Fairview4Life wrote:The Cavs and Magic should have to forfeit their spot in the semis to the Sixers or something.
Celtics are only respectable team in the east
Moderators: 7 Footer, Duffman100, Morris_Shatford, DG88, HiJiNX, niQ, Reeko, lebron stopper
Fairview4Life wrote:The Cavs and Magic should have to forfeit their spot in the semis to the Sixers or something.
Son Goku 25 wrote:Saltics really got the easiest way to the finals hope they choke hard
Scase wrote:JB7 wrote:Scase wrote:Jak is far from what I would call "such a valuable" asset. Like yeah, he's got value but let’s not get carried away here, he's a mid tier center. The blazers will almost certainly end up with more than 21 wins, they were intentionally sitting players late in the season AND traded away dame.
Individually, yes Yak is not any type of star center, but his impact can almost appear that way, because without him they have no competent defensive C, and typically get destroyed, so his impact is much larger from a team perspective.
It’s why I would say the deal for Yak was not just about trying to improve their chances in the playoffs for that year, but generally just to clear up a significant weakness the team spent 2 years trying to fill. The timing was the deadline because that was the point the Spurs had to trade Yak, and also was the point when the cost was probably the lowest. The summer before Spurs were asking for 2 FRPs, and probably wanted a 2023 pick and 2025 pick over a 2024 pick.
The Blazers have no chance of making even the play in, in the West, so they will have no incentive to win games same as this past year. They will tank hard for a high pick.
Yeah but that was kind of my point, he raises the teams floor, but not the ceiling. He has value but not some irreplaceable kind, and the idea is to intentionally get worse. You originally said competing with the bottom teams would be impossible with this team, my argument was it's easy by getting rid of Jak.
JB7 wrote:Scase wrote:JB7 wrote:
Individually, yes Yak is not any type of star center, but his impact can almost appear that way, because without him they have no competent defensive C, and typically get destroyed, so his impact is much larger from a team perspective.
It’s why I would say the deal for Yak was not just about trying to improve their chances in the playoffs for that year, but generally just to clear up a significant weakness the team spent 2 years trying to fill. The timing was the deadline because that was the point the Spurs had to trade Yak, and also was the point when the cost was probably the lowest. The summer before Spurs were asking for 2 FRPs, and probably wanted a 2023 pick and 2025 pick over a 2024 pick.
The Blazers have no chance of making even the play in, in the West, so they will have no incentive to win games same as this past year. They will tank hard for a high pick.
Yeah but that was kind of my point, he raises the teams floor, but not the ceiling. He has value but not some irreplaceable kind, and the idea is to intentionally get worse. You originally said competing with the bottom teams would be impossible with this team, my argument was it's easy by getting rid of Jak.
How long are you wanting them to be bad, because it took two years to find another competent C? Teams that have them don’t like to part with them.
Also, I don’t think they’ll be able to retain Barnes if they live at the bottom of the league for 2-3 seasons.
Los_29 wrote:OKC/Mavs is interesting. OKC had a pretty easy 1st round against a bad Pelicans team. But you can’t deny their talent. Can they beat the Mavs though?
Son Goku 25 wrote:Los_29 wrote:OKC/Mavs is interesting. OKC had a pretty easy 1st round against a bad Pelicans team. But you can’t deny their talent. Can they beat the Mavs though?
I thought Pels were dangerous. Okc might be for real.
Los_29 wrote:OKC/Mavs is interesting. OKC had a pretty easy 1st round against a bad Pelicans team. But you can’t deny their talent. Can they beat the Mavs though?
Scase wrote:JB7 wrote:Scase wrote:Yeah but that was kind of my point, he raises the teams floor, but not the ceiling. He has value but not some irreplaceable kind, and the idea is to intentionally get worse. You originally said competing with the bottom teams would be impossible with this team, my argument was it's easy by getting rid of Jak.
How long are you wanting them to be bad, because it took two years to find another competent C? Teams that have them don’t like to part with them.
Also, I don’t think they’ll be able to retain Barnes if they live at the bottom of the league for 2-3 seasons.
That's what the draft is for my friend. Also teams like the knicks have found a magical way to find 2-3 quality C's without much trouble.
douggood wrote:Ballmer wants to run it back.