On May 17 2013 14:25 On_Slaught wrote: I agree with Magic analysis of the Warriors.
- Keep Curry - Lee gets healthy - Drop somebody (like Clay Thompson) for a big man
I'm not sure how the contracts all look, but if they got a good big man, then that "big 3" could contend for a championship.
Also, i'm SO EXCITED to see the WCF. 4 of the best bigs in the game battling every game in the paint. Going to be awesomeeee.
no. They'll get Brandon Rush back and drop Rich Jefferson. They'll have a 5 man rotation for wings (Curry, Lee, Jack, Barnes, Rush) and 4 bigs (Bogut, Lee, Ezuli, Landry). They need to drop the other contracts if anything.
On May 17 2013 14:25 On_Slaught wrote: I agree with Magic analysis of the Warriors.
- Keep Curry - Lee gets healthy - Drop somebody (like Clay Thompson) for a big man
I'm not sure how the contracts all look, but if they got a good big man, then that "big 3" could contend for a championship.
Also, i'm SO EXCITED to see the WCF. 4 of the best bigs in the game battling every game in the paint. Going to be awesomeeee.
no. They'll get Brandon Rush back and drop Rich Jefferson. They'll have a 5 man rotation for wings (Curry, Lee, Jack, Barnes, Rush) and 4 bigs (Bogut, Lee, Ezuli, Landry). They need to drop the other contracts if anything.
So is everyone in America A-OK with teams moving cities by now? Seeing as it's been done so much? I don't think it's ever happened here, mainly because the nicknames of teams are not usually included in the actual name. So for example Chelsea Football Club is based in Chelsea and Kensington, couldn't move it to the north and still call it Chelsea. If it were called the Chelsea Warriors, I guess you could move it. But the whole idea of moving teams is kind of a brain fuck to people here.
Does everyone think it's a good idea for the SK to move to Seattle or not? I'm seeing people complaining about it but am not able to glean what they are complaining about . Please enlighten me, 'murcans.
Teams have always been moving in the NBA. Both the Lakers and Clippers were not originally LA teams. The Jazz were in New Orleans, the Hornets were in Charlotte and just this season was the first that the Nets moved out of New Jersey back to New York. The Nets didn't even start as an NBA team, they were an ABA team back in the day when there were in New York. So yeah, team movement has always been a thing.
It hasn't been done that much though sc4k. The NFL mostly did it back then because the owners were trying to get into the big cities and big money (ex:Rams, Raiders, etc) but those cities all got their teams back really. Even Cleveland got the Browns back when the actual Browns became the Ravens in a big controversial move fairly recently.
Other than the Nationals, which moved the failing Expos from Montreal, there really hasn't been team-city change in the MLB since anyone who uses the internet now can even remember! Kind of joking, but they really would have to be pretty old.
The NBA, on the other hand, has had more changes than the NFL or MLB but that is partly because it is so much newer and was originally two separate leagues coming together. The NBA wasn't really formed until almost 1950's, while MLB has been around since early 1900's. English football has been around since the late 1880's, so it is much more settled in as far as an organization/ team system goes.
It is also important to note that the size of the UK is like half the size of California. Where else would Chelsea move to that isn't already taken by another team? =P
On May 17 2013 14:24 RowdierBob wrote: Dear god, this year could turn into Stern's worst nightmare.
INDY vs MEMPHIS Final. In fact, he's already probably having cold sweats at the inevitably grim ratings for the Spurs vs the Grizz. That will be a true purist series. I think there'll be more interest in Kobe's tweets than that the WCF.
Maybe the Knicks will get 50 FTs a game for 6&7?
So, after OKC-Miami, was Boston-LA Generalissimo Stern's second favorite? Because those teams were so much fun to watch.
On May 17 2013 14:24 RowdierBob wrote: Dear god, this year could turn into Stern's worst nightmare.
INDY vs MEMPHIS Final. In fact, he's already probably having cold sweats at the inevitably grim ratings for the Spurs vs the Grizz. That will be a true purist series. I think there'll be more interest in Kobe's tweets than that the WCF.
Maybe the Knicks will get 50 FTs a game for 6&7?
So, after OKC-Miami, was Boston-LA Generalissimo Stern's second favorite? Because those teams were so much fun to watch.
Boston vs LA had historically high ratings especially game 7. Not even OKC vs Miami's numbers topped it.
On May 18 2013 00:18 a176 wrote: The organization moves, the name does not. Seattle Supersonics -> OKC Thunder. Chelsea club wouldn't be called chelsea anymore.
Bennett has said that if SEA gets a team he'd give the name and maybe the history back. Don't know what would happen with the old teams history though (assuming move not expansion)
On May 18 2013 06:01 a176 wrote: I think SA will take it. SA has a huge advantage on the perimeter.
The thing is that Conley/Allen are more than capable of defending parker/Ginobili though.
theres also green, kawhi to deal with. and for the other SA bench players, they didnt see much action in last series, but i think they will get more use in this series.
I guess. I think that Memphis won't have that much trouble with SA's offense, I think the series will come down to if Memphis can score enough points on offense, and Z-Bo and Conley have had good enough playoffs that I think they can pull it off.
On May 18 2013 06:46 DystopiaX wrote: I guess. I think that Memphis won't have that much trouble with SA's offense, I think the series will come down to if Memphis can score enough points on offense, and Z-Bo and Conley have had good enough playoffs that I think they can pull it off.
i have no argument that memphis can score, but i will argue that SA can simply score more
EPT
. Please enlighten me, 'murcans.
