You're ok with paying Rose 27 Mill a year but you think Hortford at 30 is a problem? Hortford is a SIGNIFICANTLY better NBA player then Rose right now. Yes, I'd be 100% ok with paying Al 30 mil a year in this NBA.
one is on a 1 year deal the other is on a 4 year deal, big difference..
You're ok with paying Rose 27 Mill a year but you think Hortford at 30 is a problem? Hortford is a SIGNIFICANTLY better NBA player then Rose right now. Yes, I'd be 100% ok with paying Al 30 mil a year in this NBA.
one is on a 1 year deal the other is on a 4 year deal, big difference..
I think he's referring to the potential extension rose is getting. And I'd have to say I'd agree with him.
You're ok with paying Rose 27 Mill a year but you think Hortford at 30 is a problem? Hortford is a SIGNIFICANTLY better NBA player then Rose right now. Yes, I'd be 100% ok with paying Al 30 mil a year in this NBA.
one is on a 1 year deal the other is on a 4 year deal, big difference..
was it you or someone else advocating for an extension for Rose at something around those numbers?
I think he's a valuable player and has the fight that this team needs. That being said, he's not a max player. I know teams are throwing around money like it's going out of style, but I'm hoping we can keep Rose for a more reasonable amount.
2.5 blocks a game, and is a very efficient, low usage player. 14 points on .600 TS%. Orating 122 D Rating 106. Great passer, checks all the boxes on advanced and box score metrics. Noah is not even in Hortfords stratosphere as a player at this stage in his career.
but we got the guy who can make nifty passes from the pinch post!
so you would be happy with horford making 30 million on the knicks?
Yes. Horford at 4/113 is a safer bet and a smarter signing going forward than Noah at 4/72.
forget noah..
horford on his own, 30 million you would be happy?
You're ok with paying Rose 27 Mill a year but you think Hortford at 30 is a problem? Hortford is a SIGNIFICANTLY better NBA player then Rose right now. Yes, I'd be 100% ok with paying Al 30 mil a year in this NBA.
one is on a 1 year deal the other is on a 4 year deal, big difference..
was it you or someone else advocating for an extension for Rose at something around those numbers?
i said later in the season if the team picks up and he plays better but right now no i would not resign him
is a good contract, there's no denying that. I would have preferred that over Noah's contract, sure.
The problem is that most people just look at the raw numbers and say "that's a bad deal," which is idiotic considering the cap jump this past offseason. Now, the cap isn't expected to increase nearly as much this coming offseason (last I saw was a $102M projection), but that doesn't change the fact that each contract should be looked at in the context of percentage of cap. It becomes even more true when you take into account that max contracts are literally defined as a percentage of the cap for that year.
RoLo's deal was signed at approximately 18.5% of the cap for that year. Noah's deal represented 19.1% of the cap this year. Now, we can argue the matter of RoLo's value versus Noah's, but that's not a discussion I'm trying to rehash. Noah's deal isn't bad based on salary - it's bad based on length of contract. But even then, it won't be an albatross given cap increases in the 3rd and 4th year.
is a good contract, there's no denying that. I would have preferred that over Noah's contract, sure.
The problem is that most people just look at the raw numbers and say "that's a bad deal," which is idiotic considering the cap jump this past offseason. Now, the cap isn't expected to increase nearly as much this coming offseason (last I saw was a $102M projection), but that doesn't change the fact that each contract should be looked at in the context of percentage of cap. It becomes even more true when you take into account that max contracts are literally defined as a percentage of the cap for that year.
RoLo's deal was signed at approximately 18.5% of the cap for that year. Noah's deal represented 19.1% of the cap this year. Now, we can argue the matter of RoLo's value versus Noah's, but that's not a discussion I'm trying to rehash. Noah's deal isn't bad based on salary - it's bad based on length of contract. But even then, it won't be an albatross given cap increases in the 3rd and 4th year.
Yes I think it is extremely bad both in length and salary. On a roster basis, how does this team improve going forward? Getting a better PG? We are likely going to keep Rose. Where else can we make improvements? Upgrade on Melo and KP? No. then upgrade where? SG and center would be the easy way to upgrade the roster. But oh wait, lee and Noah are on contract for 4 years. This is the team the Knicks are going to rely on to improve each year.
is a good contract, there's no denying that. I would have preferred that over Noah's contract, sure.
The problem is that most people just look at the raw numbers and say "that's a bad deal," which is idiotic considering the cap jump this past offseason. Now, the cap isn't expected to increase nearly as much this coming offseason (last I saw was a $102M projection), but that doesn't change the fact that each contract should be looked at in the context of percentage of cap. It becomes even more true when you take into account that max contracts are literally defined as a percentage of the cap for that year.
RoLo's deal was signed at approximately 18.5% of the cap for that year. Noah's deal represented 19.1% of the cap this year. Now, we can argue the matter of RoLo's value versus Noah's, but that's not a discussion I'm trying to rehash. Noah's deal isn't bad based on salary - it's bad based on length of contract. But even then, it won't be an albatross given cap increases in the 3rd and 4th year.
Yes I think it is extremely bad both in length and salary. On a roster basis, how does this team improve going forward? Getting a better PG? We are likely going to keep Rose. Where else can we make improvements? Upgrade on Melo and KP? No. then upgrade where? SG and center would be the easy way to upgrade the roster. But oh wait, lee and Noah are on contract for 4 years. This is the team the Knicks are going to rely on to improve each year.
is a good contract, there's no denying that. I would have preferred that over Noah's contract, sure.
The problem is that most people just look at the raw numbers and say "that's a bad deal," which is idiotic considering the cap jump this past offseason. Now, the cap isn't expected to increase nearly as much this coming offseason (last I saw was a $102M projection), but that doesn't change the fact that each contract should be looked at in the context of percentage of cap. It becomes even more true when you take into account that max contracts are literally defined as a percentage of the cap for that year.
RoLo's deal was signed at approximately 18.5% of the cap for that year. Noah's deal represented 19.1% of the cap this year. Now, we can argue the matter of RoLo's value versus Noah's, but that's not a discussion I'm trying to rehash. Noah's deal isn't bad based on salary - it's bad based on length of contract. But even then, it won't be an albatross given cap increases in the 3rd and 4th year.
Many here and in the media had questions about Noah's health and his viability as an effective NBA player going forward. On that basis, his deal is most certainly a potential albatross based on salary. And yeah, the length sucks too.
Turkish squad Tofas Bursa agreed to terms with Copeland, as reported by Eurohoops. The forward returns to Europe after four seasons in the NBA with the Knicks, Pacers and Bucks.
Yuck. Cousins for DeAndre Jordan is an awful deal for Sac Link - ( New Window )
Why would the Warriors,clippers or Cavs trade for cousins? Is that a legit rumor or did some guy make up a scenario?
The claim is the Kings are going to move Cousins
I don't doubt that he'll be in a different city come season end. I just doubt that the 3 top teams would make a move like that. I guess LAC has a case and obviously Cleveland would probably be better off with Cousins then Love. Not sure id rather have cousins over Draymond as the 3rd option.
Anyways, I know Sacramento will get 70 cents on the dollar for cousins, but I still think they could get a better haul then just Love/Deandre Jordan. I mean Boston has Brooklyn picks they'd throw at a chance to get cousins.
They won last year, they have good chemistry right now and it's working.
Clippers make a lot of sense because they have good veteran leadership and Paul will get him the ball plenty.
Warriors? I can't see it. They need role players around their two best players and they have some of the best role players in the game in Green and Thompson.
They can package some combo of Johnson (for salary), olynyk, smart, brown and the 2 BKN picks for cousins. Just makes too much sense. Not that I'd root for Boston per se but a trio of Thomas, Horford and cousins would be one fun team to watch.
I would hate to see that. I would just have to hope that Cousins really is a cancer that can't play with other high profile guys.
That's been my take on cousins over the years. But i think if there was one man that could get to him it would be popovich. But if there's were two men that could get to him the other would be Stevens.
I've never been so much an NBA fan as I am a Knicks fan, so I generally don't get too wrapped up in what other players around the league are doing, but this guy is something special. If he played for a higher profile team than Milwaukee, he'd be hyped to the moon.
Tommy BeerVerified account
@TommyBeer
Porzingis is averaging 1.27 points per possession as the roll man in pick-&-rolls. That's the 2nd high PPP among players w/ > 40 possesions
Really strange that Rose seemingly hasn't found a way to make this work with Zinger. That combo could be really hard to defend for anyone if they got some chemistry.
is someone to keep in mind if you're inclined to ask why the Twolves arent suddenly a powerhouse. Player development takes time. Team development too.
He was raw but the talent was undeniable.
KAT and Wiggins were NBA ready. Lavine had elite athleticism. They are lacking a little depth and one starting position.
Hmm if you watched Wiggins at Kansas I'm not sure you could call him "NBA ready".
Even if you call someone "NBA ready" I'm not sure that means their ceiling is any lower or that it takes them any less time to reach that ceiling.
I'd argue that Giannis had more Nba ready skills coming into the league. He was a much better ball handler and passer than Wiggins coming in. Wiggins couldn't really shoot at all, much of his scoring came from cuts/putbacks and straight line drives in college.
they are ready to compete and start from day 1. Of course wiggins had some shooting issues. But averaging 17 and 4 and getting to the line nearly 6 times a game showed that he could instantly play in the league. Greek Freak came in an averaged something like 6-7 points per game because of a lack of experience (playing only for 5 years before coming into the NBA). Where as Wiggins has been basically been playing top competition his entire life.
they are ready to compete and start from day 1. Of course wiggins had some shooting issues. But averaging 17 and 4 and getting to the line nearly 6 times a game showed that he could instantly play in the league. Greek Freak came in an averaged something like 6-7 points per game because of a lack of experience (playing only for 5 years before coming into the NBA). Where as Wiggins has been basically been playing top competition his entire life.
That's true, but I don't think that changes the overall point. Wiggins is expected to be the best player on the team and he's pretty much the same age as KP. And it's not necessarily his offense, it's his defense.
How many guys come into the league contribute as impact defenders at age 21? Now try building a defense with 2 other 20 year olds (one who is expected to anchor the defense and the other who had major defensive flaws but has the physical tools to become capable).
Thibs may or may not be a good coach but it's certainly unfair to judge the future of this team when two of the core guys can't even get beer from a liquor store. Circle back to when they are 25-26 and if they still are winning 40% of their games then there's a problem. I don't see the rush to determine whether this team is going to be a powerhouse right now when they can theoretically keep this team together for at least 7 more years.
I don't see how Minnesota or Philly can be used as examples to judge whether tanking is a viable option to build a team. It's an extremely long process with a very long term view and they are both being judged in year 3-4. Yeah, that's long as fans of a team but that's not how the procsss works. No one who advocates tanking says to only pay players you drafted. The first step is to acquire young talent. Check for both teams. The second is to sign good veterans while the young guys are on their rookie deals. Neither team has gotten to that step yet. Philly will be forced to very soon. Minnesota still has a few years to worry about that.
just replying this way so the thread doesnt becomes astronomically long.
The problem with the NBA is you got to show results sooner rather than later. A team like Philly gets extended due to..
1. Being bad
2. Top picks being hurt (embiid, noel, now simmons)
3. Major holes on roster.
Minny is in another boat. This is year 3 of Wiggins and Levine. Year 4 for Dieng. Rubio has been around for years. And their best player is only 21. They have to be better than 5-12. Losing is contagious. Their starting 5, while not being able to compete against the Warriors, clippers, or spurs - should at least compete with the rest of the conference.
Can they turn it around by the end of the year and make the playoffs? I still believe they can. They absolutely will get better. But they have to be by far the most disappointing team in the NBA this year.
I sure expected more. Even though they had unfairly high expectations coming in considering they didn't sign anyone of note to the roster, it's been a pretty slow start for them. But it's not like they weren't actively seeking players. They though Luol Deng and Noah were too expensive and not worth sacrificing future cap room on guys who are transitioning to being washed up. It'll be interesting to see who they add going forward. They have trade chips at their disposal as well.
But it's just like if they're bad, so what? At the rate they are progressing, they have what looks to be 3 25 PPG scorers on their hands. Why not wait it out for a few years and if they still suck then consider other options. They're gonna have no shortage of suitors for Wiggins and Lavine (assuming towns will be the guy to keep).
wiggins and lavine are volume scorers not effecient scorers, so when the knicks played them towns went off but the other guys never got into rhythm..
that is my worry with the knicks that rose and melo can not adapt to being effecient acorers rather than volume...kp is effecient because he plays so well catch and shoot
The 09-10 Thunder won 50 games with KD and Westbrook at 21 and Harden at 20.
That was KD's 3rd season. If you think of KAT as the central star of the Wolves (I do), it's fair to compare his 2nd season to KD's 2nd season where they won 23 games with a rookie RW and no Harden (ie I think KAT has a better cast).
It will be troubling if they dont finish strong and have a good 2017-18. But with a new coach Im not sweating this year if I was a Minny fan.
I'm not sure why people expect the TWolves to be much better than
last year. What did they do to warrant expecting them to get so much better?
KAT and Wiggins plus crew being a year more mature and experienced. I dont think they need to win 50 games, but they're losing at a worse rate than last year, and that's pretty surprising. That should be adding at least 5-10 wins based on maturity alone I think.
RE: I'm not sure why people expect the TWolves to be much better than
The 09-10 Thunder won 50 games with KD and Westbrook at 21 and Harden at 20.
I don't think OKC is the end all be all comparison. We're talking about 3 potential HoF guys. I think towns' ceiling is damn near unlimited but I don't think it's a sure thing he'all be as good as KD or Westbrook (looks like he has a good chance though).
How about the Warriors? They didn't crack 40 wins until Steph's 5th season (klays 2nd). Even then it required shuffling around (getting bogut and then iggy after). I don't think you can set an specific time frame for any young team.
The 09-10 Thunder won 50 games with KD and Westbrook at 21 and Harden at 20.
I don't think OKC is the end all be all comparison. We're talking about 3 potential HoF guys. I think towns' ceiling is damn near unlimited but I don't think it's a sure thing he'all be as good as KD or Westbrook (looks like he has a good chance though).
How about the Warriors? They didn't crack 40 wins until Steph's 5th season (klays 2nd). Even then it required shuffling around (getting bogut and then iggy after). I don't think you can set an specific time frame for any young team.
warriors got much better and took that next step when draymond green came in and blew away expectations
It isnt great either for the reason I mentioned. also, I just dont buy that Wiggins will be a top 10 player. OKC had two guys on that trajectory (and Im not even getting into Harden who was a rookie that season). And Im not convinced that KAT is as good a prospect as KD. Those OKC guys really reached their potential.
GS is another apt comparison. It took Curry thru his rookie deal to really become elite (IIRC).
Well, I guess it's the difference in expectations. I can see the room for them to be much better but that doesn't make it fair to expect it. They basically added a top pick, who has struggled mightily. The rest is based on Thibs and another year under their belt? Ok, I can see how they can be expected to be better, but how much? 7-11 instead of 5-13? It's a stretch to say that they should definitely compete for a playoff spot. That's a lot of onus on some really guys who have so far flashed highlights and piled up stats in losses. They have no veteran leadership. That bench is pretty bad, too.
RE: RE: and they should be much better defensively
Well, I guess it's the difference in expectations. I can see the room for them to be much better but that doesn't make it fair to expect it. They basically added a top pick, who has struggled mightily. The rest is based on Thibs and another year under their belt? Ok, I can see how they can be expected to be better, but how much? 7-11 instead of 5-13? It's a stretch to say that they should definitely compete for a playoff spot. That's a lot of onus on some really guys who have so far flashed highlights and piled up stats in losses. They have no veteran leadership. That bench is pretty bad, too.
The bench part can't be stressed enough. Especially if you consider that Rubio and Dieng as plus bench guys and not starters on a good team.
Ny16 that brings back to my point, when have 20 year olds been impact defenders regardless of athleticism? Deandre Jordan is as about of a good of an athlete as they come in the NBA and it took him a good 6 years before becoming one of the premier defensive anchors in the league. He was fairly below average for the first 3-4 years as well. Kawhi was a stiff coming into the league and needed to be seasoned for a good 4 years before realizing his defensive potential. Anthony Davis was just a damn good shot blocker for the first few years. Same with ibaka. Ibaka wasn't very good at actual help defense until the last few years. I could go on and on. You see young guys make all star teams but how many actually make all defensive teams in the NBA.
one is on a 1 year deal the other is on a 4 year deal, big difference..
Quote:
You're ok with paying Rose 27 Mill a year but you think Hortford at 30 is a problem? Hortford is a SIGNIFICANTLY better NBA player then Rose right now. Yes, I'd be 100% ok with paying Al 30 mil a year in this NBA.
one is on a 1 year deal the other is on a 4 year deal, big difference..
I think he's referring to the potential extension rose is getting. And I'd have to say I'd agree with him.
Quote:
You're ok with paying Rose 27 Mill a year but you think Hortford at 30 is a problem? Hortford is a SIGNIFICANTLY better NBA player then Rose right now. Yes, I'd be 100% ok with paying Al 30 mil a year in this NBA.
one is on a 1 year deal the other is on a 4 year deal, big difference..
was it you or someone else advocating for an extension for Rose at something around those numbers?
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13242612 Enzo said:
Quote:
In comment 13242605 Sgrcts said:
Quote:
2.5 blocks a game, and is a very efficient, low usage player. 14 points on .600 TS%. Orating 122 D Rating 106. Great passer, checks all the boxes on advanced and box score metrics. Noah is not even in Hortfords stratosphere as a player at this stage in his career.
but we got the guy who can make nifty passes from the pinch post!
so you would be happy with horford making 30 million on the knicks?
Yes. Horford at 4/113 is a safer bet and a smarter signing going forward than Noah at 4/72.
forget noah..
horford on his own, 30 million you would be happy?
Quote:
In comment 13242633 Sgrcts said:
Quote:
You're ok with paying Rose 27 Mill a year but you think Hortford at 30 is a problem? Hortford is a SIGNIFICANTLY better NBA player then Rose right now. Yes, I'd be 100% ok with paying Al 30 mil a year in this NBA.
one is on a 1 year deal the other is on a 4 year deal, big difference..
was it you or someone else advocating for an extension for Rose at something around those numbers?
i said later in the season if the team picks up and he plays better but right now no i would not resign him
The problem is that most people just look at the raw numbers and say "that's a bad deal," which is idiotic considering the cap jump this past offseason. Now, the cap isn't expected to increase nearly as much this coming offseason (last I saw was a $102M projection), but that doesn't change the fact that each contract should be looked at in the context of percentage of cap. It becomes even more true when you take into account that max contracts are literally defined as a percentage of the cap for that year.
RoLo's deal was signed at approximately 18.5% of the cap for that year. Noah's deal represented 19.1% of the cap this year. Now, we can argue the matter of RoLo's value versus Noah's, but that's not a discussion I'm trying to rehash. Noah's deal isn't bad based on salary - it's bad based on length of contract. But even then, it won't be an albatross given cap increases in the 3rd and 4th year.
Damn that's pretty cool. Being an NBA GM honestly sounds trivial compared to the rest of his resume.
The problem is that most people just look at the raw numbers and say "that's a bad deal," which is idiotic considering the cap jump this past offseason. Now, the cap isn't expected to increase nearly as much this coming offseason (last I saw was a $102M projection), but that doesn't change the fact that each contract should be looked at in the context of percentage of cap. It becomes even more true when you take into account that max contracts are literally defined as a percentage of the cap for that year.
RoLo's deal was signed at approximately 18.5% of the cap for that year. Noah's deal represented 19.1% of the cap this year. Now, we can argue the matter of RoLo's value versus Noah's, but that's not a discussion I'm trying to rehash. Noah's deal isn't bad based on salary - it's bad based on length of contract. But even then, it won't be an albatross given cap increases in the 3rd and 4th year.
Yes I think it is extremely bad both in length and salary. On a roster basis, how does this team improve going forward? Getting a better PG? We are likely going to keep Rose. Where else can we make improvements? Upgrade on Melo and KP? No. then upgrade where? SG and center would be the easy way to upgrade the roster. But oh wait, lee and Noah are on contract for 4 years. This is the team the Knicks are going to rely on to improve each year.
The problem is that most people just look at the raw numbers and say "that's a bad deal," which is idiotic considering the cap jump this past offseason. Now, the cap isn't expected to increase nearly as much this coming offseason (last I saw was a $102M projection), but that doesn't change the fact that each contract should be looked at in the context of percentage of cap. It becomes even more true when you take into account that max contracts are literally defined as a percentage of the cap for that year.
RoLo's deal was signed at approximately 18.5% of the cap for that year. Noah's deal represented 19.1% of the cap this year. Now, we can argue the matter of RoLo's value versus Noah's, but that's not a discussion I'm trying to rehash. Noah's deal isn't bad based on salary - it's bad based on length of contract. But even then, it won't be an albatross given cap increases in the 3rd and 4th year.
Yes I think it is extremely bad both in length and salary. On a roster basis, how does this team improve going forward? Getting a better PG? We are likely going to keep Rose. Where else can we make improvements? Upgrade on Melo and KP? No. then upgrade where? SG and center would be the easy way to upgrade the roster. But oh wait, lee and Noah are on contract for 4 years. This is the team the Knicks are going to rely on to improve each year.
The problem is that most people just look at the raw numbers and say "that's a bad deal," which is idiotic considering the cap jump this past offseason. Now, the cap isn't expected to increase nearly as much this coming offseason (last I saw was a $102M projection), but that doesn't change the fact that each contract should be looked at in the context of percentage of cap. It becomes even more true when you take into account that max contracts are literally defined as a percentage of the cap for that year.
RoLo's deal was signed at approximately 18.5% of the cap for that year. Noah's deal represented 19.1% of the cap this year. Now, we can argue the matter of RoLo's value versus Noah's, but that's not a discussion I'm trying to rehash. Noah's deal isn't bad based on salary - it's bad based on length of contract. But even then, it won't be an albatross given cap increases in the 3rd and 4th year.
Many here and in the media had questions about Noah's health and his viability as an effective NBA player going forward. On that basis, his deal is most certainly a potential albatross based on salary. And yeah, the length sucks too.
Porzingis speaks better English than Francesa
Link - ( New Window )
Why would the Warriors,clippers or Cavs trade for cousins? Is that a legit rumor or did some guy make up a scenario?
Quote:
Yuck. Cousins for DeAndre Jordan is an awful deal for Sac Link - ( New Window )
Why would the Warriors,clippers or Cavs trade for cousins? Is that a legit rumor or did some guy make up a scenario?
The claim is the Kings are going to move Cousins
Chris Copeland signs with Tofas Bursa.
Turkish squad Tofas Bursa agreed to terms with Copeland, as reported by Eurohoops. The forward returns to Europe after four seasons in the NBA with the Knicks, Pacers and Bucks.
Quote:
In comment 13243243 DanMetroMan said:
Quote:
Yuck. Cousins for DeAndre Jordan is an awful deal for Sac Link - ( New Window )
Why would the Warriors,clippers or Cavs trade for cousins? Is that a legit rumor or did some guy make up a scenario?
The claim is the Kings are going to move Cousins
I don't doubt that he'll be in a different city come season end. I just doubt that the 3 top teams would make a move like that. I guess LAC has a case and obviously Cleveland would probably be better off with Cousins then Love. Not sure id rather have cousins over Draymond as the 3rd option.
Anyways, I know Sacramento will get 70 cents on the dollar for cousins, but I still think they could get a better haul then just Love/Deandre Jordan. I mean Boston has Brooklyn picks they'd throw at a chance to get cousins.
Clippers make a lot of sense because they have good veteran leadership and Paul will get him the ball plenty.
Warriors? I can't see it. They need role players around their two best players and they have some of the best role players in the game in Green and Thompson.
Link - ( New Window )
That's been my take on cousins over the years. But i think if there was one man that could get to him it would be popovich. But if there's were two men that could get to him the other would be Stevens.
Chris Copeland signs with Tofas Bursa.
that was LT, he was the one who did that annoying Copesanity bit.
Ho-hum, just another 23-8 boards-8 assists-4 steals-2 blocks-0 TO on 50% shooting night for the Greek Freak.
Quote:
Chris Copeland signs with Tofas Bursa.
that was LT, he was the one who did that annoying Copesanity bit.
Ho-hum, just another 23-8 boards-8 assists-4 steals-2 blocks-0 TO on 50% shooting night for the Greek Freak.
You see hisbperformance against Cleveland?
He was raw but the talent was undeniable.
KAT and Wiggins were NBA ready. Lavine had elite athleticism. They are lacking a little depth and one starting position.
Quote:
is someone to keep in mind if you're inclined to ask why the Twolves arent suddenly a powerhouse. Player development takes time. Team development too.
He was raw but the talent was undeniable.
KAT and Wiggins were NBA ready. Lavine had elite athleticism. They are lacking a little depth and one starting position.
What does NBA ready really mean though? Most players still years to get to peak performance.
@TommyBeer
Porzingis is averaging 1.27 points per possession as the roll man in pick-&-rolls. That's the 2nd high PPP among players w/ > 40 possesions
Really strange that Rose seemingly hasn't found a way to make this work with Zinger. That combo could be really hard to defend for anyone if they got some chemistry.
Quote:
is someone to keep in mind if you're inclined to ask why the Twolves arent suddenly a powerhouse. Player development takes time. Team development too.
He was raw but the talent was undeniable.
KAT and Wiggins were NBA ready. Lavine had elite athleticism. They are lacking a little depth and one starting position.
Hmm if you watched Wiggins at Kansas I'm not sure you could call him "NBA ready".
Even if you call someone "NBA ready" I'm not sure that means their ceiling is any lower or that it takes them any less time to reach that ceiling.
I'd argue that Giannis had more Nba ready skills coming into the league. He was a much better ball handler and passer than Wiggins coming in. Wiggins couldn't really shoot at all, much of his scoring came from cuts/putbacks and straight line drives in college.
That's true, but I don't think that changes the overall point. Wiggins is expected to be the best player on the team and he's pretty much the same age as KP. And it's not necessarily his offense, it's his defense.
How many guys come into the league contribute as impact defenders at age 21? Now try building a defense with 2 other 20 year olds (one who is expected to anchor the defense and the other who had major defensive flaws but has the physical tools to become capable).
Thibs may or may not be a good coach but it's certainly unfair to judge the future of this team when two of the core guys can't even get beer from a liquor store. Circle back to when they are 25-26 and if they still are winning 40% of their games then there's a problem. I don't see the rush to determine whether this team is going to be a powerhouse right now when they can theoretically keep this team together for at least 7 more years.
I don't see how Minnesota or Philly can be used as examples to judge whether tanking is a viable option to build a team. It's an extremely long process with a very long term view and they are both being judged in year 3-4. Yeah, that's long as fans of a team but that's not how the procsss works. No one who advocates tanking says to only pay players you drafted. The first step is to acquire young talent. Check for both teams. The second is to sign good veterans while the young guys are on their rookie deals. Neither team has gotten to that step yet. Philly will be forced to very soon. Minnesota still has a few years to worry about that.
The problem with the NBA is you got to show results sooner rather than later. A team like Philly gets extended due to..
1. Being bad
2. Top picks being hurt (embiid, noel, now simmons)
3. Major holes on roster.
Minny is in another boat. This is year 3 of Wiggins and Levine. Year 4 for Dieng. Rubio has been around for years. And their best player is only 21. They have to be better than 5-12. Losing is contagious. Their starting 5, while not being able to compete against the Warriors, clippers, or spurs - should at least compete with the rest of the conference.
Can they turn it around by the end of the year and make the playoffs? I still believe they can. They absolutely will get better. But they have to be by far the most disappointing team in the NBA this year.
But it's just like if they're bad, so what? At the rate they are progressing, they have what looks to be 3 25 PPG scorers on their hands. Why not wait it out for a few years and if they still suck then consider other options. They're gonna have no shortage of suitors for Wiggins and Lavine (assuming towns will be the guy to keep).
that is my worry with the knicks that rose and melo can not adapt to being effecient acorers rather than volume...kp is effecient because he plays so well catch and shoot
That was KD's 3rd season. If you think of KAT as the central star of the Wolves (I do), it's fair to compare his 2nd season to KD's 2nd season where they won 23 games with a rookie RW and no Harden (ie I think KAT has a better cast).
It will be troubling if they dont finish strong and have a good 2017-18. But with a new coach Im not sweating this year if I was a Minny fan.
KAT and Wiggins plus crew being a year more mature and experienced. I dont think they need to win 50 games, but they're losing at a worse rate than last year, and that's pretty surprising. That should be adding at least 5-10 wins based on maturity alone I think.
they added a supposed big time cosch and another year with their talent, they should be playing much better
I don't think OKC is the end all be all comparison. We're talking about 3 potential HoF guys. I think towns' ceiling is damn near unlimited but I don't think it's a sure thing he'all be as good as KD or Westbrook (looks like he has a good chance though).
How about the Warriors? They didn't crack 40 wins until Steph's 5th season (klays 2nd). Even then it required shuffling around (getting bogut and then iggy after). I don't think you can set an specific time frame for any young team.
Quote:
The 09-10 Thunder won 50 games with KD and Westbrook at 21 and Harden at 20.
I don't think OKC is the end all be all comparison. We're talking about 3 potential HoF guys. I think towns' ceiling is damn near unlimited but I don't think it's a sure thing he'all be as good as KD or Westbrook (looks like he has a good chance though).
How about the Warriors? They didn't crack 40 wins until Steph's 5th season (klays 2nd). Even then it required shuffling around (getting bogut and then iggy after). I don't think you can set an specific time frame for any young team.
warriors got much better and took that next step when draymond green came in and blew away expectations
GS is another apt comparison. It took Curry thru his rookie deal to really become elite (IIRC).
Well, I guess it's the difference in expectations. I can see the room for them to be much better but that doesn't make it fair to expect it. They basically added a top pick, who has struggled mightily. The rest is based on Thibs and another year under their belt? Ok, I can see how they can be expected to be better, but how much? 7-11 instead of 5-13? It's a stretch to say that they should definitely compete for a playoff spot. That's a lot of onus on some really guys who have so far flashed highlights and piled up stats in losses. They have no veteran leadership. That bench is pretty bad, too.
Quote:
with all the athleticism on their team
Well, I guess it's the difference in expectations. I can see the room for them to be much better but that doesn't make it fair to expect it. They basically added a top pick, who has struggled mightily. The rest is based on Thibs and another year under their belt? Ok, I can see how they can be expected to be better, but how much? 7-11 instead of 5-13? It's a stretch to say that they should definitely compete for a playoff spot. That's a lot of onus on some really guys who have so far flashed highlights and piled up stats in losses. They have no veteran leadership. That bench is pretty bad, too.
The bench part can't be stressed enough. Especially if you consider that Rubio and Dieng as plus bench guys and not starters on a good team.
Ny16 that brings back to my point, when have 20 year olds been impact defenders regardless of athleticism? Deandre Jordan is as about of a good of an athlete as they come in the NBA and it took him a good 6 years before becoming one of the premier defensive anchors in the league. He was fairly below average for the first 3-4 years as well. Kawhi was a stiff coming into the league and needed to be seasoned for a good 4 years before realizing his defensive potential. Anthony Davis was just a damn good shot blocker for the first few years. Same with ibaka. Ibaka wasn't very good at actual help defense until the last few years. I could go on and on. You see young guys make all star teams but how many actually make all defensive teams in the NBA.
Defense in the NBA is simply really, really hard.