Jump to content

NBA Thread


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BGleas said:

I hate to be in a position to not support Vic, because I'm a huge fan, but with that said, in 6 NBA seasons the only place Vic has led a team is to a first-round loss in the playoffs one time, granted that team did overachieve largely due to him. But, you could also argue that as a #2 overall pick that Vic had been a disappointment until last season. But, there's also no doubt that Vic was phenomenal last season. 

Kyrie is by no means a perfect player, and he's not the all-around player that some of the other top guards are, but he was a 5-6apg guy early in his career when he was surrounded by garbage, and then LeBron came which certainly elevated his teams, but also caused his playmaking to regress because LeBron dominated the ball. From a team perspective, Kyrie absolutely benefitted from having LeBron, as does anyone he plays with, but at the same time with Kyrie injured Cleveland got crushed in the 2015 Finals, with him back they won the title in 2016 with Kyrie outplaying Steph in that series, averaging 27ppg and hitting the game/championship winning shot. He did outplay Steph in that series. 

Being honest, I was not a big Kyrie fan before watching him more closely last season, and being really honest I still don't love his game. But, he is better than I previously thought, he cares more than I previously thought, and he's definitely in that second tier of NBA stars. He was a great leader of that team after Hayward went down and they went on that run of wins, he played a huge part in keeping the team together and playing well.

But, If he wasn't surrounded by Danny Ainge and Brad Stevens and an overall stable organization like the Celtics, would I want him as my teams best player, the honest answer is no. If I were the Knicks there's no chance I would give him a max contract to be my teams best player next summer. But, with the Celtics, it works. But also being honest, if my goal is to win a title, I wouldn't want Vic as my best player either. They're both second-tier NBA stars, not guys that instantly make you a title contender. 

I guess I don't understand how Vic's first four years are relevant to what he did last year and the player he is today? You're knocking Vic for his past but giving Kyrie a pass because he was in a bad situation. What good situation was Vic in before last season?

Kyrie hasn't really changed as a player a lot and we still haven't seen evidence he can lead a team anywhere except to having the number 1 pick (the Celtics record without him last year hurts him in this argument). We can see that Vic has a lot of intangible leadership qualities that were present in college and are resurfacing now as he has grown his game.

I agree, neither are my first choice to build my team around but given the choice between the two I would take Vic every single time based on what they are today. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seeking6 said:

Wouldn't mind a Houston meltdown and they clean house and we trade for Eric Gordon. I like the Pacers and I think adding Tyreke will help the falloff when Vic goes to bench but come playoff time....I sure would like to add another pure 3 point shooter. 

That's why they added McDermott. Gordon needs a lot more touches and probably doesn't mesh as well with Vic and Tyreke. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

EJ has definitely come into his own, getting by the several years of injuries -- always had the talent. 

I don't know about meltdown, the Rockets have enough talent to still make a strong playoff push, but they're no longer a threat to GS, imo, and I think they fall from the #2 team -- I can see the Thunder (if/when Roberson gets back healthy, along with Westbrook), Pelicans, Utah and Nuggets all in the mix to be better than the Rockets (I'm not one who thinks the Lakers are there this season). EJ is a key player on the Rockets, doubt they let him go, but it's always possible and the Ariza move was pretty surprising.

He has already been put up on the block to pull in Jimmy Butler, but T-wolves weren't interested.  If Rockets make any trades, EJ will be involved as a piece of a combo they offer.  I saw on TV yesterday that Butler now wants to go to Philly, but don't see what they have the T-wolves would want.  Fultz would probably be the piece, but I doubt any teams are really interested in him as a primary in a trade at this point.

 

Just a topic for conversation, what if Butler would be open to Pacers.  Would any fans be into it and who would you be willing to part with?  Would it make Indy better or is Butler a cancer at this point after the way he has handled his trade demand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, IUALUM03 said:

He has already been put up on the block to pull in Jimmy Butler, but T-wolves weren't interested.  If Rockets make any trades, EJ will be involved as a piece of a combo they offer.  I saw on TV yesterday that Butler now wants to go to Philly, but don't see what they have the T-wolves would want.  Fultz would probably be the piece, but I doubt any teams are really interested in him as a primary in a trade at this point.

 

Just a topic for conversation, what if Butler would be open to Pacers.  Would any fans be into it and who would you be willing to part with?  Would it make Indy better or is Butler a cancer at this point after the way he has handled his trade demand?

Not interested in Butler for the Pacers because I don't want his attitude in that locker room.  The Pacers has good chemistry right now and play well together so we don't need to shake that up right now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, IUALUM03 said:

He has already been put up on the block to pull in Jimmy Butler, but T-wolves weren't interested.  If Rockets make any trades, EJ will be involved as a piece of a combo they offer.  I saw on TV yesterday that Butler now wants to go to Philly, but don't see what they have the T-wolves would want.  Fultz would probably be the piece, but I doubt any teams are really interested in him as a primary in a trade at this point.

 

Just a topic for conversation, what if Butler would be open to Pacers.  Would any fans be into it and who would you be willing to part with?  Would it make Indy better or is Butler a cancer at this point after the way he has handled his trade demand?

That's tricky, I love our chemistry but I don't hold negative views of Butler. I tend to think he is right about his points with Towns and Wiggins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, IUALUM03 said:

He has already been put up on the block to pull in Jimmy Butler, but T-wolves weren't interested.  If Rockets make any trades, EJ will be involved as a piece of a combo they offer.  I saw on TV yesterday that Butler now wants to go to Philly, but don't see what they have the T-wolves would want.  Fultz would probably be the piece, but I doubt any teams are really interested in him as a primary in a trade at this point.

 

Just a topic for conversation, what if Butler would be open to Pacers.  Would any fans be into it and who would you be willing to part with?  Would it make Indy better or is Butler a cancer at this point after the way he has handled his trade demand?

Yes, I'd agree he'd be made available for a marquee guy like Butler, but not any trades. He's a key piece, but Butler is a top 20 player. EJ is lightyears ahead of anything Fultz has done, don't see that at all.

As for me, I see Butler as a locker room cancer, and would not want him on my team. Very good 2-way player, not good for the locker room, and would likely create issues with guys like Vic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

That's tricky, I love our chemistry but I don't hold negative views of Butler. I tend to think he is right about his points with Towns and Wiggins. 

 

8 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Yes, I'd agree he'd be made available for a marquee guy like Butler, but not any trades. He's a key piece, but Butler is a top 20 player. EJ is lightyears ahead of anything Fultz has done, don't see that at all.

As for me, I see Butler as a locker room cancer, and would not want him on my team. Very good 2-way player, not good for the locker room, and would likely create issues with guys like Vic.

I see both sides of this — I agree with KoB that Wiggins and KAT generally suck and are soft, but I have to agree with HH that Butler is a cancer, looking at how he acted toward the end of his tenure in Chicago and how he’s acting now in Minnesota.  He’s a great player and hard worker, but he’s also a diva that thinks he’s better than he is.  I could see him going after Turner the same way he’s gone after the young players on the Bulls and the Wolves.  Pacers seem to have a great locker room culture right now, and I think it’s likely that Butler would blow it all up.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I guess I don't understand how Vic's first four years are relevant to what he did last year and the player he is today? You're knocking Vic for his past but giving Kyrie a pass because he was in a bad situation. What good situation was Vic in before last season?

Kyrie hasn't really changed as a player a lot and we still haven't seen evidence he can lead a team anywhere except to having the number 1 pick (the Celtics record without him last year hurts him in this argument). We can see that Vic has a lot of intangible leadership qualities that were present in college and are resurfacing now as he has grown his game.

I agree, neither are my first choice to build my team around but given the choice between the two I would take Vic every single time based on what they are today. 

You're saying Kyrie hasn't shown he can carry a team, so I thought you were entering their pasts as part of the conversation with that statement, no? If we're looking at their entire careers, there is literally no comparison at all. Both were incredibly high picks drafted into bad situations where team success was limited, but Kyrie has been a star from day 1, Vic (again, who I love, so not really enjoying this topic) has had one good year. But, I guess the debate is who the better leader is, and who can carry a franchise. 

To be honest, I don't really know how to carry out defending Kyrie on this. He has a long list of career accomplishments, but there's a 'yeah, but' with all of them. Yeah, but his teams stunk his first three years. Yeah, but he had LeBron his next three years. Yeah, but the Celtics were still good after he got hurt, and their roster is better and they have one of the best coaches. The LeBron thing is weird too, it has both helped and hindered Kyrie's career. With LeBron he got to show what he could do at the highest level, and he delivered, but at the same time it stifled his development as a leader and playmaker. 

Kyrie is the best player on arguably the best team in the East, but with that here is a lot in his favor (great roster, best coach, etc.). Vic hasn't had long-term NBA success at this level, but he did carry a team last season to the playoffs that most didn't think would be good. Both have accomplishments, and both still have things to prove. 

If Vic continues on the foundation he set last season, both guys are in that second tier of NBA stars. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BGleas said:

You're saying Kyrie hasn't shown he can carry a team, so I thought you were entering their pasts as part of the conversation with that statement, no? If we're looking at their entire careers, there is literally no comparison at all. Both were incredibly high picks drafted into bad situations where team success was limited, but Kyrie has been a star from day 1, Vic (again, who I love, so not really enjoying this topic) has had one good year. But, I guess the debate is who the better leader is, and who can carry a franchise. 

To be honest, I don't really know how to carry out defending Kyrie on this. He has a long list of career accomplishments, but there's a 'yeah, but' with all of them. Yeah, but his teams stunk his first three years. Yeah, but he had LeBron his next three years. Yeah, but the Celtics were still good after he got hurt, and their roster is better and they have one of the best coaches. The LeBron thing is weird too, it has both helped and hindered Kyrie's career. With LeBron he got to show what he could do at the highest level, and he delivered, but at the same time it stifled his development as a leader and playmaker. 

Kyrie is the best player on arguably the best team in the East, but with that here is a lot in his favor (great roster, best coach, etc.). Vic hasn't had long-term NBA success at this level, but he did carry a team last season to the playoffs that most didn't think would be good. Both have accomplishments, and both still have things to prove. 

If Vic continues on the foundation he set last season, both guys are in that second tier of NBA stars. 

 

My thing with Kyrie's accomplishments and stardom are that it all seems paper thin. He was a highly regarded recruit, who went to Duke then went number 1 overall. He has as good of handles as anyone in the NBA and probably can finish as acrobatically as any guard in the league. Those things all are great at making him a star. 

But, it also equates IMO to a lot of style over substance. Assuming Hayward is healthy and back to himself, I think you can make a strong case that the Celtics have at least three players who impact their ability to win games more than Kyrie. What other star who is clearly regarded as the best player on his team has that ever been said about? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dwtaylor1055 said:

So the team in 2013-2014 wasn't a threat, I would consider making it to the ECF significant?  The team in the early 2000s were not a threat? I know its early(only 1 game) but assuming the bench can play like this 75 or 80% of the games, I cannot think of a better bench over the last 10 years or so that the Pacers have had. 

They've never been a true threat to win it all.  The Shaq/Kobe Lakers team was way better.  They wouldn't have even made the CF that season if they weren't playing in the Least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

My thing with Kyrie's accomplishments and stardom are that it all seems paper thin. He was a highly regarded recruit, who went to Duke then went number 1 overall. He has as good of handles as anyone in the NBA and probably can finish as acrobatically as any guard in the league. Those things all are great at making him a star. 

But, it also equates IMO to a lot of style over substance. Assuming Hayward is healthy and back to himself, I think you can make a strong case that the Celtics have at least three players who impact their ability to win games more than Kyrie. What other star who is clearly regarded as the best player on his team has that ever been said about? 

I don't disagree with all of that. As I said, I wasn't a Kyrie fan before. Even now, it's not like I absolutely love him or anything. His defense has been embarrassing at times in his career, though was much better last season.

But at the same time, you're dismissing what he's done in the playoffs/Finals at the highest level. I don't know how to remove the LeBron factor, as clearly LeBron was the leader and reason they got that far three years in a row, but Kyrie absolutely outplayed Curry in that 2016 Finals. He had a 41 point game in Game 5 when they were down 3-1, he averaged 27 for the series and hit the game-winning shot on the road in Game 7. 

Outplaying a two-time MVP/3-time champion in Curry and beating him in the Finals isn't nothing. Again, the LeBron factor will also be the asterisk until he does it on his own, but you can't just dismiss it either. 

On the Celtics now, Hayward isn't close to being his old self, and I don't think he will be until next season, if at all. Kyrie and Horford at the leaders of that team. Brown is an emerging leader, and Tatum is going to be a flat-out star, but he's not a leader yet. Tatum has even talked about Kyrie helping his transition to the NBA. Kyrie absolutely led them the first half of last season, and remember many people thought they'd be a 6-8 seed team after Hayward went down, some even saying they'd miss the playoffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dbmhoosier said:

They've never been a true threat to win it all.  The Shaq/Kobe Lakers team was way better.  They wouldn't have even made the CF that season if they weren't playing in the Least.

The series went 6 games and the Pacers won game 5 by 30 point.  Also the Pacers had 4 in hand and should have won that game after Shaq had fouled out in the 4th.  The Pacers lost that game in OT with Kobe hitting two big shots at the end.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Still rather play in college where you will get way more publicity than playing in front of 1,000 people every night.

From a pure fun standpoint, you're right, but a lot of these kids come from some pretty difficult financial backgrounds.  There's a reason the money started flowing in the college game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

From a pure fun standpoint, you're right, but a lot of these kids come from some pretty difficult financial backgrounds.  There's a reason the money started flowing in the college game.

Like I said in another thread veteran players in the G-league might not respond well to an 18 year old coming in and making way more than they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

The series went 6 games and the Pacers won game 5 by 30 point.  Also the Pacers had 4 in hand and should have won that game after Shaq had fouled out in the 4th.  The Pacers lost that game in OT with Kobe hitting two big shots at the end.

Right. "Way better" is at best subjective. Reggie and the P's Killed it that year and in those playoffs, a deep veteran team that the P's then broke up the next season. It was a good series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dbmhoosier said:

What's this talk about the G league now offering $125k to HS players to forgoe college?

To quote what Rabby tweeted today. He asked an agent G League or High Major College....Agent said College every single time. G League will serve it's purpose for some and I'm glad they are actually increasing the $ for the guys...but for high level talent guys who have a chance to be drafted they'll continue to go to college. The exposure alone is so much greater. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

To quote what Rabby tweeted today. He asked an agent G League or High Major College....Agent said College every single time. G League will serve it's purpose for some and I'm glad they are actually increasing the $ for the guys...but for high level talent guys who have a chance to be drafted they'll continue to go to college. The exposure alone is so much greater. 

 

It will be tricky. Part of the reason these guys can command such lucrative marketing opps/shoe deals as rookies is that fans know these players from their year in college playing at Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA, UNC, etc. 

Are shoe companies going to give a lucrative contract to a guy playing for the Erie Bayhawks or the Iowa Wolves? I'm sure someone in the agent world will do the math, but what is the exposure of playing at one of these top, blue blood college worth in terms of future revenue?

I could take 100K from Nike, play at Duke, and be a household name. What is that worth in terms of marketing dollars the next 3-5 years? 

 

Edited by BGleas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BGleas said:

It will be tricky. Part of the reason these guys can command such lucrative marketing opps/shoe deals as rookies is that fans know these players from their year in college playing at Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA, UNC, etc. 

Are shoe companies going to give a lucrative contract to a guy playing for the Erie Bayhawks or the Iowa Wolves? I'm sure someone in the agent world will do the math, but what is the exposure of playing at one of these top, blue blood college worth in terms of future revenue?

I could take 100K from Nike, play at Duke, and be a household name. What is that worth in terms of marketing dollars the next 3-5 years? 

 

And I'm sure the agents who are being asked that question today already have the data that supports college over G League. So many kids become household names and ultimately get drafted because of the exposure they get on a national level at major programs.

I'll give 2 examples that I think are good ones. Our very own OG. If he's at a smaller school does he get noticed the way he did at IU? No way. Even with the injury he's set for life...and besides his athletic ability and game...his exposure at IU got him noticed. Another example I'll use is Sam Dekker. Great player no doubt...but until he was on the big stage playing in Final 4 I don't think he was a certain 1st round pick. His exposure and performance in March got him drafted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...