Search results

Exactly. He has zero value, so he probably will be playing for us next year. Maybe we can get rid of him at next years trade deadline. He's more cooked than burnt turkey pot pie.

J-Kidd and Al Jensen are going to have to suit up if they're not careful.

I'd do your first trade, but I'm not sure that N.O. does. I'd pass on the second trade. I'm ready to trade Markk, but not for VanVleet and a single 1st. I'm meh on the 3rd trade, a potential better bite at the apple? Sure I guess.

However, Lauri knew what the plan was going to be before he signed his big, juicy extension. If they tanked in the middle of his contract would be one thing, but he could have easily declined the offer and decide to go elsewhere when his contract is up. He's all about the money (as he should be).

So 3 games ago, they lost by 50 something 2 games ago, they lost by 40 something 1 game ago, they lost by 30 something I call this trending up. They'll be on a winning streak in 3 games.

Man, you already pollute RealGM with your garbage that make the rest of the Jazz fanbase look stupid, we don't need your bad takes here too.

Yeah maybe, but it was especially jarring last night.

Did anyone else think the camera work of the game was not so good. It was so zoomed in on a lot of the plays that when a quick pass happened, those were missed because it's too difficult to pan back an forth when that zoomed in. And they didn't use that angle we all know that's so common of the...

I think part of this is that we actually have a pretty good starting line-up, but Hardy starts substituting everybody out around the 6 minute mark of the 1st quarter. He doesn't return the starters all together until there's around 4-5 minutes left in the half. If you saw Minnesota last night...

To me, Randle is like a modern day Al Jefferson. Sure, a pretty good player, but hasn't ever shown that they're very conducive to winning. Let somebody else overpay him. I'd rather keep Collins if this is the only trade that presents itself.

Go to any NBA forum, and you will find multiple threads about to many 3's. These are the people who are really watching basketball, people are sick of watching a crappy, boring product. I'm going to take my argument over yours.

I would agree that there are many reasons, like you state, for the decrease in viewership. But the rise in the reliance on the 3 point shot and analytics does have a part to play as well.

Are you under 30? If not, how would you know what that demographic thinks about the current NBA? What I know is that NBA viewership has decreased by 48% since 2012, which coincidentally is when the "rise of the 3" really became a thing in the NBA, and has become more prevalent with each passing...

Maybe a little bit of hyperbole, but I'm not off by much. The Celtics are taking over 50 a game. I think my point stands.

Because teams aren't spamming 60 18 footers a game. Teams aren't passing out of a fast break, so they can take an 18 footer. Bigs aren't getting offensive rebounds and even though they're under the basket for an easy put back, are passing it out to guys to take an 18 footer.

Yeah, it would be more difficult to keep track of. If I were the league I would de-emphasize calling the 3 second rule in the lane, and focus more out on the line. These dudes are way too comfortable, and the product sucks to watch. At least try to keep them honest.

I'm not suggesting they eliminate it. Just to make it a little bit harder for teams to camp two guys on each corner.

If you're going to keep the 3 point line, they should create a 3 second violation for the dudes camping out on the corner 3. That will make sure the players have to keep moving and can't just run to their spot. Mark it out from 10 feet out from the baseline.

We've got a pro's pro named Jordan Clarkson who is happy to take that role. And as an added bonus, he'll throw it away a lot too!