Knickoftime wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

mreinman wrote:the downside is that Rose does not beat the 5:1 and is a crappy player or even worse,

I don't know what 5:1 is. Can you explain?

If its odds, can you explain in a way that isn't made up?

Rose is not an upgrade over calderon, he has upside which calderon has zero of. And, even if was an upgrade, how does it contradict the notion that Rose has been a bad player?

It does not.

It contradicts this notion.

"Rose played as bad as a player can play last year."

Taken at face value, you are saying he was the worst player in the NBA last season.

Is that not what you meant?

5:1 is random odds that I made up for argument sake.

I know, making odds up doesn't make for a good argument, is the point.

any player with a WS48 like his who plays zero defense and played the minutes he played and put up the number of shots he puts up (and misses) is hurting his team as much as one possibly can. The worst in the NBA? C'mon ... no need to grasp at straws when a player is that bad. And, lets not forget that this player is also pretty much a getting paid like a max to play horribly.

Not sure if you are arguing with my take or just trying to pick on my wording.

Your wording is your take. We're all just words on a screen. Not sure why I'm not suppose to take them literally.

When pressed, it seems you've chosen to be a fierce critic of the trade and of Rose, but you don't really sound that convinced yourself. Seems like you're talking yourself into it more than anything.

its a puzzle that needs to be pieced together.

mreinman wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

mreinman wrote:the downside is that Rose does not beat the 5:1 and is a crappy player or even worse,

I don't know what 5:1 is. Can you explain?

If its odds, can you explain in a way that isn't made up?

Rose is not an upgrade over calderon, he has upside which calderon has zero of. And, even if was an upgrade, how does it contradict the notion that Rose has been a bad player?

It does not.

It contradicts this notion.

"Rose played as bad as a player can play last year."

Taken at face value, you are saying he was the worst player in the NBA last season.

Is that not what you meant?

5:1 is random odds that I made up for argument sake.

I know, making odds up doesn't make for a good argument, is the point.

any player with a WS48 like his who plays zero defense and played the minutes he played and put up the number of shots he puts up (and misses) is hurting his team as much as one possibly can. The worst in the NBA? C'mon ... no need to grasp at straws when a player is that bad. And, lets not forget that this player is also pretty much a getting paid like a max to play horribly.

Not sure if you are arguing with my take or just trying to pick on my wording.

Your wording is your take. We're all just words on a screen. Not sure why I'm not suppose to take them literally.

When pressed, it seems you've chosen to be a fierce critic of the trade and of Rose, but you don't really sound that convinced yourself. Seems like you're talking yourself into it more than anything.

its a puzzle that needs to be pieced together.

I suspect it's a 2 piece puzzle:

1 - Being a critic is your thing.

2 - Sometimes you need to fudge a little to do your thing.

mreinman wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

mreinman wrote:the downside is that Rose does not beat the 5:1 and is a crappy player or even worse,

I don't know what 5:1 is. Can you explain?

If its odds, can you explain in a way that isn't made up?

Rose is not an upgrade over calderon, he has upside which calderon has zero of. And, even if was an upgrade, how does it contradict the notion that Rose has been a bad player?

It does not.

It contradicts this notion.

"Rose played as bad as a player can play last year."

Taken at face value, you are saying he was the worst player in the NBA last season.

Is that not what you meant?

5:1 is random odds that I made up for argument sake.

I know, making odds up doesn't make for a good argument, is the point.

any player with a WS48 like his who plays zero defense and played the minutes he played and put up the number of shots he puts up (and misses) is hurting his team as much as one possibly can. The worst in the NBA? C'mon ... no need to grasp at straws when a player is that bad. And, lets not forget that this player is also pretty much a getting paid like a max to play horribly.

Not sure if you are arguing with my take or just trying to pick on my wording.

Your wording is your take. We're all just words on a screen. Not sure why I'm not suppose to take them literally.

When pressed, it seems you've chosen to be a fierce critic of the trade and of Rose, but you don't really sound that convinced yourself. Seems like you're talking yourself into it more than anything.

its a puzzle that needs to be pieced together.

I suspect it's a 2 piece puzzle:

1 - Being a critic is your thing.

2 - Sometimes you need to fudge a little to do your thing.

you are not that great at puzzles and not very good at criticizing critics. moving on ...

Sure, let's pretend you're against the trade some more.