NBA Thread

thethe said:
Or proper maximization of their assets which is brilliant management.
Click to expand...

Two measly second round picks is not maximizing their assets. It's ownership not wanting to pay a difference of 600K from 15 to 19th pick from last seasons draft.
 
I havent found a good reason for the Hawks move 15th for hardaway and 2 second rounders? Wtf
 
thethe said:
Sure, maybe they will be bad but for you to make a comment that GS has more length than OKC in that lineup is factually inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Uhhh did I say that?

I said that even GS was bad when they went small.

I wasn't even trying to say anything bad about OKC. Just that I didn't like Payne and Russ playing together. Grow some thick skin thethe.
 
chop2chip said:
Uhhh did I say that?

I said that even GS was bad when they went small.

I wasn't even trying to say anything bad about OKC. Just that I didn't like Payne and Russ playing together. Grow some thick skin thethe.
Click to expand...

Come on Chop. You clearly inferred that from your post.

OKC's small ball lineup is longer and taller than Golden States. Thats why I think it could work.

But, this is probably all moot anyway since I don't think the Thunder will put KD at the four all that often until he proves he is healthy.
 
I dont get what the Hawks are doing, Hardaway is a RFA after this year anyway.

Knicks still suck regardless.
 
thethe said:
Come on Chop. You clearly inferred that from your post.

OKC's small ball lineup is longer and taller than Golden States. Thats why I think it could work.

But, this is probably all moot anyway since I don't think the Thunder will put KD at the four all that often until he proves he is healthy.
Click to expand...

I clearly said that going small always means your defense is going to suffer. Why would OKC be an exception to that?

Do you wanna know length? Milwaukee's starting 5 is long. Utah is long. GSW with Green at the 3 is long (when they go with Green at 4 they go small and that is decent defensive team.). The thunder playing two PG's and Ibaka at the 5 is NOT long.
 
chop2chip said:
I clearly said that going small always means your defense is going to suffer. Why would OKC be an exception to that?

Do you wanna know length? Milwaukee's starting 5 is long. Utah is long. GSW with Green at the 3 is long (when they go with Green at 4 they go small and that is decent defensive team.). The thunder playing two PG's and Ibaka at the 5 is NOT long.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the Thunder would be the longest lineup out there when they went small. We are comparing it right now to GS. Its a fact they would be longer and taller than GS small ball lineup. That is all I said.
 
thethe said:
I didn't say the Thunder would be the longest lineup out there when they went small. We are comparing it right now to GS. Its a fact they would be longer and taller than GS small ball lineup. That is all I said.
Click to expand...

You clearly said they would have a good defense. I wouldn't have argued if you just argued length.

I vehemently disagree that the Thinder can go small and still have a good defensive lineup.
 
Heyward said:
I dont get what the Hawks are doing, Hardaway is a RFA after this year anyway.

Knicks still suck regardless.
Click to expand...

Yep. Hardaway is not a fit on the Hawks. Heck he'd probably not even fit in at Rucker Park because he misses way too many shots. He's a negative everywhere on the court. All he can do is score, but he needs to hoist up 15 shots to get 10 points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top