Knight Deal Agreed Upon ? 5 yrs 70 Mil ? W/Suns

[Covert Rain]

Well no, it's not necessarily less informed. But I don't understand how you're using the word "opinion." An uninformed opinion is useless. If you were to ask me to provide an opinion on something where I have no information, I would decline, because I don't want to express an opinion that's nothing more than a wild guess.

It is? So when someone challenges something thought to be accurate (see science) but really doesn't have verified proof but maybe sees in their opinion something and decides to be open to it..... it's useless?

This is not a FACT board. It's a discussion board. People share ideas and opinions all the time. Since when is the requirement that everything be completely factual or informed?

Come on. You need to lighten up.

For that matter, why should I be interested anyone else's wild guesses? You say that they can lead to discussion, but they can't, really, if they aren't based on any information. What is there to discuss? "I think the President of the United States in 2051 will be a Latin-American woman." Okay, well that's a wild guess, might happen, might not, but there's not much to discuss about it, is there?

That's a grand canyon you just breached there with Evil Knievel precision. In your example it can be proven 100% that there is no way you could possibly know that. Where trade rumors can happen for a myriad of reasons. GM's talking, GM's spreading rumor, insider information or players talking. HUGE difference.

Also, there might not be much to talk about it from a FACTUAL perspective but there certainly is worthy discussion to have had if for example it could be the first Latino Woman. That's how I see many of these rumor discussions.

But that doesn't follow. Whether you find something interesting to discuss shouldn't impact whether you find it credible. Advocating an idea for "the sake of discussion" is a dead end unless there's something to back it up.

Ridiculous. I believe I have seen just about everyone throw out an opinion of theirs that might not be the most "informed". I think it's safe to say we all do it. When did this rule happen that discussion boards have to "go somewhere" versus being fun?

Then why not be open to the Bledsoe-Harden possibility? We can "discuss" that too.

We can discuss and I would be happy to within the context of you asking what I thought about the idea. In the context of discussing a rumor proven to be 100% false is something different.

 

[JCSunsfan]

You don't have to be able to prove something one way or another in order to be able to come to an informed opinion about whether it is likely to be accurate. You're playing the conspiracy theorist card that nothing can be disproved. While that's technically correct, it can lead to a lot of faulty conclusions.

In the Bledsoe-for-Harden example, anyone who follows the league would reject the idea as making no sense for Houston. And yet, with some effort, I could probably get enough of a "rumor" going that people would start quoting it. It would still be nonsense, but then we could have someone waiting in the wings ready to say, "But you can't prove it's nonsense, can you?" That's pretty much the role that you're playing with your "if there's smoke there's fire" mantra.

Oh. Let's do it! Please, can we do it!

 

[Phrazbit]

Daren, I know what started this who "rumor vs fact" concerning Bledsoe and his value was a post in which you said:


http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=3189567&postcount=126

The fact they were shopping Bledsoe for the #9 pick and a "potential" big man probably means they are willing to use him as leverage to move Morris and get a bench big or another potential big.

I realize you were probably overstating the idea to make a point, but it seemed like you got sucked down a rabbit hole of conjecture and a rumor and popped out with the "fact" that the Suns were willing to dump Bledsoe and perhaps just to get rid of Markieff. However, nothing had actually connected Bledsoe to the #9 pick at any point, you ran with the #4 pick rumor (which originally started with someone asking Mark Stien if thats the kind of trade the Knicks might do and him saying 'yeah') and spun it off on a bunch of other ideas, and somewhat glibly attaching 'fact' to it.

I know you've backed down from that stance now but it is where this broader discussion spawned from.

 

[Covert Rain]

Daren, I know what started this who "rumor vs fact" concerning Bledsoe and his value was a post in which you said:


http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=3189567&postcount=126


I realize you were probably overstating the idea to make a point, but it seemed like you got sucked down a rabbit hole of conjecture and a rumor and popped out with the "fact" that the Suns were willing to dump Bledsoe and perhaps just to get rid of Markieff. However, nothing had actually connected Bledsoe to the #9 pick at any point, you ran with the #4 pick rumor (which originally started with someone asking Mark Stien if thats the kind of trade the Knicks might do and him saying 'yeah') and spun it off on a bunch of other ideas, and somewhat glibly attaching 'fact' to it.

I know you've backed down from that stance now but it is where this broader discussion spawned from.

Actually I am not backing down about my opinion the Suns were shopping Bledsoe. Although I admit that the word "fact" was probably the wrong word to use. I should have said "It appears" or something to that effect. I don't think I meant it was with 100% certainty. I was making that statement purely based on my own opinion and assumptions. That's cool you called me out on it.

That's why I am saying people need to lighten up. It's all fun conjecture and I enjoy seeing everyone's different takes.

 

[elindholm]

It is? So when someone challenges something thought to be accurate (see science) but really doesn't have verified proof but maybe sees in their opinion something and decides to be open to it..... it's useless?

That's not how scientists work. If they challenge a commonly held belief, it's because they've already encountered evidence suggesting that the belief might be wrong. Their "opinions" are based on evidence already collected. Then the inquiry turns to the question of whether additional evidence will lead to a conclusion different from the commonly accepted one.

This is not a FACT board. It's a discussion board. People share ideas and opinions all the time. Since when is the requirement that everything be completely factual or informed?

Come on. You need to lighten up.

It's not a "requirement," but I just can't see why anyone would be interested in a bunch of wild guesses that (a) have zero evidence behind them and (b) can't possibly be shown to be more or less likely than any other guesses. To me it's like wondering what the daily high temperature will be on a date four months in the future. It's a question I have no interest whatsoever in discussing in advance, because there's nothing to talk about.

In your example it can be proven 100% that there is no way you could possibly know that.

No it can't. I've correctly called two major trades before they happened: Marion for O'Neal, and JRichardson for Turkoglu. I've had a hundred (or more) misses, too, but those two hits are enough for me to claim I have inside information, whether I actually do or not.

Can you prove I don't have inside information? How? Maybe I'm an NBA front office person in disguise. It's possible, right? Didn't Curt Schilling himself used to post on the Diamondbacks board? What if he had done that under an alias? Couldn't the same thing happen in the NBA?

I believe I have seen just about everyone throw out an opinion of theirs that might not be the most "informed". I think it's safe to say we all do it.

Not "the most" informed, just at least minimally informed.

In the context of discussing a rumor proven to be 100% false is something different.

But don't you see how easy it would be to do this? Get on online chats with NBA journalists and float the idea there. Design a flashy-looking web page with a bogus article. Create new message board nicknames and launch a bunch of posts. Hit the comments section of every other trade rumor article out there and add your own. Other than taking a bunch of time, joining the rumor game is open to everyone.

 

[Phrazbit]

Actually I am not backing down about my opinion the Suns were shopping Bledsoe. Although I admit that the word "fact" was probably the wrong word to use. I should have said "It appears" or something to that effect. I don't think I meant it was with 100% certainty. I was making that statement purely based on my own opinion and assumptions. That's cool you called me out on it.

That's why I am saying people need to lighten up. It's all fun conjecture and I enjoy seeing everyone's different takes.

Fair.

But, I've never seen a debate here get out of hand over semantics...

 

[sunsfan88]

Guys like Marc Stein and Adrian Woj aren't click bait hacks who are spouting off nonsense only to get viewers. Their both credible insiders with various sources and connections in most of the franchises and among agents and players.

If either or both of them report that Bledsoe is being talked about in trades, it definitely has legs IMO.

 

[Chaz]

Guys like Marc Stein and Adrian Woj aren't click bait hacks who are spouting off nonsense only to get viewers. Their both credible insiders with various sources and connections in most of the franchises and among agents and players.

If either or both of them report that Bledsoe is being talked about in trades, it definitely has legs IMO.

Of course he is being talked about in trades. The disagreement is about the source and who is initiating those talks and who is spreading the rumor and for what purpose.

 

[Covert Rain]

Fair.

But, I've never seen a debate here get out of hand over semantics...

You don't say!

 

[Phrazbit]

Guys like Marc Stein and Adrian Woj aren't click bait hacks who are spouting off nonsense only to get viewers. Their both credible insiders with various sources and connections in most of the franchises and among agents and players.

If either or both of them report that Bledsoe is being talked about in trades, it definitely has legs IMO.

What about if neither of them do? Because as near as I can recall neither Stein or Wojanoski have said anything about Bledsoe other than Stein answering a fan's question about if trading the #4 for Bledsoe was something the Knicks might consider.

Honestly, can anyone find a tweet, or an article from either of those guys about the Suns and Bledsoe? I just did a cursory look (because I figured it would have been spam linked here by a certain poster who rarely has original thoughts) and I couldn't find any.

 

[mojorizen7]

That's not how scientists work. If they challenge a commonly held belief, it's because they've already encountered evidence suggesting that the belief might be wrong. Their "opinions" are based on evidence already collected. Then the inquiry turns to the question of whether additional evidence will lead to a conclusion different from the commonly accepted one.



It's not a "requirement," but I just can't see why anyone would be interested in a bunch of wild guesses that (a) have zero evidence behind them and (b) can't possibly be shown to be more or less likely than any other guesses. To me it's like wondering what the daily high temperature will be on a date four months in the future. It's a question I have no interest whatsoever in discussing in advance, because there's nothing to talk about.



No it can't. I've correctly called two major trades before they happened: Marion for O'Neal, and JRichardson for Turkoglu. I've had a hundred (or more) misses, too, but those two hits are enough for me to claim I have inside information, whether I actually do or not.

Can you prove I don't have inside information? How? Maybe I'm an NBA front office person in disguise. It's possible, right? Didn't Curt Schilling himself used to post on the Diamondbacks board? What if he had done that under an alias? Couldn't the same thing happen in the NBA?



Not "the most" informed, just at least minimally informed.



But don't you see how easy it would be to do this? Get on online chats with NBA journalists and float the idea there. Design a flashy-looking web page with a bogus article. Create new message board nicknames and launch a bunch of posts. Hit the comments section of every other trade rumor article out there and add your own. Other than taking a bunch of time, joining the rumor game is open to everyone.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[elindholm]

Sorry to have taxed your attention span! You should probably put me on Ignore, if you can't resist the trap of reading my posts. Seriously, I won't mind.

 

[Covert Rain]

That's not how scientists work. If they challenge a commonly held belief, it's because they've already encountered evidence suggesting that the belief might be wrong. Their "opinions" are based on evidence already collected. Then the inquiry turns to the question of whether additional evidence will lead to a conclusion different from the commonly accepted one.

Not true. For example, they have no proof in the medical industry that certain substances will work on a virus. They have an idea that might prove to be good or bad. In science, often theories are based on nothing more than a question, pure experimentation or a perceived lack of explanation that drives someone to come up with their own idea or opinion.

It's not a "requirement," but I just can't see why anyone would be interested in a bunch of wild guesses that (a) have zero evidence behind them and (b) can't possibly be shown to be more or less likely than any other guesses. To me it's like wondering what the daily high temperature will be on a date four months in the future. It's a question I have no interest whatsoever in discussing in advance, because there's nothing to talk about.

You can't see why on a discussion board people wouldn't want to discuss possibilities regardless of source or how much there is "to it" ?!?! Huh? Are you in the right place?

 

[elindholm]

Not true. For example, they have no proof in the medical industry that certain substances will work on a virus. They have an idea that might prove to be good or bad. In science, often theories are based on nothing more than a question, pure experimentation or a perceived lack of explanation that drives someone to come up with their own idea or opinion.

Yes, but they don't start experimenting randomly. They use what they already know in order to come up with likely places to look. Even "pure experiments" are designed based on existing knowledge.

You can't see why on a discussion board people wouldn't want to discuss possibilities regardless of source or how much there is "to it" ?!?! Huh? Are you in the right place?

Apparently no, I'm not. Carry on.

 

[Covert Rain]

Yes, but they don't start experimenting randomly. They use what they already know in order to come up with likely places to look. Even "pure experiments" are designed based on existing knowledge.

So, every theory and every experiment in history was based on previous knowledge or was it lack of? Sounds very chicken and egg.

Apparently no, I'm not. Carry on.

Appreciate it. Now the baseless rumor mills that have no meaning to life on the board can continue.

 

[elindholm]

So, every theory and every experiment in history was based on previous knowledge or was it lack of? Sounds very chicken and egg.

I'm going to venture a guess that you don't know very many scientists. Simple example: Early experiments in gravity were inspired by observations that (a) things fall and (b) things weigh different amounts. You can learn a lot by observing, outside of the realm of an "experiment." Those observations lead to theories, or at least points of speculation, around which experiments are then designed.

Now the baseless rumor mills that have no meaning to life on the board can continue.

I feel much better knowing that my lack of participation will not be missed. By the way, my opinion is that the high temperature in Phoenix this coming September 15th will be 108 ºF.

 

[Covert Rain]

I feel much better knowing that my lack of participation will not be missed. By the way, my opinion is that the high temperature in Phoenix this coming September 15th will be 108 ºF.

Not true. I will miss you. Hit me up on on social media to discuss the possibilities of what if.

P.S. Don't forget the Evel Knievel costume.

 

[sunsfan88]

Wow Middleton who is definitely better than Knight and the guy who the Bucks preffered to pay over Knight is gonna get the same $$ as Knight?

https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/status/616139234148253697

I thought he'd be getting much more....now I'm starting to think this contract is too generous for Knight. Heck even Bledsoe's is too generous by this standard.

 

[Phrazbit]

Wow Middleton who is definitely better than Knight and the guy who the Bucks preffered to pay over Knight is gonna get the same $$ as Knight?

https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/status/616139234148253697

I thought he'd be getting much more....now I'm starting to think this contract is too generous for Knight. Heck even Bledsoe's is too generous by this standard.

Middleton is definitely better than Knight despite having worse stats than Knight and the Bucks going into the toilet once they got rid of Knight?

I know you loooooove trying to find narrative to make the team look bad but you're reaching here.

If anything those contracts look like bargains when a player of Middleton's mediocre standard is getting the same money.

 

[Mainstreet]

I thought Khris Middleton played SG/SF so I'm not sure how they compare given their positions although I guess one could argue Knight is playing off guard. Still I think Knight is a better PG than SG if given primary ball handling duties

 

[KloD]

I thought Khris Middleton played SG/SF so I'm not sure how they compare given their positions although I guess one could argue Knight is playing off guard. Still I think Knight is a better PG than SG if given primary ball handling duties

I believe the belief is he can do both. Bledsoe as well. Isn't that their idea with the this form of two guard system? The idea that they could run the offense through either side of the court, or without relying on one ball handler. Last year showed that you need the right personnel who play team basketball to run that system, but the year previous showed that when you have buy in and unselfishness, it works.

 

[sunsfan88]

I thought Khris Middleton played SG/SF so I'm not sure how they compare given their positions although I guess one could argue Knight is playing off guard. Still I think Knight is a better PG than SG if given primary ball handling duties

Middleton is the 2 guard with Giannis/Parker being their 3/4.

 

[FArting]

There will be a press conference at noon today.

 

[sunsfan88]

The guy who made the Westbrook and Kobe impersonation videos made a Brandon Knight one too

http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2...uns-guard-brandon-knight-wants-to-put-detroit

Hilarious

I think every single one of his impersonations have been on point so far, gotta give him mad props.