That is a good pick up. Perhaps we will see more of him and less of the
turning-over Harris... Yet we could still use Harris's defense off the
bench... Also I like when we are dumping some of our players in the east...
Powell and Daniels have a future.. so the Pacers made good on this as
well...
"Torrey M. Spears" <nwophoenix@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153678952.052480.187350@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 23:23:14 GMT, "*mavs*" <gomavz@gomavz.com>
enlightened us:


I'm not so sure the Pacers did a good thing here. Anthony Johnson was
our only PG with Jamal Tinsely sidelined so much. Replacing him with
an older, smaller player in Darrel Armstrong does not seem like a good
thing to me. Pacers must be thinking they can't rely on Tinsely to
last an entire season so they should have a better PG in the wings.



Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-


"In baseball, you don't know nothing."
--Yogi Berra
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

*mavs* wrote:
Perhaps we will see more of him and less of the

And perhaps the Mavs will lose again.

<imaginehappiness@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153787161.494862.155830@m79g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com...


LOL... you still havent figured out how retarded that Harris thing is do
you? Youre a complete idiot. Then again youre the same guy who told us that
we lost a game because Harris ONLY had 26 min 6 turn overs, and no points.

*mavs* wrote:


I've figured out that you haven't figured out how great Harris is and
will be.It seems to me the idiot would be the one not recoginizing
great talent and the spark plug for the team Harris is when he's in.He
blows pass people like tony parker.To only point out turnovers and
ignore the quality of his game is very simpleton like.I pointed out
that when Harris was in more than 33 mins they won most of their
playoff games.Just because some people acted like he wasn't apart of
their success at all.
Some people just can't put 2 and 2 together or at least admit it.

imaginehappin...@yahoo.com wrote:
youre the same guy who told us that
I said when Harris had 33 mins or more,they won the game 9 times out of
ten in the playoffs.Could they have won the game if he had less?Yes.You
guys were piling on him saying to take him out and that he wasn't a
difference maker at all.
But as I pointed out, when they lost he usually had less than 33.Less
than 33 didn't mean an automatic loss,but when they did lose,he had
less than 33 mins,where as when he had 33 or more,they won.I was just
going by statistics by way of boxscore.What a person weens from that is
up to them but clearly the facts don't lie as he is a difference
maker.Whether it was a byproduct or whatever,you brought your own
suppositions to it,saying less than 33 was a loss, I was just stating
the fact which is irrefutable.YOu brought your own meaning to it.

<imaginehappiness@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153863205.131395.156240@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...


I think you built yourself up on that and then kept going because of your
pride.

Harris may or may not have a future, but it has nothing to do with your
silly predictions and idiotic comments like "Ope' Harris only got 29 min.
Thats why we lost." Or when Harris had no points, no assist, and 6
turnovers, you still demanded we lost because he only had 26 or 28 min.

You just don't get how incredibly insane that is. You even told us you were
leaving the chat, but you can't help yourself. Youre so inlove with yourself
and your ideas that you will spew them even more.

Admit it. Youre a fuck face.

<imaginehappiness@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153863905.501845.256410@m79g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com...


Do you realize youre double answering now?

*mavs* wrote:


I was gonna leave becaude buttheads like you but then you would win so
get used to me sister.





I admit you have an anger problem but I still love you.

*mavs* wrote:

SOmetimes you have to tell a dog to get your slippers more than once.)