2013-14 NBA Offseason/Draft Thread

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Bynum was a fat, underachieving, immature prospect who averaged 7/6. Hmmm...in that regards, not much has changed.

Odom was better (16/10 - almost the same stats as Al Jefferson), but was already known as a head case, was 28 years old and let it be known he didn't want to go to Minny.

So looking at that, the Cs deal was clearly better.

Not at all. Bynum was a project but it wasn't a question of if he would pan out, but when. In the years following he became a pretty good player, much better than what was traded

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Not at all. Bynum was a project but it wasn't a question of if he would pan out, but when. In the years following he became a pretty good player, much better than what was traded

Don't know I agree and think your purple and yellow underoos are showing.

[JPhillips]

I really like the Spurs getting Deshaun Thomas at the end of the second round. He'll probably never be a starter, but he can provide some offense off the bench right away. Getting an eighth or ninth guy with that pick is good value.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I really like the Spurs getting Deshaun Thomas at the end of the second round. He'll probably never be a starter, but he can provide some offense off the bench right away. Getting an eighth or ninth guy with that pick is good value.

I love the silly story that came out of that draft pick. Apparently he wouldn't give any team his cell number so the joke is that San Antonio drafted him just to get his cell number.

SI

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Don't know I agree and think your purple and yellow underoos are showing.

He was All NBA second team in 2012 at the C position as well as an All Star. Odom was 6th man of the year in 2011 as his role was moved to the bench. I agree that he didnt have as much value then due to his older age, but he easily could have been flipped for something then as well. In the deal was the Lakers 19th overall pick.

It worked out ok for the Lakers though, getting Pau Gasol, though it did cost Marc Gasol, a great player in his own right

Oh and they are blue and gold, not purple and yellow

[nol]

Originally Posted by korme

According to who? As a non-biased fan of the sport, there might have not been a more fun team to root for than the Celtics.

The operative phrase there is to root for, not to play against. KG is notorious for trying to punk and bully younger guys and European players, and the whole team kind of followed his lead. Off the top of my head, there's the Honey Nut Cheerios incident, calling Charlie Villanueva a cancer patient, saying "Happy Mother's Day" to Tim Duncan at the free throw line after Duncan's mother died, and guarding Jose Calderon full-court clapping and wagging a finger in his face the entire time. Rondo's own teammates and coaches can't stand him half the time, and he definitely has his feuds with guys like Derrick Rose and Wade.

Although they crossed the line at times, I'm not outright condemning the approach. That was part of the C's appeal - especially towards the end when they weren't as good - they didn't care about making friends and really embraced the us 'against the world' mentality.

Even as someone who rooted for the Celtics and attended more than his share of their playoff games from 2010-12, I can objectively say that the they were right at the top of the league the past five years in terms of trash-talking and complaining to officials http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...827634656.html

Looking at it that way, combined with all the other reasons Boston isn't a prime free-agent destination, it shouldn't come as a complete surprise that the only role players who would sign with them were washed-up guys who were too old for KG to have trolled like Shaq, Jermaine O'Neal, Jason Terry, and Rasheed Wallace. Likewise, there aren't too many players (besides possibly Josh Smith) breaking down the door for the chance to team up with Rondo and help the Celtics rebuild.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Olynyk was a steal at 13 IMO, while 98% of 2nd rounders don't amount to anything. I don't think Olynyk is going to win the Celts many games on his own next season, but could couple well with whoever the Celts suck enough to draft high next draft.

You and a decent number of other people like Olynyk, so hopefully I'm wrong about him, but I just feel Schroeder and Giannis offered more upside. Maybe I'm just not a fan of 7-footer's who can't protect the rim. I think Olynyk could be a solid piece, particularly on a good team, but he'll never be a cornerstone for any franchise, so why not shoot for the higher risk/reward players? (or at least wait to see if he fell, because early 2nd-round picks do have some value, even as trade chips.) It is probably better to just look at him as a potential asset to help acquire a franchise player rather than someone we're planning on having for the next 12 years.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Because they won't need the numbers in future years. They need the talent. Here's what the team already has:

Rondo
Green
Bradley
Sully
Lee
Melo
Bass
Olynyk
---
White
Wilcox
Williams
Crawford
Iverson

The first eight are all guys they probably want to stick around, are really young (wait and see mode) or will replace 1-for-1 in trades (Bass, Lee). That's 8 guys who could be on the roster for a while. It doesn't mean that they will be, but if moved they will be replaced with other guys (with the possible exception of Melo). Note I'm not counting the scrubs coming back from the Nets. Yeah, the team might have a guy like Wallace on the team for 3 years (or at least two), but none of those guys are long-term solutions. They're just roster filler for now.

So that's the core of the roster - eight relatively young guys. Not all of them will pan out, but all but Melo have shown they can play in the NBA. Now the Cs have two 1sts in 2014, 2 in 2015, 2 in 2016, 1 in 2017 and 2 in 2018. That's a huge amount of incoming 1st rounders. Many of those are likely to be pretty high picks that will easily make the team. That's 9 1st rounders in 5 years that also need roster space. Add that to the 8 young guys and the team is already over roster size limits.

So ultimately 2nd round picks in the next couple of years have little chance of making the roster simply due to the roster size. As such, it makes sense to get more guys in now and see if someone develops than to waste the 2nd round picks on an already overcrowded roster in the future.

Also, the Cs paid cash for the 2nd rounder last night. They didn't give away a future 2nd.

1st of all, I'm quite certain you can scratch Fab Melo off any list of potential future rotation players, and Brandon Bass and Courtney Lee are overpaid (I'm kind of surprised on the latter - thought he was a steal) and have reached their potential - they should be dealt so we can bottom out. I don't mind the Wallace contract as much as others - we're not going to lure any blockbuster free agents here in the next 2 years, so I'm content swallowing it. (Rajon Rondo is the really interesting piece here - I don't think he's a player you build around, but he's too young to give up for less than full value, and I don't see any team giving that for him - f.e. the Mavs are offering Shane Larkin, Shawn Marion's expiring and a late 1st or 2 - that's a terrible return.)

The 2's I agree we can't fit anywhere, but it's more I don't think we got good value giving up 2 to move up 3 spots for a player I don't rate. If Olynyk turns into a very good stretch 5 who can be competent defensively and on the boards, I'll admit trading them was worth it, but I think it's much more likely he's Brandon Bass (or Mark Blount) 2.0

The fact we traded cash for Iverson is my bad, but I couldn't find any info on what we gave up that night. That's one area the NBA should take a clue from the NFL - during the NFL draft every trade occurs promptly and the media gets the information immediately. I can at least understand when it's complicated trade like Celtics-Brooklyn where KG needs his 2nd year guaranteed and Keith Bogans needs to agree to a sign and trade (although I still don't understand why it changed from Reggie Evans/Shengelia being included to Joseph/MarShon Brooks, and many media reports still don't list our option to swap 1st's in 2017), but when it's just draft picks or guys under contract I don't get the hold up. Thursday night it took the NBA 3 hours to announce the Minnesota-Utah trade of 6 for 11 and 21. If it's your one prime-time night for 4 months, wouldn't you want the analysts talking about players for their correct teams instead of discussing what the N.O. block party will look like, or wondering where Trey Burke will end up when he's drafted.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I'll see you guys in a couple years when the C's are done tanking it.

Is this another one of your overreactions? I get what you're saying, but I really don't think it changes that much. Yeah, the Celtics won't be appointment television every night, but they never have been for me until the playoffs, and they'll be a more interesting team to watch against a random team in the regular season. The past couple years they really weren't worth watching outside of prime-time games because it was obvious they were pacing themselves for the playoffs (or just being Rondo). So I'll follow at the same rate in the regular season - 12-15 games when I have time to kill and there's nothing better on. And then in the postseason I have the same 2 Eastern Conference teams to root for - the one led by Pierce and KG and anyone who plays Miami.

[whomario]

Someone in the Nets war room probably realized that signing min level Big Men is much more of a drag than signing min level perimeter guys while the Celtics realized that they don´t need an 8th and 9th big man.
Makes much more sense for both teams the way it ended up.

Meanwhile Kirilenko opted out of his contract as expected, looking for a long term deal. I still think he´ll resign with the Timberwolves for a reasonable amount, although i also think he´ll draw interest elsewhere.
Wolves might also try to finally get a starting 2 guard (seriously, how fucking difficult is that ?) with their 7 mio of cap space sans AK with Mayo, Martin and Redick as the best and somewhat realistic options.
Don´t really know if they even have the MLE available (is there a cap hold for Kirilenko ?).
Still think they should resign Kirilenko and Budinger (who shouldn´t be too expensive after being out last season) and try like hell to trade Williams for sth of value (i do think he can play, but he´s not a SF and will never see the minutes he needs to develop behing Love).

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Being optimistic. It could certainly take longer than that. With their luck the Nets will make the playoffs through 2016 and the ping-pong ball gods will continue to do them no favors and they'll be the new league doormat.

Over under on days before Kevin Garnett attempting to strangle Joe Johnson in practice: 1

[bhlloy]

I'm far more interested in seeing how the fuck Pierce and Johnson co-exist. If the shots get shared they're a good team, but I think there's a better chance it's a complete train wreck.

[whomario]

Just realized that the Spurs also have cap room, would be a logical destination for Kirilenko as well. Can grab remaining minutes at the 3, give them the option to go small even more often while still having some rim protection.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Is this another one of your overreactions? I get what you're saying, but I really don't think it changes that much. Yeah, the Celtics won't be appointment television every night, but they never have been for me until the playoffs, and they'll be a more interesting team to watch against a random team in the regular season. The past couple years they really weren't worth watching outside of prime-time games because it was obvious they were pacing themselves for the playoffs (or just being Rondo). So I'll follow at the same rate in the regular season - 12-15 games when I have time to kill and there's nothing better on. And then in the postseason I have the same 2 Eastern Conference teams to root for - the one led by Pierce and KG and anyone who plays Miami.

I really think if they're not careful they could be an OK 8-12th place, 30ish win kind of team. This is the Eastern Conference we're talking about, and while maybe that conference isn't as bad as it used to be, there's going to be some really terrible teams towards the bottom all with the same rebuilding plans.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

I really think if they're not careful they could be an OK 8-12th place, 30ish win kind of team. This is the Eastern Conference we're talking about, and while maybe that conference isn't as bad as it used to be, there's going to be some really terrible teams towards the bottom all with the same rebuilding plans.

You're probably forgetting that Rondo will likely be out at least half the season. Without Rondo, the roster is probably as bad as any in the league.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Over under on days before Kevin Garnett attempting to strangle Joe Johnson in practice: 1

I'd put my money on Garnett in that scenario, Johnson won't show up if there's something on the line.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

You're probably forgetting that Rondo will likely be out at least half the season. Without Rondo, the roster is probably as bad as any in the league.

Ya, that did escape me for a second - though I'm confident that even with nothing to play for he'll get back faster than Derrick Rose. I guess I should root for them to really bottom out, I just wish there was a real unweighted lottery. I don't understand the point of the draft lottery if the worst teams have such an advantage, because you still have the incentive to tank.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by whomario

Just realized that the Spurs also have cap room, would be a logical destination for Kirilenko as well. Can grab remaining minutes at the 3, give them the option to go small even more often while still having some rim protection.

Not that I really want to see this, but the Spurs should go after Iggy. He would fit into their defensive system pretty easily. I don't think the Grizz have the balls to pay him to come to Memphis (Or Iggy have the desire to go there) but that would be a pretty scary defensive team put on the floor.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by molson

I really think if they're not careful they could be an OK 8-12th place, 30ish win kind of team. This is the Eastern Conference we're talking about, and while maybe that conference isn't as bad as it used to be, there's going to be some really terrible teams towards the bottom all with the same rebuilding plans.

Yeah, that's why I advocate trading Bass and Lee (and Bogans when we can) for whatever we can get. They're rotation players on a contender, so they're good enough to keep us in games, but they're not going to be part of whatever comes next, so get them out now. Green, Sullinger and Avery Bradley have all shown flashes of borderline all-star talent the past 2 years, and if we reach 30-35 wins because they (and Olynyk and maybe even Terence Williams) come close to their ceiling consistently, great I'll take it. If it's because Bass, Lee, Gerald Wallace and Bogans all play like competent NBA players that's terrible and actually hurts us going forward.

(I'm morbidly interested to see what Gerald Wallace brings. I remember loving him on Charlotte as a fantasy monster, and then since he's gone to the Nets he's turned into one of the 5 worst NBA players in the league. I can't believe he lost it all that fast, so maybe he'll surprise back on a lottery team under a new coach.)

Originally Posted by Blackadar

You're probably forgetting that Rondo will likely be out at least half the season. Without Rondo, the roster is probably as bad as any in the league.

Rondo is a complete wildcard. He could show up and try to play opening night, or we could suggest he "wait until he's 100% healed" and he takes it personally and sits out the whole season.

I also almost certainly overrate Green/Sully/Bradley, but I still think there are a couple worse even without Rondo. The 76ers, especially if they trade Turner, maybe Orlando depending on how you rate Tobias Harris, I like Zeller and think he'll pull the Bobcats to a few more wins but that bench and backcourt is atrocious, and Toronto's just such a terrible fit with each other.

[DaddyTorgo]

Yeah - I think they ought to trade everyone and just bottom out. Single wins and shit.

I did that last night in NBA 2k13 just to see what it was like - traded away everyone and started total scrubs (like 60-70 overall guys). Managed to suck hard (20 or so wins), get a ton of draft picks and position myself well (although the ping pong balls were not kind). Had enough cap room to sign Lebron or Carmelo when they came into FA and managed to draft 4-5 A or A+ talent guys over the last 3 years.

Obviously it's a video game, but if you completely gut the team and make it a single-digit win style club I think you can rebuild in like 3 years. Problem arises, as noted, if you have some competent players that get you into the 30+ win territory.

[Desnudo]

Or Lebron and Carmelo won't sign with you

[nol]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, that did escape me for a second - though I'm confident that even with nothing to play for he'll get back faster than Derrick Rose. I guess I should root for them to really bottom out, I just wish there was a real unweighted lottery. I don't understand the point of the draft lottery if the worst teams have such an advantage, because you still have the incentive to tank.

The argument for this is usually something like "isn't it good for the league if a team that just missed the playoffs gets a top pick and becomes an instant contender?" but you have to look at the other side. Look at how much good the number 2 pick did for the Bobcats this past year, and it's not like Kidd-Gilchrist is a bust; now imagine if they got the 14th pick instead. You'd have hopeless teams like that losing money every year and dragging the league down in terms of TV ratings, revenue sharing, attendance, the product on the floor, and so on.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Or Lebron and Carmelo won't sign with you

LMAO. Well yeah. I wasn't saying that was realistic. But I think if you blow the whole thing up and suck-suck you definitely accomplish the rebuilding faster than if you keep anybody competent around (Bass, Lee).

[chadritt]

Chris Paul to remain with Los Angeles Clippers, representatives tell teams -- sources - ESPN Los Angeles

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by chadritt

Chris Paul to remain with Los Angeles Clippers, representatives tell teams -- sources - ESPN Los Angeles

Yeah, just confirming what everyone knew, especially after Rivers went to the Clippers.

[molson]

Originally Posted by nol

The argument for this is usually something like "isn't it good for the league if a team that just missed the playoffs gets a top pick and becomes an instant contender?" but you have to look at the other side. Look at how much good the number 2 pick did for the Bobcats this past year, and it's not like Kidd-Gilchrist is a bust; now imagine if they got the 14th pick instead. You'd have hopeless teams like that losing money every year and dragging the league down in terms of TV ratings, revenue sharing, attendance, the product on the floor, and so on.

To me, the Bobcats having a little less hope if the balls bounce against them isn't as much a problem as having multiple teams in your league trying to lose as many games as possible. There's always going to be down in the dumps franchises due to all kinds of bad luck. And wins and losses are a zero sum game, if the Bobcats lose, some other team wins.

The lottery was put in to stop tanking but, now of course, there's every motivation to tank. The only difference is it's possible that you go through all this but have nothing to show for it. If you want the teams that are most successful at tanking to have the best players for some reason, then why have a lottery? The middle ground accomplishes neither goal.

M.L. Carr was talking openly about tanking the other day. I almost feel bad for these players, getting punished if they make too many shots. I get blowing up the team and bringing in all young players so you have cap flexibility going forward. But this stuff is such a waste. Why even go through the charade of ripping of fans and fraudulently selling what you market as a competitive basketball game? Maybe they should just let teams who want to tank forfeit their seasons and go 0-82. When a coach is making in-game decisions with a motivation to lose games, that's just a step too far to me.

For Boston Celtics, tanking is likely necessary, but it's never easy - ESPN Boston

"As GM, Carr made sure he didn't sign any expensive or overly talented free agents. Because he was his own coach, there was no backlash from the bench regarding his personnel decisions.

"I was bringing in guys like Nate Driggers and Brett Szabo," Carr said. "It was a joke. But the idea was not to make a move that would help us too much."

The hardest part, said Carr, was straddling the fine line between encouraging his team to play the game the right way but make sure they didn't win too much.

"I remember one game in particular, when David Wesley was hitting jump shots and 3-pointers all over the floor," Carr said. "I had to get him out of the game.

"He came over to me and said, 'Coach, what are you doing? I just hit four shots in a row.' I said, 'I know, David, but I'm experimenting."

[DaddyTorgo]

Exactly - it's a frigging joke and a charade. And that's why I wasn't overreacting when I said "see you in a couple years when the tanking is done." It's not any fun to sit and watch, and it's insulting when the team inevitably tries to sell it as something else.

[Kodos]

Maybe do something where the bottom 10 teams all have an equal shot at the 1st pick?

[lungs]

Without tanking, you end up like the Milwaukee Bucks. Good enough to get swept by the Heat as the 8th seed or just barely miss the playoffs.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Exactly - it's a frigging joke and a charade. And that's why I wasn't overreacting when I said "see you in a couple years when the tanking is done." It's not any fun to sit and watch, and it's insulting when the team inevitably tries to sell it as something else.

There are two things I find fun about watching sports. Watching elite players/teams that have a chance to win a championship, and watching young players develop into better players. I'm fine with them trading Bass/Lee/Bogans and watching AB, Sully, Green and Olynyk - even Colton Iverson and Phil Pressey - play 30+ minutes a night if there's a plan to watch them develop and see if they can step up and fill those roles in the future. If we're still playing Chris Wilcox, Bass, Wallace, Lee and Bogans and pulling them if it's a close game, then yeah that sucks and I won't be watching. There's a difference between playing young players who aren't good enough to win and treading water/tanking with cast-off veterans.

Scratch Terrence Williams off that list though, as he got released after getting charged with gun possession, because given the past week in Boston sports why wouldn't he get arrested.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Maybe do something where the bottom 10 teams all have an equal shot at the 1st pick?

They had the unweighted lottery for all non-playoff teams, but everyone got mad after the Magic got #1 picks (Shaq and Chris Webber who they traded for Penny) in back to back years, and to a lesser degree the incentive was still there to tank and get 4th pick instead of 12th.

It would certainly be interesting to see it the other way - I actually wouldn't mind, as I think having elite teams is better than parity in the NBA, and I think in a salary cap era being consistently bad is more about bad management/ownership (and being in a bad market). Even if Charlotte gets Andrew Wiggins does anyone think he's staying there past 5 years?

One thing that wouldn't work in the NBA but I would like in the NFL is giving teams a weighted sliding pool of money like MLB does, and allowing them all to bid on any player they want. Giving hard pools ensures there can't be huge bidding wars and inflation, giving more money to the worst teams lets them sign more talent, but it lets every team have a shot at any player.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

There are two things I find fun about watching sports. Watching elite players/teams that have a chance to win a championship, and watching young players develop into better players. I'm fine with them trading Bass/Lee/Bogans and watching AB, Sully, Green and Olynyk - even Colton Iverson and Phil Pressey - play 30+ minutes a night if there's a plan to watch them develop and see if they can step up and fill those roles in the future. If we're still playing Chris Wilcox, Bass, Wallace, Lee and Bogans and pulling them if it's a close game, then yeah that sucks and I won't be watching. There's a difference between playing young players who aren't good enough to win and treading water/tanking with cast-off veterans.

Scratch Terrence Williams off that list though, as he got released after getting charged with gun possession, because given the past week in Boston sports why wouldn't he get arrested.

Yeah - I agree with that. If they want to play the developing guys 30 minutes a night that's awesome...I can get behind watching that occasionally just to see if they have any talent. But if they're going to roll out older guys with mediocre talent, that's not fun to watch.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lungs

Without tanking, you end up like the Milwaukee Bucks. Good enough to get swept by the Heat as the 8th seed or just barely miss the playoffs.

Yup, trying to win games hurts the team. It's just the opposite of what sports is supposed to be. That's exactly what I hate about the current setup.

[Wolfpack]

Would it be enough to bring an unweighted lottery back if they said a team couldn't be #1 overall in back to back years?

A second choice would be to not base the lottery on where a team finished, but when they were eliminated. In that sense, there's no incentive to tank once you've been eliminated.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by lungs

Without tanking, you end up like the Milwaukee Bucks. Good enough to get swept by the Heat as the 8th seed or just barely miss the playoffs.

The Houston Rockets from 2010-2012 where you end up with the 14th pick 3 years in a row

SI

[molson]

I noticed something else from that article:

"I knew right from the start it was going to be a different season," Fox said. "Our practices were like track meets. We just ran and ran and ran. After 6 years in the league I knew, 'We can't keep this up. We're going to get hurt.' I think we had 9 guys who had surgery that year."

So were they attempting to tire out their own players at the risk of causing injuries just so they'd be a worse team? As long as tanking is beneficial, I suppose this is a viable strategy. Maybe they can have their team doctor botch medical procedures on their better players to keep them out.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by lungs

Without tanking, you end up like the Milwaukee Bucks. Good enough to get swept by the Heat as the 8th seed or just barely miss the playoffs.

Or you could even be a "good", top 4 team in conference and still be treading water and mortgaging your future New York Knicks close to acquiring Andrea Bargnani from Toronto Raptors, sources say - ESPN New York

[molson]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Or you could even be a "good", top 4 team in conference and still be treading water and mortgaging your future New York Knicks close to acquiring Andrea Bargnani from Toronto Raptors, sources say - ESPN New York

There's been a lot of posts here over the last few months arguing that every team in the East basically should stop trying until this Miami Heat window is over. I don't think the Heat are all that much better than your typical best team in the NBA in any given season, but I guess I can see where they're coming from if the only goal of a team is to win a championship, and if you don't win one, your season was basically a failure.

Maybe it's related to the way I see tanking but I don't see the "good" teams as some kind of massive failures. I have great memories of the early 90s Celtics teams - they never made it to even the conference finals, but the original big 3 fought so hard at the end, just destroyed their bodies, and there were always fun, interesting role players around them. Those Pacers first round series and the occasional Sunday afternoon regular season win over a great team (Larry's last two great games v. the Bulls and Blazers come to mind), were so much more fun for me as a fan than the tanking years. The infamous tanking year gave us the Rick Pitino era. Hooray.

[chadritt]

Plus you never know when Lebron might get hurt or decide to try baseball/football so youve got to be ready to win.

[Groundhog]

Bargnani might be a bust and the worst rebounding 7-footer of all time statistically, but if there is one place his style might work, it's NY.

Like the Thomas Robinson trade for Portland too. Very low risk at that price (2 2nd rounders? IIRC), and I'm not convinced he's a bust just yet. Horrible situation for him in Sacramento, and he's not the stretch 4 that the Rockets need for their style of play. Was hoping the Cavs would make a move at him, especially with Speights opting out.

[sterlingice]

I'm disappointed by the Thomas Robinson trade from the Rockets perspective.

SI

[sterlingice]

Furthermore, for the Rockets, this is starting to have all the feel of Draft Day 2012. Morey is great at stockpiling assets. However, he blew out a ton of assets for two quarters on the dollar, trying to make a splash in the draft only to be left at the altar.

SI

[Groundhog]

I'm actually wondering who I'd rather have at C - Asik, or Dwight Howard. Asik is a year younger, no attitude problems, still improving. Dwight looks to be breaking down physically and continues to paint himself as a lockerroom cancer douche.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Bargnani might be a bust and the worst rebounding 7-footer of all time statistically, but if there is one place his style might work, it's NY.

Brilliant move by NY. They did not get the deal approved today so they have to go by next seasons salary and Bargnani has a 10% trade kicker given to him if traded. So the Knicks have to cut him a 1.1 million dollar check instead of a 1 million dollar check tomorrow. 100k for not getting it finished today... brilliant... if Bargnani's agent help prevent the deal being approved tonight, he earned his check this month.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

So were they attempting to tire out their own players at the risk of causing injuries just so they'd be a worse team?

I saw that quote as well & wished it had more context. Surely that's not what he meant, maybe something like "we were running & running instead of doing something else, like working on plays"?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm disappointed by the Thomas Robinson trade from the Rockets perspective.

It leads me to think that they must consider Howard a damn good chance to sign in Houston.

[Danny]

At worst it's a 1 in 3 chance

[chadritt]

Chris Paul agrees to 5 years/107 million.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by lungs

Without tanking, you end up like the Milwaukee Bucks. Good enough to get swept by the Heat as the 8th seed or just barely miss the playoffs.

Or you could be like the Indiana Pacers. Since they lost in the 2000 finals, they have no fewer than 32 wins(2009-2010), five seasons below .500 and have not had a draft pick higher than #10 in 2010 (Paul George). That team was one game away from the Finals this year. Over the same time period, the Bucks have had four seasons with less 32 wins, eight below .500 seasons and six players drafted in the top ten including the #1 pick in the draft.

[DeToxRox]

Pistons are going hard after Josh Smith to play the 3. What an absolute joke to give that much money to play a guy out of position.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Pistons are going hard after Josh Smith to play the 3. What an absolute joke to give that much money to play a guy out of position.

It should be obvious to any GM in the league, especially after watching the 2012-13 playoffs, why you would not give max money to a dude like Josh Smith to play SF. Imagine the spacing issues you are going to have with Drummond-Monroe-Smith as your frontcourt.

[Groundhog]

There's no science to rebuilding. You can tank and draft a franchise guy, which I think is obviously the 'easiest' scenario assuming you get a Durant/LeBron/Duncan type of guy, but requires a good deal of luck. Or you can have a competent GM who drafts well, keeps his guys together, and adds bargains as they arise rather than overpay. Harder to win a title that way, but more enjoyable for the fan base than flatout sucking for half a decade or more.

Either way, having people in your front office who have a clue seems the best way to get there IMO, rather than definitely tanking/Pacers-ing it.