Oh my, arrogance and fuzzy logic together. Not a good sign.
Let's see here, to summarize:
1) in your efforts to glorify Geoff you go ahead and imply that Portland has done poorly wihtout him. I find that an amusing argument and point out that Portland has in fact done quite well without Geoff, in fact getting as close to a title as Geoff himself has. You don't like that, and so now you try to shift your argument over with a petulant "I don't care because Whitsett was fired". Of course you have to be a little careful when trying to change argument midstream -- to whit, if Whitsett sucks and Whitsdett was fired, and Whitsett nonetheless just kept on winning up there for a long time after Geoff left, indeed got as close as Geoff did himself to a title, then what does that say about Geoff's specialness and irreplaceability? With friend's like you, Geoff doesn't need enemies.
2) first of all of course, as the arrogant newbie with a handful of posts who wants to come darting onto the board to start throwing accusations around about where I stand on things, it is entirely up to you to come up with those citations. Because I'm telling you right now you are fuill of ****, and will be until you can back up any of your tripe. Might do you some good too to read my old posts -- a little education goes a long ways.
Secondly, of course I cheerfully endorsed $40mil for 5yrs. What should have been offered. Quite a common viewpoint actually. But your tripe was clearly aimed at some sort of bogus accusation that I implied I knew what WAS offered. Which I did not. Been rather explicit about that actually. So either go find your bogus citation, or drop it.
3) the whole stupid value of Salmons thing. So many ways to go at this. Of course many of them have already been shown to you, but you're taking logic courses from Steven A. Smith or something, and so elect to grab hold of the simplistic little idea that a player's value is whatever you pay for him.
There are of course at least two major holes to that theory. First of all players in the NBA have a tangible "value" irregardless of $$ -- their value on the court. They are utilitarian assets who's "worth" can be measured in their contributions to on court victory. No matter how much money you pay Mateen Cleaves, his value is still less than Dwayne Wade's.
Secondly is the not too difficult point that seemed to sail right over your head -- price (particualrly in an auction where you always pay more than anybody else in the market is wiling to) does NOT = value after the auction is over. Value, in a $$ sense, does not depend on what YOU paid for an item, but on what the next guy will pay for that item. If I spend $1 billion on an outhouse, tommorow that outhouse's value is not worth $1billion unless somebody else will buy it off of me for that amount. This BTW, does not even get into the fact that both of Salmons suitors were out of the game by the time we arrived, and there WAS no market being set. No competition.
4) Your fourth point is so muddled as to be uinintelligible at this point, I think largely because you keep on shifting it around as your original point to try to keep it viable. You did however use "myopic" almost correctly, for which I am very proud of you.
Of course given that I am sure whatever it was was an absolutely brilliant and devastating broadside sure to drive me off the board weeping never to return, feel free to clean it up and try again. Would hate for the board to miss out on any of your wit an wisdom.
