2024-25 NBA Season Discussion

[Texas Chuck]

I can't believe you think developing a player is more important than the reason you want to develop players.

But as a fan of a team in the West I hope this potential dynasty spends next year trying to develop all their young talent instead of defending their title. That would be super cool.

LOL at titles being irrelevant.

[ShotCreator]

I can't believe you think developing a player is more important than the reason you want to develop players.

But as a fan of a team in the West I hope this potential dynasty spends next year trying to develop all their young talent instead of defending their title. That would be super cool.

LOL at titles being irrelevant.

I don't really care about whoever wins the title every year. I care about real quality levels of play. And we've seen enough teams fall off rapidly that, if I'm a fan of a team or players, or whatever, I'd rather see them attain a certain caliber of play and stay there.

The Celtics 2024 title means nothing to anybody right now. The Nuggets 2023 title. They were the champs that year. Not all the time, not forever. They're former champions. Former. Temporary.

But anyway. Again, a false choice. OKC can afford to cater to Chet Holmgren's offensive game and stay at the same level.

I don't even think we are talking about the same things. What does player development mean to you? When does it stop?

Should the Spurs have kept Kawhi in the corner while Tony Parker dribbled for half the game, because it worked? OKC would be very short-sighted to not take Holmgren seriously as a potential MVP kind of guy.

[Dr Positivity]

Best coaching matchups of all time in the finals (according to combining my ranks for them)

Red Auerbach vs Alex Hannum
Phil Jackson vs Larry Brown

I have Hannum as top 3/4 all time and Auerbach 2nd, while because Phil is the clear #1 for me his best matchup can also be argued against them even if Brown is more like 6-10.

John Kundla vs Red Auerbach
Gregg Popovich vs Eric Spolestra
Gregg Popovich vs Larry Brown
Bill Sharman vs Alex Hannum

Daly vs Riley is good but probably not as high ranking as Espn would say. Adelman and Sloan are in teens for me but have some matchups with the #1 Phil. I'm high on Lue so him and Kerr could be a decent rank too.

Worst matchups (subjective)

Mike Budenholzer vs Monty Williams
Joe Mazzula vs Jason Kidd by resume for now, but TBD
Butch van Breda Koff vs Bill Russell but player coach makes it weirder
Probably some 40s/50s ones.

[Outside]

Titles are overrated, they’re practically meaningless after they happen

Just... wow. That's some signature-worthy stuff there.

Gold medals, World Cup titles, NBA championships? Meh. Joel Embiid was crying about his lack of personal development.

[Doctor MJ]

Why would OKC be more interested in "development of Chet's offense" over winning a title? And this is like that silly thread we had going back to 14-15 where people were legit criticizing Lebron not for dragging a shell of a team to 2 wins from a championship like an absolute boss but no he wasn't actually very good because Kevin Love somehow didn't put up the same stats as a 3rd option on a contender as he did as the first option on a bad team lol.

Our priorities get all out of whack sometimes. Win games. Chet's development is right on track. Yes, OKC's one weakness is reliable shot creation outside of SGA. Even with that, 3 wins away. I think they have no real regrets at how they went about this season.

Titles are overrated, they’re practically meaningless after they happen.

And that’s a false choice anyway. The OKC Thunder are not a Chet Holmgren usage increase of 10% away from winning a title or not winning one. They’re flat out better than everybody by far this year. They can afford to experiment for the long-term.

Actual player and team development is almost everything.

Alex Caruso and Cason Wallace won’t be fringe-DPOY guys forever. And when that time comes hopefully for OKC, Chet has developed a lot of confidence and skill on both ends.

Chet Holmgren has a lot of potential on the table. He’s 23.

Love was past-peak with a changing body by the time he was in Cleveland. And funny enough, a big reason Blatt was fired was because of Love’s sub-optimization in the offense. Which Lue changed and the Cavs went on ferocious offensive runs with LeBron + Love lineups, that outperformed anything involving Kyrie.

But even that is irrelevant for the simplicity of what I’m saying and how obvious it is.

Imagine if Giannis was on the Warriors in the mid to late 2010’s and they just used him as a lob catching defensive big until the end of the decade.

By the time Iguodala, Bogut, Thompson and Livingston broke down around 2020, what would they have left?

And let me be clear about something, Chet Holmgren’s talent level is much closer to Giannis’ than it is to Love’s. If you disagree then maybe this whole ignoring his development for games that won’t matter in just a year thing makes more sense.

So, I respect your focus on player development and optimization, and that goes along with a mindset that just because a team wins a title, doesn't mean they made all the optimal calls. Regardless of how the finals ends up, it's not unreasonable to ask whether Daigneault was optimal in his use of roster - both for the match up, and as part of a continued process.

We're expecting JDub & Chet to get max deals in the off-season, and from that point onward, the core is all but locked in. The idea that you'd be playing a guy you're about to give a max deal limited minutes in the finals is pretty crazy, and an indicator for how the OKC stuff could go sideways. We all lamented what's happened in Denver with Murray and especially Porter, and those were situations where the guys in question weren't getting strategically benched as they did what they did to earn those max deals.

With all that said, I think you lose the thread when you say that chips are meaningless after they happen. They just aren't. Rightly or wrongly, that's what we look at to evaluate legacy, and legacy matters to all these guys in ways beyond ego.

Stars, coaches & GMs who seem like they should win the title and fall short get ripped apart, and those who do win the title always have that as a feather in their cap.

If we break it down with some specific guys here:

With a title, Presti's status as the top GM of the past 15+ years is secured, without one, it isn't. The chip will cement a career arc that sees him nail the initial team building of talent which could have led to two separate championship runs if not for a financially driven decision to break up the first team. Failure to chip will further an arc that Presti can't quite get the franchise to the finish line.

With Daigneault, what we've had is arguably the best performance from a coach in a very long time in terms of putting together a team identity that just plain dominates the competition with an attitude of aggression and learning, but we've also seen some in-game moments where he seems like he's trying to be too clever for his team's good. If they win the chip, no one will care about the bumbles. If they don't, it's what people will fixate on.

With Shai, him being a star player with lots of objective stats will protect him some - he seems remarkably consistent about getting his - but there's a major chunk of NBA people who are reluctant to actually acknowledge Shai as being "generational" the way his less accomplished draftmate (Luka Doncic) is. I would say that stems from the fact that people look to jump aboard "generational" bandwagons leading up to the draft and then for the first couple seasons after that, and once you have draftmates who are getting named all-star (and talked about as an MVP favorite) and you aren't, you later emerging as the better player of the bunch leads to all sorts of cognitive dissonance.

While a chip will not definitively end the pissing contests, it will go a long way, and it will absolutely cause a change to the marketing around the NBA looking to build up Shai as one of the faces of the NBA to come.

Now as I say all of this, a chip doesn't keep a coach from getting fired a year or two down the road, and nor does it prevent criticism for any of the champions involved, and I think this is what you're referring to above all, but champions are champions forever, and they can eat on that forever.

[TheGOATRises007]

Why would OKC be more interested in "development of Chet's offense" over winning a title? And this is like that silly thread we had going back to 14-15 where people were legit criticizing Lebron not for dragging a shell of a team to 2 wins from a championship like an absolute boss but no he wasn't actually very good because Kevin Love somehow didn't put up the same stats as a 3rd option on a contender as he did as the first option on a bad team lol.

Our priorities get all out of whack sometimes. Win games. Chet's development is right on track. Yes, OKC's one weakness is reliable shot creation outside of SGA. Even with that, 3 wins away. I think they have no real regrets at how they went about this season.

Titles are overrated, they’re practically meaningless after they happen.

I think you're a good poster, but this is just a shocking take.

Titles are never forgotten and they're etched in history.

[sp6r=underrated]

Titles are overrated, they’re practically meaningless after they happen

I agree with the first clause but disagree with the second.

NBA Fans overrate titles and NBA culture has devolved into a rings or bust mindset. Read the post-mortem threads. They're full of fans dismissing teams like the Timberwolves as treadmill teams. NBA fans have reached the point where basically only rings satisfy them and if rings seem unlikely they want a Hinkie rebuild. That sucks

If you told me I could be a bulls fan who won 6 titles in the Jordan era or Spurs fan who won 5 I'd pick the latter everytime. The run just lasted way longer. I would get way more enjoyment from following an elite team for two decades even if it peaked lower.

More controversially, if you gave me the choice between being a Lakers fan 2019-25 or Jazz Fan 92-98, I'd pick the latter even if the Lakers have a title and the Jazz don't. The Lakers missed the playoffs a couple of times and only went on playoff runs twice. By contrast the Jazz made the CF 5 of the 7 years and the finals twice. I'd rather watch that.

I disagree with the idea they are meaningless but they aren't the sole priority.

[Special_Puppy]

What's the reason why the Spurs should want to get KD? It only makes sense to acquire an old player like him if your roster is ready to compete for a title and the Spur's isn't without additional serious changes.

[RCM88x]

What's the reason why the Spurs should want to get KD? It only makes sense to acquire an old player like him if your roster is ready to compete for a title and the Spur's isn't without additional serious changes.

What's the reason the Spurs wanted to get Fox? You can't really justify the thinking of an entity that is acting irrationally.

Spurs are fast tracking their way to an empty cupboard and mediocre roster outside of Wemby. Castle could be solid but their is a lot of overlap with Fox.

[sp6r=underrated]

What's the reason why the Spurs should want to get KD? It only makes sense to acquire an old player like him if your roster is ready to compete for a title and the Spur's isn't without additional serious changes.

I disagree with you that there isn't value in making playoff runs. Playoff runs are fun. But I'm still opposed to getting KD. And the get KD push comes from people with 2k brain

[Texas Chuck]

What's the reason why the Spurs should want to get KD? It only makes sense to acquire an old player like him if your roster is ready to compete for a title and the Spur's isn't without additional serious changes.

I disagree with you that there isn't value in making playoff runs. Playoff runs are fun. But I'm still opposed to getting KD. And the get KD push comes from people with 2k brain

I think the cost to get KD will be pretty cheap. So if its like 2 of Vassell/Keldon/Barnes and pick 14? Yeah I'm trading that for KD and I've not emptied my assets and a video game has nothing to do with it.

I also think the Spurs view Wemby the way I do--we can't act like because he's super young that we have 3 or 4 years to build this up. Yes they should try and build something sustainable, but trading a mid first for KD doesn't hurt that at all, but they also need to move quickly because the Wemby risks are real.

I think they should be aggressive in adding pieces. I didn't love the Fox add, but that's done. But KD for what I think it actually would cost? Yeah please.

[sp6r=underrated]

What's the reason why the Spurs should want to get KD? It only makes sense to acquire an old player like him if your roster is ready to compete for a title and the Spur's isn't without additional serious changes.

I disagree with you that there isn't value in making playoff runs. Playoff runs are fun. But I'm still opposed to getting KD. And the get KD push comes from people with 2k brain

I think the cost to get KD will be pretty cheap. So if its like 2 of Vassell/Keldon/Barnes and pick 14? Yeah I'm trading that for KD and I've not emptied my assets and a video game has nothing to do with it.

I also think the Spurs view Wemby the way I do--we can't act like because he's super young that we have 3 or 4 years to build this up. Yes they should try and build something sustainable, but trading a mid first for KD doesn't hurt that at all, but they also need to move quickly because the Wemby risks are real.

I think they should be aggressive in adding pieces. I didn't love the Fox add, but that's done. But KD for what I think it actually would cost? Yeah please.

I fully agree the Spurs can't approach Wemby as if they have years to build around him. The owners wanted a CBA with short contracts and individual salary caps. They got it and it worked in their favor financially but downside is guys like Wemby have 1 foot out the door unless they love your city.

But I still wouldn't want Durant. Call me a hater, and it is probably fair, but I just don't want him around Wemby

[Special_Puppy]

What's the reason why the Spurs should want to get KD? It only makes sense to acquire an old player like him if your roster is ready to compete for a title and the Spur's isn't without additional serious changes.

What's the reason the Spurs wanted to get Fox? You can't really justify the thinking of an entity that is acting irrationally.

Spurs are fast tracking their way to an empty cupboard and mediocre roster outside of Wemby. Castle could be solid but their is a lot of overlap with Fox.

Fox is 10 years younger than KD and they got him for very little. I can see him being part of a Spurs championship team in 3-5 years which I can’t see with KD because he’s 36

[Dr Positivity]

Durant will be 3 years older than PG when PHI got him. Pretty dangerous. I think Towns for Durant is an interesting idea since if it doesn't work they get the capspace anyway. But Bridges may have to be traded for a C.

[falcolombardi]

Why would OKC be more interested in "development of Chet's offense" over winning a title? And this is like that silly thread we had going back to 14-15 where people were legit criticizing Lebron not for dragging a shell of a team to 2 wins from a championship like an absolute boss but no he wasn't actually very good because Kevin Love somehow didn't put up the same stats as a 3rd option on a contender as he did as the first option on a bad team lol.

Our priorities get all out of whack sometimes. Win games. Chet's development is right on track. Yes, OKC's one weakness is reliable shot creation outside of SGA. Even with that, 3 wins away. I think they have no real regrets at how they went about this season.

Titles are overrated, they’re practically meaningless after they happen.

And that’s a false choice anyway. The OKC Thunder are not a Chet Holmgren usage increase of 10% away from winning a title or not winning one. They’re flat out better than everybody by far this year. They can afford to experiment for the long-term.

Actual player and team development is almost everything.

Alex Caruso and Cason Wallace won’t be fringe-DPOY guys forever. And when that time comes hopefully for OKC, Chet has developed a lot of confidence and skill on both ends.

Chet Holmgren has a lot of potential on the table. He’s 23.

Love was past-peak with a changing body by the time he was in Cleveland. And funny enough, a big reason Blatt was fired was because of Love’s sub-optimization in the offense. Which Lue changed and the Cavs went on ferocious offensive runs with LeBron + Love lineups, that outperformed anything involving Kyrie.

But even that is irrelevant for the simplicity of what I’m saying and how obvious it is.

Imagine if Giannis was on the Warriors in the mid to late 2010’s and they just used him as a lob catching defensive big until the end of the decade.

By the time Iguodala, Bogut, Thompson and Livingston broke down around 2020, what would they have left?

And let me be clear about something, Chet Holmgren’s talent level is much closer to Giannis’ than it is to Love’s. If you disagree then maybe this whole ignoring his development for games that won’t matter in just a year thing makes more sense.

So, I respect your focus on player development and optimization, and that goes along with a mindset that just because a team wins a title, doesn't mean they made all the optimal calls. Regardless of how the finals ends up, it's not unreasonable to ask whether Daigneault was optimal in his use of roster - both for the match up, and as part of a continued process.

We're expecting JDub & Chet to get max deals in the off-season, and from that point onward, the core is all but locked in. The idea that you'd be playing a guy you're about to give a max deal limited minutes in the finals is pretty crazy, and an indicator for how the OKC stuff could go sideways. We all lamented what's happened in Denver with Murray and especially Porter, and those were situations where the guys in question weren't getting strategically benched as they did what they did to earn those max deals.

With all that said, I think you lose the thread when you say that chips are meaningless after they happen. They just aren't. Rightly or wrongly, that's what we look at to evaluate legacy, and legacy matters to all these guys in ways beyond ego.

Stars, coaches & GMs who seem like they should win the title and fall short get ripped apart, and those who do win the title always have that as a feather in their cap.

If we break it down with some specific guys here:

With a title, Presti's status as the top GM of the past 15+ years is secured, without one, it isn't. The chip will cement a career arc that sees him nail the initial team building of talent which could have led to two separate championship runs if not for a financially driven decision to break up the first team. Failure to chip will further an arc that Presti can't quite get the franchise to the finish line.

With Daigneault, what we've had is arguably the best performance from a coach in a very long time in terms of putting together a team identity that just plain dominates the competition with an attitude of aggression and learning, but we've also seen some in-game moments where he seems like he's trying to be too clever for his team's good. If they win the chip, no one will care about the bumbles. If they don't, it's what people will fixate on.

With Shai, him being a star player with lots of objective stats will protect him some - he seems remarkably consistent about getting his - but there's a major chunk of NBA people who are reluctant to actually acknowledge Shai as being "generational" the way his less accomplished draftmate (Luka Doncic) is. I would say that stems from the fact that people look to jump aboard "generational" bandwagons leading up to the draft and then for the first couple seasons after that, and once you have draftmates who are getting named all-star (and talked about as an MVP favorite) and you aren't, you later emerging as the better player of the bunch leads to all sorts of cognitive dissonance.

While a chip will not definitively end the pissing contests, it will go a long way, and it will absolutely cause a change to the marketing around the NBA looking to build up Shai as one of the faces of the NBA to come.

Now as I say all of this, a chip doesn't keep a coach from getting fired a year or two down the road, and nor does it prevent criticism for any of the champions involved, and I think this is what you're referring to above all, but champions are champions forever, and they can eat on that forever.

It has been like 1.5 months and honestly for the life of me, i still dont get why you still compare porter jr to jalen or specially chet

Chet -as he is- is already way better than porter jr ever was

His impact metrics are otherwordly for his age, his profile impact without even needing the ball is of a all nba player already

Other than health (big deal here) he is as surefire of a max player as it gets

[RCM88x]

What's the reason why the Spurs should want to get KD? It only makes sense to acquire an old player like him if your roster is ready to compete for a title and the Spur's isn't without additional serious changes.

What's the reason the Spurs wanted to get Fox? You can't really justify the thinking of an entity that is acting irrationally.

Spurs are fast tracking their way to an empty cupboard and mediocre roster outside of Wemby. Castle could be solid but their is a lot of overlap with Fox.

Fox is 10 years younger than KD and they got him for very little. I can see him being part of a Spurs championship team in 3-5 years which I can’t see with KD because he’s 36

They gave up 4 first round picks for a player who is probably a net negative and is up for an extension. KD is actually good now (unlike Fox) and probably will be better in 3-5 years than Fox will be.

[jalengreen]

What's the reason why the Spurs should want to get KD? It only makes sense to acquire an old player like him if your roster is ready to compete for a title and the Spur's isn't without additional serious changes.

Depends on how much it'd cost them but I like the idea of forming a Fox/Durant/Wemby core. Wemby being solidly good enough to win a title as the best player on a team next year isn't in question to me. I frankly don't think Durant would cost them all that much at this point, and Fox didn't either. And so I think it'd be a pretty damn good squad without needing to mortgage the future.

[tsherkin]

Wemby being solidly good enough to win a title as the best player on a team next year isn't in question to me.

We have a lot to see yet. First, he needs to be healthy. Second, they need to get to .500. They were 21-25 when he did play last year, which put them on a 37-win pace, not far different from the 34 they did win. So as far as impact, we need to see more improvement. Obviously, a lot of that is roster more than Wemby. His raw on/off was excellent, he made visible strides on offense and his defensive impact was huge.

But "best player on a title team" is a tall ask, if you'll forgive the pun, so we'll need to see if and what he improves next year in order to position himself at that level.

[jalengreen]

Wemby being solidly good enough to win a title as the best player on a team next year isn't in question to me.

We have a lot to see yet. First, he needs to be healthy. Second, they need to get to .500. They were 21-25 when he did play last year, which put them on a 37-win pace, not far different from the 34 they did win. So as far as impact, we need to see more improvement. Obviously, a lot of that is roster more than Wemby. His raw on/off was excellent, he made visible strides on offense and his defensive impact was huge.

But "best player on a title team" is a tall ask, if you'll forgive the pun, so we'll need to see if and what he improves next year in order to position himself at that level.

He's already comparable to Tatum (the most recent best player on a title team) imo and while we never really know what'll happen, the Spurs *should* be operating under the assumption that he'll improve even further - I know I am. Fans can wait around to form their own opinions ofc, but I do not think the Spurs should be sitting around on a true generational talent. That's how you end up being remembered as the team that didn't build around LeBron.

[tsherkin]

He's already comparable to Tatum (the most recent best player on a title team) imo and while we never really know what'll happen, the Spurs *should* be operating under the assumption that he'll improve even further - I know I am. Fans can wait around to form their own opinions ofc, but I do not think the Spurs should be sitting around on a true generational talent. That's how you end up being remembered as the team that didn't build around LeBron.

Sure. But Tatum also fell right apart in consecutive Finals, and relied heavily on Dallas collapsing to win that title. AND the Boston D was electric, and they had all kinds of roleplayers on the team. And Wemby isn't rocking an efficient 27 just yet, either.

Obviously, the Spurs should be trying to add talent and gear up to win, but adding a one-year rental of Durant probably isn't the right way to do it.

EDIT: I realize Wemby was rocking 24 pretty efficiently, but he bombs threes and has little in between the rim and the arc right now. He needs to flesh out the rest of his scoring game before I'm really ready to shift my personal opinion on him, because we've seen a fairly large number of guys struggling with that problem the past stretch.