yankees228
-
Posts
9,780 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by yankees228
-
-
Yeah, it would have to be Lopez and their two first rounders in 2012. I don't think that would get it done, because they might want to try and make a run next year with him and/or they should be receiving comparable offers from Western Conference teams.
-
-
Here's the way I see it. If the Nets fail to trade for Dwight Howard next season, which is unlikely for a few different reasons, I don't see any way D-Will doesn't go to free agency.
-
Baseball Redraft League Draft and Discussion Thread
yankees228 replied to italstallianion's topic in Other Sports
Haha yeah, that's less than ideal. What was deciding after contingencies for season ending injuries? -
-
D-Will is still on the table for the Knicks, because there's no guarantee he signs an extension with the Nets.
-
Right, that has been the narrative surrounding this trade, but it just isn't the case. http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/211275/Carmelo_Thought_He_Was_Headed_To_New_Jersey Carmelo wanted to go to the Knicks, but he also didn't want to risk losing money in free agency because of the uncertainty with the new CBA. Once it became clear that he was willing to sign with NJ if the Knicks couldn't reach an agreement with Denver, the Knicks had no other choice but to top NJ's offer if they wanted Carmelo.
-
-
I know the wedding story. Doesn't mean all that much. Sure, he might like to play with the Knicks, but you're telling me he would refuse to sign an extension with a team like the Lakers? I'd also doubt that Paul would feel comfortable handicapping his franchise, and force them to take a much lower offer. It's possible, but it's just not something to count on. And as for Melo, while it wasn't his first choice, he would have signed on with NJ if it came down to it (according to everyone involved, including Donnie Walsh).
-
-
-
I'm hoping more for the Bulls. EDIT: And that's not a knock on the Bulls, but of the three teams that the Knicks might play in the first round (Celtics, Heat, and Bulls), they're the weakest.
-
Yeah the adjustment period will take time. I see this move as more for the future than the present.
-
-
Thanks. Really pleased about this. It's not a perfect fit for the Knicks, as J_E mentioned, and I don't expect the Knicks to be that much better this year. But it sets them up nicely for the future, as it gives them two stars to build around.
-
-
To expand upon that, I want to make a point about 'extreme examples'. They're a very useful tool in these types of debates, because they can be used to defeat justifications similarly to the one Dipre is using. As soon as it's realized that there are exceptions, no matter how extreme they might be considered, the line between what is acceptable and what isn't becomes arbitrary and the argument loses its validity.
-
It really doesn't matter whether you consider it to be an extreme example, because it fits perfectly under your justification and puts a whole in your 'it says nothing about their person because they had no control theory' (unless you want to also accept my example under your justification and stick to it). As for intent, that means nothing, because as you said, they have no control (so there is no intent one way or another).
-
I wasn't equating the two things to each other, by any standard. All I was doing was using your justification "what i take offense against is the minimizing of his person and his integrity due to something he honestly has no control over", and applying it in other ways.
-
Appreciated.
-
I won't dispute the fact that he doesn't have control over how much he drinks, because alcoholism is a terrible disease. But after that is where we're going to disagree. If you want to argue that we can't 'minimize his person and his integrity' because of the DUI, then, under the same justification, you could argue that we also couldn't do that if he went out with a shotgun and killed the first five people he saw. That would speak to his stupidity (among other things), and so does this.
-
For me, this comes down to what conscious decisions he's making. I agree that getting drunk can be attributed to his alcoholism, and I certainly feel bad for him and hope he receives the necessary treatment. On the other hand, the decision to drink and drive is bad one and he deserves to take some heat for that. The way I see it, these two things need to be seen separately. We can remark that his decision to drink and drive is a stupid one, while still acknowledging that his alcoholism is a disease and partly to blame.
-
Why is there a need to counter something that is obviously an exaggeration? Jacko knows CC isn't guaranteed to come back. You know CC isn't guaranteed to come back. But there's an excellent chance of it, even if he opts out, and that was Jacko's point. The reason you bring up Lee in that instance is to draw a comparison between CC and Lee.
-
Yeah, we all know that the Yankees aren't guaranteed to get who they want. But here's how the exchange went. Point (Jacko): Even if CC opts out, the Yankees will be able to re-sign him. Counter-Point (Dojji): Look at what happened to Cliff Lee. It's a bad comparison because there are obvious differences between the two scenarios. If Dojji's point is to remind us that the Yankees aren't 100% guaranteed to retain CC, then wonderful, but every single person who follows baseball knows that. So I read it as an attempt at a legitimate counter-point.