- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Cleveland & Denver both interested in trading for Pierre Jackson
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:28 pm to NOSHAU
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:28 pm to NOSHAU
NOSHAU,
Let's look first at things that actually happened.
This was said:
The reasonable inferences that are as charitable as possible to this statement are that Monty has enough of a say to get this guy traded when others want to sign him or that Pierre can somehow save his job and no one else can.
A large number of posts responded to this statement, and you call out one: mine.
Here is the thing to which you take exception:
A large number of people seem to agree with me. This statement shows next to now knowledge (so, ignorance) as to what Monty's role is.
What you said was:
I do believe you are trying to imply that the above is what I was implying, but that is not the case. I will not try to make the point that this was a point you raised, and therefore may be your thought, as I do in fact believe it was a fumbling attack on me.
So, just stop. It would be more enjoyable for all if you and a couple of others would just read the posts as written and stop trying to fuel some stupid fire like I'm attacking "the board."
PJ gets way too much ink. He's a little piece. This team needs to sort out the big pieces first, then build around them with exceptions and smaller trades. Getting Gordon settled one way or the other is mission one in that department. Everything else is distraction.
Let's look first at things that actually happened.
This was said:
quote:
If Pierre gets traded and goes off on another team... Monty better start packing his bags(which I am sure he has already started a bit).
The reasonable inferences that are as charitable as possible to this statement are that Monty has enough of a say to get this guy traded when others want to sign him or that Pierre can somehow save his job and no one else can.
A large number of posts responded to this statement, and you call out one: mine.
Here is the thing to which you take exception:
quote:
There is some serious ignorance being spouted in this thread.
A large number of people seem to agree with me. This statement shows next to now knowledge (so, ignorance) as to what Monty's role is.
What you said was:
quote:
since everyone else is so ignorant
I do believe you are trying to imply that the above is what I was implying, but that is not the case. I will not try to make the point that this was a point you raised, and therefore may be your thought, as I do in fact believe it was a fumbling attack on me.
So, just stop. It would be more enjoyable for all if you and a couple of others would just read the posts as written and stop trying to fuel some stupid fire like I'm attacking "the board."
PJ gets way too much ink. He's a little piece. This team needs to sort out the big pieces first, then build around them with exceptions and smaller trades. Getting Gordon settled one way or the other is mission one in that department. Everything else is distraction.
2
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:48 pm to 42
From the view of a lurker/infrequent poster, you do seem to talk down to other posters. I don't know if that's your intent. I personally think your rebuttals are too wordy and take away from your arguments. I'm not trying to be an arse or start an argument, so don't take this as an attack on you. I agree with most of your posts when I sort through the jibber jabber.
Word games.. You sound like Captain Jack Sparrow. Again, not trying to start a fight. I'm just saying that your posts do sometimes sound condescending from an outsiders perspective.
quote:
I do believe you are trying to imply that the above is what I was implying, but that is not the case. I will not try to make the point that this was a point you raised, and therefore may be your thought, as I do in fact believe it was a fumbling attack on me.
Word games.. You sound like Captain Jack Sparrow. Again, not trying to start a fight. I'm just saying that your posts do sometimes sound condescending from an outsiders perspective.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:53 pm to Spitting Venom
Yeah, I don't see why 42 takes it so seriously. Isn't it supposed to be about having fun?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:53 pm to Spitting Venom
quote:I seriously don't think I've ever even finished reading one of the 42's novellas, I mean posts
I personally think your rebuttals are too wordy and take away from your arguments
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:59 pm to Spitting Venom
quote:
From the view of a lurker/infrequent poster, you do seem to talk down to other posters. I don't know if that's your intent. I personally think your rebuttals are too wordy and take away from your arguments. I'm not trying to be an arse or start an argument, so don't take this as an attack on you. I agree with most of your posts when I sort through the jibber jabber.
quote:
I do believe you are trying to imply that the above is what I was implying, but that is not the case. I will not try to make the point that this was a point you raised, and therefore may be your thought, as I do in fact believe it was a fumbling attack on me.
Word games.. You sound like Captain Jack Sparrow. Again, not trying to start a fight. I'm just saying that your posts do sometimes sound condescending from an outsiders perspective.
I don't take offense to what you are saying.
I do wish the thread was more about the topic, however.
As far as seriousness goes, whatever. I have fun. It's not on me if you aren't. Again, assigning emotions. Sounds pretty arrogant to me.
Let's about about PJ and trades, as the OP intended, eh?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 4:01 pm to danman6336
quote:
I seriously don't think I've ever even finished reading one of the 42's novellas, I mean posts
I'm sure you are not alone. The amount of replies to be based on cherry-picking is quite high.
How about the Pierre?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 4:06 pm to 42
I'm just puzzled why some are so enamored with another small guard for this team.
This post was edited on 2/16/14 at 4:08 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 4:28 pm to 42
I posted this earlier, but if we could get Chandler or Mozgov from Denver I wouldn't hesitate to give them Pierre's rights. Probably impossible, but Pierre + EG for Mozgov + Chandler would be one of the biggest roster improving trades I can think of. It won't happen, but I don't think it sounds terribly unreasonable. Denver has talent and depth at the 3 and 5. Especially when Gallo and McGee return.
Centers on Denver's roster: McGee, Hickson, Mozgov
Small Forwards on Denver's roster: Gallo, Chandler, Randolph, Hamilton, Miller
They need help at both guard positions now and the next few seasons.
It's fun to speculate with the trade deadline so close
Centers on Denver's roster: McGee, Hickson, Mozgov
Small Forwards on Denver's roster: Gallo, Chandler, Randolph, Hamilton, Miller
They need help at both guard positions now and the next few seasons.
It's fun to speculate with the trade deadline so close
Posted on 2/16/14 at 4:38 pm to corndeaux
What's the board's opion on Andre Miller? Would you do an EG + Pierre for one of Chandler/Mozgov + Miller? Would you do a three team trade with Cleveland and Denver for similar results?
Pels: W Chandler, Andre Miller
Nugs: Waiters, Jarrett Jack
Cavs: Gordon, Pierre's rights
Nuggets would basically replace Miller with Jack and get SG help for Chandler. If Miller is really waiting with his bags packed, they might bite on something like this.
Pels: W Chandler, Andre Miller
Nugs: Waiters, Jarrett Jack
Cavs: Gordon, Pierre's rights
Nuggets would basically replace Miller with Jack and get SG help for Chandler. If Miller is really waiting with his bags packed, they might bite on something like this.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 4:49 pm to Spitting Venom
The board would pretty much do any trade to get rid of EG.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 6:01 pm to corndeaux
When a rookie is averaging 40+ppg in the dleague, you gonna tell people to temper their excitement for the kid? For all we know, he could be the next Isaiah Thomas. I'm not gonna sit here and pretend like he's worthless like some of you . He clearly has value as teams are inquiring about acquiring him.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 6:03 pm to corndeaux
quote:
I'm just puzzled why some are so enamored with another small guard for this team.
No shite. The guy has put up some numbers in the D league. That's great. But if you can get a proven asset (even 7 or 8 off the bench), I think you take it. Does anyone think this guy is destined to be a star or something?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 6:23 pm to VOR
That people have freaked out over potential trades of Austin Rivers and a D-Leaguer(even a good one) tells me people too sensitive around here.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 6:25 pm to saintsfan22
quote:
That people have freaked out over potential trades of Austin Rivers and a D-Leaguer(even a good one) tells me people too sensitive around here.
Or just easily impressed or, maybe, desperate because of the suck nature of this season.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:31 pm to 42
quote:Once again, as is the case with just about EVERY post you make, you turn it into a condescending post in an attempt to act as if you know more than anyone else. Why don't you remind us again that you are a "Doctor" or a "rocket scientist." Again, you did not answer the question, but instead went on a rant. What do YOU feel is value for Jackson???????
NOSHAU, Let's look first at things that actually happened. This was said: quote:If Pierre gets traded and goes off on another team... Monty better start packing his bags(which I am sure he has already started a bit). The reasonable inferences that are as charitable as possible to this statement are that Monty has enough of a say to get this guy traded when others want to sign him or that Pierre can somehow save his job and no one else can. A large number of posts responded to this statement, and you call out one: mine. Here is the thing to which you take exception: quote:There is some serious ignorance being spouted in this thread. A large number of people seem to agree with me. This statement shows next to now knowledge (so, ignorance) as to what Monty's role is. What you said was: quote:since everyone else is so ignorant I do believe you are trying to imply that the above is what I was implying, but that is not the case. I will not try to make the point that this was a point you raised, and therefore may be your thought, as I do in fact believe it was a fumbling attack on me. So, just stop. It would be more enjoyable for all if you and a couple of others would just read the posts as written and stop trying to fuel some stupid fire like I'm attacking "the board." PJ gets way too much ink. He's a little piece. This team needs to sort out the big pieces first, then build around them with exceptions and smaller trades. Getting Gordon settled one way or the other is mission one in that department. Everything else is distraction.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:15 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
They better not trade him before getting a look at him first.
I guarantee Monty, Dell, Loomis, Benson, Brees, Davis, and Morris Bart have all had a good many "looks" at him. Dell's probably watched more footage on Pierre at this point than the entire PT board combined and multiplied by 100
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:35 pm to NOSHAU
quote:
Once again, as is the case with just about EVERY post you make, you turn it into a condescending post in an attempt to act as if you know more than anyone else. Why don't you remind us again that you are a "Doctor" or a "rocket scientist." Again, you did not answer the question, but instead went on a rant. What do YOU feel is value for Jackson???????
Funny. I didn't do any of this, rant included. I pointed out facts, not make-brlieve. I know this makes accusing someone falsey difficult, but dems da breaks.
And, no, I didn't answer the question you asked. I chose to respond to falsehoods.
I do not know what his value is, not do I know how to specifically calculate it. He's worth more than a second rounder. Maybe a LATE first for a few reasons, not the least of which is he will not leave a cap impression at the start of free agency, contrary to a first. In terms of players... I think he's more of a sweetener, so difficult to tell.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 7:15 am to VOR
quote:Agreed. If we can get value such as that, you take it. What puzzles me is those (i.e. MM) who think we should trade him for a 2nd rounder. What's the point if we don't want to even try our own 2nd rounder (Jackson)?
But if you can get a proven asset (even 7 or 8 off the bench), I think you take it.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 7:20 am to supe12sta12z
quote:
For all we know, he could be the next Isaiah Thomas
Which would get me excited if we we're talking about
instead of
Posted on 2/17/14 at 7:21 am to NOSHAU
quote:
Once again, as is the case with just about EVERY post you make, you turn it into a condescending post in an attempt to act as if you know more than anyone else. Why don't you remind us again that you are a "Doctor" or a "rocket scientist." Again, you did not answer the question, but instead went on a rant. What do YOU feel is value for Jackson???????
And you are sitting there yapping at him like a fricking chihuahua every time he makes a post. Give it up, dude. You are the one that derailed this thread.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News