Sixers Season 3

[Sgt PSN]

If he wasn't comparing Iverson to those three then why did he list them in his column?

He was comparing Iverson to them, Sarge, and his comparisons are laughable.

dook he just blasted your whole notion down in his post...and you respond with the same comment that the compariosn is laughable?...you dont understand the comparison...or you dont want to see what aldridge was really saying....

id release iverson tomorrow without a second thought if it would get rid of his contract...but aldridge makes a correct and valid point in what hes saying

^^^^Gets what I'm saying.^^^^

[Rome]

Great.  You and IGY can go make man-babies together.   

He used the argument that trading a superstar of Clemens, Gretzky & Jabbar's ilk never gets you fair value in return.   He was saying that Iverson is comparable to them in terms of talent and he's wrong about that.  Besides, those three were traded in their prime.  Iverson is past his prime by a mile, so again, using them as comparisons is stupid on Aldrich's part.

I mean, are you idiots so blinded by your love of the little thug that you can't see that?

Seriously, kill yourselves a lot. 

[PhillyPhreak54]

Iverson is not past his prime. A guy doesn't average 30+ and be past his prime.

And it may seem like AI lovin but the guy gets bashed so much that when I counter the points made by the haters it seems like a love affair. I know the guy has his problems and his faults. But it isn't nearly as bad as you all make it out to seem.

And the same line could be used for the haters...

I mean, are you idiots so blinded by your hatred of the little thug that you can't see that?

[Sgt PSN]

First off, let me state that I'm trying to keep an objective opinion here.  Yes, I'm an AI fan.  But at the same time, if I felt the Sixers would magically become better by trading him, then I'd be all for it. 

Now show me in that article where he actually compares AI to those guys.  Not in terms of production.  Not in terms of "all time greatness." 

He's using those other guys as examples as to why the Sixers shouldn't trade Iverson.  All 3 of them are far greater individual talents in their respective sports than Iverson is in his.  I don't think anyone would dispute that. 

All 3 of those guys had far greater impacts on their teams and sport than Iverson and yet the teams that traded them got nothing in return.  If you can't see that that's the point trying to be made then you're the one who's blind my friend. 

Seriously, jump off a cliff.







A lot. 

[Rome]

Whatever.

The Sixers won't win a championship with him as the focal point of the team.

They'll be the same mediocre POS bunch that you guys whine incessantly about.  If that's good enough for you, then fine, keep him around.

When the day comes that he's sent packing, I'll gladly rejoin the ranks of pissers and moaners who long for the days of .500 basketball in Philly.

PS: Jabbar forced his way out of Milwaukee, so of course the Bucks weren't going to get fair value in return.  Peter Pocklington sold Gretzky because the Oilers franchise was in desperate financial trouble at the time.  Again, no chance for fair value in return.  And the Red Sox gave up on Clemens because Duquette was an arrogant, clueless nitwit whose ego was larger than a hot air balloon.  He tossed Clemens on the scrap heap for nothing out of stupidity.

Using those three deals to support his assertion that trading a superstar is a bad idea is just as retarded as insisting that Iverson is on their level to begin with.  He's not and never has been.

[Sgt PSN]

PS: Jabbar forced his way out of Milwaukee, so of course the Bucks weren't going to get fair value in return. Peter Pocklington sold Gretzky because the Oilers franchise was in desperate financial trouble at the time. Again, no chance for fair value in return. And the Red Sox gave up on Clemens because Duquette was an arrogant, clueless nitwit whose ego was larger than a hot air balloon. He tossed Clemens on the scrap heap for nothing out of stupidity.

Point taken

Schilling to Dbacks = Travis Lee, Vicente Padilla, Omar Daal
McGwire to Cards = TJ Matthews, Eric Ludwick, Blake Stein
Rolen to Cards = Mike Timlin, Polanco, Bud Smith
Moss to Raiders = Napleon Harris, 7th rd pick

The A's are the only team that wasn't really affected by trading a superstar although I don't think any of the players they got in return contributed much. 

The Phils continued to suck without Schilling and Rolen and the Vikes, while they did improve in some ways, still didn't accomplish anything without Moss.  More importantly, their trade aquisitions didn't have much of a hand in any improvements that may have been made.

Using those three deals to support his assertion that trading a superstar is a bad idea is just as retarded as insisting that Iverson is on their level to begin with. He's not and never has been.

Again, I would like you to show me where anyone said that AI was on their level. 

[Geowhizzer]

You can just go back into 76ers history:

Charles Barkley to Phoenix for: Jeff Hornacek, Tim Perry and Andrew Lang

[Sgt PSN]

That trade was mentioned in the article in question so I didn't feel the need to bring it up.......again. 

[ice grillin you]

why is iverson a thug again?...the tattoos?...he likes hip-hop?...the braids?....he got in a fight once?...someone please tell me why ai is a thug and rip hamilton isnt

[hunt]

hah...aldridge is using the same flawed logic all the a1 groupies constantly use.  yeah, that barkley trade 15 years ago was bad...so what?  it has nothing to do with the present.  talk about how the pistons rise to championship status started with the trade of their superstar, grant hill...or doesn't that one count?  they key is to be smart about who they trade a1 for...nobody is saying they should trade him for scrubs.

and aldridge also uses the old line that you win with superstars.  well, guess what?  the sixers have iverson as their superstar...and they're not winning!  maybe it's not his fault...maybe it is...but it's a fact...they are a .500 team with a1 as their superstar player.  maybe it's time to find a new one.

[Geowhizzer]

That trade was mentioned in the article in question so I didn't feel the need to bring it up.......again. 

Details, details... Still, to me, the most accurate comparison.

[Rome]

hah...aldridge is using the same flawed logic all the a1 groupies constantly use.  yeah, that barkley trade 15 years ago was bad...so what?  it has nothing to do with the present.  talk about how the pistons rise to championship status started with the trade of their superstar, grant hill...or doesn't that one count?  they key is to be smart about who they trade a1 for...nobody is saying they should trade him for scrubs.

and aldridge also uses the old line that you win with superstars.  well, guess what?  the sixers have iverson as their superstar...and they're not winning!  maybe it's not his fault...maybe it is...but it's a fact...they are a .500 team with a1 as their superstar player.  maybe it's time to find a new one.

Logic and reason have no place in this thread.

You're either ignorant or a hater if you think the Sixers would be better off without a worn-out, thirtysomething, six-foot gunner who has all but stopped playing defense as the focal point of their franchise.




Meanwhile, the Sixers are mired in mediocrity at 24-25 and going nowhere in the playoffs.

Again.

[Sgt PSN]

Meanwhile, the Sixers are mired in mediocrity at 24-25 and going nowhere in the playoffs.

Again.

That's where you're wrong.  Again. 


I don't think the Sixers will make the playoffs.  So they very well can't go anywhere in the playoffs if they don't get there.  Whatcha gotta say 'bout that?  HA!  Choke on that Loser.  Lay-who-zeh-her!  

[MDS]

I don't think the Sixers will make the playoffs.  So they very well can't go anywhere in the playoffs if they don't get there.  Whatcha gotta say 'bout that?  HA!  Choke on that Loser.  Lay-who-zeh-her!   

[ice grillin you]

I don't think the Sixers will make the playoffs

ummmm???

rajon rondo

fargface???