Jump to content

NBA Off-Season 2019 - Bridge Over the River Kawhi


Relic

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Ok, so I was curious and made a quick list.  The criteria is "Has this team in the past twenty years (2000-2019) had a two year window as promising as the Clippers right now?"

Yes (7) - Celtics, Cavaliers, Warriors, Lakers, Heat, Thunder, Spurs

:crying: 

I was rooting against that team because I thought they had 10 years of contending ahead of them so it didn't matter if they missed one or two of the early years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

:crying: 

I was rooting against that team because I thought they had 10 years of contending ahead of them so it didn't matter if they missed one or two of the early years.

Biggest failures in NBA history?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

I don't about "as promising" because we still have to see how this team comes together but the Mavs (2006-2007), Pistons (2004-2005), Kings (2001-2003), Suns (2006-2010) all had windows as elite contenders. Infact that's probably an understatement. They all had a period of time where they were either the out and out favorite or co-favorite. That's roughly where the Clippers are now. 

I'm not ready to say Kawhi/George is immediately better than the 6 seconds or less Suns or those great C-Webb Kings teams. I need to see it first. 

I'll concede that the Mavs should probably be moved to the yes pile, they were really solid for a few years in the late 00s. 

The reason all of those teams are in the maybe pile is because while they were clearly contenders, I felt like there was always at least one team that seemed better than them at the beginning of every season.  The Kings claimed they were better than the Lakers, but thanks to NBA refereeing, they were never able to prove it in the playoffs.  Likewise the Suns with the Spurs and Mavs. 

Thus, it's not really a question of "better", it's "more promising", and I think that the Clippers are the team to beat, which I'm not sure I'd say about any of the teams on the maybe pile.  You don't need to be overwhelming favorites like the 17-19 Warriors to be the team to beat.  And honestly I don't see any team in the league that has a real matchup advantage against them in a seven game series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is pretty crazy to compare the haul of picks that OKC got for Paul George last week with what they got for James Harden in 2012.  In case you don't remember it was:  two first round picks (they ended up being #12 and #21) and two rotation players in Kevin Martin and Jeremy Lamb. 

For James Fucking Harden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Kawhi was always going to sign a 2+1. That way he can get the 10 year 35% super max or leave if it doesn’t work out. Say what you want about The Board Man, he understands leverage.

Uh, you know how much he's already left on the table?  If Kawhi was interested in the supermax, he would have stayed with the Spurs.  He obviously has preceding preferences than money based on his career choices.  And I think that's why he designed the deal that way.  He'll get another chance to purview the league in two years, just like James and Durant have done.

4 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Ok, so I was curious and made a quick list.  The criteria is "Has this team in the past twenty years (2000-2019) had a two year window as promising as the Clippers right now?"

If we're starting with 2000, I'd put the Nets in the yes category.  The Kidd Nets made two finals in a row IIRC.  And definitely the Pistons and Kings should be in the yes - the Kings/Lakers series' were the most entertaining part of the NBA when I was in high school (which is, ya know, when I played basketball and was pretty into it).  Generally, I think based on your criteria these rankings are way too rigid.  All five maybes should be yes', and even some of the nos, in my book.  If we're talking about "promising windows."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, briantw said:

Gotta wonder how different the league would be right now if OKC had paid Harden.  I have to think that team wins at least one title.

It's the biggest wasted opportunity in the NBA for the last 15-20 years. I can't think of a bigger one.

If only....

What a great team that was, and getting better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, briantw said:

Gotta wonder how different the league would be right now if OKC had paid Harden.  I have to think that team wins at least one title.

Even if their claims are true and they actually couldn't afford Harden with the roster they had (which I don't buy - I think they just weren't willing to pay the luxury tax), they still could've chosen to keep Harden over Ibaka. In the modern NBA you do this 100 times out of 100, but in the 2012 NBA they felt like they needed a rim protector more than a 3rd perimeter scorer.

Then again they effectively traded Ibaka for 7 first round picks so wtf do I know :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, briantw said:

Gotta wonder how different the league would be right now if OKC had paid Harden.  I have to think that team wins at least one title.

It's always hard to know because we can't project development, but if we had gotten what they became, they would have run the league for as long as they were together. They've all been top 10 players for several years now.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Uh, you know how much he's already left on the table?  If Kawhi was interested in the supermax, he would have stayed with the Spurs.  He obviously has preceding preferences than money based on his career choices.  And I think that's why he designed the deal that way.  He'll get another chance to purview the league in two years, just like James and Durant have done.

That's true too. Kawhi is not about the money and that FA class will be really strong. I just didn't see any reason though why he would have done anything other than a 2+1. It makes all the sense in the world for a multitude of reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ser Swagith of House P, the gift that keeps on giving:

Quote

A five-time NBA champion as a player and three-time NBA champion as a coach, Stever Kerr is one of the most accomplished members of the NBA community. Now, according to former NBA player Nick Young, Kerr has another impressive skill to add to the resume.

On a recent interview with 97.5 The Game, a sports radio station in the Bay Area, Swaggy P claimed that Kerr is the best blunt roller in the entire NBA.

https://thebiglead.com/2019/07/11/steve-kerr-nick-young-blunts-warriors/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's true too. Kawhi is not about the money and that FA class will be really strong. I just didn't see any reason though why he would have done anything other than a 2+1. It makes all the sense in the world for a multitude of reasons. 

Keeps pressure on the Clippers to win now I guess. So if they don't win this upcoming season, they'll feel the need to make whatever moves they possibly can next off-season to get immediately better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.  Kawhi has demonstrated how players can dictate things more than management or even ownership.  I hope the MLB and NFL players take note.  It's pretty encouraging.  LeBron and Jordan obviously did the same thing, but they're on a different level than Kawhi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yep.  Kawhi has demonstrated how players can dictate things more than management or even ownership.  I hope the MLB and NFL players take note.  It's pretty encouraging.  LeBron and Jordan obviously did the same thing, but they're on a different level than Kawhi.

Doubt it'll ever be like that in the NFL because there aren't really any stars like LeBron or Kawhi who basically make a team a contender by their mere presence.  You occasionally get a QB like Manning who can drag scrubs to the playoffs by his sheer talent, but those guys are rare.  It's a team sport and coaching is incredibly important.  That's not true in the NBA as much, where the Cavs just spent four years contending with LeBron's personal yes man at coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, briantw said:

  You occasionally get a QB like Manning

I'd say Brady would be the most obvious example.  But your point is correct, it'd be harder in the NFL because you need 22 guys.  In baseball though?  Mike Trout could be much more influential, if he wanted to.  The fact he doesn't is kind of admirable, but also disappointing in a way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'd say Brady would be the most obvious example.  But your point is correct, it'd be harder in the NFL because you need 22 guys.  In baseball though?  Mike Trout could be much more influential, if he wanted to.  The fact he doesn't is kind of admirable, but also disappointing in a way.

In baseball a single player has less ability to impact a game than the other major sports. Mike Trout is a legitimate all time great - he's on track to break every record in the book - and he can't do a thing to get the Angels into the playoffs. Starting pitchers have a ton of influence the days they pitch...but they only play every 5th day. In terms of the leverage an individual player can exert over a team's performance, I'd say it goes:

NBA Player > NFL QB >>> MLB Player (pitcher or hitter) > NFL Player (non QB) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

NBA Player > NFL QB >>> MLB Player (pitcher or hitter) > NFL Player (non QB) 

I disagree with this setup.  The problem for Trout is he has had really shitty players surrounded by him in almost all facets.  A great baseball player - especially a hitter (because you're right about pitching, and starters are becoming less and less important anyway.  Other than the playoffs, it's just about building the best staff, almost regardless of if the guys are starters or not.) - is way more important most NFL players.  You're right to break it up by elite QBs, but I'd take a couple ">"'s off that difference and put it on the other side.  So, how I'd go:

NBA elite >> NFL QB elite > MLB elite >>> NFL non QB elite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...