Celtic Dominance

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:


    OMG - useless drivel..........

     




    Still dare not respond? can't blame you for that...

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    http://proxy.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime-080202-03

     

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3226203

     

    http://www.thevictoryformation.com/2011/04/30/revisiting-the-pau-gasol-trade

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    Umm.... This is interesting.


    You keep saying you are done, you aren't going to submit more proofs, you already won. Yet you keep coming back. If this is not smarting, what exactly is that?

    And the links you cite? Not only is there no statement regarding "if Bynum is not injured, there wouldn't have been any Gasol trade", but your links continuously discredit your own claim.

    - Yep, Gasol was brought in to play alongside Bynum. In other words, had Bynum not injured, this is support that the Lakers would still have traded for Gasol:

    "Gasol, averaging 18.9 points, 8.8 rebounds, 3.0 assists and 1.44 blocked shots in 39 games this season, can fill in at center until Bynum returns in mid-March, then move to power forward."

    - Keep Kobe happy after his summer 2007 outburst:

    "Will this make Kobe happy?

    If this doesn't make him happy to stay a Laker, folks, nothing will."

    So, please keep citing posts to discredit your own claim. Or are you still trying to use "Bynum injury => Gasol trade" to equate to "not Bynum injury => no Gasol trade"?

    So when you cite those posts, are you going to read them first? to see if there are any support to the hypothesis "no Bynum injury => no Gasol trade"? Or do you think just citing a news report of the trade == "no Bynum injury => no Gasol trade"?

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    We needed an inside presence AFTER Bynum went down'  - Phil Jackson!!

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:

     

    We needed an inside presence AFTER Bynum went down'  - Phil Jackson!!

     

    And the relationship of this statement to "if Bynum had not been injured"? Are you going to say "then we don't need an inside presence"?

    You still haven't got out of this loop. Good grief!!!

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

     

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:

     

    We needed an inside presence AFTER Bynum went down'  - Phil Jackson!!

     

    And the relationship of this statement to "if Bynum had not been injured"? Are you going to say "then we don't need an inside presence"?

    You still haven't got out of this loop. Good grief!!!

     

     

     




    That's your twisting of my words.....................not my point.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:


    That's your twisting of my words.....................not my point.

     




    Your own words:

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums/sports/celtics/on-the-front-burner/since-this-is-a-celtics-forum/100/6312998?page=8

    9/7/2012 01:17:37 EDT
    "prove without a doubt that the lakers would not have Gasol if Bynum wasn't injured!"

    9/7/2012 01:25:43 EDT
    "Since they didn't approach MEM until after Bynum got hurt.............I said the trade would not have happened."

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums/sports/celtics/on-the-front-burner/since-this-is-a-celtics-forum/100/6312998?page=7

    9/7/2012 10:45:35
    "and the trade would not have been made if he didn't get hurt"

    Now tell me what exactly your words are...

     

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to dfurypos' comment:

     

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:

    We needed an inside presence AFTER Bynum went down'  - Phil Jackson!!

     




    did God give you half a brain?  Bynum went down and the wheels were in place to aquire Gasol, who the Lakers gave a damn good draft pick.  There is nothing more you can dispute on the subject. 

    :purple:

     



    THAT IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING.....CLOWN!!!!!!!  AFTER BYNUM WENT DOWN, THE WHEELS WERE IN PLACE..................THANK YOU!!!!!!  NOT BEFORE, AND NOT DURING........AFTER!!!

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

     

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:


    That's your twisting of my words.....................not my point.

     




    Your own words:

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums/sports/celtics/on-the-front-burner/since-this-is-a-celtics-forum/100/6312998?page=8

    9/7/2012 01:17:37 EDT
    "prove without a doubt that the lakers would not have Gasol if Bynum wasn't injured!"

    9/7/2012 01:25:43 EDT
    "Since they didn't approach MEM until after Bynum got hurt.............I said the trade would not have happened."

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums/sports/celtics/on-the-front-burner/since-this-is-a-celtics-forum/100/6312998?page=7

    9/7/2012 10:45:35
    "and the trade would not have been made if he didn't get hurt"

    Now tell me what exactly your words are...

     

     

     




    Did they, or did they NOT get Gasol after Bynum got hurt?

    Did they, or did they NOT bring him in to play Center?

    "The Bynum injury was the impetus for the Gasol trade" - Mitch Kupchak

    "We needed an inside presence AFTER Bynum went down." - Phil Jackson

     

    Do NOT put words into my mouth - they approached MEM AFTER Bynum got hurt - THAT is my argument...............is that too hard for your brain??????????

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to BloggetyBloop's comment:

     

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

     

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:

     

    We needed an inside presence AFTER Bynum went down'  - Phil Jackson!!

     

    And the relationship of this statement to "if Bynum had not been injured"? Are you going to say "then we don't need an inside presence"?

    You still haven't got out of this loop. Good grief!!!

     

     

     




    That's your twisting of my words.....................not my point.

     



    Is Steve Nash a New York Knickerbocker yet?


    Enjoy your day!

     




    Is it Oct 8 yet????

    Enjoy your lie-filled life!!!!

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:


    Did they, or did they NOT get Gasol after Bynum got hurt?

    Did they, or did they NOT bring him in to play Center?

    "The Bynum injury was the impetus for the Gasol trade" - Mitch Kupchak

    "We needed an inside presence AFTER Bynum went down." - Phil Jackson

     

    Do NOT put words into my mouth - they approached MEM AFTER Bynum got hurt - THAT is my argument...............is that too hard for your brain??????????

     




    So you denied that you made the statements "the lakers would not have Gasol if Bynum wasn't injured", "I said the trade would not have happened", "and the trade would not have been made if he didn't get hurt"?

    Who cares whether they made the trade AFTER Bynum got hurt? For 2 years, we have been arguing the hypothesis: "If Bynum had not got hurt,", yes or no?

    You want to wimp out on the hypothesis now?

    Gutless.

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

     

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:


    Did they, or did they NOT get Gasol after Bynum got hurt?

    Did they, or did they NOT bring him in to play Center?

    "The Bynum injury was the impetus for the Gasol trade" - Mitch Kupchak

    "We needed an inside presence AFTER Bynum went down." - Phil Jackson

     

    Do NOT put words into my mouth - they approached MEM AFTER Bynum got hurt - THAT is my argument...............is that too hard for your brain??????????

     




    So you denied that you made the statements "the lakers would not have Gasol if Bynum wasn't injured", "I said the trade would not have happened", "and the trade would not have been made if he didn't get hurt"?

    Who cares whether they made the trade AFTER Bynum got hurt? For 2 years, we have been arguing the hypothesis: "If Bynum had not got hurt,", yes or no?

    You want to wimp out on the hypothesis now?

    Gutless.

     

     

     




    Not answering ANY of my questions, and then calling ME gutless is your MO.  Think I'll let you get away with that?  You must really be smarting......................

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to TommyRules' comment:

     

    Guys, please move away from the Gasol trade to the Lakers discussion.

    Monica Lewinsky and OJ think that subject was old news years ago.

     

     

     




    He refuses to answer my questions - or admit an ounce of defeat.............kind of like you and Ramon Sessions....................

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from EliasBracamonte. Show EliasBracamonte's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    Had the Lakers had Andrew Bynum for the 2008 NBA finals, they would have won and not lost in 6.

     

    :)

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to EliasBracamonte's comment:

     

    Had the Lakers had Andrew Bynum for the 2008 NBA finals, they would have won and not lost in 6.

     

    :)

     




    Nope, because they wouldn't have Gasol!!

     

    IF KG had not been hurt in 2009, the Celtics would have repeated........see, we can do it, too!!       :)

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from EliasBracamonte. Show EliasBracamonte's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    Your right that had Bynum not gotten hurt, the Lakers would have never gotten Gasol. But I would argue that had he healed up by the time the playoffs started and had the Lakers been at full strength by the time they got to the finals, they would have done better than losing in 6 against the Celts. Do you agree that having Bynum would have (at the very least) pushed the series to 7 games?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to EliasBracamonte's comment:

     

    Your right that had Bynum not gotten hurt, the Lakers would have never gotten Gasol. But I would argue that had he healed up by the time the playoffs started and had the Lakers been at full strength by the time they got to the finals, they would have done better than losing in 6 against the Celts. Do you agree that having Bynum would have (at the very least) pushed the series to 7 games?

     




     

    Yet another lakers fan who agrees with me!!!!  Where oh where is QueenShaq when you need him?

     

    Just for the record, I am a firm believer in destiny.  I never said the Celtics would have won in 2010 if Perkins didn't go down - you were destined to win that year.  KG getting hurt in 2009, I didn't really mean, it was to prove a point - you deserved to win that year, too.

     

    But 2008 belonged to us - and yes, I believe even if Bynum had played, we still would have won - FATE!!

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from EliasBracamonte. Show EliasBracamonte's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    "yes, I believe even if Bynum had played, we still would have won"

    But do you think you guys would have won in 6?

     

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to EliasBracamonte's comment:

     

    "yes, I believe even if Bynum had played, we still would have won"

    But do you think you guys would have won in 6?

     

     

     




    4, 5, 6 or 7 doesn't matter.  I do remember, though, that Celtics team did not lose 2 in a row all year, including the playoffs............

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:

     

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

     

    Not answering ANY of my questions, and then calling ME gutless is your MO.  Think I'll let you get away with that?  You must really be smarting......................

     




    You did not any of mine either.

    You said: We needed an inside presence AFTER Bynum went down'  - Phil Jackson!!

    I said: And the relationship of this statement to "if Bynum had not been injured"? Are you going to say "then we don't need an inside presence"?

    You still haven't got out of this loop. Good grief!!!

    You said: That's your twisting of my words.....................not my point.

    Once you wimped out with "not my point", Bingo, you tried not to argue the hypothetical scenario "Had Bynum not injured". That's why I challenged you with the three posts:

    Your own words:

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums/sports/celtics/on-the-front-burner/since-this-is-a-celtics-forum/100/6312998?page=8

    9/7/2012 01:17:37 EDT
    "prove without a doubt that the lakers would not have Gasol if Bynum wasn't injured!"

    9/7/2012 01:25:43 EDT
    "Since they didn't approach MEM until after Bynum got hurt.............I said the trade would not have happened."

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums/sports/celtics/on-the-front-burner/since-this-is-a-celtics-forum/100/6312998?page=7

    9/7/2012 10:45:35
    "and the trade would not have been made if he didn't get hurt"

    Now tell me what exactly your words are...

    You dared not argue the hypothetical scenario anymore? re-stating the actual fact isn't going to save you. We all know Gasol got trade after Bynum got hurt. If you are so desperate to get me to agree with you on some facts that weren't our argument, then sure, I'll play. You can state 903876601 more facts and you'll get no argument from me, like "1+1=2", "2*3=6", "the sun rises from the east", "Lebron won the MVP in 2012", etc.

    But when pushe comes to shove, your original hypothesis got roasted:

    the lakers would not have Gasol if Bynum wasn't injured

    I said the trade would not have happened.

    and the trade would not have been made if he didn't get hurt

    And you have to wimp out with "not my point", "Never said the inverse- only said  - because Bynum got injured is the reason the lakers have Gasol"?

    You think you can get away by moving the goalposts?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:

     

    In response to TommyRules' comment:

     

    Guys, please move away from the Gasol trade to the Lakers discussion.

    Monica Lewinsky and OJ think that subject was old news years ago.

     

     

     




    He refuses to answer my questions - or admit an ounce of defeat.............kind of like you and Ramon Sessions....................

     



    Your question has nothing to do with the hypothesis "Had Bynum not injured". Are you going to answer the hypothetical scenario or not?

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share