Dantheman504

What is everyone's problem? Whatever Cousins did then and whatever Zion does now have nothing to do with adding a 34 y/o Cousins to this team at all. And I also said I'd be cool with adding him. Not sure why y'all are being so hostile.

quote:

---

Amazing how quickly this idiot has become the worst poster on this board.

---

What the frick are you talking about? My last few posts were trade threads in which 1 is on the top of the page right now. You can call me alot of things but "worst poster on this board" is actually retarded.

There I changed it since it hurt so many feelings.

quote:

---

As for Zion , What has he done for you lately?

---

What does this have to do with your comment? Saying Cousins did more for us 10 years than Zion now means absolutely nothing. Are you saying Cousins will have more impact/ stats on this team right now than a healthy Zion?

Yeah I have no issue with EP and Cousins being our 14th and 15th roster spot, still has nothing to do with your comment that connects Cousins impact 10 years ago before an achilles tear compared to now.

quote:

---

Herb & #7
for
#3 & Oubre

I'm not doing it. In my mind, this is a 2 player draft

---

This trade above is the actual trade in the article I read. I think its not unrealistic if the they add the 28' LAC pick.

Herb/ #7
For
#3/ 28' LAC/ Oubre

What about

Herb/ 26' Pels/ 29' Pels
For
#3

Get #3 and keep #7. Could get Bailey + Maluach.

I also like the possibility of getting #2 from SAS. If they want Giannis and offer 2-3 picks + #2 then we may be able to give MIL their 26'/ 27' and other picks for #2.

If we trade Herb we either need to get a star back or acquire #2/ #3 without giving up #7. We can definitely get it done.

Our actual asset chest is

Herb/ Olynyk/ Jose
#7
26' MIL (swap)
27' MIL
(3) future 1st
(2) future swaps

We should realistically be looking at anyway possible to get #2/#3 or a Sengun type player.

quote:

---

I think an additional factor is that women are more “economically viable” on their own and less likely to stay in a crap marriage than a couple generations before.

---

Which is really the main issue today. In past generations men were the only group that was primarily "economically viable" on their own and yet they chose families or to stay in their crappy marriage.

There's a big point in all this that people are avoiding. Men primarily had the control and decision making power in the past and a majority chose to stay and support their family even through the bullshite. Women do NOT have the same accountability and loyalty in modern society now that they have equal power.


I agree that everyone should be allowed to better themselves and improve their life if given options. BUT at some level there is a decision of loyalty vs upgrades. If all women are constantly looking for upgrades then loyalty gets thrown away.

Throughout history women/ relationships/ family help men better themselves as a whole.

You can have a man who has struggled in the past, is immature, finds a good partner, matures and becomes a good father. That's how men better themselves.

That same man gets divorced by his wife so that she can upgrade to someone making more money. What do you do? The guy started at rock bottom and did everything right and that's not good enough.

The reality is that loyalty and hard work is no longer always good enough for women. That's a huge problem.

You have a whole society of women that will say shite like "he's loyal, he works hard, and he's a good person, BUT...."

So yes while men as a whole need to do better, the aspects of loyalty and "being good enough" are fleeting even for men that are putting in the work.

The amount of men watching other men (with already better lifestyles) get walked on and screwed over is a causing a lot of tension and hesitation while also killing confidence. Meanwhile women are cheering other women to abandon relationships and simultaneously start thinking that they can do better too even if there's no real issues.

The current reasons that women are leaving relationships for are the same type of reasons that couples in the past used to work through issues and strengthen their relationship.

quote:

---

Pelicans
#3

Bucks
#7
Paul George (who they flip)
2006 NOLA Swap Rights pick

---

Not sure the Bucks want Hilton Armstrong. The Bucks would definitely want more picks regardless.

quote:

---

Drafting someone at #7 is different than someone at #3.

---

Bruh the reason to go from #7 to #3 is to get a better player who you want to start now. And again Herb was a late 2nd round pick so to act like even #7 won't end up bet or getting someone benched is wild.

quote:

---

So who's playing SG?

---

One of the (2) 6'10 shooters. And the other one plays SF.

When Murray comes back you probably move Ace to 6th man unless he's going off and CJ takes a step back. And if they are all going off then you maybe even start all (5) of them and leave Missi off the bench if we don't get another center. I don't see that last part as likely tho.

quote:

---

Question is...do Pels go ahead and try to maximize the return for Herb...or...hang on to him for too long and get less of a return? It's the Pels...so I'm gussing the latter.

---

Any other year and I'd say we hold onto him. But this year it is clear Trey/ Zion are staying and we either find success with those 2 or atleast 1 of them will be gone. Simultaneously we have a few holes and trading Murray/ CJ could hurt us more than help us. Trading Herb for upgrades or long term pieces just makes the most sense.

You could do:

Spurs: Herb/ 26' Pels/ 26' MIL swap/ 29' Pels
Pels: #2

Spurs still have #14, get Herb, and get 2 extra picks. We would have Harper and #7. If you do something like that then it makes it just that much easier to trade Zion and rebuild if things don't work out.

We essentially have Herb/ Olynyk + #7 + (4) 1st to do whatever tf we want. I personally hope we take advantage of that knowing we have Zion/ Murray to trade on the back end.

My top (3) trade scenarios would probably be an outline of:

Spurs: Herb/ Olynyk/ #7/ ?????
Pels: Vassell/ #2

(Maybe Herb + #7 get us Harper straight up)

Hou: Herb/ Olynyk/ ????
Pels: Sengun/ T Eason

PHI: Herb/ Olynyk/ #7/ ?????
Pels: McCain/ #3

Clearly some of those trades are going to require several future picks/ assets but worth it. Theoretically we can attach up to (5) 1st in these packages including our #7 pick. I really don't see any of these as unrealistic compared to other options.

quote:

---

No Kings Funding

The "No Kings" protests are funded and organized by a coalition of over 150 progressive organizations, watchdogs, climate groups, and other entities.

---

Yeah no shite, "who owns the entities" is the real question.

"No Kings is funded by democrats" is an already obvious answer

There was a somewhat recent sports article talking about a Murray trade and mentioned that "he didn't play well with us and didn't look good with Zion". They didn't even play a regular season game together and Murray was in a new system. Those comments have absolutely no merit.