Official NBA '17-18 Season Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
That Nets pick probably more valuable than IT honestly. Can't think of a worse team and if it's a top 2 pick don't see how they don't retain LeBron. But yeah looking like another easy chip for warriors :/
 
This is the one time I think the Celtics actually lost a trade. I don't care how bad IT's hip is, they picked up Jae Crowder, most underrated player on a great contract, a potentially #1 overall pick, and a player with a lot of potential in Zizic. If they get anything out of IT that makes it even better.

Anyway, what about also sending Love to the Celtics? Maybe take back Marcus Morris and Jayson Tatum. I know it's a long shot, but the Celtics really need Love's rebounding and could sacrifice another young forward. They could even maybe throw another first or second there to sweeten the deal.
 
Anyway, what about also sending Love to the Celtics? Maybe take back Marcus Morris and Jayson Tatum. I know it's a long shot, but the Celtics really need Love's rebounding and could sacrifice another young forward. They could even maybe throw another first or second there to sweeten the deal.
Love has no value IMO. He's still serviceable, but long gone is the Minnesota Kevin Love who was a nightly 20-20 threat and he's not worth that massive deal he's on. Definitely not worth giving up what Jayson Tatum could be plus another pick. The Cavs really don't have any assets left to make any trades apart from that newly acquired Brooklyn first, which they value highly.
 
This is the one time I think the Celtics actually lost a trade. I don't care how bad IT's hip is, they picked up Jae Crowder, most underrated player on a great contract, a potentially #1 overall pick, and a player with a lot of potential in Zizic. If they get anything out of IT that makes it even better.

Anyway, what about also sending Love to the Celtics? Maybe take back Marcus Morris and Jayson Tatum. I know it's a long shot, but the Celtics really need Love's rebounding and could sacrifice another young forward. They could even maybe throw another first or second there to sweeten the deal.
I disagree with this a slight bit. I don't think either team really "lost" this trade yet, I think it was an almost necessary move for both teams. Zizic, IMO, is the biggest loss for me as a Celtics fan. As my roommate can attest, I've been pumped for this guy to come overseas for awhile. I thought he would mold into a great post presence for the Celtics, in a time where we are lacking just that. In regards to Crowder, I am fine moving him. I do not believe in any facet he is "underrated," except if you look at his amazing contract. Last year his defense wasn't elite or as great as it has been in the past. I felt he was a solid defensive player, but didn't come close to what people were talking it up to be.

Now for Isaiah... This one hurt emotionally, but logically makes a lot of sense. That hip injury has been brutal to other players in the past and right now the Celtics have a window to possibly contend come the near future. If this trade doesn't happen, I think the C's definitely sign Isaiah to a max. The reason this felt necessary for the Celtics is what could come from Isaiah with the injury. To give some insight into what I mean, Isaiah is 5'9 and turning 29 this season. He is already 6 inches shorter than Kyrie (which is nuts to say considering they are in the same position, and generally the position which has the shortest player) and is a player who heavily relies on his athleticism to score. This being said, the hip injury could honestly hinder Isaiah's game and could become problematic. Getting Kyrie, you practically get the same player as Isaiah, in an offense built around that style of player, who is about the same defensively but also comparably or on the same level offensively. Plus they got a guy who is willing to take big shots, and none the less proven to hit them as well. I don't think this trade is AS bad for the Celtics as people say. Honestly I was dreading the idea of next summer because as much as I love Isaiah and everything he did here in Boston, I was not willing to sign him long term, especially with the hip injury. I wish him the best though and I hope his injury proves to be minor to his growth as a player.

That being said, I think the Cav's did a great job of executing a "compete now, but have tools for the future" type of trade they were looking for. Altman deserves no short of credit. I think only time will tell who wins this trade, but ultimately I don't think it's really a loss for the Celtics.

Edit: Formatting and Spacing
 
Last edited:

Stallion

Tree Young
is a Tiering Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Three-Time Past WCoP Champion
I disagree with this a slight bit. I don't think either team really "lost" this trade yet, I think it was an almost necessary move for both teams. Zizic, IMO, is the biggest loss for me as a Celtics fan. As my roommate can attest, I've been pumped for this guy to come overseas for awhile. I thought he would mold into a great post presence for the Celtics, in a time where we are lacking just that. In regards to Crowder, I am fine moving him. I do not believe in any facet he is "underrated," except if you look at his amazing contract. Last year his defense wasn't elite or as great as it has been in the past. I felt he was a solid defensive player, but didn't come close to what people were talking it up to be. Now for Isaiah... This one hurt emotionally, but logically makes a lot of sense. That hip injury has been brutal to other players in the past and right now the Celtics have a window to possibly contend come the near future. If this trade doesn't happen, I think the C's definitely sign Isaiah to a max. The reason this felt necessary for the Celtics is what could come from Isaiah with the injury. To give some insight into what I mean, Isaiah is 5'9 and turning 29 this season. He is already 6 inches shorter than Kyrie (which is nuts to say considering they are in the same position, and generally the position which has the shortest player) and is a player who heavily relies on his athleticism to score. This being said, the hip injury could honestly hinder Isaiah's game and could become problematic. Getting Kyrie, you practically get the same player as Isaiah, in an offense built around that style of player, who is about the same defensively but also comparably or on the same level offensively. Plus they got a guy who is willing to take big shots, and none the less proven to hit them as well. I don't think this trade is AS bad for the Celtics as people say. Honestly I was dreading the idea of next summer because as much as I love Isaiah and everything he did here in Boston, I was not willing to sign him long term, especially with the hip injury. I wish him the best though and I hope his injury proves to be minor to his growth as a player. That being said, I think the Cav's did a great job of executing a "compete now, but have tools for the future" type of trade they were looking for. Altman deserves no short of credit. I think only time will tell who wins this trade, but ultimately I don't think it's really a loss for the Celtics.
Holy mother of God, have you ever heard of a paragraph?

Edit: I do agree with most of your post though.
 
Last edited:
Woj reported that they're looking to reform the lottery.

Commissioner Adam Silver is a strong advocate to deincentivize tanking by implementing lower odds on the NBA's worst teams to gain the top picks in the draft, league sources said.

...

Currently, the teams with the three worst records have an ascending chance of winning the No. 1 pick, including (No. 3) 15.6 percent, (No. 2) 19.9 percent and (No. 1) 25 percent.

The NBA's proposal would flatten those odds and give the three teams with the worst record the same percentage of earning the No. 1 overall pick, league sources said. Now, the worst record to the fifth-worst record is a gap of 25 percent to 8.8 percent, but new legislation would tighten that difference significantly, league sources said.
Personally I don't think this will be effective in any way. All it does is make it easier to tank, if anything, since you only need to be 3rd worst instead of the worst. If they truly want to deincentivise tanking, they'd have to give the teams something to play for. It wouldn't make any sense to give the best non-playoff team the best odds at the first overall pick, since they theoretically need the pick the least, so to speak. I don't have a solution to this, but neither do I have a problem with it.

I also disagree with the league trying to force teams not to rest players. If they truly want to put the best product on the floor night in and night out, they can easily reduce the number of games, or reduce the number of back-to-backs and 4-games-in-5-nights by spreading the season out a bit more (which they have done for this upcoming season).

Does anyone have a stance on this? I'm just bored and need some NBA talk lol.
 
Holy mother of God, have you ever heard of a paragraph?

Edit: I do agree with most of your post though.
I have heard of paragraphs; I just decided to nicely construct my thoughts into only one paragraph. ;P

I didn't anticipate it being that long when I originally wrote it, so I didn't put thought into chopping up my arguments.

Woj reported that they're looking to reform the lottery.



Personally I don't think this will be effective in any way. All it does is make it easier to tank, if anything, since you only need to be 3rd worst instead of the worst. If they truly want to deincentivise tanking, they'd have to give the teams something to play for. It wouldn't make any sense to give the best non-playoff team the best odds at the first overall pick, since they theoretically need the pick the least, so to speak. I don't have a solution to this, but neither do I have a problem with it.

I also disagree with the league trying to force teams not to rest players. If they truly want to put the best product on the floor night in and night out, they can easily reduce the number of games, or reduce the number of back-to-backs and 4-games-in-5-nights by spreading the season out a bit more (which they have done for this upcoming season).

Does anyone have a stance on this? I'm just bored and need some NBA talk lol.
I can't comment too much on the first part (talking about tanking) since I don't really have a solution for this yet. All I know is that I would like this to be changed. I will give props to the 76'ers for seeing a window of opportunity, but personally I I hate the idea.

For the idea on resting players, I am fine with the league trying to enforce against this. I believe they spaced the season out a little better this year so there aren't as many "schedule loses" (understandable losses that come from poor scheduling [a 4th game in 5 nights, etc.]). I definitely understand this from the player's side though, no one wants to feel over worked and everyone understandably deserves a break. I think the season is fine at 82 games, but expanding the length of the season might be a little better. They definitely took the right step this season though, I think this will work out a lot better.
 
I also disagree with the league trying to force teams not to rest players. If they truly want to put the best product on the floor night in and night out, they can easily reduce the number of games, or reduce the number of back-to-backs and 4-games-in-5-nights by spreading the season out a bit more (which they have done for this upcoming season).
They're never going to reduce the number of games, the NBA would take a hit in TV revenue as well as gate revenue.

The simple solution is to strongly nudge that you should rest players at home. If Al Horford is resting the night I go to see the Celtics, I've got 40 other chances to see him in action. If KAT or Anthony Davis comes around, I only get to see them once a year and if they choose to rest I have to wait until next year to see em in action. Especially if you're a transplant, if I'm in Dallas for whatever reason, the Boston Celtics only visit Dallas once a year.
 
I can't speak to other teams, but as a Lakers fan, we definitely weren't tanking the past few years. We were that bad. It was hilarious last year to see a column on Yahoo! (by Mannix I think) criticizing us for tanking when we decided to sit Mozgov and Deng, as if we were a lot better with those two on the floor. I don't think there will be a solution for tanking that will please everyone.

Small market teams will always argue, perhaps rightfully so, to a certain extent, that they do not have as much draw as other teams to sign marquee free agents, so the draft is the one way they can rebuild. It's easy to blame big market teams for everything, but really it starts from the top of each franchise. There have been successful small market teams, and the Knicks are a counterexample of big market teams signing stars all the time. Their owners will almost definitely be against a lottery reform such as the one proposed. It's a tough situation for them too, they're probably not too happy with the system either, but it's the best they have right now from their perspective.

As for rest, I understand that the league will never reduce the number of games due to revenue, and I get their frustration from fans and the league with teams resting stars, but I don't like the idea of enforcing rules that teams have to play their stars. I can definitely imagine Pop trolling the league and starting everyone only to commit a foul in the opening seconds (like he did here) and resting them the remainder of the game. Then what, more rules and guidelines that they have to play regular minutes? I'd prefer the league take measures to prevent it, like they did with spreading out the games this season, than to pass rules to enforce it.
 
Last edited:
Love has no value IMO. He's still serviceable, but long gone is the Minnesota Kevin Love who was a nightly 20-20 threat and he's not worth that massive deal he's on. Definitely not worth giving up what Jayson Tatum could be plus another pick. The Cavs really don't have any assets left to make any trades apart from that newly acquired Brooklyn first, which they value highly.
Remember with Kyrie and LeBron, Love didn't get a ton of ball time. I will agree that his value isn't as high as it was in Minnesota, but he's still worth something. And he'd really help the Celtics out. Imagine Kyrie-Brown-Hayward-Love-Horford. That's REALLY good.
 

Mr.E

unban me from Discord
is a Two-Time Past SPL Champion
There's countless people out there physically busting their ass in grueling manual labor jobs across the world for twice as many hours on a weekly basis and those people aren't literally paid to stay in shape, given the world's best support network of fitness experts nor have an "offseason." I have negative sympathy for players (in non/limited-contact sports) bitching about how they need more rest. You can't force them to play though, that's ultimately a massive health and safety risk not worth it for anyone to accept, player and league alike.
 
Remember with Kyrie and LeBron, Love didn't get a ton of ball time. I will agree that his value isn't as high as it was in Minnesota, but he's still worth something. And he'd really help the Celtics out. Imagine Kyrie-Brown-Hayward-Love-Horford. That's REALLY good.
But then what makes you think he'll get more ball time in Boston with Kyrie, Brown, Hayward and Horford? He's probably still the 3rd option at best in that scenario, like he was in Cleveland. He's essentially a spot up shooter who can rebound well at the moment, not someone worth that contract. The Cavs are still trying to win this season, as long as LeBron neither commits to stay nor leave. Trading him for a rookie in Tatum doesn't help them in that department.
 
Minnesota’s Andrew Wiggins is progressing toward a five-year, $148M maximum extension, hopeful to sign soon, sources tell The Vertical.

Bold move given that he's probably going to be a third option behind KAT and Butler, and they all need the ball to be effective. Not sure why they won't see how the roster plays out if they're going to offer him the max anyway.
 
Minnesota’s Andrew Wiggins is progressing toward a five-year, $148M maximum extension, hopeful to sign soon, sources tell The Vertical.

Bold move given that he's probably going to be a third option behind KAT and Butler, and they all need the ball to be effective. Not sure why they won't see how the roster plays out if they're going to offer him the max anyway.
Yeah I agree, I don't like the idea of extending Wiggins at this point. Would rather wait to see how this season pans out for him and the team together.
 
Presti turned Sabonis, Oladipo, Kanter, McDermott, and the Bulls 2018 2nd rounder into Melo and Paul George lmao. If Kanter opts out of his deal at the end of this season, all the Knicks got was a 2nd rounder out of Melo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 2)

Top