In response to KingShaq's comment:

I don't admit defeat............to you.  IF someone were to beat me in a real argument, I could easily admit defeat!!  You?  Nope!!  You don't know how to argue properly, you change the subject, you introduce stuff not previously in evidence, and you change the game on the fly to suit your needs.  That might be arguing in Scotland, but not here.  I'm done arguing with you.......................

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

But u have no choice. You deliberately dodge the argument when push comes to shove. Whenever challenged, you wimp out, or using that "I am done", "I am tired arguing with you". In other words, you can't seriously sit down and talk about the issue.

Why isn't trading for Gasol a viable option if Bynum is not injured?

Your usual tactics:

- I am done with you

- bye

- I've shown it many many many times, I am tired of showing it again.

- I'll report to the mods that you are stalking me.

- It's irrelevant. I am talking about what actually happened. The trade happened after the injury, right?

Anything else?

See, you claimed 328939289 times that you are done with this argument. Yet you keep coming back. It's evidence of needing therapy...

 

 

 

In response to KingShaq's comment:

 

The above bold-faced brought a smile to my face......I said YOU dodge the issue, so your way of arguing is to accuse ME of doing it - not going to work here.

Seriously sit down and talk about the issue? - been there, done that.......you don't believe or accept anything I've said.......pointless

 

report this one, too!!

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

See, the "done arguing with you", put your foot in your mouth again.

Of course I don't believe anything you said, you still haven't been able to show any supporting evidence. Am I supposed to believe what ESPN LA told you? yet you never show what it was?

 

In response to KingShaq's comment:

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

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

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

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

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"?

 

 

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

This post has been removed.

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

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!!!

 

 

In response to KingShaq's comment:

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

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

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...

 

 

This post has been removed.

In response to dfurypos' comment:

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!!!

In response to KingShaq'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??????????

In response to BloggetyBloop's comment:

Is it Oct 8 yet????

Enjoy your lie-filled life!!!!

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

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.

 

 

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......................

This post has been removed.

In response to TommyRules' comment:

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

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

 

:)

In response to EliasBracamonte's comment:

That is false.

When Andrew Bynum was healthy in 2008, the Lakers were just the 4th or 5th seed. After Bynum went and the Lakers got Gasol, the Lakers became the #1 seed in the west.

Your speculation is false because you have no proof to back it up.

Once again the "bushman" in you is showing.

 

Ola!

In response to EliasBracamonte's comment:

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!!       :)

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?