GT: Nets @ Clippers - Sunday, 08/09/20, 9:00 PM | YES & NBA TV

[DarkXaero]

You’re not expecting a rookie or 2nd year player to be consistent.

When you’re injured your strength and conditioning take a hit.

Btw...What happened to Bradley Beal? You kept telling us he’s on the market and we’re going to trade for him. Now you’re doing the same thing with LaVine. Another guy whose not on the market. Are you going to do this with every SG in the league?

He was a senior coming out of college, and he's about to be 26. You guys are making excuses for Levert like he's 22 and has had rough luck with injuries. His injury proneness is a huge knock against him, as is his inefficiency and inability to excel off ball. Until those things change, my points are valid.

I said that Bradley Beal has to want out and to come here, for him to be here. Regardless, there's no long term future in Washington for Beal, you wanna bet on that? I would be willing to bet the same for Lavine. And I didn't make the links to Beal and Lavine, they've been reported in the media, so miss me with that ****.

LaVine has missed over 120 games in the last 4 seasons.

He’s played in the NBA for 6 seasons yet hasn’t played in even 1 meaningful game. His teams usually win less than 25 games every year. You and Zach have played the exact same amount of minutes in the playoffs....Zero.

Check the stats, LaVine is a turnover machine. He’s trash from mid range and his team is a whole 10 points better defensively with him OFF the court.

The majority of our shots should go to KD, Kyrie, and Harris. How does it make sense to trade for a player who is just going to take shots away from our best players AND who doesn’t help in any way defensively? And to get him, we would have to lose a lot of our depth and our future draft picks?

So your argument against LeVert is he hasn’t proved he can play off ball. Ok great. LaVine can’t even lead his team to 30 wins in the East, yet somehow we should trust him in a playoff series against the Bucks, Raps, Celtics, Clippers, Rockets, and Lakers...Make it make sense bro.

Lavine has missed over 120 games in last 4 seasons, including a torn ACL, yet he has continued to get better and better each year. Injuries aren't being used as an excuse for him.

" You and Zach have played the exact same amount of minutes in the playoffs....Zero."-Clown line. Devin Booker's entire career so far is also worthless because he has played in same amount of playoffs game as me. Incredible logic. I've also forgotten how many great teams Lavine has been a part of.

"Trash from midrange"-Not a shot we want him taking anyway, he's a high level 3pt shooter, and a much better finisher than Levert as well.

"his team is a whole 10 points better defensively with him OFF the court."-A completely out of context stat to trash a player. By the same metric, we're also trash defensively with Kyrie on the floor, and we're significantly worse defensively with Levert on the floor as well.

"How does it make sense to trade for a player who is just going to take shots away from our best players AND who doesn’t help in any way defensively?"- Who says he's taking shots away from our best players? He'd be taking shots away from the player he's potentially replacing (Levert). His defense has improved year to year, and can improve more with better coaching, and less responsibility on offense. But yeah, this is a forum where 26 year old Levert is still young and improving, but the actual younger player cant improve. I forgot, my bad.

"LaVine can’t even lead his team to 30 wins in the East, yet somehow we should trust him in a playoff series against the Bucks, Raps, Celtics, Clippers, Rockets, and Lakers...Make it make sense bro."-Refer back to the earlier statement, Levert ain't leading that sorry Bulls roster anywhere either By this criteria, every good young player who has only been on a bad team is worthless. Yet at the same time, you indirectly acknowledge that Lavine has greater value because it would take "our future draft picks and giving up our depth" to get him. Interesting.

[Hello Brooklyn]

Again were disagreeing on the term "healthy"

I don't view LeVert as healthy when hes playing his way back from injury. You do.

It's not that hard to understand bro. Get a clue.

Yeah he hasn't been healthy the last 2 years. I'm pretty sure thats obvious.

Man, talk about being obtuse. maybe take the 5 minutes to check the facts before saying someone else needs to get a clue. There is exactly NO SPLIT in Leverts entire 4 year career pre or post injury that the nets had a winning record with him in the lineup. Also, if you paid attention.... I did not once try and define when he was or wasnt healthy. im pointing out that no matter what period you choose and deem him as "healthy" the nets dont have a winning record with him on the floor.

Year 1:
Started the year injured. He came back. Nets had a losing record with him post injury. there was no "pre-injury" period in year 1 since he started the year on IL.

Year 2:
He played 71 games. it was the healthiest season he has had in his career. he missed 8-10 games mid season with minor injuries. The nets had a losing record with him Pre-injury for those 10 games and had a losing record post-injury after those 10 games

Year 3:
Played 14 games to start the year. Nets had a losing record in those games. He missed about 30 games. he came back, the nets had a losing record in the games after he came back from injury. so again year 3 losing record pre-injury and losing record post-injury.

Year 4 (this year):
He played 9 games to start the year. nets had a losing record in those games. He missed 25+ games to injury. post-injury the nets have a losing record with him in the lineuo.

So please... tell me what this mysterious "healthy period" was that the nets had a winning record with levert back in the lineup? College? High School? His 13 and under traveling team? pop-a-shot at dave and busters?

Here is the hard truth... Levert has had exactly 1 seasont hat was relatively healthy (his second year). The nets were 20+ games under .500 with levert in the lineup that year. Levert had poor efficiency that year (52 TS%/48 eFG%/14.2 PER). And the larger Caris role has gotten, the worse his efficiency has gotten. the past 2 years he set career highs in usage and FG% and both years he had awful league-low type efficiency numbers.

During LeVert’s career can you name another top 5 or top 10 pick that we drafted?

No instead, we were developing a bunch of players the rest of the league gave up on such as Dinwiddie, D Lo, Harris, Napier, Graham, Crabbe, RHJ, KJ, White, Bojan, Kilpatrick, Whitehead, Yogi, Zeller...

What did you expect? Of course the W/L record is not going to be positive. Plus your logic completely ignores coaching schemes, roster construction, substitution patterns, injuries, defensive philosophies...

At the end of the day, we over achieved with LeVert on the roster two years in a row. Dinwiddie and the players that actually know what they are talking about have repeatedly talked about how LeVert is our 3rd best player. Superstar players like Kyrie and KD love LeVert. Even after the injuries, Sean Marks signed LeVert to a contract extension.

So who should we believe, Marks, KD, Kyrie, and the entire team or some dude that’s probably trash at basketball and whose signature says “my name is Prok and I don’t know sh*t about basketball”?

His signature is all we need to know about his opinions.

Spent the whole year running around saying the Nets would have better record than the Celtics. It was humiliating for all us Nets fans.

[Hello Brooklyn]

My thoughts on Levert: he's an injury-prone 26 year old who doesn't generate efficient offense nor is he good defensively. However, he's shown flashes of being really good, but it's usually disrupted by the aforementioned injuries.

All in all, I'm not that high on him, but I can't write him off completely, because he's always getting hurt the last 2 years.

I would like to keep Dinwiddie over Levert though, if that's what it comes down to. Dinwiddie is just better, not really debatable in my mind. The one thing though is that Dinwiddie is a free agent after next year, while we have Levert signed for longer IIRC. So in that sense, we may have to move on from Dinwiddie. I wouldn't mind ponying up the money for Dinwiddie though.

I don't get how you can say LeVert is "inefficient" and praise Dinwiddie.

Dinwiddie is actually horribly inefficient. 40% from the field and 30% from 3. Both worse than LeVert who was injured much of the season.

[Hello Brooklyn]

Delete

[therealbig3]

My thoughts on Levert: he's an injury-prone 26 year old who doesn't generate efficient offense nor is he good defensively. However, he's shown flashes of being really good, but it's usually disrupted by the aforementioned injuries.

All in all, I'm not that high on him, but I can't write him off completely, because he's always getting hurt the last 2 years.

I would like to keep Dinwiddie over Levert though, if that's what it comes down to. Dinwiddie is just better, not really debatable in my mind. The one thing though is that Dinwiddie is a free agent after next year, while we have Levert signed for longer IIRC. So in that sense, we may have to move on from Dinwiddie. I wouldn't mind ponying up the money for Dinwiddie though.

I don't get how you can say LeVert is "inefficient" and praise Dinwiddie.

Dinwiddie is actually horribly inefficient. 40% from the field and 30% from 3. Both worse than LeVert who was injured much of the season.

Pretty easily, because Dinwiddie is way better at getting and making FTs. As a result, his TS% is 54%, while Levert's is 51%. His overall Orating is 111, while Levert's is 102.

Dinwiddie is easily the better offensive player. Not to mention that Dinwiddie has a track record of being an efficient player. Levert has never been efficient over a full season. If you want to give him a pass because of injuries, fine, but the fact remains that he's never actually demonstrated it. Dinwiddie has.