ATL - 20-21 Season Begins

Licensed to Il · Post #1461 » by **Licensed to Il** » Sun Dec 20, 2020 5:29 pm

ShootingtheJ wrote:
Matches Malone wrote:This kid is going to be a problem.

Watch on YouTube

I still can't believe the number of teams that passed on him.

Charlie V looked great in occasional highlight packages too.

This kid looks great when his shot is falling. I think the concerns were he has not shot consistently above average, and his free throw shooting was poor enough to cast long term doubt on him developing in to a marksman. And since his rebounding and D are nothing special for the nba level, he needs to be a plus shooter to matter.

Obviously everyone liked his youth, work ethic, and passing.

Im definitely rooting for him. But I don’t see him as a “problem from day 1” type rookie. Time will tell.

Siefer · Post #1462 » by **Siefer** » Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:05 pm

I recognize is easier to say this from the outside, but I hate that Gobert deal. Giving a max to a guy that the best teams can play off the floor is terrifying.

ShootingtheJ · Post #1463 » by **ShootingtheJ** » Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:41 pm

Siefer wrote:I recognize is easier to say this from the outside, but I hate that Gobert deal. Giving a max to a guy that the best teams can play off the floor is terrifying.

All while he clogs thing up offensively. I thought the extension created them a perfect excuse to move on from him.

Not a good offseason for them. Way, way too many resources used on non shooting centers. I'll take Horst over Zanik all day

blazza18 · Post #1464 » by **blazza18** » Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:04 pm

Wondering what they could’ve gotten for Gobert if they put him on the market. He’s elite at what he does but I think overall you can’t win with a player of his style taking up so much of your cap.

SupremeHustle · Post #1465 » by **SupremeHustle** » Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:18 pm

Rank the NBA GMs/Roster Decision Makers. I'm trying to see something.

Licensed to Il · Post #1466 » by **Licensed to Il** » Sun Dec 20, 2020 9:05 pm

Siefer wrote:I recognize is easier to say this from the outside, but I hate that Gobert deal. Giving a max to a guy that the best teams can play off the floor is terrifying.

I agree with this 100%, my only counter is the league’s preferred style changes frequently, and for many reasons. Big, mobile, players that can make it harder for you to score and can finish at the rim at a high percentage always hold value. And most coaches say you can play one non shooter on offense (screen, roll, rebound) just not two.

But yeah, totally agree, this is not the era to max a big that only excels on one end of the floor.

H2tObes · Post #1467 » by **H2tObes** » Sun Dec 20, 2020 9:11 pm

Jazz were in a tough position, no one is coming to Utah so they have to resign their homegrown talent. The supermax is flawed and just ends up hamstringing small market teams

WeekapaugGroove · Post #1468 » by **WeekapaugGroove** » Sun Dec 20, 2020 9:22 pm

H2tObes wrote:Jazz were in a tough position, no one is coming to Utah so they have to resign their homegrown talent. The supermax is flawed and just ends up hamstringing small market teams

IMO what's flawed with the supermax is they base qualifying for it off all nba teams but if they do that they should probably just vote for the top 15 players not by position.

Sent from my SM-G986U using RealGM mobile app

ShootingtheJ · Post #1469 » by **ShootingtheJ** » Sun Dec 20, 2020 10:07 pm

The Lakers just gave Kuzma a $40 million extension. Who'd they think was coming for Kuzma? He's really not good. I feel slightly better about that Pat C extension, a fraction of the cost for a better player, and a deal made to be moved in a trade.

H2tObes · Post #1470 » by **H2tObes** » Sun Dec 20, 2020 10:12 pm

Why did they feel inclined to extend Kuzma? He is a net negative

It's tradeable, not terrible but hopefully soon everyone will realize Kuzma isnt good

DingleJerry · Post #1471 » by **DingleJerry** » Sun Dec 20, 2020 10:18 pm

You can't let him go for nothing when you're capped out like them. They now have him locked into this contract to be a role player, but most importantly to have the contract available to trade to keep operating above the caps. In today's crazy nba contract world I'm kinda surprised by the deal. Seems these guys don't sign cheaper deals like this to hit FA and then some idiots give them 15-20 mil every time.

ETA: seems I might've misread the details. Thought it was 4/40ish but now seeing it's 3 years. So changes things a bit then.

TroyD92 · Post #1472 » by **TroyD92** » Sun Dec 20, 2020 10:30 pm

40 million a year for rudy gobert. Yikes.

trwi7 · Post #1473 » by **trwi7** » Sun Dec 20, 2020 11:12 pm

Wow, $200 million for canceling the season. Nice work by Gobert's agent.

Pachinko_ · Post #1474 » by **Pachinko_** » Mon Dec 21, 2020 12:31 am

I mean they could always give that Gobert money instead to that other star who wanted to go play in Utah. Except he doesn't exist of course.

Or, they could get in line to sign those average starters who were FAs but got rejected by LA & Miami, for $10-15m each.

Or, let Gobert go and save the cap space so the owners can make more money.

I think those were the options for Utah.

drone3 · Post #1475 » by **drone3** » Mon Dec 21, 2020 12:49 am

Utah's decision boggles my brain, I mean how much better is Gobert than a young guy like Mitchell Robinson?

LuessiT · Post #1476 » by **LuessiT** » Mon Dec 21, 2020 12:57 am

drone3 wrote:Utah's decision boggles my brain, I mean how much better is Gobert than a young guy like Mitchell Robinson?

A lot.

TroyD92 · Post #1477 » by **TroyD92** » Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:12 am

Pachinko_ wrote:I mean they could always give that Gobert money instead to that other star who wanted to go play in Utah. Except he doesn't exist of course.

Or, they could get in line to sign those average starters who were FAs but got rejected by LA & Miami, for $10-15m each.

Or, let Gobert go and save the cap space so the owners can make more money.

I think those were the options for Utah.

He’s going to be 34 making 40 million a year. By the end of this contract. He’s actually almost unplayable against certain offenses, and gives you nothing besides being tall on offense. Now you have this untradeable boat anchor for the next 2 year’s Atleast. Small market should maximize assets and this is turning something that could have been a decent trade piece last year into an albatross.

TroyD92 · Post #1478 » by **TroyD92** » Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:13 am

LuessiT wrote:
drone3 wrote:Utah's decision boggles my brain, I mean how much better is Gobert than a young guy like Mitchell Robinson?

A lot.

Robinson can switch atleast.

MikeIsGood · Post #1479 » by **MikeIsGood** » Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:15 am

H2tObes wrote:Why did they feel inclined to extend Kuzma? He is a net negative

It's tradeable, not terrible but hopefully soon everyone will realize Kuzma isnt good

I would prefer the Lakers continue to believe he is good

Post #1480 » by **Prez** » Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:20 am

TroyD92 wrote:
LuessiT wrote:
drone3 wrote:Utah's decision boggles my brain, I mean how much better is Gobert than a young guy like Mitchell Robinson?

A lot.

Robinson can switch atleast.

Gobert was an elite isolation defender and a huge chunk of that was on perimeter guys on switches. Gobert is on another planet entirely defensively from a guy like Robinson.

That said, still an atrocious contract. Not really sure how Utah should’ve played it, it’s easy to say they should’ve traded him by now but it’s a way tougher decision when you’re actually the one making the call and have a talent like Mitchell ready to win and in a market that can’t attract stars ever.