NBA Playoffs 2017: Kawhi Did You Injure Me?

[BigFatCoward]

Celtics go first, a lot of options for them. With the right choices this off season they could be serious competition for the Cavs over next few years. 

[Relic]

Seeing that the Kings got two picks in the lottery last night, and seeing how Buddy started showing real signs of being a future All Star, does the Boogie trade looks as crazy now? I never hated it as much as most of you did, and I hate it much less now. 

[David Selig]

6 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

I think the must shoot an insane amount of 3s just to win today attitude is overrated. Warriors are the only team consistently winning that way.

The Cavs shoot a great amount of 3s too. In fact, they are shooting 3 more three pointers per game in the playoffs than the Warriors these playoffs. Last season's playoffs they only shot 2 less three pointers per game than the Warriors. 3 of the top 5 teams in 3 points attempts per game in the regular season are in the conference finals and Houston weren't that far away from reaching them too.

Anyway, these playoffs so far have been major disappointment for me. too many blowouts, not enough close games and it's blatantly obvious the Cavs and the ewarriors will reach the finals and may even not lose a game until then.

[DunderMifflin]

1 hour ago, David Selig said:

The Cavs shoot a great amount of 3s too. In fact, they are shooting 3 more three pointers per game in the playoffs than the Warriors these playoffs. Last season's playoffs they only shot 2 less three pointers per game than the Warriors. 3 of the top 5 teams in 3 points attempts per game in the regular season are in the conference finals and Houston weren't that far away from reaching them too.

Anyway, these playoffs so far have been major disappointment for me. too many blowouts, not enough close games and it's blatantly obvious the Cavs and the ewarriors will reach the finals and may even not lose a game until then.

Being that LeBron has won consistently over the last decade. I'm going to go out on a limb and say he's probably the biggest reason the Cavs are good now and that theyd still be good without guys like Channing Frye chucking up five 3s a game. Any team can get a bunch of role players to gun up 3s if thats the concern, it's not worth trading away studs like Boogie and AD for though. Also Cousins already shoots the 3 just as good as anyone on the Cavs outside of Korver and maybe Kyrie and Frye.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 hours ago, sperry said:

What in the actual fuck is wrong with Aldridge.

He's almost 32 and has heart issues. Plus his game is out of step with the modern NBA. He's an unathletic big who wants to shoot mid range jumpers.

10 hours ago, briantw said:

If only there was some sort of elite small forward available at the trade deadline they could have acquired.

Oh well.

Acquiring George or Butler wouldn't put them over the Warriors or the Cavs. It's smarter to play the long game with two potential #1 picks.

Also, all accounts indicate that neither were made available for a trade.

9 hours ago, briantw said:

If you're New Orleans, it's a really tough pill to swallow trading Anthony Davis for draft picks when he still has four years left on his deal.  I just can't see them doing it.

If I owned the Pelicans and woke up to news that my GM was even considering trading AD, I'd fire him. Out of a cannon. In to the Sun.

[Maithanet]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Acquiring George or Butler wouldn't put them over the Warriors or the Cavs. It's smarter to play the long game with two potential #1 picks.

Also, all accounts indicate that neither were made available for a trade.

Well, the official story is always that guys aren't available for trade, right up until they're traded.  I have no doubt both guys were available for the right price.

Quote

If I owned the Pelicans and woke up to news that my GM was even considering trading AD, I'd fire him. Out of a cannon. In to the Sun.

Indeed.  Davis is in the elite class of players that are good enough to be the best player on a championship team.  There are only maybe 6-8 guys that good in the league, and they cannot be traded. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Well, the official story is always that guys aren't available for trade, right up until they're traded.  I have no doubt both guys were available for the right price.

Normally I'd agree, but a lot of Boston insiders have said the Celtics tried to acquiring either of them and both the Bulls and the Pacers refused to trade. I can understand the Bulls not wanting to part ways with Butler, but the Pacers refusal makes no sense. 

16 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Indeed.  Davis is in the elite class of players that are good enough to be the best player on a championship team.  There are only maybe 6-8 guys that good in the league, and they cannot be traded. 

Agreed, and on top of that he's one of the 5 or 6 guys under 25 that you can simply not trade because of their upside.

[sperry]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

He's almost 32 and has heart issues. Plus his game is out of step with the modern NBA. He's an unathletic big who wants to shoot mid range jumpers.

Acquiring George or Butler wouldn't put them over the Warriors or the Cavs. It's smarter to play the long game with two potential #1 picks.

Also, all accounts indicate that neither were made available for a trade.

If I owned the Pelicans and woke up to news that my GM was even considering trading AD, I'd fire him. Out of a cannon. In to the Sun.

 

It goes beyond that with Aldridge. He legitimately looks drunk out there. I know his positional value has gone down and he's getting a bit long in the tooth (although most guys are still highly productive at age 32), but that's the second time in this playoffs (Houston game 1 as well) that if it was the only time I'd seen him play I'd say the guy wasn't an NBA player . Danny Green is a sad story too, what the hell happened to him.

 

As for the #1 picks, if you can get George or Butler for it you do it. The problem with playing the long game is Isiaih is 29, and Al Horford is about to turn 31. By the time Markelle Fultz is ready to really help you out (year 3 or so), Horford is likely reduced to a role player, Isiah is in big time decline, and all your cheap role players from the current roster are getting paid.  The other problem with building for the future is that they drafted Jaylen Brown #3 overall this year. They needed to kick things off with a future all-star with that pick, and they didn't.

 

As for the shelf-life of the currently constructed Warriors and Cavs, we'll see. GS will be interesting. The only reason they can exist as they currently do is the laughable contract that Steph is on. The cap is projected to do up about $10 million dollars this year, but Steph Curry's salary should be jumping by $25 million. Additionally, Durant has the option to opt out and get an additional $10+ million. Livingston and Iguodala's contracts are both up. I'm guessing Iguodala resigns for the veteran minimum, but Livingston hasn't had huge career earnings so I'm guessing he goes somewhere that can pay him. Long story short, long term it's not possible to keep all 4 guys, and I'm not sure it's possible to keep 3. The thing to keep an eye out for is if these guys take massive paycuts, and at that point I believe the league and NBAPA would think about stepping in. The salary cap exists for a reason, and that system breaks if Steph Curry and Durant both take $20 million dollar salaries instead of $35. 

 

As for the Cavs, it's a who fucking knows. The laws of biology say LeBron shouldn't be able to do this forever, but then again the laws of LeBron say LeBron shouldn't exist in the first place.

 

Regardless, the emergence of Isiah Thomas as a legitimate superstar combined with whiffing on last year's #3 overall pick have moved the Celtics into more of a win-now situation than I believed they were in before.

[DanteGabriel]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Well, the official story is always that guys aren't available for trade, right up until they're traded.  I have no doubt both guys were available for the right price.

Indeed.  Davis is in the elite class of players that are good enough to be the best player on a championship team.  There are only maybe 6-8 guys that good in the league, and they cannot be traded. 

I am sure you're right about guys being unavailable until they  suddenly are available. I heard that teams are reluctant to deal with Ainge since he absolutely fleeced Brooklyn on the Pierce-Garnett deal, so they were asking unreasonably high prices at the trade deadline this year.

I don't think Butler is one of those 6-8 guys, and George was going to jump to the Lakers at first opportunity, so good job by Ainge to hold on. Obviously there was a ton of luck involved, but at this moment his approach has been vindicated. Would love to see the Celtics lure in Gordon Hayward this offseason. That'd be a pretty compelling roster. Wouldn't solve their rebounding problem, but maybe one of the guys they stashed overseas could help on that front.

And absolutely I'd take a deal for AD if New Orleans wants to be that foolish. The two Brooklyn picks and Crowder? Where do I sign?

[sperry]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Normally I'd agree, but a lot of Boston insiders have said the Celtics tried to acquiring either of them and both the Bulls and the Pacers refused to trade. I can understand the Bulls not wanting to part ways with Butler, but the Pacers refusal makes no sense. 

Agreed, and on top of that he's one of the 5 or 6 guys under 25 that you can simply not trade because of their upside.

 

Here's the problem with that: they went all-in on Boogie. If the Boogie/AD experiment doesn't work, then they are sunk. That roster is abysmal, and no quality FA's are coming to New Orleans. If you could get both Brooklyn picks from the Celts, then you have #1 overall this year, likely two top 5 picks the following year plus I'm guessing you could get a lottery pick for Boogie, plus the following year you'd be drafting in the top 5 again. All of a sudden you've put 4 top 5 picks, at least one of which is #1 overall on your roster. I'll take that over Anthony Davis plus a clown car full of losers any day.

[DunderMifflin]

You are still going to have the clown car full of losers. 4 draft picks aren't going to fix that. All it does is take your only 2 winners away.

[sperry]

6 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

You are still going to have the clown car full of losers. 4 draft picks aren't going to fix that. All it does is take your only 2 winners away.

4 top 5 draft picks should damn sure fix that. And you have those two "winners" currently, yet didn't come remotely close to making the playoffs.

[DunderMifflin]

1 minute ago, sperry said:

4 top 5 draft picks should damn sure fix that. And you have those two "winners" currently, yet didn't come remotely close to making the playoffs.

Why would 4 top 5 draft picks fix that? You are banking on one of them being a superstar talent which is far from a guarantee. If any are future all star talent it's going to take some time for it to show in the win column. We've seen plenty of teams stocked with high draft picks end up with nothing or not much. You don't want another OKC (harden, Durant) repeat even if you do luck up and draft a bunch of studs.

 I agree Pelicans have stupidly traded away their first round pick almost every year since they got AD, which is really dumb. Now I'm pretty sure AD and Cousins are the only two lottery picks they have on the entire roster. But they are very good. The odds that 3-4 unknown draft picks are going to replace that doesn't seem high to me.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Why would the Celtics take Fultz, is he a 1 or 2? If a 2, I can understand. Or, the whole best player regardless of position? If he is a 1, do the shop Isaiah? I can't see how that would make them better.

[sperry]

7 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Why would 4 top 5 draft picks fix that? You are banking on one of them being a superstar talent which is far from a guarantee. If any are future all star talent it's going to take some time for it to show in the win column. We've seen plenty of teams stocked with high draft picks end up with nothing or not much. You don't want another OKC (harden, Durant) repeat even if you do luck up and draft a bunch of studs.

 I agree Pelicans have stupidly traded away their first round pick almost every year since they got AD, which is really dumb. Now I'm pretty sure AD and Cousins are the only two lottery picks they have on the entire roster. But they are very good. The odds that 3-4 unknown draft picks are going to replace that doesn't seem high to me.

 

The problem with this is that the Pelicans are terrible, and they don't have the assets to build anything around Davis. So while Davis is incredible, the team sucks and is going to continue to suck for the foreseeable future. Instead, you can turn that into 4 top 5 picks, which is much better than you are making it out to be. 

 

9 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Why would the Celtics take Fultz, is he a 1 or 2? If a 2, I can understand. Or, the whole best player regardless of position? If he is a 1, do the shop Isaiah? I can't see how that would make them better.

 

Any of those guys can play on or off the ball.

[DunderMifflin]

24 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

The problem with this is that the Pelicans are terrible, and they don't have the assets to build anything around Davis. So while Davis is incredible, the team sucks and is going to continue to suck for the foreseeable future. Instead, you can turn that into 4 top 5 picks, which is much better than you are making it out to be. 

Actually it's a lot better or a lot worse than I'm making it out to be. It's a gamble, and it's an even further gamble to rely on those teams that you trade with to be still so bad that they give you a top 3 pick and not perform just a tiny bit better and leave you with a top 8 pick. even further gambling that the ping pong balls won't fuck u out of the top 5

Also we are  seeing teams trading away unprotected draft picks less and less now. Pelicans would have kept their pick this year if they were bad enough to draft in the top 4 because they traded their pick to the Kings as top 4 protected. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 hours ago, Relic said:

Least surprising Game 2 blowout of all time. 

Yeah, that was hard to watch, even as a Warrior's fan. I more or less checked out at the half. Homicide in basketball form. That said, this isn't over. I believe Kawhi will be back on Saturday, and I think Pop effectively shamed his team at his postgame presser. Spurs will come back firing in Game 3, and we will get at least the semblence of a series here.

 Looking forward to Game 1 of the ECF tonight. I feel like Boston is almost in a must win position right out of the gate, but I feel like they really can take this first game. The Cavs have had what, 10 days off? Has to be some rust to exploit there.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 hours ago, Relic said:

Seeing that the Kings got two picks in the lottery last night, and seeing how Buddy started showing real signs of being a future All Star, does the Boogie trade looks as crazy now? I never hated it as much as most of you did, and I hate it much less now. 

Seconded. Through no real fault of their own, the Kings were redeemed by that lottery. Now the just have to execute a good draft, which I have to imagine they will fuck up in spectacular fashion.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, sperry said:

 

It goes beyond that with Aldridge. He legitimately looks drunk out there. I know his positional value has gone down and he's getting a bit long in the tooth (although most guys are still highly productive at age 32), but that's the second time in this playoffs (Houston game 1 as well) that if it was the only time I'd seen him play I'd say the guy wasn't an NBA player . Danny Green is a sad story too, what the hell happened to him.

 

Again, I'd point to the heart issue. We know how a knee or ankle injury affects an athlete. It's a lot harder to gauge how a heart issue affects an athlete. That could be causing his sluggish play. 

3 hours ago, sperry said:

As for the #1 picks, if you can get George or Butler for it you do it. The problem with playing the long game is Isiaih is 29, and Al Horford is about to turn 31. By the time Markelle Fultz is ready to really help you out (year 3 or so), Horford is likely reduced to a role player, Isiah is in big time decline, and all your cheap role players from the current roster are getting paid.  The other problem with building for the future is that they drafted Jaylen Brown #3 overall this year. They needed to kick things off with a future all-star with that pick, and they didn't.

I think you can justify doing it for Butler, but not George. Two potential number one picks are not worth a year and a half rental on George. 

Also, it's possible that the Celtics have determined that they aren't good enough even with the addition of either George or Butler. If that's the case, you play the long game.

3 hours ago, sperry said:

As for the shelf-life of the currently constructed Warriors and Cavs, we'll see. GS will be interesting. The only reason they can exist as they currently do is the laughable contract that Steph is on. The cap is projected to do up about $10 million dollars this year, but Steph Curry's salary should be jumping by $25 million. Additionally, Durant has the option to opt out and get an additional $10+ million. Livingston and Iguodala's contracts are both up. I'm guessing Iguodala resigns for the veteran minimum, but Livingston hasn't had huge career earnings so I'm guessing he goes somewhere that can pay him. Long story short, long term it's not possible to keep all 4 guys, and I'm not sure it's possible to keep 3. The thing to keep an eye out for is if these guys take massive paycuts, and at that point I believe the league and NBAPA would think about stepping in. The salary cap exists for a reason, and that system breaks if Steph Curry and Durant both take $20 million dollar salaries instead of $35. 

 Thanks for the break down. As to the bolded portion, they need to step in now. The product is getting diluted.

3 hours ago, sperry said:

 

As for the Cavs, it's a who fucking knows. The laws of biology say LeBron shouldn't be able to do this forever, but then again the laws of LeBron say LeBron shouldn't exist in the first place.

 

It literally doesn't make sense. Outside of his passing ability his game shouldn't age well, but he's better than ever.

3 hours ago, sperry said:

Regardless, the emergence of Isiah Thomas as a legitimate superstar combined with whiffing on last year's #3 overall pick have moved the Celtics into more of a win-now situation than I believed they were in before.

I'm still not sold on IT as a superstar. He can be the second or third best player on a contender, not the best.

Sorry for the short response. It's hard to write an essay at work. 

[sperry]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Again, I'd point to the heart issue. We know how a knee or ankle injury affects an athlete. It's a lot harder to gauge how a heart issue affects an athlete. That could be causing his sluggish play. 

I think you can justify doing it for Butler, but not George. Two potential number one picks are not worth a year and a half rental on George. 

Also, it's possible that the Celtics have determined that they aren't good enough even with the addition of either George or Butler. If that's the case, you play the long game.

 Thanks for the break down. As to the bolded portion, they need to step in now. The product is getting diluted.

It literally doesn't make sense. Outside of his passing ability his game shouldn't age well, but he's better than ever.

I'm still not sold on IT as a superstar. He can be the second or third best player on a contender, not the best.

Sorry for the short response. It's hard to write an essay at work. 

 

I wouldn't trade both #1s for George or Butler. I'd give this year's number 1, plus Crowder, plus maybe one of the random guys stashed overseas. I was suggesting both Brooklyn picks for Anthony Davis.

 

 

The contract stuff is interesting. Right now, everything just bounced the right way for the Warriors:  Steph was hobbled by ankle injuries his first couple years, and teams were still scared of relying on a guy that tiny. Then their free agents lined up perfectly with the jump in cap, meaning they locked everyone into way below market contracts. After the 2018-2019 season, Curry, Durant and Thompson should all come up new contracts, which shouldnt' be feasible.  The problem is, both Durant and Curry are making $50+ million in endorsements. There was a lot of talk around Thunder fans that the Warriors ownership group was selling Durant on using their VC contacts to get him set up to invest in premium funds. The combination of those two things make the salaries they are receiving honestly just a secondary supplement to their main income. That's a big problem because the salary cap is designed with the idea that players are paid according to their value, and thus a team is limited in the number of elite players they can acquire and retain.  But if the salary income isn't really a thing and these guys start taking way below rate contracts, there's a big problem. They probably need a provision where if a when a player is a free agent, if one team offers a contract to a player, a minimum percentage of that number (like 85% or something), will automatically apply to the teams cap that ultimately signs him. That gives a little bit of wiggle room to offer a home town discount, but doesn't make a mockery of the salary cap.