Dumb Trade.....(again)!!!!

[Playmaker0017]

HotLanta,

How soon we forget the Braves.

A no-name scrub team goes from worst to first.

No one changed on the team... we just won.

Now we are a powerhouse... probably the best team of the past 15 years (including the Spankies).

The Hawks don't need superstars to win. It helps, but it isn't needed.

Let's see what happens.

Play.

[Guest]

You guys don't get the point.WE DON'T HAVE ANY

TALENT TO REBUILD WITH.

Boris Diaw all of a sudden gunna turn into Scottie

Pippen like Maddux turned into a top pitcher?

"Now we are a powerhouse... probably the best team of the past 15 years (including the Spankies). "

Who cares about division titles...Compare the Yankees

titles to the Braves ammount of titles and see what you

have.

I'll take 6 titles over 11 division titles.You don't play

baseball to win division titles.You play to win world

titles.But that's another matter....

When your going to rebuild you need young talent to

rebuild with...Guess what...we don't have it.

Try and tell the Lakers/Detroit/Bulls/ you dont need

superstars to win a title.

[Guest]

hey hotlanta, how do you rebuild? through facy? not unless yo'uve already got at least one superstar to draw interest or get lucky lucky lucky like the magic did and grab an up and comer fr om a team that already has an almost identical superstar...

you "rebuild" by sucking and grabbing a superstar in the draft. it's really the only way.

[Playmaker0017]

HotLanta,

Maddux didn't help the Braves go worst to first. He was with the Mets.

We pciked him up after he won a couple Cy Youngs.

Boris Diaw has the chance of turning some heads and being quite a steal. A lot of these foriegners turn heads because we know so little about them.

He also may bust for those same reasons. But, I personally think his only flaw will be getting used to NBA rules... if he can cross that hurdle he will be a decent role player who contributes on some level every night... be it assists, rebounds, defense or a dozen points.

As for having guys to rebuild around, we have one. Shareef. You can point out that he isn't a superstar all you want. You can point out that he doesn't motivate the team. You can point out that he hasn't won on the NBA level. I say with a good cast, he'll do just fine.

His hole isn't like JTs. His hole isn't like Big Loaf's. Nor is it like Theo. Reef is not one-dimensional, and the only part of his game that needs work is his average defensive skills. And they are average. He isn't a plug, but he isn't Rodman. He's average. That and he isn't a leader.

JT's problem is that he is too small to play his position. He is an average defender, but is too short. He has low basketball IQ and little floor vision.

Theo's a one-dimensional shot blocker. He plays okay man-to-man defense. He doesn't rebound very well. He is poor on offense. He is too small to be a true center. He can't pass worth a lick, nor dribble.

Big Loaf... well... he could shoot from 10 feet. That's it.

So, Reef is complete. He can and does do it all. You get the right chess piece, and we win. Tim Duncan is a Reef type player... with the same intensity... but he was groomed by Admiral for the role he plays. He slid into the leadership role. Reef was blasted out from a cannon and expected to lead. He couldn't.

Get the right vocal player alongside of him and he'll be fine.

He doesn't need superstars to win. Just someone with fire. Fire is contagious.

Play.

[Admin]

How many World Series rings do the Braves have? Okay and how many do the Yankees have? Who won when they played each other head to head? Who is going to win again this year if they meet head to head..........thats right, its all about the Yankees and their dynasty.

[Guest]

As for having guys to rebuild around, we have one. Shareef. You can point out that he isn't a superstar all you want. You can point out that he doesn't motivate the team. You can point out that he hasn't won on the NBA level. I say with a good cast, he'll do just fine."

Shareef is not a guy you can build your team.Your one of

his 5 fans so of course you think he is.However,the rest

of the league sees otherwise.You don't build your team

around losers.

If Shareef can't make the playoffs in the weak east how

are you going to build your team around him?It's stupid.

YOu think Shareef is better than he is.I'll tell you exactually

what he is....He's a money sucking transition player.

[Playmaker0017]

Dolfan,

Yes, they have more rings, but the winning percentage is in the Braves favor.

It really is a toss up between the two teams. It can be argued either way. There is no clear cut winner. Calling it comedy shows that you are a close-minded, arrogant fool. It is an opinion, one that can be argued validly. It is about personal opinions and how you view sports.

Personally, I do not believe that being World Champion is an indication of how good your team is. It is who was hot and who was not during a short time period.

The Patriots were not even close to the best team in football the year they won. The Spurs were arguably not the best team in basketball. The Might Ducks shouldn't have been past the second round in the NHL playoffs.

Being World Champions means that you had hot player or players. It isn't a clear indication of being the best. It is like looking at Big Loaf's absence and the Hawks having a 9-4 record -- the statistic isn't big enough. A seven game series - played back-to-back - does not indicate the best team.

Either way, this has little to do with the NBA and is completely subjective. It is a matter of opinion.

[Guest]

How can you argue either way?

How can you call a toss up between division titles

and World Series titles?

"Personally, I do not believe that being World Champion is an indication of how good your team is. It is who was hot and who was not during a short time period."

How can you call all those years a short period of time?

That's just stupid.The Braves have been second best and

I'm not even a yankee's fan.

[Playmaker0017]

Hotlanta,

I am not calling 6 titles a short period. I am calling the fact that the Braves have continually had the best record for darn near 15 years straight a LONG period.

I am pointing out that a seven game series does not indicate the best team in the game for a particular sport. It means that they were better on those days.

Now, if the Yankees had the best record .. year-in and year-out and had a better record than the Bravos ... then they are clearly the best.

But, winning a title means little to me. I think that winning those is kind of cool, but it isn't a clear indicator to who was the best team.

The Braves could lose in the first round to some scrub lotto team this year because they went cold. So does that mean the lotto team is better than the Braves? No. Just at that particular moment they were. It is a statistics thing. Sample size and such.

Play.

[Guest]

I am not calling 6 titles a short period. I am calling the fact that the Braves have continually had the best record for darn near 15 years straight a LONG period"

1)Lets look at the teams that play in the Braves division..

Expos-Win was the last time they were good?

Marlins-Have they been any good since the title year?

Philles-When was the last time they were good?

And has it ever dawned on you that maybe the Braves

have the best record because the NL isn't as good as

the AL?

"But, winning a title means little to me. I think that winning those is kind of cool, "

I think that pretty much says it all for you.The objective

of playing in the first place isn't important to you.

"The Braves could lose in the first round to some scrub lotto team this year because they went cold. So does that mean the lotto team is better than the Braves? No. Just at that particular moment they were. It is a statistics thing. Sample size and such. "

So winning that mean titles in a row is just a matter of

luck for the Yankees?That's pretty stupid.If it was one

or two titles maybe....You don't win all those titles by

luck.

[Playmaker0017]

Hot,

I didn't say it was luck. I said it was not an indication of the best team in baseball for each of those years.

I do not believe the talent in the AL is superior than that in the NL. If this were the case, why do so many players come to the NL from the AL and stink it up and vice versa is not the case?

The Yankees division isn't exactly a powerhouse division either.

As for the Braves division:

Expos - They used to field a good club every year, it has only been 3-4 years since this was the case

Marlins - They compete .. and won a championship during the Braves run

Phillis - During the run of the Braves ... this team won a championship

Again, it is subjective. I look at winning percentage as the true indicator of a good team. Some people look at championships. I don't.

I do not play with the wrong objective. The objective is to win. Whether you win the final prize has little to do with whether you win or not. A team could go undefeated through a season and lose four in a row... and under your definition ... they would not have been the best team. Even if outside of those four games, they played the team 4 other times and the undefeated team won each one.

Championships are not MY indicator.

Play.

[Guest]

As for the Braves division:

Expos - They used to field a good club every year, it has only been 3-4 years since this was the case

Marlins - They compete .. and won a championship during the Braves run

Phillis - During the run of the Braves ... this team won a championship

"

My point is...what have any of these teams done since

96?None of them have been a consisant good team.It's

been a LONG TIME since the Expos were really a good

team.Have they had a playoff game since the very early

90's?

"I do not believe the talent in the AL is superior than that in the NL. If this were the case, why do so many players come to the NL from the AL and stink it up and vice versa is not the case? "

Mark McGwire didn't stink it up.Pudge hasn't stunk it up.

Shawn Green hadn't stunk it up til this year.Jim Thome

isn't stinking it up.

Besides,baseball is about TEAMS.MLB isn't like the NBA.

They may not be yours....but I'd be willing to bet they are

the objective of majority of the people.You'd be overruled.

Titles mean the most to alot of people...Including myself.

I don't put as much stock into regular season sucess.Going

by your way the Hawks were better than the Lakers in

the 90's.

All your talking about is a one season run.Like the Angels.

But if they get to the WS year after year and win it.IT's

because they are the best.Basically,your overrating regular

season records.Nobody gives a slip about the regular season comparied to winning in the playoffs.

[Playmaker0017]

Hots,

I know they don't and it is a shame... because it is a better indicator of success.

Play.

[Admin]

You think the regular season is a better indicator of who is better rather than a 7 game series between two teams going head to head? There is no way that can be true. Reason being is because of the divisions that teams play in and who they play against. There is a reason that the AL has been winning the world series titles more so than the NL the past 10 years, because they are better overall. The NL has a few really good teams each year, usually led by the Braves, but who is to say what other teams will be good? You know that every year in the AL you can count on the Yankees, Mariners, A's and Red Sox to make the playoffs. You can almost count on it.

Sorry, but to me when a team faces another team in a best of 7 series and they win, that indicates to me that they are the best team. Using the excuse that they got hot is BS. 4 out of the last 6 years the Yankees have won the world series and have been the best team in baseball. [censored] I believe that they were a better team than the Diamondbacks when the D-Backs beat them in the WS, but I will give the D-Backs credit as being the best team that year because they won the championship and thats what its all about.

You cant argue that the Spurs werent the best team in basketball this year. Maybe they werent the most talented team in the league, sure.......but they beat everyone that they faced in the playoffs and won the championship, so how can you argue that another team was better? It might not have been pretty, but they played great as a team and were well coached and it showed on the court.

[Hung_Well]

"1)Lets look at the teams that play in the Braves division..

Expos-Win was the last time they were good?"

Just about every year, save the late-90's. Do you forget they used to have Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Larry Walker, Moises Alou, etc. in the early/mid 90's?

"Philles-When was the last time they were good?"

Made the World Series in '93?

"And has it ever dawned on you that maybe the Braves

have the best record because the NL isn't as good as

the AL?"

You don't follow baseball, do you? Just admit it. Do you remember 1993 when the Braves beat out the Giants (who won 103 games) to win the NL West? When was the last time a team won 103 games and didn't make the playoffs? Ever?

"I think that pretty much says it all for you.The objective

of playing in the first place isn't important to you."

Winning a WS title in baseball takes such an inordinate amount of luck that it should not be considered an accomplishment on the level as winning titles in other sports where luck is far less of a factor.

"So winning that mean titles in a row is just a matter of

luck for the Yankees?That's pretty stupid.If it was one

or two titles maybe....You don't win all those titles by

luck."

No, they were very good and very lucky. How many times does the better team in baseball win a short series? 60%, maybe? So how hard is it do that 3 times? Winning 3 WS titles in a row is an incredible accomplishment that requires an equally incredible amount of luck. You will never see that happen again in your lifetime (under the current playoff format).

[Hung_Well]

"You think the regular season is a better indicator of who is better rather than a 7 game series between two teams going head to head?"

Umm, yes? Do you think a 7 game sample size is more indicitive of a team's ability than a 162 game sample?

The Braves currently have the best record in baseball and a .660 winning percentage having played 100 games so far this year. They have won 66% of their games. If the best team in either league can only manage to win 66% of the time over a 100 game span, what does that indiciate will happen in a MUCH smaller sample (7 games - or 5 as the divisional series are played). Anything. Do you really think the best team always wins a short series?

"You cant argue that the Spurs werent the best team in basketball this year. Maybe they werent the most talented team in the league, sure.......but they beat everyone that they faced in the playoffs and won the championship, so how can you argue that another team was better?"

I wouldn't. Basketball and baseball are completely different in this regard. Basketball is dominated by teams that are dynasties and win multiple championships. Spurs, Lakers, Bulls, Rockets, Pistons, Celtics, and the Lakers again over the last 20 years. How many franchises in MLB have won multiple titles over the last two decades?

[Guest]

Those years were a decade ago.that was a pretty long

time ago.I have no forgotten those seasons...It was

a Long time ago.And Larry Walker wasn't a great player

with the Expos.he was a good player.Playing in Coors

field has made him look like a better player than he

really was.

I can understand how saying winning one world series

title is luck because the Angels had a lucky year.But

the ammount of time the Yanks won the title in that

spand was because they were the best team.It might

not happen again....but it still doesn't change the fact

that the Yankees were the team of the 90's and not

the Braves.

As I said in my other post(if you would read)the Braves

haven't really had to fight off a team since the Marlins

title year.They beaten up on young teams like Marlings/

Expos and Philles for years and years.

I consider those 1992-1995 seasons to be a long time

ago.

[Guest]

And consider this...In the playoffs the best teams play

either other.There isn't any beating up on scrub teams

like the Brewers in the Mets in the playoffs.

So yes,those playoff series mean more because you are

playing other top teams and not beating up on bad teams

half the time.

[Admin]

Lets see, the Yankees have won what 27 world series titles now? They won 4 out of 6 years.......not even the mighty Lakers have won 4 out of the last 6 years.

However, when comparing the Yankees and the Braves you should keep in mind that since the Yankees started getting good again around 93 I believe they have the best record in baseball since that year. [censored], in 1998 the Yankees won 114 games.......have the Braves ever come close to that? That same year the Braves won 106 games.......thats good but you should consider that they were 8 FULL GAMES BEHIND the Yankees that year. All told the Yankees won 126 games that year which I believe is the most ever.

I still find it simply amazing that you want to say a 7 game series isnt a true test to which is the best team in baseball but you say it is in basketball.........there is no logic to support this. Plain and simple the best team will win a 7 game series probably 90% of the time in any sport.

[Guest]

This is not to say the Braves didn't have a great era.Only

something as that Yankee Dynasty stopped the Braves

from trampling the entire league for so many years.Had

the Yankee's not won all those rings the Braves would

be the best.

Those were some of the best teams to ever play from

the Braves...Only the Yankees run is over them.