ToddTT wrote:martin wrote:Oh golly
Ticket prices and sponsorships will increase. Unlikely to win another title unless the Poole chemistry was that major. No center, klay and dray older, no bench, wiggs is not focused.
If we signed Christian Wood would he as good on offense and as bad as defense as Obi but in the vet min ?
Can we trade Fournier and a few seconds for B Bogdovic from Detroit. He can back up RJ and Julius.
Alpha1971 wrote:Can we trade Fournier and a few seconds for B Bogdovic from Detroit. He can back up RJ and Julius.
I’m not sure why Detroit would do this. Knicks are more likely looking to trade Fournier with a rotation player for an upgrade.
Pistons have an interesting set of vets around a very young team. Burks, Monte Morris, Joe Harris, Bogdovic. Really good shooters and spacers. Incredible young talent with Cade, Ivey, Ausar, Steward, Duren, Begley, Wiseman.
My guess is that they sell off the vets later in season. Something definitely needs to give.
Alpha1971 wrote:If we signed Christian Wood would he as good on offense and as bad as defense as Obi but in the vet min ?
Christian Wood is an asked an answered type player.
martin wrote:Ugh
this is the way that sports is going - no real "news" coverage
Larger than Mitch contract
Obi about to demand another trade
martin wrote:Obi about to demand another trade
IF it happens, you think Indy will sell Siakam down the river for Obi as fast as some fans in NY did for Randle?
joec32033 wrote:martin wrote:Obi about to demand another trade
IF it happens, you think Indy will sell Siakam down the river for Obi as fast as some fans in NY did for Randle?
I would guess not because I don't see Siakams name next Randles when it comes to the worst playoff performers of all time stats.
Forget what the tweet is saying I am using it for the graphic. I am not seeing Siakams name. I am sorry but raw point,rebound and ast stats don't tell the whole story. It has always been that way with Randle. Randle gets the offense ran through him no matter how bad he does and hogs the ball. Why do you think his regular season stats are always so good but no NBA GM actually thinks he is as good of a player as his stats would suggest. You can play ignorance to how this works if you want but try to trade Randle for Siakam straight up and see what answer you get.
Clean wrote:Forget what the tweet is saying I am using it for the graphic. I am not seeing Siakams name. I am sorry but raw point,rebound and ast stats don't tell the whole story. It has always been that way with Randle. Randle gets the offense ran through him no matter how bad he does and hogs the ball. Why do you think his regular season stats are always so good but no NBA GM actually thinks he is as good of a player as his stats would suggest. You can play ignorance to how this works if you want but try to trade Randle for Siakam straight up and see what answer you get.
So....forget what you just said because you didn't realize it was that close?
joec32033 wrote:Clean wrote:Forget what the tweet is saying I am using it for the graphic. I am not seeing Siakams name. I am sorry but raw point,rebound and ast stats don't tell the whole story. It has always been that way with Randle. Randle gets the offense ran through him no matter how bad he does and hogs the ball. Why do you think his regular season stats are always so good but no NBA GM actually thinks he is as good of a player as his stats would suggest. You can play ignorance to how this works if you want but try to trade Randle for Siakam straight up and see what answer you get.
So....forget what you just said because you didn't realize it was that close?
The problem is that when you start to look at their efficiency numbers, Randle's career stats are as bad as Siakam's worst year. Personally, I don't see a big difference between the two. I don't think you'd want either one as the first or second option on a playoff contender.
I think Sham just refereed to Lillard's Juice Card lol
ToddTT wrote:martin wrote:Oh golly
How much do they charge for a second apron? Asking for a friend.
martin wrote:
That flopping stuff is weird. It should just be a regular foul, called at the time of the foul. What I want to know is do the rules acknowledge it can be an offensive and defensive flopping foul.
Never liked the replay stuff. Should be simpler. Call for a review. You win, you keep the review and the timeout. You lose you lose the timeout. The real sticking point should be how many are allowable. My idea, allow until you are out of timeouts. Anything after that if you lose the review the other team gets a foul shot. The NBA should be better at monitering incorrect calls from either the arena or NBA home base. The league should bear a responibility that the games are called as accurately as possible. There really should be a way to make sure the refs are held accountable.
And get rid of that piece of shit 2 minute report unless you plan on changing the outcome of the game or penalizing the refs for incorrect calls. That is the most useless shit and just throws it in the face of fans if they lose because of crappy officiating.
joec32033 wrote:martin wrote:
That flopping stuff is weird. It should just be a regular foul, called at the time of the foul. What I want to know is do the rules acknowledge it can be an offensive and defensive flopping foul.
Never liked the replay stuff. Should be simpler. Call for a review. You win, you keep the review and the timeout. You lose you lose the timeout. The real sticking point should be how many are allowable. My idea, allow until you are out of timeouts. Anything after that if you lose the review the other team gets a foul shot. The NBA should be better at monitering incorrect calls from either the arena or NBA home base. The league should bear a responibility that the games are called as accurately as possible. There really should be a way to make sure the refs are held accountable.
And get rid of that piece of shit 2 minute report unless you plan on changing the outcome of the game or penalizing the refs for incorrect calls. That is the most useless shit and just throws it in the face of fans if they lose because of crappy officiating.
I might be wrong but i think the point with the flopping rule is they can call a flop even if they didn't call a foul and let people play on.
Also the 2 minute report is garbage because many games are decided at other points in the game. they also don't attempt to address most coaches and players' main criticism which is consistency. they bend over backwards to justify the refs decisions and that just makes things worse. balls and strikes need to be consistent as do fouls etc.