Pitt may have at least 4 players in NBA

[Jpripper88]

Yes his deal was guaranteed.
You're only arguing with yourself.

Pitt was always going to lose

His "multiyear deal" was not even remotely close to guaranteed. It was essentially entirely non-guaranteed. They gave him the lowest possible guarantee to agree to a "multiyear deal", which was the subject of the discussion. You are arguing an entirely different issue focusing on the remainder of last year. That was never at question.

Pitt didn't "lose". Pitt gave in to public pressure. That is a different issue entirely.

 

[thebadby2]

We have had a freat program that developed alot of excellent players. I didnt get Stallings approach last year on both ends of the court. I never felt we could recruit with the top of the ACC on talent alone. Boards, defense, and offensive sets that that pounded the boards with some outside game was the formula. (PITT was UVA like). Folks want more . I'll give KS a chance with his kids. This year is huge to show he can coach. The last coach could coach.

Refresh my memory as to the last year we played by, or recruited to, the "formula" you stated.

Also, what are "offensive sets that pounded the boards with some outside game"?

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Except it was literally the lowest amount of guaranteed money they could give him.

I just wonder how many times you are going to call his contract completely unguaranteed and then in the very same post talk about how much money he had guaranteed. His contract either contained guaranteed money or it didn't contain guaranteed money. You keep admitting that it contained guaranteed money while simultaneous insisting that he didn't really get any guaranteed money.

If instead of Patterson asking for his release right after he signed the deal the Hawks had decided to cut him would the Hawks have owed him the entire salary they signed him for for last season? If you answer that question yes then by definition that means that he got guaranteed money (you'd also have answered the question correctly). If you answer that question no, the Hawks would not have owed him any more money, then that would mean his contract was not guaranteed (it would also mean that you were wrong). Just because the contract he signed was for the NBA minimum doesn't mean that it wasn't guaranteed, it means that he was a D-League player who had no leverage at all to get more than the minimum.

There will be dozens of player this season playing in the NBA who will have guaranteed contracts for the NBA minimum for their level of service time. Because they are playing for the minimum does that mean that their contracts really aren't guaranteed as well? When guys sign on with an NBA team for the league minimum after playing part of the season next year in the G-League will that mean that their deals aren't really guaranteed as well, even if their teams still owe them the full value of their contract the rest of the year if they cut him?

 

[Jpripper88]

I just wonder how many times you are going to call his contract completely unguaranteed and then in the very same post talk about how much money he had guaranteed. His contract either contained guaranteed money or it didn't contain guaranteed money. You keep admitting that it contained guaranteed money while simultaneous insisting that he didn't really get any guaranteed money.

If instead of Patterson asking for his release right after he signed the deal the Hawks had decided to cut him would the Hawks have owed him the entire salary they signed him for for last season? If you answer that question yes then by definition that means that he got guaranteed money (you'd also have answered the question correctly). If you answer that question no, the Hawks would not have owed him any more money, then that would mean his contract was not guaranteed (it would also mean that you were wrong). Just because the contract he signed was for the NBA minimum doesn't mean that it wasn't guaranteed, it means that he was a D-League player who had no leverage at all to get more than the minimum.

There will be dozens of player this season playing in the NBA who will have guaranteed contracts for the NBA minimum for their level of service time. Because they are playing for the minimum does that mean that their contracts really aren't guaranteed as well? When guys sign on with an NBA team for the league minimum after playing part of the season next year in the G-League will that mean that their deals aren't really guaranteed as well, even if their teams still owe them the full value of their contract the rest of the year if they cut him?

I have literally never said that. You are a liar. Flat out, 100% liar to reshape the argument. I'm not sure why you responded, in the first place, to change the argument and now flat out lie about what I posted.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I have literally never said that. You are a liar. Flat out, 100% liar to reshape the argument. I'm not sure why you responded, in the first place, to change the argument and now flat out lie about what I posted.

Of course you did. My god, I even quoted your posts when I made my post. It was recapped in the post that said the following:

I disagreed with you when you said that his contract was "essentially entirely unguaranteed". I pointed out the fact that it was guaranteed for the rest of the year last year. You "disagreed" with me by saying "the only way (per the CBA, so literally the "only way") they could sign him was to guarantee him the rest of that season". Which is exactly what I said in the first place.

Or to put it another way, your second post not only agreed with me, it contradicted your first post.​

Did you or did you not call his contract "essentially entirely unguaranteed" more than once now? Did I not correctly point out that his contract was, as a matter of fact, guaranteed for the rest of the season last year? Did you not disagree with me in a post in which you said that the only way they could sign him was "to guarantee him the rest of that season"?

How can I be lying when I am actually quoting exactly what you posted? How can you think that saying his contract was unguaranteed in the exact same post that you talk about how much guaranteed money he actually got (or more precisely, would have gotten) isn't contradicting yourself? He either got guaranteed money, or his contract was unguaranteed. You can't keep arguing both thing and not have people think you've lost your mind.

When you find yourself deep in a hole some good advice is to first stop digging. But I guess if you can't manage that, call the other guy names. Might distract someone from what you said.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Jpripper88 said: ↑
He signed a "multiyear deal" that was essentially entirely unguaranteed.
Except for the guaranteed part.

 

[Jpripper88]

Of course you did. My god, I even quoted your posts when I made my post. It was recapped in the post that said the following:

I disagreed with you when you said that his contract was "essentially entirely unguaranteed". I pointed out the fact that it was guaranteed for the rest of the year last year. You "disagreed" with me by saying "the only way (per the CBA, so literally the "only way") they could sign him was to guarantee him the rest of that season". Which is exactly what I said in the first place.

Or to put it another way, your second post not only agreed with me, it contradicted your first post.​

Did you or did you not call his contract "essentially entirely unguaranteed" more than once now? Did I not correctly point out that his contract was, as a matter of fact, guaranteed for the rest of the season last year? Did you not disagree with me in a post in which you said that the only way they could sign him was "to guarantee him the rest of that season"?

How can I be lying when I am actually quoting exactly what you posted? How can you think that saying his contract was unguaranteed in the exact same post that you talk about how much guaranteed money he actually got (or more precisely, would have gotten) isn't contradicting yourself? He either got guaranteed money, or his contract was unguaranteed. You can't keep arguing both thing and not have people think you've lost your mind.

When you find yourself deep in a hole some good advice is to first stop digging. But I guess if you can't manage that, call the other guy names. Might distract someone from what you said.

You lied. Completely and totally. You said: "how many times you are going to call his contract completely unguaranteed"

I never said that. You are an absolute liar. There isn't a way to spin that now. It is quoted. You posted it. You lied. It isn't calling names by saying you are a liar. You are a liar and it is clear and proven.

The "multiyear deal" (which, whether you want to admit it or stay on what was posted or not, was the topic) had the absolute minimum guaranteed dollars possible and about 84% non-guaranteed. When the absolute minimum amount possible (just 16%) is guaranteed that certain qualifies as "essentially entirely unguaranteed" to me.

Jpripper88 said: ↑
He signed a "multiyear deal" that was essentially entirely unguaranteed.
Except for the guaranteed part.

Exactly. That is why it wasn't entirely unguaranteed and was only "essentially entirely unguaranteed". They gave him the absolute minimum amount of guaranteed money possible. They couldn't have give him less guaranteed money for a "multiyear deal".

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

It's rich that the person who is arguing both that Patterson's contract was not guaranteed and that Patterson's contract was guaranteed for the remainder of the year last year is calling someone else a liar. Do you seriously not understand that those are two completely opposite things?

If instead of Patterson asking for his release last season the Hawks had cut him on that very day would the Hawks have owed Patterson the rest of his contract for the rest of the season? If you answer that question "yes" then you admit that Patterson's contract is not "essentially entirely unguaranteed", which means that you were wrong.

You can't have it both ways. Either Patterson contract was essentially entirely unguaranteed or Patterson's contract guaranteed him money for the remainder of the season. It's one or the other. It can't be both. Do you really not understand what the words that you've used here mean? Because that's the only way this makes any sense. It still means that you are wrong, but at least it would make sense.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

You lied. Completely and totally. You said: "how many times you are going to call his contract completely unguaranteed"

I never said that. You are an absolute liar. There isn't a way to spin that now. It is quoted. You posted it. You lied. It isn't calling names by saying you are a liar. You are a liar and it is clear and proven.

The "multiyear deal" (which, whether you want to admit it or stay on what was posted or not, was the topic) had the absolute minimum guaranteed dollars possible and about 84% non-guaranteed. When the absolute minimum amount possible (just 16%) is guaranteed that certain qualifies as "essentially entirely unguaranteed" to me.


Exactly. That is why it wasn't entirely unguaranteed and was only "essentially entirely unguaranteed". They gave him the absolute minimum amount of guaranteed money possible. They couldn't have give him less guaranteed money for a "multiyear deal".

Thanks for agreeing with Joe.
Can this end now?

 

[levance2]

This is the dumbest argument in PL history.

 

[Jpripper88]

Thanks for agreeing with Joe.
Can this end now?

I didn't agree with him. He lied about what I said. I never said the contract was "completely unguaranteed". He flat out lied about that. It isn't up for debate. He completely fabricated that statement and has continued to lie about it. He is a liar. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

It's rich that the person who is arguing both that Patterson's contract was not guaranteed and that Patterson's contract was guaranteed for the remainder of the year last year is calling someone else a liar. Do you seriously not understand that those are two completely opposite things?

If instead of Patterson asking for his release last season the Hawks had cut him on that very day would the Hawks have owed Patterson the rest of his contract for the rest of the season? If you answer that question "yes" then you admit that Patterson's contract is not "essentially entirely unguaranteed", which means that you were wrong.

You can't have it both ways. Either Patterson contract was essentially entirely unguaranteed or Patterson's contract guaranteed him money for the remainder of the season. It's one or the other. It can't be both. Do you really not understand what the words that you've used here mean? Because that's the only way this makes any sense. It still means that you are wrong, but at least it would make sense.

You are lying, again. I never contended he didn't get any guaranteed money. I said the "multiyear deal" was essentially entirely unguaranteed, because...it was. 84% of the dollars and the bulk (3/4s) of the time was non-guaranteed. If you sign a contract and the contract isn't entirely guaranteed, then...guess what...it isn't a guaranteed contract. Just ask Richard Sherman and the NFLPA.

84% of his contract was nonguaranteed. Do you consider that a low percentage or high percentage? If you say "low" you are a liar and/or an idiot. If a team signs someone to a "multiyear deal" (which is what was at issue, not the last 1/4 of the 1st year) and gives them the absolute minimum amount of guaranteed dollars possible would you say that is a contract which is guaranteed? If you say "yes", you are an idiot.

The multiyear deal was essentially entirely unguaranteed because 84% of the contract was non-guaranteed. That doesn't mean he didn't get any guaranteed money. Many, many contracts in sports are not fully guaranteed. This was most definitely not a fully guaranteed multiyear deal. If there was not a 2nd year and thus it was not a "multiyear deal" you would be right. However, there was a 2nd year, it was a "multiyear deal", and the "multiyear deal" was essentially entirely guaranteed because 84% of the value was non-guaranteed.

I think perhaps you don't know what the word "completely" means. You may not even know what "multiyear" or "guaranteed" means.

This is the dumbest argument in PL history.

I don't even think it is an argument. Joe just flat out lied. It is kind of his thing to create a different issue and then lie about what the other person said.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Oh my god. I was just joking around when I suggested that you didn't know what the words you were using meant. It turns out that you apparently don't. Wow.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

I didn't agree with him. He lied about what I said. I never said the contract was "completely unguaranteed". He flat out lied about that. It isn't up for debate. He completely fabricated that statement and has continued to lie about it. He is a liar. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.


You are lying, again. I never contended he didn't get any guaranteed money. I said the "multiyear deal" was essentially entirely unguaranteed, because...it was. 84% of the dollars and the bulk (3/4s) of the time was non-guaranteed. If you sign a contract and the contract isn't entirely guaranteed, then...guess what...it isn't a guaranteed contract. Just ask Richard Sherman and the NFLPA.

84% of his contract was nonguaranteed. Do you consider that a low percentage or high percentage? If you say "low" you are a liar and/or an idiot. If a team signs someone to a "multiyear deal" (which is what was at issue, not the last 1/4 of the 1st year) and gives them the absolute minimum amount of guaranteed dollars possible would you say that is a contract which is guaranteed? If you say "yes", you are an idiot.

The multiyear deal was essentially entirely unguaranteed because 84% of the contract was non-guaranteed. That doesn't mean he didn't get any guaranteed money. Many, many contracts in sports are not fully guaranteed. This was most definitely not a fully guaranteed multiyear deal. If there was not a 2nd year and thus it was not a "multiyear deal" you would be right. However, there was a 2nd year, it was a "multiyear deal", and the "multiyear deal" was essentially entirely guaranteed because 84% of the value was non-guaranteed.

I think perhaps you don't know what the word "completely" means. You may not even know what "multiyear" or "guaranteed" means.


I don't even think it is an argument. Joe just flat out lied. It is kind of his thing to create a different issue and then lie about what the other person said.

He quoted you.
Move on

 

[Jpripper88]

He quoted you.
Move on

And I never once said that. He lied. Can you not read?

Oh my god. I was just joking around when I suggested that you didn't know what the words you were using meant. It turns out that you apparently don't. Wow.

Were you joking when you lied about what I posted? You still don't understand the deal was 84% non-guaranteed, do you?

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

And I never once said that. He lied. Can you not read?


Were you joking when you lied about what I posted? You still don't understand the deal was 84% non-guaranteed, do you?

I can. Which is why I also quoted you calling it essentially not guaranteed.
Despite acknowledging it was guaranteed for last season.
You made a silly argument. It happens.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You still don't understand the deal was 84% non-guaranteed, do you?

Of course a larger percentage was unguaranteed. I mean you understand the difference between someone getting paid for 1/3 of a season versus getting paid for a full season, right? Add in the fact that the second season would have been at a higher salary and it's pretty obvious that the unguaranteed portion was going to be worth a lot more. I mean if you want a pat on the back because you understand math that a reasonable intelligent ten year old understands, then consider your back patted. But that has nothing at all to do with the fact that his contract was guaranteed for the remainder of the 16-17 season. If they had signed him the last week of the season and that meant that all that was guaranteed was one or two game checks, then yeah, that would be essentially completely unguaranteed. But he didn't sign the contract the last week of the season. He wasn't only guaranteed one or two game check. He was signed in February. He was guaranteed somewhere around 25 game checks. The notion that that is essentially nothing because it was for the NBA minimum is absurd. Completely, utterly absurd. The only way that someone can think that you are on the correct side of this is if they do not understand what the words "essentially entirely unguaranteed" mean. And it in now abundantly clear that you have no idea what those words actually mean.

Or I guess it could the that you do know what those words mean but you continue defending the indefensible because you simply can't bring yourself to admit that you posted something that was and is incorrect. I guess we shouldn't discount that it could be that.

 

[Jpripper88]

Of course a larger percentage was unguaranteed. I mean you understand the difference between someone getting paid for 1/3 of a season versus getting paid for a full season, right? Add in the fact that the second season would have been at a higher salary and it's pretty obvious that the unguaranteed portion was going to be worth a lot more. I mean if you want a pat on the back because you understand math that a reasonable intelligent ten year old understands, then consider your back patted. But that has nothing at all to do with the fact that his contract was guaranteed for the remainder of the 16-17 season. If they had signed him the last week of the season and that meant that all that was guaranteed was one or two game checks, then yeah, that would be essentially completely unguaranteed. But he didn't sign the contract the last week of the season. He wasn't only guaranteed one or two game check. He was signed in February. He was guaranteed somewhere around 25 game checks. The notion that that is essentially nothing because it was for the NBA minimum is absurd. Completely, utterly absurd. The only way that someone can think that you are on the correct side of this is if they do not understand what the words "essentially entirely unguaranteed" mean. And it in now abundantly clear that you have no idea what those words actually mean.

Or I guess it could the that you do know what those words mean but you continue defending the indefensible because you simply can't bring yourself to admit that you posted something that was and is incorrect. I guess we shouldn't discount that it could be that.

Well, this clearly showed you don't know what you are talking about.

The Hawks had absolutely 0 interest in giving him a fully guaranteed contract or even 1 full year guaranteed. What was at issue was not the remainder of 1 season, but the contract it totality because it was described as a "multiyear deal", but, unfortunately, you can't read and so you still are missing that. The discussion was the contract as a "multiyear deal" and not just the last 1/3-1/4 of one season. Again, when discussing it as a "multiyear deal" (which I did not bring up, but made clear by quoting the post and including those words in quotes in my post) it was a contract where 84% was non-guaranteed and the absolute minimum amount of money which could possibly be guaranteed was guaranteed. The Hawks gave him a deal where they structured 84% of the dollars to be non-guaranteed and he got the absolute minimum amount of guaranteed dollars allowed by the CBA. They literally could not give him a contract with less guaranteed. They could have, however, guaranteed him much, much more money in a "multiyear deal" but they did not.

I can. Which is why I also quoted you calling it essentially not guaranteed.
Despite acknowledging it was guaranteed for last season.
You made a silly argument. It happens.

Which is not the same as Joe saying I said it was "completely unguaranteed". It was and is a complete lie. He is a liar. He knows he is a liar. It is his shtick.

Again, 84% of the deal was non-guaranteed. The guaranteed portion the Hawks agreed to was the absolute minimum. They could have given him far, far more money guaranteed. My argument that the deal was "essentially entirely unguaranteed" when 84% of the "multiyear deal" dollars were non-guaranteed and the absolute minimum amount of guaranteed dollars were included was not silly and entirely correct.

"Completely unguaranteed" =/= "essentially unguaranteed"
"completely" =/= "essentially"

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Well, this clearly showed you don't know what you are talking about.

The Hawks had absolutely 0 interest in giving him a fully guaranteed contract or even 1 full year guaranteed. What was at issue was not the remainder of 1 season, but the contract it totality because it was described as a "multiyear deal", but, unfortunately, you can't read and so you still are missing that. The discussion was the contract as a "multiyear deal" and not just the last 1/3-1/4 of one season. Again, when discussing it as a "multiyear deal" (which I did not bring up, but made clear by quoting the post and including those words in quotes in my post) it was a contract where 84% was non-guaranteed and the absolute minimum amount of money which could possibly be guaranteed was guaranteed. The Hawks gave him a deal where they structured 84% of the dollars to be non-guaranteed and he got the absolute minimum amount of guaranteed dollars allowed by the CBA. They literally could not give him a contract with less guaranteed. They could have, however, guaranteed him much, much more money in a "multiyear deal" but they did not.


Which is not the same as Joe saying I said it was "completely unguaranteed". It was and is a complete lie. He is a liar. He knows he is a liar. It is his shtick.

Again, 84% of the deal was non-guaranteed. The guaranteed portion the Hawks agreed to was the absolute minimum. They could have given him far, far more money guaranteed. My argument that the deal was "essentially entirely unguaranteed" when 84% of the "multiyear deal" dollars were non-guaranteed and the absolute minimum amount of guaranteed dollars were included was not silly and entirely correct.

"Completely unguaranteed" =/= "essentially unguaranteed"
"completely" =/= "essentially"

I suggest you start from page 2 rereaD.

You called his deal essentially unguaranteed.
Joe pointed out it was guaranteed for last season,and unguaranteed beyond that.

Ever since you've continued to agree with him while arguing the same point, calling him a liar for quoting you no less than 3 times, and holding fast to your stupidly worded "essentially entirely guaranteed " argument .

Move on. Sheesh, lawyers are really the worst.
You used words carelessly and were corrected . And now you're arguing that your words were fine- even though the only thing being argued was clarifying your poor semantics .

You and Joe agree on the main point.
At what % does it move from essentially unguaranteed to partially unguaranteed?

 

[Jpripper88]

I suggest you start from page 2 rereaD.

You called his deal essentially unguaranteed.
Joe pointed out it was guaranteed for last season,and unguaranteed beyond that.

Ever since you've continued to agree with him while arguing the same point, calling him a liar for quoting you no less than 3 times, and holding fast to your stupidly worded "essentially entirely guaranteed " argument .

Move on. Sheesh, lawyers are really the worst.
You used words carelessly and were corrected . And now you're arguing that your words were fine- even though the only thing being argued was clarifying your poor semantics .

You and Joe agree on the main point.
At what % does it move from essentially unguaranteed to partially unguaranteed?

I suggest you re-read. Joe didn't point out anything and was wrong when he tried to, like when he said: "He got a guaranteed deal for the rest of last season and nothing more." That of course was completely wrong. He did have another year of the deal (which prompted the subject of "multiyear deal") and that was entirely (compromising 84% of the contract) unguaranteed, which is why the total contract was essentially entirely unguaranteed with only 16% of the dollars being guaranteed.

Additionally, anyone talking about this should know the CBA and the fact the guaranteed portion of the contract was the lowest amount the Hawks could possible guarantee and could not be structured any differently at that point in the season to guarantee him less money. Joe didn't point anything out. That is the absolute basics of the CBA and business of the NBA.

You obviously still are unable to read the posts. Joe posted that I said his contract was "completely unguaranteed". That was a flat out lie and I have NEVER posted that. I clearly stated that the "multiyear deal" (again, that was the discussion, not what Joe and you tried to reinvent) was "essentially entirely unguaranteed" which very clearly acknowledges there was a guaranteed portion of the contract, but that the vast majority was non-guaranteed. Of course it is also common knowledge there is no other way to sign a player in his position, at that point in the season. Obviously ANY contract would HAVE to include some guaranteed money. The Hawks chose to make it a "multiyear deal" and make a contract which was essentially entirely unguaranteed and give them the flexibility (which I discussed) into the next season, instead of just signing him for the rest of the season.

BTW, why do you keep talking about lawyers? Someone doesn't need to be a lawyer to understand the difference between the words completely and essentially. You need to be a decently intelligent 4th grader.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Wait, so now you are hanging your hat on the fact that an NBA team signed a guy who had been playing in the D-League and on a couple of ten day contracts to a contract for the last 30% of the year to a league minimum deal? Just out of curiosity, how much do you think that any player in that situation gets? Has there ever been a player in a similar situation who signed for a significant amount above the minimum for the remainder of the season? Why on earth would a team pay a guy $1 million (or even more) when they are essentially a street free agent 2/3 of the way through the season?

For someone who thinks they really understand this process you seem to really not understand the way contracts like this work. Which I guess isn't surprising when you use words that you obviously don't know what they mean. Just a suggestion, and I know this is a bit old fashioned, but ask someone you know to give you a dictionary for Christmas. And then use it when you are about to post something like this. It will save everyone a lot of time, and you won't look nearly so dumb.

 

[Jpripper88]

Wait, so now you are hanging your hat on the fact that an NBA team signed a guy who had been playing in the D-League and on a couple of ten day contracts to a contract for the last 30% of the year to a league minimum deal? Just out of curiosity, how much do you think that any player in that situation gets? Has there ever been a player in a similar situation who signed for a significant amount above the minimum for the remainder of the season? Why on earth would a team pay a guy $1 million (or even more) when they are essentially a street free agent 2/3 of the way through the season?

For someone who thinks they really understand this process you seem to really not understand the way contracts like this work. Which I guess isn't surprising when you use words that you obviously don't know what they mean. Just a suggestion, and I know this is a bit old fashioned, but ask someone you know to give you a dictionary for Christmas. And then use it when you are about to post something like this. It will save everyone a lot of time, and you won't look nearly so dumb.

I'm not hanging my hat on anything. I have not been lying to change the argument.

I do understand how they work and I said that from the outset. He agreed to a "multiyear deal" and it was so the Hawks could control it non-guaranteed and give themselves all the flexibility. They probably would not have signed him if he wouldn't agree to make the 2nd year completely non-guaranteed and thus make the "multiyear deal" essentially entirely unguaranteed. That's why it is disengenous to talk about this being a guaranteed contract, like Souf tried to say, or even present the situation as him getting a "multiyear deal" meaning he had some sort of security, which was what was the subject I was responding to, before you tried to change the discussion and start lying left and right.

"Completely" =/= "Essentially"

I suggest you take your own advice, but maybe even add a thesaurus.*

*Note: That is not a type of dinosaur.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

"Completely" =/= "Essentially"

You are correct, completely and essentially do not mean the same thing. But essentially does mean almost completely. And his contract was guaranteed for the rest of the season, approximately 30% of the year. As I said, your word usage would make sense if he signed that contract with one or two games left in the season. A deal like that would be essentially completely unguaranteed. But that isn't when he signed the deal. He signed it in late February. With about seven weeks to go in the season.

Let's put it this way. If he signed to play the rest of the season but they didn't include the non-guaranteed second year would you still call that contract essentially completely unguaranteed? After all, it would have the exact same guaranteed term that the contract that he signed did and for the exact same amount of money. And yet 100% of that contract would be guaranteed. It would seem kind of silly to call a contract that was fully guaranteed essentially completely unguaranteed. No, check that, it wouldn't seem kind of silly, it actually would be silly. And yet that contract would have the exact same guaranteed term and the exact same amount of guaranteed money as the contract that you continue to erroneously call essentially completely unguaranteed. It is essentially completely obvious that you have no idea at all what the phrase that you used actually means.

 

[BuffetParrothead]

What's the NBA?
Since Mrs Buffett and I don't watch the NBA all we care about is getting donations from ex PITT athletes.
My guess is we'll donate more $ to PITT than all of these guys combined.
Most PITT pro athletes have been PR or monetary assets for the PITT athletic programs. Wonder Woman should try to change this around?

 

[Jpripper88]

You are correct, completely and essentially do not mean the same thing. But essentially does mean almost completely. And his contract was guaranteed for the rest of the season, approximately 30% of the year. As I said, your word usage would make sense if he signed that contract with one or two games left in the season. A deal like that would be essentially completely unguaranteed. But that isn't when he signed the deal. He signed it in late February. With about seven weeks to go in the season.

Let's put it this way. If he signed to play the rest of the season but they didn't include the non-guaranteed second year would you still call that contract essentially completely unguaranteed? After all, it would have the exact same guaranteed term that the contract that he signed did and for the exact same amount of money. And yet 100% of that contract would be guaranteed. It would seem kind of silly to call a contract that was fully guaranteed essentially completely unguaranteed. No, check that, it wouldn't seem kind of silly, it actually would be silly. And yet that contract would have the exact same guaranteed term and the exact same amount of guaranteed money as the contract that you continue to erroneously call essentially completely unguaranteed. It is essentially completely obvious that you have no idea at all what the phrase that you used actually means.

Why do you continually talk about the "rest of the season" when the subject was it being a "multiyear deal"? 16% of the "multiyear deal" was guaranteed and that was the lowest possible amount of guarantee the Hawks could agree to. They likely wouldn't have signed him if they couldn't get that extra year non-guaranteed.

The contract was not fully guaranteed. It was 16% guaranteed. It is not the same contract as if they would have given him a contract that just covered the remainder of the 2016-17 season and did not allow them control for the 2017-18 season.

You may not want to discuss the fact it was a "multiyear deal" but that is what was being discussed when you quoted my post.

I never called the contract "completely unguaranteed" or "essentially completely unguaranteed". When you attribute those things to me you are 100% a liar.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I never called the contract "completely unguaranteed" or "essentially completely unguaranteed". When you attribute those things to me you are 100% a liar.

Good god almighty, you've really lost your mind:

He signed a "multiyear deal" that was essentially entirely unguaranteed.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Good god almighty, you've really lost your mind:

Let it go, Joe

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Why do you continually talk about the "rest of the season" when the subject was it being a "multiyear deal"? 16% of the "multiyear deal" was guaranteed and that was the lowest possible amount of guarantee the Hawks could agree to. They likely wouldn't have signed him if they couldn't get that extra year non-guaranteed.

The contract was not fully guaranteed. It was 16% guaranteed. It is not the same contract as if they would have given him a contract that just covered the remainder of the 2016-17 season and did not allow them control for the 2017-18 season.

You may not want to discuss the fact it was a "multiyear deal" but that is what was being discussed when you quoted my post.

I never called the contract "completely unguaranteed" or "essentially completely unguaranteed". When you attribute those things to me you are 100% a liar.

"Essentially entirely unguaranteed " is literally a quote from you.

He signed a "multiyear deal" that was essentially entirely unguaranteed. It was just a way to give him a small amount of money and hopefully land the Hawks a cheap non-guaranteed contract they could gain a ton of value (as a player, but more importantly trade filler) if he could make the team.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Let it go, Joe

Yeah, I promised myself after last night that that was enough of this. But when I read today's silliness I couldn't help myself. I'll stop now.

 

[Jpripper88]

"Essentially entirely unguaranteed " is literally a quote from you.

Correct. And "completely unguaranteed" is not. Reading is important. Hopefully your kids do as they are told, not as you do.

Good god almighty, you've really lost your mind:

Correct. That is not the same as calling something "completely unguaranteed". Calling it "completely unguaranteed" would be wrong. Calling it "essentially entirely unguaranteed" is right, if you believe 84% of the multiyear deal being unguaranteed equates to "essentially entirely unguaranteed". However, you didn't disagree on the degree of "essentially". You created a false quote and lied attributing it to me AND you continually discussed only the 1st year of the "multiyear deal" which was completely different than the discussion you chimed in on.

 

[KiwiJeff]

Correct. And "completely unguaranteed" is not. Reading is important. Hopefully your kids do as they are told, not as you do.


Correct. That is not the same as calling something "completely unguaranteed". Calling it "completely unguaranteed" would be wrong. Calling it "essentially entirely unguaranteed" is right, if you believe 84% of the multiyear deal being unguaranteed equates to "essentially entirely unguaranteed". However, you didn't disagree on the degree of "essentially". You created a false quote and lied attributing it to me AND you continually discussed only the 1st year of the "multiyear deal" which was completely different than the discussion you chimed in on.

You guys are fighting about the meaning of essentially versus completely. Essentially, they mean the same thing, yet are completely different.

 

[Jpripper88]

You guys are fighting about the meaning of essentially versus completely. Essentially, they mean the same thing, yet are completely different.

Bigger issue is Joe changing the discussion to fit his narrative and not what was being discussed and then lying about what was posted.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Bigger issue is Joe changing the discussion to fit his narrative and not what was being discussed and then lying about what was posted.

I said I wouldn't, but one last time...

I quoted your posts directly. I retyped them word for word, I copied and pasted them and I used the board "reply" function where the board automatically quotes the post in question. The notion that I lied about what you posted while copying your post exactly, word for word, is so completely ridiculous that I can't believe that you are still clinging to it.

Although on second thought, after this thread I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you think I'm lying by directly and correctly quoting you, given that you appear to not understand what the words you are using mean.

 

[Jpripper88]

I said I wouldn't, but one last time...

I quoted your posts directly. I retyped them word for word, I copied and pasted them and I used the board "reply" function where the board automatically quotes the post in question. The notion that I lied about what you posted while copying your post exactly, word for word, is so completely ridiculous that I can't believe that you are still clinging to it.

Although on second thought, after this thread I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you think I'm lying by directly and correctly quoting you, given that you appear to not understand what the words you are using mean.

But you didn't retype them word for word. He COMPLETELY frabricated that I said the contract was "completely unguaranteed". I literally never said that. If I posted that ANYWHERE (other than saying you completely fabricated the quote) please quote it and show it. It should be very, very easy to find, if you have quoted it and/or retyped them word for word.

Here is where you lied:

I just wonder how many times you are going to call his contract completely unguaranteed and then in the very same post talk about how much money he had guaranteed. His contract either contained guaranteed money or it didn't contain guaranteed money. You keep admitting that it contained guaranteed money while simultaneous insisting that he didn't really get any guaranteed money.

If instead of Patterson asking for his release right after he signed the deal the Hawks had decided to cut him would the Hawks have owed him the entire salary they signed him for for last season? If you answer that question yes then by definition that means that he got guaranteed money (you'd also have answered the question correctly). If you answer that question no, the Hawks would not have owed him any more money, then that would mean his contract was not guaranteed (it would also mean that you were wrong). Just because the contract he signed was for the NBA minimum doesn't mean that it wasn't guaranteed, it means that he was a D-League player who had no leverage at all to get more than the minimum.

There will be dozens of player this season playing in the NBA who will have guaranteed contracts for the NBA minimum for their level of service time. Because they are playing for the minimum does that mean that their contracts really aren't guaranteed as well? When guys sign on with an NBA team for the league minimum after playing part of the season next year in the G-League will that mean that their deals aren't really guaranteed as well, even if their teams still owe them the full value of their contract the rest of the year if they cut him?

I NEVER once said his contract was "completely unguaranteed". You completely made that up.

You lied.

 

[passedout]

Coach Stallings has put 9 players in the NBA that he recruited/coached at Vandy, soooo....

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Coach Stallings has put 9 players in the NBA that he recruited/coached at Vandy, soooo....

NM