# Madsen to T-Wolves? Yes, he is! (updated)



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Madsen to T-Wolves?*

http://www.startribune.com/stories/511/4006793.html

"Taylor said the only other free agent the Wolves have made an offer to is Mark Madsen, the former Stanford player who has come off the bench for the Lakers the past three seasons."

He will probably end up signing with them, he won't get many other offers.

Thoughts?


----------



## Springsteen (Jan 24, 2003)

Madsen would be a good pickup for almost any team. Not because he's a dynamo on the court, but because of his intensity (even if some people think it's misplaced). He would be a really good practise player on any team he goes too. Working hard all the time, hustling. He's a worthwhile investment from a GM's standpoint.

However, for Mark, he'd be nuts, if he got an offer from the Lakers, to turn it down and choose another team, even if the money is better.


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

I'm begging you Kevin McHale, please, please sign Mark Madsen. PLEASE!!! Make him an offer he can't refuse. PLEEEEEEEASE!!!


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

I hope Jamal Sampson knows how to dance. Our Soul train line may have just been upgraded with Maddog leaving. 

Its time for Slava to get the major back-up minutes. I think he's ready to produce in reserve. Maddog is just too short and unskilled to be an asset for the Lakers on a consistent basis. I love his effort though.


----------



## ShowTmeBALLA (Jul 18, 2003)

Hmm Horry to Spurs, Madsen to Wolves, the other powers in the west pickin up our left overs maybe to get an insight on our game. We will truely know this is Samaki signs with Sac and Tracy Murray goes to Dallas. HEHE this is a funny post don't yell at me saying teams wont sign them


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Madsen will probably always be on the league on some team, because he seems like the type of guy who'll put 110% into each practice -- that's bound to rub off on some other players.


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MJG</b>!
> Madsen will probably always be on the league on some team, because he seems like the type of guy who'll put 110% into each practice -- that's bound to rub off on some other players.


Didn't rub off on Shaq or anyone else on the Lakes. Kobe gives it 110% every game just because he's that competitive.


----------



## grizzoistight (Jul 16, 2002)

yall rip mad dog.. 
however the lakers had a much better lineup with him in the starting lineup


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

Its not about loading your roster from top to bottom with guys who have potential for greatness or have great athelticism or great physical size. You need guys who have a strong bball IQ, hustle, play D, have heart. You need guys who know and willingly accept their limited roles. From what I've seen of Madsen, the guy reminded me a lot of Kurt Rambis. Rambis had horrible career stats, but Showtime certainly needed his physical presence. If the money is right for the Lakers, I don't know why you wouldn't keep the guy. He's a little Bulldog and I thought he did a real nice job in the playoffs. You could certainly make the argument that nobody needs an old, slow, puny shooting guard but without Steve Kerr, the Spurs might not win the title. If you're talking about bringing in a guy who can contribute more than Madsen right now, I hear ya, but if not I ask, "why not keep him if the moneys right?"


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> Its not about loading your roster from top to bottom with guys who have potential for greatness or have great athelticism or great physical size. You need guys who have a strong bball IQ, hustle, play D, have heart. You need guys who know and willingly accept their limited roles. From what I've seen of Madsen, the guy reminded me a lot of Kurt Rambis. Rambis had horrible career stats, but Showtime certainly needed his physical presence. If the money is right for the Lakers, I don't know why you wouldn't keep the guy. He's a little Bulldog and I thought he did a real nice job in the playoffs. You could certainly make the argument that nobody needs an old, slow, puny shooting guard but without Steve Kerr, the Spurs might not win the title. If you're talking about bringing in a guy who can contribute more than Madsen right now, I hear ya, but if not I ask, "why not keep him if the moneys right?"


So I take it you'd be willing to replace someone on the Spurs with Mark Madsen, right? Would you be willing to part with, say, Malik Rose for this guy since he "hustles, plays D, and has so much heart?"

It sure is funny how so many people have been coming to the Laker board talking about how good our role players are.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Locke</b>!
> 
> 
> So I take it you'd be willing to replace someone on the Spurs with Mark Madsen, right? Would you be willing to part with, say, Malik Rose for this guy since he "hustles, plays D, and has so much heart?"
> ...



Madsen for Rose? Are you serious? I don't even think a biased Laker fan would believe that would be an equitable trade for the Spurs.

It sure is funny how sensitive (some) Lakers fans are.

What if I said I think the *Lakers role players suck.* Would that make you feel better?

I basically compliment a guy on the Lakers and get this cynical reply? What, you worried Madsen's gonna go the way of Horry and you don't want to be quoted saying anything nice about the guy just in case? :laugh:


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> Its not about loading your roster from top to bottom with guys who have potential for greatness or have great athelticism or great physical size. You need guys who have a strong bball IQ, hustle, play D, have heart. You need guys who know and willingly accept their limited roles. From what I've seen of Madsen, the guy reminded me a lot of Kurt Rambis. Rambis had horrible career stats, but Showtime certainly needed his physical presence. If the money is right for the Lakers, I don't know why you wouldn't keep the guy. He's a little Bulldog and I thought he did a real nice job in the playoffs. You could certainly make the argument that nobody needs an old, slow, puny shooting guard but without Steve Kerr, the Spurs might not win the title. If you're talking about bringing in a guy who can contribute more than Madsen right now, I hear ya, but if not I ask, "why not keep him if the moneys right?"


To say the Spurs wouldn't have won the title without Steve Kerr is pouring the bs on a little thick don't you think. He played well a couple games on the way to a title hardly means Kerr was that vital. 

Guys like Madsen, Kerr and Horry are just coachable role players who because of superstars play with more courage than they would without the stars. Madsen is barely an adequate sub. Kerr is just a spot few minutes guard. 

Having this much conversation about role players is amusing. 

Yeah Locke I find it funny also that once a role guy is out the door away from the Lakers people from everywhere want to pat them on the back as if the Lakers are making some kinda mistake. 

Spurs getting Laker scraps in Horry and Wolves in getting maddog. That simple. We took the Spurs scraps in Samake Walker.


----------



## Kyle (Jul 1, 2003)

I hope he comes back to the Lakers. Lord knows I don't want that piece of crap Samaki Walker on the court.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

thats 2 bad, no more crappy dancing :yes: 
any ways have fun being on a team that wont have enough ball 2 go around


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> To say the Spurs wouldn't have won the title without Steve Kerr is pouring the bs on a little thick don't you think.


Really, Jazzy? I'm pouring on the BS? If you're going to quote me, why don't you try doing it correctly? Or would that be too much to ask for? :laugh:

Here is the quote.

_"You could certainly make the argument that nobody needs an old, slow, puny shooting guard but without Steve Kerr, the Spurs might not win the title."_

Let me break that down for you in case you're still having trouble digesting it. If Steve Kerr didn't come in a few times, play a few minutes and light things up the Spurs very well could have lost those games and also their title hopes. That my friend, is a very fair statement.

Of course, for all I know, you're one of those Laker fans who can discount Horry hitting the 3 against the Kings that largely allowed them to win their third title because he missed some other shots during the game. Ah, how selective (some) Laker fans can be. If Horry hits the game winner but missed other shots during the game that discredits his game winning shot. So where is this assinine logic when Kobe hits a game winner? Seems to me he misses plenty of shots.



> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> He played well a couple games on the way to a title hardly means Kerr was that vital.


Whats important is having somebody on that bench who can make it happen when it counts most. Kerr did it with the Bulls and did it as his career set with the Spurs. Kerr's contributions to the Spurs winning a title were in fact vital. He was pulled from the far end of the bench and helped the Spurs deliver the hardware. Those are just the facts regardless of whether you can stomach them or not. So you don't think Brian Shaw has given the Lakers vital contributions? I do. But oh yes, thats another Laker role player and we all know how much Laker fans want us to say that *they all suck*.



> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> Guys like Madsen, Kerr and Horry are just coachable role players who because of superstars play with more courage than they would without the stars. Madsen is barely an adequate sub. Kerr is just a spot few minutes guard.


Thanks for the education. I was real confused on their value to their teams. I also didn't realize it was courage, I thought it was how much more effective they could be when the other team had to focus on stopping two superstars. And after all, isn't it easier to raise your game when you're playing alongside others who are performing at a very high level? Isn't it easier to slide when you're playing alongside guys playing at a low level?



> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> Having this much conversation about role players is amusing.


Really? Doesn't the hero worship of Shaq and Kobe ever get old? Or is this the 24/7 Shaq and Kobe are my heroes fourm?



> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> Yeah Locke I find it funny also that once a role guy is out the door away from the Lakers people from everywhere want to pat them on the back as if the Lakers are making some kinda mistake.


I wasn't aware Madsen was a done deal. I thought he was still on the market.



> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> Spurs getting Laker scraps in Horry....


Again, did the Lakers get the Celtics scraps when they got Shaw? Did the Bulls get the Magics scraps when they got Kerr? And on and on and on... One mans scraps is another mans treasure.

I'm happy for you that you got Malone and Payton because without them I suspect the conversation will get pretty damn boring. But wait --- are they just a few *new role players who suck* or will that have to wait until they're done?


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> Of course, for all I know, you're one of those Laker fans who can discount Horry hitting the 3 against the Kings that largely allowed them to win their third title because he missed some other shots during the game. Ah, how selective (some) Laker fans can be. If Horry hits the game winner but missed other shots during the game that discredits his game winning shot. So where is this assinine logic when Kobe hits a game winner? Seems to me he misses plenty of shots.


Where is everyone discrediting Horry's shot? I haven't seen much of it. All I see is that a lot of Laker fans are upset because Rob trashed Shaq and Kobe when they were obviously much more valuable then he was. Horry always seems to think he is the most valuable player, when in truth he loafs through the regular season, so he can turn it on in the playoffs, but now that he failed badly, most fans are upset. What is wrong with that? If a player trashes our team, are we supposed to like it? As for the Kobe part; Kobe obviously does much more than Horry throughout the whole game, and he is often double teamed, unlike Horry who is wide open and has easier shots, so fans are more willing to give credit to Kobe.



> So you don't think Brian Shaw has given the Lakers vital contributions? I do. But oh yes, thats another Laker role player and we all know how much Laker fans want us to say that *they all suck*.


Who made Shaw's contributions possible? Hmm...maybe Shaq? Kobe? When you play with two players like Shaq and Kobe, you are obviously going to look better then you are. But if Shaw, Walker, etc.. are so great, where is the big market for them? I don't see people lining up to sign Murray or Shaw or Walker. Do you remember when the Lakers played the Blazers in the WCF? The theme was: "Two deep (Lakers) vs. Too deep"(Blazers) Even the media recognized the poor quality of the Laker players besides Shaq and Kobe. You don't even have to look far to see that everyone thinks they suck. Propose any trade with the Lakers on this board not involving Shaq and Kobe, and the response will be: "We don't want any Laker scrubs" or "It's funny how Laker fans think they can get so much for their role players" But if you think Shaw is an all-star, that's your own problem.



> Thanks for the education. I was real confused on their value to their teams. I also didn't realize it was courage, I thought it was how much more effective they could be when the other team had to focus on stopping two superstars.


I think what Jazzy means is this: When a player like Fox, scores 15 points, and everyone says he stepped up and helped us, who do you think gave him all his open shots? Kobe and Shaq. The two stars make everyone around them better, which in turn gives the role players more confidence.



> Really? Doesn't the hero worship of Shaq and Kobe ever get old? Or is this the 24/7 Shaq and Kobe are my heroes fourm?


I hate to dissapoint you, but the two best players in the league are going to get more attention then Rick Fox. Who wants to talk about a scrub? But if you want to worship Madsen, go ahead. 



> Again, did the Lakers get the Celtics scraps when they got Shaw? Did the Bulls get the Magics scraps when they got Kerr? And on and on and on... One mans scraps is another mans treasure.


Getting a player from another team doesn't make it scraps. Horry is a scrap because he is washed up, and worthless.



> I'm happy for you that you got Malone and Payton because without them I suspect the conversation will get pretty damn boring. But wait --- are they just a few *new role players who suck* or will that have to wait until they're done?


Hmm...comparing the second all-time leading scorer to Madsen? Sorry, but I haven't ever heard anyone say that Malone or Payton is a role player who sucks.


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mark Madsen and Robert Horry</b>!
> Lets see we can’t guard Duncan and Garnett so lets join them.


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're quite the argumentative fellow, aren't you? First of all, you proved my point exactly saying you wouldn't take Madsen for Rose. OF COURSE YOU WOULDN'T BECAUSE MADSEN IS NO DAMN GOOD. But you seem to see all these qualities in him that make you think he's worthy of an NBA roster spot. Either that or you just enjoy arguing. It seems to be the latter. Look, Spartacus, I'm not trying to attack you or anything, I just think it's funny how many people are coming out of the woodworks to say all these great things about our role players now that they're leaving. No, I'm not bitter, you have no idea how happy I am to even have a glimmer of hope that Madsen will not be a Laker next season.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> 
> 
> Really, Jazzy? I'm pouring on the BS? If you're going to quote me, why don't you try doing it correctly? Or would that be too much to ask for? :laugh:
> ...



Be easy Spurs fan . 

Let me give you an education. Role players are exactly that . They are on the team because they perform a specialized skill most times. They don't have all around talent to be stars. But this is the most important part, Role players are disposable. I laugh when people try and act as if a role player holds great poise or special game understanding because they are able to make a few clutch shots. 

You can take role players from any number of teams and switch with pretty much the same effect. Its why Paxson, BJ, Hodges, and Kerr were all interchangeable no big deal players because it was their skill as shooters that was useful not the individualized ability you seem to think makes a difference. 

Thats why I say it could've been Kerr, or Fisher, or Paxson or Penberthy or whomever could have been the recipient of those wide open looks not each players personal ability to process information. 

You notice on those great Bulls teams that the role players changed but they won nontheless. It didn't matter if Paxson or Kerr was there to Phil they just performed the key function of being a pure shooter. 

Horry for the Lakers is similar. He hit clutch shots but only because that was his function on the team to hit open shots. He was fortunate in his career to play with Shaq and Kobe along with Hakeem who was the best player in the league at the time they won titles. Why wasn't big shot Rob as big shot in Phoenix. 

Do you know why Horry hits so many game winning shots, you know why, Not because of Horry's great inquisitive powers of always outsmarting other teams .

Teams know Horry can shoot and they know Horry has made game winners BUT like the Spurs guessed right this past season they left Horry Open and closed off Kobe drives because Kobe will score if left open Horry might score , thats why Horry gets those looks because by percentage Kobe and Shaq having a higher chance to make a bucket than the erratic shooting Horry. Horry is the afterthought in clutch situations many times Kobe would have gotten the open look had Horry been doubled or special attention was paid to him. 

B]You try answering questions in a press conference if you're a coach about why you left Kobe Bryant open in order to cut off Horry you would look like a fool .[/B] 

Horry's shot against the Kings was only possible if you remember because Kobe penetrated, Shaq got the rebound the whole darn defense collapsed as they should on those two and the ball in a fluke came out to an open Horry. Had it not been for Shaq and Kobe digging out from a 20+pt lead that shot wouldn't have happened. 



*Kerr pulled from the far edge of the bench. What is Steve Kerr's job description. Why does he get a paycheck. Because he's a pure stroke. What did he do come get 8 assists NO lock up someone on defense NOPE he hit shots. It was the function needed by the Spurs at the time.* , the team they were playing were saggin off and no one else could hit a shot so Pop did the smart thing he put in a guy who could hit open shots. If he misses those shots there would be no reason for him to be on the team. 

Whats so Vital about that, Piatkowski could have made those shots, Jon Barry, any pure shooter around the league could have made an open shot. His championship experience helps him not feel as pressured but those guys can make open shots also. So you can make the argument that if he wasn't there they might not have won a title is ridiculous because someone else would have been in that spot as a pure shooter to fill that role. Not individual specific, Skill specific

And thats why Horry plays for the Spurs and not the Lakers because he could no longer make the open shots. * Not individual specific, Skill specific*. 

And why I mention courage, role guys like Horry, Kerr, and Madsen don't seem to be so clutch when they play on teams with no superstars. Take Horry for instance in Phoenix the knock on him was his reluctance to shoot the ball he was the same guy from the Rockets but because he played for the Suns he didn't feel as confident he felt more responsible for the missed shots. But he comes to LA and lets it fly with no fear because he knows Shaq and Kobe have his back and they will overcome even him bricking up shots. 

Kerr was no big deal with the Blazers, he was the same guy but wasm't a big factor ,couldn't seem to get them over the hump WHY because again more pressure because the team not as capable to overcome shooting slumps by role guys like him. He goes to the Spurs comes in and lets it fly because he knows no one will blame him if he misses because Duncan will make it up or face the wrath. 

Shaq and Kobe worship man please your boring little team must have nothing to talk about you have the title that nobody watched. Thats why you're hear talking silly talk. 

We realize that Shaq and Kobe drive the ship. We need just a couple players capable of stepping up. 

I never said role players sucked,but I don't worship their accomplishments like you do. They fit in thats all, can be easily replaced. I don't get in a huff if one leaves and one comes. They don't determine the overall ability of your team to compete. 

You probably are stressing losing kevin Willis and Steve kerr . 

Malone and GP better come in and fit in. Neither could get a team a title on their own so they're joining up with the Superfriends. All we need them to do is fill a role not take over anything. We have player to take over we just need some guys to fill in a few gaps. 

See how easy that was Spurs fan.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Locke</b>!
> 
> 
> You're quite the argumentative fellow, aren't you? First of all, you proved my point exactly saying you wouldn't take Madsen for Rose. OF COURSE YOU WOULDN'T BECAUSE MADSEN IS NO DAMN GOOD. But you seem to see all these qualities in him that make you think he's worthy of an NBA roster spot. Either that or you just enjoy arguing. It seems to be the latter. Look, Spartacus, I'm not trying to attack you or anything, I just think it's funny how many people are coming out of the woodworks to say all these great things about our role players now that they're leaving. No, I'm not bitter, you have no idea how happy I am to even have a glimmer of hope that Madsen will not be a Laker next season.


I don't think he meant he would replace Rose with Madsen, but replace Menke Bateer with Madsen. Just like the Wolves probably want him to replace Loren Woods. Woods, Bateer and Madsen all won't contribute but one of the 3 works hard in practice, offers support and tries to fire up the team on the side line.

The bottom line is not every team can have 12 star caliber players and I'll take a guy with Madsen's attitude on the bench over some "potential" type player who 90% of the time end up outside of the league in 2 years.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

Wilt, perhaps if you calmed down before you spoke and got off your high horse, you could correctly quote me, avoid putting words in my mouth and take my post in the context of the current thread(s).

 



> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> Where is everyone discrediting Horry's shot? I haven't seen much of it.


Well obviously you agree you've seen it too, just not much of it. Did I say it was rampant? Did I say "everyone" as you suggest? Lets see what I said.

_Of course, for all I know, you're one of those Laker fans _

Doesn't my quote make it pretty obvious that not all Laker fans held that belief? As a matter of fact, its just a few who apparently do. You're probably a smart guy. You wrote a long post. Do your own homework and check out the thread where its stated and agreed to.



> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> All I see is that a lot of Laker fans are upset because Rob trashed Shaq and Kobe when they were obviously much more valuable then he was. Horry always seems to think he is the most valuable player, when in truth he loafs through the regular season, so he can turn it on in the playoffs, but now that he failed badly, most fans are upset. What is wrong with that? If a player trashes our team, are we supposed to like it?


Um, exactly where did I previously disagree with any of that. As a matter of fact, except for the fragment "Horry always seems to think he is the most valuable player", I think you've made a very fair and compelling statement.



> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> As for the Kobe part; Kobe obviously does much more than Horry throughout the whole game, and he is often double teamed, unlike Horry who is wide open and has easier shots, so fans are more willing to give credit to Kobe.


I'm sorry, but a game winning shot is a game winning shot. I don't care if the guy was 0 for 12. And if he was 0 for 12 that took an awful lot of steel to step up and still knock it down. Lets face it, SC and the rest of the media are all about the totals, the jams and the heroics. Nobody cares that the star player shot 10-35. They care that he scored 35 and hit the game winner. And IMO, no game winner from the perimeter is easy.



> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> Who made Shaw's contributions possible? Hmm...maybe Shaq? Kobe? When you play with two players like Shaq and Kobe, you are obviously going to look better then you are. But if Shaw, Walker, etc.. are so great, where is the big market for them? I don't see people lining up to sign Murray or Shaw or Walker. Do you remember when the Lakers played the Blazers in the WCF? The theme was: "Two deep (Lakers) vs. Too deep"(Blazers) Even the media recognized the poor quality of the Laker players besides Shaq and Kobe. You don't even have to look far to see that everyone thinks they suck. Propose any trade with the Lakers on this board not involving Shaq and Kobe, and the response will be: "We don't want any Laker scrubs" or "It's funny how Laker fans think they can get so much for their role players" But if you think Shaw is an all-star, that's your own problem.


Wow, thats quite a rant. All because I said, 

_So you don't think Brian Shaw has given the Lakers vital contributions? I do._

I'm afraid anybody who wanted to see the Lakers get beat during the three-peat all too often watched Shaw come off the bench like an assasin and hit clutch treys. 

Yet, out of my quote you gathered that I think Shaw and Walker - whom I've never posted about - are great? Damn, thats one hell of a stretch there. *As a matter of fact, its really got me wondering if BBB.NET couldn't sponsor an LA Based Read to Achieve program.*

Until this last year, the Lakers role players always stepped up. This year it just didn't happen. The loss of Fox was instrumental in their ouster. They had no depth and with Fox out and Horry struggling the writing was on the wall. I don't know what the trades you're talking about were and based on what I've seen so far, theres always the possibility LA fans were simply looking for too much in return. Look at the Bulls. When the Bulls broke up, lots of big contracts were awarded to the role players and yet, for the most part, their new teams probably didn't get what they were hoping for. I'm sure there was some real buyers remorse. With the Chicago - LA connection of PJ, the staff, the triangle, maybe there was the belief that the LA role players would be substantially no different than the previous Chicago role players. I dunno.



> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> I think what Jazzy means is this: When a player like Fox, scores 15 points, and everyone says he stepped up and helped us, who do you think gave him all his open shots? Kobe and Shaq. The two stars make everyone around them better, which in turn gives the role players more confidence.


Then I guess we'd agree that Jazzy meant what I said.




> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> I hate to dissapoint you, but the two best players in the league are going to get more attention then Rick Fox. Who wants to talk about a scrub? But if you want to worship Madsen, go ahead.


Worship Madsen? Really? So thats what the arguments come down to? I say some nice things about an LA player and I get ripped in their forum!  Ain't life grand. 

BTW, Shaq and Kobe aren't the two best players in the league.



> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> Who wants to talk about a scrub?


NEWS FLASH --- YOU. IN CASE YOU FORGOT --- YOU STARTED THIS THREAD. 



> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> Getting a player from another team doesn't make it scraps. Horry is a scrap because he is washed up, and worthless.


I guess we're gonna find out, aren't we.



> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> Hmm...comparing the second all-time leading scorer to Madsen? Sorry, but I haven't ever heard anyone say that Malone or Payton is a role player who sucks.


Once again, that *Read to Achieve* thing appears to be getting in the way of you getting the facts straight. But, maybe you can PM theWanker and he'll help you understand what sarcasm is.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Locke</b>!
> You're quite the argumentative fellow, aren't you? First of all, you proved my point exactly saying you wouldn't take Madsen for Rose. OF COURSE YOU WOULDN'T BECAUSE MADSEN IS NO DAMN GOOD.


I don't agree, but thats funny as hell.



> Originally posted by <b>Locke</b>!
> But you seem to see all these qualities in him that make you think he's worthy of an NBA roster spot. Either that or you just enjoy arguing. It seems to be the latter.


I do think he's worthy. If the Wolves are interested, they think so too, right?



> Originally posted by <b>Locke</b>!
> Look, Spartacus, I'm not trying to attack you or anything, I just think it's funny how many people are coming out of the woodworks to say all these great things about our role players now that they're leaving. No, I'm not bitter, you have no idea how happy I am to even have a glimmer of hope that Madsen will not be a Laker next season.


I said before I didn't know he was leaving. I take it he is still on the market and the Lakers are not interested? I don't think I saw anything moving him to the Wolves yet.

If you check it out, I said you wouldn't have won the second title if Horry didn't hit the trey in game 6. I posted an ESPN article that said the Spurs have made some good moves in FA and picking up Horry was one of them. I said that Shaw played a vital role in your championships with his clutch shooting. 

Let me ask you Locke, do you really think I just enjoy arguing? If I just wanted to argue, why not exhibit the Grizzo's tendencies and jump on your board to disrespect your players? Can you show me where I've disrespected ANY of your players?


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think he meant he would replace Rose with Madsen, but replace Menke Bateer with Madsen. Just like the Wolves probably want him to replace Loren Woods. Woods, Bateer and Madsen all won't contribute but one of the 3 works hard in practice, offers support and tries to fire up the team on the side line.
> ...


The reason why I said Rose for Madsen is because Rose and Madsen get similar amounts of PT on their respective teams. During Bateer's brief tenure in San An he just sat at the end of the bench in his street clothes. But Madsen was STARTING for most of the second half of the season. If Mark just stayed on the IR all the time like Bateer I wouldn't care if he was on the team or not; I know every team has at least one godawful player on its roster. But Phil just kept putting him out there playing BIG minutes even in the playoffs! That's why I have so much of a problem with him.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

Damn Jazzy, I almost got a headache from reading your novel. :laugh: I suspect, if we were both Laker fans you'd find out that we agree on more than you think.

However, 



> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> Whats so Vital about that, Piatkowski could have made those shots, Jon Barry, any pure shooter around the league could have made an open shot.


I would in fact argue that having a role player who can hit the open shot is in fact *VITAL*. I don't care if its Kerr, Pargo or Jimmy Cleamons. Are you telling me you didn't notice when the Spurs role players couldn't hit this side of the ocean and then quit taking shots? All that talk about individual, skill, etc. just goes to how you build your team. I think if you were discussing each players role on a team you could abstract what you were detailing and simply agree EACH PLAYER HAS A VITAL ROLE TO PLAY. So in reality, everyone has this calling. Some accomplish it and some don't.



> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> Shaq and Kobe worship man please your boring little team must have nothing to talk about you have the title that nobody watched. Thats why you're hear talking silly talk.


So you don't think its for the stimulating conversation?



> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> We realize that Shaq and Kobe drive the ship. We need just a couple players capable of stepping up.


You know, guys who can hit big shots, etc.  



> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> I never said role players sucked,but I don't worship their accomplishments like you do.


C'mon Jazzy we're almost buds and now I gotta get you into the *Read to Achieve* program too? Is that really what I said? I worship the role players? Really? Can you quote me on this?



> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> They fit in thats all, can be easily replaced. I don't get in a huff if one leaves and one comes. They don't determine the overall ability of your team to compete.


Actually, they do determine the overall ability of your team. In this case, you went from being World Champs to being ousted in the second round. Unless you want to pin the blame on Shaq and Kobe. Because, if I understand what you just said it appears as though that is what you're doing. Yes? :laugh:



> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> You probably are stressing losing kevin Willis and Steve kerr .
> 
> Malone and GP better come in and fit in. Neither could get a team a title on their own so they're joining up with the Superfriends. All we need them to do is fill a role not take over anything. We have player to take over we just need some guys to fill in a few gaps.


Before Kobe's indiscretion, you had a chance at the Bulls 72-10 mark. I don't believe thats the case anymore. 



> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> See how easy that was Spurs fan.


Not as easy as you think, Jazzy. I still had to type more than I wanted to.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think he meant he would replace Rose with Madsen, but replace Menke Bateer with Madsen. Just like the Wolves probably want him to replace Loren Woods. Woods, Bateer and Madsen all won't contribute but one of the 3 works hard in practice, offers support and tries to fire up the team on the side line.
> ...


Nicely said Jemel. :clap:


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Locke</b>!
> 
> 
> The reason why I said Rose for Madsen is because Rose and Madsen get similar amounts of PT on their respective teams. During Bateer's brief tenure in San An he just sat at the end of the bench in his street clothes. But Madsen was STARTING for most of the second half of the season. If Mark just stayed on the IR all the time like Bateer I wouldn't care if he was on the team or not; I know every team has at least one godawful player on its roster. But Phil just kept putting him out there playing BIG minutes even in the playoffs! That's why I have so much of a problem with him.


Well I didn't read him compliment Madsen as a starter or even a frequently used back-up. The fact is that outside of your top 9 players nobody else is going to contribute in games much. So with the 9-15 players you want guys that can provide intangibles outside of the court like Madsens practice hustle or Brian Shaw's leadership.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> Damn Jazzy, I almost got a headache from reading your novel. :laugh: I suspect, if we were both Laker fans you'd find out that we agree on more than you think.
> 
> However,
> ...




The bottom line Spurs fan is this. I agree role players as a whole and as a concept are important. But not as individuals. Meaning it doesn't matter who the role players names are per se just that the player has a certain level of competency at fulfilling that role. The role needs to be fulfilled rather its rebounding, defensive specialist, pure shooting. It doesn't require a certain indivual just the talent of the required skill. Thats why I said Kerr, Ferry, Pargo or whomever. As long as the Lakers replaced Horry's shooting ability and Maddog's hustle they can part ways easily with those players. 

Now the superstars are next to impossible to replace. Thats why the celtics haven't been champions since the Bird ,Mchale days. Their skills were so unique and dominant that the Celtics are still searching for that caliber of player. 

The Lakers fortunately have found the caliber of players of a Kareem and Magic thats why they've won with Shaq and Kobe. 

The Horry's,Kerr's and so on's come a dime a dozen but the Duncan's ,Shaq's and Kobe's are darn near impossible to replace.

You're gonna feel the pain with the Spurs when you realize how much you all are gonna miss the admiral DR. He's one of the best to have ever done it. While he played a reduced role the last couple of years the opponents he played against and the refs afforded him a certain respect realizing what he could do if need be. Example being the clincher against the Nets. 17 rebs thats greatness when needed there. 


On a side note you probably think you're clever making wise cracks on the reading comprehension jokes but with the arguments you were making maybe you need a refresher course or RIF ( Reading is Fundamental). Gotcha

We should agree with the points made here Spurs fan .


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

Jazzy, I wasn't sure what I posted that made you think I needed an education on basketball. You posted these novels as though they were in response to something I disagreed with. Well, even though its late I guess I finally figured out where you're coming from. I don't care what their names are either. I believe what Steve Kerr did was vital. I believe what Brian Shaw did was vital. I was speaking figuratively when I said it and you took it literally. BJ Armstrong, John Paxson, Steve Kerr. All pretty much the same. Needed each and every one. Each was vital. Is it vital a team have Steve Kerr? Of course not. Is it vital they have a good perimeter shooter like him? Of course it is. Hell, just look at the horrible shooting percentages in this league. Of course one could argue that having a Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen (two superstars) is somewhat vital too. Everyone is coming to understand it takes two superstars plus good role players to win it all. And thats pretty much all anyone can afford unless they want to be grossly unprofitable or can convince ringless HOFs to ride along. I'm not telling you or anyone else anything new there. 

As for this



> On a side note you probably think you're clever making wise cracks on the reading comprehension jokes but with the arguments you were making maybe you need a refresher course or RIF ( Reading is Fundamental). Gotcha


are you saying you didn't chuckle? As for the comprehension, I believe we actually have a legitimate misunderstanding of my speaking figuratively and you're accepting it literally. Thats an honest mistake which, is more than I can say for you misquoting me.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> You're gonna feel the pain with the Spurs when you realize how much you all are gonna miss the admiral DR. He's one of the best to have ever done it. While he played a reduced role the last couple of years the opponents he played against and the refs afforded him a certain respect realizing what he could do if need be. Example being the clincher against the Nets. 17 rebs thats greatness when needed there.


I don't claim to know the relationship between the Admiral and the front office, but I have said before - if I'm Tim Duncan I go to the Admiral and say, "look fella. you recruited me to stay and now i'm asking you to stay for one more year as well." David still looks like he was chiseled from a mountain and he's still a very effective player. I would get him as few minutes as he thinks he needs during the regular season - just enough to be sharp for the playoffs. Essentially, he would be to the Spurs what Malone is to the Lakers. A future HOF who is there to pick up a(nother) ring. I think it would take Duncan to change the Admiral's mind, but I don't know why it appears as though nobody has even tried.

Just out of curiousity, lets say Kobe is in the fold this year and the Admiral returned to the fold. Assuming Dallas by virtue of no improvements isn't in the equation, how do you see the big three ending up? If you'd rather critique it without the Admiral thats fine too.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> Well obviously you agree you've seen it too, just not much of it. Did I say it was rampant? Did I say "everyone" as you suggest? Lets see what I said.
> _Of course, for all I know, you're one of those Laker fans _
> Doesn't my quote make it pretty obvious that not all Laker fans held that belief? As a matter of fact, its just a few who apparently do. You're probably a smart guy. You wrote a long post. Do your own homework and check out the thread where its stated and agreed to.


Actually, I don't agree I've seen it too,  no Laker fans dismissed his shot. They just said he missed a lot of shots inbetween, so he is not as good as people think. What is wrong with that?



> Um, exactly where did I previously disagree with any of that. As a matter of fact, except for the fragment "Horry always seems to think he is the most valuable player", I think you've made a very fair and compelling statement.


Hmm.. well you were laughing in the other thread, when Laker fans said they didn't like it that Rob trashed the team. So obviously you don't agree, or you think Horry is more valuable then he is.



> I'm sorry, but a game winning shot is a game winning shot. I don't care if the guy was 0 for 12. And if he was 0 for 12 that took an awful lot of steel to step up and still knock it down. Lets face it, SC and the rest of the media are all about the totals, the jams and the heroics. Nobody cares that the star player shot 10-35. They care that he scored 35 and hit the game winner. And IMO, no game winner from the perimeter is easy.


I agree that a game winner is a game winner...but people are more likely to give credit to Kobe because he is taking more difficult shots, and has been doing more the whole game. Horry usually just loafs around untill the end.






> _So you don't think Brian Shaw has given the Lakers vital contributions? I do._ I'm afraid anybody who wanted to see the Lakers get beat during the three-peat all too often watched Shaw come off the bench like an assasin and hit clutch treys.


He has made contributions, but like I said, if he is so valuable, where is the big money for him in free agency? It's not there because his success is do mostly to Shaq and Kobe.



> Yet, out of my quote you gathered that I think Shaw and Walker - whom I've never posted about - are great? Damn, thats one hell of a stretch there. *As a matter of fact, its really got me wondering if BBB.NET couldn't sponsor an LA Based Read to Achieve program.*


All you have done is praise Horry and Shaw, so what else am I supposed to gather out of it? You obviously think they are really valuable role players, isn't that what you have been arguing? And as for Walker, I included him because he is a role player like Shaw, notice the "etc.." 



> Until this last year, the Lakers role players always stepped up. This year it just didn't happen. The loss of Fox was instrumental in their ouster. They had no depth and with Fox out and Horry struggling the writing was on the wall.


Stepped up? The last good player the Lakers had was Glen Rice...no one else could score for themselves, they all relied on Shaq and Kobe. The two stars always carry the team, but a role player scores 10 points off wide open shots from Shaq and Kobe, and everyone says he stepped up.



> Look at the Bulls. When the Bulls broke up, lots of big contracts were awarded to the role players and yet, for the most part, their new teams probably didn't get what they were hoping for.


Yes, you proved my point. Without the two stars, the role players are worthless, especially on the Lakers.



> Worship Madsen? Really? So thats what the arguments come down to? I say some nice things about an LA player and I get ripped in their forum!  Ain't life grand.


YOU need the read to achieve program. That was obvious sarcasm. 



> BTW, Shaq and Kobe aren't the two best players in the league.


Uh... yeah they are.



> NEWS FLASH --- YOU. IN CASE YOU FORGOT --- YOU STARTED THIS THREAD.


What did you say? "Doesn't the hero worship of Shaq and Kobe ever get old? Or is this the 24/7 Shaq and Kobe are my heroes fourm?" So I was saying that no one wants to talk as much about a scrub as they do about a hero like Shaq or Kobe. I though that was pretty obvious. Maybe YOU need the reading comprehension.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

Wilt, its as though you're coming to a gunfight with a water pistol.



> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> Actually, I don't agree I've seen it too, no Laker fans dismissed his shot.


Well, lets see what you said then, shall we?

_Where is everyone discrediting Horry's shot? I haven't seen much of it. _

The implication is quite clear. You've seen it, just not much of it. *Read to Achieve* my friend or if you'd prefer Jazzy has a *Reading is Fundamental* program you may be interested in.

Allow me to do your homework for you.



> Originally posted by <b>Bball_Doctor</b>!
> The guy hits clutch shots but he misses a ton of shots in the middle of the game *that would have probably NOT have lead to a need for a clutch shot.*





> Originally posted by <b>Bball_Doctor</b>!
> Like I said he hits clutch shots...wins fans...but seriously he MISSES A TON that would have probably lead to NOT having a need for a clutch shot at the end of the game.





> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> My sentiments exactly.





> Originally posted by <b>Locke</b>!
> True dat.:yes:





> Originally posted by <b>TheRifleman</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


'Nuff said?



> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> Hmm.. well you were laughing in the other thread, when Laker fans said they didn't like it that Rob trashed the team. So obviously you don't agree, or you think Horry is more valuable then he is.


Ah, here we go again. Don't you just love the way (some) Laker fans can make up their own quotes to suit their argument or accuse you of something, but cannot produce a link. I said nothing of the kind in the other thread.

Lets see what I have said and to you directly though.

You said.



> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!All I see is that a lot of Laker fans are upset because Rob trashed Shaq and Kobe when they were obviously much more valuable then he was. Horry always seems to think he is the most valuable player, when in truth he loafs through the regular season, so he can turn it on in the playoffs, but now that he failed badly, most fans are upset. What is wrong with that? If a player trashes our team, are we supposed to like it?


And I said -

_Um, exactly where did I previously disagree with any of that. As a matter of fact, except for the fragment "Horry always seems to think he is the most valuable player", I think you've made a very fair and compelling statement._



> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> I agree that a game winner is a game winner...but people are more likely to give credit to Kobe because he is taking more difficult shots, and has been doing more the whole game. Horry usually just loafs around untill the end.


Ok, so now we agree a game winner IS a game winner. We're getting somewhere Wilt. If you want to give Kobe more credit thats your prerogative. If you're going to accuse Horry of loafing, you'd probably have to say no more than the Diesel because PJ has accused him of the same. Lets just agree they're both older, have some mileage on their legs, have been to the big dance many times before and are a little disinterested in the regular season and want to save themselves for the playoffs. Big Shot Bob didn't save enough from the looks of things.




> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> He has made contributions, but like I said, if he is so valuable, where is the big money for him in free agency? It's not there because his success is do mostly to Shaq and Kobe.


You also said



> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> Getting a player from another team doesn't make it scraps. Horry is a scrap because he is washed up, and worthless.


Worthless, eh? You Bill Gates, Wilt? I don't think 2 years at 9.5 million (first year 5 mil - second year team option) supports your case very well. The Lakers wanted him to play for the vet minimum, yes? Of course, this also means they still wanted him or have (some) Laker fans forgot that? Anyway, hmmm. Lakers will pay 1 million / yr and he got 5 million for the first year elsewhere. Damn, I wish I was that worthless as measured by the Wilt pay scale. Should I stop so you can reload your water pistol?



> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> All you have done is praise Horry and Shaw, so what else am I supposed to gather out of it? You obviously think they are really valuable role players, isn't that what you have been arguing? And as for Walker, I included him because he is a role player like Shaw, notice the "etc.."


Praise them? Hardly. Stated they made vital contributions? Absolutely. They were valuable role players during the championship runs. That cannot be denied no matter how poorly (some) Laker fans try.



> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> Stepped up? The last good player the Lakers had was Glen Rice...no one else could score for themselves, they all relied on Shaq and Kobe. The two stars always carry the team, but a role player scores 10 points off wide open shots from Shaq and Kobe, and everyone says he stepped up.


Ah, how tiring this all gets. Yes, I suppose it would just be easier to just say that in Laker Nation even some nobody - say you Wilt, could lace'm up with Kobe and Shaq and win a title. Of course its a nice cliche', but that ain't the facts Jack. Without the contributions of Fisher, Horry, Fox, Shaw and the rest of the guys Shaq and Kobe are still adjourning for early summer vacations. PJ understands the importance of role players and how to get the most out of everyone. Something that has obviously been lost by (some) fans on this board.



> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> YOU need the read to achieve program.


Ah, another original and INCORRECT thought. But, thanks for the offer.



> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> What did you say? "Doesn't the hero worship of Shaq and Kobe ever get old? Or is this the 24/7 Shaq and Kobe are my heroes fourm?" *So I was saying that no one wants to talk as much about a scrub* as they do about a hero like Shaq or Kobe. I though that was pretty obvious. Maybe YOU need the reading comprehension.


I think its funny how you've changed your view on this already. What are you still too embarrassed to address it head on? I understand since you've been a little undermanned through out. But let me repeat it for you so maybe it will register this time. It is worth repeating don't ya think? :laugh: 



> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> Who wants to talk about a scrub?


NEWS FLASH --- YOU. IN CASE YOU FORGOT --- YOU STARTED THIS THREAD.


----------



## Coyat (Jun 18, 2003)

Good grief.. and argument over Mark Madsen and 'big shot' Horry?!

After reading all those posts, I'm leaning toward Jazzy just for the fact that I too believe that role players come a dime a dozen. Role players play to do their specific job. These type of players are pure specialists. Whether their job is to hit 3's (kerr), be the white Rodman and hustle your *** off to frusterate the opponent (Madsen), be a lock-down defender (Bowen), etc.. 

Aside from the starters, each team consists of the role players to fill in. Now, getting back to the basis of this argument: Why Laker fans dismiss their former role players with ease. I don't see a problem with that at all. Madsen was a great hustle-man, but any team could find a player like that with the passion to play like he did. Just go scout the college ranks for a player about 6'9" and tell him we'll draft you if you hustle your *** off or else we'll cut you. All these high energy players like Madsen are easy to come by. All these players that hit 3's are easy to come by. All these players that have great footwork and are great defenders are pretty easy to come by. 

Yes, Madsen and Horry will be dearly missed. I loved making fun of Madsen for his dancing, I'll miss his hustle, and I'll miss his high-energy play. Stuff like that is great to see cause it's nice to hype coming from and off the bench. Horry will be missed even more for his ability to shoot 3's in clutch moments and play a decent 4. However, the Lakers 2 new rookies can easily become the next Madsen and the next Horry. Walton is a talented player who knows the game well and has great b-ball IQ (I've seen a few games from college and was pretty impressed). Now, he may not have desire to be a hustle player on every play, but he could be a nice high-energy player off the bench. Cook is a Horry mold as well. He's the body of a 4 but with skills of a 3. Cook has a nice perimeter game but he doesn't use his size that much to bang inside (like Horry). Now, his 3pt skills and clutch ability may not be as good as Horry, but with time, who knows?

I'm just proving that players who excelled in their roles will be missed. But there's always another player with similar abilities who can take their place when needed.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Coyat</b>!
> Good grief.. and argument over Mark Madsen and 'big shot' Horry?!
> 
> After reading all those posts, I'm leaning toward Jazzy just for the fact that I too believe that role players come a dime a dozen. Role players play to do their specific job. These type of players are pure specialists. Whether their job is to hit 3's (kerr), be the white Rodman and hustle your *** off to frusterate the opponent (Madsen), be a lock-down defender (Bowen), etc..
> ...


Coyat, I appreciate your not trying to include me in the _basis of the argument_ - *Why Laker fans dismiss their former role players with ease.* I have no dog in that show.

While I agree with much of what you said, I have previously said I agreed with much of what Jazzy said. However, I do not agree with this:



> All these high energy players like Madsen are easy to come by. All these players that hit 3's are easy to come by. All these players that have great footwork and are great defenders are pretty easy to come by.


High energy guys easy to come by? Mostly true, but sadly enough not always true. Not enough hustle in this league for the kind of paychecks being drawn.

Players that hit 3's easy to come by? Well, if that was the only qualification it might be true. Unfortunately, these guys still have to do other things on the court so I'm afraid we don't see near enough of them.

Guys that are great defenders easy to come by? Have to really disagree here. This league has a real shortage of GREAT defenders. 

In short, if high energy, three point shooting and great defense were that easy to come by we wouldn't be praising those who do it so well.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> Jazzy, I wasn't sure what I posted that made you think I needed an education on basketball. You posted these novels as though they were in response to something I disagreed with. Well, even though its late I guess I finally figured out where you're coming from. I don't care what their names are either. I believe what Steve Kerr did was vital. I believe what Brian Shaw did was vital. I was speaking figuratively when I said it and you took it literally. BJ Armstrong, John Paxson, Steve Kerr. All pretty much the same. Needed each and every one. Each was vital. Is it vital a team have Steve Kerr? Of course not. Is it vital they have a good perimeter shooter like him? Of course it is. Hell, just look at the horrible shooting percentages in this league. Of course one could argue that having a Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen (two superstars) is somewhat vital too. Everyone is coming to understand it takes two superstars plus good role players to win it all. And thats pretty much all anyone can afford unless they want to be grossly unprofitable or can convince ringless HOFs to ride along. I'm not telling you or anyone else anything new there.
> 
> As for this
> ...



You call my posts novel's Youre answer to Wilt is the Longest post in the history of posts. I had to put a bookmark in it and read it on the toilet stool it was so long. . WoW. you must have Carpal tunnel with all that nonsense. You made your point than went into hyper overkill. You say people mis quote you but how could somebody not with you driving your point all over the place. Geez. We cool man my eyes can't take another encyclopedia. 

Funny thing is the difference in arguments is to a very small degree. You are still making too big a deal about role players. Because a guy makes one shot you act as if the totality of the game was just a footnote to the role players hitting a few clutch shots. They deserve props for doing there jobs but it could be a different role guy the next time. 

At different pts, Shaw, Fisher, Horry have made clutch shots and made key contributions. But if they release those guys I'd say thanks and say who's next to step up. 

Like Coyat said there are players all around that could provide the same hustle in the CBA, NBDL and in College. Not saying everyone holds those traits but its not as hard to find as say replacing a Tim Duncan.Thats why we made bigger deals of the stars here than the role players. 

Thats why when you, you can make the argument that without Kerr maybe the Spurs don't win the title sounds really rridiculous because The Spurs title hope rest with Duncan and that not up for argument. Take Kerr off that team and I guarantee you the Spurs are still champions. Heck the Spurs aren't even worried about their ability to sign or not sign Kerr because they know he's not that vital. 

Same reason the Lakers aren't losing sleep over Shaw. They can find someone to do what he did.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good grief. Paul McCartney. "somebodies knocking at the door...do me a favor...open the door and let them in." I give up.:laugh:


----------



## Sean (Jun 7, 2002)

*Timberwolves Agree to Terms With Free Agent Madsen*

http://sports.iwon.com/news/07282003/v7445.html

Jul 28, 5:07 PM (ET) _

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - Free agent forward Mark Madsen agreed to terms Monday with the Minnesota Timberwolves. 

Terms of the agreement were not disclosed. 

The 6-foot, 9-inch, 245-pound Madsen, averaged 3.2 points, 2.9 rebounds and 14.5 minutes per game in 54 contests for the Los Angeles Lakers in 2002.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

It was fun while it lasted, Mad Dog.:yes:


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

*Re: Timberwolves Agree to Terms With Free Agent Madsen*



> Originally posted by <b>Sean</b>!
> http://sports.iwon.com/news/07282003/v7445.html
> 
> Jul 28, 5:07 PM (ET) _
> ...


WOOOOOOO-HOOOOOOOO!!!:jump: :gbanana: :wbanana: :cbanana: :rbanana: :banana: :vbanana: :bbanana: :twave::twave: :bbanana: :banana: :vbanana::jump:

PS. No offense to Mad Dog Fans


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Timberwolves Agree to Terms With Free Agent Madsen*



> Originally posted by <b>Locke</b>!
> 
> 
> WOOOOOOO-HOOOOOOOO!!!:jump: :gbanana: :wbanana: :cbanana: :rbanana: :banana: :vbanana: :bbanana: :twave::twave: :bbanana: :banana: :vbanana::jump:
> ...


There’s Mad Dog fans? Why? :laugh:


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

We're gonna miss his 3pts and 2 rebs per game. His towel waving kept Shaq and Kobe from having heat stroke I don't know how he's we're gonna keep them cool now. 

Madsen will help them with his bulk. They don't have much so he'll help. They won't get pushed around as much with Maddog on board.


----------



## Kyle (Jul 1, 2003)

I'm disappointed. I was hoping he would stay.


----------

