NBA 2013-14 Season - Page 213

zulu_nation8

China26351 Posts

March 07 2014 11:22 GMT

#4241

I like McDermott/Ennis and Embiid obv, not sold on the rest, never seen Vonleh/Harris. I really don't like Smart, there are no good 6"4 SGs who can't shoot.

AxionSteel

United States7754 Posts

March 07 2014 13:44 GMT

#4242

On March 07 2014 20:00 x2fst wrote:
i have been looking at the top prospects in the past week and it looks like a fraudfest

wiggins' stats are alarmingly mediocre for the 'next lebron'. at-rim finishing in particular, guy seems straight up uncoordinated watching a few 'lowlights', despite being very quick and bouncy

randle looks to have serious problems defensively, he's quite small, seems dumb, and is apparently a 6'8 bullyballer. looks like a less fat big baby. seems extremely unlikely he's ever a very good nba player

aaron gordon seems sucky too, lol at 45% fts

embiid looks like the best prospect but is injured all the time, parker seems good. don't know shit about exum but i'd take him 3rd based on the rest being frauds

Seems a rather simplistic view on things. Wiggins has not been called the next LeBron for ages, he was overhyped like crazy but that is long gone now. He is raw and also can be passive, that isn't a good recipe for dominating immediately. Regardless, he is still going to be a very good player.

Aaron Gordon is also raw. Just because his free throws suck doesn't mean he is terrible. His defense is great, athleticism, rebounding and passing are all impressive. But he is a project offensively.

I don't like Smart at all. He can't shoot, and he's not athletic nor particularly fast. He can overpower college foes, but it won't be so easy at the next level. Defensively his lateral quickness is poor. Whether he's a PG or a SG I see so many causes for concern either way.

Embiid is really intriguing, like him a lot.

Parker is going to be good, but I'm not sure how good.

Ennis will at the worst be a very solid pro

Exum benefits from having a certain mystery over him, whilst all the other prospects weaknesses get completely picked apart, he hasn't got as much footage of him to go off. So I expect his stock to remain steady in the 3-6 range for a good while anyway

I like Indiana PF Noah Vonleh a lot, maybe even more than Randle. He's way longer and has a pretty three point stroke. I think Randle will be pretty good though..

AgentW

United States7725 Posts

March 07 2014 14:40 GMT

#4243

Re: Wiggins

I've been saying since the college season started that he's Harrison Barnes 2.0. Remember when Barnes was hyped to be the next LeBron? He can't even crack a starting lineup in the NBA.

Better yet, their stats are near exact. http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=andrew-wiggins&harrison-barnes=2010-2011&p1=harrison-barnes

AxionSteel

United States7754 Posts

March 07 2014 14:57 GMT

#4244

Yeah I definitely see the comparison. Not because of the hype but they're both pretty stiff/awkward when trying to create off the dribble.

Edit- Lol their stats really are extremely similar.

Cloud9157

United States2968 Posts

March 07 2014 15:53 GMT

#4245

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1984150-nba-league-executives-and-agents-reportedly-expect-another-lockout-in-2017?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=programming-national

Here we go again... In 3 years at least.

cLutZ

United States19574 Posts

March 07 2014 16:33 GMT

#4246

Maybe the players won't get hosed this time. But regardless, last time they deserved to get hosed.

Perhaps this time they will go for a capitalistic proposal, instead of "just as bad as the owners plan, but we get more money."

DystopiaX

United States16236 Posts

March 07 2014 19:22 GMT

#4247

On March 07 2014 17:19 RowdierBob wrote:

Show nested quote +

On March 07 2014 14:39 DystopiaX wrote:

On March 07 2014 09:59 Ace wrote:

On March 07 2014 09:41 Jerubaal wrote:
I find it amazing that you constantly bash GMs for being stupid and teams for being cheap and then find no fault whatsoever in all the extra-CBA factors that came into building the Heat. How can you POSSIBLY judge teams for being bad when they didn't even have a fair shot to begin with?

What CBA factors? Please be VERY in depth with where you're going, because I believe you don't actually understand what you're speaking on. I don't even know what that fair shot nonsense is since everyone never has an equal chance of acquiring star players anyway.

On March 07 2014 09:49 AgentW wrote:
I'd contest that the Nets never had a shot because Billie King is the GM, not because of the market they play in, and it's a big one.

GM's like the Presti obviously are at a disadvantage because of the market and must develop their talent, but that's just a way of the world. The thing is, playing in a big market isn't a guarantee to victory if your GM is a moron.

I'll do you one even better:

1.) Billionaire owner wants to purchase an NBA team, with decades of data on how the market works.
2.) Is in one of the largest markets in the league, complains when taxpayers wont fund a new stadium.
3.) Moves to an extremely small market city
4.) Gets 4+ low cost, high revenue contracts at below market rates via the draft
5.) Profits for years as franchise valuation appreciates and his young guys get better
6.) Doesn't want to pay one of his stars, hiding behind the excuse that it costs too much since he is in a small market

Yet, he knew this was the way things would work out before even buying an NBA team. Amazing what people will allow to happen when it's young black men being exploited since "dey make millionz! How can dey complain?!"

Not to mention that they continue to cheap the fuck out despite having one of the best teams. Like not wanting to go over the tax at the trade deadline? And your team commands the highest ticket prices and is regularly featured on national TV? The OKC's "we're poor" act is all bs and people should stop buying into it.

On March 07 2014 11:55 zulu_nation8 wrote:
is there data on if being able to pay the luxury tax actually means deeper playoff runs or making the playoffs at all?

Able to pay or willing to pay? Because pretty much every NBA team CAN pay the luxury tax, they're all operating at a profit.

While I can see merits in both arguments it's a bit rich for fans to call an owner "cheap" for not wanting to get into the lux tax.

Clay Bennett made a call on Harden and it was wrong but I honestly find it hard to call him cheap. With lux tax taken into consideration that contract was likely going to be inflated to near $30 mill per season. Harden's good but that's a big call to make on a guy who was a sixth man at the time (albeit the league's best).

Fans have an expectation sometimes that owners should spend whatever it takes. It's a bit rich I think to tell a person how they should be spending their money. For guys like the Maloofs who blatantly gouge and ruin a team for profit then sure, I hate those guys and what they did to the Kings.

But a guy like Clay Bennett? It's a difficult call. I can certainly see the criticisms about him being "cheap" but what's the difference between being cheap and smartly allocating your salary cap $$? Bennett's spending more this year than the Spurs for example. Does this make Holt cheap?

I know it's not about the financials but you can't forget that even if he didn't want to keep Harden he was still traded a year before he had to be. At the time you might argue that it would be better to assets for nothing, but look at what happened:
a year rental for Kevin Martin
Lamb (backup at best)
Steven Adams (bad)
2 non-lottery draft picks

Like even if Harden walks at the end of the year why the hell would you give up a year for that bullshit? Especially given Harden's numbers last season, it's very possible that the Thunder could have won a championship or at least made the finals again.

RowdierBob

Australia13008 Posts

March 07 2014 22:36 GMT

#4248

That's an issue of opportunity cost.

They obv felt there were more solid opportunities for the team in trading Harden.

I wouldn't write off Adams so quick. I think he can be a useful NBA starter in a few years.

Philozovic

France1677 Posts

March 07 2014 23:51 GMT

#4249

On March 08 2014 04:22 DystopiaX wrote:

Show nested quote +

On March 07 2014 17:19 RowdierBob wrote:

On March 07 2014 14:39 DystopiaX wrote:

On March 07 2014 09:59 Ace wrote:

On March 07 2014 11:55 zulu_nation8 wrote:
is there data on if being able to pay the luxury tax actually means deeper playoff runs or making the playoffs at all?

Able to pay or willing to pay? Because pretty much every NBA team CAN pay the luxury tax, they're all operating at a profit.

They cut 7 millions dollars worth of contracts from shitty players (well shitty at the NBA level obv) got a first pick from tonroto (which latter was used on steven adams who I won't call at all a bad player !) jeremy lamb will be a very good six man in the future I'm pretty sure of that, it also allowed Jackson to have more playing time. Plus two other pick (very low risk/decent reward if a good player is picked).

And they basically had all that just by swapping a one year harden for a one year Martin. I call that a more than decent trade. I would just have picked Motiejunas with it because I think he would have been a great addition to the thunder roster (but he keep proving me wrong

)

]343[

United States10328 Posts

March 08 2014 02:22 GMT

#4250

Calderon is currently outscoring the entire Blazers team... a third of the way into the second quarter

Jaaaaasper

United States10225 Posts

March 08 2014 02:47 GMT

#4251

Rondo is going hard at the nets atm, 20 points 7 assists 5 boards. Hes getting closer and closer to full strength, and hes shooting around 40% from the three for the year. Next year a full strength Rondo with 40% from the three, thats freaking scary for the rest of the league.