Da Letter El
Officially internet famous
Unprecedented trade
Going to be so weird to not see Isaiah Thomas in green next season
Going to be so weird to not see Isaiah Thomas in green next season
Love has no value IMO. He's still serviceable, but long gone is the Minnesota Kevin Love who was a nightly 20-20 threat and he's not worth that massive deal he's on. Definitely not worth giving up what Jayson Tatum could be plus another pick. The Cavs really don't have any assets left to make any trades apart from that newly acquired Brooklyn first, which they value highly.Anyway, what about also sending Love to the Celtics? Maybe take back Marcus Morris and Jayson Tatum. I know it's a long shot, but the Celtics really need Love's rebounding and could sacrifice another young forward. They could even maybe throw another first or second there to sweeten the deal.
I disagree with this a slight bit. I don't think either team really "lost" this trade yet, I think it was an almost necessary move for both teams. Zizic, IMO, is the biggest loss for me as a Celtics fan. As my roommate can attest, I've been pumped for this guy to come overseas for awhile. I thought he would mold into a great post presence for the Celtics, in a time where we are lacking just that. In regards to Crowder, I am fine moving him. I do not believe in any facet he is "underrated," except if you look at his amazing contract. Last year his defense wasn't elite or as great as it has been in the past. I felt he was a solid defensive player, but didn't come close to what people were talking it up to be.This is the one time I think the Celtics actually lost a trade. I don't care how bad IT's hip is, they picked up Jae Crowder, most underrated player on a great contract, a potentially #1 overall pick, and a player with a lot of potential in Zizic. If they get anything out of IT that makes it even better.
Anyway, what about also sending Love to the Celtics? Maybe take back Marcus Morris and Jayson Tatum. I know it's a long shot, but the Celtics really need Love's rebounding and could sacrifice another young forward. They could even maybe throw another first or second there to sweeten the deal.
Holy mother of God, have you ever heard of a paragraph?I disagree with this a slight bit. I don't think either team really "lost" this trade yet, I think it was an almost necessary move for both teams. Zizic, IMO, is the biggest loss for me as a Celtics fan. As my roommate can attest, I've been pumped for this guy to come overseas for awhile. I thought he would mold into a great post presence for the Celtics, in a time where we are lacking just that. In regards to Crowder, I am fine moving him. I do not believe in any facet he is "underrated," except if you look at his amazing contract. Last year his defense wasn't elite or as great as it has been in the past. I felt he was a solid defensive player, but didn't come close to what people were talking it up to be. Now for Isaiah... This one hurt emotionally, but logically makes a lot of sense. That hip injury has been brutal to other players in the past and right now the Celtics have a window to possibly contend come the near future. If this trade doesn't happen, I think the C's definitely sign Isaiah to a max. The reason this felt necessary for the Celtics is what could come from Isaiah with the injury. To give some insight into what I mean, Isaiah is 5'9 and turning 29 this season. He is already 6 inches shorter than Kyrie (which is nuts to say considering they are in the same position, and generally the position which has the shortest player) and is a player who heavily relies on his athleticism to score. This being said, the hip injury could honestly hinder Isaiah's game and could become problematic. Getting Kyrie, you practically get the same player as Isaiah, in an offense built around that style of player, who is about the same defensively but also comparably or on the same level offensively. Plus they got a guy who is willing to take big shots, and none the less proven to hit them as well. I don't think this trade is AS bad for the Celtics as people say. Honestly I was dreading the idea of next summer because as much as I love Isaiah and everything he did here in Boston, I was not willing to sign him long term, especially with the hip injury. I wish him the best though and I hope his injury proves to be minor to his growth as a player. That being said, I think the Cav's did a great job of executing a "compete now, but have tools for the future" type of trade they were looking for. Altman deserves no short of credit. I think only time will tell who wins this trade, but ultimately I don't think it's really a loss for the Celtics.
Personally I don't think this will be effective in any way. All it does is make it easier to tank, if anything, since you only need to be 3rd worst instead of the worst. If they truly want to deincentivise tanking, they'd have to give the teams something to play for. It wouldn't make any sense to give the best non-playoff team the best odds at the first overall pick, since they theoretically need the pick the least, so to speak. I don't have a solution to this, but neither do I have a problem with it.Commissioner Adam Silver is a strong advocate to deincentivize tanking by implementing lower odds on the NBA's worst teams to gain the top picks in the draft, league sources said.
...
Currently, the teams with the three worst records have an ascending chance of winning the No. 1 pick, including (No. 3) 15.6 percent, (No. 2) 19.9 percent and (No. 1) 25 percent.
The NBA's proposal would flatten those odds and give the three teams with the worst record the same percentage of earning the No. 1 overall pick, league sources said. Now, the worst record to the fifth-worst record is a gap of 25 percent to 8.8 percent, but new legislation would tighten that difference significantly, league sources said.
I have heard of paragraphs; I just decided toHoly mother of God, have you ever heard of a paragraph?
Edit: I do agree with most of your post though.
I can't comment too much on the first part (talking about tanking) since I don't really have a solution for this yet. All I know is that I would like this to be changed. I will give props to the 76'ers for seeing a window of opportunity, but personally I I hate the idea.Woj reported that they're looking to reform the lottery.
Personally I don't think this will be effective in any way. All it does is make it easier to tank, if anything, since you only need to be 3rd worst instead of the worst. If they truly want to deincentivise tanking, they'd have to give the teams something to play for. It wouldn't make any sense to give the best non-playoff team the best odds at the first overall pick, since they theoretically need the pick the least, so to speak. I don't have a solution to this, but neither do I have a problem with it.
I also disagree with the league trying to force teams not to rest players. If they truly want to put the best product on the floor night in and night out, they can easily reduce the number of games, or reduce the number of back-to-backs and 4-games-in-5-nights by spreading the season out a bit more (which they have done for this upcoming season).
Does anyone have a stance on this? I'm just bored and need some NBA talk lol.
They're never going to reduce the number of games, the NBA would take a hit in TV revenue as well as gate revenue.I also disagree with the league trying to force teams not to rest players. If they truly want to put the best product on the floor night in and night out, they can easily reduce the number of games, or reduce the number of back-to-backs and 4-games-in-5-nights by spreading the season out a bit more (which they have done for this upcoming season).
Remember with Kyrie and LeBron, Love didn't get a ton of ball time. I will agree that his value isn't as high as it was in Minnesota, but he's still worth something. And he'd really help the Celtics out. Imagine Kyrie-Brown-Hayward-Love-Horford. That's REALLY good.Love has no value IMO. He's still serviceable, but long gone is the Minnesota Kevin Love who was a nightly 20-20 threat and he's not worth that massive deal he's on. Definitely not worth giving up what Jayson Tatum could be plus another pick. The Cavs really don't have any assets left to make any trades apart from that newly acquired Brooklyn first, which they value highly.
But then what makes you think he'll get more ball time in Boston with Kyrie, Brown, Hayward and Horford? He's probably still the 3rd option at best in that scenario, like he was in Cleveland. He's essentially a spot up shooter who can rebound well at the moment, not someone worth that contract. The Cavs are still trying to win this season, as long as LeBron neither commits to stay nor leave. Trading him for a rookie in Tatum doesn't help them in that department.Remember with Kyrie and LeBron, Love didn't get a ton of ball time. I will agree that his value isn't as high as it was in Minnesota, but he's still worth something. And he'd really help the Celtics out. Imagine Kyrie-Brown-Hayward-Love-Horford. That's REALLY good.
Yeah I agree, I don't like the idea of extending Wiggins at this point. Would rather wait to see how this season pans out for him and the team together.Minnesota’s Andrew Wiggins is progressing toward a five-year, $148M maximum extension, hopeful to sign soon, sources tell The Vertical.
Bold move given that he's probably going to be a third option behind KAT and Butler, and they all need the ball to be effective. Not sure why they won't see how the roster plays out if they're going to offer him the max anyway.