RealGM

3toheadmelo wrote:

god shammgod wrote:

3toheadmelo wrote:ill let you have your broken clock moment

17 & 6 on 45/40 for the year. don't hate, congratulate.

ill congratulate you on finally hitting on a prospect

lies!!!! except for that damn mo bamba my record is impeccable. damn you mo.

spree2kawhi wrote:

dakomish23 wrote:

spree2kawhi wrote:Lonzo Ball is one of the worst starting point guards in the league.

Your opinion would explain why you wouldn't do what I said.

I question why the Knicks, who reportedly have a very different opinion on this player, wouldn't do it.

My opinion has a better track record than the Knicks though.

A. Very few ppl don't have a better track record than the Knicks. See signature.
B. You still didn't address what I initially said.

spree2kawhi wrote:

Chanel Bomber wrote:

spree2kawhi wrote:Lonzo Ball is one of the worst starting point guards in the league.

Not sure he's one of the 5 worst but he's definitely below-average. He's part of the reason the Pelicans are so mediocre despite having two All-Stars including a generational talent.

You name it. And folks are so desperate, they think that this underwhelming player, of all guards in the world, could turn us into a force in an up and coming Eastern conference.

Lonzo never outplays his matchup. He never creates mismatches. Teams are never wary of what he does, let alone fear his game. Not at all. He's average and I'm even convinced Frank could do what he does.

I'd love to see the mental gymnastics on how you got the above rant from what I said.

I'll wait.

RJ didn't make ESPN's top 25 under 25, but Jarret Allen, JA, Mikal, Lonzo and Sexton did

NoDopeOnSundays wrote:RJ didn't make ESPN's top 25 under 25, but Jarret Allen, JA, Mikal, Lonzo and Sexton did

It's a good sign.

HAHAHA Haliburton over RJ too? I didn't even notice that one.






ESPN is so **** trash.

Chanel Bomber wrote:

NoDopeOnSundays wrote:RJ didn't make ESPN's top 25 under 25, but Jarret Allen, JA, Mikal, Lonzo and Sexton did

It's a good sign.

It's good in that it'll make him hungry, but throw the kid a bone, he's been great this year.

I can't wait for Knicks Twitter to tear this list apart. This is supposed to be on potential?

These fools have no clue what they're watching if potential is the guiding force.

Richard4444 wrote:

Chanel Bomber wrote:

HEZI wrote:

Watch on YouTube

Garland so good

Would've been the perfect PG for Zion offensively.

David Griffin is a moron for trading down.

It was a good trade in a bad/hard draft (after 3th pick).

NO got 8th, 17th, 35th and more 2 probable early future seconds (Cavs Second Rounds picks in 21 and 22).

The main issue was the players picked. Especially Hayes and Didi. (NAW could be a good option in the long run). They could have picked Herro, PJ Washignton, Rui or Reddish at 8th; Keldon, Matisse, KPJr or Clarke at 17th. Gafford, Paschall, THT or Mann at 35th.

If NOP keeps the pick and gets Culver at 4th, it would be an even more disastrous draft.

I must disagree.

The 2019 draft was good at the time and looks even better now, and not just because of the top 3.

Herro, Keldon Johnson, Thybulle, Clarke, Timelord, Garland, Rui, Hunter, THT all look like quality players already.

Secondly, having a shot at a top 4 talent and passing on that to accumulate more assets rarely pans out. Usually, you take the best talent with the highest possible draft pick. Rare exceptions to the rule, in the interest of fairness, include the McHale trade and the Tatum trade.

But the Pelicans needed a point guard who can shoot off the dribble to run the pick-and-roll with Zion and they had a borderline elite prospect who fit that archetype right there for the taking. David Griffin just outsmarted himself. Now they have a point guard who doesn't fit with Zion, and from the trade all they got is a center who can't space the floor for Zion and a generic wing player who might pan out but doesn't elevate the ceiling of that team significantly.

Passing on Garland was a massive blunder by the Pelicans front office.

NoDopeOnSundays wrote:HAHAHA Haliburton over RJ too? I didn't even notice that one.






ESPN is so **** trash.

I think Haliburton is fair because of his efficiency. And I think he has an outside shot at being an all-timer.

I don't really care about these rankings because a most of these guys have outperformed RJ so far but the progression of these kids isn't always linear and I'm confident RJ will pass a lot of these dudes when it's all said and done.

I'd personally rank RJ ahead of Ja for instance, but early returns would suggest that Ja has a better future, even though I disagree.

I'd rank RJ comfortably ahead of Lonzo, Collins, Ja, Bridges, Edwards, Allen and Sabonis long-term. But that' ll require him to improve his efficiency significantly, which is gonna take a few years at least.

Chanel Bomber wrote:

Richard4444 wrote:

Chanel Bomber wrote:Would've been the perfect PG for Zion offensively.

David Griffin is a moron for trading down.

It was a good trade in a bad/hard draft (after 3th pick).

NO got 8th, 17th, 35th and more 2 probable early future seconds (Cavs Second Rounds picks in 21 and 22).

The main issue was the players picked. Especially Hayes and Didi. (NAW could be a good option in the long run). They could have picked Herro, PJ Washignton, Rui or Reddish at 8th; Keldon, Matisse, KPJr or Clarke at 17th. Gafford, Paschall, THT or Mann at 35th.

If NOP keeps the pick and gets Culver at 4th, it would be an even more disastrous draft.

I must disagree.

The 2019 draft was good at the time and looks even better now, and not just because of the top 3.

Herro, Keldon Johnson, Thybulle, Clarke, Timelord, Garland, Rui, Hunter, THT all look like quality players already.

Secondly, having a shot at a top 4 talent and passing on that to accumulate more assets rarely pans out. Usually, you take the best talent with the highest possible draft pick. Rare exceptions to the rule, in the interest of fairness, include the McHale trade and the Tatum trade.

But the Pelicans needed a point guard who can shoot off the dribble to run the pick-and-roll with Zion and they had a borderline elite prospect who fit that archetype right there for the taking. David Griffin just outsmarted himself. Now they have a point guard who doesn't fit with Zion, and from the trade all they got is a center who can't space the floor for Zion and a generic wing player who might pan out but doesn't elevate the ceiling of that team significantly.

Passing on Garland was a massive blunder by the Pelicans front office.

I don't think it was a bad draft either. But it was a hard one. There was little consensus after the #3 pick. It was tough to predict who could be great or not. It was almost crapshoot (a lot of players in the same tier). Garland was a risk pick (injured player who barely plays College, did not show skills as PG and too undersized to play SG). Hunter was mocked as just a 3&D role player. Trading for multiples picks could be an interesting move in these conditions. There were a lot of interesting players late in this draft.

But Hayes along with Culver were the worse choices Top 13 players. I hate picking Centers with Top10 picks. And NAW can still become a good player eventually.

Chanel Bomber wrote:

Richard4444 wrote:

Chanel Bomber wrote:Would've been the perfect PG for Zion offensively.

David Griffin is a moron for trading down.

It was a good trade in a bad/hard draft (after 3th pick).

NO got 8th, 17th, 35th and more 2 probable early future seconds (Cavs Second Rounds picks in 21 and 22).

The main issue was the players picked. Especially Hayes and Didi. (NAW could be a good option in the long run). They could have picked Herro, PJ Washignton, Rui or Reddish at 8th; Keldon, Matisse, KPJr or Clarke at 17th. Gafford, Paschall, THT or Mann at 35th.

If NOP keeps the pick and gets Culver at 4th, it would be an even more disastrous draft.

I must disagree.

The 2019 draft was good at the time and looks even better now, and not just because of the top 3.

Herro, Keldon Johnson, Thybulle, Clarke, Timelord, Garland, Rui, Hunter, THT all look like quality players already.

Secondly, having a shot at a top 4 talent and passing on that to accumulate more assets rarely pans out. Usually, you take the best talent with the highest possible draft pick. Rare exceptions to the rule, in the interest of fairness, include the McHale trade and the Tatum trade.

But the Pelicans needed a point guard who can shoot off the dribble to run the pick-and-roll with Zion and they had a borderline elite prospect who fit that archetype right there for the taking. David Griffin just outsmarted himself. Now they have a point guard who doesn't fit with Zion, and from the trade all they got is a center who can't space the floor for Zion and a generic wing player who might pan out but doesn't elevate the ceiling of that team significantly.

Passing on Garland was a massive blunder by the Pelicans front office.

Are you trying to say that trading the #5 pick in a pretty great draft for Randy Foye & Mike Miller is not a good decision?

https://www.nba.com/timberwolves/news/Wolves_Acquire_the_No_5_Pick_-090624.html#:~:text=The%20Minnesota%20Timberwolves%20announced%20the,Randy%20Foye%20and%20Mike%20Miller.

This trade doesn't get enough hate. Look at this draft!!!!!

dakomish23 wrote:

Chanel Bomber wrote:

Richard4444 wrote:
It was a good trade in a bad/hard draft (after 3th pick).

NO got 8th, 17th, 35th and more 2 probable early future seconds (Cavs Second Rounds picks in 21 and 22).

The main issue was the players picked. Especially Hayes and Didi. (NAW could be a good option in the long run). They could have picked Herro, PJ Washignton, Rui or Reddish at 8th; Keldon, Matisse, KPJr or Clarke at 17th. Gafford, Paschall, THT or Mann at 35th.

If NOP keeps the pick and gets Culver at 4th, it would be an even more disastrous draft.

I must disagree.

The 2019 draft was good at the time and looks even better now, and not just because of the top 3.

Herro, Keldon Johnson, Thybulle, Clarke, Timelord, Garland, Rui, Hunter, THT all look like quality players already.

Secondly, having a shot at a top 4 talent and passing on that to accumulate more assets rarely pans out. Usually, you take the best talent with the highest possible draft pick. Rare exceptions to the rule, in the interest of fairness, include the McHale trade and the Tatum trade.

But the Pelicans needed a point guard who can shoot off the dribble to run the pick-and-roll with Zion and they had a borderline elite prospect who fit that archetype right there for the taking. David Griffin just outsmarted himself. Now they have a point guard who doesn't fit with Zion, and from the trade all they got is a center who can't space the floor for Zion and a generic wing player who might pan out but doesn't elevate the ceiling of that team significantly.

Passing on Garland was a massive blunder by the Pelicans front office.

Are you trying to say that trading the #5 pick in a pretty great draft for Randy Foye & Mike Miller is not a good decision?

https://www.nba.com/timberwolves/news/Wolves_Acquire_the_No_5_Pick_-090624.html#:~:text=The%20Minnesota%20Timberwolves%20announced%20the,Randy%20Foye%20and%20Mike%20Miller.

This trade doesn't get enough hate. Look at this draft!!!!!

Yeah that one's an all-timer.

That whole draft was a historical mess.

3toheadmelo wrote::lol:

Read on Twitter

the only thing that woulda made this better is if he said tested them for the weeddddd

The 2021 Warriors are 1-7 without Steph. This is perhaps unsurprising--the 2020 Warriors went 14-46 without him. What probably is surprising though, is that this team might be even worse:

This is despite adding productive seasons from Wiggins and Draymond. There's a clear reason for this. If we isolate to Warriors minutes without Steph OR Wiseman, we see a bad, but improved team:

Warriors w/o Steph or Wiseman: 102.7 Off Rating (30th), -6.7 net (25th)

Still worst-in-the-NBA offense, but at least solid defensively, with a net rating around OKC's number. This reveals something about the 2021 Warriors that makes the Steph on/offs even more absurd--Steph's own efficiency is getting killed by playing with Wiseman.

Minutes Off Rating Net Rating
Steph, No Wiseman 900 119.8 +8
Steph, w/ Wiseman 495 103.4 -8.4
Wiseman, No Steph 286 101.0 -14.0
No Wiseman, No Steph 700 102.7 -6.7

The 16.4 offensive drop in Steph lineups when they add Wiseman, is more than the distance between the offense of the Brooklyn Nets and the Cleveland Cavaliers. And when Steph isn't around to carry Wiseman, the Warriors get outscored by 14 net points per 100, a worse number than the worst season of the "Process" 76ers (-10.2).

wow. just sad. thankfully nobody here was pushing for us to trade for....oh, hello melo....didn't see you there.

dakomish23 wrote:

spree2kawhi wrote:

dakomish23 wrote:
Your opinion would explain why you wouldn't do what I said.

I question why the Knicks, who reportedly have a very different opinion on this player, wouldn't do it.

My opinion has a better track record than the Knicks though.

A. Very few ppl don't have a better track record than the Knicks. See signature.
B. You still didn't address what I initially said.

Yes I noticed later. Considering that Bledsoe has negative value it seems so easy. I think he is still serviceable though and I'm sure many around the league believe he is. The Pels probably want more in return and the Knicks don't need Bledsoe, whether he's serviceable or not. I think it's too easy to assume absorbing Bledsoe does the trick.

dakomish23 wrote:

spree2kawhi wrote:

Chanel Bomber wrote:Not sure he's one of the 5 worst but he's definitely below-average. He's part of the reason the Pelicans are so mediocre despite having two All-Stars including a generational talent.

You name it. And folks are so desperate, they think that this underwhelming player, of all guards in the world, could turn us into a force in an up and coming Eastern conference.

Lonzo never outplays his matchup. He never creates mismatches. Teams are never wary of what he does, let alone fear his game. Not at all. He's average and I'm even convinced Frank could do what he does.

I'd love to see the mental gymnastics on how you got the above rant from what I said.

I'll wait.

I misread your postpost. Sorry. Btw I didn't mean you with what you bolded. Just look around, it's nobody in particular really. In abscenceabsence of proper alternatives this summer, seemingly everybody loves Lonzo but there is not a reason for it. Just because there's no better option, a mediocre one won't help us.