NBA thread

Dirty Ewok

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
7,195
I am seething. Adam Silver, please for the love of god, take the Knicks away from Dolan.
Really, if they could just get of Dolan they wouldn't be in the worst spot.

Sure they are going to be awful, but i actually think that RJ Barrett could be a pretty good player. Because they will suck for this up coming season and probably the next they could end up with a couple really talented players via the draft. They have some money and they are in NYC so....they could attract a couple solid free agents.

That said....since Dolan is still in charge....i fully expect that they will sign multiple players to max contracts that don't deserve them and Barrett will get fed up with playing for a shit team run by a jack ass and push to get traded. All the while Dolan will be most certainly be shopping the team to anyone who will listen but not being able to sell because the team is a tire fire.
 

PhillySpurs

Active Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
118
I know I’m biased, but the Sixers had a good night last night. Although it sucks losing both Butler and Redick, adding Horford and Richardson makes that easier. That defense should be spectacular. They need to fill out their bench, and add a shooter.

I dislike the Knicks, but I really feel for their fans. I understand being uneasy giving KD a max deal when he’s going to be out for a year, but they really needed to offer it to him. It would have been better optics for the fans and media if they swung and missed on him and Kyrie.
 

beats1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
26,730
I know I’m biased, but the Sixers had a good night last night. Although it sucks losing both Butler and Redick, adding Horford and Richardson makes that easier. That defense should be spectacular. They need to fill out their bench, and add a shooter.

I dislike the Knicks, but I really feel for their fans. I understand being uneasy giving KD a max deal when he’s going to be out for a year, but they really needed to offer it to him. It would have been better optics for the fans and media if they swung and missed on him and Kyrie.
I actually disagree with this take

I think Horford and Richardson aren't great for your team. Both great players but I question the fit, they are most effective inside the arc and whilst I can see them capable of spreading the floor. I think you need people whose games are made for off the ball and involves cutting and beyond the arc. I have controversial opinion that you should have got rid of simmons and not fultz. Whilst Fultz isn't a superstar like simmons you would have got more and Embiid was better with him on the floor.

As for the knicks, not offering Durant a contract is stupid. Even without an Achilles he is still a player who can get his shot off and won't lose what made him a 50-40-90 player. Efficient shooting will always be a good contract and durant, with his size and skill was always a max player. The fact his athleticism wasn't the determining factor behind his good percentage made hims a low risk.
 

Marty

See you next Tuesday
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
21,168
Clippers with Kawhi (hate how he acted up at Spurs but what a player) and Paul George, is that enough for a real tilt at the title?
 

PhillySpurs

Active Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
118
I actually disagree with this take

I think Horford and Richardson aren't great for your team. Both great players but I question the fit, they are most effective inside the arc and whilst I can see them capable of spreading the floor. I think you need people whose games are made for off the ball and involves cutting and beyond the arc. I have controversial opinion that you should have got rid of simmons and not fultz. Whilst Fultz isn't a superstar like simmons you would have got more and Embiid was better with him on the floor.

As for the knicks, not offering Durant a contract is stupid. Even without an Achilles he is still a player who can get his shot off and won't lose what made him a 50-40-90 player. Efficient shooting will always be a good contract and durant, with his size and skill was always a max player. The fact his athleticism wasn't the determining factor behind his good percentage made hims a low risk.
I will have to respectfully disagree with you good sir. I do not think that Fultz will amount too much in the league. Yes he is young and has potential, but his lack of confidence and his inability to remain healthy, are a huge question mark for him. As for Simmons....What we are seeing with him is his floor. If he is able to develop a shot or at least a ten foot floater, then he is a superstar. He already is an excellent defender, can get to the hoop at will, and has awesome court vision. You can not trade away a player of his potential this early in his development. As for Horford, he fits because of the fact that his skill set works with Embid. He can stretch the floor, he has a good handle, and he is excellent defensively. He can also fill in as a more than capable sub for Embid, which they really lacked last year. Richardson is excellent defensively, can drive the lane, and is a decent shooter. This team should be a monster defensively, which is what Brett Brown has wanted. The only think I really worry about is missing a pure shooter. Although if Tobias Harris can shoot above 40% from 3, then that would solve that problem.

Yeah, even if there were serious questions about Durant's health, the Knicks needed to take that gamble.
 

Dirty Ewok

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
7,195
I actually disagree with this take

I think Horford and Richardson aren't great for your team. Both great players but I question the fit, they are most effective inside the arc and whilst I can see them capable of spreading the floor. I think you need people whose games are made for off the ball and involves cutting and beyond the arc. I have controversial opinion that you should have got rid of simmons and not fultz. Whilst Fultz isn't a superstar like simmons you would have got more and Embiid was better with him on the floor.

As for the knicks, not offering Durant a contract is stupid. Even without an Achilles he is still a player who can get his shot off and won't lose what made him a 50-40-90 player. Efficient shooting will always be a good contract and durant, with his size and skill was always a max player. The fact his athleticism wasn't the determining factor behind his good percentage made hims a low risk.
I think Horford and Richardson actually fit pretty well for Philly. Richardson, Horford and Tobias Harris are all capable of shooting pretty well from outside the arc (they are all career 36%+ 3pt shooters) which means you can't just scheme to have Embiid and Simmons shoot from the outside which is good because Simmons can't shoot period and Embiid's shot went to shit down the stretch last year.

Horford is a great locker room guy and will do well as the veteran presence for the Sixers and Richardson gives them a guy who can perform but doesn't need to be the focus of the team.
 

tobi

Clear Eyes Full Hearts Can't Lose
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
14,436
Clippers with Kawhi (hate how he acted up at Spurs but what a player) and Paul George, is that enough for a real tilt at the title?
I think they need another wing defender and their set.
 

Dirty Ewok

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
7,195
Clippers with Kawhi (hate how he acted up at Spurs but what a player) and Paul George, is that enough for a real tilt at the title?
Look at the conference.

Lakers have Davis and an aging Lebron. Warriors have Curry and D-Lo (until Clay is healthy). Houston has Harden and (for the time being) Chris Paul. Denver has Joker and Jamal Murray. Jazz have Mitchell and Gobert.....So having Kawhi and PG-13 on a team gives them a pair that at worst is on par with anyone else in the West.

Once you hit the playoffs, anything can happen so Kawhi and PG do give them a shot at a title.
 

Dirty Ewok

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
7,195
I will have to respectfully disagree with you good sir. I do not think that Fultz will amount too much in the league. Yes he is young and has potential, but his lack of confidence and his inability to remain healthy, are a huge question mark for him. As for Simmons....What we are seeing with him is his floor. If he is able to develop a shot or at least a ten foot floater, then he is a superstar. He already is an excellent defender, can get to the hoop at will, and has awesome court vision. You can not trade away a player of his potential this early in his development. As for Horford, he fits because of the fact that his skill set works with Embid. He can stretch the floor, he has a good handle, and he is excellent defensively. He can also fill in as a more than capable sub for Embid, which they really lacked last year. Richardson is excellent defensively, can drive the lane, and is a decent shooter. This team should be a monster defensively, which is what Brett Brown has wanted. The only think I really worry about is missing a pure shooter. Although if Tobias Harris can shoot above 40% from 3, then that would solve that problem.

Yeah, even if there were serious questions about Durant's health, the Knicks needed to take that gamble.
I am not sure the decision to go to the Nets and not the Knicks was Durant's. I think KD and Kyrie had decided to go to one of the NY teams in January/February (apparently Kyrie was trying to recruit players to join them during the season). So i think the decision to go to NY was done but i think once KD got injured the decision was made by Kyrie since he is going to be the one who has to play for a season without KD.

If you are Kyrie do you want to play a season with a Knicks team that is completely stripped down to bare bones and was one of the worst teams in the NBA last season or do you want to play with a Nets team that made the playoffs and the main change to the lineup is Kyrie taking over for D-Lo. I think Kyrie made the call and KD agreed.
 

PhillySpurs

Active Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
118
I am not sure the decision to go to the Nets and not the Knicks was Durant's. I think KD and Kyrie had decided to go to one of the NY teams in January/February (apparently Kyrie was trying to recruit players to join them during the season). So i think the decision to go to NY was done but i think once KD got injured the decision was made by Kyrie since he is going to be the one who has to play for a season without KD.

If you are Kyrie do you want to play a season with a Knicks team that is completely stripped down to bare bones and was one of the worst teams in the NBA last season or do you want to play with a Nets team that made the playoffs and the main change to the lineup is Kyrie taking over for D-Lo. I think Kyrie made the call and KD agreed.
I completely agree with you. My point is that the Knicks needed to put in an offer for him and Kyrie. They didn't need to get them, they just needed to show that they tried.
 

Dirty Ewok

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
7,195
I completely agree with you. My point is that the Knicks needed to put in an offer for him and Kyrie. They didn't need to get them, they just needed to show that they tried.
Yeah, fair enough. They did need to make an offer even if they knew for a fact they weren't getting either of them.

But hey they signed what?....4 middle of the road power forwards so that will help i guess.
 

Dirty Ewok

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
7,195
Oh Lebron, you seem to have stepped in it.

You may have been better off ignoring the press on this one.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
5,398
Oh Lebron, you seem to have stepped in it.

You may have been better off ignoring the press on this one.
That's always the trouble with these celebrities who position themselves as some kind of champion of social justice - they're all still human so it's just a matter of time before you contradict yourself or get asked to comment on something you don't really understand and land yourself in it. Also a problem with twitter/social media is that everyone has a record of exactly what you've commented all the time so the second you contradict something you've said in the past there are 200 people tweeting screenshots of your previous comments, even if it's something you tweeted as a teenager.
 
Top