded that he stop shooting threes; every coach has demanded that he post. He then goes on the floor and shoots threes and does not post. He undermines his coaches and feuds with them. He takes the shots he wants to take and damn the coach and his coaching. That's "cancerous," "divisive," "destructive," or whatever word you want to use to symbolize the negative impact he has on the team.

Also, there's plenty of evidence regarding Josh being trouble in the locker room. He forced management to let Woodson go because he was tired of Woodson complaining about his threes. He didn't just randomly get in an argument with coaches after a loss and earn a 1 game suspension. Larry Drew complained about his shooting, the crowds were groaning every time he shot at that point, and he requested a trade two years in a row because he was tired of Larry Drew. He was blowing up in practice and getting suspended because the situation was toxic and he was toxic. He got Mo Cheeks fired (after he was suggested by Phil Jackson) in his first year.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Adam said:


> What does R-Star have to do with anything I just said? Perhaps you should rethink your argument because when you argue with Chris about the true worth of a player and ignore synergism in a team sport and the information that I just gave you about him feuding with Larry Drew and Mo Cheeks it shows that you're more concerned with winning individual arguments.
> 
> Also, there's plenty of evidence regarding Josh being trouble in the locker room. He forced management to let Woodson go because he was tired of Woodson complaining about his threes. He didn't just randomly get in an argument with coaches after a loss and earn a 1 game suspension. Larry Drew complained about his shooting, the crowds were groaning every time he shot at that point, and he requested a trade two years in a row because he was tired of Larry Drew. He was blowing up in practice and getting suspended because the situation was toxic and he was toxic. He got Mo Cheeks fired (after he was suggested by Phil Jackson) in his first year.


Because I was talking to R-Star when you replied to me. I was talking to him about Josh Smith's tenure in Atlanta. Your initial post also involved Josh Smith's tenure in Atlanta. This is usually how a discussion works. If you want to jump into a discussion then keep in mind what the topic was about.

You are also now ignoring the PER part of your argument. Perhaps you have realized that it actually hurt your argument rather than support it.




> I'll make it very clear so you can desist in claiming some supposed disorganization of very clear points. Josh Smith refuses to play basketball correctly. Every coach has demanded that he stop shooting threes; every coach has demanded that he post. He then goes on the floor and shoots threes and does not post. He undermines his coaches and feuds with them. He takes the shots he wants to take and damn the coach and his coaching. That's "cancerous," "divisive," "destructive," or whatever word you want to use to symbolize the negative impact he has on the team.


You can read my replies to Chris as well as my previous replies to you. Nobody is arguing that Josh Smith is a great player. All I am arguing is that he's not a cancer. During this discussion we explored the definition of what a cancer is and I've provided arguments for all the definitions. We can go around in circles if you want to but the fact is I've answered both already.



> Also, there's plenty of evidence regarding Josh being trouble in the locker room. He forced management to let Woodson go because he was tired of Woodson complaining about his threes. He didn't just randomly get in an argument with coaches after a loss and earn a 1 game suspension. Larry Drew complained about his shooting, the crowds were groaning every time he shot at that point, and he requested a trade two years in a row because he was tired of Larry Drew. He was blowing up in practice and getting suspended because the situation was toxic and he was toxic. He got Mo Cheeks fired (after he was suggested by Phil Jackson) in his first year.


You really have to provide better evidence that Mike Woodson got fired because of Josh Smith. If I remember correctly Woodson got fired because the Hawks got stampeded by the Magic in the playoffs. But then again, this isn't the first time that you made random stuff up to win an argument.

By the way, I know that BBF has more trolls than actual fans but so far 2 Rocket fans have spoken that Smith will be missed in Houston. Can you please show me where in the world is this "majority" of Rocket fans that wanted Smith to leave or am I free to assume that this only occurred in your mind? After your original statement I got curious and actually google'd the net for basketball forums. Realgm, Clutchfans, Dreamshake, you name it. So far I haven't seen a place where the majority wanted him to leave.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> Let's see. If I'm a team owner and I'm paying someone 10 mil a year and he's giving me around 10 mil a year worth of net positive, then no, he wouldn't be a cancer. From where I'm sitting the only argument you have now is that Josh Smith in Atlanta didn't produce what he was paid for. I don't think you have enough evidence to back it up. Perhaps he could've been a better player but then again Shaq could be a much better player had he been able to increase his free throw percentage by 5% over his career or at least stay fit and not be fat. Are you telling me that every player that couldn't produce at a level acceptable to you should be called cancer? I don't think so.


No, I do. Josh Smith definitely didn't play up to his contracts. I mean if you want to make it straight numerical at around 1.65m per win share, Josh Smith was definitely overpaid after his first four seasons. Obviously any productive NBA player on a rookie scale contract is a value. But Josh Smith underperformed his value pretty consistently from that point forward, so yeah... um... I do have the evidence to back that argument up. 

As for Shaq - yeah, he was considered a cancer quite often when he wasn't winning titles. What a horrid example. In years he won titles - well, the guy led his team to fucking titles. There's no underperformance in those seasons regardless of his shape. He won titles. That's not even a valid comparison. Those guys aren't within standard deviations of each other, and your argument there is just without point.

Fact is you just told me to prove to you he didn't play up this contracts - well, by the value of his win shares, no he did not.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

edit: forget it. haha xD


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> No, I do. Josh Smith definitely didn't play up to his contracts. I mean if you want to make it straight numerical at around 1.65m per win share, Josh Smith was definitely overpaid after his first four seasons. Obviously any productive NBA player on a rookie scale contract is a value. But Josh Smith underperformed his value pretty consistently from that point forward, so yeah... um... I do have the evidence to back that argument up.
> 
> As for Shaq - yeah, he was considered a cancer quite often when he wasn't winning titles. What a horrid example. In years he won titles - well, the guy led his team to fucking titles. There's no underperformance in those seasons regardless of his shape. He won titles. That's not even a valid comparison. Those guys aren't within standard deviations of each other, and your argument there is just without point.
> 
> Fact is you just told me to prove to you he didn't play up this contracts - well, by the value of his win shares, no he did not.


I'm just making sure that you want to stick with this argument. Do you want me to make a list of players that under this definition would be considered "cancers"? This is what I don't get with you guys. You dig your own graves in these arguments. I just point to the direction and you guys fall in yourselves.

By the way, after the first 4 seasons in Atlanta Josh Smith signed a 5 year 58 million contract. In those 5 years he tallied a total of 31.6 wins. That's 1.83M per win. Go ahead and do the calculations. Basically the Hawks overpaid Josh Smith around 5.8 mil over 5 years. That's slightly over a mil extra per year. That's cancer. Really. Do you want me to make a list of all the players that got overpaid by 1 mil a year and let's call them cancers. By the way, just for comedic value, Kevin Garnett during those similar years averaged well over 2 mil per win. I guess he's a cancer in your books also. Like I said, don't go down this road. Just for fun, Joe Johnson during those similar years had a way worse win per $. It's a medical miracle that the Hawks made the playoffs and was mostly good during those years. I mean if Josh Smith is a stage I then Joe Johnson is easily stage III or IV.

Remember what Jamel said about blind hate? This is blind hate.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

Now we're talking about player wins like this is baseball.

This is the dumbest thread ever.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

Mrs. Thang said:


> Now we're talking about player wins like this is baseball.
> 
> This is the dumbest thread ever.


this thread needs more jugs.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Adam said:


> You do know that D-Mo is the starter and not Terrence Jones, right?


Yep, but jones is a capable starter. Not Only did Smith outplay him but he did pretty much every rocket not named Dwight or Harden on a team that arguably finished second in the league in the playoffs. Not bad for the veterans minimum.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Yep, but jones is a capable starter. Not Only did Smith outplay him but he did pretty much every rocket not named Dwight or Harden on a team that arguably finished second in the league in the playoffs. Not bad for the veterans minimum.


He was a post free agency waiver wire player, not a true vet min signee. This year he will be a vet minimum player.

I don't see why you of all people keeps pointing out him outplaying Terrence Jones. Don't you remind people constantly of Flip Murray when somebody has a couple decent games? Rashard Lewis almost won Miami a championship in 2014. Josh Smith had a small run where he hit a bunch of threes but over the entire season with Houston he was unimpressive. They handed him the starter job and then after he lost it, and his greatest competition had a season ending injury and he still didn't do anything spectacular. There was nothing stopping him from playing 40 minutes a game.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Adam said:


> He was a post free agency waiver wire player, not a true vet min signee. This year he will be a vet minimum player.
> 
> I don't see why you of all people keeps pointing out him outplaying Terrence Jones. Don't you remind people constantly of Flip Murray when somebody has a couple decent games? Rashard Lewis almost won Miami a championship in 2014. Josh Smith had a small run where he hit a bunch of threes but over the entire season with Houston he was unimpressive. They handed him the starter job and then after he lost it, and his greatest competition had a season ending injury and he still didn't do anything spectacular. There was nothing stopping him from playing 40 minutes a game.


Not sure how different expectations are for veteran minimum player or a waiver wire player but ok. I think overall Houston is content with the season they had as a team and smith individually. This year I'm confident the clippers will be content with smiths production for his price as well. I'll take plenty of flip murrays for the minimum and not get all dramatic ranting about how he'll shoot from half court and ruin the team.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Yeah, Houston was so happy that they have two second rounders signed in his slot and didn't want him back. They're so happy that they're confident they can do better than what he gave them last year. Not sure how you think that is a point in your favor. In a season where Josh Smith was waived, benched, not-resigned, regressed statistically, and signed for the lowest amount possible I'm more than satisfied with where I rate him as a player. Twenty-nine years old and playing for the vet minimum. You can believe that his attitude and ability don't contribute to that fact but I'll disagree. And once more I'll ask what the supposed gotcha is in all this. Nothing has changed if not a series of events that prove the guy is depreciating.


----------



## JonMatrix (Apr 8, 2003)

Clippers/Kings games will be must-see television this season. 

Both teams are one play away from imploding.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> I'm just making sure that you want to stick with this argument. Do you want me to make a list of players that under this definition would be considered "cancers"? This is what I don't get with you guys. You dig your own graves in these arguments. I just point to the direction and you guys fall in yourselves.
> 
> By the way, after the first 4 seasons in Atlanta Josh Smith signed a 5 year 58 million contract. In those 5 years he tallied a total of 31.6 wins. That's 1.83M per win. Go ahead and do the calculations. Basically the Hawks overpaid Josh Smith around 5.8 mil over 5 years. That's slightly over a mil extra per year. That's cancer. Really. Do you want me to make a list of all the players that got overpaid by 1 mil a year and let's call them cancers. By the way, just for comedic value, Kevin Garnett during those similar years averaged well over 2 mil per win. I guess he's a cancer in your books also. Like I said, don't go down this road. Just for fun, Joe Johnson during those similar years had a way worse win per $. It's a medical miracle that the Hawks made the playoffs and was mostly good during those years. I mean if Josh Smith is a stage I then Joe Johnson is easily stage III or IV.
> 
> Remember what Jamel said about blind hate? This is blind hate.


You think anyone is going to argue with you concerning Joe Johnson? Additionally: you just ignore arguments related to the way other players are going to look at him. Again: a guy can submarine an offense ALLLLL he wants if he can fall out of bed and get defensive numbers with his athletic talent? That's asinine. Just completely asinine.

I mean I only brought the numbers indicating he was overpaid *at your behest.* Quit being a jackass and pretending it is some core part of my argument. You said the numbers would NOT back up that he was overpaid. I gave you numbers that said he was. YOU AGREED. You were wrong. Just because, by your off-math (1.84 was not the dollar value at the time, you can't retroactively apply present day salary values), he wasn't overpaid by a lot DOES NOT change the fact that you were wrong. Quit obfuscating and pulling the point away from where it belongs. You said I couldn't find numbers indicating he was overpaid, and I did. At YOUR behest. 

Again: those numbers are NOT at the core of my argument. Those numbers are proving YOUR prior statement wrong. So don't even PRETEND you were anything but that regarding the numbers, and whether he was paid enough for what he provided. But it is NOT at the core of my point.

Have you ever been around a REAL ACTUAL BASKETBALL TEAM? Because, seriously - you've got no fucking clue here. You don't have a leg to stand on. The team's superstar talent voluntarily submarining the offense IS NOT made up for by the fact that he can roll out of bed and put up pretty numbers. And even putting up those numbers, as mentioned above, he was overpaid. Those numbers YOU SAID I didn't have. Regardless of the amount he was overpaid: you said those numbers didn't exist. I don't even care about those numbers. I care about the fact that he is BAD for a team on the court.

If you've ever worked with a team, at all, you'd know it. This isn't blind hate. This is fact. And it doesn't apply to *every fucking name that gets overpaid.* The reason it applies to Josh Smith, above all the other random ass names you brought up, and the reason it fits well with Rasheed Wallace as well: is because he showed that he CAN do what is necessary to be that valued player. And he knowingly and consciously chooses to NOT DO IT. And has FOR YEARS ON END.

You don't have a leg to stand on.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

you should be penalized for multiple uses of the word behest - I behest that you desist


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Awful lot of opinions around here regarding a guy signing a vet minimum deal to, presumably, compete with Big Baby for backup minutes.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

e-monk said:


> you should be penalized for multiple uses of the word behest - I behest that you desist


I'm on painkillers and dealing with having an eyeball out. I'm just glad this point is so easy to make. Normally I'd be alllll with you on that.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

ChrisWoj said:


> *I'm on painkillers and dealing with having an eyeball out.* I'm just glad this point is so easy to make. Normally I'd be alllll with you on that.


Wut


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

GNG said:


> Wut


See: http://www.basketballforum.com/everything-but-basketball/596506-week-science.html not gonna clutter this thread.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> You think anyone is going to argue with you concerning Joe Johnson? Additionally: you just ignore arguments related to the way other players are going to look at him. Again: a guy can submarine an offense ALLLLL he wants if he can fall out of bed and get defensive numbers with his athletic talent? That's asinine. Just completely asinine.


That's cute. So do you want me to list the players that under your definition would be considered cancer or what? You are the one that's twisting how cancer is defined, not me.



> I mean I only brought the numbers indicating he was overpaid at your behest. Quit being a jackass and pretending it is some core part of my argument. You said the numbers would NOT back up that he was overpaid. I gave you numbers that said he was. YOU AGREED. You were wrong. Just because, by your off-math (1.84 was not the dollar value at the time, you can't retroactively apply present day salary values), he wasn't overpaid by a lot DOES NOT change the fact that you were wrong. Quit obfuscating and pulling the point away from where it belongs. You said I couldn't find numbers indicating he was overpaid, and I did. At YOUR behest.


Let me refresh your memory of what happened here. This is what I said. 



seifer0406 said:


> Let's see. If I'm a team owner and I'm paying someone 10 mil a year and he's giving me around 10 mil a year worth of net positive, then no, he wouldn't be a cancer. From where I'm sitting the only argument you have now is that Josh Smith in Atlanta didn't produce what he was paid for. I don't think you have enough evidence to back it up.


The reason why I said that is because the rest of your argument failed already in my eyes. You just called someone who brought a net positive value to the team "Cancer", which made no sense when you think about it. That's why I said perhaps if the guy's overpaid you might have a point and you were the one that went into winshares and ended up with a definition of cancer that is laughable. By the way, let us ignore the fact that it's common knowledge that big man gets paid more than guards and younger players typically gets more than older players which your calculation completely ignores. But still, your path of logic ended up defining cancer as getting overpaid 1 mil a year. You are the one that came up with these results and you thought that made sense enough to use as your argument.

To summarize this is what happened. Your definition of cancer made no sense to me. I offered you a method to prove that he might be a cancer. You took it and came out with a result that doesn't really apply because of how many players that nobody considers as cancer would become cancer under the result. Nobody is being a jackass here. It is what it is.




> If you've ever worked with a team, at all, you'd know it. This isn't blind hate. This is fact. And it doesn't apply to every fucking name that gets overpaid. The reason it applies to Josh Smith, above all the other random ass names you brought up, and the reason it fits well with Rasheed Wallace as well: is because he showed that he CAN do what is necessary to be that valued player. And he knowingly and consciously chooses to NOT DO IT. And has FOR YEARS ON END.


This type of argument from authority is clearly fallacious. I don't know why you're even bringing it up, logically it's easily proven false. What does the fact that I don't work in the field of basketball have anything to do with whether my arguments are true. The fact is actual NBA GMs did find value in Josh Smith. It's not like everyone who works with basketball teams shared your opinion and someone like me who have never worked this field shares a different opinion. Do you know that after Josh Smith's contract was up in Atlanta Detroit wasn't the only team that tried to sign him? Did those GMs not work with basketball teams and knew less than you?

If you have any more *actual* arguments to back up your point then go ahead. If we're going into "I'm right because I've done this and this" then just spare me.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Adam said:


> Yeah, Houston was so happy that they have two second rounders signed in his slot and didn't want him back. They're so happy that they're confident they can do better than what he gave them last year. Not sure how you think that is a point in your favor. In a season where Josh Smith was waived, benched, not-resigned, regressed statistically, and signed for the lowest amount possible I'm more than satisfied with where I rate him as a player. Twenty-nine years old and playing for the vet minimum. You can believe that his attitude and ability don't contribute to that fact but I'll disagree. And once more I'll ask what the supposed gotcha is in all this. Nothing has changed if not a series of events that prove the guy is depreciating.


Stop saying Houston didn't want him back until you have evidence. Not saying it doesn't exist, but I don't see it. Last I heard they were negotiating and smith was trying for more money which he clearly didn't get. 

You seem a tad emotional about this to. You sure you don't hate smooth? The "gotcha" if there is one is smith played well given his role and money and this is a good signing given his projected role and money. You're talking about him like he's still making 8 figures and is supposed to be a top two player.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> That's cute. So do you want me to list the players that under your definition would be considered cancer or what? You are the one that's twisting how cancer is defined, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


An argument from authority that is clearly fallacious... 

Your point regarding GMs doesn't even make sense...

The GM that signed Josh Smith was *fired* in large part as a response to that decision. The Rockets got a trial run with the guy and could have brought him back cheap if he was so valuable. And now the league is paying Josh Smith, a supposed non-cancer by your words still in his 20s at the moment so obviously not on his decline, who has the talent to do... well, we've all seen what he has the talent to do.... the veterans minimum. And that is the best he could get. The GMs are on my side, not yours. Just because a number of GMs, many of whom we'd all acknowledge are pretty much where they are through Peter's Principle, were willing to sign him does *not* justify Joe Dumars' decision.

My argument regarding him being overpaid and being a cancer, well the numbers backed up him being overpaid. Your exact words were there there is no evidence that he didn't do what he was paid for. I threw that win share thing in there because it is evidence.

And on top of that - seriously, the guy SUBMARINES the offense. Fucking SUBMARINES it. There's no denying this. There is absolutely no denying it. There is no way you can deny it. There is nothing showing he does not. There is no evidence that Josh Smith doesn't. And you know what? For many guys: that is a-okay. We've never seen that they can do anything else. And just because a team expects them to do something else? It doesn't mean that they can do it.

_Josh Smith willfully undermines the plans his coach puts forward for the offense. He willfully goes against strategies that make him arguably three times more valuable to his team on offense. Because he likes throwing up long jumpers._

He has been doing this for years. What the hell about that is anything but cancerous? Tell me, how is a player _willfully disobeying a coach and refusing to play in a manner that he has proven previously capable of playing at a very high level_ anything but subversive and cancerous? Give. Me. Your. Logic.

You've been responding to everything *but* that point. You've basically been focusing 100% on providing me with questions that I have to answer and then refuting my points regarding your guided questioning and directing, without once acknowledging anything about my actual point. Be a politician about it all you want, but you haven't successfully refuted this point even one time.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> An argument from authority that is clearly fallacious...
> 
> Your point regarding GMs doesn't even make sense...
> 
> The GM that signed Josh Smith was *fired* in large part as a response to that decision. The Rockets got a trial run with the guy and could have brought him back cheap if he was so valuable. And now the league is paying Josh Smith, a supposed non-cancer by your words still in his 20s at the moment so obviously not on his decline, who has the talent to do... well, we've all seen what he has the talent to do.... the veterans minimum. And that is the best he could get. The GMs are on my side, not yours. Just because a number of GMs, many of whom we'd all acknowledge are pretty much where they are through Peter's Principle, were willing to sign him does *not* justify Joe Dumars' decision.


Have you even taken a logic or philosophy course in your life? Do you even know what that fallacy is?

You just proved my point with this laughable paragraph. Do you consider the GM that got fired as someone that has worked with a team? Was he right about his decision or was he wrong?

Oh he was wrong eh?

Then why the fuck did you use the fact that I didn't work with a basketball team as some sort of evidence of my point being false and yours being right?

The argument from authority fallacy is a fallacy because just because a person has certain credentials, doesn't mean that whatever he does in his field is correct. You always argue the point, not assuming that someone is right because he is such and such. Get it? 

As the rest of your point I feel like we're going in circles. Nobody is saying that he is a great player on offense or that he is a great player period. All I'm saying is when you consider the entirety of Josh Smith's game throughout his career, he has done more good than bad as his numbers as well as his recognized value throughout the league has shown. I'm not going back to the beginning and go through the entire argument again with you. Just read it back and see it for yourself. You wanted to call him a cancer and you failed at providing a suitable definition of the term.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> Have you even taken a logic course in your life? Do you even know what that fallacy is?
> 
> You just proved my point with this laughable paragraph. Do you consider the GM that got fired as someone that has worked with a team? Was he right about his decision or was he wrong?
> 
> ...


I used that point because you can't see what is right in front of your nose. I'm sure as hell not qualified to make nuanced contract decisions. Building a team is hard work and requires quite a lot. But after the fact? It is *very* easy to analyze the things that have already happened. I'm in NO position to analyze what Josh Smith will do in 2015-16 this year. But anyone that watches the game can tell you that signing Josh Smith means submarining your team's offense when he is on the floor. There is a massive difference between what WE are doing NOW and what a GM does when he signs a player. We are analyzing past results. A GM makes predictions as to what will happen going forward.

You continue to equate things that just do not match up. The Shaq argument didn't match up. This does not match up. These things are not equal. And anybody that has spent considerable time around basketball teams can analyze what has already happened on the floor.



> As the rest of your point I feel like we're going in circles. Nobody is saying that he is a great player on offense or that he is a great player period. All I'm saying is when you consider the entirety of Josh Smith's game throughout his career, he has done more good than bad as his numbers as well as his recognized value throughout the league has shown. I'm not going back to the beginning and go through the entire argument again with you. Just read it back and see it for yourself. You wanted to call him a cancer and you failed at providing a suitable definition of the term.


We're not going around in circles - because you haven't successfully responded to anything I said in my central point. All you've done is looked for other arguments that are at the very peripheral of what I'm trying to say and forced me into debate over your points. You've completely avoided getting us going in circles - because you haven't even begun to make your way around the circumference of it yet.

And all I'm saying, as someone watching basketball, who knows basketball somewhat, who has been around teams, and who is making points based on *what has already happened, not based on what will happen moving forward* - you can not successfully analyze what is happening on the floor.

If you know anything about analyzing what is happening you'd realize that *when Josh Smith is on the floor, despite all he does on defense, he actively makes his teammates worse offensively.* You don't see it all the time in his own numbers, but seriously... you think that just because his Win Shares match up with his contract value, he's worth it? So the fact that he is willfully subversive to his coach's plan while he's on the court is irrelevant? You still haven't even thought to respond to that even after I directly asked you to last post. You won't even acknowledge the fact that I stated his case, like Rasheed's, is made somewhat unique by the fact that he has shown prior that he CAN play a different and more successful style. He is NOT a comparable case with guys that have similar win share numbers. He is NOT a comparable case with guys that GMs assume can do one thing, but they've never shown it. He is somewhat unique in that he showed that offensively there is a style that, with him on the floor, is very successful. And he is happy to ignore his coaches and do whatever the hell he wants instead of following that plan.

*How is a playe who is willfully subverting the team's plan all the time not a cancer?*


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> I used that point because you can't see what is right in front of your nose. I'm sure as hell not qualified to make nuanced contract decisions. Building a team is hard work and requires quite a lot. But after the fact? It is *very* easy to analyze the things that have already happened. I'm in NO position to analyze what Josh Smith will do in 2015-16 this year. But anyone that watches the game can tell you that signing Josh Smith means submarining your team's offense when he is on the floor. There is a massive difference between what WE are doing NOW and what a GM does when he signs a player. We are analyzing past results. A GM makes predictions as to what will happen going forward.


You used that point because you couldn't argue the actual argument. That's usually the reason why people go into "Oh you've never played actual ball so what you're saying must be wrong." The idiocy is the discussion was about moves that were made by actual GMs in the first place. You know, people that supposedly should be right because according to you they've been *around actual basketball teams*. It's just really stupid no matter how you look at it. Don't do this again, you'll make yourself look like a fool.



> How is a playe who is willfully subverting the team's plan all the time not a cancer?


I've already gave plenty of examples. Rasheed Wallace was not considered a cancer in Portland. Shaq even when he was fat was not considered a cancer in LA. You want to call those players cancers you go ahead. I wouldn't call them cancers.

I've already gave my argument. Josh Smith in Atlanta was a pretty good player. Was he a great player, no. Was he the perfect player that did what he was asked no? But did he help the Hawks more than he hurt the Hawks yes. Was he paid fairly in Atlanta? Yes.

If you want to go in circles feel free to do so. Personally I haven't seen anything in your last post that I haven't answered already. I can show you the points but I can't help you understand them and judging by what you've shown in the other areas of this thread, it's probably a task way too difficult for me to partake.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Welp, this spiralled out of control and I'm not willing to catch up.

Another thread where Seifer writes paragraph after angry paragraph about how anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot. What fun.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Welp, this spiralled out of control and I'm not willing to catch up.
> 
> Another thread where Seifer writes paragraph after angry paragraph about how anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot. What fun.


I'm glad you're learning your lessons. If we move forward a couple months on the topic of Josh Smith we'll find the decomposing remains of R-Star warning everyone how Josh Smith would ruin Rockets's team chemistry and how he'll make the team worse. The result? First conference finals appearance for the Rockets in 19 years. Yeah, that Josh Smith signing really hurt the Rockets.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> You used that point because you couldn't argue the actual argument. That's usually the reason why people go into "Oh you've never played actual ball so what you're saying must be wrong." The idiocy is the discussion was about moves that were made by actual GMs in the first place. You know, people that supposedly should be right because according to you they've been *around actual basketball teams*. It's just really stupid no matter how you look at it. Don't do this again, you'll make yourself look like a fool.


Frankly I'm wondering if you even WATCH basketball regularly, or just read articles online. This is TRULY and MASSIVELY baffling. I have no idea how someone can NOT watch Josh Smith and see him as a cancer. I watched 100+ games of Josh Smith - and there's absolutely no way anyone that watched it could say his teammates played better with him on the floor. The idea is just... completely absurd. It just doesn't register. And from everything I've heard he was the same guy in Atlanta that he was in Detroit. I'm asking you that question honestly because - you just don't seem to be grounded in reality. 





> I've already gave plenty of examples. Rasheed Wallace was not considered a cancer in Portland. Shaq even when he was fat was not considered a cancer in LA. You want to call those players cancers you go ahead. I wouldn't call them cancers.


Yes he was! What are you insane? Rasheed Wallace was absolutely considered a cancer in Portland! And Shaquille O'Neal WON RINGS. You can be less than your best all you damn well want if you're gonna win rings, there's no level of achievement higher than bringing home championship MVPs. Again, as I said, SHAQ is NOT a comparable.



> I've already gave my argument. Josh Smith in Atlanta was a pretty good player. Was he a great player, no. Was he the perfect player that did what he was asked no? But did he help the Hawks more than he hurt the Hawks yes. Was he paid fairly in Atlanta? Yes.
> 
> If you want to go in circles feel free to do so. Personally I haven't seen anything in your last post that I haven't answered already. I can show you the points but I can't help you understand them and judging by what you've shown in the other areas of this thread, it's probably a task way too difficult for me to partake.


But he didn't! My god HE MADE HIS TEAMMATES WORSE. The ONLY season that he played under the strict dictates of a coach his team busted through for 50+ wins. This is just... insane.

You're absolutely refusing to acknowledge that this is a guy who _actively and willfully ignores his coaches' dictates._ You're absolutely refusing to acknowledge that this makes him a cancer. You're refusing to acknowledge basic common sense. Josh Smith made his teammates worse. Josh Smith subverted his coaches on the court. How is that not cancerous? What on earth are you missing in that point?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> Frankly I'm wondering if you even WATCH basketball regularly, or just read articles online. This is TRULY and MASSIVELY baffling. I have no idea how someone can NOT watch Josh Smith and see him as a cancer. I watched 100+ games of Josh Smith - and there's absolutely no way anyone that watched it could say his teammates played better with him on the floor. The idea is just... completely absurd. It just doesn't register. And from everything I've heard he was the same guy in Atlanta that he was in Detroit. I'm asking you that question honestly because - you just don't seem to be grounded in reality.


You know what, forget it. If you're not going to see the main point of what you're quoting it's not really worth replying.

What part of it doesn't matter what I've done because what I'm arguing for is done by an actual NBA GM don't you understand? Did you watch more Hawks games than the actual Hawks GM? Did you watch more Pistons games than the actual Pistons GM? If the Pistons GM made the mistake of signing Josh Smith after watching all those games, why does it matter how many games you watch.

But just for your interest, yes I watched plenty of Josh Smith games. I wasn't born yesterday dude. Been a hardcore NBA fan for at least 15 years. I wouldn't use that to backup my arguments though.




> Yes he was! What are you insane? Rasheed Wallace was absolutely considered a cancer in Portland! And Shaquille O'Neal WON RINGS. You can be less than your best all you damn well want if you're gonna win rings, there's no level of achievement higher than bringing home championship MVPs. Again, as I said, SHAQ is NOT a comparable.


Like I said, go back and read the previous arguments. You were the one that called Shaq a cancer in the years when he didn't win rings. As for Sheed go find me a single Blazer fan that would define Sheed's tenure in Portland as cancer. You are the one that's crazy here. There is no portion of NBA fans that consider those 2 players as cancers.



> But he didn't! My god HE MADE HIS TEAMMATES WORSE. The ONLY season that he played under the strict dictates of a coach his team busted through for 50+ wins. This is just... insane.
> 
> You're absolutely refusing to acknowledge that this is a guy who actively and willfully ignores his coaches' dictates. You're absolutely refusing to acknowledge that this makes him a cancer. You're refusing to acknowledge basic common sense. Josh Smith made his teammates worse. Josh Smith subverted his coaches on the court. How is that not cancerous? What on earth are you missing in that point?





ChrisWoj said:


> He wasn't a "net" negative but he certainly did his best to avoid playing the way his coaches want him to play, and thus to my eyes was a negative for the team.


He wasn't a "net" negative but he's still a negative. Maybe you're not just lacking in logic here. If you're not a net negative then you aren't making your teams worse. That's the definition of what a net negative is.

sigh.....you know what. I've had enough of this. I'll just return in half a year or so and collect on the I told you so's.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

How about the fact that when Josh Smith is on the floor, per basketball reference, in 2-man lineup combinations - most of his teammates saw massive downturns in usage rate? Josh hogged usage game after game, per basketball reference, despite his numbers being in the tank offensively. HOW is that a positive? He looks like a positive because he puts up numbers. Big ol usage rate numbers. Which are able to carry numbers like Win Shares and PER through. And even with Win Shares giving him a usage rate edge, he still was typically a few million short of being worth his contract. How is this not a cancer when your coach is trying to get you to do something that would have the opposite effect on your team, something you've proven you can do?

Hell, many seasons, looking through this (anyone know how I can compile this info together? There are a LOT of pages to go through) - Josh Smith is more often than not not even in any of the top 5 2-man combinations statistically - meaning he's behind a few bench guys. Not sure how bbref ranks those 2-man combinations, but it DOES back up the eye test.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> You know what, forget it. If you're not going to see the main point of what you're quoting it's not really worth replying.
> 
> What part of it doesn't matter what I've done because what I'm arguing for is done by an actual NBA GM don't you understand? Did you watch more Hawks games than the actual Hawks GM? Did you watch more Pistons games than the actual Pistons GM? If the Pistons GM made the mistake of signing Josh Smith after watching all those games, why does it matter how many games you watch.
> 
> ...


Again - NBA GMs make decisions determining what is happening *going forward.* I am not qualified to do that. But what we are all qualified to do is determine what has happened in the past. 

Did I watch more Josh Smith games than Detroit's GM? Probably. If you're talking about Dumars, at least equal. If you're talking about the GM that realized he wasn't worth having on the roster? Yes, I did. All of them.

You're right though - this is pointless. You've got no idea what you're talking about, and you're just throwing numbers out there like our present statistics are even remotely capable of telling the whole story. Had the present camera tech been available at the time, I'm certain it would have backed me up. Because, seriously, this is fucking obvious. Just blatant smack you in the damn face obvious. This isn't even a debatable point which is why I find it absurd you're trying to debate it. You're so far off base that... well... I mean, seriously. Wow. The guy has been dumped, was signed to max deals by GMs that got fired, is in his 20s and making the vet minimum despite SUPERLATIVE athletic skill in a league in which massive athletic skill gets rewarded into your 30s... A few GMs made bad decisions, but like I said - Peter's Principle. But despite the bad decisions of a few GMs prevailing opinion is on my side. The guy is in his 20s, just entering his 30s this year, and getting vet minimum in a league in which guys with athleticism get big contracts into their young to mid 30s. 

And seriously, shut up about Sheed. He was considered a cancer in Portland, you're nuts. Remember that time people kept calling for the Trailblazers to break up their team? The guy was volatile, unreliable, unpredictable, showed up every year for training camp out of shape. He was criticized constantly for refusing plays drawn up by his coaches, he'd pass out of positive situations in the post where he was drawing single coverage because he didn't want to bang his way into a spot to rise up from. There are quotes from his FRIENDS on the team (Damon Stoudamire) saying the way he played on the court chafed at them. This is another case where I wonder just how much you actually follow the sport, and how much you SAY you follow it. You are ADAMANT that no one considered Sheed a cancer - yet he was WIDELY considered a cancer! Are you CERTAIN that the league you've been following for 15 years is the NBA, or that you don't have some sort of memory issues? Because really dude - this is beyond the pale. You've got no clue what you're talking about here.

I understand that that is personal. But really man, seriously. You're just spouting out falsehoods.

Hell... Shaq was written about repeatedly as a cancer in his non-title years. The calls for him to be traded out of town when his teams weren't at the top were EVERYWHERE. Whether he was in LA, Miami, Phoenix, Cleveland... if he wasn't winning, people wanted him out. His teams refused because GMs have a responsibility to look forward and not back - and they acknowledged that having Shaq meant having just under a one in three chance he'd get you to a ring with the right cast. You dealt with the bad years, the "cancer" years, to get to the championship years. 

I just have no clue what league you've been following, because you're not grounded in anything resembling reality. Hence my questioning your being a fan, watching games, or even watching the NBA. Your comments just resonate with ignorance of reality.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> I'm glad you're learning your lessons. If we move forward a couple months on the topic of Josh Smith we'll find the decomposing remains of R-Star warning everyone how Josh Smith would ruin Rockets's team chemistry and how he'll make the team worse. The result? First conference finals appearance for the Rockets in 19 years. Yeah, that Josh Smith signing really hurt the Rockets.


Josh Smith, the man who literally saved the Rockets regular season, and is the sole reason for their limited playoff success. That's still your take right?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> I disagree with your definition of cancer and heres why. There have been plenty of players in the past and now that have aspects of their game that the player refuses to follow conventional wisdom. Take Rasheed Wallace for example. For an entire decade the entire basketball world pleaded for him to utilize his back to the basket offense. But the guy just refused to do it and when he used it occasionally it was an unstoppable move, that fadeaway was cash money. Had he focused his game on it he would've been 20+ppg scorer easily and perhaps one of the best big men of his generation. But for some reason he ended up being a career 15 ppg player and generally viewed as an underachiever. Was that part of his game uncontrollable? Was it a negative part of his game? Definitely.
> 
> *But you wouldn't call Rasheed Wallace's failure to score a cancer.* He might be known as a cancer for other reasons, i.e. Prone to technical fouls , feuding with coaches, and being a distraction in the locker room, but the fact that he didn't use his potential to be a dominant scorer isn't something that defined him as a cancer.





seifer0406 said:


> I've already gave plenty of examples. Rasheed Wallace was not considered a cancer in Portland. Shaq even when he was fat was not considered a cancer in LA. You want to call those players cancers you go ahead. I wouldn't call them cancers.





seifer0406 said:


> Like I said, go back and read the previous arguments. You were the one that called Shaq a cancer in the years when he didn't win rings. As for Sheed go *find me a single Blazer fan that would define Sheed's tenure in Portland as cancer*. You are the one that's crazy here. There is no portion of NBA fans that consider those 2 players as cancers.


The Sheed thing is just so ridiculous. Probably one of the most cancerous players in the history of the league. It's funny how you can't see how Sheed refusing to shoot and play the way he should play (sounds a lot like Josh Smith) can be cancerous.

Anyway, I'll take the Pepsi challenge. How's Jason Quick's opinion sound? 
Link


> Deferring at crunch time: For all his talents, and all the money he made (he was making $17 million in his last season in Portland), Wallace never embraced the responsibility of carrying the team, or becoming its go-to-guy.
> 
> In fact, he would usually defer.
> 
> The problem was the plays in crunch time were usually designed post-ups for Wallace, yet he would pass out of them, even though he wasn't being double teamed. It led to hurried shots by teammates and discombobulated possessions. Late in his time in Portland, his reluctance to take the big shot became as talked about as his temper, and that talk included his teammates. *Damon Stoudamire, one of Wallace's closest friends on the team, said at the time that Wallace's reluctance late in games had "eaten" at the team.*


How much critical thinking does it take to connect a player's refusal to listen to coaching and follow the team gameplan as detrimental/subversive/cancerous.

Find a single Blazer fan to call him a cancer? He was the ringleader of a team that almost destroyed basketball in that city.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Adam said:


> The Sheed thing is just so ridiculous. Probably one of the most cancerous players in the history of the league. It's funny how you can't see how Sheed refusing to shoot and play the way he should play (sounds a lot like Josh Smith) can be cancerous.
> 
> Anyway, I'll take the Pepsi challenge. How's Jason Quick's opinion sound?
> Link
> ...


I'm still waiting for you to direct me to the Houston fan forum where fans cheered for Josh Smith's departure. 

Don't run and hide and think that I forgot about your little fantasy story.

And the last thing on Rasheed Wallace, even in that article you quoted it's an article that discussed the good and the bad with Rasheed Wallace. For you to take the bad and ignore the good and act like it proves your point is again, very childish. The guy was the best player on a Blazer team that made the playoffs year after year and was a quarter away from making the finals and likely winning a championship. Go ahead and call him the biggest cancer in the history of the league.

You guys can't look at things objectively and just have to go with your "gut" feeling. A guy that destroyed a team yet the team that he led made the conference finals. Sure perhaps if he was better than maybe he would've won it all. But just because he wasn't that it doesn't mean that he destroyed everything. It's just not logically sound and I don't know why you two keep on arguing this very point. The reason why the Blazers were hated by Portland was due to it being the jail blazers. You know, Damon Stoudemire smoking weed, Qyntel Woods fighting dogs and things of that nature. It's not because Rasheed Wallace refused to shoot fadeaways in the post. If you don't understand this, you don't understand anything.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> I'm still waiting for you to direct me to the Houston fan forum where fans cheered for Josh Smith's departure.
> 
> Don't run and hide and think that I forgot about your little fantasy story.
> 
> ...


What isn't logical is for you to continually try to call people out for not still talking about points you thought you made 3 pages ago, all the while you bring them up to distance yourself from almost the entirety of the post you're quoting. It's a horrible posting technique you've been trying to use for years.

You then try to rewrite what people said and take their opinion to extremes, all while softening your initial stance. 

If you think no one notices that, you're an idiot. It's one of the reason no one likes posting with you. You're right. Every ****ing time. When backed into a corner you just start hurling insults and trying to change your initial opinion as well as the person you're posting against. It's pathetic.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

R-Star said:


> What isn't logical is for you to continually try to call people out for not still talking about points you thought you made 3 pages ago, all the while you bring them up to distance yourself from almost the entirety of the post you're quoting. It's a horrible posting technique you've been trying to use for years.
> 
> You then try to rewrite what people said and take their opinion to extremes, all while softening your initial stance.
> 
> If you think no one notices that, you're an idiot. It's one of the reason no one likes posting with you. You're right. Every ****ing time. When backed into a corner you just start hurling insults and trying to change your initial opinion as well as the person you're posting against. It's pathetic.


You're rarely right but you are right for once R-Star.

I did make those points about 3 pages ago. Those points haven't changed. I tried to explain them and you 3 stooges just can't seem to grasp some simple concepts. You have Chris there telling me that he knows more than NBA GMs because he watches more NBA games. I don't even know what to say to that. So no, I'm not going to put up a reply for such idiocy.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> You're rarely right but you are right for once R-Star.
> 
> I did make those points about 3 pages ago. Those points haven't changed. I tried to explain them and you 3 stooges just can't seem to grasp some simple concepts. You have Chris there telling me that he knows more than NBA GMs because he watches more NBA games. I don't even know what to say to that. So no, I'm not going to put up a reply for such idiocy.


Seifer101: First thing to know about Seifer - he makes shit up. Constantly.

For example: the part where he can't understand how being an NBA GM works. Yet again, toolbag: An NBA GM's job is to analyze the past for the purpose of *DETERMINING THE FUTURE RETURNS.* What a layperson can do as well as an NBA GM is analyze past results and draw logical connections. What a layperson can not do as well as a _competent_ front office (of which there are only so many in the league) is determine future returns. I've tried explaining the difference to you multiple times, but you have more fun making shit up to acknowledge it.

You've already made clear that:
a) You don't know anything about Rasheed Wallace.
b) You don't know anything about Shaquille O'Neal.

And yet you claim with TOTAL certainty that you do. Your lack of knowledge about the league is just so absurdly laughable that... I just can't do anything but post repeatedly pointing out the idiocy and laughing at it as I do. I mean this is relayed all over the place common knowledge that absolutely everybody and even their parents that think the NBA is still the cocaine league probably have in their memory banks. And yet you absolutely REFUSE to acknowledge it. It is HILARIOUS how little you know about the NBA.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> I'm still waiting for you to direct me to the Houston fan forum where fans cheered for Josh Smith's departure.
> 
> Don't run and hide and think that I forgot about your little fantasy story.


Oh, okay, I won't run and hide from you seifer! For the record, I live in Houston. I listen to Houston sports radio and I hear countless callers, so I'm sorry I cited a consensus and believed the same things I heard would be reflective of internet fans' consensus. Guess I jumped the gun on that, but I'll stand by the fact Morey and knowledgeable fans aren't sweating this.



> And the last thing on Rasheed Wallace, even in that article you quote it it's an article that discussed the good and the bad with Rasheed Wallace. For you to take the bad and ignore the good and act like it proves your point is again, very childish.


Okay, I love your debating tactics. I was responding to a call by you. A call to refute your point. I did that. The burden of proof isn't on me to make your argument for you. Just like your idiotic refutation of my stats point on Josh Smith. You excuse his statistical regression by saying it "could" be due to intangibles/sacrifices and I'm biased because I assume that can't be. I don't assume that it can't be. I'm of the side that it isn't. That's based on my own most objective analysis. When a player is GIVEN THE STARTING JOB, STARTED IN THE PLAYOFFS, and the team is begging players to produce offensively there's no sacrifice in minutes or shots to justify a prime year career statistical regression. I'm making my argument and I'm not assuming your's isn't a possibility, it's just not likely. You're the one who conversely chooses to remain willfully ignorant of facts you're fully aware. You still politically deflect every opportunity to respond to how willful neglect of duties is not subversive.



> The guy was the best player on a Blazer team that made the playoffs year after year and was a quarter away from making the finals and likely winning a championship. Go ahead and call him the biggest cancer in the history of the league.


Yes, I shall. An aside, my favorite Sheed story in Portland is when he wanted to fight Pippen in the locker room because one of them wanted it cold and the other wanted it hot.



> You guys can't look at things objectively and just have to go with your "gut" feeling.


Right. This is like you proclaiming yourself the winner when I cite a statistical advantage to my case, and preemptively accuse me of assuming that advantage isn't biased when in fact it's objectively more likely to be indicative of reality: a decline in Smith's play.



> A guy that destroyed a team yet the team that he led made the conference finals. Sure perhaps if he was better than maybe he would've won it all. But just because he wasn't that it doesn't mean that he destroyed everything. It's just not logically sound and I don't know why you two keep on arguing this very point. The reason why the Blazers were hated by Portland was due to it being the jail blazers. You know, Damon Stoudemire smoking weed, Qyntel Woods fighting dogs and things of that nature. It's not because Rasheed Wallace refused to shoot fadeaways in the post. If you don't understand this, you don't understand anything.


Except his refusal to shoot the shots his team wanted him to shoot destroyed the team. That's what you requested and what I gave you.

Are you familiar with the concept of opportunity? In addition to almost singlehandedly destroying basketball in that city in the midst of fist fighting his teammates, fighting his coach, getting arrested for drugs, getting suspended for everything, and challenging reporters to fights, he never won a championship. The team subsequently went through a long rebuild. How can you reasonably suggest that this player was a positive entity for that organization? Do you deny the possibility that a non-Sheed team could have potentially even won a championship, because you do know a different team could have potentially won it?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

3 stooges.... Classic Seifer. We're all idiots. He's a genius. 


The guy who initially put all of Houstons success last year on picking up Josh Smith, to now having completely softened his opinion (as per usual), is calling 3 other posters the 3 stooges.

Must be nice to be so delusional.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Adam said:


> Are you familiar with the concept of opportunity? In addition to almost singlehandedly destroying basketball in that city in the midst of fist fighting his teammates, fighting his coach, getting arrested for drugs, getting suspended for everything, and challenging reporters to fights, he never won a championship. The team subsequently went through a long rebuild. How can you reasonably suggest that this player was a positive entity for that organization? Do you deny the possibility that a non-Sheed team could have potentially even won a championship, because you do know a different team could have potentially won it?


I like the part where he says Sheed had nothing to do with it all, and then points out how Damon Stoudamire smoked weed. When Rasheed Wallace and Damon Stoudamire were caught together, charged together, and then copped deals to get out of it. Both of them. And yet - only Stoudamire was the guy smoking weed.

This guy really doesn't know ANYTHING at all about the things he's trying to speak with authority about.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

ChrisWoj said:


> I like the part where he says Sheed had nothing to do with it all, and then points out how Damon Stoudamire smoked weed. When Rasheed Wallace and Damon Stoudamire were caught together, charged together, and then copped deals to get out of it. Both of them. And yet - only Stoudamire was the guy smoking weed.
> 
> This guy really doesn't know ANYTHING at all about the things he's trying to speak with authority about.


Not to mention he's spent years saying how guys getting caught for this or that don't at all affect a teams chemistry and shouldn't be looked at as a negative. So for him to try and flip it around on Stoudamire, or better yet a nobody like Qyntel Woods? Priceless.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

For the record, Jamel and seifer have completely different arguments. Jamel is mocking people who think Josh Smith is without worth. Seifer is trying to argue that Josh Smith was not cancerous historically. That just isn't true. I'll concede Jamel's point. I was wrong if I ever said Josh Smith should fall out of the league or he doesn't belong or he can't turn it around. He can turn it around. I just would not be the one to bet on him unless it was a situation like LA. I also think that it's possible for him to still be a cancerous personality/player and for his team to still find success, because you can always overachieve and win harder and more comfortably and be so much superior to your peers, e.g. some of the success Sheed had in Portland and Detroit. If we're not just going to yell at each other like apes, I think when a player's weakness (shooting or not shooting) can be alleviated in the team (like Sheed being surrounded by great players who can shoot or Josh being surrounded by players who don't want to shoot and can set him up in spots) then his cancerous tendencies can be offset. I also don't think a bench player's interpersonal and coachability are as critical when he's in a reduced role with "give me whatever you got" expectations.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> For the record, Jamel and seifer have completely different arguments. Jamel is mocking people who think Josh Smith is without worth. Seifer is trying to argue that Josh Smith was not cancerous historically. That just isn't true. I'll concede Jamel's point. I was wrong if I ever said Josh Smith should fall out of the league or he doesn't belong or he can't turn it around. He can turn it around. I just would not be the one to bet on him unless it was a situation like LA. I also think that it's possible for him to still be a cancerous personality/player and for his team to still find success, because you can always overachieve and win harder and more comfortably and be so much superior to your peers, e.g. some of the success Sheed had in Portland and Detroit. If we're not just going to yell at each other like apes, I think when a player's weakness (shooting or not shooting) can be alleviated in the team (like Sheed being surrounded by great players who can shoot or Josh being surrounded by players who don't want to shoot and can set him up in spots) then his cancerous tendencies can be offset. I also don't think a bench player's interpersonal and coachability are as critical when he's in a reduced role with "give me whatever you got" expectations.


Yep. 

Josh Smith is an extremely talented guy who can be a huge part of a teams success..... when he's playing in the system.

The reason I've said I wouldn't take guys like Josh or JR Smith on my team for free is that there's always that huge chance they'll take a contested 3 pointer with 15 seconds left on the shot clock in a playoff game, and then shrug it off like it's no big deal. I don't want those guys on my team.

But for Seifers "There's absolutely no history of him being a bad teammate or a cancer!", that's ludicrous.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Adam said:


> For the record, Jamel and seifer have completely different arguments. Jamel is mocking people who think Josh Smith is without worth. Seifer is trying to argue that Josh Smith was not cancerous historically. That just isn't true. I'll concede Jamel's point. I was wrong if I ever said Josh Smith should fall out of the league or he doesn't belong or he can't turn it around. He can turn it around. I just would not be the one to bet on him unless it was a situation like LA. I also think that it's possible for him to still be a cancerous personality/player and for his team to still find success, because you can always overachieve and win harder and more comfortably and be so much superior to your peers, e.g. some of the success Sheed had in Portland and Detroit. If we're not just going to yell at each other like apes, I think when a player's weakness (shooting or not shooting) can be alleviated in the team (like Sheed being surrounded by great players who can shoot or Josh being surrounded by players who don't want to shoot and can set him up in spots) then his cancerous tendencies can be offset. I also don't think a bench player's interpersonal and coachability are as critical when he's in a reduced role with "give me whatever you got" expectations.


Yeah, but we're not allowed to have nuanced opinions. Those are against the BBB.net bylaws.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Seifer is getting hated on but I will say that he was right about a lot. Before everyone got sidetracked on this subject of whether he is a cancer or not, the point that he played a role on a successful team was accurate and for that I commend seifer. You called that months ago when I said Josh didn't belong in the league unless he found some chromosomes. I think where your argument went wrong and triggered me was when you suggested that his play in the past was misunderstood or misinterpreted. "He was put in a large role in the playoffs and was not negative, hence in past situations where he was in a large role he was not a negative." You can't revise history based on his play this season even if you were to argue that he was put in similar situations this year as in Atlanta, it doesn't change what he did in the past (shot selection). I don't think he's some transcendent player and the narrative on him has shifted significantly. People used to say that he was put in a poor situation and played out of position in Detroit, but now people and him have conceded he is a role player who needs to play support and less minutes.

This thread is actually such cancer and we're all dumber for participating in it.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> Seifer is getting hated on but I will say that he was right about a lot. Before everyone got sidetracked on this subject of whether he is a cancer or not, the point that he played a role on a successful team was accurate and for that I commend seifer. You called that months ago when I said Josh didn't belong in the league unless he found some chromosomes. I think where your argument went wrong and triggered me was when you suggested that his play in the past was misunderstood or misinterpreted. "He was put in a large role in the playoffs and was not negative, hence in past situations where he was in a large role he was not a negative." You can't revise history based on his play this season even if you were to argue that he was put in similar situations this year as in Atlanta, it doesn't change what he did in the past (shot selection). I don't think he's some transcendent player and the narrative on him has shifted significantly. People used to say that he was put in a poor situation and played out of position in Detroit, but now people and him have conceded he is a role player who needs to play support and less minutes.
> 
> This thread is actually such cancer and we're all dumber for participating in it.


I'm waiting to see how it pans out when he sees the teams leaders in Paul and Griffin chasing after refs and crying foul any time they miss a shot. The Clippers really are a gong show and I could see Smith joining in on all the nonsense, especially with Lance there now too. It has all the chances to be an absolute circus. 

That being said with Dwight and Harden I thought it would be a similar situation in Houston, so I might be wrong here. Time will tell, but I'm not wiping away Smiths past history just because of a good half season behavior wise.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Adam said:


> Seifer is getting hated on but I will say that he was right about a lot. Before everyone got sidetracked on this subject of whether he is a cancer or not, the point that he played a role on a successful team was accurate and for that I commend seifer. You called that months ago when I said Josh didn't belong in the league unless he found some chromosomes. I think where your argument went wrong and triggered me was when you suggested that his play in the past was misunderstood or misinterpreted. "He was put in a large role in the playoffs and was not negative, hence in past situations where he was in a large role he was not a negative." You can't revise history based on his play this season even if you were to argue that he was put in similar situations this year as in Atlanta, it doesn't change what he did in the past (shot selection). I don't think he's some transcendent player and the narrative on him has shifted significantly. People used to say that he was put in a poor situation and played out of position in Detroit, but now people and him have conceded he is a role player who needs to play support and less minutes.
> 
> This thread is actually such cancer and we're all dumber for participating in it.


The problem is - none of us argued any of that. He's done well before - when he was willing to listen to coaching. That's kinda been at the core of my point. We've all acknowledged it repeatedly, that he's been a positive. Which is at the core of the tragedy that is his refusal to listen to coaching. I think everybody would agree that Josh Smith CAN be valuable. There's nothing really commendable about pointing out the obvious. Where Seifer went wrong is he's only wiling to acknowledge a small sliver of the Josh Smith experience, while tuning out all of the rest.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> The problem is - none of us argued any of that. He's done well before - when he was willing to listen to coaching. That's kinda been at the core of my point. We've all acknowledged it repeatedly, that he's been a positive. Which is at the core of the tragedy that is his refusal to listen to coaching. I think everybody would agree that Josh Smith CAN be valuable. There's nothing really commendable about pointing out the obvious. Where Seifer went wrong is he's only wiling to acknowledge a small sliver of the Josh Smith experience, while tuning out all of the rest.


That's not what I said at all dude. Come on, how many pages did I write on this already.

When you look at Josh Smith's time in Atlanta as a whole, I repeat, as a whole, he has done more good than bad thus under my definition, isn't a cancer to the team. I've never argued once about him shooting 3s as a positive have I? I know that's the bad part of his game, but the key word is "PART" of the game.

By the way, I find it funny that while all 3 of you like to shit on Josh Smith, only R-Star was dumb enough to claim that the Clippers won't beat any real contending teams. I can already see in about 10 months we'll be arguing the definition of a real contending team. R-Star is going to argue that any of the teams that the Clippers do beat isn't a real contender although he picked that team to beat the clippers before the series started. This is what you can predict when you feud with someone as long as I have.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> That's not what I said at all dude. Come on, how many pages did I write on this already.
> 
> When you look at Josh Smith's time in Atlanta as a whole, I repeat, as a whole, he has done more good than bad thus under my definition, isn't a cancer to the team. I've never argued once about him shooting 3s as a positive have I? I know that's the bad part of his game, but the key word is "PART" of the game.


This is where I question whether you've ever been involved in the sport, though! It isn't just him shooting 3s, you're acting like that is some isolated little thing that has no real impact on the rest of what is happening on the court. Being willfully subversive like that is a MASSIVE cancer to absolutely anything a coach tries to do. He can do all the other positive things he wants, but that is abolutely HUGE and plays a huge role in the way the rest of the team treats the coach, the media treats the coach. It plays a huge role in the way the other players go about doing their own jobs. And don't give me some bullshit about "Yeah but player X and player Y are professionals they shouldn't be influenced by yadda yadda..." That isn't how being a human being works. We don't live in a happy little vacuum where event A doesn't impact event B. Josh Smith was, and as long as he's unwilling to listen to coaching, always will be a cancer to his team on the floor.

The way you're responding to this point has me question how involved you've ever been in team sports in your life, because you clearly aren't picking up on the way that the basic social structure of a team functions at all. This isn't an unquantifiable thing - if you look at any study relating to human behavior you'd see that we're massively social creatures, and the impact of behavior like that has a huge impact on the behavior of those around him.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Cue e-monk telling me to stop saying huge.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> That's not what I said at all dude. Come on, how many pages did I write on this already.
> 
> When you look at Josh Smith's time in Atlanta as a whole, I repeat, as a whole, he has done more good than bad thus under my definition, isn't a cancer to the team. I've never argued once about him shooting 3s as a positive have I? I know that's the bad part of his game, but the key word is "PART" of the game.
> 
> By the way, I find it funny that while all 3 of you like to shit on Josh Smith, only R-Star was dumb enough to claim that the Clippers won't beat any real contending teams. I can already see in about 10 months we'll be arguing the definition of a real contending team. R-Star is going to argue that any of the teams that the Clippers do beat isn't a real contender although he picked that team to beat the clippers before the series started. This is what you can predict when you feud with someone as long as I have.


And I can already see you not making a god damn peep about Josh Smith when the Clippers are bounced in the 2nd round, and then when someone brings up you running your mouth you'll flip your lid.

Do I see the Clippers beating a team like the Spurs? Absolutely not. 

Do you? Make a solid opinion. Instead of calling others out for making theirs, come right out and say it. Where do you see the Clippers finishing this year?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

R-Star said:


> And I can already see you not making a god damn peep about Josh Smith when the Clippers are bounced in the 2nd round, and then when someone brings up you running your mouth you'll flip your lid.
> 
> Do I see the Clippers beating a team like the Spurs? Absolutely not.
> 
> Do you? Make a solid opinion. Instead of calling others out for making theirs, come right out and say it. Where do you see the Clippers finishing this year?


Right now I have them ranked as 4A to the Rockets 4B in the West. The top 3 in my opinion are the Warriors, Spurs, and OKC. But the Spurs are old and OKC is fragile so the Clippers may very well finish top 3.

If the Clippers are healthy, I wouldn't count them out against any team in the West and that's including the Warriors and the Spurs. I wouldn't call them favorites, but I definitely wouldn't say that they couldn't beat any of them.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> Right now I have them ranked as 4A to the Rockets 4B in the West. The top 3 in my opinion are the Warriors, Spurs, and OKC. But the Spurs are old and OKC is fragile so the Clippers may very well finish top 3.
> 
> If the Clippers are healthy, I wouldn't count them out against any team in the West and that's including the Warriors and the Spurs. I wouldn't call them favorites, but I definitely wouldn't say that they couldn't beat any of them.


That's fine, but if you're going to call people out if they're wrong for making predictions, you can't turn around and have such a "they could win, or they could lose, hard to say" wishy washy statement.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

R-Star said:


> That's fine, but if you're going to call people out if they're wrong for making predictions, you can't turn around and have such a "they could win, or they could lose, hard to say" wishy washy statement.


Why not? This isn't a game of predictions. You are the one that's throwing out a bunch of predictions without being asked and of course people will laugh at you when they end up being wrong.

This is like if I say that Lebron has no chance of winning the MVP next year. Not everyone will come out and say that Lebron definitely will win the MVP or is a favorite to win the MVP next year but it's ludicrous to say that he has no chance of doing it. You're the one that's saying that the Clippers can't beat any contenders because of their recent additions and I say that's a dumb thing to say.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> Why not? This isn't a game of predictions. You are the one that's throwing out a bunch of predictions without being asked and of course people will laugh at you when they end up being wrong.
> 
> This is like if I say that Lebron has no chance of winning the MVP next year. Not everyone will come out and say that Lebron definitely will win the MVP or is a favorite to win the MVP next year but it's ludicrous to say that he has no chance of doing it. You're the one that's saying that the Clippers can't beat any contenders because of their recent additions and I say that's a dumb thing to say.


You've just effectively taken yourself out of being able to criticize anyones opinion on this site. 

"B.b.b.but injuries happen! Other stuff happens! I can't make a prediction. Fine, I predict everyone can win, and everyone might lose."

I predict the Spurs would beat the Clippers in a 7 game series this upcoming season. If injuries happen on either side, guess what, that's basketball. It was recently just half of your Josh Smith argument to begin with, so I find it funny to see you weasel out now and refuse to pick a team. 

Never criticize me again.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

R-Star said:


> You've just effectively taken yourself out of being able to criticize anyones opinion on this site.
> 
> "B.b.b.but injuries happen! Other stuff happens! I can't make a prediction. Fine, I predict everyone can win, and everyone might lose."
> 
> ...


Because when a team beats another team it automatically means that the other had "no chance" of beating them.

I'm tired of criticizing you anyway. Your track record speaks for yourself. Personally when I read a prediction that you make, without thinking about what you predicted, my first reaction now is always that the opposite of that will likely happen.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> Because when a team beats another team it automatically means that the other had "no chance" of beating them.
> 
> I'm tired of criticizing you anyway. Your track record speaks for yourself. Personally when I read a prediction that you make, without thinking about what you predicted, my first reaction now is always that the opposite of that will likely happen.


Yes... because Seifer is well known on this website for his track record.

Oh wait, you just admitted you go out of your way to not make actual predictions out of fear of being wrong. How pathetic


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Yes... because Seifer is well known on this website for his track record.


Actually yeah. If we really want some objective proof, as far as this site is concerned, I'm the 2 time champion of its prediction contest. I don't like to wave this around since it's rather silly but if anyone has a proven track record around here it would be me.

If you want to have a thread with me where we make solid predictions on a variety of NBA related things I'm more than willing to do so. I'm just saying just because I didn't make a prediction in this instance it doesn't mean your wild prediction is any less wild.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> Actually yeah. If we really want some objective proof, as far as this site is concerned, I'm the 2 time champion of its prediction contest. I don't like to wave this around since it's rather silly but if anyone has a proven track record around here it would be me.
> 
> If you want to have a thread with me where we make solid predictions on a variety of NBA related things I'm more than willing to do so. I'm just saying just because I didn't make a prediction in this instance it doesn't mean your wild prediction is any less wild.


How is saying I predict the Spurs to be beat the Clips in a 7 game series if they met up a "wild prediction". 

Isn't that exactly the type of thing you just waved around?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> You've just effectively taken yourself out of being able to criticize anyones opinion on this site.
> 
> "B.b.b.but injuries happen! Other stuff happens! I can't make a prediction. Fine, I predict everyone can win, and everyone might lose."
> 
> ...


Im not picking the Clippers to beat the Spurs again with or without Josh Smith. So not sure how that's relevant.

Smith will either help their bench or be meaningless. I will predict that he won't flame out and be the reason for their demise or be waived midseason or whatever it is you're saying.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

R-Star said:


> How is saying I predict the Spurs to be beat the Clips in a 7 game series if they met up a "wild prediction".
> 
> Isn't that exactly the type of thing you just waved around?


You aren't suppose to backtrack this early R-Star. You said that the Clippers won't beat any of the real contending teams. That's how this discussion started remember?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

btw R-star, it's cool to put me in your sig dude. People are going to think it's cool. No need to put me in the sig, take it off, then put it in again, take it off, then put it in. Just relax dude, stop trying so hard. Just leave it in already, it's fine.


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)

Pause


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Im not picking the Clippers to beat the Spurs again with or without Josh Smith. So not sure how that's relevant.
> 
> Smith will either help their bench or be meaningless. I will predict that he won't flame out and be the reason for their demise or be waived midseason or whatever it is you're saying.


Where did I say any of that?

Feel free to quote.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> btw R-star, it's cool to put me in your sig dude. People are going to think it's cool. No need to put me in the sig, take it off, then put it in again, take it off, then put it in. Just relax dude, stop trying so hard. Just leave it in already, it's fine.


Huh?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> You aren't suppose to backtrack this early R-Star. You said that the Clippers won't beat any of the real contending teams. That's how this discussion started remember?


So.... you won't even predict if the Clippers could beat the Spurs, but you want me to list a team by team breakdown of whom would beat whom?

You're a ****ing idiot. You know that right? Like you aren't any good at this at all. You think you are, which is cute, but then it blows up in your face and you pull your suddenly too important to post on the Internet schtick every single time.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Where did I say any of that?
> 
> Feel free to quote.


What are you saying then? That the clippers won't beat the Spurs because of josh smith?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> What are you saying then? That the clippers won't beat the Spurs because of josh smith?


The Clippers wouldn't beat the Spurs with or without Smith in my eyes. Not sure where I said "because" of Smith.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Smith improves the Clippers. Before he got bored and started chucking, Smith was a very talented player. 

He's a defensive presence and when he warms up on the offensive game, he can do all kinds of damage. 

Is he enough to get the Clippers over? Who knows. They were close last year, and they've improved with his acquisition, so perhaps they can go on a deeper run.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Porn Player said:


> Smith improves the Clippers. Before he got bored and started chucking, Smith was a very talented player.
> 
> He's a defensive presence and when he warms up on the offensive game, he can do all kinds of damage.
> 
> Is he enough to get the Clippers over? Who knows. They were close last year, and they've improved with his acquisition, so perhaps they can go on a deeper run.


If Smith and Lance play complimentary roles within the system and don't try to take over games unless asked to? They're a legit top 3 contender. I just am not betting on that happening.

Although I agree Smith proved me wrong 90% of the time in Houston.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> The Clippers wouldn't beat the Spurs with or without Smith in my eyes. Not sure where I said "because" of Smith.


Then what's your point? How does the clippers not beating the Spurs say anything about smith?

You criticized this signing, yet I don't see any feasible scenario where the clippers regret it.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

Don't be tricked into conceding Smith is a good player. He is definately not a good player. He was good for exactly one season in his career where he stopped shooting three pointers and has been bad or average every other season. He seriously sucks and making a few shots in the playoffs doesn't change that.

Houston just traded for a guy with a drinking problem so bad his old team would take anything to get rid of him, yet let Josh Smith walk for the minimum. Think about that for a second.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Then what's your point? How does the clippers not beating the Spurs say anything about smith?
> 
> You criticized this signing, yet I don't see any feasible scenario where the clippers regret it.


What? Again, why does me telling someone I don't think they'd beat the Spurs *HAVE* to be tied to the Smith signing?

I picked the Spurs as my favourite to win this year after they picked up West. Before Smith even signed with the Clippers.

All I mentioned at all with Smith was that he's a loose canon being added to a team that already has a few.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Mrs. Thang said:


> Don't be tricked into conceding Smith is a good player. He is definately not a good player. He was good for exactly one season in his career where he stopped shooting three pointers and has been bad or average every other season. He seriously sucks and making a few shots in the playoffs doesn't change that.
> 
> Houston just traded for a guy with a drinking problem so bad his old team would take anything to get rid of him, yet let Josh Smith walk for the minimum. Think about that for a second.


Your definition of "good season" is highly picky. Good relative to what? How many players in the nba had good seasons by your standards last year? 50? 60? He was the third best player on the conference finalist. 

Also youre the second person that stated they "let" smith walk. Any proof that didn't want him back? 



R-Star said:


> What? Again, why does me telling someone I don't think they'd beat the Spurs *HAVE* to be tied to the Smith signing?
> 
> I picked the Spurs as my favourite to win this year after they picked up West. Before Smith even signed with the Clippers.
> 
> All I mentioned at all with Smith was that he's a loose canon being added to a team that already has a few.


My bad. I guess I thought these back and forths about the clippers beating the Spurs was actually tied to the the thread topic.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Clippers have money to sign stars with low costs.

current base salaries

Clippers 96 million
Thunder 94
Warriors 87
Spurs 82
Rockets 78
Grizz 76


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Mrs. Thang said:


> Don't be tricked into conceding Smith is a good player. He is definately not a good player. He was good for exactly one season in his career where he stopped shooting three pointers and has been bad or average every other season. He seriously sucks and making a few shots in the playoffs doesn't change that.
> 
> Houston just traded for a guy with a drinking problem so bad his old team would take anything to get rid of him, yet let Josh Smith walk for the minimum. Think about that for a second.


Second person in this thread who said Houston didn't want smith back. Like the previous person when I asked: "based on what?" They don't reply. 

Mrs. Thang are you waiting for 30 more replies before you snipe in another comment?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Second person in this thread who said Houston didn't want smith back. Like the previous person when I asked: "based on what?" They don't reply.
> 
> Mrs. Thang are you waiting for 30 more replies before you snipe in another comment?


I like how you ask for proof, but then turn around and act like lack of proof means Houston really wanted Smith back badly but lost out to LAC.

It goes both ways Jamel.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> I like how you ask for proof, but then turn around and act like lack of proof means Houston really wanted Smith back badly but lost out to LAC.
> 
> It goes both ways Jamel.


I didnt act like anything. I asked for proof because I dont believe it. It could of happened, but Im not taking someone named Adam or Ms Thangs (both who clearly dont like Smooth) word for anything. 

You cant just make shit up and expect me not to question you on it.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> I like how you ask for proof, but then turn around and act like lack of proof means Houston really wanted Smith back badly but lost out to LAC.
> 
> It goes both ways Jamel.


I didnt act like anything. That was your own conclusion.

It does go both ways, meaning Im right and we dont know if Houston wanted him back or not. 

It could of happened that they didnt want him back, but Im not taking someone named Adam or Ms Thangs (both who clearly dont like Smooth) word for anything. 

You cant just make shit up and expect me not to question you on it.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I didnt act like anything. I asked for proof because I dont believe it. It could of happened, but Im not taking someone named Adam or Ms Thangs (both who clearly dont like Smooth) word for anything.
> 
> You cant just make shit up and expect me not to question you on it.


That's fine. But the conclusion to that is Houston let him walk then. There's nothing saying he spruned them, and nothing saying they tried hard to keep him and he left.

Chances are they didn't care one way or another and he left. Which doesn't help much with Seifers "Josh Smith single handedly saved the Rockets" MO he was spouting earlier and has now cooled off on.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> That's fine. But the conclusion to that is Houston let him walk then. There's nothing saying he spruned them, and nothing saying they tried hard to keep him and he left.
> 
> Chances are they didn't care one way or another and he left. Which doesn't help much with Seifers "Josh Smith single handedly saved the Rockets" MO he was spouting earlier and has now cooled off on.


Nope, not concluding that sorry. Maybe smith would rather play in LA?

You don't know, I don't know, and apparently Adam and Mrs thang don't either.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Nope, not concluding that sorry. Maybe smith would rather play in LA?
> 
> You don't know, I don't know, and apparently Adam and Mrs thang don't either.


Oh ok, so none of us know, but if we don't agree with your opinion we're idiots.


Go **** yourself Jamel, how's about that?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Oh ok, so none of us know, but if we don't agree with your opinion we're idiots.
> 
> 
> Go **** yourself Jamel, how's about that?


You can keep putting words in my mouth all you want.

All I said is none of us know, yet you were asking me to conclude something none of us know is facts.

I will deal with proof and facts, not your speculation.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> You can keep putting words in my mouth all you want.
> 
> All I said is none of us know, yet you were asking me to conclude something none of us know is facts.
> 
> I will deal with proof and facts, not your speculation.


....Yet you yourself are speculating. All while calling people out for doing the same.


Again, shut your ****ing mouth.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> ....Yet you yourself are speculating. All while calling people out for doing the same.
> 
> 
> Again, shut your ****ing mouth.


Typical R-star. Takes quotes out of context, builds up straw men, puts words in my mouth that werent said (hillarious because its text) and then gets mad and insults.

I never speculated on anything. I ADMITTED I dont know if Houston wanted him back or not. 

Adam and Mrs Thang dont know, but act like their opinion is facts. Get it?

Go fuck a polar bear you pasty Canadian.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Typical R-star. Takes quotes out of context, builds up straw men, puts words in my mouth that werent said (hillarious because its text) and then gets mad and insults.
> 
> I never speculated on anything. I ADMITTED I dont know if Houston wanted him back or not.
> 
> ...


I'm probably more tanned than you, but that isnt your fault since you're stuck in your middle management cubicle, right Drew?

Honestly Jamel, try to cop out harder.



I like how you try to walk around here as big dick swinging Jamel and then completely turn into a cry baby when I slap you around. I'm better at this than you, you little pussy. The sooner you understand and accept that, the better for you.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> I'm probably more tanned than you, but that isnt your fault since you're stuck in your middle management cubicle, right Drew?
> 
> Honestly Jamel, try to cop out harder.
> 
> ...


Better at what? Internet fighting? Will that make you mayor of the six hundred resident town of Clive? I would never work in a cubicle or office. It's like living in Clive. 

Oh and a white guy is tanner than a black guy. He's also better than me. 

How big is your dick?

Suck my dick pussy.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

You're like the alcoholic and workaholic parents of the basketballforum community.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> You're like the alcoholic and workaholic parents of the basketballforum community.


This guys only got one eye, yet he can still see the truth.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

ChrisWoj said:


> You're like the alcoholic and workaholic parents of the basketballforum community.


Which one am I? Cant I just be the archivist asshole?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Better at what? Internet fighting? Will that make you mayor of the six hundred resident town of Clive? I would never work in a cubicle or office. It's like living in Clive.
> 
> Oh and a white guy is tanner than a black guy. He's also better than me.
> 
> ...


Suck my dick pussy? What are you, 8?

And your go to "ha ha! You live in a small town!" isn't getting old or tired in the least. I moved there because I like quiet and my house is something you'd never be able to attain. 

Do better or don't bother.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Suck my dick pussy? What are you, 8?
> 
> And your go to "ha ha! You live in a small town!" isn't getting old or tired in the least. I moved there because I like quiet and my house is something you'd never be able to attain.
> 
> Do better or don't bother.


Anyone whose driven the California corridor to LA knows there's nothing. Like not even radio stations. Every time I drive from la to Vegas I ask the people in my car this question- would you rather own a condo in LA or a ten million dollar mansion here? Nobody has ever said the mansion. I figure you're the anomaly. 

Being home to me is like working in a office or cubicle... It's torture. New travel so much and I like being outdoors way too much that I convinced my wife to put our home on the market. Got sick of mowing the lawns and cleaning the pool. 

Our retirement goal is to own four small dwellings and bounce around between them, renting them out when we aren't there. 

It's not as glamorous as fighting online in my crib in Clive, but more power to you.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Anyone whose driven the California corridor to LA knows there's nothing. Like not even radio stations. Every time I drive from la to Vegas I ask the people in my car this question- would you rather own a condo in LA or a ten million dollar mansion here? Nobody has ever said the mansion. I figure you're the anomaly.
> 
> Being home to me is like working in a office or cubicle... It's torture. New travel so much and I like being outdoors way too much that I convinced my wife to put our home on the market. Got sick of mowing the lawns and cleaning the pool.
> 
> ...


I'm in a hotel, not that it matters. The fact you try so hard to act like a jet setter is the real enjoyment for me.

Also you're the typical guy who **** talks the size of peoples homes....... because you can't get a nice one yourself.

Enjoy your 4 small dwellings. You already have 1 under your belt. 


By the way, no one is buying your condo or $10,000,000 mansion bull****. Especially not anyone who's actually been to LA and seen it's a ****hole.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

Jamel Irief said:


> Second person in this thread who said Houston didn't want smith back. Like the previous person when I asked: "based on what?" They don't reply.


Based on Houston reportedly offered him a 1 year $2.5 million deal when they had the full MLE available. A deal which he may have taken if they'd thrown a kind word in with it, but apparently something about it was so unagreeable that he took less money to back-up Blake Griffin.

Smith has openly stated he is looking for a role where he can showcase and try to get a multi-year deal next summer. He was 2nd in usage last year for a team that went to the conference finals, but felt like he had to take less money to backup an all-star that plays 35 mpg in-order to showcase himself.

So what does that say about how hard Houston was pursuing him?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> I'm in a hotel, not that it matters. The fact you try so hard to act like a jet setter is the real enjoyment for me.
> 
> Also you're the typical guy who **** talks the size of peoples homes....... because you can't get a nice one yourself.
> 
> ...


The fact that you think I'm lying about traveling leads me to believe you're impressed by my traveling, thank you. 

Look up Baker, California. It's between LA and Vegas and I picture it being the Clive of the USA. Yes, nobody I know wants to live there even in the fattest crib in the world. Don't believe me? Ask @Basel or @King Sancho Fantastic or anyone that's driven LA to Vegas. 

If you must know, my house that's up for sale is 1864 square feet. We had two guest bedrooms that I ended up renting on AirBnb because they just sat empty and I felt they were a waste. The mortgage is only $780 a month on a 30 year (fat down payment) and I get $550 a month from renting out the room. 

I just took a new job I will need to commit 60 hours a week to for a good six months and don't have time time to maintain this place anymore. We're looking for a condo under 1,000 square feet. It was that or hire a gardener, pool guy and cleaning lady which I told wifey would have to all come out of our club/restaurant budget. Happiness to us is experiencing life amongst other humans. Not sitting at home fighting on the Internet (and bragging about it) and watching tv. 

Props to you though. I'm sure a big house in a shit town is very affordable and if that's all it takes to make you happy you have it made. I won't mock your small aspirations.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Mrs. Thang said:


> Based on Houston reportedly offered him a 1 year $2.5 million deal when they had the full MLE available. A deal which he may have taken if they'd thrown a kind word in with it, but apparently something about it was so unagreeable that he took less money to back-up Blake Griffin.
> 
> Smith has openly stated he is looking for a role where he can showcase and try to get a multi-year deal next summer. He was 2nd in usage last year for a team that went to the conference finals, but felt like he had to take less money to backup an all-star that plays 35 mpg in-order to showcase himself.
> 
> So what does that say about how hard Houston was pursuing him?


So they offered him more than the clippers huh? Not sure how that leads you to believe they didn't want him back.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> The fact that you think I'm lying about traveling leads me to believe you're impressed by my traveling, thank you.
> 
> Look up Baker, California. It's between LA and Vegas and I picture it being the Clive of the USA. Yes, nobody I know wants to live there even in the fattest crib in the world. Don't believe me? Ask @Basel or @King Sancho Fantastic or anyone that's driven LA to Vegas.
> 
> ...


Jamel, you realize you're literally describing yourself right? You have 10's of thousands of posts on this website, so I'm not sure what the **** you think you're talking about. Just another case of you trying to be the cool kid and being delusional. 

And if you think I spend my time at home sitting around hiding from society, that's cute and all, but not accurate. I have kids. We're outside the large majority of the time hanging out with other families. To me, I have a hell of a lot more fun doing that than yelling "My wifes a choreographer! HEY! I said my wifes a choreographer! And I like to travel!" at all the 20 year olds in the club while they all look at you as the pathetic old man trying to stay young. 

I also find it hard to believe that a guy who walks around calling everyone a "****ing nerd" does all that well in society. I'm starting to think you describe the life you think/wish you had, but really, I don't see you as being the life of the party everywhere you go like you'd like to have everyone believe.


By the way, having a job that sends you to Delaware and Flint trying to sell people potato chips and pop distribution isn't some grand travel history you should think to brag about. You seem hell bent on trying to make everyone think your company is flying you around on a private jet to Paris, Tokyo and Rome. Why you need to pretend on here is beyond me.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

As a result of this thread cancer has been renamed as Josh Smith Syndrome.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Jamel, you realize you're literally describing yourself right? You have 10's of thousands of posts on this website, so I'm not sure what the **** you think you're talking about. Just another case of you trying to be the cool kid and being delusional.
> 
> And if you think I spend my time at home sitting around hiding from society, that's cute and all, but not accurate. I have kids. We're outside the large majority of the time hanging out with other families. To me, I have a hell of a lot more fun doing that than yelling "My wifes a choreographer! HEY! I said my wifes a choreographer! And I like to travel!" at all the 20 year olds in the club while they all look at you as the pathetic old man trying to stay young.
> 
> ...


I'm so honored that you think I'm making it up that I'm an avid traveler. It's nice to know you respect my life so much you think its unbeliveable. Thank you!

Want pictures of my passport? I think I've been in six different countries in less than two years.

Its the next best thing to pictures of my dick, but if you ask nicely I might give you those too.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I'm so honored that you think I'm making it up that I'm an avid traveler. It's nice to know you respect my life so much you think its unbeliveable. Thank you!
> 
> Want pictures of my passport? I think I've been in six different countries in less than two years.
> 
> Its the next best thing to pictures of my dick, but if you ask nicely I might give you those too.


Why would anyone care that you travel? Better yet, where did I say that you didn't? I just pointed out how hard you try to make everyone think you have some glamorous life that we both know isn't the case. 

Also, why did you dodge the fact that you make fun of people for posting on here...... yet you're one of the forums more avid posters these days?


Oh, I'm going to Mexico in a couple months. Care? Nah, didn't expect you to. Just like not one person cares on your end.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Jamel looked so hot on E! last week. SO HOT.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> Jamel looked so hot on E! last week. SO HOT.



Not much makes me laugh out loud on this forum these days, but this got me. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> The fact that you think I'm lying about traveling leads me to believe you're impressed by my traveling, thank you.
> 
> Look up Baker, California. It's between LA and Vegas and I picture it being the Clive of the USA. Yes, nobody I know wants to live there even in the fattest crib in the world. Don't believe me? Ask @Basel or @King Sancho Fantastic or anyone that's driven LA to Vegas.
> 
> ...


The only good thing about Baker is the Alien Jerky store.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Baker lol!! It's like a gas station and a Carl's Jr stop on the way to Vegas. That's about it.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Oh, and that big ass thermometer too. Lol


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> Baker lol!! It's like a gas station and a Carl's Jr stop on the way to Vegas. That's about it.


The Mad Greek Restaurant would automatically be the best restaurant in Clive by default.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> The Mad Greek Restaurant would automatically be the best restaurant in Clive by default.


I cook. We don't eat out often.

I like how you take pride in your local restaurants though. Whatever makes you feel special Jamel.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> I cook. We don't eat out often.
> 
> I like how you take pride in your local restaurants though. Whatever makes you feel special Jamel.


Mad Greek is in Baker. I wouldn't live in Baker if it came with a 10 million dollar mansion.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Mad Greek is in Baker. I wouldn't live in Baker if it came with a 10 million dollar mansion.


I'm sure there's a couple of clubs you could look out of place in in Baker, just like in LA.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Also, I love how a guy who's probably never seen over 100K a year keeps throwing around 10 million dollar mansions. Makes for good comedy.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> The Mad Greek Restaurant would automatically be the best restaurant in Clive by default.



Mad Greek is good, too. Though I think it's overrated by many.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Basel! Shhh..... just look at the way Jamel is undressing R-Star with his eyes. This is like watching a nature documentary...


Soooo hot.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

ChrisWoj said:


> Basel! Shhh..... just look at the way Jamel is undressing R-Star with his eyes. This is like watching a nature documentary...
> 
> 
> Soooo hot.


Does that make Jamel gay, me gay, or both of us gay?

I don't want Basel to hate me.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

R-Star said:


> Does that make Jamel gay, me gay, or both of us gay?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want Basel to hate me.



I don't hate gay people. :laugh:


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

R-Star said:


> Does that make Jamel gay, me gay, or both of us gay?
> 
> I don't want Basel to hate me.


Well, in the literal sense of the word, isn't all of society gay? Aren't we all?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Basel said:


> I don't hate gay people. :laugh:


That kind of makes me gay for you now....


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

ChrisWoj said:


> Well, in the literal sense of the word, isn't all of society gay? Aren't we all?


I'm gay for basketball and over priced beer.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

R-Star said:


> I'm gay for basketball and over priced beer.


Do Jeremy Lin and Chandler Parsons join you in your hot tub?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

ChrisWoj said:


> Do Jeremy Lin and Chandler Parsons join you in your hot tub?


I could see Parsons coming in for a dip. Linsanity probably has the "I only go in hot tubs in places with over 1 million people!" jackass opinion like Jamel.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)




----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

R-Star said:


> I could see Parsons coming in for a dip. Linsanity probably has the "I only go in hot tubs in places with over 1 million people!" jackass opinion like Jamel.


So Jeremy Lin only enters hot tubs at McDonalds? Fucking A, I knew Canada probably had awesome McDonalds. Do they serve actual edible food in them up there too?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

ChrisWoj said:


> So Jeremy Lin only enters hot tubs at McDonalds? Fucking A, I knew Canada probably had awesome McDonalds. Do they serve actual edible food in them up there too?


I've never tried eating in a hot tub. Just drinking. Or back in the day smoking as well.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

R-Star said:


> I've never tried eating in a hot tub. Just drinking. Or back in the day smoking as well.


Just you n Chandler eh?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

ChrisWoj said:


> Just you n Chandler eh?


Depends on if Jeremy is the kind of guy I think he is.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

R-Star said:


> That kind of makes me gay for you now....



I'm glad I can make you feel that way.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Can we bring Jamel in for a group hug now? Can we be a great big gay erection family now?


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

ChrisWoj said:


> Can we bring Jamel in for a group hug now? Can we be a great big gay erection family now?



Who's part of this group hug, exactly?


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Basel said:


> Who's part of this group hug, exactly?


I was thinking of you as like the creamy center of an uncle R-Star, aunt Jamel, and papa ChrisWoj twinkie.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

ChrisWoj said:


> I was thinking of you as like the creamy center of an uncle R-Star, aunt Jamel, and papa ChrisWoj twinkie.



Perfect. Just making sure.


----------

