What's new
By:

Who could we trade for?

Cy said:
What?
Click to expand...

You are making one argument(we can/should play with 2 PGs like Phoenix). You are shown that this argument sucks(they will never go anywhere with those 2 PGs at max deals)! You move the goalposts to accommodate a new version of your argument(Exum is actually 6'6'' and shouldn't be thought of as a PG strictly). By which time your initial argument has absolutely nothing to do with the current one simply because Exum is nothing like any of Phoenix' PGs and you want to use him as something completely different(more like SG who can sometimes play PG/ballhandler). The Phoenix example becomes meaningless and irrelevant if this is your argument.

And if this is it, then we can of course argue how this one works out. I'm much more likely to agree with that argument... but I still like Exum much better as a primary ballhandler in the long-run.
 
stitches said:
You are making one argument(we can/should play with 2 PGs like Phoenix). You are shown that this argument sucks(they will never go anywhere with those 2 PGs at max deals)! You move the goalposts to accommodate a new version of your argument(Exum is actually 6'6'' and shouldn't be thought of as a PG strictly). By which time your initial argument has absolutely nothing to do with the current one simply because Exum is nothing like any of Phoenix' PGs and you want to use him as something completely different(more like SG who can sometimes play PG/ballhandler). The Phoenix example becomes meaningless and irrelevant if this is your argument.

And if this is it, then we can of course argue how this one works out. I'm much more likely to agree with that argument... but I still like Exum much better as a primary ballhandler in the long-run.
Click to expand...

Again you are making no sense and you are limiting the players by putting positional titles that don't mean anything on them. We can get a player that is considered a PG or SG, it doesn't matter. If you want to call them PG's fine, if you want to call them Rounded Tips then that is fine too. Y
 
I am talking about playing role, not positions... I'm just using the classical understanding of positions to explain the expectations for the playing role. For example - will he be running the pick and rolls(and what % of the time)? Will he be the primary ballhandler(and in what % of the possessions)? Will he be the one getting the team into sets(and what % of the time)? Will he be catch and shooting? Will he be coming off screens for either a slash or a shot? Will he be slashing to the basket? And so on... Even Phoenix with their 2 PGs system have either one of the PGs assuming the primary playmaker role in huge majority of the possessions, while the other one plays off the ball.

Will you make Ty Lawson or Rondo play off the ball and how often so you can have a 2 PG system with Exum playing a significant portion of the time the playmaker role? The only reason Phoenix' system works is that both Dragic and Bledsoe actually can play the off-the-ball playing role as well as they can play the playmaking role.
 
Cy said:
Reggie Jackson

Are teh Thunder going to match on him? I give them Trey Burke, Kanter, Burks, and a future 1st rounder. We would have to take a contract back like Perkins to make it work probably. Not sure I like Jackson or would want to pay him in RFA, but just spitballing some names.
Click to expand...

No they won't be able to match him they're at 64 million next year in committed salaries for 9 players. Plus they have Adams, Lamb, and Jones in the future to think about.
It is a pretty ripe trade situation for us. A Harden-lite type of deal.

Obviously he isn't as good as Harden, but Jackson has near elite athleticism and a freak 7' wingspan which are the type of things you want to gamble on. I have no idea what they are looking for to get back in a trade though. Would they be happy with Burke and a pick? They probably would want Gobert and a pick.
 
Any trade that improves us immediately could possibly change our pick from around 5 to around 10. Can't get too excited for that. If a trade happens this year, it should be for something that doesn't **** up our pick.
 
Sounds like Hayward 2.0

Reggie Jackson still doesn’t own a car. He drives a Hyundai on a sweetheart lease with an Oklahoma City dealership. He’d use a moped, but understands that’s probably a bad idea. He shops for his clothes on the Macy’s and H&M clearance racks, forever searching for the double markdown – red sticker clumped upon red sticker. “I just need to look presentable on the walk from the bus into the arena,” Jackson told Yahoo Sports. “My goal every day, basically, is to not get fined for the dress code. I’ve never needed much. “I’m a minimalist.” Yahoo! Sports
 
Jazz4ever said:
Sounds like Hayward 2.0

Reggie Jackson still doesn’t own a car. He drives a Hyundai on a sweetheart lease with an Oklahoma City dealership. He’d use a moped, but understands that’s probably a bad idea. He shops for his clothes on the Macy’s and H&M clearance racks, forever searching for the double markdown – red sticker clumped upon red sticker. “I just need to look presentable on the walk from the bus into the arena,” Jackson told Yahoo Sports. “My goal every day, basically, is to not get fined for the dress code. I’ve never needed much. “I’m a minimalist.” Yahoo! Sports
Click to expand...

I like Jackson if we can get rid of Burks. I definitely like Jackson more than Burks.
 
Cy said:
You are dumb. Good players win games, not positons. Get the best players, figure it out later. Having a 6'6 guy who can play PG gives you a ton of flexibility. It would be beyond ****ing retarded to ignore that flexibility and focus solely on SG's. Don't be dumb.
Click to expand...

Stitches is legit.

Having said that, I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top