|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 6, 2016 6:57:35 GMT -5
Watching the finals right now is pretty eye opening. You need to be extremely careful what players you get not just acquire superstars if you want to win a title. Guys like Love and even Irving are not championship players. We should be thanking our lucky stars Ainge couldn't get Love. I wonder how much better off the Cavs would be of LeBron didn't force the team to trade Wiggins for him. Imagine Wiggins and a free agent or two instead of Love?
Defensive versatility is so important in today's NBA. Especially athleticism and length on the wings and down low. Making me rethink Evan Turner.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,860
|
Post by wcp3 on Jun 6, 2016 7:30:56 GMT -5
Disagree with you about them not being championship players - they could be in the right situation. But considering their defensive shortcomings, building a team with both of them as key pieces simply won't work. They'd need to be third in the pecking order, ala Ray Allen.
|
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jun 6, 2016 8:44:35 GMT -5
I think you're both somewhat correct. They are difficult players to build a championship around because the other players must have very specific skill sets to compensate for their shortcomings.
It's possible, but really difficult to get the perfect players to surround them with.
This is my concern with Okafor as well. Very skilled player that does a lot of things well, but you have to build your team around his shortcomings, which isn't easy.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 6, 2016 9:09:13 GMT -5
It really does show how perfect that C's team was. Unlike Cleveland or Golden State (or Miami during their run), Boston didn't have the best player in the league (or even a top 5).
But their "Big 3" was perfectly suited to play with each other (as were the other starters and rotational players). Both bigs could play D and one of them could space (not out to the 3-point line but still). Pierce was the Alpha on offense and Ray the gunner from the outside. A PG that could break down the D plus some 3-and-D players on the bench.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jun 6, 2016 11:41:35 GMT -5
This is my concern with Okafor as well. Very skilled player that does a lot of things well, but you have to build your team around his shortcomings, which isn't easy. Agreed, and his faults are very hard to hide on any scheme. He's still young so there's room for improvement I guess? But I wouldn't bet big on him anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 6, 2016 15:52:47 GMT -5
I see Cleveland's issues as 1. Warriors are really good and a bad match up and two they have both Irving and Love as non complete players not being the man on that team. How many two way players does Cleveland have other than LeBron?
I really believe you could build a championship team around Love when he's the center of the offense and producing 25, 12 and 5. At those levels his strengths out weight his weaknesses. In his current role he just doesn't produce enough to cover his weaknesses.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 6, 2016 16:08:30 GMT -5
Call me crazy but unless Lakers take Ingram over Simmons I'm not getting that excited. The gap from Simmons to Ingram for me is very large, the gap from Ingram to guys like Bender, Murray, etc. Just doesn't seem that big to me. If that report is correct I would try to get #1 pick. Almost no chance Lakers go guard, so Murray should be there at 3. |
|
|
|
Post by philarhody on Jun 6, 2016 22:16:44 GMT -5
Call me crazy but unless Lakers take Ingram over Simmons I'm not getting that excited. The gap from Simmons to Ingram for me is very large, the gap from Ingram to guys like Bender, Murray, etc. Just doesn't seem that big to me. If that report is correct I would try to get #1 pick. Almost no chance Lakers go guard, so Murray should be there at 3. I'm calling you crazy. Ingram is a far superior player than Murray in almost every aspect. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 7, 2016 6:33:19 GMT -5
Disagree with you about them not being championship players - they could be in the right situation. But considering their defensive shortcomings, building a team with both of them as key pieces simply won't work. They'd need to be third in the pecking order, ala Ray Allen. Valid point... Irving also has the ability to play defense but doesn't seem to care too. I have tons of respect for LeBron as a player but I think his ego has really hurt his Cleveland teams. When he was young his attitude pressured the team into bad contracts and quick fixes and he kind of did the same when he got back. He also under-minds all his coaches. It wouldn't surprise me if a young kid like Irving never respected a coach enough to improve this part of his game. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 7, 2016 6:38:00 GMT -5
I see Cleveland's issues as 1. Warriors are really good and a bad match up and two they have both Irving and Love as non complete players not being the man on that team. How many two way players does Cleveland have other than LeBron? I really believe you could build a championship team around Love when he's the center of the offense and producing 25, 12 and 5. At those levels his strengths out weight his weaknesses. In his current role he just doesn't produce enough to cover his weaknesses. I don't think Love is that kind of player on a great team. He was on w lousy team with no pressure and no need to expend energy on defense. I also think his game is eroding a bit and I don't think it's all role related. I want nothing to do with him right now. On one hand, I have so much faith in Ainge and Stevens to get the most out of players but on the other I just don't trust the drive and/or maturity of so many guys in the NBA. I keep saying this but patience is still needed with this group. I really hope they don't waste cap space this offseason. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 7, 2016 8:16:11 GMT -5
Call me crazy but unless Lakers take Ingram over Simmons I'm not getting that excited. The gap from Simmons to Ingram for me is very large, the gap from Ingram to guys like Bender, Murray, etc. Just doesn't seem that big to me. If that report is correct I would try to get #1 pick. Almost no chance Lakers go guard, so Murray should be there at 3. I'm calling you crazy. Ingram is a far superior player than Murray in almost every aspect. Like what? I give you his upside might be higher, but he has a long way to go. People think he's Durant 2.0, I see a slightly better Tayshaun Prince. Murray is a better shooter, scorer and team leader at this point. Murray also has an NBA ready body and game. I also worry if Ingram can add weight, because Prince never could with a body type that is very similar. At this point I think Murray has a higher floor than Ingram. I just don't get the Durant comp, he was no where near the player Durant was as a freshman. Durant was a beast that carried his team, averaged a double double and just looked like a stud. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 7, 2016 8:28:57 GMT -5
Better team leader? How do we know this?
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 7, 2016 8:29:50 GMT -5
Team leader? Seriously... That's a stretch...
Beyond that I disagree Murray is a better scorer. He's a better shooter but Ingram is a better more versatile scorer. Ingram is a better defender and it's not even really close. On top of it he's much more versatile at 6'9 with a over 7'3" foot wing span.
People are trying to talk about Murray like he could be a PG but he's not. They do that because he's only 6'3.
Ingram is just a better player and prospect. There's nothing wrong with Murray, I would get behind him in a second if the Celtics drafted him but if the choice were him or Ingram it's not even something you should need to dwell on
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 7, 2016 8:32:49 GMT -5
Better team leader? How do we know this? His coach said he came in and in no time took control of team and became it's leader, that's how. No such reports on Ingram. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 7, 2016 8:35:09 GMT -5
I'm not saying his not but I'd be wary of basing something on what a used car salesman says.
PS - No offense intended to anyone who actually sells used cars. I'm referring to the "Hollywood" version of a Used Car Salesman.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,860
|
Post by wcp3 on Jun 7, 2016 10:23:12 GMT -5
Lol at taking anything Calipari says at face value. He's on record as saying he cares more about getting players drafted than winning championships.
Anyway, there's no argument Murray is on the same planet as Ingram as a prospect, but I do really like his talent. I'd much prefer the Celts take him - and his upside - to someone like Dunn.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 7, 2016 10:33:55 GMT -5
Not sure where I land on him but the CSNNE scouting report (if I taken at face value - not sure if I should) concerns me.
Everyone says his strengths are a) Shooting, b) Ability to play both G positions and c) Energy Level.
The problems (at least based on this one scouting report) is that he's actually a poor decision maker and can get "frenetic" (putting a damper on b above) and that he'll always be limited defensively due to his lack of athleticism and "stubby wingspan".
If these are true, then he runs the risk of being a one-dimensional shooter.
That being said, I think those were the same things said about Klay Thompson but I don't recall exactly.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,860
|
Post by wcp3 on Jun 7, 2016 12:13:53 GMT -5
The scouting report by Dalen Cuff and Tim Welsh?
Hmm, yeah. I would take that info with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 7, 2016 14:59:35 GMT -5
Question:
On Love, is there a price at which (despite his flaws) you do it? So may people are talking about how low his trade value is? How low is low enough to make the benefit outweigh the cost?
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 7, 2016 15:56:42 GMT -5
Team leader? Seriously... That's a stretch... Beyond that I disagree Murray is a better scorer. He's a better shooter but Ingram is a better more versatile scorer. Ingram is a better defender and it's not even really close. On top of it he's much more versatile at 6'9 with a over 7'3" foot wing span. People are trying to talk about Murray like he could be a PG but he's not. They do that because he's only 6'3. Ingram is just a better player and prospect. There's nothing wrong with Murray, I would get behind him in a second if the Celtics drafted him but if the choice were him or Ingram it's not even something you should need to dwell on ESPN and DraftExpress both list Murray at 6'5'' with a wingspan of 6'7''. So he has the size to play SG, which as of right now is where I see him playing. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 7, 2016 16:05:18 GMT -5
Question: On Love, is there a price at which (despite his flaws) you do it? So may people are talking about how low his trade value is? How low is low enough to make the benefit outweigh the cost? I would think Danny would trade the #3 pick for Love in a second. I just don't see how Cleveland trades him at this point for a ton less than they gave up to get him a year and a half ago. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 7, 2016 16:14:21 GMT -5
I wanted to add that at this point we really don't know if Murray can play PG. He played with one of the best floor generals in college last season and wasn't asked to run the team, just score. ESPN does say he is a excellent passer with great court vision. Down the road he could become a very good PG.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 7, 2016 16:27:55 GMT -5
Not sure where I land on him but the CSNNE scouting report (if I taken at face value - not sure if I should) concerns me. Everyone says his strengths are a) Shooting, b) Ability to play both G positions and c) Energy Level. The problems (at least based on this one scouting report) is that he's actually a poor decision maker and can get "frenetic" (putting a damper on b above) and that he'll always be limited defensively due to his lack of athleticism and "stubby wingspan". If these are true, then he runs the risk of being a one-dimensional shooter. That being said, I think those were the same things said about Klay Thompson but I don't recall exactly. ESPN scouting report list weakness as a bit of a tweeter and lacks elite quickness and explosiveness. I wouldn't say he has a lack of athleticism, just that it's not elite, which is a huge difference. While he will never be elite an elite defender, he has enough athleticism to be average to above average. He's also a great penetrator and finisher at the rim that gets to FT line a ton. Offensively he really has a complete game for a guard. The guy is much more than just a shooter, he is a great scorer. The type of player that wants the ball at the end of game, with the game on the line. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 7, 2016 16:49:20 GMT -5
Wouldn't do it for #3. No thanks (and I'm starting to wonder if Danny would).
Cleveland would want part of the package to include a player that could help them NEXT year. So that means you're talking about #3 plus a valuable role player. Just don't see that being within Danny's appetite.
Some are beginning to speculate that Cleveland may realize that it's just not working and put him "up for auction" (Mannix' words, not mine). If that's the case, I think the Cavs would have to set their sites a tad lower as I'm not sure anyone in the top 5 would offer up their pick (though, with Chandler at the #5, maybe Phoenix would consider it)? Again, though, you get into the 2016 contributors that you'd need to add and I'm not sure if Phoenix would throw that much on top of #4.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 7, 2016 16:58:51 GMT -5
Cover your ears WCP:
Chad Ford and Kevin Pelton discussed some C's possibilities with their picks. High(low)lights:
At #3, Ford thought they should look to trade. Doesn't think Love or Okafor/Noel makes sense. Does think Thomas/Jerebko/#3 for Butler would be interesting to both teams.
Pelton took an analytical approach and thought Thomas' value plus the expected value (factoring in salary commitments for both) is too much to give up for Butler. Says that the value would be more in line with getting Jokic/Nurkic for #3. Ford replied that they should just pick it then.
On the pick, both felt that Bender/Dunn/Murray/Chriss are likely candidates. Dunn/Murray more in the "help me know" group. Bender/Chriss in long term category. Both would go Bender (strange since Ford has yet to go that route in his mocks).
Both think they should be able to trade some #2s as the depth of the draft will create value there. That depth hurts the value of the other 1st rounders (why give up an asset plus a guaranteed contract to a player who is not much better than the guy you can get in the 2nd).
Both say international picks are likely (shocker) with Ford thinking they go developmental (Skal/Maker/Diallo) and Pelton saying Patrick McCaw (or someone else who'd be able to fill a role if someone like Bradley went down again).
|
|
