Oct 25, 2017, 2:56 AM
@ganymede I don't see why the Suns would want J.R. Smith though, or what the hell Cleveland would do with three PGs when they already have LeBron running point forward half the time and almost always in crunch minutes. 
The Basketball Thread
-
@ganymede I don't see why the Suns would want J.R. Smith though, or what the hell Cleveland would do with three PGs when they already have LeBron running point forward half the time and almost always in crunch minutes.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@arkandel said in The Basketball Thread:
I don't see why the Suns would want J.R. Smith though, or what the hell Cleveland would do with three PGs when they already have LeBron running point forward half the time and almost always in crunch minutes.
Where do I start?
The Suns will get nothing for Bledsoe, so they might as well take J.R. Smith. He costs less, so he'll free up some cap space. If the Cavs throw in Perrantes, it might be a workable deal for the Suns, who'll get a 23-year-old PG in Perrantes, plus a terribly-streaky 3-pt shooter in Smith.
The Cavs are already a team that will win or bust. With Rose and Thomas out, they need a usable PG now; Calderon isn't going to cut it. They can afford to spare Smith out because he blows, and because they have Shumpert, Korver, and Wade in the SG position.
So, the Cavs need a PG right now, and they don't need Smith.
-
- 2 months later
-
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
- 24 days later
-
To bait the lawbots out there over here...
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/7pp9g3/during_his_next_contract_negotiation_will_manu/
Thoughts? To quote a passage:
"TL:DR- By being old (40) Manu Ginobili is protected by US anti discrimination laws regarding age, and can demand a contract similar to a comparably talented 22 year old if he chose to do so. The Spurs can't choose not to resign him even if they wanted to."
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@arkandel said in The Basketball Thread:
"TL:DR- By being old (40) Manu Ginobili is protected by US anti discrimination laws regarding age, and can demand a contract similar to a comparably talented 22 year old if he chose to do so. The Spurs can't choose not to resign him even if they wanted to."
Ginobili has to prove that his ability level is the same as that of the 22 year old in order to prevail.
He won't.
-
Also I would think the team could easily point to contracts for future seasons being based on expectations of future performance rather than a estimation of current skill level.
-
What do you guys feel about the Sixers? Such a fascinating team. Are they going to turn the corner in the next couple of years? Will Fultz get it together? Will Mr. Glass play more than a token amount of non-injured games?
-
@buttercup said in The Basketball Thread:
What do you guys feel about the Sixers? Such a fascinating team. Are they going to turn the corner in the next couple of years? Will Fultz get it together? Will Mr. Glass play more than a token amount of non-injured games?
For Fultz there's no way to know since it's a (weird) health issue which might or not be mental, and the team hasn't really told us anything. We can't even speculate until he starts to play games - but the kid is a really, really good playmaker and with him on the floor Simmons will have more space to work with and Embiid will get better shots.
The whole team is genuinely scary. But every time Embiid goes down I cringe - it's hard to tell if he can stay on the court, or for how long. As they say in the NBA, the best ability is availability.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@arkandel said in The Basketball Thread:
The whole team is genuinely scary. But every time Embiid goes down I cringe - it's hard to tell if he can stay on the court, or for how long. As they say in the NBA, the best ability is availability.
Still better than Greg Oden.
-
@ganymede Oden was such an elite prospect. But dude was secretly fifty years old.
I love Embiid's character and gravitas. I hope he shrugs off the injury prone status but doubt he will. I hope Fultz will develop but unless he or Simmons get a reliable three (and neither might) then in today's NBA they would be poor. This team would have killed it in the 80s.
-
@buttercup said in The Basketball Thread:
@ganymede Oden was such an elite prospect. But dude was secretly fifty years old.
There's a very good reason Oden was picked before KD. KD killed it in college, but Oden was still the better prospect.
It's a real shame.
As for the rest, I don't know that I necessarily like where basketball is going at the moment, where shooting threes and length trumps all else. The strategy overvalues role players, but that's not great to watch - when I think of basketball I think of crossover dribbles and dunks, isolation defense and one on ones, not thirty corner threes a game.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@arkandel said in The Basketball Thread:
As for the rest, I don't know that I necessarily like where basketball is going at the moment, where shooting threes and length trumps all else. The strategy overvalues role players, but that's not great to watch - when I think of basketball I think of crossover dribbles and dunks, isolation defense and one on ones, not thirty corner threes a game.
This is what happens when college ball dominates and kids only stick in it for a year.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@ganymede said in The Basketball Thread:
@arkandel said in The Basketball Thread:
As for the rest, I don't know that I necessarily like where basketball is going at the moment, where shooting threes and length trumps all else. The strategy overvalues role players, but that's not great to watch - when I think of basketball I think of crossover dribbles and dunks, isolation defense and one on ones, not thirty corner threes a game.
This is what happens when college ball dominates and kids only stick in it for a year.
I think the worst thing about it is that it dooms players if they don't fit a very stringent set of physical criteria. I mean you always had super athletic people dominating - that won't and shouldn't change - but there was room in there for strong but slow guys, centers with niche skills like blocking, etc.
These days if you're over 6'8 but can't shoot the ball you're not going to do well. If you don't have a significant wingspan (something you can't do anything about) that's a mark against you - because you'll be unable to spread the floor for your guards, and you won't keep up with opponent bigs who can shoot.
I want the Pat Ewings and the Kareem Abdul-Jabars of the future to have a place, dammit.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@arkandel said in The Basketball Thread:
These days if you're over 6'8 but can't shoot the ball you're not going to do well. If you don't have a significant wingspan (something you can't do anything about) that's a mark against you - because you'll be unable to spread the floor for your guards, and you won't keep up with opponent bigs who can shoot.
Dude, I'm pretty sure that if you can't shoot the ball, you're not going to do well in basketball. That's like a quarterback who can't chuck the ball out of his hand in under 3 seconds (see Tim Tebow).
If you're over 6'8" and you can't shoot a ball, consider becoming a tight end or a defenseman.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@ganymede said in The Basketball Thread:
Dude, I'm pretty sure that if you can't shoot the ball, you're not going to do well in basketball.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
You said "shoot the ball." You didn't say "hit three-pointers."
You and I both know that three-pointers were adopted in the early 80s. Calling out Ewing or English or King for being bad at the three-pointer is silly: they played in a completely different era. Criticism of Wade or Duncan or O'Neal is fine, but those players had vastly different games: cutting PG; finesse C; and monster that eats Tokyo.
The thing is that, unless you're Shaq, there is little chance you are physically-developed enough to be a dominating C. Like Oden, Embiid is very talented but he wasn't properly conditioned before hitting the NBA. This is why requiring players to spend 3 to 4 years in college is important: those are the peak times of physical development. That's why the NFL requires it.
So, I'll say it again: if you can't shoot, you probably won't be picked up in basketball. Go play football or hockey.
-
@arkandel said in The Basketball Thread:
Kareem Abdul-Jabars of the future to have a place, dammit.
Jabar would thrive in the NBA of today. When the NCAA banned the dunk to handicap him he master the skyhook over one summer, I have little doubt had the 3-point line been the weapon it is today he would have developed that skill as well. By the mid and late 80s he was a shadow of his former self watch his early years in the NBA he was a beast. While he would look like a different player than the one I remember I have zero doubt Kareem would be a dominant player in any era including today. Hell with modern nutrition and training he would be scary as all hell.
Edit to note: Remember just how long Kareem was in the league, his first season was 69-70, he was traded to the Lakers in 75, by the time Lakers v Celtics made the NBA popular he was past his prime.
-
Lets have the Lebron v. Jordan talk.
I'm on the side that Lebron is greater. Lebron would have been the best player in any era at three positions (pg, sg, and sf) and he is just a beast. I think it is close though but I have to give the nod to Lebron James.
-
I lean towards LeBron.
Most people pick Jordan because he had more rings. Of course, Bill Russell had a lot of rings too, but I'm pretty sure Russell would not want to have to deal with Jordan or LeBron.
LeBron has consistently played well and at a high level with teams that could not dominate without him. The Bulls in '94 and '95 still had decent winning records, even if they didn't win the Championship. The Cavs and Heat without LeBron didn't have winning records.
LeBron is marginally better career-wise than Jordan in MPG, FG%, and 3P%, but a full point better in APG and RPG. Plus, in this day and age -- I'm sorry to say it -- but Jordan wouldn't cut it. When he was 34, he was done; LeBron is 34, and still chugging.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.