Quantcast
Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 12:35 pm  |  136 responses

LeBron James and Dwyane Wade Call Out Former Celtics for Joining Nets


The verbal (and hilariously silent) jabs thrown at Ray Allen when he left Boston haven’t been forgotten by his current teammates in Miami. LeBron James and Dwyane Wade pointed out the hypocrisy of Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Jason Terry and Doc Rivers leaving the Celtics’ sinking ship this summer. Per the Sun-Sentinel: “Jason Terry and Kevin Garnett took verbal jabs at (Ray) Allen for his departure, but have since left the Celtics in favor of the Brooklyn Nets. Paul Pierce also left the sinking Celtics to make one last run at a title with the Nets. ‘The first thing that I thought was like, `Wow, Ray got killed for leaving Boston and now these guys are leaving Boston,’ (LeBron) James said. ‘I think it’s OK. I don’t mind it, but there was a couple guys that basically [criticized] Ray for leaving and everybody else is leaving.’ Garnett last year told reporters he had forgotten Allen’s cell phone number because of his decision to leave via free agency. Later, Terry questioned Allen’s loyalty when he refused to ‘stick through the tough times.’ Although the circumstances are somewhat different because Allen left on his own, Garnett waived the no-trade clause in his contract so the deal could take shape. There were also talks of Garnett and Pierce being dealt to the Los Angeles Clippers. (Dwyane) Wade chose to provide his ‘media answer’ when asked about the subject, but he clearly hinted Terry and Garnett were being hypocritical. ‘Listen, we all know how the world works,’ Wade said. ‘The biggest thing is Ray is happy here. If they’re happy in Brooklyn, I’m going to be happy. We all know how it works. People say things about people when they decide to do something but then people do the same thing. It’s about putting yourself in the best situation. It’s about doing what’s best for your family.’ Garnett and Terry switching teams struck a nerve with James because he could relate to the situation. He was criticized heavily when he left the Cleveland Cavaliers in 2010. ‘You can’t criticize somebody when somebody decides to do something that’s best for their family no matter what the situation is,’ James said.”

  • Add a Comment
  • Share
  • RSS

Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • Dfrance

    Other than leaving one team for another, the situations are hardly the same. James and Wade know that.

  • spit hot fiyah

    do they know what a trade is?

  • MIchael

    They do know those guys were traded right? They can’t be that stupid.

  • pposse

    KG did waive his no trade clause to allow it tho

  • pposse

    James and Wade trying to find solace in numbers.

  • Kwaku Danso

    LMAO! This the most ignorant rant I’ve seen since “Not 5, not 6, not 7…”
    Trying to compare trades to free agent hookups don’t even make sense.

  • spit hot fiyah

    true, but pierce leaving was already a done deal at that point and it was clear that boston was rebuilding. so the situation was different compared to when ray sign as a free agent.

  • COYNE

    LeBron, they were traded you queen. Even if it was a FA situation, it would have been different as Ray bailed on a team that still had Pierce, Garnett & Rondo in, still had another run left in them, which can’t be said for PP & KG.
    Boston fan, but respect to Allen, Pierce & KG for the Championship. Always have ’08.

  • Ryan Seavey

    KG said if he was traded without Pierce, he would have retired. That’s loyalty. The only one mentioned here that 100% suspect is doc Rivers.

  • LakeShow

    They got traded, they didn’t want to band wagon on the champs like Ray.

  • pposse

    yeah i agree

  • Mariano

    I don’t understand when Wade says that they’re “doing the best for their family”. What is that supposed to mean? How would Ray, Pierce, or KG’s families be affected by them staying/leaving?

  • Jeff Moore-B 

    They got traded!
    It’s different from leaving a nearly intact team through free agency that could still could contend to go to your rivals that put you out
    Or a successful team through a press conference

    Regardless that garnett waived his clause pierce was gonna get traded. Jason terry was just tossed in as an after thought
    The celtics chose to rebuild, they weren’t sent into rebuilding against their will

    This is ignorant to compare and makes them look dumb trying to take shots

  • JD

    KG has a no trade clause, so he accepted the trade to get the fuh out of Boston. Doc Rivers jumped ship as well. And the Celtics weren’t going to beat the HEAT with or without Ray Allen.

  • Lloyd

    I don’t understand the family excuse either. Financially, they usually take less money so that would mean less money toward their families. Practically, going to a different team means you uproot your family and in essence, they have to start over in a new city. I don’t see how you putting yourself in a better position to win a championship is better for your family. Just say you want to win.

  • kc

    I was thinking the exact same thing. I mean they stopped talking to this dude all together and they were supposed to be such a “Family” in boston! On top of that Boston was trying to trade Ray and had pretty much given his starting spot to avery bradley. Ray made the best move for his career. Doc left for greener pastures when it was clear the run was over. KG and Pierce happily moved to the nets. Very hypocritical indeed! I think KG largely gets a pass for his often ridiculous antics. Don’t even get me started on pierce and his wheelchair.

  • Evan Boland

    That about sums it up.

  • Evan Boland

    It wasn’t the same at all.

  • MUBWAR

    band wagon? ray is the reason the heat are still holding that trophy man.

  • http://signup.divinerenergy.com/ Anthony Dixon

    LOL All entertainment.

  • bike

    LeBron attempted to further drive home this point by comparing the Garnett/Allen/Pierce/etc. situation to baboon tribe dynamics – something he saw on Discovery Channel – but quickly realized he may be doing more harm than good.

  • LakeShow

    That has nothing to do with the term “bandwagon.”

    Just because you bandwagon, doesn’t mean you’re not valuable…

  • Dfrance

    Its just become one of those overused cliche terms that athletes throw out there every time they make a major decision.

  • Cameron

    It’s not hypocritical when Ainge had already decided to trade Pierce anyway. Pierce openly said he wanted to be a Celtic for life. KG would’ve retired anyway if Pierce got traded, which is why he waived his no trade clause. Maybe it’s just cuz I’m a Celtic fan but this info has already been on SLAM I’m pretty sure….

  • Fat Lever

    The way I read it is this: Wade and James are basically saying don’t criticize someone for doing something that they feel is in their best interest, then turn around and essentially do a similar thing down the line. Yes, the circumstances are different, but not as off as people would like to believe. KG waived his no-trade clause exclusively to go somewhere else. That is fact. Who knows if PP told Boston mgmt that he doesn’t want to stick around? Bottom line, it was Ray Allens decision. KG of all people should understand it’s a business. And if I remember correctly he at first said he didn’t want to go to Boston, but then once the Celtics got Ray Allen, he changed his mind and agreed to the trade and signing a long term extension. Pot/kettle? I’m just saying.

  • Freeky Zeek

    @disqus_j65FuvcSML:disqus Exactly. The term used there is “traded.” Thank you. These statements they said have no support.

  • Dfrance

    I really don’t think KGs issue with Ray was simply that he left the team. He left the team to sign with the Heat, who just eliminated the Celtics in the playoffs and had become somewhat of a rival the past few years. The Celtics had just pushed them to 7 games, they were still a competitive team and he left to try and ride the championship wave(which he did successfully).

    Had he left to play in his hometown, or to retire as a Milwaukee Buck, KG and the Cs wouldn’t have cared.

  • Fat Lever

    True, but after the way the C’s treated him, using him as trade bait numerous times during the season, at that point, what difference does it make? It’s expected he show “loyalty” to a team that would have discarded him if the price was right? Loyalty and all that good stuff went out the window at that point.

  • pposse

    2 yrs 12 million offer bro..for all that nonsense about trade bait and what not they offered a hell of a lot of money to him, twice as much he signed up for.

  • K_HOLIDAY

    I have no problem with what Lebron did here. This is what teammates do. Bet you KG would say Deron is better than lebron. That’s loyalty and letting everyone know you’re always ready to go to battle with your teammates.

  • Dfrance

    I can see Ray feeling hurt by that and maybe wanting to leave, but that the same time they offered him slightly more money and the team was still a contender.

    I’m just speaking to how his teammates felt. As they say, it’s a business, guys are dangled as trade bait all the time. But to go to the Heat of all teams, they took exception to that.

  • Cortez Mack

    I do not care about Allen joining the Heat. Nor do I care about Piece and Garnett going to the Nets. On top of that, I did not care about how James left Cleveland. Because, James is right, as a general principle, you should go wherever you want to play.

    However, James (and Wade) are not very smart. How Allen left the Celtics was not comparable to how Pierce and Garnett left the Celtics. Piece and Garnett were talking about PERSONAL loyalty to what they accomplished (and watch they could accomplish) as teammates. They were not talking about some, misguided, loyalty to the Celtics corporate organization.

    With that said, Allen did the right thing. The Celtics explicitly tried to dump him and he decided that he did not want to help further their success any further.

  • Vanravan

    i don’t know if people are really dumb or if they can’t understand the difference between a trade and a free agency….! one thing is to te wanted in one place and leave to your rivals after he make comments about david west ( for choosing the pacers and money over the celtics) and that’s totally different of a player been traded because his team nead to rebuilt and they don’t want that player anymore…

  • bball knowledge

    Celtics tried to trade Ray Allen for years and they did not treat him like they wanted him so what is the best way to spite your former team…join there biggest rival. I know your a KG fan but please don’t be so biased.

  • bball knowledge

    Celtics tried to trade Ray Allen for a while and they took him for granted so he left to play with Lebron and Miami who wanted him to play for them and treat him like family.

  • bball knowledge

    Joining the Nets is also bandwagoning last time I checked. Championship or bust for Nets this season.

  • Da-Meat-Hook

    Lake, your my boy and all, but they weren’t traded against their will. Brooklyn was essentially hand-picked, because KG would have exercised his no-trade clause if Ainge would have attempted to ship them to any non-contender.

    At the end of the day, KG and Pierce are ring-chasing, Doc pre-maturely ended his long-term contract to ring-chase with the Clippers, and Ray successfully ring-chased last year.

    The circumstances are different, but at the end of the day KG, PP, and Doc all voluntarily left Boston to accomplish the exact same thing Ray Ray accomplished last year.

  • bball knowledge

    Doc Rivers even admitted he takes blame for Ray Allen leaving…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLSmb8V6igI

  • LakeShow

    It’s different.

    A) they were traded.

    B)The Net’s might be a top 5 team in basketball, where as the Heat were/are the absolute best…

    C)Williams is trying to turn his career around, Lopez is trying to prove he is a top center and can rebound, KG and PP are on their last legs, and JJ is still trying to show he is worth half his contract.

    It’s like Karl Malone going to the Lakers… You really can’t be to mad about it.

  • LakeShow

    KG is a an old school dude that stayed in Minny way longer than he should have.

    Paul Pierce stuck through the thick and the thin in Boston.

    Doc is a coach.

    I think the circumstances are more favorable for shedding KG and PP in a better light than Ray Ray.

    I also hate the Heat and LeBron and will always rag on them when I feel is an opportune moment.

    Haven’t seen you around here as much lately, better be around for Ball season! We could use your noggin on board.

  • https://twitter.com/jasontichenor Mr. Wet

    wait wait….. how is Karl Marlone going to the lakers ok but Ray going to the heat not?

  • Da-Meat-Hook

    I agree that the circumstances are different, I just wasn’t a fan of their “Holier Than Though” attitude towards Ray Ray prior to them jumping ship.

    I can appreciate you acknowledging that your hate for the Heat influence some of your comments. I share that same kind of distain for hipsters and calve tattoos on fat girls.

    I’ll definitely be around more, as soon as I get knocked out of this Office NFL Survival Pool that has consumed my life lol

  • LakeShow

    Ray Allen is one of my all time favorites and I don’t blame him or think it was wrong, but I do think they(KG, PP) are slightly holier lol.

    **********************Calf tattoo’s on fat girls….************************
    ^^This is the sh*t i’m talking about!!!!^^

  • http://www.dzfoot.com/ Matt Harpring’s Haircut

    Have you watched the Decision?

    .. yes they can be

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    a) Kevin Garnett had a no trade clause. — told Boston he wasn’t going to Brooklyn without Pierce (and supposedly Terry). so, yeah, they were traded, but by choice

  • LakeShow

    I’m not saying Ray is evil.

    I just am saying that Malone hadn’t won a chip and it was understandable. No?

    Ray already had a chip he worked hard for as part of the “Big 3.” But then he went on to join their rival in the Heat as a bench player.

    There wasn’t a rivalry between the Jazz and Lakers…

    Do you follow me at all?

  • Fitzy

    KG didn’t tell anyone anything but no. Paul Pierce convinced KG to waive his no trade.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Just go watch the press conference

  • Fitzy
  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    That’s doesn’t change what I said at all.

  • http://triplejunearthed.com/dacre Dacre

    One thing thats going to be nice is when Heat vs Nets in the east finals….whoa baby thats going to get nice and chippy. EAST CONF. STYLEE`

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    how many rings does ray have compared to KG and Paul. At the end of the day when the HOF is being announced Ray will be a 1st ballot before either KG or Paul

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    Ray Allen will be a 1st ballot HOF over Paul Pierce and KG for winning his 2nd title. Nobody is gonna care that he legally went to the heat except for maybe Bill Simmons

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    Ray was benched before he left swhucck swhucck you know that 2nd ring just got him above KG in the HOF

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    They are all 1st ballot hall of famers dude

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    But who gets into the HOF before. Ray has established better credentials. How many 1st ballots are usually in 1 class inducted?

    Actually i didnt even consider that fact that there all 1st ballot. but your right if Chris Webber gets 1st ballot consideration all three of them are in and i dont even think ray will be inducted before because thats a media thing, so what was the point of winning another championship and breaking his friendship with KG and Paul?

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    Actually i didnt even consider that fact that there all 1st ballot. but your right if Chris Webber gets 1st ballot consideration all three of them are in and i dont even think ray will be inducted before because thats a media thing, so what was the point of winning another championship and breaking his friendship with KG and Paul?

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Idk the exact number like 9 people, up to 5 players or something, it’s just 5 years after retirement. If they all retire the same year then they will all get in the same year.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Your career isn’t about friendships.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    but the end goal is the HOF so what’s it going to matter if they all achieved 1st Ballot with the ring in boston. What’s the benefit except for bragging rights

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    To accomplish as much as possible in your short career…have you never been around highly competitive people?

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    lol if you only knew if you only knew. but that sense of superiority isn’t felt as much if the individuals detach and move on.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    It has nothing to do with a sense is superiority

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    explain. An individual has two options to continuously rehash the past and be happy from a sense of achievement. But what is achievement either it can be a person competition or a competition with others. Those that compete with themselves aren’t the issue here. But the ones that sense achievement based on what they gain compared to the others losses. Either that individuals gain happiness from the failure of others or becomes detached and bored and looks for a new activity to compete (ie golf) and eventually will become bored and keep searching to fill that desire.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    If you do something like say play basketball at a certain level, and still feel like you can do that, folding it in early because you are content is not even an option. It’s like a form of self motivation that doesn’t allow a person to “quit” or feel like they are quitting. Moving on to the next challenge is just second nature basically

  • Clos1881

    Ray Allen did not have a better career then pierce or KG regardless of titles

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    i agree I mean i wont go as far as to say to KG is top pf of all time but he’s top 5. but rings some how validate a player’s career? idk why that is a standard but it is?

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    so it’s following the desires than. Competitive people just follow what innately gives them satisfaction. No other motivation

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    In essence

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    so thats it in the grand scheme of things it’s all about being content and satisfied with the individual we want to be

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Most experiences are more enjoyable when you are happy.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    So is it the pursuit of happiness that shapes our very beings actions?

  • Shooting Guard

    and prokorov is trying to buy the trophy

    i heard the top 3 players alone have $80+ million? or something like that, correct me if i’m wrong i’m sure i don’t have half your basketball knowledge

  • Conor

    James looks like he’s back to his pre-Miami days of arrogance and commercialism. He should not stir Garnett’s wrath in Brooklyn, who could already defeat Miami, assuming the team maintains its health, along with Indiana and Chicago.

  • Smits#45

    ¨Although the circumstances are somewhat different¨ Somewhat is really an understatement here. Totally different.

  • danpowers

    nope, it didnt. the gap between both player’s performance throughout their careers is too big. garnett was an mvp all nba all defensive team caliber player for the majority of his career. i would agree if allen would have achieved one more ring as a go to guy for his team, but he won it as a role player. in this state of their careers that ring wont change much. allen is / was good enough to be a first ballot hall of famer, too. but in no way did he surpass garnett’s legacy.

  • danpowers

    may i ask you something private? i dont have the intention to ask that cynically or rhetorically, but most of your statements really make me wonder: how old are you and when did you start to follow nba basketball?

  • pposse

    its not okay. That was wack too.

  • Dfrance

    Wow, seriously? You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone outside of Mama Allen that believe that.

  • Dfrance

    I really don’t think I’m being biased at all. People are making it out to be KG was mad because Ray left the “Celtic Brotherhood” where as I feel he was mad because Ray left for Miami. Had he went anywhere else, KG wouldn’t have been so butthurt about it.

    I don’t fault Ray for doing what he did, it was his decision to make and it worked out great for him.

  • pposse

    naw KG was easily the best player out of those three.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    ive been reading slam since 2000. i wrote that previous comment in haste w/o thinking which i openly admit i sometimes do and I don’t agree with the comment I made above. I am not infallible.

  • danpowers

    i see i see

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    read the comments below between NBK and myself. After quickly realizing the error I made I quickly retracted my statements because I agreed with the information because it’s logical and statistically can be shown that KG and Paul had better careers than Ray. But I question what’s the need to get another ring if your locked in as a 1st HOF and dismantle relationships which nbk proceeded to address.

  • Melvin flynt

    Heat 3peat! this year and lebron will win his 5th mvp too, hate that!

  • bball knowledge

    A) They were traded by choice
    B) Lebron makes the Heat the best team, same way he would make other contenders the best team if he played for them.
    C) Agreed

  • danpowers

    i am not only referring to this topic in particular. it seems like you have a tendency to fire straightaway before you think. thats your right tho, the comment section would be only half the fun if everybody did research before posting lol

  • Pingback: SLAM ONLINE | » Kevin Garnett Fires Back at LeBron James: Mind Your Business

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    some opinions I state sometimes are ludicrous in reality but are purely basketball fantasy. I know they will elicit unusual reactions but that’s why I don’t post on ESPN or Sports Illustrated. I mean isiah whitehead to the heat??? Rebuilding and exploding a team to get 3 top 2014 draft picks??? But when I state social issues like how activist who want rights to marry animals push the same reasoning as homosexuals I am serious. They use the same logic that they want to feel happy content with the partner of their choice. What is the origin of the marriage contract? The the idea that marriage contract has financial benefits and governmental appreciation is unique and not found in pre-modern times. I mean look at the hindu religion and what they still expect the widow to do after her husband dies and hinduism is the oldest major religion today. notice my statement does not in anyway reflect a discriminatory position toward anybody. facts are facts.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    i agree said that comment too quick add ppierce

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    but why does a rivarly make Ray’s situatuion different. I mean if he forced a trade possibly I can see your views but he did it legally to find a better work environment that would provide him more success. Only if you are a boston fan youll feel resentment. Which judging by your views is highly unlikely schwucc schwucc

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    but why is that wrong? i mean if it can be shown that ray deliberately played poorly so that the celtics would lose (“shave points) and then made sure to join the heat so that the heat would be guaranteed a championship then Ray did an immoral act and possibly illegal. The human empathy argument for morality won’t work to show ray is wrong because he made the heat fans happy and made the celtics fans sad so it neutralizes qualitatively

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    thats a great summary of the 2014 seasoni think you can make an equation for the this and the next 2 seasons as such: Heat (2+n)peat! this year and lebron will win his (n+4) th mvp too, schwucc that! where n is the number of season after lebron’s 2nd ring.

  • http://h2hoops.wordpress.com/ Habeeba Husain

    so much talk, smh.

  • danpowers

    facts are meaningless when put into irresolute context.means: “facts” presented by excluding further significant topic related aspects and randomly dropping unrelated comparisons just exposes a statement as “a shot into the dark” on the basis of comparing apples with pears.

    “But when I state social issues like how activist who want rights to marry animals push the same reasoning as homosexuals I am serious. They use the same logic that they want to feel happy content with the partner of their choice.”

    i know i am not in the position to do so, but if i was i would give you the homework to think about what you just did there untill you understand it.

    “I mean look at the hindu religion and what they still expect the widow to do after her husband dies and hinduism is the oldest major religion today.”

    i guess thats why “modern” (how i hate modernization theories and its eurocentric foundation) distances itself more and more from this “traditional” practice and banned such things as broom prize or widows burning themselves. you find that mostly in rural areas and just because it is still widespread doesnt mean it is reasonable or serving this world well in any way.

    “notice my statement does not in anyway reflect a discriminatory position toward anybody”

    maybe you didnt intend to do so, but your statement actually did exactly that.

    “culture” and “tradition” or however you want to call whatever justifies / explains the system of marriage and its context to law / society are artificial constructions that dont have any reasonable ground to stand on if broken down to its essence – as almost any other human custom. it just makes more sense for mankind in terms of an evolutionary context and also within the spirit of striving for a more pleasant existance for everyone on this planet if we try to implement as much “fair play” and as many “equal rights” as possible to as many people as possible.

    so logically giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals doesnt harm anyone while a human being marrying an animal (or having a pet ingeneral) implies awkward ways of “cruelty to animals” to me lol. i dont really think that it is an appropriate comparison even when human right activists utilize arguments related to animal rights in favor of their oppinion.

    or in polemic fashion: just because people stand for a cause for “wrong” reasons in a “wrong” way doesnt mean the cause is necessarily “wrong”.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    So it’s cruel to animals if humans take them as partners? I don’t see how it’s cruel. It’s unnatural domesticating an animal but its not cruel. Would you agree that the homosexual cause is parallel to the plight of blacks fighting racism? This argument is used frequently amongst those in favor “equality” in marriage. African Americans were fighting to protect themselves from phyiscal abuse, discrimination, and essentially human rights which makes sense because they are humans regardless of melanin concerration. Homosexual and those who are fighting for animal marriages are fighting on the basis of happiness and using arguments in support of the notion that we are all animals so its normal and natural. The label I am human being only applies in racism to protect for equal rights. When homosexuals say the animal kingdom has examples of homosexuals and its natural than they essentially are making the argument that ppl who support animal marriages.

    In no way am I discriminating. I’m stating the logical fallacy in discriminating between homosexual marriages and animal marriages with human beings. both are equally morally right regardless of the stigma of whether it appears unnatural

  • danpowers

    i just have a bad belly feeling about domesticating animals for personal pleasure. i cant imagine it is species-appropriate for most (or any) animals. but im not a specialist on that neither did i much research about it so i just give that as my humble oppinion. the formal and factual discrimination of “minorities” based on ethnicity is unique, so is the formal and factual discrimination of homosexuality.

    i dont see any reason why one case of the violation of human rights should be compared to another to make it a legit cause. homosexuality is generally not a personal choice, normally homosexual mammals, also human beings, are either born homosexual or not. this is not a choice like one would chose to have a pet (except for pathological neurosis that makes one “have to” have a pet). again: whatever arguments whoever makes doesnt change the cause or situation at all.

    discrimination of homosexuals is a drawback in most societies, plain and simple.

    “When homosexuals say the animal kingdom has examples of homosexuals and
    its natural than they essentially are making the argument that ppl who
    support animal marriages.”

    absolutely not. biological proof of the relation between sexuality and genetic disposition is just evidence against the misbelieve that homosexuality would be something not natural or a personal choice in general. that is all that is. any construction of a connection to people favoring human/animal marriage is misleading and sheer nonsense with absolutely no reasonable connection to the topic.

    ” I’m stating the logical fallacy i”

    excuse me but the way you are making your statement is barring any logic. comparing apples with peas doesnt make any sense at all. at least not for a discussion based on logic regarding the topic – in this case equal rights for homosexuals – we are talking about.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    But intersperses relations are found in nature http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html

  • danpowers

    so is murder, so is incest, so is eating one’s stool. bringing that up is pointless and misleading. homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with that. i can also just randomly bring up “but rain is also found in nature.” that is just a random off-topic statement by you. i dont want to get insulting here but you really make it hard to take you serious.

  • LakeShow

    Well you have nothing to do with it so I don’t know why you feel like your part of it lol.

    #VicariousLife

  • LakeShow

    Trade or Retirement….

  • LakeShow

    They have a TON of money put into that team.
    But none of their players are prime except Lopez and he is semi-questionable as a Super-Star.
    You sound like you know what you’re talking about.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    No bro that’s my point. Using nature as a justification for the legalization of homosexual marriages or the act of homosexuality is pointless. I’ve made this point else where on slam. What is your point against marriage of humans to other species and why can’t you equate it to homosexuals marriages?

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    you have nothing to do with making oxygen from plants why do you breath lol joshing joshing although you can use the argument that you exhale CO2 but lets go with the joke

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    word

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    but the what really bothers you besides the boston fan base thinking? Which you are not bill simmons but more like Jim Tinnons

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    That’s why I think the nets would have been better off tanking and spending that money acquiring a franchise of Aaron Harrison, Wiggins, Randle and lets Aaron run point becuase he and his brother are practicularly the same and play combo guard and are interchangeable except Aaron better shooter. But I am just a fan so don’t cite me as an authority when you see this Nets management snarf snarf.

  • LakeShow

    Good one…. …. …..

  • LakeShow

    WHO? WHAT?

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    like why are you upset with ray allen for his decision?

  • danpowers

    this aspect in particular just proves the assumption wrong that homosexual people would have the choice regarding their sexuality or that their behaviour would be not natural, simply because the opposite is the case. you mistake that for an ethic justification, which it is not. the ethic justification for equal rights for homosexuals are based on the human rights charta of the united nations and simply on common sense.

    “What is your point against marriage of humans to other species and why can’t you equate it to homosexuals marriages?”

    imo the whole idea of marriage is linked to a certain conventional behaviour including – among many other aspects – sexual intercourse between two equipollent individuals. the idea to get an animal as an entity without any posibility to achieve the status to be its on legal guardian into the hands of a human being is the same as if you would let a grown person marry a small child.

    besides that my personal oppinion is that, considering a variety of severe problems our earth is facing, the idea of animal marriage is so absurd that i just consider it as unnecessary first world problems of people who have to much time to worry about nonsense problems that are unworthy of any recognition by at least halfway sane human beings.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    Having particular ingrained biological desires doesn’t necessarily give the individual a right to express them. Why doesn’t a man have the right to marry multiple women? Or a woman multiple men? I don’t see why an expansion of the number partners in marriage isn’t accepted but homosexual marriages are? What’s the point of expanding the definition to homosexuals? What about heterosexuals who can financially afford to have multiple spouses? The definition of marriage and it’s origin must be examined more in detail. I mean if we are just animals then who came up with marriage and why? I don’t think biologically animals stay in monogamous relationships.

    Culturally there examples of children who are passed puberty at the age of 13 marrying elderly males in American history. What is the significance of 18 biologically? If justify homosexual marriages then you have to open up all sorts of justifications for other issues in the contract of hetrosexual marriages based on the ingrained biological desire.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    It’s highly intolerant to heterosexuals who desire multiple spouses or biologically postpuberty spouses who aren’t 18. It’s discriminating against their biological pedigree.

    Homosexuals can’t manipulate the law for their benefit without advocating heterosexual rights

  • hamidashimono

    KG waived his no-trade clause in his contract. How does this show any loyalty at all to the Celtics?

    KG and PP left Boston get traded (ONLY possible because KG vetoes the deal) to their DIVISION rivals, the Nets (and Jesus gets criticised for going to Miami?!?)

  • danpowers

    “Having particular ingrained biological desires doesn’t necessarily give the individual a right to express them. Why doesn’t a man have the right to marry multiple women? Or a woman multiple men? I don’t see why an expansion of the number partners in marriage isn’t accepted but homosexual marriages are? What’s the point of expanding the definition
    to homosexuals? What about heterosexuals who can financially afford to have multiple spouses? The definition of marriage and it’s origin must be examined more in detail. I mean if we are just animals then who came up with marriage and why? I don’t think biologically animals stay in monogamous relationships.”

    because it doesnt harm anyone to live out this homosexual orientation. e.g. the pathologic desire to have sex with a child hurts the child, thats the difference.

    a sexual orientation is not comparable to a sexual desire, any psychologist would tell you so. there are animals that live in monogamous relationships, even if not – this animal example is pretty pointless. that multiple spouse thing was foundet in the context of the wars in the 7th centrury during which muhammad had to find a way to care for the widows of the warfare between pagans and muslims. it went on to exist even longer partially as a part of chauvinist culture and partially to counter / make up for drawabacks in social structures of muslim societies. which also has absolutely nothing to do with homosexual marriage.

    the origin of marriage in general is a simple pragmatic aspect of many cultures ensuring reproduction in a way that it favors protection of a mother and a child by a man bound to that. there are also some chauvinistic aspects about it as a result of mostly patriarchic cultures of certain family structures and oppression of women (not only but also). times changed alot since then and quite some aspects of it dont make any sense while others do. as long as heterosexuals benefit from being married e.g. by paying less taxes it is indeed discrimination to keep other human beings with another sexual orientation who chose to be bound to each other out of this benefitial circumstances.

    ” If justify homosexual marriages then you have to open up all sorts of
    justifications for other issues in the contract of hetrosexual marriages
    based on the ingrained biological desire.”

    absolutely not as homosexual marriage has the same conditions as heterosexual marriage in terms of legal guardian and the voluntary character of the thing. setting an age down to 13 increases the risks and danger of unprotected children / kids who are highly vulnerable in any sense. there are reasons that some laws exist especially when based on the protection of individuals. again: it doesnt harm or hurt anyone to allow homosexual marriage and allow it by law. this does not go for child or animal marriage. alone this argument should allow that.

    as laws and state are also based on the freedom of religion it should be indeed free of religious fundamentalism.

    there is abolutely nothing based on logic or common sense to forbid homosexual marriage as it is nothing but the discrimination of people who are born the way they are without any other choice and part of a society striving for ideals of equal rights for everyone as a foundation of human rights.

    sorry man, but you didnt make a single point which couldnt be exposed as either a shallow assumption or a pointless comparison to facts that dont really serve as reasonable arguments to forbid homosexual marriage.

  • danpowers

    heterosexuals at full age who desire children / human beings still dependent on a legal guardian put these into a relationship of dependency that hold the potential of a huge disadvantage to kids / underaged in a vulnerable position. that may be a desire, but desires can be oppressed to protect underaged women. on the other and: homosexuality is not a “desire”. just imagine having sex with another man. i assume you couldnt, even if you wanted to. its the same for homosexuals. generally this doesnt hurt anyone neither does it hold an increased potential for the exploitation and / or disadvantage of people in vulnerable position. a gay marriage between two homosexuals doesnt affect anyone negatively, it is just the business of the two human beings who decided to be together.

    what you are talking about doesnt mean to “manipulate” the law. laws are no sacred writings, they can be and constantly are changed, mostly with the intention to the advantage of society. same goes for homosexual marriage. whats your issue with homosexuals? dont you have more important things to do than to worry about who is getting married with whom? i would understand that you could get upset about a potential change of laws or society to your disadvantage. but why commenting on an issue at all if you are neither supporting the idea, nor negatively affected by it?

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    “because it doesnt harm anyone to live out this homosexual orientation. e.g. the pathologic desire to have sex with a child hurts the child, thats the difference.”

    If your definition of a adult is 18 and older I disagree that’s only a modern adaptation. I mean within America multiple cultures here have a different view of what a child is. I believe a child is one who hasn’t hit puberty which is a strict biological definition. If you equate education background and hi school graduation as some form of adulthood then history has a completely different view plus communities existing today in the US such as the Amish or Mormons don’t adhere to these laws.

    “a sexual orientation is not comparable to a sexual desire, any psychologist would tell you so.”

    Now when you talk about pathology in the DSM, homosexuality a couple of decades ago was considered a pathology but what made pyschiatrist change that perspective?

    “that multiple spouse thing was foundet in the context of the wars in the 7th centrury…”

    The multiple spouse thing is way earlier. Check the reference to King Solomon had 700 wives and multiple concubines according to the Bible. But like not even religions have this view of multiple wives. Look at the leaders of Africa who aren’t religiously affliated . And the Old Testament and New Testament came before 7th century.

    “it went on to exist even longer partially as a part of chauvinist culture and partially to counter / make up for drawabacks in social structures of muslim societies. which also has absolutely nothing to do with homosexual marriage.”

    I disagree with the origin of chauvnism and how you apply it. All cultures have “chauvnist” which I don’t find a coincidence. Even in the secular western and eastern regions woman still get less on average salary and economic opportunities even just like African Americans. Male dominance still persist today even if colleges are composed of equal proptionate females. And sexual objectification is more rampant today then ever. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U I mean look back at how people dressed during the Great Depression or in Ancient China or in the Middle East all woman use to exhibit modesty. I mean you have to agree after that 1 minute video that chauvinism is much more dominant today the way woman are “dolled” up and culture of materialism and social engineering regardless if women can have a job or education. heterosexual males will always lust and depending on the moral compass will be able to check their lust. multiple spouses cant divorce and single spouses csn be oppressed in heterosexual relationsips

    “the origin of marriage in general is a simple pragmatic aspect of many cultures ensuring reproduction in a way that it favors protection of a mother and a child by a man bound to that. there are also some chauvinistic aspects about it as a result of mostly patriarchic cultures of certain family structures and oppression of women (not only but also). times changed alot since then and quite some aspects of it dont make any sense while others do. as long as heterosexuals benefit from being married e.g. by paying less taxes it is indeed discrimination to keep other human beings with another sexual orientation who chose to be bound to each other out of this benefitial circumstances.”

    You provided a hypothesis. Yet there is not historical evidence to support this claim. When did homo erectus or whatever ancestor determine marriage as the most pragmatic way.why not have milk mothers and whole communities in smaller population raise children the human race wasnt always this large Why were family units considered the foundation of communities. So to say that marriage was some kind of protective social construct is one theory but I don’t think it holds if you approach from different contexts.

    “absolutely not as homosexual marriage has the same conditions as heterosexual marriage in terms of legal guardian and the voluntary character of the thing. setting an age down to 13 increases the risks and danger of unprotected children / kids who are highly vulnerable in any sense. there are reasons that some laws exist especially when based on the protection of individuals. again: it doesnt harm or hurt anyone to allow homosexual marriage and allow it by law. this does not go for child or animal marriage. alone this argument should allow that.”

    Bro go to Africa 13 year old girls practically have the maturity of 30-40 year old woman in America. When you have to raise and help support large families and aren’t obsessed with such things materialism and cosmetics you mature. You can’t equate and make generalizations that all 13 year olds all over the world are playing video games and innocent. I mean just go back couple decades in american history. Look at the great depression. There is so much evidence in history to support the notion that 18 doesn’t make you mature adult. How many people on youtube are in college doing dumbthings. Different civilizations have different norms.

    “as laws and state are also based on the freedom of religion it should be indeed free of religious fundamentalism”

    What does religious fundamentalism mean? Does fundamentalism mean strict adherence to a religion’s tenets. Like I know Jews who are religious and Jews who are secular. So to be orthodox you must be a strict adherent to their religion. I agree in a democratic society if a orthodox religious person lives there he or she should follow those state’s laws so I don’t disagree with that but what does this have to do with religion? Secondly why do you think these secular laws that are written have some great rational and thinking in it and are applicable today. I mean look at the the writers and the laws they had. In the US constituation blacks were considered 1/3 human (tangent point). Why are you so content with this notion that if the majority agrees it must be right?

    “there is abolutely nothing based on logic or common sense to forbid homosexual marriage as it is nothing but the discrimination of people who are born the way they are without any other choice and part of a society striving for ideals of equal rights for everyone as a foundation of human rights.”

    All I am saying is that the basis for homosexual marriages isn’t unique. I could use the same arguments for multiple spouses and marriage to animals. You bring up these points of cruelty and care. But you only contextualize it within a postmodern western view. You fail to address why is homosexual marriages deserving but marriage to animals isn’t or multiple marriages besides that you believe it’s cruel. even the argument about children. I mean postpuberty children were married off at young ages historically a couple decades ago in the western world and still happens in amish communities, mormons communities. You say children are harmed pyschologically some how. I want to know where do you get this from. I mean how many successful families before us never followed current american conventions of marriage and had normal children and normal upbringings. But I am against homosexual marriages because there is not justification for it that’s unique to it.

    What biological reasoning, what pyschological reasoning is unique to Homosexual marriages that cannot be applied to multiple spouses. i mean even in single spouse marriages partners can feel oppressed which leads to divorce. I don’t see why if you multiple wives if a wife is oppressed she can’t divorce. Also, check any culture a couple decades ago you know that 18 didn’t make an individual an adult. you have to define why 18 is the right age for adulthood, science and history disagree.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    I disagree there are negative societal effects to homosexual mariages. I have given a simple reason. If you allow homosexuals to get married without a unique biological or pyschological reason? then you can allow multiple partners and marriages to animals. Loosening the defintion of marriage will lead to many issues of opening of laws withotu appropriate justification. look at how many die to alcohol drivers and cigarette smoking. bring back prohibition. Those marriages that do not hurt anyone either which apparently is your moral justification can happen in either of the formers marriages i stated. Give me one unique biological or pyschological reason why an Older female can’t marry a post pubescent male who is younger than 18 but is capable of having a job. I mean look at all these geniuses post puberty finding internet companies. Give me one reason why its wrong to marry an animal if the human doesn’t hurt anybody and takes care of the animal better? Domesticated tend to live longer and healthier (speculation). Let everyone be accepted if you let homosexual get legalized marriages. This isn’t a religious debate. It’s show why moral relativism and democratic change has many flaws because it is influenced by those who have the majority rule or the most financial capital to push particular agendas regardless of the logical fallacies.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    @disqus_rOeXXBD2qs:disqus @disqus_j65FuvcSML:disqus can you read the above part I wrote and tell me if I am incorrect in my assessment and if you want to criticize then I am good with it please don’t use foul language though

  • danpowers

    ” If you allow homosexuals to get married without a unique biological or pyschological reason?”
    i stated that reason already. go back to what i told you, focus, concentrate and read.

    “then you can allow multiple partners and marriages to animals”
    that makes no sense at all and you keep on repeating it even though this assumption got exposed to contain no logic at all. which could lead a bad mind to the conclusion that you are an idiot, just sayin.

    “bring back prohibition.”
    lol are you out of your mind? prohibition made the mafia / organized crime blossom like no other laws before and people were still drinking alcohol. it just increases violence, crime and even worse things. do some research. making statements on the basis of shallow assumptions just lets you look like a
    fool. you can read what i wrote as answers to your questions above. your questions and examples lack valid and logic connection to the essence of the topic. you basically ask the same things over and over again and bring up even more ludicrous examples even though i answered to it above. do some research and you see proof to what i told you.

    you either dont have the capability to understand what i wrote or you just refuse to understand it. either way, it doesnt make any sense to waste any more time on you.

  • danpowers

    “If your definition of a adult is 18 and older I disagree that’s only a
    modern adaptation. I mean within America multiple cultures here have a
    different view of what a child is. I believe a child is one who hasn’t
    hit puberty which is a strict biological definition. If you equate
    education background and hi school graduation as some form of adulthood
    then history has a completely different view plus communities existing
    today in the US such as the Amish or Mormons don’t adhere to these laws.”

    objection: pointless and off topic.

    “Now when you talk about pathology in the DSM, homosexuality a couple of decades ago was considered a pathology but what made pyschiatrist change that perspective?”

    proof and empirical research. science develops and is open to admit failure and adapt to reality and human progress. so called traditions, customs or religions tend to be less flexible, reasonable or even totally lacking this aspect.

    “The multiple spouse thing is way earlier. Check the reference to King Solomon had 700 wives and multiple concubines according to the Bible. But like not even religions have this view of multiple wives. Look at the leaders of Africa who aren’t religiously affliated . And the Old Testament and New Testament came before 7th century.”

    i wont refer to the bible as a historic source. i am aware of other polygamic forms of life: nobody has the right to hold you back if you want to emigrate live in societies where this is a social convention. these forms of life are just on the decline while a global degree of access to education progresses. so enjoy as long as it exists.

    “All cultures have “chauvnist” which I don’t find a coincidence. Even in the secular western and eastern regions woman still get less on average salary and economic opportunities even just like African Americans. Male dominance still persist today even if colleges are composed of equal proptionate females. And sexual objectification is more rampant today then ever. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
    I mean look back at how people dressed during the Great Depression or in Ancient China or in the Middle East all woman use to exhibit modesty.I mean you have to agree after that 1 minute video that chauvinism is much more dominant today the way woman are “dolled” up and culture of materialism and social engineering regardless if women can have a job or education. heterosexual males will always lust and depending on the moral compass will be able to check their lust. multiple spouses cant divorce and single spouses csn be oppressed in heterosexual relationsips”

    i agree to most of that. except than “sexual objectification is more rampant than ever” which i highly doubt. i wasnt bashing on particular muslim societies, i misunderstood your precedent argument as based on muslim societies, so i directed my statement to that.

    “Bro go to Africa 13 year old girls practically have the maturity of
    30-40 year old woman in America. When you have to raise and help supportlarge families and aren’t obsessed with such things materialism and cosmetics you mature. You can’t equate and make generalizations that all13 year olds all over the world are playing video games and innocent. Imean just go back couple decades in american history. Look at the greatdepression. There is so much evidence in history to support the notion that 18 doesn’t make you mature adult. How many people on youtube are in college doing dumbthings. Different civilizations have different norms.”

    i am aware of all that, we were just talking about us-society or so called “first world” societies in general.

    i beg to differ about “africa” / sub-saharan africa. generally wherever for sub-saharan african groups access to education, money, wealth, etc… increases to a certain extent, families are able to afford to let their children mature and live their childhood as “children” (to stay polemic). i wont label that as modern as this would mean to hold an eurocentric perspective as a gold standard (which it is not imo), but this development just implies, that whenver people are able to afford to give younger human beings more time to grow before they label them “adults”, they just do exactly that. there may be exceptions, but that is the bigger picture.

    “What does religious fundamentalism mean? Does fundamentalism mean strictadherence to a religion’s tenets. Like I know Jews who are religious and Jews who are secular. So to be orthodox you must be a strict adherent to their religion. I agree in a democratic society if a orthodox religious person lives there he or she should follow those state’s laws so I don’t disagree with that but what does this have to do with religion? Secondly why do you think these secular laws that are
    written have some great rational and thinking in it and are applicable today. I mean look at the the writers and the laws they had. In the US constituation blacks were considered 1/3 human (tangent point). Why are you so content with this notion that if the majority agrees it must be right?”

    i pointed out religion as a reason, because all evidence implies that the discrimination of homosexuality roots there. there might be earlier / older roots of the problem, but religious texts and interpretations regarding the text seem to be the most obvious evicence. there is no doubt that there is more to it, but any attempt to stigmatize homosexuality goes back to the same logic of religiuos fundamentalism.

    laws are not perfect, neither free of failure nor providing justice for everyone. never stated that. but make no mistake, the role of “the reasonable man” in law give “modern” law systems the potential to provide more justice, reason and equality for societies than any other system before.

    ” I could use the same arguments for multiple spouses and marriage to animals.”

    unfortunatelly you keep on trying this nonsense. those are not the same arguments tho, but you keep refusing to see why what you are doing means comparing apples to peas so why should i go on repeating myself?

    “you have to define why 18 is the right age for adulthood”
    i am not sure which of the many reasons this is based on i should give you, so just try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_adult_%28psychology%29s

    “science and history disagree.”

    as you put it: assumption and simply pointless. we are talking about a legal definition, that doesnt mean 18 year olds are treated equally in front of the law. the bar is set that “high” or “low” (however you want it) out of a median based on average life circumstances and experience. e.g. in germany you can still be treated as a adolescent if youre 26 year old but your life conditions imply that you still dont have the maturity of an adult per definition. at some point that wont apply anymore as there has to be a line just for the sake of practice and the function of law to provide societiy with the highest degree of projectable life as possible. legal definitions cannot provide a definition for the individual human being, it is the task of judges and lawyers to mediate between society and law on the bases on what legal anthropology calls “the reasonable man”.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    I read it i cut paste responded to your claims but I keep repeating because you appear not to make valid reasons and provide evidence through history and science why it’s illogical. Instead you state emotional claims and refer to only one set of rules as a moral standard. My simple objection is that you allow homosexual marriages then other people have same right to change marriage laws to fit their desires.

    I know prohibition increased organize crime, but my point was that why doesn’t the government ban cigarettes and alcohol based upon the health risk and make the public understand its bad for them. The majority wants pleasure even if it is dangerous. Everyone knows this but the majority and financial agencies prevent laws being made to end these health killer agents.

  • danpowers

    “I read it i cut paste responded to your claims but I keep repeating because you appear not to make valid reasons and provide evidence through history and science why it’s illogical. Instead you state emotional claims and refer to only one set of rules as a moral standard.My simple objection is that you allow homosexual marriages then other people have same right to change marriage laws to fit their desires.”

    http://www.universalclass.com/i/course/reading-comprehension-101.htm

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    that’s definitely a snarf moment. snarf snarf.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    i read your previous response just now. so it makes more sense why you have this view that i haven’t read your claim.

    I want to know though when you say comparing apples to oranges what makes you feel that way in one sentence? I really find that when you say statement like “those cultures of multiple marriages are on the decline” you don’t allow for other individuals of different backgrounds to widen the definition of marriage in a secular democracy.

    I am opposed to homosexual marriage acceptance because it does not have any benefit besides forcing a large minority to accept a new social institution, and if this social institution is accepted then it allows for other individual groups with lobby and financial capital to push for more widening of the definition of marriage. This can lead to financial fraud, citizenship issues, and possible economic ramifications and other legal ramifications that will have negative effects.

    Just out of curiosity why do you not hold the Bible as a historical source when every court swears upon it. What should people be swearing on?

    The reasons that homosexuality was taken out of the DSM was not as you described above. You are theorizing but you haven’t substantiated that claim. I’ve heard that there was some internal lobbying as well as the “biological argument that it is found in nature so it’s okay”. IF homosexuality was to be reintroduced into the DSM as a pathology would you be opposed to homosexual behavior and marriages? scientific fallibility can occur in both cases.

  • danpowers

    to your amorphous ensnared construct of questions and assumptions: if you didnt get my point by now, you wont get it after more hours of exchanging statements neither.

    “Just out of curiosity why do you not hold the Bible as a historical
    source when every court swears upon it. What should people be swearing
    on?”

    no need to swear on anything. i actually find that pretty amusing whenever i see an us-american trial. having to declare to say the truth and if proven a liar get punished for false oath is enough.

    “You are theorizing but you haven’t substantiated that claim.”

    we are talking in the comment section of a basketball magazine, i wont waste my time to create a scientific assignment here. if you are really interested into the topic, do some research.

    and btw, thats what i tend to advice early semesters: dont ever use human history or biology to make statements or predictions, this is highly implausable and not worthy of a scholar. except to counter a claim by the same method to expose this structure of an argument as what it is: implausible.

    we can really leave this debate because continuing will be to no avail.

  • Melvin flynt

    As long as u know what time it is kid!- it’s does cause I’m a heat fan– and i have enough common sense to know that lebron is the best in the game! Men lie women lie—#’s don’t! Real recognize real.

  • Melvin flynt

    I’m just gonna laugh when everything i say is gonna happen!–, I laugh at u haters daily! Analyze that!–just like when people use to hate on jordan bk in the day Same ish just different times lol

  • Melvin flynt

    Likewise u got nothing to with it either !the nba, lakers,Kobe etc..!— UR just a fan like anyone else leaving a comment lol–don’t hate congratulate !

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    i was in agreement with you or did i say something that oppsoed you.

  • LakeShow

    Exactly why none of this is personal for me.
    Congrats to the Heat basketball team.

  • LakeShow

    Duh LeBron is the best in the game…

    You thought I didn’t know that?… lol

  • Fitzy

    Do you mean when he says “in deciding to come here.” Buddy he had a no trade, they basically told him they’re trading the vets and you can either waive it or be here for the rebuild. He could have also retired but that would have stuck the celtics with a small but manageable cap hit because of his age when he signed the extension. Which wouldn’t be a very loyal thing to do.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    KG told Boston not to even discuss a trade unless Pierce was involved. Then when that was complete, KG still apparently had reservations because he felt like he was being disloyal. So Pierce still had to talk him into it. But there was no Paul Pierce involved in the trade without Garnett saying so. Gerald Wallace doesn’t help Boston’s situation, that part was just necessary to make it work.

  • Fitzy

    Celtics held an option on Paul Pierce’s contract that they could have taken him off the books. SO for KG it was either let the trade go through or be the last one left. Paul pierce would have been traded at the deadline if he wasn’t bought out either. Most likely with the celtics retaining some salary. Either way KG is left by himself for a rebuild, not a situation he wants to be in at his age.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    As I said, it was still a choice.

Advertisement