Fashion Board 1-08-04 through 02-03-04

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This started with my saying picking Chauncey over McGrady wasn't a bad enough choice as to brand the GM a failure. Shit, the team that's got McGrady is a failure, isn't it?

Since it is clear from all of your arguments that you are in over your head, this is going to be my last response on sports to you.

You're shifting the argument because you are losing. The argument wasn't over whether the GM is a complete failure. The argument was whether the GMs who let McGrady fall so far in the draft were morons for doing so. It turns out that they are because McGrady is an amazing player with every single tool. Besides, Orlando didn't even draft McGrady so when you say, "the team that's got McGrady is a failure," you're talking nonsense anyway.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I admit McGrady is a much better player in the sense of marquee appeal, but guess what, that kind of thinking is why there aren't too many newer banners hanging in the Garden. This is a team sport.

Again. You are stupid. The Garden (and I assume you mean Madison Square Garden's Knicks) hasn't had a star player in many, many, many years. And if you think your team wouldn't be better with McGrady instead of Billups, you have either backed yourself into a corner from which you can't escape without sounding like a moron or (and more likely) you're a moron.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
McGrady is averaging 25.7 ppg. Billups 19.5.

According to ESPN, he's averaging 18.3.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But Billups' backcourt mate, Rip Hamilton is also averaging 19. If Hamilton's out, Billips could go up 6, easy.

Bull and shit. And even if he did raise his average by six (and there is no fucking way he could*), he'd be shooting at the same pathetic .388 shooting percentage he is now, which means he would be hurting the team.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Now, I think McGrady may be shooting less this year, and probably could kick it up, but ppg isn't the point.

No. When it comes to Billups, shooting percentage and assists per game is. McGrady has him beat by a mile there. The fact is, McGrady has him beat in every possible stat you could think of.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Its not that simple. Billups is the highest ranked point in the East this season, its not just assists. As to assists, Billups team circulates the ball through lots of hands every play. Anyone on the court could have made the last pass before a shot.

Under this theory of a point guard's importance, it doesn't fucking matter who brings the ball up does it? Just get it over the time line and get the offensive set started. You're making my argument and you're too dim to know it.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Its not the same as a running team. The Piston build on Defense, and that cuts down running, and high stats for the point.
McGrady touches the ball and shoots or dishes for the shot a very high %.

The Pistons build on defense because they have offensive players like Billups. Put McGrady on that team and watch the philosophy change. You know why? Because McGrady is one of the top 5 players in the league. Billups is an afterthought.

McGrady touches the ball a lot because he is a tremendous player and he has no help. The fact that he can still score so many points at a better percentage than Billups, even though every team's defensive scheme is designed to stop him when he's in the building should demonstrate to you that (and I've said this before) Billups can't carry McGrady's jock. So just stop already.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
What does my team look like?
A team with a legit shot to make the finals (not win, make)?
A team with 2 guys who aren't McGrady, but certainly fill the position solidily (Hamilton and Prince)?

You've said absolutely nothing (again). I'm not arguing over who has the better team. Why are you so dense about this? We're talking about whether it would be smart to pick Billups over McGrady. I defy you to find one other person who thinks that is a good idea.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
A team trying to build to win a championship, not just score lots of points, where the trade would take a solid piece of the puzzle (Billups) out for someone that really only adds a little to a spot you've got covered?

Again. Nonsense. You are essentially saying you wouldn't make the trade. And if you are, someone should tell your clients because you are most assuredly committing malpractice on everything you work on.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I really don't know what Joe Dumars would do.

That is becoming unbelievably clear. You wouldn't know what anyone who knows anything about basketball would do.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Can I play? you're GM of the Nets. You gotta get rid of one guy. Who, Kidd or Richard Jefferson?

Kidd and Billups aren't on the same level either. Kidd is a point guard that makes his team better with [key word coming up:] assists. Billups is apparently great because the ball touches everyone else's hands a whole bunch. Michael and McGrady (at this point in their careers can be compared). But I'm guessing an answer that makes sense isn't what you're looking for.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Tons of guys can score in the NBA, especially if the team isn't good otherwise. Ultimately, Billups is a solid piece of a very good team. He was not a bad choice.

Again, you don't listen. Based on what they've done in their careers up until this point, he should not have been chosen above McGrady. That makes him a bad choice.

TM

*18.3 is his career high. Before that it was more like 13 points per. And if you think you can go from a sub-20 point a night player to a 24 or 25 point a night player because you're saddled with a shittier shooting guard (i) you've never even fucking played basketball and (ii) you shouldn't even be allowed to watch basketball.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Is "It is what it is" passe in NYC?

Yez. But it was what it was.

TM

[SlaveNoMore]

ThurgreedMarshall
You've said absolutely nothing (again). I'm not arguing over who has the better team. Why are you so dense about this? We're talking about whether it would be smart to pick Billups over McGrady. I defy you to find one other person who thinks that is a good idea.

TM, I should warn you that outing the poster known as Hank Chinaski as Scott Layden is a violation of the TOS.

[SlaveNoMore]

from espn.com

Are the Nets Brooklyn-bound? Looks like it.

The current owners of the NBA franchise have told real estate developer Bruce Ratner that they intend to sell the team to his investors' group for about $300 million, according to Bloomberg News. In December, the Nets and the Yankees announced a preliminary agreement to end their YankeesNets partnership. That gave Nets owners Lewis Katz and Ray Chambers the green light to sell the team. Ratner has said he plans to move the team from the Meadowlands sports complex to Brooklyn, where he would build a new arena.

Newsday is also reporting that an announcement is imminent.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff were informed that Ratner's group, which includes rapper Jay-Z, is getting the team, one of the people familiar with the negotiations told Bloomberg.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Under this theory of a point guard's importance, it doesn't fucking matter who brings the ball up does it? Just get it over the time line and get the offensive set started. You're making my argument and you're too dim to know it.

I think you may be right. I'm calling in help.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...-scorers_x.htm
spree Billups top ranked point in the NBA (I'd thought it was just the East). I know these ranking are bullshit, but so is your argument style.

Because McGrady is one of the top 5 players in the league.

Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Ben Wallace, Kidd, wait... oh, I know Ben doesn't score much- bounce him.

You've said absolutely nothing (again). I'm not arguing over who has the better team. Why are you so dense about this? We're talking about whether it would be smart to pick Billups over McGrady. I defy you to find one other person who thinks that is a good idea.

My point was that it depends on where you team is, who would be the better choice. This isn't an objective thing.

Kidd and Billups aren't on the same level either. Kidd is a point guard that makes his team better with [key word coming up:] assists. Billups is apparently great because the ball touches everyone else's hands a whole bunch.

I was making what's called a parellel argument to answer your's. I'd take Michael over Paxton, but then I mention Kidd not to compare to Billups, but to show your argument wan't really fair. FWIW, I would take Kidd over Billups.

Michael and McGrady (at this point in their careers can be compared). But I'm guessing an answer that makes sense isn't what you're looking for.

Thurgreed tribute argument...You've just showed there's no point talking to you. Michael willed his team to get in shape to win. McGrady will have to buy any rings he wears. You should buy a helmet. ...blah blah blah....

*18.3 is his career high. Before that it was more like 13 points per.

Point guards grow up slow. He hadn't gotten the chance to play much until he hit Detroit.

And if you think you can go from a sub-20 point a night player to a 24 or 25 point a night player because you're saddled with a shittier shooting guard (i) you've never even fucking played basketball

What I want to say is:
As to my abilities, anyone who ever has played much at any level know you can't call out a person's talent based upon anything other than seeing him play. so My basketball instinct tells me you ain't played much.
But since you've not played much, you wouldn't get that.

So instead I'll just say:

Fuck that! It's January, let's compare the amounts on our W-2's for playing basketball last year. I know I at least tied your ass.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Fuck that! It's January, let's compare the amounts on our W-2's for playing basketball last year. I know I at least tied your ass.

it makes me so hot when you men talk about sports. hank, would you like to pull my hair?

[notcasesensitive]

Not sure if this will work...

Anyone besides me surprised that he

is with her ?


ETA linky: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3400541.stm

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Not sure if this will work...

Anyone besides me surprised that he

is with her ?


ETA linky: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3400541.stm

Hmmm. I should have become an Allah-micking heretic sooner.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Hmmm. I should have become an Allah-micking heretic sooner.

Ya think?

[SlaveNoMore]

notcasesensitive
Ya think?

It's the death threats. Chicks dig a dangerous guy.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It's the death threats. Chicks dig a dangerous guy.

especially one with money.

Honey, let's take separate cars.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It's the death threats. Chicks dig a dangerous guy.

I'll risk the death warrant for a little Persian excursion.

[NotFromHere]

A show about lesbians.

Quote from the article...As the first regular series to focus on lesbian characters, the show also has a lot riding on it. It isn't perfect, but there's promise here.

It doesn't take "The L Word" long at all to get to the sex. In the pilot's first scene, Tina (Laurel Holloman) discovers she's ovulating, and longtime partner Bette (Jennifer Beals) passionately tackles her, saying "Let's make a baby." (Through frozen sperm, that is.)

All are model-gorgeous and very feminine, which has garnered criticism from those who feel that butch lesbians should be represented. Perhaps those characters will come later.
For you FBers...The show isn't free of cliches. Of course, someone tells the "What do lesbians bring on a second date?" joke. (Answer A: A moving van, Answer B: A turkey baster.) There's an attempted threesome. Heterosexual men get aroused at the thought of lesbians having sex.
There's an awful lot of sex in the pilot, both heterosexual and homosexual. It's not a show for the prudish. And at times, there's a sense that the scriptwriter is trying too hard to create Seinfeld-esque memorable lines, as with a scene about "nipple confidence."
Since I don't have Showtime, I'll have to rely on you people to let me know if this is good enough to order it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3939709/

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by NotFromHere

A show about lesbians.

Quote from the article...As the first regular series to focus on lesbian characters, the show also has a lot riding on it. It isn't perfect, but there's promise here.

I wouldn't take it too seriously. I hear it's pretty tongue-in-cheek.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I wouldn't take it too seriously. I hear it's pretty tongue-in-cheek.

When I imagined the first time you'd make me groan, it wasn't like this.