RealGM

What are your thoughts on Billy Donovan so far? He hasn't impressed me very much especially how he has managed Bench

spearsy23 wrote::nonono:

I'll do it for you.

You know something, the last few games I'm seeing it. The early season review may have been too harsh. We'll see how this week goes and I'll feel better grading.

How fast things can turn.

Winning a few games doesn't change how poorly he coached the first 17.

nothing's even changed much in these games. take the utah game for example. billy went small for five minutes, and that was a rw-ar-dw-kd-sa lineup. probably the most nonsensical small ball you can devise. utah was permitted to dictate the pace of the game and billy allowed it to happen by refusing to go small.

we're still using serge ibaka wrong. anthony morrow is invisible. dion waiters is getting 30 minutes in close games . he's insisting on playing the all bench lineup repeatedly.

this is a good team. we'll be in the 6-7 srs range and in the 2-3 seed depending on how legit san antonio's start is and if they hold up.

To this point, Dion is still my biggest issue. Less minutes, and yea I know I harp on it a ton, but it should happen.

Should Kanter get waaaay more burn? He seems to be getting it in the defensive end and is your best offensive rebounding force.

Yuri Vaultin wrote:Should Kanter get waaaay more burn? He seems to be getting it in the defensive end and is your best offensive rebounding force.

Eh....I think he's pretty good. They've posted a top defense since his minutes are lower, and haven't fallen off offensively. Honestly I think keeping him was more "holding an asset" and he's dealt this summer as of now.

You know what I like about Donovan? He has some very strange lineups out there, but at least he's shown he is willing to try new things and willing to adjust.

bondom34 wrote:

Yuri Vaultin wrote:Should Kanter get waaaay more burn? He seems to be getting it in the defensive end and is your best offensive rebounding force.

Eh....I think he's pretty good. They've posted a top defense since his minutes are lower, and haven't fallen off offensively. Honestly I think keeping him was more "holding an asset" and he's dealt this summer as of now.

Or, he is exactly what "we" thought he would be and that is a mid minute, high production, big man 6th man type who can come in and give us more guaranteed offense if Westbrook and Durant are having bad quarters or whatever. Something we definitely need.

Bravenewworld wrote:

bondom34 wrote:

Yuri Vaultin wrote:Should Kanter get waaaay more burn? He seems to be getting it in the defensive end and is your best offensive rebounding force.

Eh....I think he's pretty good. They've posted a top defense since his minutes are lower, and haven't fallen off offensively. Honestly I think keeping him was more "holding an asset" and he's dealt this summer as of now.

Or, he is exactly what "we" thought he would be and that is a mid minute, high production, big man 6th man type who can come in and give us more guaranteed offense if Westbrook and Durant are having bad quarters or whatever. Something we definitely need.

He's not exactly the best fit, which is the point. You could for his salary get a productive big and a better wing and be better off.

bondom34 wrote:He's not exactly the best fit, which is the point. You could for his salary get a productive big and a better wing and be better off.

Lets stop working in the fantasy realm of these absolute best case scenario's that never happen. And instead focus on the fact that not every player will be ideal, but we can make them work.

Bravenewworld wrote:

bondom34 wrote:He's not exactly the best fit, which is the point. You could for his salary get a productive big and a better wing and be better off.

Lets stop working in the fantasy realm of these absolute best case scenario's that never happen. And instead focus on the fact that not every player will be ideal, but we can make them work.

I'm not in any fantasy, but he can certainly be traded in the offseason for a better fit. They're not winning this year either way, and he's not meaningfully contributing in most games. He's improved, and has had some very good games, but its definitely a spot that could be upgraded.

bondom34 wrote:I'm not in any fantasy, but he can certainly be traded in the offseason for a better fit. They're not winning this year either way, and he's not meaningfully contributing in most games. He's improved, and has had some very good games, but its definitely a spot that could be upgraded.

Says who? You? Who are you?
Am i unaware of your job? Are you in the front office making calls to GMs right now?

Who is the better fit?

Who is going to give us a big man close to his production, and a decent wing?

Again, these are all things you create in your head. Youre making the assumption that all these things could, can, will, happen, without any indication that they can.

Bravenewworld wrote:

bondom34 wrote:I'm not in any fantasy, but he can certainly be traded in the offseason for a better fit. They're not winning this year either way, and he's not meaningfully contributing in most games. He's improved, and has had some very good games, but its definitely a spot that could be upgraded.

Says who? You? Who are you?
Am i unaware of your job? Are you in the front office making calls to GMs right now?

Who is the better fit?

Who is going to give us a big man close to his production, and a decent wing?

Again, these are all things you create in your head. Youre making the assumption that all these things could, can, will, happen, without any indication that they can.

Says pretty much anyone on this board for example.

Are you in a front office or just feeling overly self important?

A better fit would be a defender who doesn't need the ball or tank the defense when he's on court.

Who could give better production? Heck, tons of guys, I'd take Asik, Chandler, Zaza, etc. and a high quality wing over Kanter and the Singler/Waiters duo off the bench.

Again, you're back and quickly trying to just conjure up controversy for no reason. You can state your opinion and give an idea, but if you think this roster is well fitted, well I don't know what to say. This is a discussion board, we're here to talk about things that can or may or may not happen. Or maybe just shut down the site because heck, nothing really happened today anyways.

bondom34 wrote:Says pretty much anyone on this board for example.

Are you in a front office or just feeling overly self important?

So what does this have to do with what is realistic?
Okay, you've found some people on a message board that agree with you.... fantastic... how is that applied to this organization and the 29 other teams? How would this be applied to if your suggestion is realistic or not?

bondom34 wrote:A better fit would be a defender who doesn't need the ball or tank the defense when he's on court.

We would then end up with the same offensive problem we had before.
Unless youre attempting to suggest that someone would give us a simlarly graded offensive big who is also a far better defender, at what? half the cost, since we need to include a wing.... oh, the big also has to be able to score as effectively while having the ball for lesser time then Kanter (who already does not need to handle the ball to score).

Basically you want the perfect player without fault and not only do you think this player is out there (id love to hear names you are suggesting) but we would some how get him with Kanter (and get a wing), despite you suggesting Kanter would be a lesser player........ You get where im going with this? The unrealistic nature of what youre suggesting?

Who could give better production? Heck, tons of guys, I'd take Asik, Chandler, Zaza, etc. and a high quality wing over Kanter and the Singler/Waiters duo off the bench.

Not one of those guys gives better production and none of their defense is consistent (W/Asik being injured all the time and seemingly having a VC in Toronto mentality) enough to suggest the trade off would be worth it. Chandler 5 years ago, yah. The other two, no.

Again, you're back and quickly trying to just conjure up controversy for no reason. You can state your opinion and give an idea, but if you think this roster is well fitted, well I don't know what to say. This is a discussion board, we're here to talk about things that can or may or may not happen. Or maybe just shut down the site because heck, nothing really happened today anyways.

1. Which means your ideas will also be criticized and questioned. And if they are unrealistic, will be called at as so.
2. I did state my opinion on the subject and on your idea, but apparently you're taking issue with it happening in the first place.
But i will say that.... my bad, i didnt think youd suggest Asik or Zaza are worthy of our team or be worth more than what Kanter provides.

Bravenewworld wrote:

bondom34 wrote:Says pretty much anyone on this board for example.

Are you in a front office or just feeling overly self important?

So what does this have to do with what is realistic?
Okay, you've found some people on a message board that agree with you.... fantastic... how is that applied to this organization and the 29 other teams? How would this be applied to if your suggestion is realistic or not?

bondom34 wrote:A better fit would be a defender who doesn't need the ball or tank the defense when he's on court.

We would then end up with the same offensive problem we had before.
Unless youre attempting to suggest that someone would give us a simlarly graded offensive big who is also a far better defender, at what? half the cost, since we need to include a wing.... oh, the big also has to be able to score as effectively while having the ball for lesser time then Kanter (who already does not need to handle the ball to score).

Basically you want the perfect player without fault and not only do you think this player is out there (id love to hear names you are suggesting) but we would some how get him with Kanter (and get a wing), despite you suggesting Kanter would be a lesser player........ You get where im going with this? The unrealistic nature of what youre suggesting?

Who could give better production? Heck, tons of guys, I'd take Asik, Chandler, Zaza, etc. and a high quality wing over Kanter and the Singler/Waiters duo off the bench.

Not one of those guys gives better production and none of their defense is consistent enough to suggest the trade off would be worth it. Chandler 5 years ago, yah. The other two, no.

Again, you're back and quickly trying to just conjure up controversy for no reason. You can state your opinion and give an idea, but if you think this roster is well fitted, well I don't know what to say. This is a discussion board, we're here to talk about things that can or may or may not happen. Or maybe just shut down the site because heck, nothing really happened today anyways.

1. Which means your ideas will also be criticized and questioned. And if they are unrealistic, will be called at as so.
2. I did state my opinion on the subject and on your idea, but apparently you're taking issue with it happening in the first place.
But i will say that.... my bad, i didnt think youd suggest Asik or Zaza are worthy of our team.

You're right. Shut it down, no discussion board needed, BNW is back and knows it all again!

Nothing is/was unrealistic that was posted. I could easily see Presti dump kanter on a team that strikes out on free agents and get back a much better fitting player.

And as for the players, Kanter has still been a net negative. Zaza would be better if you'd get him with a real wing.