THE 2015 NBA PRE SEASON THREAD: BEST WISHES TO LAMAR ODOM

Who will represent the Western Conference in the NBA Finals?

  • Thunder

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Clippers

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Spurs

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mavs

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Grizzlies

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rockets

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Kings

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Warriors

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Pelicans

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Embiid is gonna be a bust.
eyes.gif
 
Do the Knicks or Lakers have Embiid, Noel or Okafor to convince young free agents to sign with them?

I think free agents will soon want to play with the future best frontcourt in the league, especially if Embiid turns out to be the next AD like they think he can be.

Just like how I think the Cousins-WCS pairing could turn around the mess that it's been in Sacramento.
Sixers haven't put any effort forth building a balanced team since Hinkie took over. No free agent is walking into a mess like that. Embiid hasn't played a minute in the league and who knows if he even plays this year. So yeah, comparing him to a superstar and top-3 player in the NBA (a guy 1 year older than Embiid) is just foolish and setting yourself up for failure. It's not the best front court in the NBA. It's a good player in Noel, a rookie in Okafor who should become a good player and a center who could turn into Greg Oden 2.0. Maybe if you have some interestign guard prospects people would care, but you don't. Lakers have a better foundation, whether you like it or not.

Clarkson, Russell, Randle is more attractive than Philly's mess because those 3 actually resemble a core that's balanced and they have a GM running things whose actually had a winning pedigree. Plus you factor in Upshaw's potential upside, a reinvigorated Hibbert, and you're looking at a really solid team that just needs a couple of pieces to become dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Somebody's going to be eating crow a year or two from now. We'll see.
 
If you're a free agent, why would you go to Philly when LA has a better core and a GM with a winning pedigree? Philly has 2 players, maybe 3, and they all play the same position. Lakers have a balanced crop of young talent and decent role players.
 
Where a team is located at is far less important than how competitive a team is.

As it stands now, lal nyc and Philly all won't be fa hotspots come next summer until one of them show that they can be competitive.
 
Dude still think that location is the number one factor.

How did that turn out for the Lakers and Knicks?

It's about plan and money.
location plays a factor to some degree buts its obviously not the most important. 
 
Last edited:
[/SPOILER]
Where a team is located at is far less important than how competitive a team is.

As it stands now, lal nyc and Philly all won't be fa hotspots come next summer until one of them show that they can be competitive.

TBH, geographic location, by itself, is pretty meaningless now unless a player wants to get in on the whole "going home" narrative. Money, front office stability, team fit and best chance to win are the biggest issues for FAs now.
 
We've already seen some interesting developments, like Monroe going to MIL, some going to SAC, some going to CHAR and some going to TOR

Imagine when the cap raises next summer. We will see that location and market is less of a factor
 
What place is less attractive? Idiot gm, (insert coach name here), no proven star players, threat of being traded halfway through the tank, etc etc, where is worse?

Which is worse? You're hair splitting

All those places aren't attractive at all and none of them will attract free agents next summer unless they turn the corner this season and look like a competent franchise.
 
Which is worse? You're hair splitting

All those places aren't attractive at all and none of them will attract free agents next summer unless they turn the corner this season and look like a competent franchise.
not hair splitting at  all. la looks way more attractive then philly atm. a reason why  LA even took a look at the lakers . why not take a look at philly or other bad squads?

i understand that the lakers dont look like a good destination for fa right now tho .
 
Last edited:
[/SPOILER]
TBH, geographic location, by itself, is pretty meaningless now unless a player wants to get in on the whole "going home" narrative. Money, front office stability, team fit and best chance to win are the biggest issues for FAs now.

I agree with all of this with best chance to win as the deciding factor.
 
not hair splitting at  all. la looks way more attractive then philly atm. a reason why  LA even took a look at the lakers . why not take a look at philly or other bad squads? 

Way more attractive? Really? LAL won like 20 games last year :lol

they didn't land any of their Free Agents that they sought after. I mean if you want to give credit for being given a meeting then I mean I guess, but it was a meeting.

The bottom line is, as this summer and previous summers have showed for lal recently, no one is playing for lal if they are trash. No one is even considering philly because they're trash.

You can rank lal ahead of philly and nyk but no one is going to play for either of those teams. To put one ahead of the other is hair splitting. It's like saying "we failed better"
 
Lakers have a balanced team that just needs a couple of players.

76ers have nothing but 2 healthy big men and 1 question mark.

Look at the cores.

Would you rather play with Clarkson, Randle, Russell and potentially Upshaw and Hibbert (a balanced team)

Or

Okafor, Noel, Embiid (?)

No one is going to choose to play for a cluster****. That's why the Knicks didn't land any stars, that's why the Lakers didn't either. It's about having a balanced core, a foundation, to attract people.

76ers 2, maybe 3 players, who all play the same position.
 
Sounding like a thot that let a dude hit and expected him to leave his gf. Fell for the, "I'm over her. She don't treat me like you do" routine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom