|
On May 16 2013 14:27 [X]Ken_D wrote:
At least Sacramento is willing to do anything to keep the Kings. Seattle didn't even to pay for a new required arena so they lost the Sonics in 2008. After losing the Sonic, it's a bit ironic that Seattle wants to steal a team from another city.
In 2002, Sacramento were pretty much guaranteed a championship win with the East being so weak. If not for the huge well known referee scandal in the Western Conference, Sacramento would had been the 2002 champion.
Seattle politicians rolled over and died like cowards, Sac's didn't. Except this time the NBA just allowed a city in bad economic shape with a rickety ownership group to take a team with very, very shoddy ways of paying for the arena. Seattle had everything set up along with more money. By the way, taking shots at Seattle while ignoring Clay Bennett's behavior is pretty asinine. Fan support in these issues is beyond irrelevant, when a team is about to move, the attendance is almost ALWAYS terrible. It's about having a really well put together ownership group and a positive political climate willing to take an arena deal that is worse for the city than the NBA. Pretty much that way with all pro sports and cities except for a select few.
|
Plus, the Seattle card will be in the back pocket of the NBA now. A handy card to pull out as leverage for other cities in case the NBA finds it useful. Seattle really will have some of the best fans though...
|
On May 16 2013 13:36 Whatson wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2013 13:33 On_Slaught wrote:
KD will be haunted by that shot until he wins a ring. He could be haunted for a long long time... Not just that one shot lol. 5-21 from the field tonight.
Its because he took most of his shots being doubled or triple teamed.
|
Uhhg. I finally caught up. Bulls played so bad, Thunder played so bad. Obviously both series were terribly affected (tainted even) by injuries. I can't help but comment, however that had the refs been swapped, both losing teams would have had better chances.
Memphis was allowed to use tactics the Bulls were not, and Wade/Lebron got the star calls Durant did not. Because of injury neither series likely would have different results, but closer? I think so.
|
I dunno, I kind of feel sorry for Durant.
His options on offence consisted on Ibaka, Fisher, the shadow of Kevin Martin, Reggie J and Nick Collison.
You could give those guys open looks all day and the Thunder still would have lost.
I'm not sure we really learnt too much from the series other than:
1) despite the numerous critics, WB is a vital part of OKC's success;
2) OKC has big issues with squad depth they need to address;
3) Kevin Martin should not be re-signed;
4) the Grizz live and die by their defence;
5) Trading Harden was a mistake.
The Harden one is difficult. You can kind of see why OKC did it: with lux tax consideration taken into account, paying Harden was going to cost them something close to $30 mill a year. Even now I wonder if they could take that decision back would they do it differently and re-sign Harden?
|
On May 16 2013 15:27 cLutZ wrote:
Uhhg. I finally caught up. Bulls played so bad, Thunder played so bad. Obviously both series were terribly affected (tainted even) by injuries. I can't help but comment, however that had the refs been swapped, both losing teams would have had better chances.
Memphis was allowed to use tactics the Bulls were not, and Wade/Lebron got the star calls Durant did not. Because of injury neither series likely would have different results, but closer? I think so.
Kevin Durant 21 Points 5-21 FieldGoal 11-15 FreeThrows 0-4 3P 8/2 Rebound 6 AS 2 BL 0 ST 7 TO 2 PF 48 Minutes.
I would blame Durant's 5 of 21 field goal attempt more than anything for OKC's loss.
In the final seconds, Durant miss the shot that he would probably had made 9 out of 10 times in every other game. Sucks to be Durant. He must really feel terrible.
|
United States4471 Posts
It was painful watching all of the non-Durant OKC players miss wide open shots and fumble the ball all game. Durant did what he could, but there's only so much one player can accomplish when his teammates can't make a shot or maintain possession of the ball. I don't feel that bad for him because he's so young and still has a very promising career ahead of him with a strong team and good management.
Ibaka was exposed for his limitations, but I also think that the Grizzlies are a tough matchup for him. He's a mobile big which makes him ideally suited for defending most of other teams in the league that rely on perimeter play and constant pick-and-rolls, and his shot blocking deters drives to the basket. However, he was clearly overmatched against true bigs like Gasol and Z-Bo, although it should be noted that Perkins was bullied by both and he's a pretty good post defender despite his other limitations. Ibaka is also clearly not comfortable being anything more than a 3rd or 4th option on offense, and can't handle defensive pressure.
KMart was also exposed for his terrible defense and limitations offensively. Perkins showed that he might have outlived his usefulness at this point since this should have been a series in which he should have done well since his strength has always been post defense. The rest of the roster is still too limited, and depend too much on Westbrook and Durant to carry them on offense.
One good thing about this series is that it showed just how good Westbrook is and how important he is to the Thunder. For all of his faults, he still brings a lot to the table in a package you can't find anywhere else in the league. Glad to see him getting his due, albeit due to a very unfortunate incident.
Hopefully this will be a wakeup call for the Thunder and they'll work to implement an offensive system instead of just relying on the transcendent talent of their big two to do everything.
|
On May 16 2013 15:41 RowdierBob wrote:
I dunno, I kind of feel sorry for Durant.
His options on offence consisted on Ibaka, Fisher, the shadow of Kevin Martin, Reggie J and Nick Collison.
You could give those guys open looks all day and the Thunder still would have lost.
I'm not sure we really learnt too much from the series other than:
1) despite the numerous critics, WB is a vital part of OKC's success;
2) OKC has big issues with squad depth they need to address;
3) Kevin Martin should not be re-signed;
4) the Grizz live and die by their defence;
5) Trading Harden was a mistake.
The Harden one is difficult. You can kind of see why OKC did it: with lux tax consideration taken into account, paying Harden was going to cost them something close to $30 mill a year. Even now I wonder if they could take that decision back would they do it differently and re-sign Harden?
Regarding 1, I think the argument is not that Westbrook is important to the OKC, but that Westbrook is overrated and OKC would be better with a different top PG, like Chris Paul. It's also difficult to say that a non-Westbrook OKC (with another PG/a max contract player in his absence) wouldn't do well if they were given the whole season to prepare. The comparison between an OKC with and without Westbrook is difficult to make because the Thunder had to adjust their sets in the postseason, and Scott Brooks did that by giving Durant more ISOs but otherwise trying to play Jackson like he's Westbrook, which he clearly is not. If the Thunder were given time to rebuild their offense without Westbrook/with a different top player they might do better than a Thunder with a healthy Westbrook, but the games we've been shown don't really let you draw a conclusion either way.
as for 5, I would make the argument that you at least wait till the offseason and try to get a sign-and-trade; I think the Thunder's postseason would be very different if they had Harden as a backup once Westbrook went down. You'd have to go back further but I'd also argue that Harden is much more valuable than Ibaka, Harden has proven this season that he's an all-star and even a borderline superstar, and while Ibaka is a very solid player who has improved since his entry into the NBA I would argue that his biggest draw, his defense, is wildly overrated- his block numbers look nice but as the Grizz have shown he doesn't have the ability to guard players in the post, he bites on pretty much any pump-fake, and sometimes helps too much in search of blocks. Offensively he's extended his range since his entry into the NBA but he didn't pick up any of the scoring slack in westbrook's absence, despite the fact that he got more offensive touches. The Thunder lost more by letting go of Harden than they would if they had lost Ibaka and got a slightly worse PF instead.
On May 16 2013 16:09 [X]Ken_D wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2013 15:27 cLutZ wrote:
Uhhg. I finally caught up. Bulls played so bad, Thunder played so bad. Obviously both series were terribly affected (tainted even) by injuries. I can't help but comment, however that had the refs been swapped, both losing teams would have had better chances.
Memphis was allowed to use tactics the Bulls were not, and Wade/Lebron got the star calls Durant did not. Because of injury neither series likely would have different results, but closer? I think so. Kevin Durant 21 Points 5-21 FieldGoal 11-15 FreeThrows 0-4 3P 8/2 Rebound 6 AS 2 BL 0 ST 7 TO 2 PF 48 Minutes. I would blame Durant's 5 of 21 field goal attempt more than anything for OKC's loss. In the final seconds, Durant miss the shot that he would probably had made 9 out of 10 times in every other game. Sucks to be Durant. He must really feel terrible.
Hard to shoot better than 5-21 when the Grizzlies are more than comfortable ignoring everyone else on your team on Offense and triple and quadruple teaming you whenever you get the ball.
|
I gotta give Reggie Jackson some credit, he showed flashes of Westbrook in the home stretch of today's game. He was driving like a man possessed, and he hit that pull up three pointer that I hate so much. He just doesn't have as much confidence (or idiocy, depends if you like it or not) as Westbrook to take those ridiculously selfish shots that look amazing if they work but look really stupid if they miss.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 16 2013 14:19 Kuja900 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2013 13:37 Jibba wrote:
By the way, the Seattle decision is a whole lot of bullshit. Sacramento is going to continue to be terrible and will continue to have poor attendance, new arena or not. Meanwhile the rest of the owners make out because of that dirty revenue sharing bribe, and everyone else gets a free win out of it.
I hope Sacramento continues to suck and I hope Stern and Silver take shit for it. Are you a resident of Seattle by any chance? With new ownership I think things are already looking much better for them. The Maloofs just milked the team for every penny they gave no shit about winning. Also I seem to recall reading somewhere that their attendance was surprisingly good for the results they put up but I don't know the numbers I might be wrong.
No, I'm not. I just think it's terrible that a failing franchise is allowed to give away its revenue sharing, which is specifically given to help failing franchises, in order to win the bid. They're basically making bets on future, imaginary returns. If the returns aren't there (which aren't likely in the first place), then they're royally fucked and so is the city when the same thing happens again in 10 years, and they've wasted so much money.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 16 2013 15:27 cLutZ wrote:
Uhhg. I finally caught up. Bulls played so bad, Thunder played so bad. Obviously both series were terribly affected (tainted even) by injuries. I can't help but comment, however that had the refs been swapped, both losing teams would have had better chances.
Memphis was allowed to use tactics the Bulls were not, and Wade/Lebron got the star calls Durant did not. Because of injury neither series likely would have different results, but closer? I think so.
Uh... OKC were getting the better ref treatment tonight, despite playing worse. They got more PFs, but Ibaka and Fisher were allowed to get away with a lot more aimless hacking than Memphis's bigs, and the refs gave away an incorrect out-of-bounds turnover near the end of the second half (under 2min) without even bothering to review it, despite it being a close call and one of the referees getting in the way of the players.
And the Bulls were playing stupidly throughout the series, so the refs tightened things on them. They weren't even playing particularly tough, they were just making stupid, thoughtless and aggressive fouls. You start shoving people for no reason and the refs are going to get tighter to prevent fights.
On May 16 2013 15:41 RowdierBob wrote:
I dunno, I kind of feel sorry for Durant.
His options on offence consisted on Ibaka, Fisher, the shadow of Kevin Martin, Reggie J and Nick Collison.
You could give those guys open looks all day and the Thunder still would have lost.
I'm not sure we really learnt too much from the series other than:
1) despite the numerous critics, WB is a vital part of OKC's success;
2) OKC has big issues with squad depth they need to address;
3) Kevin Martin should not be re-signed;
4) the Grizz live and die by their defence;
5) Trading Harden was a mistake.
The Harden one is difficult. You can kind of see why OKC did it: with lux tax consideration taken into account, paying Harden was going to cost them something close to $30 mill a year. Even now I wonder if they could take that decision back would they do it differently and re-sign Harden?
Don't forget signing Perkins to 8.5-9m per year. That one's haunting them right now.
|
kevin martin has his moments, he is a good bench player, just resign him with bench money, if he accepts. is maynor still in okc? is he injured? afaik he is a good backup pg, compared to jackson. they should just sign a big man with post presence and theyre good to go
|
On May 16 2013 12:27 DystopiaX wrote:
Oh shit tayshaun prince dunk
![[image loading]](http://cdn2.mocksession.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/PRINCE-DUNK.gif)
For those that didn't see it.
To quote Chuck.
"That's Detroit Tayshaun Prince right there."
|
They traded Eric Maynor to the Blazers for the rights to Giorgos Printezis, a Greek player that has already turned down NBA contracts for less to stay in Europe, so basically for cap space. I know the Thunder added Ronnie Brewer at one point, no idea what happened to him.
|
dang, really liked maynor.
|
Atleast the playoffs showed how crucial Westbrook is to the Thunder. Hopefully people won't underestimate him anymore only because he does something terrible stupid now and then.
I really don't mind losing to the Grizzlies though, since I believe they have a good chance to stand against the Heat, should they make it to the final.
|
Of course they needed him, and only fools would think they could win without him. The debate has always been "how valuable is Westbrook really?" I think he's a clear All-Star level player, but some people overrate him and put him on the level of actual superstar players.
|
On May 16 2013 23:05 Ace wrote:
Of course they needed him, and only fools would think they could win without him. The debate has always been "how valuable is Westbrook really?" I think he's a clear All-Star level player, but some people overrate him and put him on the level of actual superstar players.
Just look back in this thread when Westbrook has injured himself how many ppl believed the Thunder are better off without him.
|
they had to be trolling then. Maybe I missed it but I dont remember that being a large sentiment in the thread, especially not from the long time posters.
|
On May 16 2013 14:36 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2013 14:27 [X]Ken_D wrote:
At least Sacramento is willing to do anything to keep the Kings. Seattle didn't even to pay for a new required arena so they lost the Sonics in 2008. After losing the Sonic, it's a bit ironic that Seattle wants to steal a team from another city.
In 2002, Sacramento were pretty much guaranteed a championship win with the East being so weak. If not for the huge well known referee scandal in the Western Conference, Sacramento would had been the 2002 champion. Seattle politicians rolled over and died like cowards, Sac's didn't. Except this time the NBA just allowed a city in bad economic shape with a rickety ownership group to take a team with very, very shoddy ways of paying for the arena. Seattle had everything set up along with more money. By the way, taking shots at Seattle while ignoring Clay Bennett's behavior is pretty asinine. Fan support in these issues is beyond irrelevant, when a team is about to move, the attendance is almost ALWAYS terrible. It's about having a really well put together ownership group and a positive political climate willing to take an arena deal that is worse for the city than the NBA. Pretty much that way with all pro sports and cities except for a select few.
You have it backwards in the first two sentences. The Seattle deal is good for taxpayers. The Sacramento deal is taxpayer robbery. This is pretty much the owners not wanting to set a precedent of owners paying for their own stadiums. They want to preserve the ability to fuck taxpayers, even though every single reputable economist and business analyst that has studied taxpayer stadium financing has concluded that these deals are terrible for taxpayers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
