In Response to Re: Taiwanese Punch Lakers in the Grill!!!
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Taiwanese Punch Lakers in the Grill!!! : Apparently the first article was unread. It was dated in April, and said there was no timetable for Bynum's return. [/QUOTE]
Hate to burst your bubble, the trade happened in February, the talks were in January. What does a timetable in April say?
Haven't you seen the statement during the trade (the 3rd link you cite):
"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."
Other links I previously posted:
When asked if center Andrew Bynum may miss the rest of the regular season and then return for the playoffs, Laker Coach Phil Jackson said that it was a real possibility, the L.A. Times are reporting.
Bynum, however, was hopeful that he'll be able to see the court before the playoffs begin.
"At this point, I'm trying to get back a couple of games before [playoffs] just so I can get, like, a tune-up," he said.
The Los Angeles Lakers have finally put a timetable on the return of Andrew Bynum: probably the first round of the playoffs.
's return from a knee injury might not be until close to the end of the regular season, Coach Phil Jackson
or are you really in denial?
[QUOTE]Mihm was hurt, Bynum was hurt, and they traded Brown. What on earth did Gasol play, Point Guard? [/QUOTE]
And that's rebuttal of NOT trading for Gasol if Bynum had not been injured? 8-year-old logic again.
He was brought in, in 2008, to play CENTER. [/QUOTE]
And how is that evidence that he won't be brought in to play alongside Bynum had Bynum not injured (hypothetical situation)? Please don't keep exposing your 8-year old logic.
What he played after that is irrelevant. [/QUOTE]
Irrelevant is only your opinion. I say it's utterly relevant, since pairing him up with Bynum after that means it's possible to pair him up with Bynum had Bynum not injured.
710 ESPN - LA - Mason and Ireland Show. John Ireland, who travels with the team, and is the radio voice of the lakers. Red: "Were the lakers interested in Gasol all along, or was it Bynum's injury that necessitated it?" Ireland show: "Gasol was not a viable option for the lakers until Bynum got hurt." It is now officially published (AGAIN).
OK, cite the source on this quote. Without the cited evidence, your words are not believable, given you are a dishonest person. I'll shoot it down after you cite a link of this evidence, not merely something you type.
And, whether you accept it or not, whether you think Ireland is a hack or not, is irrelevant. That is from a lakers journalist..................would be good enough for 99.9% of the population. [/QUOTE]
claims without source is good enough for 99.9% of the population? You may live in a world like that, but for us real people, that's not research. Ever see many claims in Wikipedia has the superscript [Citation needed]? Know what it means?
I can argue no more on this - PLEASE prove me wrong or leave me alone. [/QUOTE]
Of course you can't argue on this. You made a hot air claim, with no published evidence on that hypothetical situation, and an uncited claim, now you want people to accept it unless other "prove you wrong"?
An empty claim and the burden is on other people to prove you wrong. You are really funny.
It's been a long two years!! Bynum injured - Brown not satisfactory - Gasol brought in to play center. There is NO evidence to suggest that the lakers were interested in Gasol before the injury. [/QUOTE]
And there is no need to. Why can't Memphis decide to clean house after Bynum's injury?
[QUOTE]Therefore, if the injury had not occurred, there would have been no trade.
And there, you still have no evidence to support this conjecture, because all you have shown is merely the conclusions based on Bynum was injured.
So, let's recap the evidence supporting "they would have traded for Gasol":
1) Lakers were sitting 3rd to 5th around the time of Bynum's injury to the trade
2) Gasol cost the Lakers practically nothing.
3) the plan to play Gasol at PF and Bynum at centre.
the evidence supporting "they would not have trade for Gasol".
1) your words (no citations) of what John Ireland said.
2) Gasol would play at centre during Bynum's injury.
3) there was no mention of Lakers' interest in Gasol before Bynum's injury.
Based on the evidence on both sides, why you insist that they would not have traded for Gasol with such certainty is beyond me. Except Ireland's words, all you are able to show is not supporting anything of the conjecture.
If you KNOW otherwise, prove it. If your argument is based on opinion, insults, common sense or spinning my argument, please just go away. You can have the last word, if you are that small a person. I'll take the victory.[/QUOTE]
If this is a forum for 8-year old arguments, then you can take the victory. This is a forum for adults. Yet you don't have the reasoning skills of an adult.
Your attempts to get the last words have sold you out. You have been trading posts with me on this topic for 2 years. This never give up mentality shows one thing: you want the last say. Yet you have encountered someone who's famous for that. And you pretense to give up "you can have the last word", has been tried many many times, you claimed you would ignore me, you claimed my post was hidden, what was the outcome?
You still keep posting again and again. So, I'll take this as your feeble attempt to lure me not to respond. But my continued rebuttal to your post must be an emotional torture to you...