let's try this BBall.
we had two "clear" needs based on losing PJ and Posey.
Things don't work that way, sorry. It ignores improvement on players already on the roster for example... no matter how the columnist might want you to buy into it.
It also ignores things like players getting older. Once again, since you refuse to see things like Cassell being below Pruitt on the depth chart or the fact that people like Pierce and Tony Allen often run the offense when Eddie's playing as a sign that we might need a backup pg, only because we scraped by with them last year, this discussion is a waste of time.
the craziest thing about this whole thing BBall is that your line of inquiry is into the Mar signing. a signing i actually support, and totally ignores the one i don't support...
you're trying to force me to admit that PG was a huge need...to what end? I support the signing. I'm just not as enthused as you...
I hate having to keep summarizing the discussions because you lose track of the subject. I'm pretty much done with this one, but this snippet will give you the gist of what it was about:
so you defend the Mar signing because he was the better player, but you defend the Moore signing because he more filled the need?
Which part do you disagree with?
choosing "need" in regards to signing Moore because i'm not even sure that he fills the need.
Does Joe Smith fill our need for length at backup center? Does Brian Skinner? Does Robert Horry?
well, no...that's the point I'm making in relation to Marbury. If you can't fill a need, then at least target the better player..
So, again, you were saying (and have said since) that Marbury didn't fill a need, he was just an acquisition based on talent. You finally (somewhat) agreed that we did have a need at backup pg, no doubt because you lost track of the point you were making.
talk about circular.
I've laid it out repeatedly. If you can't follow it then move on.
your obsession with what qualifies as a "need" has no other relevance than simply trying to win a battle of semantics...
Mar is an upgrade over what we had. but it was not a "clear need" in relation to other aspects of our bench.
gotta say, it's pretty hard to steer clear of your snide remarks, BBall....
I'll end this too, but c'mon. You claim that Marbury doesn't fill a need, we argue for a while about whether we have a need at backup pg, and then you say "you're trying to force me to admit that PG was a huge need...to what end?"
One of us veered off course in that discussion. It could have been me, but I'm not going to review all of the posts to figure it out.
I think it became pretty clear early on that we simply were not using "need" in the same way. I was using it in a "relative" sense and you were using it in a "strict" sense...
you even conceded at one point that SF might be more of a need than PG.
And i conceded that in a "strict" sense you could look at PG as a need, but it didn't change my overall point which is that the Mar signing did not really fill a need in terms of what were the most pressing holes in the bench and was instead more about getting the BPA...
anyway...onward and upward.