Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011 LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 268

Thread: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

  1. #176
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,129

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's not even considering how they went from a consistently good team with Pau Gasol
    I guess I didn't realize going 0-12 three straight years in the playoffs was considered a "good team." Those were the only three years Memphis had better than 30 wins with Pau, btw.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  3. #177
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    5,310

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    1) We didn't scare the Heat. We took two games off a team reeling from the loss of a player better than any of ours.

    2) In 2010 the Grizzlies brought in Shane Battier. In 2011 they brought in Agent Zero (malcontent high risk). This year they let their 6th man Mayo go and brought in Jerryd Bayless (malcontent high risk). That's not even considering how they went from a consistently good team with Pau Gasol, traded him for picks (HUGE RISK), and brought in ZBo (HUGE RISK) in order to get to these last 3 years. Sorry, you don't have a counter point, the Grizzlies have taken monster risks to get to be a contender.
    Bringing in Shane Battier is not a risk. He's about as low risk as you can have. He helped mentor a young team, and then was gone 2 yrs later. Outside of that, he has zero affiliation with this group that are now contending.

    They brought in Agent Zero to come off the bench, and he was signed to a 1yr minimum contract. That doesn't show that they had much faith in him becoming ANYTHING but a bench scrub on that team.

    They let Mayo go because they couldn't pay him, and brought in a cheap replacement. Had the Pacers done so, ppl like you would bash them for being cheap, not praising them for taking the risk of letting him go. They brought in Randolph 4 years ago, but yeah he was a big risk. The season prior to bringing him in though? 24-58 record. So yeah, they NEEDED to take that risk because they had nothing to lose anyways.

    And last but not least, they weren't consistently good with Pau. They had 3 good seasons (50 wins, 45, and then 47 followed by a horrible 22-60 season) and didn't win a single playoff game in that time (again had the Pacers done so, ppl like you would say that we were okay with being mediocre) they then were a poor team that hit the reset button mid season in 2007-08 and traded Pau away for Marc, 2 1st rd picks (neither picks were of much use to the team in Dante Greene and Grevis Vasquez) and a bunch of scrubs that they allowed to expire. They were then bad for another season before they signed Z-Bo.

    SO by my count thats 2 risks, one "big" and another that was more necessary than it was risky. So yes, I do have a counter point. Thanks though
    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 12-18-2012 at 01:59 PM.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Ace E.Anderson For This Useful Post:


  5. #178
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,064

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Bosh better than any player on this team. When will people learn. Bosh is not better than Danny, West, or now Paul. He has never been better than Danny. He and West are probably on par with each other. George is now playing at the same level as a player like Wade. If you want to task about last year, Hibbert was playing at a similar level to Bosh also. Bosh would hardly be the best player on the Pacers if he was brought here. Most overpaid player, probably, but not the best.

  6. #179
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,043

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You're exactly right Nunt, they wouldn't be called risks if they couldn't go bad. However, you don't win anything by always playing it safe. You do all the information gathering you can, try to get the odds as much in your favor as possible...but you can always roll snake eyes. OKC went through ~5 rough years transitioning off of the perennially good, but never great, Ray Allen/Reshard Lewis team. Now they get the better part of a decade of being championship contenders. 100% worth it in my mind. So yea, I'm willing to trade away all my vets and develop my youth and collect lottery picks. That isn't where this team has been in position to do this year or last year, but it certainly was 5 years ago.

    This particular team is in a position more akin to the very good, but not great, Pistons team recently where they took a BIG risk in bringing in a "locker room cancer" Rasheed Wallace. He could have brought that team down with his antics. Instead he lifted them up to the title. They risked it though. If you want a title you need big talent, and to acquire talent you have to take risks. A lot of people thought we'd win the title the brawl year...but it was a big risk, having Ron Artest, a known problem child, Jack, a known problem child, and Tinsley, a known problem child, all on the same roster. We ended up rolling snake eyes. Hey, that sucks, but we could have won it all, and the team is still here. If we ever want a title, we will have to take new risks, I know that's true.
    I agree that a team needs to take risks and that you seldomly win anything by playing it safe.

    But are the Pacers really in a position to take risks? I don't think that they are.

    Let me explain a bit why I think that they are not a position to take risks.

    As I already mentioned, the Pacers are 26th in attendance. The team was good last year but people still didn't come to the games. The team was primed for a big run this year but still the improvement in season tickets was small. Indianans are not yet fully behind the Pacers. They are not loyal to the Pacers yet. They are loyal to the Colts, IU, Butler, ND, IUPUI, IPFW, and what have you but not the Pacers. Not yet, at least.

    There is a small core of loyal fans that will follow the Pacers regardless. But are those enough to let the team stand financially when the rest of the town turns its back on the Pacers? I don't think so.

    To take those risks, a team needs to have a number of loyal fans. They need to have fans willing to back them up and come to games even if those risks don't pay out and the team sucks as a result. They need to have the fans that the Warriors have. But we don't.

    If we take a risk and it fails then the attendance would fall to an all-NBA low. And that's the last thing that an owner wants.

    If we take a risk and it succeeds then the attendance will only be mediocre. I don't think that the Pacers will top the NBA in attendance even if they win a championship. They are treated horrily by a vast majority of the citizens and media of Indiana. It's really sad

    To recap some things. A team can take risks only if they know that their fans have their backs and will go to games, no matter what.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  8. #180
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,064

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I agree that a team needs to take risks and that you seldomly win anything by playing it safe.

    But are the Pacers really in a position to take risks? I don't think that they are.

    Let me explain a bit why I think that they are not a position to take risks.

    As I already mentioned, the Pacers are 26th in attendance. The team was good last year but people still didn't come to the games. The team was primed for a big run this year but still the improvement in season tickets was small. Indianans are not yet fully behind the Pacers. They are not loyal to the Pacers yet. They are loyal to the Colts, IU, Butler, ND, IUPUI, IPFW, and what have you but not the Pacers. Not yet, at least.

    There is a small core of loyal fans that will follow the Pacers regardless. But are those enough to let the team stand financially when the rest of the town turns its back on the Pacers? I don't think so.

    To take those risks, a team needs to have a number of loyal fans. They need to have fans willing to back them up and come to games even if those risks don't pay out and the team sucks as a result. They need to have the fans that the Warriors have. But we don't.

    If we take a risk and it fails then the attendance would fall to an all-NBA low. And that's the last thing that an owner wants.

    If we take a risk and it succeeds then the attendance will only be mediocre. I don't think that the Pacers will top the NBA in attendance even if they win a championship. They are treated horrily by a vast majority of the citizens and media of Indiana. It's really sad

    To recap some things. A team can take risks only if they know that their fans have their backs and will go to games, no matter what.
    Or you can tell him that we took a risk on a player coming off an ACL injury who was in his 30's, which for a lot of players would either decrease their ability or possibly even end their career.

    We also took the risk of trading away our first round pick for a player who could have easily been gone the next year.

    Oh we also took a risk on Lance. A low risk, but still a risk.

    We also took a risk in trading away DC.

    See we have taken risks just people like him don't want to see it as it is easier to keep arguing than it is to accept the facts and admit you are wrong.

  9. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Eleazar For This Useful Post:


  10. #181
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,043

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The Pacers admitted failure by benching a player they signed this off season with 22 games into the season is that prove enough to you or should we wait one more year?
    Is the DJ that has played for the Pacers the same DJ that played the last years in Charlotte? His numbers certainly disagree. That's why he was benched.

    I don't see it as admitting failure. I see it as benching someone who is underperforming at an all-career low level.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  12. #182
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,043

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Or you can tell him that we took a risk on a player coming off an ACL injury who was in his 30's, which for a lot of players would either decrease their ability or possibly even end their career.

    We also took the risk of trading away our first round pick for a player who could have easily been gone the next year.

    Oh we also took a risk on Lance. A low risk, but still a risk.

    We also took a risk in trading away DC.

    See we have taken risks just people like him don't want to see it as it is easier to keep arguing than it is to accept the facts and admit you are wrong.
    You know that they don't consider them a risk, my friend.

    If it isn't a star, it isn't a risk. If it isn't for someone overhyped, it isn't a risk. If it isn't for someone with superstar potential, it isn't a risk. If it isn't for someone who constantly makes it in SportsCenter and is crazy athletic, it isn't a risk (of course, they will be moaning about his BBIQ afterwards). If it isn't for someone who can take the opponent 1v5, it isn't a risk (of course, they'll call him a chucker when he does).

    Those are the risks that they want. They don't care for calculated risks. They want flashy trades.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  14. #183
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,367

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    If 3 straight years of 45-50 wins in the West isn't an example of being consistently good, but not great, I don't know what to tell you other than you are wrong.

    They took big risks, went from good, to awful, to better, to better, to good, great. As they got better they took smaller and smaller risks but they never stopped changing their top 8.

    Lance a risk? Drafting a second rounder is risky to you guys? Do you sometimes drive 1 mph over the speed limit for a thrill too? Signing West was a risk, I agree, and it took a weak team and made it a good team. Good isn't enough though, more risks to be taken. Giving away DC wasn't a risk, that was just foolish. A risk has to have a potential upside.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Dece For This Useful Post:


  16. #184
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,367

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You know that they don't consider them a risk, my friend.

    If it isn't a star, it isn't a risk. If it isn't for someone overhyped, it isn't a risk. If it isn't for someone with superstar potential, it isn't a risk. If it isn't for someone who constantly makes it in SportsCenter and is crazy athletic, it isn't a risk (of course, they will be moaning about his BBIQ afterwards). If it isn't for someone who can take the opponent 1v5, it isn't a risk (of course, they'll call him a chucker when he does).

    Those are the risks that they want. They don't care for calculated risks. They want flashy trades.
    Nuntius you are better than this strawman. West was a risk, the other 2 clearly weren't, as per my post.

  17. #185
    Redemption. docpaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Noblesville, IN
    Posts
    1,685

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Nuntius you are better than this strawman. West was a risk, the other 2 clearly weren't, as per my post.
    I think what he's saying is that picking up Green in FA was a risk. As was shuffling the backup PG position. As was betting long term on Mahinmi.

    He is just asking for a balanced look at both sides of the argument, that's all.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to docpaul For This Useful Post:


  19. #186
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,043

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The Spurs are actually a great example of an organization that continually takes risks to stay on top the field. They gave up a good known quantity for an entirely unknown draft pick, because they didn't want to (or couldn't) pay him. They take on malcontents, see Jax on their roster right now. They play young guys extended minutes whether they are ready or not, see the development of Hill, Kawhi, and Blair. That team makes significant changes to their top 8 every year, and they are not afraid to let pieces go in a risk to get even better. So no, the Spurs never "blow it up" when they fail to win it, they don't trade Duncan away, but they don't stand pat either Seth.
    All of those are minor risks, though. They keep their core of 3 HOFers and a HOF coach.

    Ow, and despite playing in a smaller market than Indiana the fans support them no matter what.

  20. #187
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,043

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Nuntius you are better than this strawman. West was a risk, the other 2 clearly weren't, as per my post.
    I agree that the presentation of my post is highly aggressive, emotional, ironic and in general a strawman. But that's just how I feel.

    docpaul did a better job in presenting my point than me. I'm not always level headed

  21. #188
    Redemption. docpaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Noblesville, IN
    Posts
    1,685

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    All of those are minor risks, though. They keep their core of 3 HOFers and a HOF coach.

    Ow, and despite playing in a smaller market than Indiana the fans support them no matter what.
    I swear, you are like my PD doppelgnger. Your views almost 100% line up with my take on things.

    Therefore, you are my poster of the year!

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to docpaul For This Useful Post:


  23. #189
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,129

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If 3 straight years of 45-50 wins in the West isn't an example of being consistently good, but not great, I don't know what to tell you other than you are wrong.
    It's just highlighting your dedication to calling other teams good, and then complaining about the Pacers.

    You say this year is ring or bust, but then you argue how good a team is that was swept three consecutive years in the playoffs? Seems like a pretty big disconnect from the way you look at the Pacers to the way you look at other teams.

    I doubt you'd call the Pacers good, if they get swept this year in the playoffs. Will you or would you?

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  25. #190
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,367

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    It's alright man, I understand. I've made more than one overly aggressive emotional post here.

    For what its worth I'm sure I'd enjoy a beer with any of y'all.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Dece For This Useful Post:


  27. #191
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,043

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by docpaul View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I swear, you are like my PD doppelgnger. Your views almost 100% line up with my take on things.

    Therefore, you are my poster of the year!
    Thank you

  28. #192
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    5,310

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's just highlighting your dedication to calling other teams good, and then complaining about the Pacers.

    You say this year is ring or bust, but then you argue how good a team is that was swept three consecutive years in the playoffs? Seems like a pretty big disconnect from the way you look at the Pacers to the way you look at other teams.

    I doubt you'd call the Pacers good, if they get swept this year in the playoffs. Will you or would you?
    That was the point I made with my earlier post. The Grizzlies got to where they were OVER TIME. The Pacers are just 3 seasons removed from the lottery, we are at the BEGINNING of the process that a team like Memphis is currently at the end of.

  29. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ace E.Anderson For This Useful Post:


  30. #193
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,542

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    I don't really understand the argument of "risk-taking vs. playing it safe." It doesn't have to be one or the other. In fact it never is one or the other. It's how people view the situation. For every "risk" that a team makes his neighbor can look at the same roster move and feel it's not a risk at all. The Rasheed Wallace trade, for example. It's been said he was a locker room cancer. But the Pistons had a very stable locker room and I think every Pacer fan that year was dismayed when they heard they had added Rasheed.

    Let's look at the past few NBA titles and evaluate their risk taking.

    Miami Heat

    Unless you consider cornering the superstar market and acquiring 3 of the best players available in a stacked year a risk, they didn't take any. They grabbed their superstars and surrounded them with veterans and shooters.

    Dallas Mavericks

    They signed Tyson Chandler to a core that had been there at least 2 years. That is hardly a risk, as he was a known quantity at the defensive end. They had had years of being mostly first and second round exits, with a couple longer trips thrown in. Sounds like the kind of team you hate.

    LA Lakers x2

    They have money to spend and exist in a warm climate area. Dont tell me the Lakers take risks. They literally sit back and wait until superstars become malcontent on other teams and take on their big expensive contracts because teams don't want to lose them for nothing. It is what they have done for years, they buy their players. They don't really draft them. I suppose you could say it's a risk, but it's really not since it's been proven superstars will almost always choose LA over other teams.

    Boston Celtics

    Added Kevin Garnett and and Ray Allen to Paul Pierce and a very good defenisve point guard in Rondo. They gave up expiring contracts, draft picks, and spare parts for 2 of the better players at their position in the game.

    I'm sure you could look more closely at their roster moves and determine risks that they may have taken. But my point is that if you want to win and you are consistently making risks with your top 5-6 players, you're probably not going to be successful. Teams win because they add in key supporting players to a good core or slam-dunk stars that will fit in on any team.

    It's not about risk, it's whether or not you think the core of the team is good enough. And I think our performance last year as one of the youngest teams in the league coupled with the defensive prowess we've shown this year are proving that the core of our team is good enough.
    Last edited by aamcguy; 12-18-2012 at 03:24 PM.

  31. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to aamcguy For This Useful Post:


  32. #194
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,043

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Seems like a pretty big disconnect from the way you look at the Pacers to the way you look at other teams.
    That's what confuses me the most, to be honest.

    The Pacers are not held on the same standards that all the other teams in the league are. Of course, that's to be expected since this is a Pacers forum. So, you expect some homerism as people tend to be biased towards their teams. But instead the opposite is more prevalent. Counter-homerism is more popular than homerism around here.

    And that's just weird. I can get that people have higher expectations of the Pacers since they are their team. But hold them to a fair standard at least. As bad as blind homerism is, blind counter-homerism is even worse.

  33. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  34. #195
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    West was a risk and they got an A for it, Green and Ian was not a risk it was a bad decision, trading DC was not a risk but a ridiculous decision and George Hill was not a risk, a lot of people knew that he had the potential to be the players he is, I wanted to trade a pick for him for a long time.

  35. #196
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,367

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That was the point I made with my earlier post. The Grizzlies got to where they were OVER TIME. The Pacers are just 3 seasons removed from the lottery, we are at the BEGINNING of the process that a team like Memphis is currently at the end of.

    They got to where they are by being willing to take a step back. I was here on this board when they traded Pau. Do you have any idea how lambasted they were? They were killed as the worst franchise ever, it's the worst trade in history they cried. They are better than us now. They risked going from good, to never being good again. They are now being rewarded by being better than they ever were before. It's a long term game fellas. I don't say good as a compliment, being just good isn't good enough. You have to aspire to be great. If you ever get to a place where you are stuck at good and can't get better, ala the Pau Grizzlies team, you tear it down and try again. You risk not getting back to where you started, but you also have a chance to become great.

    We are only at the beginning if you consider the beginning the good, but not great, Grizzlies teams the beginning. We are good. We are, with Danny back we're a 50 win team. Good. We aren't great. We won't win a championship. We need to take a risk, such as they did, and try to be great. I'm not saying we gotta give our best player away for picks, the Memphis route isn't the only one, but we can't do nothing either. Simply resigning our guys and not adding talent will not get us there.

  36. #197
    billbradley
    Guest

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    West was a risk and they got an A for it, Green and Ian was not a risk it was a bad decision, trading DC was not a risk but a ridiculous decision and George Hill was not a risk, a lot of people knew that he had the potential to be the players he is, I wanted to trade a pick for him for a long time.
    What's the difference between a bad decision and a risk that ends badly?

  37. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to billbradley For This Useful Post:


  38. #198
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,367

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Miami Heat

    Unless you consider cornering the superstar market and acquiring 3 of the best players available in a stacked year a risk, they didn't take any. They grabbed their superstars and surrounded them with veterans and shooters.


    Of course this was a risk. It's not like it was a forgone conclusion they were all going to sign with the Heat. Chicago was in the running. New York was in the running. New Jersey was in the running. If they jettisoned all that cap space they did in preparation and instead got say... oh... Amare on an overpaid contract exactly as what happened to the Knicks, then they aren't winning a title in Miami.

    Dallas Mavericks

    They signed Tyson Chandler to a core that had been there at least 2 years. That is hardly a risk, as he was a known quantity at the defensive end. They had had years of being mostly first and second round exits, with a couple longer trips thrown in. Sounds like the kind of team you hate.


    So they didn't take a risk on bringing in Tyson fresh off injury or the nearly mummified Jason Kidd in hopes he could still hoop at 90 years old? Wrong again. I remember LOTS of people saying Jason didn't have any game yet and that Tyson was overpaid.

    LA Lakers x2

    They have money to spend and exist in a warm climate area. Dont tell me the Lakers take risks. They literally sit back and wait until superstars become malcontent on other teams and take on their big expensive contracts because teams don't want to lose them for nothing. It is what they have done for years, they buy their players. They don't really draft them. I suppose you could say it's a risk, but it's really not since it's been proven superstars will almost always choose LA over other teams.


    It wasn't a risk to bring in Ron Artest? This is the last place I should have to explain the risks of that. It wasn't risky to trade for Nash and Dwight? Look how well that's going for them. Sure, they have advantages, but let's not pretend they don't make risky moves to get better.

    Boston Celtics

    Added Kevin Garnett and and Ray Allen to Paul Pierce and a very good defenisve point guard in Rondo. They gave up expiring contracts, draft picks, and spare parts for 2 of the better players at their position in the game.


    They collected all those expiring contracts and draft picks and sucked hardcore along the way. They risked Paul demanding a trade, they risked their fan base, what if all that sucking didn't give them the 5th pick which they flipped for KG, what if the lottery gave them the 12th pick. Now they sucked and gutted their roster....but they don't have KG and Ray Ray to show for it. No risk? Are you serious?

  39. #199
    billbradley
    Guest

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    This is mind boggling. Every move a team makes is a risk. From the Murphleavy trade to Hibbert, it's all a risk. The more risk you take doesn't equate to a championship and to try and quantify risk level is beyond stupid.

  40. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to billbradley For This Useful Post:


  41. #200
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,367

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Also on the Celtics: what if our management wasn't bad at drafting and we got Rondo while they got Shawne Williams. How many titles do they have now? zero.

Similar Threads

  1. Windhorst: Thunder still rolling without Harden [ESPN]
    By RoboHicks in forum NBA Headlines (RSS Feeds)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-28-2012, 03:00 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-28-2012, 01:30 PM
  3. Thunder intend to keep both Harden and Ibaka
    By Sparhawk in forum Trade Proposals
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-15-2012, 07:00 PM
  4. Miami And Chicago Discussed Deal Involving Gordon, Marion
    By MillerTime in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-18-2008, 11:52 PM
  5. {Pacers.Com} Is deal for #1 pick being discussed ?
    By Frank Slade in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-21-2006, 10:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •