You think you know the facts but you are often wrong. For example, you started an argument about Splitter not coming to the NBA based on the "fact" the he would be bound by the rookie scale and lose money.
Oh come on. I can't remember the entire chain of the discussion, but it was someone else, not me, who brought up the whole "bound to the rookie contract" angle. I mentioned it in one of my own posts because I thought it was correct, not because it was central to my point. In fact, if you had been paying attention -- which obviously you haven't been -- you would have noticed that I was arguing
against the "limited salary" issue as being a factor. But in any case, you corrected me, I thanked you for the correction, and that was that.
Fact is you didn't understand how the rookie scale works at all.
I understand it fine, but yes, I didn't know the three-year-wait rule, which almost never comes into play.
Obviously if you are 100% convinced that the earth is flat and base your arguments on that "fact" then you come across as a strange and sometimes funny person.
On the
minor points where I have been incorrect, I have accepted correction immediately. You, on the other hand, persist on misrepresenting my argument. Either that, or you literally don't understand it, which is a theory I have to admit is gaining more and more traction.
I'll try once more:
I regard Splitter as a poor NBA prospect.
The fact -- and it is a fact -- that he flirted with the NBA draft several times, then chickened out each time, is a big warning sign.
Another fact -- and this is also a fact -- is that
very few mid-career Euro stars have made the transfer to the NBA successfully. You debate this by saying what about Nowitzki or Parker or Divac or whatever other European star, but these were all players that came to the NBA very young. The ones that came over after
several years of Euro ball, then did well in the NBA, are few and far between: Ginobili, Scola, before them Kukoc, Sabonis. The success rate is very low. You refuse to take this point on.
When I said "Splitter sucks," I meant that he sucks as an NBA prospect. I didn't mean that he sucks as a FIBA player. His success as a FIBA player is irrelevant to his standing as an NBA prospect, but you won't acknowledge this. It's a different game. There are NBA players who don't do well in FIBA, and there are FIBA players who don't do well in the NBA.
Then you said "Well the Spurs drafted him, so obviously they know something you don't." No. That is what teams do with late first-round picks: they go for longshots. A few longshots pan out, but most don't. Everyone understands this. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that all of the rest of the league's draft gurus had forgotten about Splitter, after his high-profile departures from the draft several years running.
Over and over again, I challenged you to place your bets on Splitter's performance in the NBA. Over and over, you declined. And now we see why. He's 11th on the Spurs in playing time, seeing extended minutes mainly in blowouts. Only once has he scored more than 7 points or collected more than 4 rebounds. Even though the Spurs seem to be phasing out Blair, as his minutes have been cut way back recently, Splitter is not benefiting -- instead those minutes are going to the journeyman Bonner and the 74-year-old McDyess.
I was wrong in my prediction that Splitter would "never play in the NBA." The money was better than I thought, and maybe that was the difference. But his poor performance is exactly in line with what I imagined, and it shouldn't be difficult to understand why.
As for the personal attackts, fact is that you and Charlie Chaplin get butthurt very easily
I'm not offended by your personal attacks; I simply use them to point out the weakness in your argument. You know you're wrong about Splitter, so you make fun of me in order to try to create a distraction. It is the evasive strategy of a weak analytical mind.
