January 2020 General NBA Game Thread

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
What gets close to the Pels package is basically the future boat of draft picks, which had added value because the Lakers are on the old side and the picks come after their immediate window is likely closed.
This. Ingram was considered, if not a throw-in, certainly not the key to the package. The #4 pick helped, but it was those future picks that swung the deal.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Don’t remember where it was being discussed but Marquese Chriss is back with the Warriors on a two-way deal.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
Stoked!
View: https://twitter.com/MarcJSpearsESPN/status/1217158151264444418

Toldja the Warriors liked him. I'd assume the two-way deal came with a wink-wink promise of a guarantee/extension, too, as soon as they can clear some more $$ against the hardcap. For now, all they've done is flip his contract status with that of Damion "Splash Brother-in-Law" Lee.

Beyond his diverse skillset and vastly improved efficiency, all the coaches and players (including "Assistant GM " Draymond) really seemed to like him. His defensive switchability and passing skills also fit really well with Omari Spellman, who's now starting at C, hitting 43% from 3, and with 50 lbs. of unwanted weight dropped since the Summer looks like he may be a future foundational piece. I think some GMs are gonna regret not taking a flier on Chriss when they had the chance.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,124
Santa Monica
Stoked!
View: https://twitter.com/MarcJSpearsESPN/status/1217158151264444418

Toldja the Warriors liked him. I'd assume the two-way deal came with a wink-wink promise of a guarantee/extension, too, as soon as they can clear some more $$ against the hardcap. For now, all they've done is flip his contract status with that of Damion "Splash Brother-in-Law" Lee.

Beyond his diverse skillset and vastly improved efficiency, all the coaches and players (including "Assistant GM " Draymond) really seemed to like him. His defensive switchability and passing skills also fit really well with Omari Spellman, who's now starting at C, hitting 43% from 3, and with 50 lbs. of unwanted weight dropped since the Summer looks like he may be a future foundational piece. I think some GMs are gonna regret not taking a flier on Chriss when they had the chance.
Nice move, good call. Does this give the GSW's any kind of signing rights this summer?

wonder if that puts WCS back in play?
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
Nice move, good call. Does this give the GSW's any kind of signing rights this summer?
Seems like, yeah:
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/wcgoldberg/status/1217163379522985984


wonder if that puts WCS back in play?
I’d guess yes. I go back and forth on WCS, but am back off the train after watching him get chewed up and spit out in the Grizz game by Valanciunas. His ability to bang with other seven-footers was his notional advantage over Chriss, Spellman and Looney; if he can’t do that, I’d rather go small full-time and stretch the floor / run the seven-footer off the floor (as Spellman had done the previous game vs. Zubac and the Clips).
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
And yet some here and beyond still pine for a traditional big like a Drummond. If you cannot defend the hair and ears of the '19-20 chart effectively, you will be exposed, regardless of all the cool stuff you can do like at the nose and mustache of the '01-02 chart.

If I am advising TimeLord and Tacko, I tell them that their largest payday comes from defense starting at the arc, being credible at FTs, being able to make an occasional three and lastly, good low post offensive play. And frankly that last one is just icing.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Stoked!
View: https://twitter.com/MarcJSpearsESPN/status/1217158151264444418

Toldja the Warriors liked him. I'd assume the two-way deal came with a wink-wink promise of a guarantee/extension, too, as soon as they can clear some more $$ against the hardcap. For now, all they've done is flip his contract status with that of Damion "Splash Brother-in-Law" Lee.

Beyond his diverse skillset and vastly improved efficiency, all the coaches and players (including "Assistant GM " Draymond) really seemed to like him. His defensive switchability and passing skills also fit really well with Omari Spellman, who's now starting at C, hitting 43% from 3, and with 50 lbs. of unwanted weight dropped since the Summer looks like he may be a future foundational piece. I think some GMs are gonna regret not taking a flier on Chriss when they had the chance.
Wink-wink promise of a guarantee??? Chriss was just told NO by every single team in the league this week. Not exactly a position of leverage for him.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
I don't know why they'd let a 10-year-old play with a bunch of 5-year-olds, but then again I'm not a basketball coach.

This. Ingram was considered, if not a throw-in, certainly not the key to the package. The #4 pick helped, but it was those future picks that swung the deal.
And how much are we going to enjoy watching the post-Lebron/AD Lakers fall from grace and then have to just give away the best assets they'd be able to use to get back to respectability again, year after year? God, I can't wait for the bottoming-out. Just as long as someone can beat them the next few postseasons.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
Damn, Kawhi. The Clippers are absolutely destroying the Cavs by 33 at the start of the fourth but Leonard has 43 points in 29 minutes on 14-22 shooting with four assists, three boards, two steals and a block. I don't usually GAF about single game plus/minus but his is an eye popping +39 (Shamet has +37 and Harkless has a +35).

In any event, do we know if anyone performed a Turing test on Kawhi?

Its 2020. Media should be essential.

View: https://twitter.com/BleacherReport/status/1217314664855437312?s=20
 
Last edited:

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Let me guess. He’s the big kid who should be moved up to the next age range. Right?
Won‘t know for sure unless we see him get an offensive rebound and then bring the ball down to his ankles to get stripped by a small guard because he doesn’t have the lift to score.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,695
lovegtm said:


This. Ingram was considered, if not a throw-in, certainly not the key to the package. The #4 pick helped, but it was those future picks that swung the deal.

And how much are we going to enjoy watching the post-Lebron/AD Lakers fall from grace and then have to just give away the best assets they'd be able to use to get back to respectability again, year after year? God, I can't wait for the bottoming-out. Just as long as someone can beat them the next few postseasons.
I mean, none of us can get in the head of a GM/VP, but prior to arriving in NO Griffin publicly expressed how much he loved Ingram's game and by all accounts I've read he was the key piece. And, btw, Ingram was playing great last year prior to his blood issue or whatever it was. The idea that future picks was the key element and Ingram a throw in/not key seems...far-fetched.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
I mean, none of us can get in the head of a GM/VP, but prior to arriving in NO Griffin publicly expressed how much he loved Ingram's game and by all accounts I've read he was the key piece. And, btw, Ingram was playing great last year prior to his blood issue or whatever it was. The idea that future picks was the key element and Ingram a throw in/not key seems...far-fetched.
Sure, the thing is, Ingram was always on the table. The deal closed because the Lakers mortgaged 3 consecutive future drafts (and in a way that also ties up the picks in sandwiching years).
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
Even if true about Griffin's love for him, Ingram is going to be paid market value very soon, much like the guy taken right after him now is. The value - production minus cost - of him being on the team is about to shrink dramatically. Meanwhile, those future picks, some of which might well end up high lottery, will provide NO with a lot more value in the future, in their next contention window, by giving them low-paid players likely to be productive, which they can match with stars that are at that point expensive.

That's frankly going to be Ainge's challenge to keep a title contender together, and doubly so if he doesn't retain Hayward, or ends up actually having to pay Smart something approaching his real worth. As good as the Jays are, if the rest of the rotation is dreck they're not going anywhere.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
Even if true about Griffin's love for him, Ingram is going to be paid market value very soon, much like the guy taken right after him now is.
...
I think this point is often overstated for young players with a strong upward trajectory, especially wings. This isn't the NFL, where a key part of a title window is having cost-controlled guys to fill in gaps. They key in the NBA is collecting difference makers, and you fill in the rest later. You'd far prefer to pay Ingram ~$30M/year with a decent chance he exceeds that contract than you would to have him even decently outperforming ~$8M/year.

Once you already have 2-3 real difference makers in their prime, then you can start drafting for "win-now" type older college players, hoping to bink on those "outperforming their $3M rookie deal" guys and signing serviceable but unexciting vets to fill in gaps.

New Orleans needs premium talent around Zion--the size of Ingram's contract is much less important than whether he has a chance to be an offensive alpha (which is looking a lot better now than it was a year ago).

If you end up with too much premium talent then you figure things out then--you have the strongest negotiating hand in the NBA at that point.

Of course the optimal is to get access to the guy's age 24-28 upside and have a below-max contract, which is why the Brown and Sabonis contracts were quite good bets for Boston and Indy even without hindsight.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
If you end up with too much premium talent then you figure things out then--you have the strongest negotiating hand in the NBA at that point.
Tell it to Wyc's accountant after he sees the luxury tax bill. Or Clay Bennett's. These things need very careful planning and seem to always go awry in the era of free agency.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
Tell it to Wyc's accountant after he sees the luxury tax bill. Or Clay Bennett's. These things need very careful planning and seem to always go awry in the era of free agency.
I mean, Bennett and OKC handled that about as badly as humanly possible because of their unwillingness to go into the tax even for a bit. And even then, because they still had premium talent, they had an elite team for awhile (with awful injury luck).

As far as NO goes though, they don’t have 4 All-Stars: they have some very promising young guys. You don’t prioritize the value over contract delta until you have the All-Stars.

Tons of guys who end up elite don’t give that value until their 2nd contract If you continually worry about losing “cost-controlled” years before you have a few of those guys, you never end up with any of those guys.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
Well, look, even if you're not milking quite as big a fraction of value out of the cost-controlled years as you do in the NFL (or to a lesser extent, MLB), it's still a factor - you still need both overall production as well as good value in order to maximum the production on your roster. You have to look at it through a value lens. How much of Golden State's pre-Durant success was from getting on-court production before they had to pay top value for that production?

2013-14: Bogut and David Lee at $14 each, Iguodala at $13. Steph (PER 24.1, WS 13.4, +15.1 on-off per 100) at $10, Klay (14.3, 6.7, +15.5) at $2.3, Dray (12.7, 4.5, -0.1 but +27.6 in playoffs) at $900k. Team went 51-31, lost in 7 to Clips in first round. Lee (19.1, 7.6, +11.2) was an impact player.
2014-15: Bogut $13, Lee at $15, Iguodala $12.3. Steph (28.0, 15.7, +18.1) takes his first MVP while making $10.6, Klay (20.8, 8.8, +12.3) is now a monster too for only $3.1, and Dray (16.4, 8.5, +14.6) shot up to star status while still making $915k. Team went 67-15 and pretty much romped to a title without ever facing a serious threat.
2015-16: Lee is gone, Bogut still at $12, Iguodala $11.7. Steph (31.5, 17.9, +22.6) repeats as MVP while still making $11.4, Klay (18.6, 8.0, +12.7) gets kinda paid and goes to $15.5, as does Dray (19.3, 11.1, +26.3) who at $14.3 is still massively underpaid. With a rotation rounded out by a young but capable Harrison Barnes and Livingston, they roll of course to 73-9 and a famous, shocking Game 7 loss in the Finals.
2016-17: They sign Durant for $26.5M because of the huge cap jump, but two-time-defending-MVP Steph Curry was still at $12.1 and everyone else important only had their annual 8% raises. They go 16-1 in the playoffs, enough said.

I mean it's impossible to look at that and not conclude that the run was both enabled by superstar performances getting paid rotation dollars, and also sustained and extended (them signing Durant, repeating as champs, then going to the Finals in 2018 again) by that same brilliance-or-good-fortune in cap management.

Even dealing with RFA contracts like Smart and Brown, before you start risking a supermax on any of your all-stars, seems like a fraught endeavor. Where are those superstars getting paid a fraction of their true worth going to come from? We can keep Tatum at 1st-contract dollars this year and next, but he (and Jaylen) got too good too fast for us to give them "Steph and Klay and Dray 2nd contract" dollars, i.e. 24yo Steph signing 4/$44 in 2012 (partly due to health worries), 24yo Klay signing 4/$70 in 2014, and 25yo Draymond signing 5/$82 in 2015. But for every bargain like those (or Marcus Smart), you've got tons of situations where either:
(A) the guy you hoped would become a star maybe performs adequately to his signed value, but doesn't shoot up and give you huge excess value, or
(B) the guy you're sure is going to be a star proves it before payment is due, and ends up getting maxed or nearly so with his 2nd contract

Maybe threading that needle is just luck, I don't know, but it's what I worry about. Hence looking at Ingram and seeing excess value today but probably market value tomorrow.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
Well, look, even if you're not milking quite as big a fraction of value out of the cost-controlled years as you do in the NFL (or to a lesser extent, MLB), it's still a factor - you still need both overall production as well as good value in order to maximum the production on your roster. You have to look at it through a value lens. How much of Golden State's pre-Durant success was from getting on-court production before they had to pay top value for that production?

2013-14: Bogut and David Lee at $14 each, Iguodala at $13. Steph (PER 24.1, WS 13.4, +15.1 on-off per 100) at $10, Klay (14.3, 6.7, +15.5) at $2.3, Dray (12.7, 4.5, -0.1 but +27.6 in playoffs) at $900k. Team went 51-31, lost in 7 to Clips in first round. Lee (19.1, 7.6, +11.2) was an impact player.
2014-15: Bogut $13, Lee at $15, Iguodala $12.3. Steph (28.0, 15.7, +18.1) takes his first MVP while making $10.6, Klay (20.8, 8.8, +12.3) is now a monster too for only $3.1, and Dray (16.4, 8.5, +14.6) shot up to star status while still making $915k. Team went 67-15 and pretty much romped to a title without ever facing a serious threat.
2015-16: Lee is gone, Bogut still at $12, Iguodala $11.7. Steph (31.5, 17.9, +22.6) repeats as MVP while still making $11.4, Klay (18.6, 8.0, +12.7) gets kinda paid and goes to $15.5, as does Dray (19.3, 11.1, +26.3) who at $14.3 is still massively underpaid. With a rotation rounded out by a young but capable Harrison Barnes and Livingston, they roll of course to 73-9 and a famous, shocking Game 7 loss in the Finals.
2016-17: They sign Durant for $26.5M because of the huge cap jump, but two-time-defending-MVP Steph Curry was still at $12.1 and everyone else important only had their annual 8% raises. They go 16-1 in the playoffs, enough said.

I mean it's impossible to look at that and not conclude that the run was both enabled by superstar performances getting paid rotation dollars, and also sustained and extended (them signing Durant, repeating as champs, then going to the Finals in 2018 again) by that same brilliance-or-good-fortune in cap management.

Even dealing with RFA contracts like Smart and Brown, before you start risking a supermax on any of your all-stars, seems like a fraught endeavor. Where are those superstars getting paid a fraction of their true worth going to come from? We can keep Tatum at 1st-contract dollars this year and next, but he (and Jaylen) got too good too fast for us to give them "Steph and Klay and Dray 2nd contract" dollars, i.e. 24yo Steph signing 4/$44 in 2012 (partly due to health worries), 24yo Klay signing 4/$70 in 2014, and 25yo Draymond signing 5/$82 in 2015. But for every bargain like those (or Marcus Smart), you've got tons of situations where either:
(A) the guy you hoped would become a star maybe performs adequately to his signed value, but doesn't shoot up and give you huge excess value, or
(B) the guy you're sure is going to be a star proves it before payment is due, and ends up getting maxed or nearly so with his 2nd contract

Maybe threading that needle is just luck, I don't know, but it's what I worry about. Hence looking at Ingram and seeing excess value today but probably market value tomorrow.
Agree re the Steph contract, but your analysis ignores the cap jumps, and so the raw numbers don't tell the story. Basically when you look at those 2013-2016 GSW contracts, you need to add 50-100% to all salaries to make the correct comparison.

The cap for 2014-2015 was $63M, for 2015-2016 $70M. So at the time Klay signed, he was 25% of the cap (taking into account annual raises), and Draymond was about 21%. The projected cap for 2020-2021 is 116M, so Brown is around 21-22%.

If Tatum and Brown make leaps, you're left in a really similar salary position to those early GSW teams, with Kemba being the big money guy and Tatum giving one more year before the contract hits, and even then you're fien, since Smart's $12M is like a $7M contract on those GSW teams.

Once you compare apples to apples, you realize that the Celtics will be fine for salary structure if Tatum and Brown develop. If they don't, you're screwed anyway. And if you think they need to turn Hayward into something else in the next two years because of salary structure, I'd totally agree.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
Very good point, thanks.

And while it's probably better discussed in his own thread, I suppose the alternative to "turn Hayward into something" is "exercise his Bird rights and have Wyc pay through the nose as a result". That option has far more certainty, just a lot more tax pain - unless he agrees to something less than the max. But I can imagine him taking a "good but not max salary" if he has continued injury concerns but also maintains good productivity and chemistry on court - he might decide that hedging his risk with an understanding and supportive organization is the way to go, and Ainge/Wyc might decide that whatever they could get in replacement won't take them close to a title so it's worth it to them too.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
Very good point, thanks.

And while it's probably better discussed in his own thread, I suppose the alternative to "turn Hayward into something" is "exercise his Bird rights and have Wyc pay through the nose as a result". That option has far more certainty, just a lot more tax pain - unless he agrees to something less than the max. But I can imagine him taking a "good but not max salary" if he has continued injury concerns but also maintains good productivity and chemistry on court - he might decide that hedging his risk with an understanding and supportive organization is the way to go, and Ainge/Wyc might decide that whatever they could get in replacement won't take them close to a title so it's worth it to them too.
Hayward is in the exact spot in his career (solid but without much chance of future improvement) where I think that (barring the low salary scenario you outlined) you need to turn him into multiple role players + assets. On a team where Kemba+Jay+Jay are really good, I'd rather have a Wesley Matthews type, a lunchpail center or two, and some future draft assets to grease the minor trade deadline upgrades contenders always want, or to find cost-controlled role players in the draft.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
Hayward is in the exact spot in his career (solid but without much chance of future improvement) where I think that (barring the low salary scenario you outlined) you need to turn him into multiple role players + assets. On a team where Kemba+Jay+Jay are really good, I'd rather have a Wesley Matthews type, a lunchpail center or two, and some future draft assets to grease the minor trade deadline upgrades contenders always want, or to find cost-controlled role players in the draft.
I have no issue with your view that moving Hayward is the best long term move for Boston.

That said, unless a an unexpected deal for an impact player arises, trading him for some rotational players and draft picks more than likely weakens the team this season. That may not matter given how good some of the elite squads are this year - I still don't know what to make of the Celtics overall chances this season yet.

However, I do know this - I would strongly prefer any of the Cs young guys or the Plumber or Semi getting run to Wes Matthews. Fortunately he isnt on the market but the guy is the son of a bricklayer and a stone mason. I know that you were referring to a type of player but that guy can't shoot. He grades as a good defender for his size, seems like a decent locker room guy and he tries, however he is pretty terrible in one area where Boston could use an upgrade, especially if you were to part with Hayward.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
I have no issue with your view that moving Hayward is the best long term move for Boston.

That said, unless a an unexpected deal for an impact player arises, trading him for some rotational players and draft picks more than likely weakens the team this season. That may not matter given how good some of the elite squads are this year - I still don't know what to make of the Celtics overall chances this season yet.

However, I do know this - I would strongly prefer any of the Cs young guys or the Plumber or Semi getting run to Wes Matthews. Fortunately he isnt on the market but the guy is the son of a bricklayer and a stone mason. I know that you were referring to a type of player but that guy can't shoot. He grades as a good defender for his size, seems like a decent locker room guy and he tries, however he is pretty terrible in one area where Boston could use an upgrade, especially if you were to part with Hayward.
This is more about the long-term Hayward outlook. If there’s no deal this year that’s fine. I think he’s a good, non-washed player, who doesn’t fit in the 2021+ salary structure and would have more value to other teams.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,124
Santa Monica
This is more about the long-term Hayward outlook. If there’s no deal this year that’s fine. I think he’s a good, non-washed player, who doesn’t fit in the 2021+ salary structure and would have more value to other teams.
If the Warriors feel Gordon is a better fit then D.Lo going forward there are probably some interesting 3-team trades with a tanker that could work well for the Celtics.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
Covington, Dieng and Okogie would look pretty nice in green. Mitchell Robinson (plus expiring salary ballast) too.

Edit: plus I really like the "generational synergy" of Steph-Klay-Hayward-Green, even if (depending on what happens with injuries, their draft pick, Spellman, Paschall, Looney, et al.) they'd probably fall a bit short of a title.



(Clockwise from Draymond, factoring in health): 9, 5, 11, 10, 12, 2, 7, 8, 4, 3, 6, 1.
 
Last edited:

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
Really happy to see Fultz have a great game in LA.
Including 11 boards and 10 dimes and a steal in beating the Lakers in LA.

He is a fascinating NBA story not because of what has already transpired - but what he will eventually become. He is another player with an odd assortment of skills but he is now looking like someone who might have a really interesting NBA career.

The "30 For 30" after he retires (or will it be "50 For 50" by then?) will be epic.
 

gingerbreadmann

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
750
Including 11 boards and 10 dimes and a steal in beating the Lakers in LA.

He is a fascinating NBA story not because of what has already transpired - but what he will eventually become. He is another player with an odd assortment of skills but he is now looking like someone who might have a really interesting NBA career.

The "30 For 30" after he retires (or will it be "50 For 50" by then?) will be epic.
He looked really good, with the caveat that I only saw the highlight reel. He's really comfortable around the basket either finding the open man or finishing in traffic. Magic are one of those league pass teams that are always entertaining. All their guys are easy to root for individually and collectively.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Really happy to see Fultz have a great game in LA.
Fultz is turning into a real feel good story. It's also another example about opportunity being so important in this league and how opponents relax while becoming vulnerable when they are facing a shorthanded team. Last night the Magic played without every guard on their roster aside from Terrance Ross.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
Fultz is turning into a real feel good story. It's also another example about opportunity being so important in this league and how opponents relax while becoming vulnerable when they are facing a shorthanded team. Last night the Magic played without every guard on their roster aside from Terrance Ross.
Yeah, everyone in the NBA (except Yabu) is there for a reason, and the difference between dominance and losing is basically the energy you bring that night.

Re Fultz: the East is getting pretty interesting if Orlando turns out to finally have a real scoring guard.
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Jokic first 19 games: 30.8 minutes, 14.9 points, 10.1 rebounds, 6.2 assists on .451/.222/.776 shooting.
Last 21 games: 31.4 minutes, 22.9 points, 9.6 rebounds, 6.6 assists on .557/.432/.810 shooting.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
RoCo to the North End (with Dieng and draft picks). Hayward and Okogie to SoMa.
Meh. I don't think Ainge does that but you never know. Covington would be a good fit and Okogie has some skills. But the Cs probably cannot afford the downgrade in offense from Hayward to whatever they get in return. And that Covington contract is not great either.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Haven't given it much thought, but why is MIN trading Teague + for Crabbe? To save some money?
It seems to be a clear indication a Russell deal is about done. They save around $2m, open up a roster spot, and swap expiring contracts to add a wing shooter in Crabbe who will presumably take some of Covington's wing minutes while moving a PG so there isn't a logjam once Russell arrives. It's more for roster balance than to save money but if you can save $2m in the process why the heck not.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Nuggets bench guys get opportunity on national stage in Oakland on TNT playing with half their rotation out and they respond by spotting the Warriors 20 in the 1Q. Second night of road B2B but man.....this is your time to shine and you lay an egg.

Edit: Of course they have Chriss on Jokic right now so things could change quickly if the Warriors cool off from 3.
 
Last edited:

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,406
around the way
Nuggets bench guys get opportunity on national stage in Oakland on TNT playing with half their rotation out and they respond by spotting the Warriors 20 in the 1Q. Second night of road B2B but man.....this is your time to shine and you lay an egg.

Edit: Of course they have Chriss on Jokic right now so things could change quickly if the Warriors cool off from 3.
Wish I had caught the end of that game. Nuggets outscored the dubs 21-18 in overtime.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
Wish I had caught the end of that game. Nuggets outscored the dubs 21-18 in overtime.
Malik Beasley had a great game and carried Denver down the stretch. Jokic is so disruptive and he Plumlee and Porter Jr. (who is quickly becoming a factor for Denver) controlled the boards and essentially wore Golden State down.

As a side note, the Warriors play everyone tough typically and they are going to be a problem down the stretch if/when Curry and Thompson return. They aren't likely to compete for the last seed at all but they may well impact the overall WC playoff picture more than some think as they get healthier.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,387
I'd love to see that up against the top 200 shots from, say, 1985-86.

Per Team Per Game (scoring)
1985-86: 110.2
2001-02: 95.5
2019-20: 110.6

Per Team (FG%)
1985-86: 48.7%
2001-02: 44.5%
2019-20: 45.6%

Per Team (3pt FG%)
1985-86: 28.2%
2001-02: 35.4%
2019-20: 35.4%

Per Team Per Game (3pt FGA)
1985-86: 3.3
2001-02: 14.7
2019-20: 33.6

What's crazy is that despite shooting just 3.3 three pointers per game, teams averaged almost the same number of points per game in 1985-86 compared to 2019-20.
 
Last edited: