chillzatl

I don't regret not taking him at all. He's a one dimensional player, period. He can't shoot, isn't a good scorer and plays only average D. He's a great passer though. But his inability to do much else makes him a liability. Leave him open, he's only gonna hurt you 1 in 10 games. Obviously the pacers have cooled on him otherwise they wouldn't be trying to move him for someone else.

making the playoffs is the goal this year. Going deep in them is just a bonus, FOR NOW.

He's doing as fine as he can be. He's at home in his Halo, chilling with his moms and friends. Not much to report really.

Vargas was still landing his body punches, which are one of his strengths, just fine. He just couldn't get enough of them to do any damage. Strength didn't really mean much in this fight. Vargas simply got outboxed. If Vargas could have somehow kept de la hoya on the ropes I think he would have messed him up. De La Hoya just "held his own" until he got the chance to land a few choice shots and that really sapped all the attutide out of Vargas. You could totally see it too. Vargas had all this attitude and it really felt like he had the intimidation factor on De La hoya. But once De La Hoya started working that spot under his eye you could see Vargas attitude change. Regardless it was a great fight and very fun to watch.

how when Vick was drafted I don't think I remember reading one article that said he would be anything other than average. They all said he had no passing skills and "would not be a difference maker". Now every sunday all you hear is how "mike vick is the future of the NFL quarterback". The guy is lightening quick and throws lasers. Unlike most quarterbacks, he's as dangerous or more dangerous when you make him run with the ball. Already he's made some insane passes while being pressured and on the run. He's really fun to watch.

I mean if you consider his numbers from the short returns he made over the last two season, he put up very good numbers. I think he was somewhere around 16/7/5 or something? That's pretty damned respectable for a guy who wasn't fully healed and wasn't in full game shape. If his ankle is full healed and he doesn't have any mental hangups from it, I think he'll be back in 22/5/7 territory that he used to live in.

if his toe is healed, the league best take note. Shaq has already stated that he's going to come out with a vengence this year and I believe it. He's unstoppable when he's not "on". I pity the league when he's not only healthy, but intent on doing damage.

All I'll say is that from a purely economic standpoint, it's suicide to not have diversity. Ask major league baseball about it. I'm not going to argue your opinion with you. If you want to believe in some conspiracy theory, knock yourself out. I'll just keep cheering for my team and let other worry about nonsense that is impossible to prove or even come close to proving.

I don't think either of them deserve that kind of contract. But especially Lewis. JT could end up deserving it at the end of this coming season. But right now, no. I would say somewhere around 40-50m over 7 years.

If you mean what I think you mean, in that he's going to be giving more than he normally would because of the forthcoming contract. I really don't think that's the kind of person JT is. I see him playing big next season. But I don't think it will have anything to do with a contract. He's a hell of a competitor and he's the kind of guy that wants to win. He's going to give 100% regardless and give what the team needs from him to win.

it is in the leagues best interest to have diversity. It's a simple economic fact and it holds true in every sport. People didn't bother to watch the finals for the last three years because "the lakers will win". It was the same thing that happened when the Bulls were dominant. Sure people in chicago/LA and whatever city they were playing watched, but the average basketball fan didn't bother. And nobody is talking about an Atlanta Dynasty. You were trying to say that the league doesn't want smaller market teams to win and that's absurd. It's in their best interest to have "other teams" win and develop a history. Otherwise people just stop watching because it's the same old teams over and over again. A simple example is the Braves. They were a crap team with little fan support until they started winning. Once they started winning they had fans everywhere they went. They were 'americas team' and were the biggest draw in baseball, home and away, for the majority of the 90's. Their winning created fan interest in every city they played and as a result the entire league benefited from it. Before people who lived in a bad teams city wouldn't bother to go see the braves because both teams sucked. Now they go see because they know they are at least going to see one team playing great ball. I went to a hawks/kings game a few years back and it was like any other game against a bad team. You'd see a few Mitch Richmond jerseys. But not many. The omni was semi-full as was usual when a bad team came (or most teams really). I went to a recent kings game and it was like we were playing the damned knicks. A packed house with Chris Webber jerseys everywhere. Kings fans coming out of the woodwork. Winning did that for them and it benefited the Kings, Hawks and the league as a whole. DIVERSITY.

The conspiracy theories are a joke. The kings sell out night after night. They have one of the highest attendence totals in the league. They also have TONS of fans now who live outside that area. Game 6 was a sham. But it's not because of any league mandate. It's in the leagues best interest to have diversity. The kings are a perfect example. A team that went from having nothing to being one fo the most followed and enjoyable teams in the league. Their success has picked up the entire league. The same goes for the Mavs. They were a junk team. Winning has turned them into a legitimate draw. The refs call the game the way they call them. It's partly the leagues fault for not punishing them when they consistantly do that (which many refs do). But they aren't telling the refs to give certain teams breaks. If they were, it would have came out already from someone on the inside. If Stern was circulating memos to the refs to call games in the favor of a team or player, someone would have seen said memo. If they were holding meetings with the refs and telling them the same, someone would have heard it. But nobody has ever had any real proof, be it physical or spoken, that the league wants games called in a teams favor. It's easy to think that sometimes though. But people have been claiming this "conspiracy" for 30 years now, or more. Yet nobody has ever gotten anyone to admit to it, caught anyone on tape or overheard someone "in the know" talking about it or seen anything that said it.

wtf are you on? If you remove bird then you also remove Magic, it's as simple as that. Is magic a top 10 player? If not, then I would agree that you could remove bird. Otherwise there is no debate. You can't call him a sissy baller, he wasn't soft, he scored plenty, rebounded great, did every little thing you could think of. Oh and he also has the rings to back it up.

It's too early for anyone to say. Until training camps are over and the coaches have had some real time to evaluate the players, nobody knows.

it's going to be hard for me to just assume who our 3rd option was. I could probably pull the top 3 scores from our games and then filter out the two highest. yeah, lemme give that a try. yeah yeah ok brb.

I'll step up to the plate and say i'm sorry for my comments. That said, I have no problems when it happens during the course of a discussion. Would I prefer it if we were all civil, always got along and didn't disagree and were all here just to cheer on the Hawks, yes. Well, no, ok maybe! That could get boring! But hey, that's life. Sometimes we disagree and sometimes things get said. I guess I could have rephrased what I said to make it so that your comment was idiotic and not directed at you personally. We've all made our fair share of insults on this board (and the old squawk and AA boards) though, sometimes they are subtle and sometimes not. This was one just one of those NOT times. Again, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings :P

Not because of who is on it. But because of who is on top. I personally would put Wilt at #1 because he could do everything. Pass, defend, rebound and of course, score. But otherwise I would agree with everyone on your list.

Since you obviously never bothered to read anything I said before about "moderating" posts. I'll say it once more for you. I will never moderate someones post because they say something critical of a team, player or user of this board. I did not delete chickenstanleys post and it was an accident that it was deleted, period. It was made in the off topic forums and it was fine there. Nobody EVER moderated one of BHD's posts. His posts weren't the ones in question. It was several threads being devoted to calling him a racist that were deleted. It has nothign to do with his views or beliefs. It had everythign to do with MY BOARD being cluttered up with stupid arguements that simply do not belong here. If someone wants to call you an idiot, that's fine. If they want to call me an idiot, that's fine as well. As long as it's in the context of a legitimate discussion I could care less, as I'm sure you do. But if someone starts making posts and devoting entire threads to calling another user a name or harassing a user, then i'm going to do something.

Most of the people on this board are adults. They know how to behave themselves. They don't need me to set an example for them. I think your statements are idiotic and I'm not afraid to say so. simple enough. Now, ON to your statement. If that's what you meant, why didn't you say that in your original post? You never mentioned anything about "due to all the hype, they are overrated". no, you lumped them in with a bunch of other non-winning teams and called them overrated. That's asking to have your post ripped. The way you have no restated it, I can totally agree. They are overhyped. I can totally agree that if you consider the hype, they are "SOMEWHAT" overrated. But they are still they champs and still the team to beat and in that respect they aren't overrated at all. Until someone beats them, they are the #1 team in the league.

If peja had been healthy, yes, the kings should have won. They should have won regardless. But they didn't. The fact is in a 7 game series anyone can win, regardless of how talented they are. I don't think the blazers would have won that series. The last 12 minutes of that game was so poorly managed, wallace wouldn't have made a difference. The one guy who got them the lead, was either on the bench or was not given the ball. That's poor coaching. I also disagree with the conspiracy theory that the Lakers are somehow given the games. Wallace earned what he got. He's a jackass who pushed a ref that is KNOWN for having a short fuse himself, too far. I also agree that AI got screwed by the refs with Tyron Lue. But it wasn't just to give the lakers the games. The NBA would have made more money if that series had gone seven games than they did with the Lakers winning. The point is simply that even though the lakers might not be the best team. They are not overrated. They are STILL one fo the top 2-3 teams in the entire league.

what else did I say there? I went on to say that MAYBE THEY AREN'T THE #1 TEAM, But they are still a top 2-3 team in the entire league. They cannot be overrated. I never said they were going to win this year. I didn't think they'd win last year either. BUT THEY DID. Typical diesel to ignore the meat of the post and focus on what he feels he can misconstrue to fit his arguement. Before you go making your idiotic arguement posts, why don't you take the time to get your wording right and save us all a lot of time. It would also save you the time and embarassment of having to go back and re-explain "what you really meant" over and over again. I personally have only seen ARR booking the Lakers to the finals again this year. I think the Kings will beat them. But then again, I thought they'd do it last year too. Regardless of what excuses you dredge up to explain their victory away, they still won and that's what really matters.

The lakers left doubts against New Jersey? Against Philly? Against the Pacers? I don't remember seeing those doubts. I remember seeing 3 teams get THEIR ASSES BEATEN CONVINCINGLY. I don't know where you were, maybe you weren't watching, as we know you sometimes don't. Didn't the bulls get pushed to the limit in thier last playoffs against the Pacers? Didn't they then set to mauling the Jazz?? You draw parallels that contradict your own statements. Any team that wins three consecutive titles and does so with only two really good series that entire time, deserves to be considered one of the best. To deny that is dumb, even by your standards.