Since this is a Celtics forum

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:
    [QUOTE]

    That's just your opinion. Who cares about a troll's opinion, right?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Nope, "you have no way to refute Tom Brady's claim" is a FACT, not an opinion.




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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11 comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis

    No conjecture......he WAS hurt!!  THEN they made the trade - FACT!
    I don't have to substantiate anything to you - everyone on here, and everyone I've spoken to in LA (even lakers fans) know the truth.
    Gasol was brought in to play CENTER in 2008 because Bynum got hurt, and they didn't like Brown.................................very simple.
    CHI almost got him, lakers came in at the last minute  - AFTER Bynum got hurt - again, very simple.
    There is no "logic" here, there is no "p" and no "q" - those are conditional statements. I'm presenting substantiated FACTS - that are not is dispute by anyone excpet a cranky old grouch who's never played a sport in his life!!/QUOTE]

    "he was hurt", the trade happened, that was a fact.

    Then what do you say about the conclusion that based on an antecendent that didn't happen (he was not hurt)?


    All you can say is that Gasol got traded based on Bynum was hurt. (A => B), where A is "Bynum injury", B is "Gasol trade"

    Yet you want to conclude that !A => !B due to A=>B?

    I've taught you logic for quite a while, yet you still haven't been able to pick it up...

    He was brought in to play center? We have gone thru that before. He could play the 5 during Bynum's injury == they wouldn't have acquired him to play PF? What kind of logic is that? Ever heard of the Lakers' strength during the Gasol era? does "twin tower" ring a bell?

    http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=3226236&wjb=

    "While Gasol will move to the 4 once Bynum returns in March (more on him later), he will be asked to do many of the same things he's done for the Grizzlies during his seven-year career, but with considerably less pressure to put up huge numbers."





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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:
    [QUOTE]
    That's not the point. The Spurs were the defending champions of 2007 and that same year the Spurs beat a Euro club. Just like the Bulls were the defending champs of 1997 and beat a Euro club that same year.

    Who said anything about beating a Euro club then becoming champs?

    The Lakers were the defending champs of 2010 when they went to Spain to play FC Barcelona in October. 

    Trying to pull a fast one, huh?
    [/QUOTE]

    Seems like you have no clue on the condition to become NBA champs. The Lakers only need to beat the Celtics, not Barcelona.

    Beating Barcelona to become champs, it's left to my team: Chelsea...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L81Ad6GcmU

    I bet your next question will be, "they only tied 2-2, how can you say that Chelsea beat Barcelona? are you nuts?"

    Please go ahead and ask...







     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Who cares about Tom Brady! This is a Celtics forum. If you want to talk about Tom Brady then go to the Pats forum.

    So you Laker trolls are fans of Tom Brady because LA has no football team.
    [/QUOTE]

    This is a Boston forum. "Who cares about Tom Brady"? that's ignorant. I want to use Tom Brady's quote to refute your negative connotation of "losing in the final" IN THIS CELTICS FORUM, not in the Pats forum. What can you do?





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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:
    [QUOTE]
    Who's Chealsea? Bill Clinton's daughter?

    Lakers only need to beat the Celtics? Since it's 9-3 in favor of the Celts, your Lakers have a long way to go before they can claim they already beat the Celtics.
    [/QUOTE]

    The Lakers is had a 13-8 edge over the Celtics in finals against other teams not named Lakers or Celtics, which is better than the Celtics' 9-3 over the Lakers.

    Good that you keep advocating your losing pattern (for failing to reach the final).

    Why don't you keep preaching "missing the playoffs is good"?




     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:
    [QUOTE]
    First you talk about Celtics vs. Lakers, now you're talking about Lakers vs. other teams.


    [/QUOTE]

    And the NBA is not only about the Lakers and Celtics. It has other teams, in case you don't know. And those other teams that represent the east, i.e. better than the Celtics, that lost to the Lakers.

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm not from Boston so it doesn't mean that if I'm a Celtic fan I'm also a Pats fan. 

    And what losing in the final? Final what?

    Final countdown?[/QUOTE]

    But this is a Boston forum, if you are ignorant about Tom Brady, that's your problem.

    "Again, the Lakers are the only team to lose in the Finals in every decade since the 1950s."

    "Lose in the finals" is better than not making the finals.

    Again, the Lakers are the only team to make the finals in EVERY DECADE. The Celtics couldn't make that claim.



     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

    In response to Red-16Russ-11 comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis

    No conjecture......he WAS hurt!!  THEN they made the trade - FACT!
    I don't have to substantiate anything to you - everyone on here, and everyone I've spoken to in LA (even lakers fans) know the truth.
    Gasol was brought in to play CENTER in 2008 because Bynum got hurt, and they didn't like Brown.................................very simple.
    CHI almost got him, lakers came in at the last minute  - AFTER Bynum got hurt - again, very simple.
    There is no "logic" here, there is no "p" and no "q" - those are conditional statements. I'm presenting substantiated FACTS - that are not is dispute by anyone excpet a cranky old grouch who's never played a sport in his life!!/QUOTE]

    "he was hurt", the trade happened, that was a fact.

    Then what do you say about the conclusion that based on an antecendent that didn't happen (he was not hurt)?


    All you can say is that Gasol got traded based on Bynum was hurt. (A => B), where A is "Bynum injury", B is "Gasol trade"

    Yet you want to conclude that !A => !B due to A=>B?

    I've taught you logic for quite a while, yet you still haven't been able to pick it up...

    He was brought in to play center? We have gone thru that before. He could play the 5 during Bynum's injury == they wouldn't have acquired him to play PF? What kind of logic is that? Ever heard of the Lakers' strength during the Gasol era? does "twin tower" ring a bell?

    http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=3226236&wjb=

    "While Gasol will move to the 4 once Bynum returns in March (more on him later), he will be asked to do many of the same things he's done for the Grizzlies during his seven-year career, but with considerably less pressure to put up huge numbers."


    Thanks for once again proving my point.  They acquired him to play Center - temporarily or otherwise - until Bynum returned, which wasn't until the following season!

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11 comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=3226236&wjb=

    "While Gasol will move to the 4 once Bynum returns in March (more on him later), he will be asked to do many of the same things he's done for the Grizzlies during his seven-year career, but with considerably less pressure to put up huge numbers."


    Thanks for once again proving my point.  They acquired him to play Center - temporarily or otherwise - until Bynum returned, which wasn't until the following season![/QUOTE]

    Yep, until Bynum return. You can tell me that they acquired Gasol only for 2 months (to play center while Bynum was out for the projected 2 months), but evidence (that Gasol stayed for 4+ years and won 2 championships) proved otherwise.

    So, you have any evidence that had Bynum not injured, that they wouldn't have done this upgrade at PF?

    Remember, Bynum's injury causing the trade is NOT such evidence.







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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:
    [QUOTE]
    You're the one who brought up Tom Brady. That's your problem!

    Lakers are also the only team in NBA history to lose in the Finals every decade since the 1950s.

    The only reason why the Lakers make it to the Finals every time in the past is because they only have to face teams in the western finals like the 1987 Sonics who had a losing record. That 1987 Sonics team had Dale Ellis, Tom Chambers, and Xavier McDaniel as their Big 3. None of those 3 are hall of famers.
     
    [/QUOTE]
    Yep, because I know you can't refute Tom Brady's claim. And that's not my problem.

    And the Lakers are the only team to make it to the finals in every decade. The Celtics can't say that...

    And that 1987 Sonics team beat a team with 2 HOFers and a former Finals MVP. So what about it?

    But no matter what, it still beats missing the playoffs and then drafted Eric Williams and Jerome Moiso with lottery picks. I'll take beating the Sonics in the WCF anytime.



     
  18. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to KingShaq's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Red-16Russ-11 comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=3226236&wjb=

    "While Gasol will move to the 4 once Bynum returns in March (more on him later), he will be asked to do many of the same things he's done for the Grizzlies during his seven-year career, but with considerably less pressure to put up huge numbers."


    Thanks for once again proving my point.  They acquired him to play Center - temporarily or otherwise - until Bynum returned, which wasn't until the following season![/QUOTE]

    Yep, until Bynum return. You can tell me that they acquired Gasol only for 2 months (to play center while Bynum was out for the projected 2 months), but evidence (that Gasol stayed for 4+ years and won 2 championships) proved otherwise.

    So, you have any evidence that had Bynum not injured, that they wouldn't have done this upgrade at PF?

    Remember, Bynum's injury causing the trade is NOT such evidence.







     

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly right - he WILL move to the 4, but until then he will play the 5!  Very simple, and thanks once again for proving my point
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    regarding Lakers 13-8 over Celtics at 9-3.....not sure how you are computing the math...13-8 is a winning percentage of .619....9-3 is a winning percentage of .750...

    also not sure where this 13-8 comes from....Lakers are 16-15...3-9 vs Celtics...so that actually leaves them in a better position at 13-6 vs teams not named the Celtics....that is a winning percentage of .684.....still Boston comes in at 8-1 vs teams not named Lakers...that is a winning percentage of .888

    so Boston wins this comparison with percentages of .750 to .250 (vs Lakers) and .888 to .684 (when each team faces a different opponent)....

    the combined totals are Boston .809 vs the Lakers at .516 (since moving from Minneapolis that percentage drops to .440)
     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to dfurypos' comment:

    Dukie one more time what has Celtic management done since the epic loss to the Heat in ECF?  Danny has done nothing to address the huge HO LE in the 5 spot!  What will you be writing about when the Lakers win Championship number 17 this season?  Oh that's right the Celtics have a better winning percentage in the Finals, but yet they have only won one since 1986. 



    Do they get to play any games first, or should we just start the parade now?
     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to BloggetyBloop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    We should just start the parade now, but it will be fun to watch my Lakers look fantastic and be the most entertaining team to watch since Shaq-Kobe in the early 2000s.  Good luck with Courtney Lee and Jason Terry.  ROTFLMAO!!! 

    Thanks, and good luck to you as well!

     

    [/QUOTE]
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from vertmont. Show vertmont's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    GO CELTICS 2012-2013 SEASON.
     

Share