PC Board OT thread

RSCD3_ · Post #1541 » by **RSCD3_** » Mon Oct 5, 2015 3:20 pm

Thoughts on The TT/Cavs/Paul/LeBron conflicts of interest stalemate

Post #1542 » by **Texas Chuck** » Tue Oct 6, 2015 12:16 am

RSCD3_ wrote:Thoughts on The TT/Cavs/Paul/LeBron conflicts of interest stalemate

Thompson and Paul badly overplayed their hand and Lebron probably doesn't feel like spending a lot of capital correcting their mistake. He's smart enough to understand that the Cavs are already way over a reasonable budget and made a more than fair offer to Thompson.

Cavs hold all the leverage here and I will be surprised/disappointed if they give in at this point. And clearly Paul couldn't get Portland or Philly to be a stalking horse the way Kanter's reps could. Neither team wants the risk of being stuck with him. I'd say here's my new offer: take it or we will just extend you a QO again next off-season after you sit out a year.

They just don't need him as much as he thinks they do.

ceiling raiser · Post #1543 » by **ceiling raiser** » Wed Oct 14, 2015 8:02 pm

I wonder why team turnover numbers for 71, 72, 73 are so hard to find. They're not on B-R, stats.nba.com, or even in the Sporting News annual league guides. The league does officially recognize records for turnovers going back to 71 though, and I think the record for either most or fewest turnovers comes from a game in that first season.

Looks like some of Pollack's old guides should have them (both turnovers committed by a team and by its opponents). Might be interesting to look at for some teams during that three-year span. I ordered the media guides for the three years that contain them, so when they arrive, I'll scan and post them here.

Post #1544 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:15 pm

I'm sure most of you have seen the odom news by now. Hope this isn't the end for him at only 35 yrs old. I'm not saying there's no fault in the decisions he's made the last few yrs, but I certainly can't say I'd be fine if I experienced as much personal tragedy as he has in his life.

ceiling raiser · Post #1545 » by **ceiling raiser** » Thu Oct 15, 2015 12:09 am

Lucky, the guides came in today. Here are the TO numbers:

70-71:

Spoiler:

71-72:

Spoiler:

72-73:

Spoiler:

Post #1546 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Thu Oct 15, 2015 6:06 am

[tweet]https://twitter.com/SportsCenter/status/654527905083588608[/tweet]

Well said, SVP.

Post #1547 » by **bondom34** » Thu Oct 15, 2015 6:23 am

Best SC anchor by miles. And as usual, incredibly intelligent speaking.

Post #1548 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Thu Oct 15, 2015 6:29 am

bondom34 wrote:Best SC anchor by miles. And as usual, incredibly intelligent speaking.

Stopped watching sports center years ago, but I really miss SVP's podcast on my daily commute. Might have to start checking out his show on TV.

Post #1549 » by **bondom34** » Thu Oct 15, 2015 6:31 am

Clyde Frazier wrote:
bondom34 wrote:Best SC anchor by miles. And as usual, incredibly intelligent speaking.

Stopped watching sports center years ago, but I really miss SVP's podcast on my daily commute. Might have to start checking out his show on TV.

I sorta watch it, but kind of as background noise. If SVPs on with his new hosting gig its definitely a watch. He does some radio skits on it (bad beats, where in the world isn't SVP, etc.). Really recommend it, its brought me back to sportscenter because of him alone.

lorak · Post #1550 » by **lorak** » Thu Oct 15, 2015 7:29 am

fpliii wrote:Lucky, the guides came in today. Here are the TO numbers:

70-71:
Spoiler:

71-72:
Spoiler:

72-73:
Spoiler:

I wish there also were Wilt's, West's and Oscar's numbers...

bastillon · Post #1551 » by **bastillon** » Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:43 pm

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjELebRh-Q70qHBseqQY1bA/videos

This is an unbelievably good channel. Defensive highlights of all-time greats.

Post #1552 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:20 pm

Thoughts on this article?

http://www.si.com/thecauldron/2015/10/16/philadelphia-76ers-sam-hinkie-joel-embiid-brett-brown-process

Post #1553 » by **bondom34** » Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:39 pm

I've been behind the Sixers, and think some of the article was pretty blatantly biased (the Saric info was even claimed wrong on twitter shortly after it went online). To me the bigger deal there was it made Embiid look awful. I don't see him having much of a career at this point.

Dr Positivity · Post #1554 » by **Dr Positivity** » Fri Oct 16, 2015 8:08 pm

bondom34 wrote:I've been behind the Sixers, and think some of the article was pretty blatantly biased (the Saric info was even claimed wrong on twitter shortly after it went online). To me the bigger deal there was it made Embiid look awful. I don't see him having much of a career at this point.

Not only does there appear to be multiple inaccuracies in the article (i.e. saying Brett Brown didn't know about MCW trade, apparently was disproved by a quote by Brown at the time) but the writer has a history of being strongly against the 76ers strategy so I don't trust him. The article feels more like Deadspin than SI

Post #1555 » by **bondom34** » Fri Oct 16, 2015 8:15 pm

Dr Positivity wrote:
bondom34 wrote:I've been behind the Sixers, and think some of the article was pretty blatantly biased (the Saric info was even claimed wrong on twitter shortly after it went online). To me the bigger deal there was it made Embiid look awful. I don't see him having much of a career at this point.

Not only does there appear to be multiple inaccuracies in the article (i.e. saying Brett Brown didn't know about MCW trade, apparently was disproved by a quote by Brown at the time) but the writer has a history of being strongly against the 76ers strategy so I don't trust him. The article feels more like Deadspin than SI

Yeah, and not a good look when you have to admit to inaccuracies just after it goes up. The Embiid stuff still seems worrisome to me though.

Owly · Post #1556 » by **Owly** » Fri Oct 16, 2015 8:31 pm

bondom34 wrote:I've been behind the Sixers, and think some of the article was pretty blatantly biased (the Saric info was even claimed wrong on twitter shortly after it went online). To me the bigger deal there was it made Embiid look awful. I don't see him having much of a career at this point.

Yeah, it seems just obviously anti-Sixers (or anti-Hinkie and the Sixers present direction). Stuff like

Per a league source, Hinkie did not like that Carter-Williams was a poor shooter, and thought that at 23 years old, Carter-Williams was too old to meaningfully improve in that area. That appears to go against the club’s documented pattern of drafting and/or signing long, rangy athletes with the hope that they can improve their shooting. The Sixers track every shot players take during practices to help in that endeavor, so to give up on Carter-Williams so quickly and determine that he was beyond repair calls into question the initial decision to select him at No. 11 overall (even in that season’s decidedly underwhelming draft) when the club had needs up and down its roster, not just at point guard.

That Carter-Williams didn't seem to be improving at shooting and projecting him to fail to do so doesn't "go against" any policy. Right, or wrong it just means they didn't like the lack of progress.

That they "g[a]ve up on Carter-Williams so quickly" (a somewhat biased turn of phrase, he wasn't released or anything, they just got what they felt was likely to be a more valuable asset in return), doesn't "call into question" the decision to take him at 11, both because they are likely to get a higher pick from it, and whilst one could look back and wish for Giannis, Carter-Williams wasn't bad value for that pick versus general expected value or in the context of that draft.

As you've stated Saric seems to be a non-issue (in terms of getting him over). If their read on Embiid is correct that would be a setback (though because Philly have so many picks, they aren't dependent on any specific one coming off).

Hinkie's calls might be right or wrong, but the negative tone here is strong and undermines credibility on points which may be valid.

Post #1557 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:00 pm

Yeah, I'm not really a fan of negative diatribes in sports journalism, and this was on the edge of that. I don't entirely agree with hinkie's extreme plan, either. Maybe I'll create a separate thread on the trades and transactions board to discuss that.

Post #1558 » by **bondom34** » Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:27 pm

Also, to add to the MCW part the fact that they have the Lakers draft pick is really a fantastic trade off for them. MCW is not a good player, and the "Rookie of the Year" name doesn't make him so. That's another bit that irks me when people want to act like he's some fantastic asset to a roster, when to this point he was mostly ROY off being a high volume guy on a bad team.

Dr Positivity · Post #1559 » by **Dr Positivity** » Fri Oct 16, 2015 10:03 pm

bondom34 wrote:Also, to add to the MCW part the fact that they have the Lakers draft pick is really a fantastic trade off for them. MCW is not a good player, and the "Rookie of the Year" name doesn't make him so. That's another bit that irks me when people want to act like he's some fantastic asset to a roster, when to this point he was mostly ROY off being a high volume guy on a bad team.

It's sneaky brilliant because whoever breaks out the most of Canaan, Marshall or Jackson this year for PHI could end up as promising as MCW. All 4 are the same age and Canaan/Marshall's per minute production has been more efficient than MCW's (Jackson hasn't played, but ripped up the D League for what it's worth).

Post #1560 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 1:27 am

Started a separate thread on hinkie and the Sixers if anyone wants to chk it out:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1410211