View Single Post
Old 05-19-12, 09:24 AM
Uwe Blab's Avatar
Uwe Blab Uwe Blab is offline
The Master Baiter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S.A.
Posts: 4,786

Originally Posted by WILLTHETHRILL View Post
I will admit the Spurs got an upgrade at SF by starting Kawhi and trading for Jackson instead of status quo which they would not be in this very same position overall.
I will admit the Spurs got a good trade because they gave up the worst pick in the first round for a better player who makes less money than RJ this year and next year and has one year less on his deal.
I will admit that RJ gave two goose eggs and other dismal preformances in last years playoffs with heavy minutes while SJax has provided one goose egg in more games played with much fewer minutes played. Fact .Do we need to bring up more RJ in the Spurs'multiple playoff series stats and tidbits?
I will admit that nothing in my paragraph proved a significant impact is correct BUT my previous post touched on that already. Which you cut and pasted what you wanted to support on your side only. Post and respond to the whole thing and not take things out of context than. Do you like it when people do that to you typed or spoken??
I will admit it's a contradiction if you say Nick Young and CP3 are torching this guy and you want him to to guard the MVP of the league and say he will contribute that way. If that's the case LeBron will score every single time on SJax while SJax displays this matador defense because it seems to me you are implying he is not trying. SARCASM!
I will admit I'm not the only one who feels this same way on SJax's contributions.
I will admit you are NOW in the minority.
I will admit at 9.2 million and 10 million next year is too much for SJax. Happy?
Remember no out of context responses. That's the media's job! Be real dude!
What points were relevant to my argument? I've said he hasn't done anything so far. I've have also agreed that financially speaking it was a good trade for the Spurs. You've thrown a lot of fluff around and get mad when I don't think the fluff is worth responding to.
Reply With Quote