NBA Playoffs 2020: Mamba Out

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Calibandar said:

It does make a lot of sense for the Nets too though. Right now they are left with huge uncertainties.

1) Will Durant be back to full fitness and skill?

2) Aside from him, Irving is notorious for missing big stretches of the season

3) Would you not rather trade smaller pieces like LeVert, Prince, Allen for 1 star? Experts and most teams say you always do that for a superstar, and its actually always a bad deal for the team that trades the superstar. The question for the Nets is, are you willing to sacrifice the picks too. I think they might, they have a window now. And Harden is a reliable presence too, very fit and scores tremendously, he would make them a lot better. Are they really a championship team with Durant, Irving and these role players? Very debatable.

I do think they seriously want him, just trying to get as good a deal as possible.

Irving and Harden are a bad fit. They are both ball dominate guards. Durant fits with either of them, but they won't work well together, and that's just considering the offensive side of the ball. Their defense would be terrible. 

You're correct to say it's usually a good idea to trade a handful of okay players for a star, but you need to do that when you don't have one or need a Robin. Brooklyn already has that. They'd probably be better off putting pieces in that fit around those two, not creating a roster with three stars and nothing behind them. There are diminishing returns to that if you don't have good players on cheap deals.

[Relic]

5 hours ago, Calibandar said:

Experts and most teams say you always do that for a superstar, and its actually always a bad deal for the team that trades the superstar.

Hmmmm, i dunno.

Worked out for Denver trading Melo.

Utah trading Deron Williams.

Celtics trading Garnett and Pierce. 

Clippers trading Griffin.

OKC trading PG. (still TBD but looks good)

That's just the last decade. I'd come up with more if i thought about it long enough, im sure. 

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Mitchell got paid....

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, Relic said:

Celtics trading Garnett and Pierce. 

Trading for KG worked out well though...

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Relic said:

Hmmmm, i dunno.

Worked out for Denver trading Melo.

Utah trading Deron Williams. Over the hill.

Celtics trading Garnett and Pierce. Waaaaay over the hill.

Clippers trading Griffin. Not over the hill, but his best days were behind him.

OKC trading PG. (still TBD but looks good)

That's just the last decade. I'd come up with more if i thought about it long enough, im sure. 

 

 

 

[Calibandar]

Gotta say, what a haul by Atlanta. I know its a team that no one talks about but....adding Gallinari and Bogdanovic both was very unexpected. Plus Rondo and Dunn. And Capela is basically new too. And they still have their young talented wings in Huerter, Hunter and Reddish too, plus the no. 6 pick.

So that could be a startin line up of Trae Young, Bogdanovic, Gallinari, John Collins and Capela.

Thought it makes me wonder if they will end up playing with two bigs like that, or basically play 4 shooters and either Capela or Collins as the big man.

[Maithanet]

Looks like the Lakers are gonna get marc gasol as well.  That is an impressive off-season for them.  I thought a Lakers repeat was fairly unlikely, but now I'm not so sure.  Assuming lebron and Davis are healthy, they have really upgraded the guys around them.  And I don't see any of the real contenders have improved significantly. Gsw losing Thompson is huge, because Curry/Thompson is probably the scariest matchup for lal.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

The Lakers should be the favorites. I thought the Lakers and Clippers were pretty even last year and it seems pretty clear to me that the Lakers have gotten better while the Clippers are probably in the same place. Denver may be the second best team if the growth we saw from them in the bubble is real. And the Blazers should also be an improved team, both because of move they made and because they'll be healthy. Dallas is the real dark horse, but they'll need to prove they can stay healthy. The Pelicans could also be surprisingly good, but they're still too young to be a contender. I'm not sure anyone else will matter much big picture, but there are a lot of fun looking teams.

The East is as open as ever. The Bucks got better, but is it actually enough? Brooklyn remains the biggest mystery box in the league with Durant's health still an unknown. Miami was a fun team and story, but they probably won represent the East again this year. Boston is a mess, but they're still really talented. And the Sixers should be better, but they may still be a second tier team.

The nice part about the upcoming season is there are a lot of teams you can talk yourself into being real contenders, and a lot of the bad teams at least look like they will at least be entertaining. 

[DMC]

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And the Sixers should be better, but they may still be a second tier team.

I really like what the Sixers did in essentially swapping Horford and Richardson for Green and Curry - plus it sounds like Maxey should be able to contribute meaningful minutes come playoff time.  On the other hand, I really loathe Doc Rivers.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

I really like what the Sixers did in essentially swapping Horford and Richardson for Green and Curry - plus it sounds like Maxey should be able to contribute meaningful minutes come playoff time.  On the other hand, I really loathe Doc Rivers.

It's certainly a better roster fit overall. I never understood why they went after Horford, and the contract was secondary. They had a line up that was basically four bigs. They should fair better this year, but in my book they're still TBD because I'm sure they'll be aggressive traders. Adding Morey was probably their best move.

Why do you dislike Doc? 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Why do you dislike Doc? 

Because he parlayed one overachieving season with the Magic - which was earned on the backs of Darrell Armstrong, Bo Outlaw, and Ben Wallace - into a drastically overrated coaching career in spite of underachieving with the Magic for his subsequent three seasons.  He's a charlatan that's an objectively horrible Xs and Os coach.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

Because he parlayed one overachieving season with the Magic - which was earned on the backs of Darrell Armstrong, Bo Outlaw, and Ben Wallace - into a drastically overrated coaching career in spite of underachieving with the Magic for his subsequent three seasons.  He's a charlatan that's an objectively horrible Xs and Os coach.

So basically he ruined your HS years of fandom which came after the much better childhood experience with Shaq and Penny?

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

So basically he ruined your HS years of fandom which came after the much better childhood experience with Shaq and Penny?

Well, my hopes were effectively quashed when Tim Duncan made the smart decision and Grant Hill's ankle turned out to be made of glass, but I guess after those two things, kind of.  I've also always found him to be a disingenuous douche.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, my hopes were effectively quashed when Tim Duncan made the smart decision and Grant Hill's ankle turned out to be made of glass, but I guess after those two things, kind of.  I've also always found him to be a disingenuous douche.

I do always overlook the bad luck the Magic had during that time period. You didn't even mention McGrady, who is one of my favorite players. 

Doc in my view is an above average coach who has been on the bad side of lady luck more times than not. And I have a hard time viewing him as a disingenuous douche because he has been good on speak about social issues and he comes off as genuine enough for me. The weird part about is coaching career is he's viewed as a players coach who can't get his players to not hate one another.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

You didn't even mention McGrady, who is one of my favorite players. 

Well McGrady carried the Magic to respectability (or at least middling in the East) during that time period, which eventually literally broke his back.  He's one of my favorite players as well.

I don't question Rivers' sincerity on social issues or work with charity or stuff like that.  I mean his PR justifications for his coaching decisions and - as you said - self-promoting this image as a "player's coach."  Plus, again, he's undeniably horrible at the traditional aspects of coaching - approach/philosophy, playbook, gameplan, in-game manager.  Yet still gets away with it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

I mean his PR justifications for his coaching decisions and - as you said - self-promoting this image as a "player's coach."  Plus, again, he's undeniably horrible at the traditional aspects of coaching - approach/philosophy, playbook, gameplan, in-game manager.  Yet still gets away with it.

I don't think he's all that great with the X's and O's like you said. I also don't think that matters all that much unless you have a groundbreaking mind. Good coaching in basketball means you won't underperform controlling for injuries. How it matters at the top of the food chain, you've got me. Doc seems to be alright at managing problems, even if he also encourages them, and that may matter more than any scheme you run in a generic hypothetical. Not trying to say he doesn't get too much praise at times, but he's not a bad coach. Thibs is a bad coach. Enjoy him Knicks fans. 

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I also don't think that matters all that much unless you have a groundbreaking mind.

The first and last - philosophy/approach and in-game management - definitely still matter and can very much change the success or failure of any team.  I'd even argue gameplan, in terms of matchups, is very important in today's NBA.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

The first and last - philosophy/approach and in-game management - definitely still matter and can very much change the success or failure of any team.  I'd even argue gameplan, in terms of matchups, is very important in today's NBA.

In-game management is on the HC, but the gameplan can be and is often done by assistants, and philosophy/approach can be vague even within good organizations. Just look at the Nets for example. Nash is the HC, but D'Antoni is going to run the team in a Dick Cheney kind of way. At least at first.

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

the gameplan can be and is often done by assistants, and philosophy/approach can be vague even within good organizations.

Obviously assistants assist both, and there's "coordination" between assistants and the HC in a less formal way than football and baseball, but they're still the traditional aspects of coaching - which is what I was saying - and the buck stops with the head coach.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Obviously assistants assist both, and there's "coordination" between assistants and the HC in a less formal way than football and baseball, but they're still the traditional aspects of coaching - which is what I was saying - and the buck stops with the head coach.

Who was the HC who couldn't figure out up from down when drawing a play up? That's the kind of coach you need to avoid. But outside of the top few minds in the game, most are rather interchangeable.