Well, in this case, we all had moved past it, right?

It was just some troll who decided to be, you know, a troll and bring it up again because he was a troll.

The internet where arguments never end

One last thing on Cole Aldrich; I don’t recall any of his advocates suggesting he should get 30+ minutes. It became obvious fairly quickly that he physically could not do that.

His ideal number on the Knicks teams he was on was lower than 30, and probably lower than 20 at that, but higher than zero in favor of Andrea Bargnani. I’m a little confused about how that’s remotely controversial.

Oh man, it was so controversial. I was just re-reading the old threads and they are so stupid. That is how it came to seem as though all we ever talked about was Cole, because the arguments against playing him were so stupid that they kept popping up. Seriously, people were saying shit like “Just because you created this site doesn’t mean you’re smart” to Mike when Mike said we should give Cole 10 minutes a game. Because, of course, Cole was on his third (fourth?) team at the time and it was an insult to Bargnani to think that Cole could do better.

That was basically the way Cole talk went for a while – “Cole shouldn’t play any minutes.” – Cole then plays minutes and is pretty darn useful

“New Knick President Phil Jackson knows better, he won’t bring Cole back” – Jackson brings Cole back

“Only this shitty team would want him” – Good Clippers team signs him

“No GM would ever pay him over the vet minimum” – Cole gets three years/$22 million

It wasn’t even that Cole should have been paid that much, it was just that the fact that (up until that point) no one had given him a big contract was used to “prove” that Cole wasn’t any good (appeals to authority and all of that).

His ideal number on the Knicks teams he was on was lower than 30, and probably lower than 20 at that, but higher than zero in favor of Andrea Bargnani. I’m a little confused about how that’s remotely controversial.