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. -
Fuck off about Lillard; he's cold blooded with an absolute shit franchise and GM. Him and McCollum are legit pieces and the only ones who've done anything to GS so far in the playoffs. Everyone else on that team except maybe Nurkic are fringe guys.
-
Im saying your argument that IT shouldnt get max money becuase hes a defensive liability is FS.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. -
And what I've been saying all year that I'd rather pay Bradley/Smart than IT max ...WilburHooksHands said:
Im saying your argument that IT shouldnt get max money becuase hes a defensive liability is FS.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.
Most said I was crazy ...
How's that looking tonight?
And you are damn right if I'm a championship level team I'm not paying max money to a expensive liability -
Your take is at least defensible now.Tequilla said:
And what I've been saying all year that I'd rather pay Bradley/Smart than IT max ...WilburHooksHands said:
Im saying your argument that IT shouldnt get max money becuase hes a defensive liability is FS.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.
Most said I was crazy ...
How's that looking tonight?
And you are damn right if I'm a championship level team I'm not paying max money to a expensive liability -
Lol I knew this was coming. When a 29% shooter from 3 goes 7-10 and LeBron takes the day off...Tequilla said:
And what I've been saying all year that I'd rather pay Bradley/Smart than IT max ...WilburHooksHands said:
Im saying your argument that IT shouldnt get max money becuase hes a defensive liability is FS.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.
Most said I was crazy ...
How's that looking tonight?
And you are damn right if I'm a championship level team I'm not paying max money to a expensive liability
Smart and Bradley are both 20+ mil players in today's NBA. Even Turner gets 4 years 75, Chandler Parsons gets the max. Stick to fantasy hoops. -
Using Chandler Parsons as an indication of supporting max contracts for other players should disqualify you from ever talking about basketball again.
-
NBA GMs are dumb and bad.RoadDawg55 said:
Lol I knew this was coming. When a 29% shooter from 3 goes 7-10 and LeBron takes the day off...Tequilla said:
And what I've been saying all year that I'd rather pay Bradley/Smart than IT max ...WilburHooksHands said:
Im saying your argument that IT shouldnt get max money becuase hes a defensive liability is FS.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.
Most said I was crazy ...
How's that looking tonight?
And you are damn right if I'm a championship level team I'm not paying max money to a expensive liability
Smart and Bradley are both 20+ mil players in today's NBA. Even Turner gets 4 years 75, Chandler Parsons gets the max. Stick to fantasy hoops. -
A max contract for IT I think is all dependent upon what Boston does in free agency and/or trade.
IF they take Fultz, then I just don't see how they can keep all 4 of Fultz, IT, Bradley, and Smart.
Smart and Bradley are high end defenders. Fultz will likely take 3-5 years to develop into an average defender at the NBA level as he's going to have a lot of bad habits coming from Romar. IT is a defensive liability. If you keep IT + Fultz, that means that you are moving one of Bradley and Smart. For a team that hangs their hat on defense, that's a tough pill to follow.
I believe the max contract levels that IT can sign for are in the 3/100 or 4/135 range. I'm thinking that Boston would maybe consider the 3/100 but the 4/135 is probably too much when you start factoring in other contracts including the rookie contracts that will be coming up with the #1 this year and high pick from Brooklyn next year. My guess is that the combined Bradley/Smart contracts would probably be in the 35-45M range. My personal thought is that Bradley's the one player that Boston's not going to allow to leave (if you look there's reporting coming from Jackie MacMullen that Boston was willing to move both IT and Smart last year for a lottery pick in last year's draft). So if you go both IT + Bradley, that's in the combined 50-60M range for contracts + Horford's max + whatever Boston does this year with their available cap space (which they will do something because the way the extension rules work for IT/Bradley the deals can't really be done this year until after the free agency period and only make sense for Boston to enter into IF they don't get somebody ... otherwise they are better off running through the favorable contracts this year and then utilizing Bird rights next year. Point being though is that with those contracts you are likely going to be entering into a significant luxury tax range and if so, I'm not sure that that's going to happen.
-
That was my point. A lot of these teams have to basically throw outrageous money at guys like Smart because they have to sign someone to reach the salary floor. Don't be TequillaFS.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
NBA GMs are dumb and bad.RoadDawg55 said:
Lol I knew this was coming. When a 29% shooter from 3 goes 7-10 and LeBron takes the day off...Tequilla said:
And what I've been saying all year that I'd rather pay Bradley/Smart than IT max ...WilburHooksHands said:
Im saying your argument that IT shouldnt get max money becuase hes a defensive liability is FS.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.
Most said I was crazy ...
How's that looking tonight?
And you are damn right if I'm a championship level team I'm not paying max money to a expensive liability
Smart and Bradley are both 20+ mil players in today's NBA. Even Turner gets 4 years 75, Chandler Parsons gets the max. Stick to fantasy hoops. -
For those that don't get why I've been harping on the IT defensive issue, tonight was a perfect example. The Celtics don't come close to winning this game with IT.
Cleveland's been doing 2 things to initiate their offense in the games at Boston. The first is using whoever IT was guarding in a screen situation with LBJ and forcing that switch. That switch then compromises the entire defense as IT's got no shot in hell of guarding LBJ and that leads to open shot after open shot. The other is using a big to screen LBJ and then getting that switch where LBJ can attack the basket without a problem and in part because IT is somewhere on the weak side on defense the risk to LBJ of having help defense goes significantly down. The reason why this is true is because when you have Crowder (or whoever) switch out on the big they are tied up with the big eventually diving to the glass and needing to box or run the risk of the big being solo on a double. Then, whatever side LBJ is on there will be a guy in the corner and if that defender tries to help on the drive that's an uncontested 3. That leaves 2 guys on the backside and one of those 2 is IT. As Shaq would say, that's BBQ Chicken.
Tonight, with IT off the court and replaced by Marcus Smart, the switching options for Cleveland's offense went down. That then allowed Boston with their bigs to be able to fall off those ball screens a little easier allowing the original LBJ defender the opportunity to get back into position unless LBJ decided to shoot the jump shot (which it's easy to slide off of him when he's clearly not in great rhythm).
By not being able to use the guard screen anymore, that then resulted in relying on the Thompson screen. Cleveland could use Love to see the screen forcing more of a direct switch, but that doesn't really work out well if Thompson is on the court because you don't need to defend him unless he's in the paint. It's hard to take Thompson off the court because Cleveland's decidedly worse defensively when he isn't in the paint.
Cleveland's going to win the series as it's just too much to ask for this Boston team to win 4 out of 5 games. But Cleveland's going to have to adjust a bit. And it also goes to show how so much of what Cleveland has been doing has been as much to do with the flawed teams they've been playing as a credit to what they are doing. -
You're confusing shit here ...RoadDawg55 said:
That was my point. A lot of these teams have to basically throw outrageous money at guys like Smart because they have to sign someone to reach the salary floor. Don't be TequillaFS.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
NBA GMs are dumb and bad.RoadDawg55 said:
Lol I knew this was coming. When a 29% shooter from 3 goes 7-10 and LeBron takes the day off...Tequilla said:
And what I've been saying all year that I'd rather pay Bradley/Smart than IT max ...WilburHooksHands said:
Im saying your argument that IT shouldnt get max money becuase hes a defensive liability is FS.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.
Most said I was crazy ...
How's that looking tonight?
And you are damn right if I'm a championship level team I'm not paying max money to a expensive liability
Smart and Bradley are both 20+ mil players in today's NBA. Even Turner gets 4 years 75, Chandler Parsons gets the max. Stick to fantasy hoops.
I absolutely realize that teams overpay for players ... I don't blame players for taking the money.
But if you are a team with aspirations of winning titles, you don't offer FS contracts.
And if you are a player with aspirations of winning titles, sometimes you have to make some financial sacrifices to ensure that you have the best squad around you at all times. -
IT killed it tonight
-
If Bost
Isaiah doesn't. They have cap room to sign a guy this offseason. Isaiah, Bradley, and Smart will all be free agents after next year. Thing is, Boston could re-sign all 3, although they won't.Tequilla said:
You're confusing shit here ...RoadDawg55 said:
That was my point. A lot of these teams have to basically throw outrageous money at guys like Smart because they have to sign someone to reach the salary floor. Don't be TequillaFS.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
NBA GMs are dumb and bad.RoadDawg55 said:
Lol I knew this was coming. When a 29% shooter from 3 goes 7-10 and LeBron takes the day off...Tequilla said:
And what I've been saying all year that I'd rather pay Bradley/Smart than IT max ...WilburHooksHands said:
Im saying your argument that IT shouldnt get max money becuase hes a defensive liability is FS.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.
Most said I was crazy ...
How's that looking tonight?
And you are damn right if I'm a championship level team I'm not paying max money to a expensive liability
Smart and Bradley are both 20+ mil players in today's NBA. Even Turner gets 4 years 75, Chandler Parsons gets the max. Stick to fantasy hoops.
I absolutely realize that teams overpay for players ... I don't blame players for taking the money.
But if you are a team with aspirations of winning titles, you don't offer FS contracts.
And if you are a player with aspirations of winning titles, sometimes you have to make some financial sacrifices to ensure that you have the best squad around you at all times.
The cap isn't a factor when re-signing your own players. You just have to be ready to pay the luxury tax.
The area Isaiah would get immensely better at is playmaking, if he had the players around him. He can become a great passer. Right now, he doesn't. -
Wow? Really?RoadDawg55 said:
If Bost
Isaiah doesn't. They have cap room to sign a guy this offseason. Isaiah, Bradley, and Smart will all be free agents after next year. Thing is, Boston could re-sign all 3, although they won't.Tequilla said:
You're confusing shit here ...RoadDawg55 said:
That was my point. A lot of these teams have to basically throw outrageous money at guys like Smart because they have to sign someone to reach the salary floor. Don't be TequillaFS.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
NBA GMs are dumb and bad.RoadDawg55 said:
Lol I knew this was coming. When a 29% shooter from 3 goes 7-10 and LeBron takes the day off...Tequilla said:
And what I've been saying all year that I'd rather pay Bradley/Smart than IT max ...WilburHooksHands said:
Im saying your argument that IT shouldnt get max money becuase hes a defensive liability is FS.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.
Most said I was crazy ...
How's that looking tonight?
And you are damn right if I'm a championship level team I'm not paying max money to a expensive liability
Smart and Bradley are both 20+ mil players in today's NBA. Even Turner gets 4 years 75, Chandler Parsons gets the max. Stick to fantasy hoops.
I absolutely realize that teams overpay for players ... I don't blame players for taking the money.
But if you are a team with aspirations of winning titles, you don't offer FS contracts.
And if you are a player with aspirations of winning titles, sometimes you have to make some financial sacrifices to ensure that you have the best squad around you at all times.
The cap isn't a factor when re-signing your own players. You just have to be ready to pay the luxury tax.
You really are a fucktarded twit. -
I'm not a cap guru, but how the fuck is Cleveland re-signing guys like Tristan Thompson and JR Smith to big contracts when they are already well above the salary cap?Tequilla said:
Wow? Really?RoadDawg55 said:
If Bost
Isaiah doesn't. They have cap room to sign a guy this offseason. Isaiah, Bradley, and Smart will all be free agents after next year. Thing is, Boston could re-sign all 3, although they won't.Tequilla said:
You're confusing shit here ...RoadDawg55 said:
That was my point. A lot of these teams have to basically throw outrageous money at guys like Smart because they have to sign someone to reach the salary floor. Don't be TequillaFS.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
NBA GMs are dumb and bad.RoadDawg55 said:
Lol I knew this was coming. When a 29% shooter from 3 goes 7-10 and LeBron takes the day off...Tequilla said:
And what I've been saying all year that I'd rather pay Bradley/Smart than IT max ...WilburHooksHands said:
Im saying your argument that IT shouldnt get max money becuase hes a defensive liability is FS.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.
Most said I was crazy ...
How's that looking tonight?
And you are damn right if I'm a championship level team I'm not paying max money to a expensive liability
Smart and Bradley are both 20+ mil players in today's NBA. Even Turner gets 4 years 75, Chandler Parsons gets the max. Stick to fantasy hoops.
I absolutely realize that teams overpay for players ... I don't blame players for taking the money.
But if you are a team with aspirations of winning titles, you don't offer FS contracts.
And if you are a player with aspirations of winning titles, sometimes you have to make some financial sacrifices to ensure that you have the best squad around you at all times.
The cap isn't a factor when re-signing your own players. You just have to be ready to pay the luxury tax.
You really are a fucktarded twit. -
I know how the cap works you ignorant slut ...RoadDawg55 said:
I'm not a cap guru, but how the fuck is Cleveland re-signing guys like Tristan Thompson and JR Smith to big contracts when they are already well above the salary cap?Tequilla said:
Wow? Really?RoadDawg55 said:
If Bost
Isaiah doesn't. They have cap room to sign a guy this offseason. Isaiah, Bradley, and Smart will all be free agents after next year. Thing is, Boston could re-sign all 3, although they won't.Tequilla said:
You're confusing shit here ...RoadDawg55 said:
That was my point. A lot of these teams have to basically throw outrageous money at guys like Smart because they have to sign someone to reach the salary floor. Don't be TequillaFS.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
NBA GMs are dumb and bad.RoadDawg55 said:
Lol I knew this was coming. When a 29% shooter from 3 goes 7-10 and LeBron takes the day off...Tequilla said:
And what I've been saying all year that I'd rather pay Bradley/Smart than IT max ...WilburHooksHands said:
Im saying your argument that IT shouldnt get max money becuase hes a defensive liability is FS.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.
Most said I was crazy ...
How's that looking tonight?
And you are damn right if I'm a championship level team I'm not paying max money to a expensive liability
Smart and Bradley are both 20+ mil players in today's NBA. Even Turner gets 4 years 75, Chandler Parsons gets the max. Stick to fantasy hoops.
I absolutely realize that teams overpay for players ... I don't blame players for taking the money.
But if you are a team with aspirations of winning titles, you don't offer FS contracts.
And if you are a player with aspirations of winning titles, sometimes you have to make some financial sacrifices to ensure that you have the best squad around you at all times.
The cap isn't a factor when re-signing your own players. You just have to be ready to pay the luxury tax.
You really are a fucktarded twit.
Part of Cleveland having LBJ is a willingness to venture into luxury tax territory ...
The other thing you get with the Cavs is the bitching during the year of not having any depth and the lack of youth/draft picks coming into the organization.
Got any additional knowledge to drop? -
I get about 2 sentences into Tequillas post before thinking "nah fuck it I'm not going to spend 15 minutes reading this".
-
Tequilla said:
A max contract for IT I think is all dependent upon what Boston does in free agency and/or trade.
IF they take Fultz, then I just don't see how they can keep all 4 of Fultz, IT, Bradley, and Smart.
Smart and Bradley are high end defenders. Fultz will likely take 3-5 years to develop into an average defender at the NBA level as he's going to have a lot of bad habits coming from Romar. IT is a defensive liability. If you keep IT + Fultz, that means that you are moving one of Bradley and Smart. For a team that hangs their hat on defense, that's a tough pill to follow.
I believe the max contract levels that IT can sign for are in the 3/100 or 4/135 range. I'm thinking that Boston would maybe consider the 3/100 but the 4/135 is probably too much when you start factoring in other contracts including the rookie contracts that will be coming up with the #1 this year and high pick from Brooklyn next year. My guess is that the combined Bradley/Smart contracts would probably be in the 35-45M range. My personal thought is that Bradley's the one player that Boston's not going to allow to leave (if you look there's reporting coming from Jackie MacMullen that Boston was willing to move both IT and Smart last year for a lottery pick in last year's draft). So if you go both IT + Bradley, that's in the combined 50-60M range for contracts + Horford's max + whatever Boston does this year with their available cap space (which they will do something because the way the extension rules work for IT/Bradley the deals can't really be done this year until after the free agency period and only make sense for Boston to enter into IF they don't get somebody ... otherwise they are better off running through the favorable contracts this year and then utilizing Bird rights next year. Point being though is that with those contracts you are likely going to be entering into a significant luxury tax range and if so, I'm not sure that that's going to happen.
War and Peace is perhaps best known as one of the longest novels ever written.[citation needed]
Tequilla began writing War and Peace in the year that he finally married and settled down at his country estate. The first half of the book was written under the name "1805". During the writing of the second half, he read widely and acknowledged Schopenhauer as one of his main inspirations. However, Tequilla developed his own views of history and the role of the individual within it.[8]
The first draft of the novel was completed in 1863. In 1865, the periodical Russkiy Vestnik (The Russian Messenger) published the first part of this draft under the title 1805 and published more the following year. Tequilla was dissatisfied with this version, although he allowed several parts of it to be published with a different ending in 1867. He heavily rewrote the entire novel between 1866 and 1869.[5][8] Tequilla's wife, Sophia Tolstaya, copied as many as seven separate complete manuscripts before Tolstoy considered it again ready for publication.[8] The version that was published in Russkiy Vestnik had a very different ending from the version eventually published under the title War and Peace in 1869. Russians who had read the serialized version were anxious to buy the complete novel, and it sold out almost immediately. The novel was translated almost immediately after publication into many other languages.[citation needed]
It is unknown why Tequilla changed the name to War and Peace. He may have borrowed the title from the 1861 work of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: La Guerre et la Paix ("The War and the Peace" in French).[4] The title may also be another reference to Titus, described as being a master of "war and peace" in The Twelve Caesars, written by Suetonius in 119 CE. The completed novel was then called Voyna i mir (Война и мир in new-style orthography; in English War and Peace).[citation needed]
The 1805 manuscript was re-edited and annotated in Russia in 1983 and since has been translated into English, German, French, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Finnish, Albanian, Korean, and Czech. The existence of so many versions make this work one of the best insights into the mental processes of a great novelist.[citation needed]
Tequilla was instrumental in bringing a new kind of consciousness to the novel. His narrative structure is noted for its "god-like" ability to hover over and within events, but also in the way it swiftly and seamlessly portrayed a particular character's point of view. His use of visual detail is often cinematic in scope, using the literary equivalents of panning, wide shots and close-ups. These devices, while not exclusive to Tequilla, are part of the new style of the novel that arose in the mid-19th century and of which Tequilla proved himself a master.[9]
The standard Russian text of War and Peace is divided into four books (comprising fifteen parts) and an epilogue in two parts. Roughly the first half is concerned strictly with the fictional characters, whereas the latter parts, as well as the second part of the epilogue, increasingly consist of essays about the nature of war, power, history, and historiography. To interspersed these essays into the story in a way that defies previous fictional convention. Certain abridged versions remove these essays entirely, while others, published even during Tequilla's life, simply moved these essays into an appendix.[citation needed] -
So I was right?Tequilla said:
I know how the cap works you ignorant slut ...RoadDawg55 said:
I'm not a cap guru, but how the fuck is Cleveland re-signing guys like Tristan Thompson and JR Smith to big contracts when they are already well above the salary cap?Tequilla said:
Wow? Really?RoadDawg55 said:
If Bost
Isaiah doesn't. They have cap room to sign a guy this offseason. Isaiah, Bradley, and Smart will all be free agents after next year. Thing is, Boston could re-sign all 3, although they won't.Tequilla said:
You're confusing shit here ...RoadDawg55 said:
That was my point. A lot of these teams have to basically throw outrageous money at guys like Smart because they have to sign someone to reach the salary floor. Don't be TequillaFS.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
NBA GMs are dumb and bad.RoadDawg55 said:
Lol I knew this was coming. When a 29% shooter from 3 goes 7-10 and LeBron takes the day off...Tequilla said:
And what I've been saying all year that I'd rather pay Bradley/Smart than IT max ...WilburHooksHands said:
Im saying your argument that IT shouldnt get max money becuase hes a defensive liability is FS.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.
Most said I was crazy ...
How's that looking tonight?
And you are damn right if I'm a championship level team I'm not paying max money to a expensive liability
Smart and Bradley are both 20+ mil players in today's NBA. Even Turner gets 4 years 75, Chandler Parsons gets the max. Stick to fantasy hoops.
I absolutely realize that teams overpay for players ... I don't blame players for taking the money.
But if you are a team with aspirations of winning titles, you don't offer FS contracts.
And if you are a player with aspirations of winning titles, sometimes you have to make some financial sacrifices to ensure that you have the best squad around you at all times.
The cap isn't a factor when re-signing your own players. You just have to be ready to pay the luxury tax.
You really are a fucktarded twit.
Part of Cleveland having LBJ is a willingness to venture into luxury tax territory ...
The other thing you get with the Cavs is the bitching during the year of not having any depth and the lack of youth/draft picks coming into the organization.
Got any additional knowledge to drop?
