CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: Monkhouse on July 18, 2013, 02:46:17 PM
-
http://www.kartalhaber.com/haber/13073471/colton-iverson-besiktasta.html
Besiktas news website just reported that Colton Iverson has agreed to terms to play in Turkey for Semih Erden.
This would definitely suit his playing style though, hustling, rebounding, and doing the dirty work. I really didn't want him to leave us, but it'll do him well to improve on his interior defense.
By the way, Google translate absolutely sucks....
-
That is great - solves the roster problems and gives the guy a chance to improve his game. We don't need him now anyway. If he proves to be the next Perk, we will be in very good shape.
-
This seems like a good move. Cs keep his rights while another team pays to develop him. M
-
Yes. It was to be expected. He gets to learn in Europe for a year while we get to keep his rights. It is better than the D league because there is no salary hit this year and frees up a roster spot.
-
Yes. It was to be expected. He gets to learn in Europe for a year while we get to keep his rights. It is better than the D league because there is no salary hit this year and frees up a roster spot.
Yup, win-win. Although, I feel bad for Colt 45, I'm pretty sure he wanted to play a game in the NBA. But at least it'll be a great learning experience. I always said the D-League doesn't teach well versus traveling overseas. You gain a whole new perspective, and learn different rules and semantics that really shape up your game.
-
That explains the Faverani move even more now. Good move. I think in a couple years Colt will be ready to take over that 10-15 minute backup Center role for us. I hope he puts in the work over seas.
-
if this is tru then great. nobody has to be waived. but theres still 5 shooting guards on the squad, wit 2 small forwards and 2 point guards.
rondo/pressey
bradley/lee/brooks/crawford/bogans
green/wallace
sully/olynyk/bass
shav/melo/fav
is this wat the depth chart is lookin right now if this is tru?
-
That explains the Faverani move even more now.
I think signing Faverani may be what pushed Iverson to go overseas rather than the Celtics signing Faverani because they thought Colton wasn't going to sign.
-
if this is tru then great. nobody has to be waived. but theres still 5 shooting guards on the squad, wit 2 small forwards and 2 point guards.
rondo/pressey
bradley/lee/brooks/crawford/bogans
green/wallace
sully/olynyk/bass
shav/melo/fav
is this wat the depth chart is lookin right now if this is tru?
You forgot Humphries.
-
if this is tru then great. nobody has to be waived. but theres still 5 shooting guards on the squad, wit 2 small forwards and 2 point guards.
rondo/pressey
bradley/lee/brooks/crawford/bogans
green/wallace
sully/olynyk/bass
shav/melo/fav
is this wat the depth chart is lookin right now if this is tru?
You kinda missing Humphries.
-
if this is tru then great. nobody has to be waived. but theres still 5 shooting guards on the squad, wit 2 small forwards and 2 point guards.
rondo/pressey
bradley/lee/brooks/crawford/bogans
green/wallace
sully/olynyk/bass
shav/melo/fav
is this wat the depth chart is lookin right now if this is tru?
You kinda missing Humphries.
oh woops. so thats 16. still gotta either waive 1 or trade 2 for 1.
-
Makes no sense! Save a roster spot for who? Don't we want a young team, where we are developing players without the worry of winning games? CI is exactly what we want and need on this years team, not vets like Bass and Lee who have no more potential, or Fab, who CI is already miles ahead of, in terms of talent and desire!
IMO, big mistake, if true---but I'll wait to see if the article is the same as us having already signed Ditome to a contract! ::)
-
if this is tru then great. nobody has to be waived. but theres still 5 shooting guards on the squad, wit 2 small forwards and 2 point guards.
rondo/pressey
bradley/lee/brooks/crawford/bogans
green/wallace
sully/olynyk/bass
shav/melo/fav
is this wat the depth chart is lookin right now if this is tru?
You kinda missing Humphries.
oh woops. so thats 16. still gotta either waive 1 or trade 2 for 1.
Figure Shav to be gone. we'll probably see Oly and Humphries spend time at the 5 spot since Melo will be in Maine leaving Fav as the only true center.
Any American publication/site confirm that Iverson is definitely going overseas?
-
It sounded like this was where this was heading. I'm sorry to see it however. I thought he was ready to. take the next step in the NBA and this was the year for him to be out there learning.
I'm afraid Danny's having more difficulty than anticipated dumping some vet contracts. On the other hand, if he's got, say, a trade in the works for Asik, that's something else again.
I'm already anticipating the 2014 SL will have a Groundhog Day feel to it, as FM and CI share center duties again.
-
if this is tru then great. nobody has to be waived. but theres still 5 shooting guards on the squad, wit 2 small forwards and 2 point guards.
rondo/pressey
bradley/lee/brooks/crawford/bogans
green/wallace
sully/olynyk/bass
shav/melo/fav
is this wat the depth chart is lookin right now if this is tru?
You kinda missing Humphries.
oh woops. so thats 16. still gotta either waive 1 or trade 2 for 1.
Figure Shav to be gone. we'll probably see Oly and Humphries spend time at the 5 spot since Melo will be in Maine leaving Fav as the only true center.
Any American publication/site confirm that Iverson is definitely going overseas?
if colton does go overseas and the roster sits at 16 and the celtics dont wanna waive shav and instead look to unload 2 of their shooting guards could they trade for a pg? im thinkin san antonio. not including parker they have 3 young pgs in mills, de colo, and joseph, and 2 shooting guards in manu and belinelli.
a trade of crawford+brooks for any of those 3 players could work. the way the spurs organization is, i dont think they'd have an issue wit any attitude problems wit brooks and crawford. think sas would do that?
-
I'm disappointed at this news. Presuming that Danny doesn't bring in another center this offseason, Iverson should be here and be playing.
Sully, Bass, and Humphries are 4s, and though KO has the height for C, he's really a 4 too, which leaves only Fav and Fab, and more and more I'm coming to believe that Fab will never be an NBA player. Iverson is certainly better than him at this point, and to me has more potential, so I'd rather see Fab cut and Iverson stick.
-
I'm disappointed at this news. Presuming that Danny doesn't bring in another center this offseason, Iverson should be here and be playing.
Sully, Bass, and Humphries are 4s, and though KO has the height for C, he's really a 4 too, which leaves only Fav and Fab, and more and more I'm coming to believe that Fab will never be an NBA player. Iverson is certainly better than him at this point, and to me has more potential, so I'd rather see Fab cut and Iverson stick.
This make me think DA has a deal in the works for a C if this is all true.
Asik or Aldridge?
-
I'm disappointed at this news. Presuming that Danny doesn't bring in another center this offseason, Iverson should be here and be playing.
Sully, Bass, and Humphries are 4s, and though KO has the height for C, he's really a 4 too, which leaves only Fav and Fab, and more and more I'm coming to believe that Fab will never be an NBA player. Iverson is certainly better than him at this point, and to me has more potential, so I'd rather see Fab cut and Iverson stick.
This make me think DA has a deal in the works for a C if this is all true.
Asik or Aldridge?
I'd sure be happy with either, especially LA.
-
If this is confirmed, and Colton is playing in Turkey, this means great news. The top Turkish clubs are spending boatloads of money to bring the best players in Europe to their league. He'll play against real seven footers and he'll play more minutes there, so it's all good for him.
For the Celtics, this means Danny can package Shav+Crawford and bring back a TPE or expiring contract, or maybe Phoenix is so desperate to get rid of Kendall Marshall that we can bring him to the Cs for those two. That would be the first of many more moves, but it probably eases the pressure on roster total number.
-
Wasn't this already confirmed a long while ago? Right after getting drafted, I remember Iverson's camp saying that they would look overseas to develop rather than the D-League. They didn't have an agreement reached just yet, but the plan was pretty much settled.
-
If this is confirmed, and Colton is playing in Turkey, this means great news. The top Turkish clubs are spending boatloads of money to bring the best players in Europe to their league. He'll play against real seven footers and he'll play more minutes there, so it's all good for him.
For the Celtics, this means Danny can package Shav+Crawford and bring back a TPE or expiring contract, or maybe Phoenix is so desperate to get rid of Kendall Marshall that we can bring him to the Cs for those two. That would be the first of many more moves, but it probably eases the pressure on roster total number.
Good call. I'm also wondering if Danny sits Olynyk as 6th man ans starts Shavlik or the brazillian.
Brazillian (not named melo)
Sully
Green
Bradley
Rondo
Pressey back up pg.
Olynyk back up pf.
Brooks back up sg.
Randolph back up C.
Wallace back up SF.
Would Dallas take courtney lee from us for a 2nd rounder?
Move humphries or Bass now and other at deadline.
Keep wallace because we need to fill salary minimum unless he goes out in rondo deal of some kind.
Iverson overseas and send crawford +2nd rounder for Kendall Marshall to play back up pg/sg duties.
Young team playing its heart out that is almost guaranteed a top 6-8 pick due to youth and inexperience.
-
Wasn't this already confirmed a long while ago? Right after getting drafted, I remember Iverson's camp saying that they would look overseas to develop rather than the D-League. They didn't have an agreement reached just yet, but the plan was pretty much settled.
They say this is the worst case scenario. As in they won't cut him, they'll stash him overseas at worst.
Best case scenario presumably is he plays in BOS.
-
If this is confirmed, and Colton is playing in Turkey, this means great news. The top Turkish clubs are spending boatloads of money to bring the best players in Europe to their league. He'll play against real seven footers and he'll play more minutes there, so it's all good for him.
For the Celtics, this means Danny can package Shav+Crawford and bring back a TPE or expiring contract, or maybe Phoenix is so desperate to get rid of Kendall Marshall that we can bring him to the Cs for those two. That would be the first of many more moves, but it probably eases the pressure on roster total number.
Good call. I'm also wondering if Danny sits Olynyk as 6th man ans starts Shavlik or the brazillian.
Brazillian (not named melo)
Sully
Green
Bradley
Rondo
Pressey back up pg.
Olynyk back up pf.
Brooks back up sg.
Randolph back up C.
Wallace back up SF.
Would Dallas take courtney lee from us for a 2nd rounder?
Move humphries or Bass now and other at deadline.
Keep wallace because we need to fill salary minimum unless he goes out in rondo deal of some kind.
Iverson overseas and send crawford +2nd rounder for Kendall Marshall to play back up pg/sg duties.
Young team playing its heart out that is almost guaranteed a top 6-8 pick due to youth and inexperience.
THIS
-
i like Iverson
we need another solid big off the bench
-
Colton would be useful for us .....I think more than Fab way I see it
-
I'm disappointed at this news. Presuming that Danny doesn't bring in another center this offseason, Iverson should be here and be playing.
Sully, Bass, and Humphries are 4s, and though KO has the height for C, he's really a 4 too, which leaves only Fav and Fab, and more and more I'm coming to believe that Fab will never be an NBA player. Iverson is certainly better than him at this point, and to me has more potential, so I'd rather see Fab cut and Iverson stick.
I'm absolutely disappointed. This is the year to develop raw young talent like CI. Develop them in the Celts org in the N.B.A.
Was he gonna hurt our chances at banner 18 this year ::) We got a great assistant that coulda worked with him >:(
-
Makes no sense! Save a roster spot for who? Don't we want a young team, where we are developing players without the worry of winning games? CI is exactly what we want and need on this years team, not vets like Bass and Lee who have no more potential, or Fab, who CI is already miles ahead of, in terms of talent and desire!
IMO, big mistake, if true---but I'll wait to see if the article is the same as us having already signed Ditome to a contract! ::)
Melo and the other are already under contract.
You also might be confused about expectations for Iverson. We are hoping that he could he an NBA caliber player. Lee and Bass are already rotations guys. If Iverson way outperforms expectations, he probably still isn't as good as either Lee or Bass. Iverson is looking like one of those guys you bring out against certain matchups when people are in foul trouble.
This is the best solution. We retain our rights and we subtract one from the roster. He gets a chance to develop and we aren't forced to cut him.
-
I'm disappointed at this news. Presuming that Danny doesn't bring in another center this offseason, Iverson should be here and be playing.
Sully, Bass, and Humphries are 4s, and though KO has the height for C, he's really a 4 too, which leaves only Fav and Fab, and more and more I'm coming to believe that Fab will never be an NBA player. Iverson is certainly better than him at this point, and to me has more potential, so I'd rather see Fab cut and Iverson stick.
I don't see why Iverson would have more potential. He's already a year older than Melo and he's been playing far longer, so it seems far more likely that he will experience a lot less improvement than Melo.
That doesn't mean that their of them will ever matter in the NBA. Maybe the Celtics really didn't care about either guy at this point, but Melo is sticking because he has a contract.
-
I don't see why Iverson would have more potential. He's already a year older than Melo and he's been playing far longer, so it seems far more likely that he will experience a lot less improvement than Melo.
That doesn't mean that their of them will ever matter in the NBA. Maybe the Celtics really didn't care about either guy at this point, but Melo is sticking because he has a contract.
Strongly but politely disagree.
Melo played another sport until later in life. I don't know if he was ever good at Soccer. I would speculate no since he changed sports. He has a hand eye coordination problem that is evident when a 6'5 220lb dude wrestles the ball away or stuffs him at the rim. He was a 7' A.B by the looks on their faces when the got on the parquet. Avery got better. Maybe Fab does too? I doubt it strongly. I disagree with your using CI and his age which is a whopping..what? He can play the "Perk" role with a polishing of the skill set he displayed in just 3 S.L. games. No baby hook or anything. Box out, punish in the paint, go after boards. He would probably exceed Perk in board crashing as that wasn't a Perk specialty.
Be patient with a guy we drafted 2 years ago and has had a season of D.L. and 2 S.L.'s but not give the guy we just got some time makes no sense to me.
The brazilian Center..man what the hell?
This is us for the 1st time in years getting to develop young talent "live"...one part of rebuilding I will enjoy...LET ME SEE MY BOY!!! ;D
-
And another binky is swept from the arms of CelticsBlog.
Let the wailing wall stand occupied.
-
If this is confirmed, and Colton is playing in Turkey, this means great news. The top Turkish clubs are spending boatloads of money to bring the best players in Europe to their league. He'll play against real seven footers and he'll play more minutes there, so it's all good for him.
For the Celtics, this means Danny can package Shav+Crawford and bring back a TPE or expiring contract, or maybe Phoenix is so desperate to get rid of Kendall Marshall that we can bring him to the Cs for those two. That would be the first of many more moves, but it probably eases the pressure on roster total number.
Good call. I'm also wondering if Danny sits Olynyk as 6th man ans starts Shavlik or the brazillian.
Brazillian (not named melo)
Sully
Green
Bradley
Rondo
Pressey back up pg.
Olynyk back up pf.
Brooks back up sg.
Randolph back up C.
Wallace back up SF.
Would Dallas take courtney lee from us for a 2nd rounder?
Move humphries or Bass now and other at deadline.
Keep wallace because we need to fill salary minimum unless he goes out in rondo deal of some kind.
Iverson overseas and send crawford +2nd rounder for Kendall Marshall to play back up pg/sg duties.
Young team playing its heart out that is almost guaranteed a top 6-8 pick due to youth and inexperience.
Why would Phoenix be so desperate to get rid of someone on a rookie contract with a team option for the following year?
And on what planet is Lee's value comparable to a 2nd round pick?
-
Jay King tweeted this a couple of hours ago:
Jay King @ByJayKing 2h
Source: Colton Iverson has not signed with a team in Turkey and no decision yet has been made on his future.
Good news IMO, as I firmly believes he belongs on the team, getting some playing time this year.
-
better pack heat if he goes.......
like the Wild West over there
-
The D-league seems to me better suited to developing guards, I think colten will be better served in turkey while the Cs see if Fab is going to sink or swim.
-
Turkey is admist a political mess, Colton will not like there. But basketballwise he could be a realba$$ back in Boston. Depending of the team, he gets to play Euroleague and he gets to bang with the biggest and the baddest unskilled-dirtyplaying-giants in the craziest of arenas in the bb-world. That should get him ready to do some dirty laundry in the NBA. Coz heīs a bada$$ already.
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
-
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
Not that it matters a lot, but Turkey has a European part and an Asian part. Bosphorus is the limit.
-
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
Not that it matters a lot, but Turkey has a European part and an Asian part. Bosphorus is the limit.
Turkey is not a part of europe.
-
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
Not that it matters a lot, but Turkey has a European part and an Asian part. Bosphorus is the limit.
Turkey is not a part of europe.
As the one claiming that Colton Iverson is going to be a badass, I would've figured that you'd let the details slide.
-
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
Not that it matters a lot, but Turkey has a European part and an Asian part. Bosphorus is the limit.
Turkey is not a part of europe.
As the one claiming that Colton Iverson is going to be a badass, I would've figured that you'd let the details slide.
Look at the map, read about it. My statement is a fact. PM me if you want to discuss this, this is a wrong place to talk about that.
-
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
Not that it matters a lot, but Turkey has a European part and an Asian part. Bosphorus is the limit.
Turkey is not a part of europe.
As the one claiming that Colton Iverson is going to be a badass, I would've figured that you'd let the details slide.
Look at the map, read about it. My statement is a fact. PM me if you want to discuss this, this is a wrong place to talk about that.
I'm actually in full agreement with you.
I just feel like making jokes about C.I.
-
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
Not that it matters a lot, but Turkey has a European part and an Asian part. Bosphorus is the limit.
Turkey is not a part of europe.
As the one claiming that Colton Iverson is going to be a badass, I would've figured that you'd let the details slide.
Look at the map, read about it. My statement is a fact. PM me if you want to discuss this, this is a wrong place to talk about that.
I'm actually in full agreement with you.
I just feel like making jokes about C.I.
Ah, okay. And all I meant originally, that after CI lives through this, MSG isnīt so scary :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0TZpqjgi5U
-
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
Not that it matters a lot, but Turkey has a European part and an Asian part. Bosphorus is the limit.
Turkey is not a part of europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosphorus
you're welcome
-
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
Not that it matters a lot, but Turkey has a European part and an Asian part. Bosphorus is the limit.
Turkey is not a part of europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosphorus
you're welcome
True, but only about 3% of Turkey's land mass is in Europe. It is primarily in Asia Minor, which is part of Asia.
-
Iverson is much better served playing in Turkey. He will play a lot more and at a much higher level of competition. As people have pointed out, its also an extremely difficult place to play and he will learn a ton. For a kid from the Midwest, he will grow up pretty [dang] fast. Don't see why him playing 3 minutes a night in Boston is better, nor is him playing 20 minutes in Maine. The D League isn't great because I don't think the players REALLY care about winning. Its more of a place to get minutes, but the intensity levels aren't that high. In Turkey, you are playing for a title that people are TRULY PASSIONATE about. I doubt anyone at Maine cared whether they won the league title or not... does it even exist?
In any case, Iverson will go into a completely foreign environment and he will have to learn fast. He'll play hard against very good competition and the intensity levels will be high. He will be banging with some big units there who care as much or more about that next rebound as he does. He's the perfect guy to go play in Turkey.
-
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
Not that it matters a lot, but Turkey has a European part and an Asian part. Bosphorus is the limit.
Turkey is not a part of europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosphorus
you're welcome
True, but only about 3% of Turkey's land mass is in Europe. It is primarily in Asia Minor, which is part of Asia.
Nobody said it was 50/50. But Istambul is half European, half Asian. And it doesn't matter a lot, as I said first, but facts are facts.
-
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
Not that it matters a lot, but Turkey has a European part and an Asian part. Bosphorus is the limit.
Turkey is not a part of europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosphorus
you're welcome
True, but only about 3% of Turkey's land mass is in Europe. It is primarily in Asia Minor, which is part of Asia.
Nobody said it was 50/50. But Istambul is half European, half Asian. And it doesn't matter a lot, as I said first, but facts are facts.
Turkey is a long way into the process of becoming a member of the European Union, so I think that answers the question of wether they are part of Europe or not.
-
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
Not that it matters a lot, but Turkey has a European part and an Asian part. Bosphorus is the limit.
Turkey is not a part of europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosphorus
you're welcome
True, but only about 3% of Turkey's land mass is in Europe. It is primarily in Asia Minor, which is part of Asia.
Nobody said it was 50/50. But Istambul is half European, half Asian. And it doesn't matter a lot, as I said first, but facts are facts.
Turkey is a long way into the process of becoming a member of the European Union, so I think that answers the question of wether they are part of Europe or not.
Being part of the European Union is not the same as being a part of Europe. Russia is part of European Continent, and I don't think they'll ever become a member of the EU.
Geographically speaking, Europe and Asia are traditionally separated by the Bosphorus and the Urals. Every frontier is a political convention, though, and I don't think it's better being a European or an Asian country. It just bugs me to read "Turkey really isn't Europe".
-
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
Not that it matters a lot, but Turkey has a European part and an Asian part. Bosphorus is the limit.
Turkey is not a part of europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosphorus
you're welcome
True, but only about 3% of Turkey's land mass is in Europe. It is primarily in Asia Minor, which is part of Asia.
Nobody said it was 50/50. But Istambul is half European, half Asian. And it doesn't matter a lot, as I said first, but facts are facts.
Turkey is a long way into the process of becoming a member of the European Union, so I think that answers the question of wether they are part of Europe or not.
Being part of the European Union is not the same as being a part of Europe. Russia is part of European Continent, and I don't think they'll ever become a member of the EU.
Geographically speaking, Europe and Asia are traditionally separated by the Bosphorus and the Urals. Every frontier is a political convention, though, and I don't think it's better being a European or an Asian country. It just bugs me to read "Turkey really isn't Europe".
Well, it isnīt. Geographically, religiously or politically.
-
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
Not that it matters a lot, but Turkey has a European part and an Asian part. Bosphorus is the limit.
Turkey is not a part of europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosphorus
you're welcome
True, but only about 3% of Turkey's land mass is in Europe. It is primarily in Asia Minor, which is part of Asia.
Nobody said it was 50/50. But Istambul is half European, half Asian. And it doesn't matter a lot, as I said first, but facts are facts.
Turkey is a long way into the process of becoming a member of the European Union, so I think that answers the question of wether they are part of Europe or not.
Being part of the European Union is not the same as being a part of Europe. Russia is part of European Continent, and I don't think they'll ever become a member of the EU.
Geographically speaking, Europe and Asia are traditionally separated by the Bosphorus and the Urals. Every frontier is a political convention, though, and I don't think it's better being a European or an Asian country. It just bugs me to read "Turkey really isn't Europe".
a slight variation on the above and a thread highjack.
not being in the EU does not mean you are not european. you can european and not part of the EU. before england was admitted it was no less european. and being a member did not make it "more european", whatever that would be.
now, does being in the EU make you european? doubtful. if for what ever reason japan were to join (hey, it might happen) would they become european? not in my mind.
turkey is part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). on the maps i use, i dont see turkey as remotely close to the northern atlantic. but there you go.
now then, "is turkey a european country" may not be a "map fact" question. turkey does lie in BOTH supposed continents. it seems more a call of preference than "fact" is involved. often, facts are simply beliefs about the world that we all agree are "true".
for europeans for centuries, the world was flat. for many people from east asia at the same time, they would have laughed at that thought and shown you maps of the world and europe demonstrating the world is a sphere.
but now to double hijack the thread. continents themselves are not actual "facts" that exist outside human contrivances and conventions. that is, people created the concept of a continent long ago and we today inherited it, often unquestioningly.
where does europe end and asia being...and why? it has nothing to do with geography since if you look at the map there is one, huge chunk of land, all connected. the "line" exists only because people decided to draw it...and mostly for cultural reasons.
and by the way, the ural mountains are not key to dividing europe from asia. after all, the himalayas are a lot more imposing than the urals. the himalays kept the mongols from whomping the snot out of india. the urals didnt save the europeans from the mongols beating them like gongs did they?
but we dont seriously say india is its own continent because of mountains do we.
there you go. your post-colonialish geography lesson for the day. ;D
-
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
Not that it matters a lot, but Turkey has a European part and an Asian part. Bosphorus is the limit.
Turkey is not a part of europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosphorus
you're welcome
True, but only about 3% of Turkey's land mass is in Europe. It is primarily in Asia Minor, which is part of Asia.
Nobody said it was 50/50. But Istambul is half European, half Asian. And it doesn't matter a lot, as I said first, but facts are facts.
Turkey is a long way into the process of becoming a member of the European Union, so I think that answers the question of wether they are part of Europe or not.
Being part of the European Union is not the same as being a part of Europe. Russia is part of European Continent, and I don't think they'll ever become a member of the EU.
Geographically speaking, Europe and Asia are traditionally separated by the Bosphorus and the Urals. Every frontier is a political convention, though, and I don't think it's better being a European or an Asian country. It just bugs me to read "Turkey really isn't Europe".
a slight variation on the above and a thread highjack.
not being in the EU does not mean you are not european. you can european and not part of the EU. before england was admitted it was no less european. and being a member did not make it "more european", whatever that would be.
now, does being in the EU make you european? doubtful. if for what ever reason japan were to join (hey, it might happen) would they become european? not in my mind.
turkey is part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). on the maps i use, i dont see turkey as remotely close to the northern atlantic. but there you go.
now then, "is turkey a european country" may not be a "map fact" question. turkey does lie in BOTH supposed continents. it seems more a call of preference than "fact" is involved. often, facts are simply beliefs about the world that we all agree are "true".
for europeans for centuries, the world was flat. for many people from east asia at the same time, they would have laughed at that thought and shown you maps of the world and europe demonstrating the world is a sphere.
but now to double hijack the thread. continents themselves are not actual "facts" that exist outside human contrivances and conventions. that is, people created the concept of a continent long ago and we today inherited it, often unquestioningly.
where does europe end and asia being...and why? it has nothing to do with geography since if you look at the map there is one, huge chunk of land, all connected. the "line" exists only because people decided to draw it...and mostly for cultural reasons.
and by the way, the ural mountains are not key to dividing europe from asia. after all, the himalayas are a lot more imposing than the urals. the himalays kept the mongols from whomping the snot out of india. the urals didnt save the europeans from the mongols beating them like gongs did they?
but we dont seriously say india is its own continent because of mountains do we.
there you go. your post-colonialish geography lesson for the day. ;D
I hope you guys can find a way to forward this discussion to Colton, so he can familiarize himself with the full spectrum of geopolitical considerations involved in his decision.
-
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
Not that it matters a lot, but Turkey has a European part and an Asian part. Bosphorus is the limit.
Turkey is not a part of europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosphorus
you're welcome
True, but only about 3% of Turkey's land mass is in Europe. It is primarily in Asia Minor, which is part of Asia.
Nobody said it was 50/50. But Istambul is half European, half Asian. And it doesn't matter a lot, as I said first, but facts are facts.
Turkey is a long way into the process of becoming a member of the European Union, so I think that answers the question of wether they are part of Europe or not.
Being part of the European Union is not the same as being a part of Europe. Russia is part of European Continent, and I don't think they'll ever become a member of the EU.
Geographically speaking, Europe and Asia are traditionally separated by the Bosphorus and the Urals. Every frontier is a political convention, though, and I don't think it's better being a European or an Asian country. It just bugs me to read "Turkey really isn't Europe".
a slight variation on the above and a thread highjack.
not being in the EU does not mean you are not european. you can european and not part of the EU. before england was admitted it was no less european. and being a member did not make it "more european", whatever that would be.
now, does being in the EU make you european? doubtful. if for what ever reason japan were to join (hey, it might happen) would they become european? not in my mind.
turkey is part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). on the maps i use, i dont see turkey as remotely close to the northern atlantic. but there you go.
now then, "is turkey a european country" may not be a "map fact" question. turkey does lie in BOTH supposed continents. it seems more a call of preference than "fact" is involved. often, facts are simply beliefs about the world that we all agree are "true".
for europeans for centuries, the world was flat. for many people from east asia at the same time, they would have laughed at that thought and shown you maps of the world and europe demonstrating the world is a sphere.
but now to double hijack the thread. continents themselves are not actual "facts" that exist outside human contrivances and conventions. that is, people created the concept of a continent long ago and we today inherited it, often unquestioningly.
where does europe end and asia being...and why? it has nothing to do with geography since if you look at the map there is one, huge chunk of land, all connected. the "line" exists only because people decided to draw it...and mostly for cultural reasons.
and by the way, the ural mountains are not key to dividing europe from asia. after all, the himalayas are a lot more imposing than the urals. the himalays kept the mongols from whomping the snot out of india. the urals didnt save the europeans from the mongols beating them like gongs did they?
but we dont seriously say india is its own continent because of mountains do we.
there you go. your post-colonialish geography lesson for the day. ;D
I hope you guys can find a way to forward this discussion to Colton, so he can familiarize himself with the full spectrum of geopolitical considerations involved in his decision.
i believe he is a college graduate. i am sure he already knows all this. ;)
-
I hope you guys can find a way to forward this discussion to Colton, so he can familiarize himself with the full spectrum of geopolitical considerations involved in his decision.
i believe he is a college graduate. i am sure he already knows all this. ;)
If not, perhaps there is a job waiting for you as his personal cultural attache.
-
I wonder which draftees do better in school during their college years--the top 30 or the bottom 30?
-
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
Not that it matters a lot, but Turkey has a European part and an Asian part. Bosphorus is the limit.
Turkey is not a part of europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosphorus
you're welcome
True, but only about 3% of Turkey's land mass is in Europe. It is primarily in Asia Minor, which is part of Asia.
Nobody said it was 50/50. But Istambul is half European, half Asian. And it doesn't matter a lot, as I said first, but facts are facts.
Turkey is a long way into the process of becoming a member of the European Union, so I think that answers the question of wether they are part of Europe or not.
Being part of the European Union is not the same as being a part of Europe. Russia is part of European Continent, and I don't think they'll ever become a member of the EU.
Geographically speaking, Europe and Asia are traditionally separated by the Bosphorus and the Urals. Every frontier is a political convention, though, and I don't think it's better being a European or an Asian country. It just bugs me to read "Turkey really isn't Europe".
a slight variation on the above and a thread highjack.
not being in the EU does not mean you are not european. you can european and not part of the EU. before england was admitted it was no less european. and being a member did not make it "more european", whatever that would be.
now, does being in the EU make you european? doubtful. if for what ever reason japan were to join (hey, it might happen) would they become european? not in my mind.
turkey is part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). on the maps i use, i dont see turkey as remotely close to the northern atlantic. but there you go.
now then, "is turkey a european country" may not be a "map fact" question. turkey does lie in BOTH supposed continents. it seems more a call of preference than "fact" is involved. often, facts are simply beliefs about the world that we all agree are "true".
for europeans for centuries, the world was flat. for many people from east asia at the same time, they would have laughed at that thought and shown you maps of the world and europe demonstrating the world is a sphere.
but now to double hijack the thread. continents themselves are not actual "facts" that exist outside human contrivances and conventions. that is, people created the concept of a continent long ago and we today inherited it, often unquestioningly.
where does europe end and asia being...and why? it has nothing to do with geography since if you look at the map there is one, huge chunk of land, all connected. the "line" exists only because people decided to draw it...and mostly for cultural reasons.
and by the way, the ural mountains are not key to dividing europe from asia. after all, the himalayas are a lot more imposing than the urals. the himalays kept the mongols from whomping the snot out of india. the urals didnt save the europeans from the mongols beating them like gongs did they?
but we dont seriously say india is its own continent because of mountains do we.
there you go. your post-colonialish geography lesson for the day. ;D
I hope you guys can find a way to forward this discussion to Colton, so he can familiarize himself with the full spectrum of geopolitical considerations involved in his decision.
There's more heat than light on this thread.
http://www.textbookleague.org/26flat.htm
-
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
Not that it matters a lot, but Turkey has a European part and an Asian part. Bosphorus is the limit.
Turkey is not a part of europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosphorus
you're welcome
True, but only about 3% of Turkey's land mass is in Europe. It is primarily in Asia Minor, which is part of Asia.
Nobody said it was 50/50. But Istambul is half European, half Asian. And it doesn't matter a lot, as I said first, but facts are facts.
Turkey is a long way into the process of becoming a member of the European Union, so I think that answers the question of wether they are part of Europe or not.
Being part of the European Union is not the same as being a part of Europe. Russia is part of European Continent, and I don't think they'll ever become a member of the EU.
Geographically speaking, Europe and Asia are traditionally separated by the Bosphorus and the Urals. Every frontier is a political convention, though, and I don't think it's better being a European or an Asian country. It just bugs me to read "Turkey really isn't Europe".
a slight variation on the above and a thread highjack.
not being in the EU does not mean you are not european. you can european and not part of the EU. before england was admitted it was no less european. and being a member did not make it "more european", whatever that would be.
now, does being in the EU make you european? doubtful. if for what ever reason japan were to join (hey, it might happen) would they become european? not in my mind.
turkey is part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). on the maps i use, i dont see turkey as remotely close to the northern atlantic. but there you go.
now then, "is turkey a european country" may not be a "map fact" question. turkey does lie in BOTH supposed continents. it seems more a call of preference than "fact" is involved. often, facts are simply beliefs about the world that we all agree are "true".
for europeans for centuries, the world was flat. for many people from east asia at the same time, they would have laughed at that thought and shown you maps of the world and europe demonstrating the world is a sphere.
but now to double hijack the thread. continents themselves are not actual "facts" that exist outside human contrivances and conventions. that is, people created the concept of a continent long ago and we today inherited it, often unquestioningly.
where does europe end and asia being...and why? it has nothing to do with geography since if you look at the map there is one, huge chunk of land, all connected. the "line" exists only because people decided to draw it...and mostly for cultural reasons.
and by the way, the ural mountains are not key to dividing europe from asia. after all, the himalayas are a lot more imposing than the urals. the himalays kept the mongols from whomping the snot out of india. the urals didnt save the europeans from the mongols beating them like gongs did they?
but we dont seriously say india is its own continent because of mountains do we.
there you go. your post-colonialish geography lesson for the day. ;D
I hope you guys can find a way to forward this discussion to Colton, so he can familiarize himself with the full spectrum of geopolitical considerations involved in his decision.
There's more heat than light on this thread.
http://www.textbookleague.org/26flat.htm
and now let me really complicate all this and conflate it with the "europe" debate. your article cites ancient greece's knowledge of the earth, which is accurate. about the only folks who were clueless on the earth's shape were mostly western europeans from the middle ages or there about. not all europeans, but many.
but what my friend who hails from greece often likes to mention is that while today europeans look to greece for its intellectual traditions and roots, the greeks view their ancient history differently.
they view themselves and their traditions, then, as being tied more to what we now call the middle east and the eastern mediterranean and NOT western europe. ;D
the world is just so much interesting than many schools lead us to believe.
now i just hope the iverson is taking notes on all this.
-
Being part of the European Union is not the same as being a part of Europe. Russia is part of European Continent, and I don't think they'll ever become a member of the EU.
Geographically speaking, Europe and Asia are traditionally separated by the Bosphorus and the Urals. Every frontier is a political convention, though, and I don't think it's better being a European or an Asian country. It just bugs me to read "Turkey really isn't Europe".
a slight variation on the above and a thread highjack.
not being in the EU does not mean you are not european. you can european and not part of the EU. before england was admitted it was no less european. and being a member did not make it "more european", whatever that would be.
now, does being in the EU make you european? doubtful. if for what ever reason japan were to join (hey, it might happen) would they become european? not in my mind.
turkey is part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). on the maps i use, i dont see turkey as remotely close to the northern atlantic. but there you go.
now then, "is turkey a european country" may not be a "map fact" question. turkey does lie in BOTH supposed continents. it seems more a call of preference than "fact" is involved. often, facts are simply beliefs about the world that we all agree are "true".
for europeans for centuries, the world was flat. for many people from east asia at the same time, they would have laughed at that thought and shown you maps of the world and europe demonstrating the world is a sphere.
but now to double hijack the thread. continents themselves are not actual "facts" that exist outside human contrivances and conventions. that is, people created the concept of a continent long ago and we today inherited it, often unquestioningly.
where does europe end and asia being...and why? it has nothing to do with geography since if you look at the map there is one, huge chunk of land, all connected. the "line" exists only because people decided to draw it...and mostly for cultural reasons.
and by the way, the ural mountains are not key to dividing europe from asia. after all, the himalayas are a lot more imposing than the urals. the himalays kept the mongols from whomping the snot out of india. the urals didnt save the europeans from the mongols beating them like gongs did they?
but we dont seriously say india is its own continent because of mountains do we.
there you go. your post-colonialish geography lesson for the day. ;D
I hope you guys can find a way to forward this discussion to Colton, so he can familiarize himself with the full spectrum of geopolitical considerations involved in his decision.
There's more heat than light on this thread.
http://www.textbookleague.org/26flat.htm
and now let me really complicate all this and conflate it with the "europe" debate. your article cites ancient greece's knowledge of the earth, which is accurate. about the only folks who were clueless on the earth's shape were mostly western europeans from the middle ages or there about. not all europeans, but many.
but what my friend who hails from greece often likes to mention is that while today europeans look to greece for its intellectual traditions and roots, the greeks view their ancient history differently.
they view themselves and their traditions, then, as being tied more to what we now call the middle east and the eastern mediterranean and NOT western europe. ;D
the world is just so much interesting than many schools lead us to believe.
now i just hope the iverson is taking notes on all this.
nice read, and yes, it's all about conventions, which are a product of historical processes. The cities in the Anatolia coast were considered as Greek as Athens or Corinth, but now that's the Asian part of Turkey.
'European' identity was built as opposed to the 'Evil Eastern Enemy'. From Felipe II to Vlad the Impaler to the Empires that coveted the Balcans in the late 19th Century, the Ottomans were like Mordor (I find that Tolkien's obsession with the eastern, non-white enemy disturbing).
War and peace treaties always draw the lines in the map, we should use them as they're useful, unlike in this case ;) And the big deal about calling a country European or not isn't geographical, it's more about considering that country worthy of being European (because it's clear Turkey, just like Russia, is both a European and Asian country). For years, Spain was despectively called out as African and non European, and many people took offense in that. I don't see anything wrong in being considered North African, because we have a lot of culture in common, and ultimately, Africa is everybody's motherland.
I'm sure Sahara didn't meant it as disrespect to Turkish people, maybe it's just prejudice or ignorance, but there's some extreme kind of Ethnocentrism that considers one Continent better than the others. An early example of Ethnocentrism is the Greek calling the non Greek 'barbarians', because their non Greek languages were all 'bar-bar'. Civilization at its finest, right?
And by the way, yes, the Urals are considered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundaries_between_continents) (just another convention) a part of the limit between Europe and Asia. But I couldn't care less about limits, I think respect is what matters.
Back to Colton, any news on him?
-
I'm sure Sahara didn't meant it as disrespect to Turkish people, maybe it's just prejudice or ignorance, but there's some extreme kind of Ethnocentrism that considers one Continent better than the others.
Absolutely not! I am against any kind of racism or discrimination period.
If Turkey is a part of europe, then why Morocco is not?
-
I'm sure Sahara didn't meant it as disrespect to Turkish people, maybe it's just prejudice or ignorance, but there's some extreme kind of Ethnocentrism that considers one Continent better than the others.
Absolutely not! I am against any kind of racism or discrimination period.
If Turkey is a part of europe, then why Morocco is not?
Because a part of Turkey is part of the conventional European continent, while the whole Morocco country is inside the African Continent.
Is Russia a European country? yes. What's different in Turkey's case? I can't find anything.
But the most interesting thing is. Will Colton end up playing for Besiktas? I can't find any news on this.
-
this isn't a Celtics topic anymore, is it?
-
Continents are soo arbitrary and useless. See CGPGrey.
-
Being part of the European Union is not the same as being a part of Europe. Russia is part of European Continent, and I don't think they'll ever become a member of the EU.
Geographically speaking, Europe and Asia are traditionally separated by the Bosphorus and the Urals. Every frontier is a political convention, though, and I don't think it's better being a European or an Asian country. It just bugs me to read "Turkey really isn't Europe".
a slight variation on the above and a thread highjack.
not being in the EU does not mean you are not european. you can european and not part of the EU. before england was admitted it was no less european. and being a member did not make it "more european", whatever that would be.
now, does being in the EU make you european? doubtful. if for what ever reason japan were to join (hey, it might happen) would they become european? not in my mind.
turkey is part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). on the maps i use, i dont see turkey as remotely close to the northern atlantic. but there you go.
now then, "is turkey a european country" may not be a "map fact" question. turkey does lie in BOTH supposed continents. it seems more a call of preference than "fact" is involved. often, facts are simply beliefs about the world that we all agree are "true".
for europeans for centuries, the world was flat. for many people from east asia at the same time, they would have laughed at that thought and shown you maps of the world and europe demonstrating the world is a sphere.
but now to double hijack the thread. continents themselves are not actual "facts" that exist outside human contrivances and conventions. that is, people created the concept of a continent long ago and we today inherited it, often unquestioningly.
where does europe end and asia being...and why? it has nothing to do with geography since if you look at the map there is one, huge chunk of land, all connected. the "line" exists only because people decided to draw it...and mostly for cultural reasons.
and by the way, the ural mountains are not key to dividing europe from asia. after all, the himalayas are a lot more imposing than the urals. the himalays kept the mongols from whomping the snot out of india. the urals didnt save the europeans from the mongols beating them like gongs did they?
but we dont seriously say india is its own continent because of mountains do we.
there you go. your post-colonialish geography lesson for the day. ;D
I hope you guys can find a way to forward this discussion to Colton, so he can familiarize himself with the full spectrum of geopolitical considerations involved in his decision.
There's more heat than light on this thread.
http://www.textbookleague.org/26flat.htm
and now let me really complicate all this and conflate it with the "europe" debate. your article cites ancient greece's knowledge of the earth, which is accurate. about the only folks who were clueless on the earth's shape were mostly western europeans from the middle ages or there about. not all europeans, but many.
but what my friend who hails from greece often likes to mention is that while today europeans look to greece for its intellectual traditions and roots, the greeks view their ancient history differently.
they view themselves and their traditions, then, as being tied more to what we now call the middle east and the eastern mediterranean and NOT western europe. ;D
the world is just so much interesting than many schools lead us to believe.
now i just hope the iverson is taking notes on all this.
nice read, and yes, it's all about conventions, which are a product of historical processes. The cities in the Anatolia coast were considered as Greek as Athens or Corinth, but now that's the Asian part of Turkey.
'European' identity was built as opposed to the 'Evil Eastern Enemy'. From Felipe II to Vlad the Impaler to the Empires that coveted the Balcans in the late 19th Century, the Ottomans were like Mordor (I find that Tolkien's obsession with the eastern, non-white enemy disturbing).
War and peace treaties always draw the lines in the map, we should use them as they're useful, unlike in this case ;) And the big deal about calling a country European or not isn't geographical, it's more about considering that country worthy of being European (because it's clear Turkey, just like Russia, is both a European and Asian country). For years, Spain was despectively called out as African and non European, and many people took offense in that. I don't see anything wrong in being considered North African, because we have a lot of culture in common, and ultimately, Africa is everybody's motherland.
I'm sure Sahara didn't meant it as disrespect to Turkish people, maybe it's just prejudice or ignorance, but there's some extreme kind of Ethnocentrism that considers one Continent better than the others. An early example of Ethnocentrism is the Greek calling the non Greek 'barbarians', because their non Greek languages were all 'bar-bar'. Civilization at its finest, right?
And by the way, yes, the Urals are considered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundaries_between_continents) (just another convention) a part of the limit between Europe and Asia. But I couldn't care less about limits, I think respect is what matters.
Back to Colton, any news on him?
a well deserved tp. gosh i like history and the writing of it....but still no news on the history of the colton era in boston.
-
Also, nothing official has been announced about Colton Iverson either. There were some rumblings (from overseas websites) that he was considering a deal with a team in Turkey, but that report was shot down and it sounds like the Celtics intend to sign him.
From the front of this site.
I hope it's true. And this Geo-basketball debate about Turkey was interesting...O.K., not really...was maybe all for not. Looks like he's gonna get signed.
YESSSS ;D
Goodbye Fab and we can use the Brazilian translators for the new guy 8)
-
this isn't a Celtics topic anymore, is it?
actually, almost all posters have dutifully tossed in a final sentence on iverson. so i guess in keeping with the idea that turkey is part of europe since part of it is in what is conventionally named europe, this thread is still celtic-related since part of many posts at least mention colton iverson in their last sentence.
colton iverson should be a celtic next year. ;D
-
PS: And Turkey really isnīt europe.
Not that it matters a lot, but Turkey has a European part and an Asian part. Bosphorus is the limit.
Turkey is not a part of europe.
As the one claiming that Colton Iverson is going to be a badass, I would've figured that you'd let the details slide.
Look at the map, read about it. My statement is a fact. PM me if you want to discuss this, this is a wrong place to talk about that.
I'm actually in full agreement with you.
I just feel like making jokes about C.I.
Ah, okay. And all I meant originally, that after CI lives through this, MSG isnīt so scary :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0TZpqjgi5U
Jesus of Nazareth. What is happening here? Never got around to seeing The Hunger Games, but this is exactly how I envisioned it - a modern-day Colosseum.