Game 80: Oklahoma City Thunder (45-34) @ Denver Nuggets (38-41) - 5:00 PM ET

[NuggetsWY]

Scott Hastings pretty much called out the veteran leadership on the radio, and guessed that this may be Gary Harris's team this year.

Feels like an indictment on some of these vets who have been around since the Karl days, to me. I've long kind of thought the Gallo/Chandler/Faried group have something of a complacent attitude. Good players, but not necessarily the guys you want as the core veterans on your team. It's part of the reason they leaned so heavily on Jameer in that role, IMO. Those other three just aren't wired that way.

I think making some changes there may inject some new attitude on this team, and probably be good for those guys to get a change of scenery as well. Not all three will be gone, but I'd assume at least one of Gallo/Chandler. I'd love to also move Faried (especially if we resign Plum), but that feels less likely.

I get that and it totally makes sense. That's a big part of why I'd like to see them all gone. I know Miller isn't an in-your-face leader but he's a good influence. There are veterans out there that can be that leader. The Nuggets just don't have the right personnel and I think The Rebel has it right, that the front office planned on building around those four veteran forwards.

[Powder Blue]

Scott Hastings pretty much called out the veteran leadership on the radio, and guessed that this may be Gary Harris's team this year.

Feels like an indictment on some of these vets who have been around since the Karl days, to me. I've long kind of thought the Gallo/Chandler/Faried group have something of a complacent attitude. Good players, but not necessarily the guys you want as the core veterans on your team. It's part of the reason they leaned so heavily on Jameer in that role, IMO. Those other three just aren't wired that way.

I think making some changes there may inject some new attitude on this team, and probably be good for those guys to get a change of scenery as well. Not all three will be gone, but I'd assume at least one of Gallo/Chandler. I'd love to also move Faried (especially if we resign Plum), but that feels less likely.

Always felt the same way about Gallo/Chandler/Faried, good players individually but minus Karl they are complacent more often than not. I'm not sure why they're all still around, change of scenery would really do them well. Could this finally be the offseason the Nuggets make some real adjustments? We shall see.

[skywalker33]

Scott Hastings pretty much called out the veteran leadership on the radio, and guessed that this may be Gary Harris's team this year.

Feels like an indictment on some of these vets who have been around since the Karl days, to me. I've long kind of thought the Gallo/Chandler/Faried group have something of a complacent attitude. Good players, but not necessarily the guys you want as the core veterans on your team. It's part of the reason they leaned so heavily on Jameer in that role, IMO. Those other three just aren't wired that way.

I think making some changes there may inject some new attitude on this team, and probably be good for those guys to get a change of scenery as well. Not all three will be gone, but I'd assume at least one of Gallo/Chandler. I'd love to also move Faried (especially if we resign Plum), but that feels less likely.

Yeah, none of those three have ever shown any leadership on this team. The closest imo is Chandler. Funny, Faried can call out the fans but not his teammates

[skywalker33]

I'm OK with all of that, for now. But that's why I firmly believe the Nuggets need to divest themselves of Arthur, Faried, Gallinari, Chandler, Barton, Nelson and focus on finding young players that can develop into that type of player.

Not sure if it's more you like the young guys or more you hate the vets, but getting rid of ALL of your vets leaves you with just Malone as your leadership....think about that one for a few. It also puts you back in rebuild mode and puts you further away from playoffs or contention. And there is no guarantee that what you want to happen with the young guys actually happens. It will get you higher draft picks, what you're asking for is the same game plan that Philly is using.

Yup, thought of that. That's why I mentioned picking up veterans to fill the empty spots, veterans like Mike Miller who can play if needed, along the lines of what Utah did with Johnson & Diaw.

Yes, I'm in love with the concept of playing young players and I'm not afraid of a losing season (although I understand why a coach is when the front office doesn't truly support the concept). What I'd be looking for is a mix of youth and veterans. Over the last two years, we could have seen a better mix of that. I believe we could have won almost as many games with the general idea below. It would assume that we would lose more games early in the season and win more late in the season. If it didn't work, time to find new young players. It would also include only keeping the veterans that are willing to play for mid-level exception range salaries.

Jokic 30+ mpg --- Plumlee leftover minutes
Hernangomez 25-30 mpg --- Faried/Arthur leftover minutes
No youth at SF, so mix it up with Gallinari, Chandler, Barton
Harris 30+ mpg --- Murray 10 mpg --- Beasley leftover minutes
Mudiay 25-30 mpg --- Murray 15-20 mpg --- Nelson leftover minutes

This would assume that youth & veterans played together in various combinations. The above was not "starter"-"backup" but was ordered by number of minutes. For example, I do understand Beasley not finding minutes this year. If he doesn't get 15-20 next year, he ought to be traded IMO. I suspect he's too good to spend 2 or 3 years riding the bench before being cut. If I'm wrong, we should find out before we cut him and he becomes a quality player on another team (although that happens to all teams now and then).

Alas, when you have losing season(s), attendance has a tendency to wane as well and in the end, this is a business. Then there is the "Losing as a culture". Even though we could/should be gaining more talent with the higher draft picks, rarely does a young team win....so really, that's the cycle you want to embrace ??

[NuggetsWY]

Alas, when you have losing season(s), attendance has a tendency to wane as well and in the end, this is a business. Then there is the "Losing as a culture". Even though we could/should be gaining more talent with the higher draft picks, rarely does a young team win....so really, that's the cycle you want to embrace ??

I'd rather have a winning team, but let's think back over the years of the Nuggets.

Since 1976 the Nuggets' regular season record is .486 and playoff record is .377.

During Karl's reign, the Nuggets were over .500 every single season - yet that wasn't enough.

Since then the Nuggets have been achieved less than .480 every year with that being this year and easily the best of those four years.

Seems to me if we wanted to continue to win more than half our games and lose in the 1st round while using our veteran forwards, we should have kept Karl.

I thought we were changing things and sure enough, we changed everything for the worse.

[skywalker33]

Alas, when you have losing season(s), attendance has a tendency to wane as well and in the end, this is a business. Then there is the "Losing as a culture". Even though we could/should be gaining more talent with the higher draft picks, rarely does a young team win....so really, that's the cycle you want to embrace ??

I'd rather have a winning team, but let's think back over the years of the Nuggets.

Since 1976 the Nuggets' regular season record is .486 and playoff record is .377.

During Karl's reign, the Nuggets were over .500 every single season - yet that wasn't enough.

Since then the Nuggets have been achieved less than .480 every year with that being this year and easily the best of those four years.

Seems to me if we wanted to continue to win more than half our games and lose in the 1st round while using our veteran forwards, we should have kept Karl.

I thought we were changing things and sure enough, we changed everything for the worse.

Step away from the ledge....

In those 40 years, there have only been a dozen teams that have won the title....percentages don't mean a whole lot in the NBA.

There were a couple of Western Conference buzzsaws during that time in the Lakers and Rockets that had some real good players like Magic, Olajuan, Worthy, Kareem, Bryant, O'neall while the best we could produce Issel, English, Lever McDyess, Anthony, Iverson, Billups. We had some great player, but there were better players against us.

[NuggetsWY]

Step away from the ledge....

In those 40 years, there have only been a dozen teams that have won the title....percentages don't mean a whole lot in the NBA.

There were a couple of Western Conference buzzsaws during that time in the Lakers and Rockets that had some real good players like Magic, Olajuan, Worthy, Kareem, Bryant, O'neall while the best we could produce Issel, English, Lever McDyess, Anthony, Iverson, Billups. We had some great player, but there were better players against us.

So you want to say we should stick with "the best we could produce"? I'm willing to gamble for more. I've never been one to settle for being just good enough. I've always been an over-achiever. Most athletes reach the professional level because they are over-achievers. The truly great ones go beyond that in a way that is hard to understand. That is what it takes to win in the NBA - and you've basically said that.

The Nuggets and Avalanche are owned by the same people and they are both struggling.

[MHZ]

I think you touched on the key point, and it's ownership. We can look at the coach or GM all we want, it's what fans do, but organizations have the personality of their ownership.

This is a very conservative ownership group is invested all over the place in the sports world, and this franchise is not even close to the one they care about the most. This isn't Mark Cuban who is running his favorite team. It feels like they don't have a clear direction because that's how Kroenke runs it. Have some vets, have some young guys, and let's hope something sticks, but we're not going to go all-in on any one approach because going all-in risks something bad happening as much or more than something good happening. The Nuggets are like the house you own, let a property manager run, and rent out. We're not going to personally live in that house, nor are we going to put our own time or money into fixing it up. It's fine. People will pay our mortgage to live there, so let it be.

[MHZ]

Kroenke is never going to do this massive ousting of veterans. It's just not going to happen. There's too much risk in doing that, then you're firing your coach and maybe GM when you probably take a step back in the standings next year, and the general public view is the Nuggets mismanaged this offseason. A significantly more likely option, IMHO, is them standing pretty much pat with a minor move or two and leaning on how the team performed once they installed Jokic as the center of their offense and continued growth of the young guys as reason next year will be better.

If we want to try to merge what we want to see with what is realistic, I'm just hoping we can move a couple of these guys and bring back other vets who better fit where this team is now in building around Jokic, versus what we were trying to accomplish last summer or the several before with Shaw and Karl.

Personally, I have a really hard time seeing Gallo walking for nothing because I don't think our organization is willing to take a bold stand and say "yeah, people will question it, but it's good in the long run." Personally, I think it's time to break up the Chandler/Gallo/Faried trio if we can replace them with some guys who are energized to be here and slot in well around Jokic (especially defensively).

It's like replacing the guy or gal who's been at the company for 10 years and is too comfortable and maybe a bit complacent with somebody who's hungrier, more willing to challenge the status quo, and sees the company as an exciting new challenge. It's not a statement about those three, necessarily, I imagine they'd find that hunger if they had a change of scenery as well. Everybody needs to be re-energized sometimes.

[NuggetsWY]

Kroenke is never going to do this massive ousting of veterans. It's just not going to happen. There's too much risk in doing that, then you're firing your coach and maybe GM when you probably take a step back in the standings next year, and the general public view is the Nuggets mismanaged this offseason. A significantly more likely option, IMHO, is them standing pretty much pat with a minor move or two and leaning on how the team performed once they installed Jokic as the center of their offense and continued growth of the young guys as reason next year will be better.

If we want to try to merge what we want to see with what is realistic, I'm just hoping we can move a couple of these guys and bring back other vets who better fit where this team is now in building around Jokic, versus what we were trying to accomplish last summer or the several before with Shaw and Karl.

Personally, I have a really hard time seeing Gallo walking for nothing because I don't think our organization is willing to take a bold stand and say "yeah, people will question it, but it's good in the long run." Personally, I think it's time to break up the Chandler/Gallo/Faried trio if we can replace them with some guys who are energized to be here and slot in well around Jokic (especially defensively).

It's like replacing the guy or gal who's been at the company for 10 years and is too comfortable and maybe a bit complacent with somebody who's hungrier, more willing to challenge the status quo, and sees the company as an exciting new challenge. It's not a statement about those three, necessarily, I imagine they'd find that hunger if they had a change of scenery as well. Everybody needs to be re-energized sometimes.

My greatest fear is that you are right and unfortunately, I agree that you are almost certainly right.
<Sigh> Unfortunately for me, I love-LOVE-love the NBA and there are several teams I like, but only one that I am truly passionate about. I chose my username for that passion.

[MHZ]

One letter difference in the username my be worth your while: NuggetsWHY

There are still a ton of problems, and every board on here shows gripes with most every team that isn't Golden State.

The Nuggets still have a young core that rivals any in the league, which is amazing. Two years ago we had all these vets and no exciting young core. More good than bad moving forward, and part of the reason for some new voices in the locker room is to rally around the exciting core we have in place.

[NuggetsWY]

One letter difference in the username my be worth your while: NuggetsWHY

[skywalker33]

Step away from the ledge....

In those 40 years, there have only been a dozen teams that have won the title....percentages don't mean a whole lot in the NBA.

There were a couple of Western Conference buzzsaws during that time in the Lakers and Rockets that had some real good players like Magic, Olajuan, Worthy, Kareem, Bryant, O'neall while the best we could produce Issel, English, Lever McDyess, Anthony, Iverson, Billups. We had some great player, but there were better players against us.

So you want to say we should stick with "the best we could produce"? I'm willing to gamble for more. I've never been one to settle for being just good enough. I've always been an over-achiever. Most athletes reach the professional level because they are over-achievers. The truly great ones go beyond that in a way that is hard to understand. That is what it takes to win in the NBA - and you've basically said that.

The Nuggets and Avalanche are owned by the same people and they are both struggling.

Not saying we should settle at all, I've said we still need to build. But to me it feels like you think we need to follow the PHI rebuild plan and I'm don't think that'll work here

[NuggetsWY]

Not saying we should settle at all, I've said we still need to build. But to me it feels like you think we need to follow the PHI rebuild plan and I'm don't think that'll work here

Nope, not Philadelphia! Nope! You haven't heard me say that.
Throughout the year I have mentioned Portland and Golden State each a time or two.
I have mentioned Minnesota more than once, but the team I mention most often is Utah.

[The Rebel]

Step away from the ledge....

In those 40 years, there have only been a dozen teams that have won the title....percentages don't mean a whole lot in the NBA.

There were a couple of Western Conference buzzsaws during that time in the Lakers and Rockets that had some real good players like Magic, Olajuan, Worthy, Kareem, Bryant, O'neall while the best we could produce Issel, English, Lever McDyess, Anthony, Iverson, Billups. We had some great player, but there were better players against us.

So you want to say we should stick with "the best we could produce"? I'm willing to gamble for more. I've never been one to settle for being just good enough. I've always been an over-achiever. Most athletes reach the professional level because they are over-achievers. The truly great ones go beyond that in a way that is hard to understand. That is what it takes to win in the NBA - and you've basically said that.

The Nuggets and Avalanche are owned by the same people and they are both struggling.

Not saying we should settle at all, I've said we still need to build. But to me it feels like you think we need to follow the PHI rebuild plan and I'm don't think that'll work here

The difference between the 76ers and if this team were to trade the vets is that the 76ers did not have any proven young players.they dealt their guys for draft picks.

[skywalker33]

So you want to say we should stick with "the best we could produce"? I'm willing to gamble for more. I've never been one to settle for being just good enough. I've always been an over-achiever. Most athletes reach the professional level because they are over-achievers. The truly great ones go beyond that in a way that is hard to understand. That is what it takes to win in the NBA - and you've basically said that.

The Nuggets and Avalanche are owned by the same people and they are both struggling.

Not saying we should settle at all, I've said we still need to build. But to me it feels like you think we need to follow the PHI rebuild plan and I'm don't think that'll work here

The difference between the 76ers and if this team were to trade the vets is that the 76ers did not have any proven young players.they dealt their guys for draft picks.

Agreed we'd have a better base but trading all our vets was exactly what what suggested. If that were to happen our average roster age goes down to the 23yr olds. I am not against trading players, but it sounds like they all need to go at once and perhaps bring in some D-League type veteran to backup our youth, not a fan of tanking it.

I think there is a plan to divest ourselves of vets based upon their payroll. I think there is/was some thought to our veterans salaries to manage them dropping off the cap as our youth needs to be signed. First Gallo hits FA, then Chandler and Nelson next year finally Faried. It also coincides with our core maturing.

[The Rebel]

Not saying we should settle at all, I've said we still need to build. But to me it feels like you think we need to follow the PHI rebuild plan and I'm don't think that'll work here

The difference between the 76ers and if this team were to trade the vets is that the 76ers did not have any proven young players.they dealt their guys for draft picks.

Agreed we'd have a better base but trading all our vets was exactly what what suggested. If that were to happen our average roster age goes down to the 23yr olds. I am not against trading players, but it sounds like they all need to go at once and perhaps bring in some D-League type veteran to backup our youth, not a fan of tanking it.

I think there is a plan to divest ourselves of vets based upon their payroll. I think there is/was some thought to our veterans salaries to manage them dropping off the cap as our youth needs to be signed. First Gallo hits FA, then Chandler and Nelson next year finally Faried. It also coincides with our core maturing.

I would agree with that the team was purposely built to stagger contracts, that has never been a question in my mind. I have been very clear on wanting to move some of the veterans but not all of them, and replace them with veterans of a lower tier but still veterans.

Hastings has hinted before that Gallo and Chandler were a bit of a problem with lack of leadership, I have read that there were clashes in the locker room about who's team this is, and of course all of the problems we see on the court with freezing out the young guys at times and lack of effort often enough.

I am tired of Gallo and Chandler, this team was built around these guys, but they are not good enough to carry the team without 3 equally talented guys starting with them, and they need to realize that. They are also not leaders. I also do not like Chandler or his people leaking his complaining. They both need to go, despite being very talented role players, I do not see the accepting it in Denver. So they have to go.

I do not like how Nelson shuts down his season every year when it is apparent he is about to lose his job or this year that they were not going to make the playoffs. That is not a leader to me, add to that the fact he is a terrible defender and I want him gone.

I like Barton, but he is terrible if he does not have the ball in his hands way to much for my taste, and I think with a young team a guy who can be more flexible (especially if Mudiay is going to be the backup PG next year). Truth be told he is a perfect fit on offense with a PG more like Nelson who can play off the ball, with Mudiay or Murray he is a terrible fit.

I want all 4 of them gone, but then I also want the Nuggets to pursue a guy like Joe Ingles or Withey from the Jazz, defensive guys who are hard workers but not as talented. I want to see a guy like Aaron Brooks as the 3rd PG. A guy like Haslem, James Johnson, Andre Roberson or very similar guys. A good mix of those guys who will work their asses off every night knowing if they half ass it they will be out of the league soon. Ingles, Brooks, and Withey are also great fits with Ingles being a D and 3 SF, Brooks a PG that can play multiple ways and Withey being a defensive backup center that will set screens and work his tail off. Bring back Nene. They are all capable of playing 25-30 minutes in the rotation on a good team, but they are not good enough to be expecting to start let alone be made the focal point of the team or even offense. They will also step back if Harris, Murray, Jokic, HernanGomez, or even Mudiay step up and become a leader, but at the same time will not have a problem showing the young guys how to work. Those are the type of guys I want to surround the young guys. I truly believe that Jokic and Murray are going to be stars. If the rumors are true that Hernangomez is that good than I want to start giving him a chance, I want to give Mudiay one more year to see what he will become, I want to see a guy like Beasley earn some time, and I think we could have a very damn good team, and they need the role players around them.


Picture a lineup like this
Murray/ Mudiay/ Brooks
Harris/ Murray/ Beasley
Ingles/ Hernangomez/ Beasley
Faried/ Hernangomez/ Arthur
Jokic/ Withey/ Nene

You play Murray and Harris 32 mpg, give Mudiay 25 mpg and Beasley or Brooks can fight over the last 7 minutes available in the backcourt.

Ingles can start and play 25 minutes a night, leaving Hernangomez getting about 10 mpg, the last 13 can go to Hernangomez or Beasley depending on how the night is going.

Faried will get his 25 minutes per game, Hernangomez can get about 15 mpg, and Arthur can get about 13 mpg.

Jokic gets 32 minutes per game and Withey can get the rest most nights, on the nights teams are being a little rough and getting away with it or Jokic has foul trouble, than Nene can pick up some minutes.


Doing something around that type of team gives you the shooters and defenders the team needs while building a bench with an identity of being a defensive/shooting bench that hustles. It is also built around Jokic's strengths and to a lesser extant Murray and Mudiay. Jokic has a 3 slashers/shooters on the court with him with Faried in the paint.

You see I am of the opinion that the talent to become a great team are already here. We really do not need a guy like George or Butler, and unless a guy is a perfect fit we do not want them. I believe that Jokic is going to be argued with KAT like Duncan and KG were and those guys are not good enough to derail that.

I also do not believe that team would win less games than this year's team did. while there is less developed talent, the talent fits together well which to me is the most important part of winning, and those guys will at least hustle on the bad days. I mean think of how many games you just felt like the veterans like Gallo, Nelson, and Chandler were not even trying hard. For most of the season they did not even bother to show up for the 2nd nights of back to backs, hell that Kings game after they traded Cousins was embarrassing. If we win 4 or 5 of those games the veterans did not show up for we are in the playoffs. I want guys who fit and will work their butts off, especially around these young stars. The young guys should not be outworking the veterans every night if you want the young guys to always work hard.