User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6863 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I don't put him behind Jackson. I understand why most people probably do, of course, but no coach has ever impressed me more than Popovich.
This isn't really true at all, especially when a couple of teams that can win on the road are playing. It's especially not true when the favorite wins their first 2 games. The series still hasn't begun yet. They win game 3, and the series has both simultaneously begun and ended because it's 3-0.
Edit: I realize Russell didn't suck on offense.
Let's not go crazy, Spivey. He wasn't playing against a bunch of bums, first. Second, he was a ferocious rebounder, by all accounts a good passing big man, and he scored as well. Add in his defense and leadership, and he'd be great in any era.
A very underrated move was him trading George Hill, one of his personal favorites (and one of mine), for the rights for Leonard. It was a smart deal because the Spurs weren't necessarily getting the better player, they were getting the player they needed.
Yeah, I probably went over the line there, and I did get the edit in late. I still think quite highly of him, and I thought Simmons had a pretty convincing argument for Russell vs. Wilt. Still, things being close to equal, I'm going to take the guy who did it in a higher skilled more athletic league
There is no intentional foul rule currently in the NBA. Intentional fouls are permitted. Flagrant fouls occur for excessive contact; away from the ball fouls can occur in the last two minutes if the foul occurs before the ball is inbounded; and clear path fouls can occur for any foul where... "The ball and an offen-sive player must be positioned between the tip-of-circle extended in the backcourt and the basket in the frontcourt, with no defender between the ball and the basket when the personal foul occurs. There must be team control and the new play must originate in the backcourt, including throw-ins, and the offended team must be deprived of an opportunity to score an uncontested basket. " Other than technicals, fighting, and elbowing these are the only fouls carrying enhanced penalties.
Seems pretty pointless, especially that early. The strategy means you either put your better players deeper into foul trouble, or else you have to keep a scrub on court for intentional foul purposes.
SA/OKC:
1. So far, Hollinger has been exactly right, and I have been dead wrong.
2. After Game 5 of the semis, a gracious non-trolling OKC fan showed up at the Laker blog I hang out at, and this guy said that OKC "was built to beat the Lakers" and that was one of the main reasons Presti wanted Perkins. Mission accomplished, but like last year, one of the Texas teams has surged and turned out to be the real obstacle.
Anyway, Bill Russell's teams are the best defensive teams, relative to league. For his career the league shot 42%, and his teams allowed an estimated .394 FG%. Other teams had defensive seasons as good as the Celtics, but the real impressive thing is they never had an off year, they had great defensive ratings every season Bill Russell played. They were slightly below average the year before his debut, and slightly better than average the year after he retired.
Russell is, in my opinion, correctly credited with the lion's share of this defense because the center is the most important defensive position. Other players can play great man on man defense, the shot blocking center plays man on team defense. Almost all of the greatest defensive teams have a dominant center in common.
Other teams ranking high in single season ratings are the 1993 Knicks (Ewing, Oakley), the 1989 Jazz (Ser Eaton, the Mountain), the Bucks with Kareem and the Spurs when Duncan and Robinson played together.
Pre 1970, Russell's Celtics have the top 4 spots (1964 being their best) and Nate Thurmond's Warriors the best of the rest. Wilt's Warriors were outstanding in 1964 but otherwise mediocre. His Sixer and Laker teams were very good on D, but not quite at the Celtics' level.
Hit-a-Splitter notwithstanding, the Western Conference playoffs continue to be, in my opinion, far more aesthetically pleasing and enjoyable to watch than the Eastern Conference playoffs.
That pretty much goes for the entire last decade, as well.
It's going to be fun seeing King James and the superfriends lose in the Finals again (although having to listen to the "LeBron isn't a winner" crap for another year will get a little annoying).
I don't think more rest for Lebron is an option though. Let's say the Heat should expect to beat Boston in 5 with Lebron playing 45 minutes. Rest him a bit, give him 35 MPG and they expect to win in 7. Now for one thing, in that hypothetical world there is no way Lebron sticks to 35 minutes in a game 7. But even if he did, Lebron playing 35*7 is 245 minutes, and 45*5 is only 225. He's probably better off doing what he can to end the series quickly and get his rest before the next series starts.
Now if he could beat the Celtics in 5 playing fewer minutes, then he'd be better rested for the finals, but Miami sure does not look like a team that can win without Lebron and Wade dominating. I suspect the real motivation Simmons had is he wished Lebron would go easy, look beyond the ECF before it's over, and give the Celtics a chance to surprise.
To continue citing Dean Oliver, isn't one of his tenets that an underdog should always try the risky strategy even if no particular strategy is better. I think that is what Brooks did in progression; he tried the Splitter strategy when he thought he had the advantage. Despite not having an immediate plus/minus impact, it looks like it did reduce the PPP, and definately changed the Spurs offensive flow. He then went smaller for awhile.
Anyway, Bill Russell's teams are the best defensive teams, relative to league.
Neil Payne tried to extrapolate ORTG and DRTG on some old time teams and then mapped them based on how many standard deviations they were from the league. The Russell Celtics still look good, but not quite as dominant. The research is here.
IMHO, Russell is tough. We have tons of anecdotal accounts of his great defense. The clips do show athleticism, particularly in closing to players for the block. They also show good position defense even when the player puts his body into Russell to try to minimize the shotblocking (some great Dipper v. Russell clips on this one). We have huge rebound numbers, and we have plenty of extrapolated evidence that his teams were very solid defensive teams. How we ultimately try to translate his freak skills into modern equivlancies are tough.
I think if we had more numbers, we could see his transcendency as a unique player. For instance, I think he would stand out if you could do similar studies like skeptical sports did for Rodman. See Link. When players truly take a skill and elevate it beyond its traditional usage, then normal analysis is not able to pick that up as much.
All-time leaders, defensive Win Shares:
1. Russell 133.6
2. Kareem 94.5
3. Akeem 94.5
4. Wilt 93.2
5. K. Malone 92.4 (really?)
6. Duncan 88.6
7. Hayes 83.7
8. Garnett 83.5
9. Ewing 81.4
10. Admiral 80
Incidentally, Russell has the shortest career of anyone in the top 10, with Robinson the only other guy under 1,000 games.
11-20, you start to get a mix of guards/wings and bigs: Havliceck, Parish, Kidd, B. Wallace, Mutombo, Pippen, Shaq, Stockton, Jordan, Unseld.
Not sure how much we should trust the precision of these lists, especially since stats such as steals and blocks are largely unavailable for the careers of Russell and Chamberlain (and also West and Cousy. Incidentally, Cousy rates higher on DWS than West). For the most part, I think most people would agree that that's a pretty good ordinal list.
I'd like to know how AROM and Dean Oliver rate the defense of Duncan, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, Olajuwon, etc.
Well his victims would clearly have deserved it.
I remember being really upset in that game when they got behind, and went out to shoot hoops to calm down. Luckily I came back in to see the comeback. I remember being down by more than 10 in the 4th, but I forgot how good Stockton was (outside of the final shot) to close out the Rockets:
WebArchive.org
I don't believe what I bolded really happened.
Yeah, that's pretty funny, even though Malone was a good defender. But with as many GP as he had (4th all time), defensive rebounds (they're included right because he's 1st all time for just the NBA), and steals (11th all time) it's not quite as weird though he obviously wasn't better/more valuable than any of the bigs or the better wing defenders on that list.
Its a bad shorthand, but I think as applied to Russell its an estimate of how he would likely be better in TRB%, BS% and Opp TS% than whomever was "less athletic." We often hear that term also applied to Elgin Baylor, and I interpret to mean a greater TS% on shots in the paint based on the snippets i see of his game.
Considering how long his career is, I guess it shouldn't really be surprising. He played almost twice as many minutes as Dennis Rodman.
Red Auerbach is such a towering figure in basketball history it is really difficult to compare anyone to him, even from other sports. He practically invented the modern game of basketball. He had a HOF-worthy career AFTER he retired from coaching. And I really hate Red Auerbach.
I checked the link and the same teams from my calculations show up on his list - the order is slightly different but I think we're on the same page. Russell's Celtics are not head and shoulders above the rest of the great defensive teams in the NBA for single season ratings. What is most impressive is simply that they did it 13 years in a row, with great to dominant defensive ratings and never took an off year. When looking at the other defensive dynasties in the league, you can find some good 5-6 year stretches, but the longevity and consistency of what Russell's teams did is unparalleled.
Dean's formuli were used for the defensive ratings Basketball Reference. Though I see they only go back to the mid 70's when blocks and steals were first tracked. Duncan rates #2 after Gar Heard (6-6 forward once blocked 230 shots). Robinson #4, Hakeem #13, Mutombo #23 (way too low), Kareem #24 (excluding his best early years). Shaq rates only #57, which seems reasonable to me. Shaq could dominate defensively when he was motivated (like his 95 DRtg for 1999-2000) but didn't play at that level consistently.
I don't have my own individual defensive ratings, just team level ones from which we can infer great defense from the key defenders on those teams.
Kareem with the Bucks defended at a Russell-like level, but he didn't maintain that for nearly as long as Bill did (and if he had he probably doesn't maintain his offensive game for so many years). Wilt's teams had great defensive years later in his career, not quite at Russell level but close. In his early years it appears he had no time for D given all the scoring he was doing.
But to never play in the finals doesn't bring an obvious candidate to mind. Looks like Steve Nash wins this dubious honor, ahead of Dominique Wilkins.
But to never play in the finals doesn't bring an obvious candidate to mind. Looks like Steve Nash wins this dubious honor, ahead of Dominique Wilkins.
I'd toss George Gervin's name into the hat as well, though I don't know that I'd take him over either of the guys you mentioned.
Wilkins never made it to the ECF, I believe. Candidates: Gilmore and Gervin, Dan Issel.
I assume that you mean the Bucks with Kareem, as you say you don't have individual defensive ratings. Not sure why but Kareem's individual Win Shares don't come close to Russell's, he's just merely another great defensive center by that measure.
Kareem's early career stats probably need some air taken out with league strength declining due to rapid expansion. In 1967-68, the NBA had 12 teams; in 1970-71, Kareem's title year with the Bucks, the NBA was up to 17 teams plus another 12 in the ABA (which, by 1971, was probably equivalent to a AAAA league at minimum).
To add more to the all-never-played-in-a-finals, I don't think the following players also never played in a finals: Pete Maravich Grant Hill and Artis Gilmore. Chris Paul has not played in a finals yet either.
As for Nash, that Neil Paine research also highlights how that Phoenix offense compared to the rest of the league.
Ah, Ostertag. No other Jazz player has ever caused me to yell at the TV as much as he. He actually wasn't bad in 1997, though, which if memory serves is what got him a big contract that led to his downward spiral of laziness and crappiness.
This didn't really surprise me. Obviously he's not on par with the other guys on that list, but he was all NBA defensive first team in his prime, and when a guy plays 18 years without missing more than 2 games in any of them, he's going to rank pretty high in a lot of counting stat categories.
Elgin Baylor belongs in this group too, and he's the only one who can't use MJ as an excuse. Another Jordan victim - Ewing - might round out the top 5 (or is Nash better than Ewing?)
Probably about right for the ABA. When the league started it was definitely a minor league. I once looked into the NBA background of the top ABA players in 1967, many were guys who were drafted in later rounds, played at the end of an NBA bench, and were cut. Then there's Cliff Hagan who was a legit star in the NBA from about 1958-1962. A 24/10 guy at his peak, he had declined quite a bit by 1965-66. He retired at 34, took a year off, and came into the ABA as a player/coach. His WS/48 went from .095 in his last NBA year to .196 in the ABA, which is about where he was at his peak in the NBA from ages 26-29. Going to the ABA was like turning back the clock for him.
As a personal example, the effect seems like what playing on a 9' rim would do for me, I could do the things I used to do on a 10's rim.
Then the ABA started competing with the NBA for top players and the quality improved. In 1976-77 the Nuggets, Spurs, and Pacers came into the NBA and combined for a .528 winning percentage, with the Nuggets winning a division. Those 3 teams had a .591 combined record the last year of the ABA, so league quality was only slightly better in the NBA - such difference is no more remarkable than the conference disparity we see now and then.
I leave the Nets out because they would not have finished 22-60 had they been allowed to keep Dr. J. The other teams more or less entered the NBA intact.
Quantifying defense is so hard, even now...
Did he still get a ring though? I didn't think that he did...
It's not just the last several games, though. It's 20 and counting. And I'm not sure that the balanced, perfectly well oiled machine their offense and defense has been over this run ISN'T their true level of ability. They're clicking in a way that's going to make them very, very tough to beat 4 times in a series.
Besides, even if it is just a hot streak that's beyond their true talent level, it's sure come at the right time. As Dallas proved last year, occasionally you can ride that wave all the way to the title.
Back from vacation:
I think the key to beating the Spurs is going small. You cannot beat them with Perkins/Ibaka/Sefalosha on the court at the same time. It's too many guys who can't do anything. IMO, the Thunder should be going small as much as possible in order to leverage their strengths (shooting and energy) and minimize the Spurs'. In addition, the Spurs second bigs all play small. Diaw (whom I cannot ####### believe is playing meaningful minutes), Bonner, etc., all play from the perimeter.
The same is true in reverse with Miami sans Bosh. LeBron hates guarding bigs, so Battier is picking up a lot of the minutes guarding the bigs on the court. Teams with two and a half quality big men should be able to punish Miami.
I can't see them losing 4 out of 5 at this point. But I think it's more likely that OKC will at least win a game or two before the Spurs go to the finals. I have noticed a pattern over a few decades of watching the NBA: Team looks impressive while winning 2 games at home. Articles are written about how unbeatable they are. Switch of venue, and the other team wins some games. The home team that started 2-0 usually wins, but most of the time it's not a sweep.
That blows my mind. The worst team in NBA history has no use for him, so of course he's good enough to start on the league's best team. Popovich used some magic pixie dust here.
Diaw’s strengths are almost entirely as a complementary piece – plus playmaker (who began his NBA career as a PG and can play all over the floor when his weight permits it) who actively dislikes shooting and is famously hit and miss with regard to effort/motivation. When on – he’s a solid defender and decent at lots of things. When off – he doesn’t try all that hard. Real high basketball iq.
So, stick him on a terrible team that badly needs high usage players and (though I’m not anti-Silas) not coached all that creatively … he plays a fair amount, but doesn’t try all that hard (especially on defense), isn’t able to add scoring, isn’t part of the team’s future, not able or willing to give them a hook to keep him around.
Stick him in SA – where the coach loves to mix and match his personnel – and a motivated (and a bit slimmed down from his offseason gorge and now playing defense) Diaw becomes quite useful.
Note: this is not to deny that pixie dust was involved.
***
This is also a fun case to look at how PER and WS/48 can differ (in SA, his usage went down, FG% went way up, and the team was a lot better (among other things)):
CHA: PER 10.8, WS/48: -.023
SAS: PER 12.1, WS/48: +.125
career: 13.1; .079
league avg: 15.0; .100
AROM is absolutely right about this- tides turn. And you are absolutely right that the hot streak has done wonders for them. Those two series wins and two WCF games are in the bag, and 10 playoff wins (in a row or not) are tremendously valuable. Conversely, it seems like one of the key observations of the sports analytic community is that it is exceedingly difficult (or impossible) to PREDICT hot streaks. The fact that they have played this well probably raises the baseline level a bit for projections, but it does not replace it altogether. I know Booey does not literally mean that their 20-0 streak is their true talent level because that would make the the best team in basketball history by a wide margin, and that's unrealistic.
How about another bit of conventional wisdom: bad coaches get hung up on what players can't do, good coaches find a way to utilize what players can do. All I heard from Silas and the Charlotte people this year was that Diaw needed to be a better interior scoring presence for a team who had lots of inefficient perimeter scorers. Well guess what, Diaw likes to pass out of the post and shoot jumpers. He has always done that and probably always will. Despite his size, he is not an interior scorer. San Antonio has an offense that can utilize big men who like the swing passes out of the post, so Diaw's natural ability is put to better use.
I will concede that it is unlikely that he would ever fit in Charlotte because his skill set is a bit of a luxury item (and it is no coincidence that his greatest moments of nba relevance have been in highly skilled, fast paced offenses that feature lots of movement and passes to open shooters).
Edit: Looks like Der K beat me to it. I have one cherry coke zero and one diet mountain dew left. Only the ccz is cold. I'll let you pick.
The Thunder did this in the first game and got destroyed in the process. The Spurs had a field day, it was one of the keys to their 4th quarter comeback.
But, this is also what I said about the Thunder before the playoffs. They just have too many guys who do nothing on offense, and it's really hard to play 3-on-5 every possession. Who is even worth guarding in this group: Perkins, Thabo, Ibaka, Collison, Fisher.
(your description was better anyway.)
That wasn't what I remembered, and not what BBREF seems to show here. (this feature is really cool, btw)
It looks like the lineups for most of the 4th in game 1 were:
OKC
Westbrook/Harden/Fisher/Durant/(Collison and then Perkins)
SAS
Parker/Neal/Ginobili/Jackson/Duncan
I think that Perkins is giving them nothing and needs to more or less be benched. I further think that the answer to SAS's PnR is to switch aggressively with athletic defenders. The problem in the 4th quarter of game 1, to my eyes, wasn't that they were playing only one big, it was that they were playing the wrong big, gave Fisher extended minutes, and Harden sucked eggs.
(Game 2, I wouldn't take too much from if I were the Thunder. The Spurs went nuts, Parker especially. I don't think he'll hit on that many long range shots in the rest of the series.)
The word you are looking for is cut. He needs to be cut. I will also accept amnestied as a more specific answer.
If it is Heat/Spurs, the Heat have a chance simply because they have the 2 best players. But Wade and LeBron would have to be SPECIAL in the same game 4 times. Unfortunately one of the Heat's greatest defensive weaknesses is the 3pt shot, and it's something the Spurs are so good at. The Spurs are playing great defense so far in the playoffs, but also weren't great defensively during the regular season. It's funny seeing the reactions to people talking about the Spurs scoring 120 points last night, as they're just now realizing how good they are offensively (they were this good last year's regular season too).
It's hard imagining any of the East teams, even at full strength, beating the Spurs the way they're playing right now.
Correct. I'm not saying they're one of the best teams of all time or anything, but they had an argument as to being the best this year even before the playoffs begun. And as you and AROM alluded to, whether they've been playing out of their minds or not, those wins have already happened and that hot streak (if that's all it really is) has already gotten them to the verge of the finals. If that streak continues even 2 games into the finals, they'll have an almost insurmountable lead by the time they come back to earth.
I actually do expect the Thunder to end the streak and win once in OKC. But I also think they lost their chance to win the series when they couldn't complete yesterday's comeback. 0-2 against a team as good as the Spurs is a lot to overcome.
I'm really rooting for the Spurs to win because of this alone. I like it better when the best team wins the title, unlike what happened in the NFL and MLB their last seasons and what's going to happen in the NHL this year. It just seems "right" this way, and if that means UK and Calipari get a title for a couple of years, so be it.
That is why I am a bit surprised at all the hateration towards Thabo. The Thunder have generally been more effective when he has been on the floor. If the choice is between him and DFish, then I think you do need the extra defense. DFish had a hot hand for a few minutes in game 1, but that has been about it.
Also, I agree with tship. Steve Kerr talked about the Thunder going smaller during the game. If Manu hadn't been such a closer, it would have looked even better. It still looked like a plus strategy.
Its Perk that is the most out of place when SAS doesn't post Duncan. Serge can still give you a bit of offense and be a good rim protector. Collison can also play with surge and defend outside the paint a bit.
I disagree. In these first two games, SAS is getting a ton of FT attempts and hitting their 3pers. Admittedly, those are skills for SAS, but those skills have a high degree of volatility. SAS was 17th in the league at FTA at 21 per game. They've gone over that in each game (around 25 per after you take out the intentional fouls).
In addition, this same team lost last year in the second round. They're also highly vulnerable to injury (and play three pretty injury prone guys). Finally, one of their big guys is not capable of playing big minutes. LeBron can go 45 minutes. Ginobili can do around 35 at most.
I'm pretty sure that SAS is not as good as they've looked the last two games.
Edit:
Yes, I agree here. The problem is Perkins because he doesn't provide any shot blocking on all the drives to the hoop. He's just not a great help defender. The problem that OKC is having is poor help defense on dribble penetration (edit: and SAS hitting a really high % on 3pers)
Triple Edit: As evidence, Kendrick Perkins had the same block % this year as Channing Frye.
Looking back a few years, Perkins never had a very good rating on PER allowed. Though I can see those unadjusted ratings being misleading if he's specifically used when the opponent has a high scoring big man on the floor.
Worse than that. Memphis took them out in the first round last year. But no worries, last year's team didn't have Boris Diaw.
Who's only talking about the last 2 games? They've been awesome for months now (as 2065 points out).
In addition, this same team lost last year in the second round. They're also highly vulnerable to injury (and play three pretty injury prone guys). Finally, one of their big guys is not capable of playing big minutes. LeBron can go 45 minutes. Ginobili can do around 35 at most.
First round. And in the sense I was discussing, I was ignoring injuries for the East teams, so the same would apply here. At their peak, which is where they are right now, they are better than the best of the East at their peak, IMO.
I think Perk is an asset for many teams and in many situations; but as noted by rr, Perk was brought to Oak City to put Pau on his ass and push Bynum off the blocks. If SAS' primary offense was posting Duncan, then he could still be an asset albeit probably giving up a higher PER than would look attractive.
This seems to be true every year, so it shouldn't really be surprising at this point. Collison is very effective on offense, gobbling up offensive rebounds, converting a high percentage of his shot attempts, and spacing the floor better than their other big men. He lacks the size or athleticism to be a great man defender, but he's crafty on that end and plays solid team defense as a result. Over the past 3 seasons, OKC has been +7.9, +9.5, and +6.3 with Collison on the court versus off (via 82games), while Collison's opposing PER has consistently been 17+.
I think we've been blind to their greatness.
I don't think I've been blind to it. What I've seen has been a thing of beauty. Especially the Parker to Manu, behind the back to Parker in the corner for a wide open three, Tony hesitating a few seconds to let the suspense build, then draining it. That play got the same kind of reaction that usually comes from a Wade lob from 50 feet to James for a throwdown in transition.
I just don't think 31-1 is for real. One thing that has always been true in every sport is you're never as good as you look when things are going well, and you're never as bad as you look when things aren't (unless you're really that bad, then pretty soon they won't let you play anymore).
Spurs are not a 97% win team, I'm pretty sure of that. But they don't have to be. If they are .667 team against top 4 competition then they'll break the streak in OKC, win the series at home in 5, then pop some champagne after game 6 of the finals.
Of course not. No team ever has been.
Exactly. And this is pretty much what I expect to see happen.
"Fairly certain" is several levels of crazy. Sure, this is possible, Randolph is hard to project, but you trade him for Dwight Howard every day and twice on Sundays.
As to the non crazy part of that, I would take prime Howard over prime KG but I could see it the other way.
Also, Anthony Randolph is on the Nets? I must have missed that.
EDIT: Do you mean Anthony Davis?
Can't quite wrap my head around this one.
EDIT: This assumes as AS notes, that Williams and Howard agree to stick around.
I think you trade a guy who COULD be a star for a guy who IS a star and should continue to be so for many more years any day of the week.
Edit: Assuming Howard is healthy and committed to a long term contract, etc, of course.
No brainer. Howard's a top 10, probably top 5, player in the NBA. Trading him for a good but non slam dunk #1 is a no brainer.
It'd take more than that. I believe Zach Lowe wrote about this today. They'd need to throw Brooks in for contract, I think renounce Humphries, and probably give Orlando a little bit more than just Davis and Brooks.
Though this assumes that Howard really wants to play somewhere besides the Nets, but will play there if he can get a bit more money due to salary rules. If you think he'll play there anyway, you keep Davis and sign Howard as a FA. The worst that happens is you end up with Anthony Davis.
But, you're making the assumption he's not getting traded to a team he likes and signs and extension. If you're the Nets, you're putting a lot of faith that a very wishy-washy guy won't sign an extension wherever he's traded.
*Probably* top 5? I think the question is how far behind LeBron is he for #2. So hell, yes, I trade the #1 pick for him.
OH! In that case, YES. Assuming Howard is healthy, the Nets would be able to run out a starting five that includes Howard at C, Gerald Wallace at SF, Kris Humphries at PF, Deron Williams at PG, and Gerald Green/Anthony Morrow at SG. That's a good team, a top four team in the East right now, maybe top 2 since Rose is going to be MIA for Chicago.
Yep. They also have Lopez, who doesn't have much use on this team. He can be moved for an upgrade at SG or for depth. Wait, I guess he's in the deal for Howard. I think Hollinger said the Nets could work it so they have enough cap space to absorb Howard's deal if they renounce Humphries.
If the reports today are to be believed that Williams will stay if they get Howard (and that BKN is where Howard really wants to be), then I have no hesitation trading the pick if they get it.
14. Rockets
13. Suns
12. Bucks
11. Trailblazers
10. Hornets
9. Pistons
8. Raptors
7. Warriors
6. Nets —> Goes to Portland
5. Kings
4. Cavs
Not sure this is good for the Warriors. Devastating for the Nets.
Anybody?
Edit: J/k, but no seriously.
Does it really matter which pick they #### up?
2. Bobcats
1. Hornets
Hornets get #1. I'm shocked, SHOCKED.
The league-owned team got the #1 pick. Color me not surprised.
Primer RT:
It's too bad the Warriors got to keep their pick this year, but Jazz will probably get it next draft as long as Bogut is somewhat healthy.
Gordon may or may not stick around - he's a FA.
#foreverbitter
anyway, that's a pretty solid lottery for the sixers. brooklyn lost their pick, and two potential suiters for iguodala (GSW and SAC) both have lost their chance at pulling davis or MKG.
i'll take it.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main