Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Originally Posted by CosmicCanon
All of that, just fantastic stuff. You say 10 good players out of 3 years of non-lotto picks... that's not exactly a great percentage there. And why can't we rule out a player until his 3rd or 4th year? Where's that in the rules? Sure, it's possible, but do you actually think Jordan Hill will develop into a rotation player on a playoff team?, do you think Thabeet will pan out? Do you know anything about Motiejunas' game? I'll give you Lee, he's solid right now, but like I said, not that young. Sure, they could have "potential" but I'm speaking directly to this team right now.
Originally Posted by CosmicCanon
All of that, just fantastic stuff. You say 10 good players out of 3 years of non-lotto picks... that's not exactly a great percentage there. And why can't we rule out a player until his 3rd or 4th year? Where's that in the rules? Sure, it's possible, but do you actually think Jordan Hill will develop into a rotation player on a playoff team?, do you think Thabeet will pan out? Do you know anything about Motiejunas' game? I'll give you Lee, he's solid right now, but like I said, not that young. Sure, they could have "potential" but I'm speaking directly to this team right now.
Originally Posted by CP1708
His wife dude, Melo's wife wanted NY. Before them, who was the last big get for the Knicks? Spree/Houston a decade ago? You acting like every year they get the marquee names.
Originally Posted by CP1708
His wife dude, Melo's wife wanted NY. Before them, who was the last big get for the Knicks? Spree/Houston a decade ago? You acting like every year they get the marquee names.
Originally Posted by Bigmike23
Originally Posted by CP1708
His wife dude, Melo's wife wanted NY. Before them, who was the last big get for the Knicks? Spree/Houston a decade ago? You acting like every year they get the marquee names.
LMFAO!!!
Originally Posted by Bigmike23
Originally Posted by CP1708
His wife dude, Melo's wife wanted NY. Before them, who was the last big get for the Knicks? Spree/Houston a decade ago? You acting like every year they get the marquee names.
LMFAO!!!
Originally Posted by Air Freshh 23
my man is goin INOriginally Posted by CosmicCanon
Originally Posted by Big J 33
All of that, just fantastic stuff. You say 10 good players out of 3 years of non-lotto picks... that's not exactly a great percentage there. And why can't we rule out a player until his 3rd or 4th year? Where's that in the rules? Sure, it's possible, but do you actually think Jordan Hill will develop into a rotation player on a playoff team?, do you think Thabeet will pan out? Do you know anything about Motiejunas' game? I'll give you Lee, he's solid right now, but like I said, not that young. Sure, they could have "potential" but I'm speaking directly to this team right now.
2006
Shawne Williams; Rondo, Kyle Lowry, Shannon Brown, Daniel Gibson, Paul Millsap, and Leon Powe(7 players)
2007
Rodney Stuckey, Nick Young, Marco Bellinili, Jared Dudley, Wilson Chandler, Rudy Fernandez, Aaron Brooks, Arron Affalo, Tiago Splitter, Carl Landry, Glen Davis, Marc Gasol, and Ramon Sessions. (13 players)
2008
Robin Lopez, Roy Hibbert, Javale McGee, JJ Hickson, Courtney Lee, Serge Ibaka, Nicolas Batum, George Hill, Mario Chalmers, and DeAndre Jordan(10 players)
So, from 2006 - '08, 30 out of 138(number of non-lotto picks) panned out. That's 21% success, 1 in 5 if you hate math. I'm not saying the late picks are loaded with gems(nor the whole draft for that matter), but there's a healthy amount of talent to find. So, the more picks you have, the better chance you have at building through the draft. If that's the case, why are these bad teams TRADING AWAY their 1st rounders or NOT ACCUMULATING picks. Once again, the good small market front offices(Portland, OKC, Rockets, Spurs) do their best to accumulate picks/young talent. Each year, these late 1st rounders of the good teams are available, whether for cash(how the Knicks got the Lakers' pick, to draft Toney Douglas in '09) or for proven vets(Grizzlies with Battier).
At the end of the day, great front office>>all
Originally Posted by Air Freshh 23
my man is goin INOriginally Posted by CosmicCanon
Originally Posted by Big J 33
All of that, just fantastic stuff. You say 10 good players out of 3 years of non-lotto picks... that's not exactly a great percentage there. And why can't we rule out a player until his 3rd or 4th year? Where's that in the rules? Sure, it's possible, but do you actually think Jordan Hill will develop into a rotation player on a playoff team?, do you think Thabeet will pan out? Do you know anything about Motiejunas' game? I'll give you Lee, he's solid right now, but like I said, not that young. Sure, they could have "potential" but I'm speaking directly to this team right now.
2006
Shawne Williams; Rondo, Kyle Lowry, Shannon Brown, Daniel Gibson, Paul Millsap, and Leon Powe(7 players)
2007
Rodney Stuckey, Nick Young, Marco Bellinili, Jared Dudley, Wilson Chandler, Rudy Fernandez, Aaron Brooks, Arron Affalo, Tiago Splitter, Carl Landry, Glen Davis, Marc Gasol, and Ramon Sessions. (13 players)
2008
Robin Lopez, Roy Hibbert, Javale McGee, JJ Hickson, Courtney Lee, Serge Ibaka, Nicolas Batum, George Hill, Mario Chalmers, and DeAndre Jordan(10 players)
So, from 2006 - '08, 30 out of 138(number of non-lotto picks) panned out. That's 21% success, 1 in 5 if you hate math. I'm not saying the late picks are loaded with gems(nor the whole draft for that matter), but there's a healthy amount of talent to find. So, the more picks you have, the better chance you have at building through the draft. If that's the case, why are these bad teams TRADING AWAY their 1st rounders or NOT ACCUMULATING picks. Once again, the good small market front offices(Portland, OKC, Rockets, Spurs) do their best to accumulate picks/young talent. Each year, these late 1st rounders of the good teams are available, whether for cash(how the Knicks got the Lakers' pick, to draft Toney Douglas in '09) or for proven vets(Grizzlies with Battier).
At the end of the day, great front office>>all
I'm going to agree with the statement in bold above. But I think large market teams make horrible decisions too. I'd say at least half of the league needs help from themselves. Look at the Heisley & the Grizzlies. In the summer of 09, Rudy Gay's agent was asking for a 5 year $50 mil extension. The Grizzlies declined this offer which may have been in part to Heisley trying to sell the team. 1 year later they sign him to a 5 year $80 mil deal.Originally Posted by LDJ
Originally Posted by Air Freshh 23
my man is goin INOriginally Posted by CosmicCanon
2006
Shawne Williams; Rondo, Kyle Lowry, Shannon Brown, Daniel Gibson, Paul Millsap, and Leon Powe(7 players)
2007
Rodney Stuckey, Nick Young, Marco Bellinili, Jared Dudley, Wilson Chandler, Rudy Fernandez, Aaron Brooks, Arron Affalo, Tiago Splitter, Carl Landry, Glen Davis, Marc Gasol, and Ramon Sessions. (13 players)
2008
Robin Lopez, Roy Hibbert, Javale McGee, JJ Hickson, Courtney Lee, Serge Ibaka, Nicolas Batum, George Hill, Mario Chalmers, and DeAndre Jordan(10 players)
So, from 2006 - '08, 30 out of 138(number of non-lotto picks) panned out. That's 21% success, 1 in 5 if you hate math. I'm not saying the late picks are loaded with gems(nor the whole draft for that matter), but there's a healthy amount of talent to find. So, the more picks you have, the better chance you have at building through the draft. If that's the case, why are these bad teams TRADING AWAY their 1st rounders or NOT ACCUMULATING picks. Once again, the good small market front offices(Portland, OKC, Rockets, Spurs) do their best to accumulate picks/young talent. Each year, these late 1st rounders of the good teams are available, whether for cash(how the Knicks got the Lakers' pick, to draft Toney Douglas in '09) or for proven vets(Grizzlies with Battier).
At the end of the day, great front office>>all
cosmic cannon gets it. usually bad/poor front offices+small market aka suck places to live=continue to have bad teams.
Suprise no one has mentioned charles barkley is donating his entire tnt nba broadcasting salary to charity since he feels shouldnt keep money you. didnt earn.
I'm going to agree with the statement in bold above. But I think large market teams make horrible decisions too. I'd say at least half of the league needs help from themselves. Look at the Heisley & the Grizzlies. In the summer of 09, Rudy Gay's agent was asking for a 5 year $50 mil extension. The Grizzlies declined this offer which may have been in part to Heisley trying to sell the team. 1 year later they sign him to a 5 year $80 mil deal.Originally Posted by LDJ
Originally Posted by Air Freshh 23
my man is goin INOriginally Posted by CosmicCanon
2006
Shawne Williams; Rondo, Kyle Lowry, Shannon Brown, Daniel Gibson, Paul Millsap, and Leon Powe(7 players)
2007
Rodney Stuckey, Nick Young, Marco Bellinili, Jared Dudley, Wilson Chandler, Rudy Fernandez, Aaron Brooks, Arron Affalo, Tiago Splitter, Carl Landry, Glen Davis, Marc Gasol, and Ramon Sessions. (13 players)
2008
Robin Lopez, Roy Hibbert, Javale McGee, JJ Hickson, Courtney Lee, Serge Ibaka, Nicolas Batum, George Hill, Mario Chalmers, and DeAndre Jordan(10 players)
So, from 2006 - '08, 30 out of 138(number of non-lotto picks) panned out. That's 21% success, 1 in 5 if you hate math. I'm not saying the late picks are loaded with gems(nor the whole draft for that matter), but there's a healthy amount of talent to find. So, the more picks you have, the better chance you have at building through the draft. If that's the case, why are these bad teams TRADING AWAY their 1st rounders or NOT ACCUMULATING picks. Once again, the good small market front offices(Portland, OKC, Rockets, Spurs) do their best to accumulate picks/young talent. Each year, these late 1st rounders of the good teams are available, whether for cash(how the Knicks got the Lakers' pick, to draft Toney Douglas in '09) or for proven vets(Grizzlies with Battier).
At the end of the day, great front office>>all
cosmic cannon gets it. usually bad/poor front offices+small market aka suck places to live=continue to have bad teams.
Suprise no one has mentioned charles barkley is donating his entire tnt nba broadcasting salary to charity since he feels shouldnt keep money you. didnt earn.
Yea but large market teams often times are teams with a rich history, have great staff/players and a desirable place to live. Like in the upcomming post-kobe years. the lakers with their history, great ownership staffing etc plus being in la, has a better chance to snag a top tier player. then lets say a minnosta or a clevland etc barring they arent in a winning position.Originally Posted by psk2310
I'm going to agree with the statement in bold above. But I think large market teams make horrible decisions too. I'd say at least half of the league needs help from themselves. Look at the Heisley & the Grizzlies. In the summer of 09, Rudy Gay's agent was asking for a 5 year $50 mil extension. The Grizzlies declined this offer which may have been in part to Heisley trying to sell the team. 1 year later they sign him to a 5 year $80 mil deal.Originally Posted by LDJ
Originally Posted by Air Freshh 23
my man is goin IN
cosmic cannon gets it. usually bad/poor front offices+small market aka suck places to live=continue to have bad teams.
Suprise no one has mentioned charles barkley is donating his entire tnt nba broadcasting salary to charity since he feels shouldnt keep money you. didnt earn.
What kind of sense did this make? Look at how far they got without him? No one expected Memphis to get into the playoffs much less the second round... Gay may end up a decent player (which I doubt), but this is clearly an example of teams making horrible decisions..
Yea but large market teams often times are teams with a rich history, have great staff/players and a desirable place to live. Like in the upcomming post-kobe years. the lakers with their history, great ownership staffing etc plus being in la, has a better chance to snag a top tier player. then lets say a minnosta or a clevland etc barring they arent in a winning position.Originally Posted by psk2310
I'm going to agree with the statement in bold above. But I think large market teams make horrible decisions too. I'd say at least half of the league needs help from themselves. Look at the Heisley & the Grizzlies. In the summer of 09, Rudy Gay's agent was asking for a 5 year $50 mil extension. The Grizzlies declined this offer which may have been in part to Heisley trying to sell the team. 1 year later they sign him to a 5 year $80 mil deal.Originally Posted by LDJ
Originally Posted by Air Freshh 23
my man is goin IN
cosmic cannon gets it. usually bad/poor front offices+small market aka suck places to live=continue to have bad teams.
Suprise no one has mentioned charles barkley is donating his entire tnt nba broadcasting salary to charity since he feels shouldnt keep money you. didnt earn.
What kind of sense did this make? Look at how far they got without him? No one expected Memphis to get into the playoffs much less the second round... Gay may end up a decent player (which I doubt), but this is clearly an example of teams making horrible decisions..
Ray Allen for Desmond MasonOriginally Posted by LDJ
If you think the NBA is actual basketball smh. So many rules are skewed its ridiculous, if you dont notice how poorly the game is played then its obvious you havent actually played organized basketball. And yes no parity. I understand the Mavs beat a choke artist in Lebron this past year. I understand Kevin Durant is a becoming a beast, but yes no parity. We can predict the final four pretty accurately every year. For other sports not so much.Originally Posted by Jay02
no parity? what playoffs were you watching?
lulz at the NBA ruining basketball. NTer please
it seems like you're arguing that nobody wants to play in Milwaukee because of things like weather, endorsements, lifestyle etc. all those things are attributes of the city that will never change (but Jennings does have a shoe deal tho) so giving all teams the same money to spend isn't gonna make Milwaukee any more attractive for two reasons, it's not the sexy place to be AND they don't know how to run a basketball franchise. the playing field will never be level especially if the front office sucks. Millions to lose on the Clippers or millions to lose on the Bucks? seriously, knowing both teams don't know how to win which one are you picking? so to answer your question yes, certain teams will always have advantages over others and the way to overcome it is to make better decisions. Ray Allen was traded for a 34 year old Gary Payton and Desmond Mason. Seattle sucks so much as a city they have the most suicides and even they got Ray to re-up. Boston isn't a glamorous city and their management sucks but all it took was a few good decisions and they got guys to re-up. Just look at LA....both teams have the exact same opportunities and we can see where management has taken each. I don't know about you but I'm not trying to work for the guy who's checking out my balls in the shower after the game (Sterling smh). I mean it's gotta be depressing to play for a team where the weather sucks AND you're not having fun on the court because it's basically a million dollar dead end job where you know your bosses are idiots and you're never gonna win. there are cities just as boring as Milwaukee but players get drafted there and when they have the choice to leave they actually choose to stay. why? for whatever reason they stay the Bucks don't offer that and that's on them. bottom line I know you love the game but I think you love the Bucks more and it's messing with your head. if the Packers win it again this year and are competitive for the rest of the decade I don't think you would complain about how unfair it is for the other teams. you don't really want the NBA "fixed", what you want is for the Bucks to fix themselves and create a competitive environment so they can attract competitive players in spite of their location (like Green Bay does)
Ray Allen for Desmond MasonOriginally Posted by LDJ
If you think the NBA is actual basketball smh. So many rules are skewed its ridiculous, if you dont notice how poorly the game is played then its obvious you havent actually played organized basketball. And yes no parity. I understand the Mavs beat a choke artist in Lebron this past year. I understand Kevin Durant is a becoming a beast, but yes no parity. We can predict the final four pretty accurately every year. For other sports not so much.Originally Posted by Jay02
no parity? what playoffs were you watching?
lulz at the NBA ruining basketball. NTer please
it seems like you're arguing that nobody wants to play in Milwaukee because of things like weather, endorsements, lifestyle etc. all those things are attributes of the city that will never change (but Jennings does have a shoe deal tho) so giving all teams the same money to spend isn't gonna make Milwaukee any more attractive for two reasons, it's not the sexy place to be AND they don't know how to run a basketball franchise. the playing field will never be level especially if the front office sucks. Millions to lose on the Clippers or millions to lose on the Bucks? seriously, knowing both teams don't know how to win which one are you picking? so to answer your question yes, certain teams will always have advantages over others and the way to overcome it is to make better decisions. Ray Allen was traded for a 34 year old Gary Payton and Desmond Mason. Seattle sucks so much as a city they have the most suicides and even they got Ray to re-up. Boston isn't a glamorous city and their management sucks but all it took was a few good decisions and they got guys to re-up. Just look at LA....both teams have the exact same opportunities and we can see where management has taken each. I don't know about you but I'm not trying to work for the guy who's checking out my balls in the shower after the game (Sterling smh). I mean it's gotta be depressing to play for a team where the weather sucks AND you're not having fun on the court because it's basically a million dollar dead end job where you know your bosses are idiots and you're never gonna win. there are cities just as boring as Milwaukee but players get drafted there and when they have the choice to leave they actually choose to stay. why? for whatever reason they stay the Bucks don't offer that and that's on them. bottom line I know you love the game but I think you love the Bucks more and it's messing with your head. if the Packers win it again this year and are competitive for the rest of the decade I don't think you would complain about how unfair it is for the other teams. you don't really want the NBA "fixed", what you want is for the Bucks to fix themselves and create a competitive environment so they can attract competitive players in spite of their location (like Green Bay does)