What's new

The Non-Jazz NBA Thread in the Jazz Section

I’ll let HH speak for himself but he’s not comparing them to those guys but demonstrating the principle at play with obvious precedents, which obviously bias toward more known guys. But, in any case, Stephen Jackson is actually a pretty good comp for skill level.
Yup... even mentioned Bison Dele... which is a pretty decent comp imo.
 
Wood is way better than Dele, though. And I thought he would have been pretty good had he (BDub) signed with us rather than Chicago.
Is he?

I know Wood in a vacuum is a better player than a lot of players, but basketball isnt played in a vacuum, especially by role players.

That's the reason why Wood always fails, because his game shrunken down to a role player level is a negative.
 
Wood is way better than Dele, though. And I thought he would have been pretty good had he (BDub) signed with us rather than Chicago.
Its pretty hard to have a bad minimum signing... kind of like second round picks. The cost is so low.

Dele was lightening in a bottle. More talented than a minimum player and had some way more serious demons he dealt with. Wood seems to have some maturity issues, may not be the smartest basketball player in the world, and wants a bigger role... maybe its deeper than that.

Its kind of hard to have Wood's individual volume and efficiency and not have some of that benefit the team. They also have the infrastructure to harness difficult personalities... even if he is just name brand Thomas Bryant... he will exceed minimum contract value.
 
Hoop collective today... per Tim McMahon. Kidd was not consulted on the Wood trade. He did not want Wood... he wanted McGee and promised him a starting gig. Kidd did not communicate with Wood at the start of the season... only assistants would. Then they had the weird quotes on media day about role. Does this to Wood in a contract year.

Shocked it didn't work out in Dallas.
 
wood is clearly very skilled. it's a win to get him on a minimum deal. if lebron can incorporate him into the team, give him confidence and get him playing hard, this has the chance to be a huge boon for them. if not, if none of that happens, it's a minimum deal - they lose nothing. it's a low risk with potentially high reward. iow, both hh and cy can be right here. 29 other teams didn't sign wood - for good reason, but 29 other teams don't have lebron.
 
wood is clearly very skilled. it's a win to get him on a minimum deal. if lebron can incorporate him into the team, give him confidence and get him playing hard, this has the chance to be a huge boon for them. if not, if none of that happens, it's a minimum deal - they lose nothing. it's a low risk with potentially high reward. iow, both hh and cy can be right here. 29 other teams didn't sign wood - for good reason, but 29 other teams don't have lebron.
He very likely had other offers/opportunities at the min. He got the player option. I'm guessing Lakers would be most players first choice if they have to take a min.
 
Hoop collective today... per Tim McMahon. Kidd was not consulted on the Wood trade. He did not want Wood... he wanted McGee and promised him a starting gig. Kidd did not communicate with Wood at the start of the season... only assistants would. Then they had the weird quotes on media day about role. Does this to Wood in a contract year.

Shocked it didn't work out in Dallas.
This is another issue of power imbalance and a generalized trust in institutions over individuals. Here the argument is all about Wood’s toxicity. Wood being an individual, it’s easy to do this. Kidd, on the other hand, represents someone above this, embedded within a structure where admin more fully “vets” them before putting them in power. It’s easier for us to acknowledge problematic flaws on the “lower level” guys but believe there’s an aura of expertise that gives rise as you move farther up the chain. Kidd’s actual toxicity, on the other hand, is known (but ignored) when his actual examples of toxicity are quite specific and not just these vague, hushed breathings that Wood has mostly as reputation. There’s just a huge irony in pointing to this situation in Dallas, knowing Kidd’s history, then believing Wood is in a vacuum.
 
This is another issue of power imbalance and a generalized trust in institutions over individuals. Here the argument is all about Wood’s toxicity. Wood being an individual, it’s easy to do this. Kidd, on the other hand, represents someone above this, embedded within a structure where admin more fully “vets” them before putting them in power. It’s easier for us to acknowledge problematic flaws on the “lower level” guys but believe there’s an aura of expertise that gives rise as you move farther up the chain. Kidd’s actual toxicity, on the other hand, is known (but ignored) when his actual examples of toxicity are quite specific and not just these vague, hushed breathings that Wood has mostly as reputation. There’s just a huge irony in pointing to this situation in Dallas, knowing Kidd’s history, then believing Wood is in a vacuum.
Dallas has largely been a dysfunctional org and Kidd has his own past. If you are going to make a the best of a talented knucklehead you have to be ready to commit attention and resources to them… it seemed like the opposite from day one. Yet Wood still produced and didn’t have any big reported issues or completely check out. If the worst you can say about a guy is he wants a bigger role then I think toxic might be an overstatement. It’s a pretty common human trait. Even if he complained while doing the job he was asked… like he still did the job. Dallas’ slide last year had a lot more to do with letting their second best player walk for nothing and a few role guys being out or in slumps.

Lots of guys take a minute to figure out where they fit in the grand scheme of things. Some never figure it out. Our very own JC was labeled a selfish empty calorie scorer before coming to a good team and embracing a role that best suited him. Ham seems like the type of guy that manages personalities well. I hope Wood doesn’t find self awareness and lean into his role because he’s a Laker… if he does though… damn.
 
Like why is WIll Hardy playing Rudy Gay? Maybe because there are real negatives to having these negative guys on your team and it's overall just better to appease them with something if you are in the unfortunuate position of having them.

According to your posts that season that hardy played rudy gay the reason he was playing was because he was awesome. Might have just been you doing your contrarian thing doe.
 
Wood might very well be the problem he's talked as, but every team he got to play was crap and disfunctional before him. You can't point to a single scene and say "things were fine there and then Wood came and it was all downhill".

If the Lakers can get their sh*t toghether (big if, but for the first time since they got their title they made an offseason that makes sense), that will problably be the best situation he's ever been to actually fit in, instead of getting to just show up as a headcase.
 
It was implied due to you always bringing up stuff like plus minus stats to justify Gays playing time.
Was he the best option at some points because of how bad everything else was and that he simply provided size? Yes.

That's not saying he was awesome and you're being a dishonest clown.
 
Was he the best option at some points because of how bad everything else was and that he simply provided size? Yes.

That's not saying he was awesome and you're being a dishonest clown.
Man it must feel really rough to have someone take something nuanced and dumb it down to one misconstrued exaggeration. You say that’s “dishonest clown” behavior huh.
 
Top