Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Official Eastern Conference pre season scrimmage thread
Comments
-
IT will ALWAYS be a liability defensively ... that's not opinion ... that's reality.
Offensively, the problem is that he needs the ball in his hand predominately running pick and rolls. If he's going to perform in that capacity, then he either needs to be the #1 option on the starting unit or the #1 option coming in off the bench.
Playing 35-40 minutes a game I just don't think is realistic for him IF you are going to be a championship team. No question that you can win a lot of games with IT doing that. But you aren't winning a title. There are teams that would love to be in that discussion because it's an upgrade and would probably pay a max deal for that kind of player.
What you can win a title with him doing though is coming off the bench being a 25-30 minute per game guy where he's anchoring the scoring for that range from 4 minutes left in the 1st quarter through 4-5 minutes into the 2nd quarter (repeat for 2nd half) and then moving off the ball as a knock down shooter + penetrator off of kick outs in other circumstances. His ability to get you 20 points in 25 minutes is a massive difference maker in a game. THAT can contribute to a championship team.
Part of winning a championship is making sure that you have your players slotted in the right position in the lineup.
Tiny Archibald was a GREAT player ... similar in stature to IT. But he never won shit in the NBA until he got surrounded by other great players and basically became the 3rd or 4th best player (at best) on his team ... when surrounded with guys like Bird, Parrish, a young Cedric Maxwell and a young Kevin McHale coming in off the bench.
IF IT wants to win a title, he's either going to need to figure out how to be come a complementary piece on a great team or embrace a 6th man type role. If his goal is to get paid max money, he'll most likely be condemning himself to be a very good player on a 50-55 win (ceiling) team that has limited (if any) opportunity to get to a NBA title.
The only "little" player that I can see coming anywhere close to IT in terms of leading his team to a championship would be the other IT ... and that's a huge stretch in my mind. -
Tiny Archibald was way, way better than IT.
You don't lead the league in scoring and assists if you are anything but elite.
40 years from now people will say IT who?
-
Dude, it's the fucking NBA, even top 10-20 players specialize. I don't see anyone giving a fuck about Harden's defense, plus Boston already has defenders.Tequilla said:IT will ALWAYS be a liability defensively ... that's not opinion ... that's reality.
Offensively, the only problem there is IT is the only player on his team whose shooting isn't embarrassing. They need a guy like McCollum and then anpther scorer, because their offense is that bad against non-shit teams.
Something about Tiny Archibald; streamline the rest of your shit post please.
-
Saying IT needs to be the 4th best guy on his team to win is about as shitpost as it gets. Also Im glad GS will give max money to noted defensive stopper Steph Curry.
-
You're not seriously trying to compare IT to Curry are you?WilburHooksHands said:Saying IT needs to be the 4th best guy on his team to win is about as shitpost as it gets. Also Im glad GS will give max money to noted defensive stopper Steph Curry.
IT's skill level is more consistent with the 2nd or 3rd option ... his size makes him ideally suited to be a 6th man.
-
Lillard and Irving are max contract players. I think those guys are fair comparisons to IT. Lillard is a great scorer. Irving has a title to his name, but is also a one dimensional scorer without great PG skills.Tequilla said:
You're not seriously trying to compare IT to Curry are you?WilburHooksHands said:Saying IT needs to be the 4th best guy on his team to win is about as shitpost as it gets. Also Im glad GS will give max money to noted defensive stopper Steph Curry.
IT's skill level is more consistent with the 2nd or 3rd option ... his size makes him ideally suited to be a 6th man.
No, IT is not Curry, but switch them and nothing changes this year. GS would still roll in the West and Cleveland would still beat Boston.
IT has made it further than Chris Paul ever has, without a player even close to a healthy Blake Griffin to help. Chris Paul is still a max player.
You brought up the early 2000's Nets. Jason Kidd wasn't a max player? -
The lesson as always:
The NBA has way too many teams -
Replace Dellavedova with IT in 2015, and the Cavs win 2 more games, and IT wins a title as the second best player on his team
-
The only thing you did with this post is further convince me that you don't know jack shit about basketball ...RoadDawg55 said:
Lillard and Irving are max contract players. I think those guys are fair comparisons to IT. Lillard is a great scorer. Irving has a title to his name, but is also a one dimensional scorer without great PG skills.Tequilla said:
You're not seriously trying to compare IT to Curry are you?WilburHooksHands said:Saying IT needs to be the 4th best guy on his team to win is about as shitpost as it gets. Also Im glad GS will give max money to noted defensive stopper Steph Curry.
IT's skill level is more consistent with the 2nd or 3rd option ... his size makes him ideally suited to be a 6th man.
No, IT is not Curry, but switch them and nothing changes this year. GS would still roll in the West and Cleveland would still beat Boston.
IT has made it further than Chris Paul ever has, without a player even close to a healthy Blake Griffin to help. Chris Paul is still a max player.
You brought up the early 2000's Nets. Jason Kidd wasn't a max player?
It's hard for you to make a post that makes me think less of your opinions ...
So congratulations on that.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of Lillard ... at this point in his career he's a great stats mediocre team kind of player. I'd like to see Portland take a step up to being a 50 win team before suggesting that he's an easy max player.
Irving is a better player than IT ... forget the fact that Irving can get to the basket whenever he wants ... he's not a complete defensive liability.
The switching of IT/Curry is a pointless exercise ... the only point that you are making here is that Boston doesn't currently have a #2 player on its roster (both Horford and Bradley can be pieces on a championship team). That fact isn't IT's fault and I'm not saying that it is. What I am saying is that IT's not a #1 guy on a roster ... and if he isn't a #1 guy on a roster ... then what role does he play? If he's a #2 or #3 guy on a roster, does he contribute enough offensively to offset his defensive shortcomings? At that point are you getting good value on a max contract?
And was Jason Kidd in his prime a max player? Depends on what your objectives are. Kidd was absolutely good enough to be a 50+ win player more often than not and get at least 2-3 rounds deep in the playoffs. He had some shortcomings as a player (notably offensively) that limited the ceilings of his team. IF you make him a max player, then you likely will be short in cap space necessary to surround him with enough players to really have a championship team.
And that's the crux of the entire argument that you, and so many others, in this discussion don't understand. Paying max contracts ties up your cap space. Doing so means that you are making a commitment that the player you are paying a max contract to that that player is a cornerstone of your franchise and someone that you think can be part of challenging for championships. When you have those players you pay them. But the surest way to mediocrity in the NBA is to tie yourself up with contracts that don't get you anywhere. Stats wise, Carmello's a max player. What has that gotten?
So hypothetically, let's say that the Celtics sign IT to a max contract ... and then in the next 2 years it becomes completely clear that between the #1 pick that the Celtics have this year + his defensive shortcomings that they need to upgrade from IT. What do you think the trade market will be for a 30 year old 5'9" (if that) player? Do you think that other teams are going to be jumping up and down to take that contract on? Perhaps another way to think about a max contract is that if you sign a player to one, what's the likelihood that you could trade that player during their contract and have a trade market?
What's more likely for Boston is as follows:
Utilize their existing trade cap space to sign Gordon Hayward to a max deal ... he's a 20+ point scorer that fits defensively in today's game by being able to play and defend against multiple positions.
Use the #1 pick to either draft Markelle Fultz or leverage the pick via trade to get an appropriate return.
Consider finding ways to maximize investment in next year's draft where Boston already has Brooklyn's 1st round pick and try to get MPJ as he's got the potential to be a unicorn type NBA player that you can build around.
The core for the title run (which starts in 3-5 years) will be Fultz, Avery Bradley, Jaylen Brown, Gordon Hayward, and likely whoever they get with the Brooklyn pick next year. Nobody in that group is older than 30 at the start of that window and coincides with the aging of the Cavs (LBJ would be 35, Love at 31 - and I don't see aging well, and Irving being 28). That's the window for the Celtics.
Now, if I'm the Celtics, that's my focus on what I'm doing with my cap space. Everything I do is built with the assumption that something like that is my core and that I have enough cap space behind it to be able to afford keeping it together. If you can sign IT to some kind of bridge contract that pays him and keeps you in the 2nd or 3rd position with Boston throughout that transition period without getting in the way of the development of the young players and harming your ability to resign anybody as needed (notably because of luxury tax implications), then I'm all for it. But what I think also needs to be figured out is how to maximize the cap situation such that as the young players transition from their first to second contracts, that that transition happens with cap space available BEFORE that happens so that any missing pieces that are needed to fill out the roster (potentially a big) can take place.
The other thing that Boston needs to be very aware of is that their competition during their title window will likely NOT be Cleveland ... it will be Philly. If they try to rush their window they'll short change it a bit and assuming that Philly stays healthy they'll eventually pass them.
If Boston's going for the short-term play, then you'll probably see them try to move the #1 pick to get an asset for today (i.e. a Jimmy Butler) ... if they are playing for the long haul, they'll take Fultz and sign Hayward as a free agent. -
disagreeTequilla said:
The only thing you did with this post is further convince me that you don't know jack shit about basketball ...RoadDawg55 said:
Lillard and Irving are max contract players. I think those guys are fair comparisons to IT. Lillard is a great scorer. Irving has a title to his name, but is also a one dimensional scorer without great PG skills.Tequilla said:
You're not seriously trying to compare IT to Curry are you?WilburHooksHands said:Saying IT needs to be the 4th best guy on his team to win is about as shitpost as it gets. Also Im glad GS will give max money to noted defensive stopper Steph Curry.
IT's skill level is more consistent with the 2nd or 3rd option ... his size makes him ideally suited to be a 6th man.
No, IT is not Curry, but switch them and nothing changes this year. GS would still roll in the West and Cleveland would still beat Boston.
IT has made it further than Chris Paul ever has, without a player even close to a healthy Blake Griffin to help. Chris Paul is still a max player.
You brought up the early 2000's Nets. Jason Kidd wasn't a max player?
It's hard for you to make a post that makes me think less of your opinions ...
So congratulations on that.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of Lillard ... at this point in his career he's a great stats mediocre team kind of player. I'd like to see Portland take a step up to being a 50 win team before suggesting that he's an easy max player.
Irving is a better player than IT ... forget the fact that Irving can get to the basket whenever he wants ... he's not a complete defensive liability.
The switching of IT/Curry is a pointless exercise ... the only point that you are making here is that Boston doesn't currently have a #2 player on its roster (both Horford and Bradley can be pieces on a championship team). That fact isn't IT's fault and I'm not saying that it is. What I am saying is that IT's not a #1 guy on a roster ... and if he isn't a #1 guy on a roster ... then what role does he play? If he's a #2 or #3 guy on a roster, does he contribute enough offensively to offset his defensive shortcomings? At that point are you getting good value on a max contract?
And was Jason Kidd in his prime a max player? Depends on what your objectives are. Kidd was absolutely good enough to be a 50+ win player more often than not and get at least 2-3 rounds deep in the playoffs. He had some shortcomings as a player (notably offensively) that limited the ceilings of his team. IF you make him a max player, then you likely will be short in cap space necessary to surround him with enough players to really have a championship team.
And that's the crux of the entire argument that you, and so many others, in this discussion don't understand. Paying max contracts ties up your cap space. Doing so means that you are making a commitment that the player you are paying a max contract to that that player is a cornerstone of your franchise and someone that you think can be part of challenging for championships. When you have those players you pay them. But the surest way to mediocrity in the NBA is to tie yourself up with contracts that don't get you anywhere. Stats wise, Carmello's a max player. What has that gotten?
So hypothetically, let's say that the Celtics sign IT to a max contract ... and then in the next 2 years it becomes completely clear that between the #1 pick that the Celtics have this year + his defensive shortcomings that they need to upgrade from IT. What do you think the trade market will be for a 30 year old 5'9" (if that) player? Do you think that other teams are going to be jumping up and down to take that contract on? Perhaps another way to think about a max contract is that if you sign a player to one, what's the likelihood that you could trade that player during their contract and have a trade market?
What's more likely for Boston is as follows:
Utilize their existing trade cap space to sign Gordon Hayward to a max deal ... he's a 20+ point scorer that fits defensively in today's game by being able to play and defend against multiple positions.
Use the #1 pick to either draft Markelle Fultz or leverage the pick via trade to get an appropriate return.
Consider finding ways to maximize investment in next year's draft where Boston already has Brooklyn's 1st round pick and try to get MPJ as he's got the potential to be a unicorn type NBA player that you can build around.
The core for the title run (which starts in 3-5 years) will be Fultz, Avery Bradley, Jaylen Brown, Gordon Hayward, and likely whoever they get with the Brooklyn pick next year. Nobody in that group is older than 30 at the start of that window and coincides with the aging of the Cavs (LBJ would be 35, Love at 31 - and I don't see aging well, and Irving being 28). That's the window for the Celtics.
Now, if I'm the Celtics, that's my focus on what I'm doing with my cap space. Everything I do is built with the assumption that something like that is my core and that I have enough cap space behind it to be able to afford keeping it together. If you can sign IT to some kind of bridge contract that pays him and keeps you in the 2nd or 3rd position with Boston throughout that transition period without getting in the way of the development of the young players and harming your ability to resign anybody as needed (notably because of luxury tax implications), then I'm all for it. But what I think also needs to be figured out is how to maximize the cap situation such that as the young players transition from their first to second contracts, that that transition happens with cap space available BEFORE that happens so that any missing pieces that are needed to fill out the roster (potentially a big) can take place.
The other thing that Boston needs to be very aware of is that their competition during their title window will likely NOT be Cleveland ... it will be Philly. If they try to rush their window they'll short change it a bit and assuming that Philly stays healthy they'll eventually pass them.
If Boston's going for the short-term play, then you'll probably see them try to move the #1 pick to get an asset for today (i.e. a Jimmy Butler) ... if they are playing for the long haul, they'll take Fultz and sign Hayward as a free agent.
