Walker/Najera/Best for Kidd/KMart - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

mavsfanforever · 02-07-2004, 07:20 PM

NJ is looking to getting rid of Kidd's salary and are also not going to sign K-Mart for the money he wants. Walker will be a free agent in two seasons whereas kidd has a long term contract. Kmart said he wouldn't mind playing for Mavs.

Walker/Najera/Best for Kidd/Kmart.

Poindexter Einstein · 02-07-2004, 07:26 PM

Would definitely do that trade in a flash if I am the Mavs, but no way NJ does that in a million years.

And who said NJ is looking to get rid of Kidd? Aint gonna happen, he IS the franchise there.

OutletPass · 02-07-2004, 07:31 PM

MF Forever, where have you gotten the idea that NJ wants to get rid of Kidd and his salary ?

LRB · 02-07-2004, 08:40 PM

I din't think there was enough booze in the stat of NJ to make this trade happen. But hell, if NJ offers I wouldn't waste 1 microsecond in accepting.

sike · 02-07-2004, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
Would definitely do that trade in a flash if I am the Mavs, but no way NJ does that in a million years.

And who said NJ is looking to get rid of Kidd? Aint gonna happen, he IS the franchise there.

yeah, what he said

twelli · 02-08-2004, 09:17 AM

You want Kidd/K-Mart? No problem, give them Nasty/Dirty.

Max Power · 02-08-2004, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: OutletPass
MF Forever, where have you gotten the idea that NJ wants to get rid of Kidd and his salary ?

Several of the "sources" have stated that NJ would want to get cheaper. Of course all those sources mention Kidd for Parker so the Nets have to money to pay K-Mart.

mavsfanforever · 02-08-2004, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Max Power

Quote:

Originally posted by: OutletPass
MF Forever, where have you gotten the idea that NJ wants to get rid of Kidd and his salary ?

Several of the "sources" have stated that NJ would want to get cheaper. Of course all those sources mention Kidd for Parker so the Nets have to money to pay K-Mart.

Kidd to SA could be dangerous. Mavs should probably get into this deal and offer something just so that Kidd does not land in SA.

Max Power · 02-08-2004, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: mavsfanforever

Quote:

Originally posted by: Max Power

Quote:

Originally posted by: OutletPass
MF Forever, where have you gotten the idea that NJ wants to get rid of Kidd and his salary ?

Several of the "sources" have stated that NJ would want to get cheaper. Of course all those sources mention Kidd for Parker so the Nets have to money to pay K-Mart.

Kidd to SA could be dangerous. Mavs should probably get into this deal and offer something just so that Kidd does not land in SA.

Problem is that SA is offering Parker and lots of expiring contracts for Kidd. We don't have any expiring contracts.

Simon2 · 02-08-2004, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: twelli
You want Kidd/K-Mart? No problem, give them Nasty/Dirty.

Lol!

Poindexter Einstein · 02-08-2004, 01:27 PM

"Several of the "sources" have stated that NJ would want to get cheaper. Of course all those sources mention Kidd for Parker so the Nets have to money to pay K-Mart. "

Waht "sources" are we talking about, specifically? Internet chat forums?

OutletPass · 02-08-2004, 01:34 PM

PE...I had a PM converstion last night with MF Forever about all this and it was just speculation on his part...Max P. may have heard something somewhere...but I haven't heard anything on Kidd to SA in a very long time.

Max Power · 02-08-2004, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
"Several of the "sources" have stated that NJ would want to get cheaper. Of course all those sources mention Kidd for Parker so the Nets have to money to pay K-Mart. "

Waht "sources" are we talking about, specifically? Internet chat forums?

The most recent was in one of the NBA Insider articles. I have no idea which one.

Poindexter Einstein · 02-08-2004, 06:12 PM

I found the article at NBA Insider.

And I found who says that "NJ wants to get cheaper." Is it their coach? No. Is it their GM? No. Is it their players? No. Is it their fans? No.

The person that has made such a decision is .........(drum roll, please) ...... Chad Ford, an ESPN writer.

Yes, he has decided that NJ needs to get rid of Kidd and start over. He doesn't think they will ever be good enough to win a title, so he is calling for them to ship away Kidd for "Parker and scraps" and lower their payroll, so they can afford to re-sign Martin. He thinks that Parker is a 10-year-younger PG who will turn into just as much of an all-star as Kidd. His conclusion: they would still be good enough to battle for an 8th seed, and eventually in a few years as their payroll flexibility allows them to sign and develop young players, they would again be competing for conference titles for several years.

I find the whole concept to be ludicrous and just flat out dumb. They are already competitive, but he says it is better to get rid of your best player so you can suck a while, so that later you can maybe get back to where you already are. That is supposed to make sense for NJ, is it? Sheeeesh.

Poindexter Einstein · 02-08-2004, 06:16 PM

"Problem is that SA is offering Parker and lots of expiring contracts for Kidd."

MAX ... SA is not "offering" anything. This is all stuff dreamed up by a writer in his own little weird fantasy world, and no more. There is no desire by NJ. There is no offer by SA. There are no sources. Nothing.

Max Power · 02-09-2004, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
"Problem is that SA is offering Parker and lots of expiring contracts for Kidd."

MAX ... SA is not "offering" anything. This is all stuff dreamed up by a writer in his own little weird fantasy world, and no more. There is no desire by NJ. There is no offer by SA. There are no sources. Nothing.

RARELY is ANY of this speculation EVER confirmed by sources. But New Jersey looks like it is trying to keep the payroll in line and avoid the luxury tax. There have been quite a few articles about K-Mart where the luxury tax was discussed as a holdup on K-Mart getting a prime time contract. Presumably there was a LOT of talk over the summer about Kidd for Parker so why is it a reach to assume that talks might have resumed?

As far as desire by the Nets - teams do strange things all the time. Who would have thought we could get Jamison for NVE? Who would have suggested Walker for Raef? What about Bonzi for a 1st rounder? ANYTHING is possible in the new NBA,

Poindexter Einstein · 02-09-2004, 02:25 AM

"why is it a reach to assume that talks might have resumed"

Because there is nothing to base it on. Nothing.

You are saying they COULD BE talking. And the Nets COULD BE wanting to dump payroll. And all sorts of could be's.

And pigs could be flying too, ya never know!

It's true, any team CAN BE talking to any other team about anything. But neither team says they are, no reporter for either team says they are, this article didnt say they are.

They talked about a sign-and-trade in the summer for Kidd, when SA was trying to sign Kidd. So did the Mavs. So did Denver. So with the same basis, maybe we need to say the Mavs might be on the verge of trading for Kidd, yes? lol

There is NO evidence, no report, no info, none, zero, zip, nada - THAT is why it is foolish to make an ASSUMPTION that things are happening.

Max Power · 02-09-2004, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein

There is NO evidence, no report, no info, none, zero, zip, nada - THAT is why it is foolish to make an ASSUMPTION that things are happening.

Then this whole section is pointless and should be eliminated. Most of the trades here are pure fantasy - at least what I posted had some basis in fact and is relatively timely.

And we make ASSUMPTIONS with every post on this board.

Poindexter Einstein · 02-09-2004, 02:16 PM

MAX ...This section is interesting. Nothing wrong with guessing. Nothing wrong with making assumptions based on facts. Nothing wrong with speculation based on facts.

But dont tell me something is a fact, when you dont have anything to support it other than wild guesses. Don't tell me something is going on, when there is NO EVIDENCE (including from ESPN Insider) that any such thing is occurring.

This thread was based on "NJ is looking to getting rid of Kidd's salary " and also "[NJ is] not going to sign K-Mart" and also "SA is offering Parker and lots of expiring contracts for Kidd" - and there is not one shred of evidence that any of those things is going on. Not one report, not one source, not one quote, nothing. Without any support, it is inaccurate to claim such things ARE HAPPENING.

A thread does become pointless when untrue "facts" are added, when "NBA facts" are made up. If you say something IS HAPPENING, you need to have more proof than "well it is possible"

EDITED: as requested, in the interests of better personal tone.

Max Power · 02-09-2004, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
But dont tell me something is a fact, and lie about it.

I didn't lie.

Quote:

Don't tell me something is going on, when there is NO EVIDENCE that any such thing is occurring.

We NEVER have evidence that anything is going on.

Quote:

This thread was based on "NJ is looking to getting rid of Kidd's salary " and also "[NJ is] not going to sign K-Mart" and also "SA is offering Parker and lots of expiring contracts for Kidd" - and there is not one shred of evidence that any of those things is going on. Not one report, not one source, not one quote, nothing.

Believe what you want. And DON'T tell me what I can and can't post.

Quote:

A thread does become pointless when lies are added, when "NBA facts" are made up. Pulling stuff from one's a$$, and then calling it a fact, doesnt make it a fact - it is still s***.

Screw off. When you have contributed as much to this site as I have THEN you can give me instructions on how to post.

Poindexter Einstein · 02-09-2004, 03:07 PM

MAX ...you said "SA is offering Parker" ... that is a declarative statement and asserts a present time fact. Show me any report, any source, any quote that says you didnt just make it up, and I will believe you.

Otherwise, you are [creating things yourself] and [merely] claiming they are facts. ~shrugs~

And if you want to post [-edited-] and claim things are facts when they arent, then yep I cant stop you. But I can also point them out, when you do so.

EDITED: for tone/terminology, long after the fact, in the interests of forum decorum

Max Power · 02-09-2004, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
MAX ...you said "SA is offering Parker" ... that is a declarative statement and asserts a present time fact. Show me any report, any source, any quote that says you didnt just make it up, and I will believe you.

Otherwise, you are pulling things out of your a$$ and claiming they are facts. ~shrugs~

And if you want to post BS and lies, and claim things are facts when they arent, then yep I cant stop you. But I can also point them out, when you do so.

SA >HAD< offered Parker during the summer according to many reports. So take my statement "SA is offering Parker" and change it to "SA HAD OFFERED Parker in the past and would probably do so again" if that is what is takes to get you to shut your hole.

kg_veteran · 02-09-2004, 05:26 PM

Quote:

MAX ...you said "SA is offering Parker" ... that is a declarative statement and asserts a present time fact. Show me any report, any source, any quote that says you didnt just make it up, and I will believe you.

Poindexter, what crawled up your ass?

For such a smart guy, you don't seem to be very adept at reading in context. Max's comment "SA is offering Parker" was clearly made with reference to the past rumors and scenarios discussed regarding Parker and Kidd. In fact, when you asked for his source, he told you. If you want to rip Chad Ford for making stuff up, fine. But don't go around calling people liars. You act as if Max was out to deceive someone.

The fact of the matter is, 99% of the time trade rumors are nothing more than idle speculation, and the trades that DO happen are not the trades that we think will happen. If Max had started talking about his "inside source" with the Nets or Spurs, then perhaps ripping him would be justified. Otherwise, you need to lighten up.

Poindexter Einstein · 02-09-2004, 06:52 PM

KG ... you know what, I didnt start this little nonsense, so chill out dude.

My point, and I still say it is valid, is that it is destructive to these trade conversations to throw in supposed "facts" that are not facts. If you are guessing or surmising, heck I couldnt care less, we all do that - but just say so! If you tell me something is a FACT though, then if I ask you about it, back it up somehow. Instead, once I questioned it, I got "well, it could have been true perhaps." What kind of info/fact is THAT?

Does it make a difference in whether or not NJ is really "looking to dump Kidd" or not, when you wanna talk about Kidd being traded to Dallas? Sure seems like it to me.

Does it make a difference in whether or not SA is really "offering to trade Parker to NJ" or not these days, if we are talking about getting in the mix to get ahead of SA in a contest for Kidd? Sure seems relevant to me.

You said "Max's comment "SA is offering Parker" was clearly made with reference to the past rumors and scenarios " - but it actually wasnt. Only when I called him on it, did he admit it was news from 9 months ago. And he more or less argued with me that because there was some slight chance that it could be true, then it was valid to assert that it IS a fact. Thats why I pursued it.

Anyhow, lets let this drop. Time for a new subject. This whole idea (that SA is trying to trade for Kidd) is utter nonsense with no basis at all.

Max Power · 02-09-2004, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
Anyhow, lets let this drop. Time for a new subject. This whole idea (that SA is trying to trade for Kidd) is utter nonsense with no basis at all.

Unless you have ACTUAL inside information then you cannot make that statement. SA and NJ could be putting a trade together right now. They probably aren't but you can't make a definitive statement that they are not.

Poindexter Einstein · 02-09-2004, 07:23 PM

Yep they could, and Dallas could be putting together a trade with LA for Shaq at the same time. And Tim Duncan could be on a plane tomorrow to join the Mavs, who knows? Maybe Duncan is about to be traded for Shaq?

Whatever, dude. You can make em up all day out of thin air if ya like, have at it. Just dont claim that you have supporting info when ya dont, and you wont ever hear a single objection outta me in the least.

Max Power · 02-09-2004, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
Just dont claim that you have supporting info when ya dont, and you wont ever hear a single objection outta me in the least.

I don't understand what's wrong with you.

You asked for more information and I gave it to you (and this wasn't the first time I've gave you more information when you asked). I can't help it if you don't think the NBA Insider is a reputable enough source. I don't know what the writer knows or doesn't know - I don't know what kind of inside information they have or don't have. I did not make up anything. I didn't lie about anything.

But for some reason you are being an jerk about this.

Poindexter Einstein · 02-09-2004, 10:19 PM

MAX ... maybe you misunderstand what it means when you are asked for a "source" for facts you give. (You gave a "fact": "SA is offering Parker and lots of expiring contracts for Kidd" is what you said.) A "source" would be something that would indicate it is FACTUAL. If you were a SA or NJ team official, your word would be enough, but obviously for YOU or ME to assert it as a fact, we have to base it on something reliable.

Usually that will be a news reference where some team official said something. A "source" means "tell me who says that is a fact." A reporter will give quotes, in their article, to back up things.

You said "NBA Insider." And I went and looked, and it didnt give any such fact.

So ....if you think your reference to NBA Insider was giving a FACT source, then maybe you misread the NBA insider article.

FYI, I dont have any problem with whatever facts that NBA insider or their writers give. If they say "NJ is doing this" or "SA is doing that" then I figure they have talked to someone on a team who told them so. And typically they will say what the basis is for things like that, when they claim them as a fact.

However, Insider didnt say that any of THIS is a fact. The problem wasnt with their reputation - it was that they DIDNT say any of this was fact, yet you had. They just had a writer sitting around dreaming things he would LIKE to see happen, or things he thinks make sense to him. If he had facts rather than dreams, he would have said so. He didnt, in fact he said he was just making stuff up that he would LIKE to see.

Yes I believe you saw stuff in NBA Insider. But I guess you misread or misunderstood it. Or maybe you didnt understand my report about NBA Insider - cause Chad Ford was NOT reporting any of this as happening. I didnt come back and say "well you lied." I came back and said "NBA Insider didnt say any of that is happening."

So the whole idea at this point ought to just get get dropped. Fair enough?

Max Power · 02-09-2004, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
A thread does become pointless when lies are added, when "NBA facts" are made up. Pulling stuff from one's a$$, and then calling it a fact, doesnt make it a fact - it is still s***.

You did call me a liar. You also said I pulled stuff out of my a$$.

Quote:

So the whole idea at this point ought to just get get dropped. Fair enough?

I don't like being called a liar.

Quote:

MAX ... maybe you misunderstand what it means when you are asked for a "source" for facts you give. (You gave a "fact": "SA is offering Parker and lots of expiring contracts for Kidd" is what you said.) A "source" would be something that would indicate it is FACTUAL. If you were a SA or NJ team official, your word would be enough, but obviously for YOU or ME to assert it as a fact, we have to base it on something reliable.

There are almost no FACTS in this entire section of the site. It is ALL rumour. So why the hell are you breaking my balls?

kg_veteran · 02-09-2004, 10:50 PM

Poindexter, I read the whole thread before posting. In my view, you did start "this little nonsense."

You've made your point. Over and over and over again. I think you're wrong, but I really don't care who's right and who's wrong at this point. If you want to discuss something NEW about this topic, feel free to do so. If you just want to tell everybody for the 15th time that you think there's no chance in hell that Kidd's going anywhere, well, don't bother.

mavsfanforever · 02-10-2004, 12:35 AM

Poindexter, the fact is there is not a single analyst in the media that actually knows what trade is going to happen. Most of the trades are just a speculation. We hear something and learn something from somewhere and try to put that into pur own perspective and post it.

If I knew about what trades are going to happen in advance before anyone else, I would be making millions. Out of all the trades that are speculated by the NBA analysts of any major sports news company only 5-10% are actually true. Does that mean they are all liars?

Weird none of the NBA analysts talked about Rasheed to Hawks trade. They are all liars, huh.

Poindexter Einstein · 02-10-2004, 01:04 AM

MAVS ...I would prefer to just let this topic die.

But to answer you, you said: "there is not a single analyst in the media that actually knows what trade is going to happen" ...I am aware of that. But they do get quotes from GMs and the like. They do glean facts and info at times, and print it.

I was told here that SA is doing something, right now. Was it a fact, or derived from some reliable source? Nope. Not a fact or a quote or anything that would support that. It turned out that no one anywhere has said it is happening.

Now maybe the guy misunderstood what ESPN was saying. But it sure wasnt a fact. ESPN never said any such thing is going on, in any way. If he misunderstood, all he had to do was say so - instead, he wanted to argue about it.

Perhaps I shouldnt have used the word "lie" when it turned out that ESPN did NOT say what he and others claimed it said. But when I came back and reported that there was no such report at ESPN (and at that point, I didnt jump in and call the stuff lies), instead of saying "I misunderstood" he said "well it could be true." If he is going to push me on it, I tend to push back - so now at that point he KNEW it was baseless, yet he still wanted to pursue it as if there is some merit to what he had claimed?

Anyhow, thats the story. And as I have said several times, why dont we let it all drop? This thing has been beat to death already.

TheBaron · 02-10-2004, 01:06 AM

can I agree with both of you? I want the thread to die AND I think that not a single analyst has nailed a single trade in years.

Max Power · 02-10-2004, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
MAVS ...I would prefer to just let this topic die.

Then shut up already.

You've made your frigging point (and several enemies - I've received a number of pms from friends of mine who think you are being an ass). I think you're wrong, everyone who has posted here thinks you are wrong, but whatever. Go on, make yourself the poster who argues over trivia - that'll make you popular and respected.

Poindexter Einstein · 02-10-2004, 01:43 AM

You wanna take the last post down, or do you want to start an insult war? I havent said a thing to you, or about you, in a derogatory way here for post after post, and you keep jacking with the insults. I have said repeatedly "maybe you misunderstood" in an effort to give you the benefit of the doubt. And I have replied here only when people keep addressing me - and each time I suggest we all let it die. I dont jack you up with insults when I do so. And you still wanna flame things up with sarcasm and attitude and insults?

Max Power · 02-10-2004, 01:56 AM

I'm not taking down any posts until after you do so. As far as insults go - you have called me a liar on two occasions. All I said to you was that I have friends who think you are being an ass.

You started this and I'm not going to back down.

Poindexter Einstein · 02-10-2004, 02:01 AM

LOL ...whatever

mavsfanforever · 02-10-2004, 08:56 AM

I will let this thread die if you do not post it again.

NBA analysts do get quotes from GM- It is just a quote and not a fact. Remember Rasheed for Antawn came from sources who had quotes from GM Nash which was totally not true. Thus it is not a fact.

Nope no facts.

Also, not a fact.

kg_veteran · 02-10-2004, 09:28 AM

I tried the nice guy approach. That didn't work.