Posted by Solace:
That being said, his arguments are certainly valid. :)
I wouldn't bother wasting my time on The Holy One, but allow me to deconstruct this 'valid' argument for your benefit.
1. Speculation. Was it really the case that Lee could have been substituted for picks? It was reported in a newspaper report, but since when are newspaper rumors taken to be certain truth? Is Frank Isola the gospel now? Who amongst us really knows for sure what was on the table?
2. Uncertainty about the facts. The 2006 we send to the Bulls is conditional. Are we absolutely sure it is not lottery protected? If so, what credible source of information says as much?
3. Unreasonable extrapolation from small sample sizes. The Knicks don't look good in 2 games, therefore the Knicks will likely not look good for the remaining 80 games and be a lottery team? This is the same reasoning that leads one to regret having traded Maciej Lampe because of one good statistical performance in a preseason game. Far from valid, that is pretty damn weak.
4. Unreasonable reaction based on prevailing expectations. Sorry, but no *reasonable* person thought the Knicks would have all their sh!t together by game 2 after having brought in a new head coach and 9 new players to a roster that has 6 players 22 and under and 9 players 25 and under. In fact, it was most reasonable going into the season to expect a bit of a bumpy ride as a roster full of young players and short on veteran presence adapted to the demanding system of a coach whose teams historically get off to slow starts. We should have expected struggles early on, so anyone who goes into doomsday mode after we do indeed struggle for the first 2 games is not presenting much of an argument but is really just doing some glorified nervous hand-flapping. I'm not impressed.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
11/5/2005 11:34 AM