NBA Offseason Thread 2009 - Page 44

On July 18 2009 08:01 igotmyown wrote:


I agree. I spent the last few minutes reflecting on the difference between fun girls and wife materials. Would you have a fling with a Megan Fox with sociopathic outbursts? Ann Coulter? The Bush twins? Would you be compatible though?

The point is none of these women are marriable.

Pictures don't tell much about how attractive someone really is.

How can you know whether you're attracted to a person or not until you know

-Their religion, and respective piety
-Their family and family history
-Their socio-economic class
-Their artistic and literary talents
-Their sensitivity, romanticism and sentimentalism
-Their patriotism, provincialism, and rootedness in their native culture
-Their cooking, cleaning and other domestic abilities
-Their mental and emotional stability
-Their historical attitude and preferences regarding bourgeois family life
-Their racial origins (if not already clear)
-Their feminine virtues (virginity, modesty, etc)

The above listed constitute 95% of the qualifications for any marriable and therefore attractive girl

On July 23 2009 09:43 BisuBoi wrote:


Did your mommy teach you this?

On July 24 2009 15:16 Xeris wrote:
I dunno... that IMO was one of the dumbest moves that anyone's made that never gets talked about. Seriously, Chandler is like 15-10-2 (blocks) player with great height, young, athletic. And really they got him for literally nothing. If they just let him on the injured list for the rest of the year, they still get their lottery pick and then they'd be rolling out with a starting 5 of: Chandler, Green, Durant, Harden, Westbrook.

That is possibly playoff potential. But instead they have a very strong 1-4 but no 5.

On July 25 2009 02:09 XaI)CyRiC wrote:


Chandler as 15/10/2? I have my doubts.

He's never averaged 15 ppg, not even during 07-08, his best season. The only way he averaged double digits that season (the only season he did so) was because Paul was doing all the work by setting him up for dunks. He's definitely a great rebounder, so that 10 rpg is very possible, but 2 bpg? He's never averaged that many blocks over a season, and I don't see why that'd change in OKC.

Chandler would be lucky to score 8 ppg in OKC without a true PG setting him up for baskets. His offense would consist entirely of put-backs and the occasional dunk from a pass-off from Westbrook or Durant. We know he has no perimeter shot to speak of, and his FT shooting is poor as well. He'd be a defense and rebounding specialist, which is really what OKC needs from their C, but expecting him to score even 10 ppg is being unrealistic.

My concern about trading for Chandler, if I were a GM, would be his health. While he's been pretty solid prior to last year, I'm not sure it's a coincidence that he ended up missing a large chunk of last season after OKC backed out of the trade due to durability/health concerns. They rescinded the trade over concerns with his left big toe, and he ended up missing a lot of time because of that same toe and additional ankle problems with that same foot, eventually requiring surgery on both.

Could Chandler be the Thunder's solution at Center? Yes, most definitely. He impressed me with his rebounding and defense against Duncan in the NOR-SAS series, and that's what OKC needs right now. Will he ever be anything more than a rebounding/defense specialist? Will he ever be a 15/10/2 player? My answer to both would be no. The Tyson we've seen is the the Tyson any team will get at this point. Do I think OKC trading for Chandler should've been a no-brainer? No, there are some valid concerns, especially when you consider that the overall strategy there is long-term (not win-now), so any concerns over a player's durability will factor greatly into their personnel decisions.

On July 25 2009 03:13 Xeris wrote:


What other center would be good for them? They need one