I think for IT's sake (and not even coming from a Lakers fan), it's good if he truly came to the realization that he is more likely a Lou Will/Crawford scoring guard off the bench. It would allow him to have a longer career IMO and teams would be more interested in that over someone who claims he needs to start.
He scored 20 points 71 times out of 76 games last season. More than our entire starting lineup COMBINED. He scored 53 points in the playoffs... TEN months ago. Can you really visualize anyone on our team going for 53 in the playoffs right now? Yet still he's agreed he's open to coming off the bench.
If you were in his place watching inferior players guaranteed to start in front of you... would you be so generous?
My point is that he has been very cool considering he's playing behind 20 year olds who have proved nothing... and you act like he's an irrational malcontent.
I get the vision of the team... and I agree with all of you that we should pursue the vision of two way players. But when an all time great scorer falls into your lap and is willing to be a sub... a smart person considers that an opportunity and doesn't look the gift horse in the mouth.
Does Sacramento have cap space? I could see them throwing a decent sized short-term deal his way. He has a connection to the team, they're terrible and need to drum up interest somehow (not to mention that they can afford to take the risk since they're going nowhere anyway), and they'll justify it by calling him a "mentor" to Fox. A better managed team would recognize that Fox needs more minutes and the ball in his hands to be successful, both of which will be issues with IT on board, but these are the Vivek Ranadive-era Kings. Perfect fit.
Yup, they have space. An nice 20m for one-year of his services wouldn't be terrible, IMO. He can stick it to Boston by winning games and tanking the pick that's owed to them (maybe win 35 games and give a #7-10 pick instead of 20 games and a #1-3 pick)
Knowing their FO, it'll be a four-year deal or something. They're still paying for MATT BARNES of all people, stretching him out when they could've (should've) just let his deal expire naturally last season.
I think for IT's sake (and not even coming from a Lakers fan), it's good if he truly came to the realization that he is more likely a Lou Will/Crawford scoring guard off the bench. It would allow him to have a longer career IMO and teams would be more interested in that over someone who claims he needs to start.
He scored 20 points 71 times out of 76 games last season. More than our entire starting lineup COMBINED. He scored 53 points in the playoffs... TEN months ago. Can you really visualize anyone on our team going for 53 in the playoffs right now? Yet still he's agreed he's open to coming off the bench.
If you were in his place watching inferior players guaranteed to start in front of you... would you be so generous?
My point is that he has been very cool considering he's playing behind 20 year olds who have proved nothing... and you act like he's an irrational malcontent.
I get the vision of the team... and I agree with all of you that we should pursue the vision of two way players. But when an all time great scorer falls into your lap and is willing to be a sub... a smart person considers that an opportunity and doesn't look the gift horse in the mouth.
Unfortunately you can't just laud what happened 10 months ago b/c he's obviously been riddled with a major hip injury. Otherwise, he'd probably be on the Cavs.
And again, scoring isn't the complete measurement. I'd prefer Lou Will over IT actually if we're talking just that. It's the whole package including defense that concerns me. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
But when an all time great scorer falls into your lap and is willing to be a sub a smart person considers that an opportunity and doesn't look the gift horse in the mouth.
That's a trojan horse, my friend.
"Oh yeah I'm cool being a 6th man and playing 20 minutes a game, where do I sign?"... fast forward to December... "Isaiah Thomas says he should be starting over Ball, get final shots over Paul George, and should probably player-coach the team too. That's what I signed up for!!"
I think for IT's sake (and not even coming from a Lakers fan), it's good if he truly came to the realization that he is more likely a Lou Will/Crawford scoring guard off the bench. It would allow him to have a longer career IMO and teams would be more interested in that over someone who claims he needs to start.
He scored 20 points 71 times out of 76 games last season. More than our entire starting lineup COMBINED. He scored 53 points in the playoffs... TEN months ago. Can you really visualize anyone on our team going for 53 in the playoffs right now? Yet still he's agreed he's open to coming off the bench.
If you were in his place watching inferior players guaranteed to start in front of you... would you be so generous?
My point is that he has been very cool considering he's playing behind 20 year olds who have proved nothing... and you act like he's an irrational malcontent.
I get the vision of the team... and I agree with all of you that we should pursue the vision of two way players. But when an all time great scorer falls into your lap and is willing to be a sub... a smart person considers that an opportunity and doesn't look the gift horse in the mouth.
Unfortunately you can't just laud what happened 10 months ago b/c he's obviously been riddled with a major hip injury. Otherwise, he'd probably be on the Cavs.
And again, scoring isn't the complete measurement. I'd prefer Lou Will over IT actually if we're talking just that. It's the whole package including defense that concerns me.
I wanted Lou Williams... said it over and over until the Clippers signed him.
Now I'm saying the same about IT IF we don't get LBJ/PG.
I just said scoring isn't the complete measurement... I just said I agreed with the two way plan... but in my opinion the best organizations find way to integrate opportunities into their lineup and don't just have tunnel vision that don't allow for adjustment. IT is a plan B... how many more times will I have to say it?
But when an all time great scorer falls into your lap and is willing to be a sub a smart person considers that an opportunity and doesn't look the gift horse in the mouth.
That's a trojan horse, my friend.
"Oh yeah I'm cool being a 6th man and playing 20 minutes a game, where do I sign?"... fast forward to December... "Isaiah Thomas says he should be starting over Ball, get final shots over Paul George, and should probably player-coach the team too. That's what I signed up for!!"
The only way he says this is if he actually plays well. At which point you have a good decision to make. You either trade him for a draft pick or you put him in the starting lineup if Ball still can't shoot.
He won't demand to start unless he's clearly outplaying Lonzo. As any normal competitive athlete would by the way...
IT is a plan B... how many more times will I have to say it?
We know it. You just keep saying it.
And I will continue as long as the season is going and you keep saying he won't work with this team.
Not really sure where you're going with this. I've also said I'd consider him Plan B/C on a 1 year deal. It's like you're itching for an IT confrontation? _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
IT is a plan B... how many more times will I have to say it?
We know it. You just keep saying it.
And I will continue as long as the season is going and you keep saying he won't work with this team.
Not really sure where you're going with this. I've also said I'd consider him Plan B/C on a 1 year deal. It's like you're itching for an IT confrontation?
I feel like I'm only providing balance to your message. You are a good poster who argues convincingly and says your points over and over. To be honest if you stopped, I'd post half as much on this topic.
IT is a plan B... how many more times will I have to say it?
We know it. You just keep saying it.
And I will continue as long as the season is going and you keep saying he won't work with this team.
Not really sure where you're going with this. I've also said I'd consider him Plan B/C on a 1 year deal. It's like you're itching for an IT confrontation?
I feel like I'm only providing balance to your message. You are a good poster who argues convincingly and says your points over and over. To be honest if you stopped, I'd post half as much on this topic.
But I've repeatedly said he would be in consideration of Plan B/C, granted if it's a 1 year deal. That his best role (and you seem to agree) is a 6th man scorer.
So I ask again, what is the discontent? _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
IT is a plan B... how many more times will I have to say it?
We know it. You just keep saying it.
And I will continue as long as the season is going and you keep saying he won't work with this team.
Not really sure where you're going with this. I've also said I'd consider him Plan B/C on a 1 year deal. It's like you're itching for an IT confrontation?
I feel like I'm only providing balance to your message. You are a good poster who argues convincingly and says your points over and over. To be honest if you stopped, I'd post half as much on this topic.
But I've repeatedly said he would be in consideration of Plan B/C, granted if it's a 1 year deal. That his best role (and you seem to agree) is a 6th man scorer.
So I ask again, what is the discontent?
One year, one year, over and over like a mantra. One year is ideal for us, but it might not get it done. I'd be happy with one year because I feel it would give Lonzo another full year to get his shot in order and to monitor his durability. But I don't think it gets us IT. It also allows us to see if either our draft pick pans out, or if Caruso is a reliable sub.
But if we don't get both PG/LBJ... yes I will continue to beat the drum for IT... and you will continue to say 1 year over and over. Don't see why I can't say my opinion over and over if you say yours. You believe 1 year is the only way... I think 2 or even 3 is fine. I think if Kawhi comes available we can trade him... even use IT as an asset in a 3 way.
Respect your opinion, but as I said... I just want to supply some balance.
IT is a plan B... how many more times will I have to say it?
We know it. You just keep saying it.
And I will continue as long as the season is going and you keep saying he won't work with this team.
Not really sure where you're going with this. I've also said I'd consider him Plan B/C on a 1 year deal. It's like you're itching for an IT confrontation?
I feel like I'm only providing balance to your message. You are a good poster who argues convincingly and says your points over and over. To be honest if you stopped, I'd post half as much on this topic.
But I've repeatedly said he would be in consideration of Plan B/C, granted if it's a 1 year deal. That his best role (and you seem to agree) is a 6th man scorer.
So I ask again, what is the discontent?
One year, one year, over and over like a mantra. One year is ideal for us, but it might not get it done. I'd be happy with one year because I feel it would give Lonzo another full year to get his shot in order and to monitor his durability. But I don't think it gets us IT. It also allows us to see if either our draft pick pans out, or if Caruso is a reliable sub.
But if we don't get both PG/LBJ... yes I will continue to beat the drum for IT... and you will continue to say 1 year over and over. Don't see why I can't say my opinion over and over if you say yours. You believe 1 year is the only way... I think 2 or even 3 is fine. I think if Kawhi comes available we can trade him... even use IT as an asset in a 3 way.
Respect your opinion, but as I said... I just want to supply some balance.
Frankly you're going after the wrong guy. There are folks here who think he's complete garbage (he's not) and they don't have him on Plan A, let alone Plan Z. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
IT is a plan B... how many more times will I have to say it?
We know it. You just keep saying it.
And I will continue as long as the season is going and you keep saying he won't work with this team.
Not really sure where you're going with this. I've also said I'd consider him Plan B/C on a 1 year deal. It's like you're itching for an IT confrontation?
I feel like I'm only providing balance to your message. You are a good poster who argues convincingly and says your points over and over. To be honest if you stopped, I'd post half as much on this topic.
But I've repeatedly said he would be in consideration of Plan B/C, granted if it's a 1 year deal. That his best role (and you seem to agree) is a 6th man scorer.
So I ask again, what is the discontent?
One year, one year, over and over like a mantra. One year is ideal for us, but it might not get it done. I'd be happy with one year because I feel it would give Lonzo another full year to get his shot in order and to monitor his durability. But I don't think it gets us IT. It also allows us to see if either our draft pick pans out, or if Caruso is a reliable sub.
But if we don't get both PG/LBJ... yes I will continue to beat the drum for IT... and you will continue to say 1 year over and over. Don't see why I can't say my opinion over and over if you say yours. You believe 1 year is the only way... I think 2 or even 3 is fine. I think if Kawhi comes available we can trade him... even use IT as an asset in a 3 way.
Respect your opinion, but as I said... I just want to supply some balance.
Frankly you're going after the wrong guy. There are folks here who think he's complete garbage (he's not) and they don't have him on Plan A, let alone Plan Z.
Most people are inarticulate and therefore easily dismissed. You are much more convincing so require more attention. 90% of people who just say IT sucks over and over in a loop aren't worth addressing and I usually don't.
I guess I'm just so wedded to the FO's "sacred cap space" mantra. For me, I'd prefer if some of the 2019 FAs show their hands a bit more (i.e. KL taking/rejecting the supermax from the Spurs) so that the team may come to a point where they retain the best players and/or FAs on the market. I absolutely do not want to punt 2 max slots to 2019, so IT is in consideration for me, but under my 1 year term essentially as a "show me" deal (i.e. role and recovery from hip injury). _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
IT is a plan B... how many more times will I have to say it?
We know it. You just keep saying it.
And I will continue as long as the season is going and you keep saying he won't work with this team.
Not really sure where you're going with this. I've also said I'd consider him Plan B/C on a 1 year deal. It's like you're itching for an IT confrontation?
I feel like I'm only providing balance to your message. You are a good poster who argues convincingly and says your points over and over. To be honest if you stopped, I'd post half as much on this topic.
But I've repeatedly said he would be in consideration of Plan B/C, granted if it's a 1 year deal. That his best role (and you seem to agree) is a 6th man scorer.
So I ask again, what is the discontent?
One year, one year, over and over like a mantra. One year is ideal for us, but it might not get it done. I'd be happy with one year because I feel it would give Lonzo another full year to get his shot in order and to monitor his durability. But I don't think it gets us IT. It also allows us to see if either our draft pick pans out, or if Caruso is a reliable sub.
But if we don't get both PG/LBJ... yes I will continue to beat the drum for IT... and you will continue to say 1 year over and over. Don't see why I can't say my opinion over and over if you say yours. You believe 1 year is the only way... I think 2 or even 3 is fine. I think if Kawhi comes available we can trade him... even use IT as an asset in a 3 way.
Respect your opinion, but as I said... I just want to supply some balance.
Frankly you're going after the wrong guy. There are folks here who think he's complete garbage (he's not) and they don't have him on Plan A, let alone Plan Z.
If Plan A is the most preferred and Plan Z is a lower tier alternate, then did you mean to write:
There are folks here who think he's complete garbage (he's not) and they don't have him on Plan Z, let alone Plan A.
I guess I'm just so wedded to the FO's "sacred cap space" mantra. For me, I'd prefer if some of the 2019 FAs show their hands a bit more (i.e. KL taking/rejecting the supermax from the Spurs) so that the team may come to a point where they retain the best players and/or FAs on the market. I absolutely do not want to punt 2 max slots to 2019, so IT is in consideration for me, but under my 1 year term essentially as a "show me" deal (i.e. role and recovery from hip injury).
1 year is ideal... even for me... Believe it or not I agree with most of your principles of the team's vision and the two way philosophy. However, I don't know if Lonzo's shot can be easily fixed and I don't know if he can play 80 games and a playoff run, so I'm extra cautious about making sure we have cover for him. IT isn't perfect but he's undervalued right now so he could be a very valuable asset if we sign him for 5 to 10 million below his true value and use him in a trade to acquire AD or Kawhi. If you can sign a former all star at a cheap price, why not give him an extra year or two and then you can move him if something better comes along. And if Lonzo doesn't fully develop you can use him until we can trade for another two way player who fits our vision.
What I don't want is to see him walk and end up on Boston/Philly/OKC... one of our potential rivals. If he goes to the Knicks I can live with that because even if KP and IT turn into the new Stockton/Malone... they won't be more than a weaker Utah in the east.
There is risk in signing him... what if he gets injured after a few games next year. Complete disaster again. But there's risk in not signing him... what if he joins OKC after Melo leaves... what if he goes to play 6th man to Kyrie... what if he teams up with Simmons and Embiid?
Bottom line, if we don't get PG/LBJ... and it's not too expensive we should sign him... at least until Ball stays healthy for a full year and starts to shoot at least 40%.
I guess I'm just so wedded to the FO's "sacred cap space" mantra. For me, I'd prefer if some of the 2019 FAs show their hands a bit more (i.e. KL taking/rejecting the supermax from the Spurs) so that the team may come to a point where they retain the best players and/or FAs on the market. I absolutely do not want to punt 2 max slots to 2019, so IT is in consideration for me, but under my 1 year term essentially as a "show me" deal (i.e. role and recovery from hip injury).
You should be wedded to the sacred cap space mantra. All the FO has stated is they want to sign elite level fa's. If they strikeout on 2018 fa's, they will push it back to 2019. That means, they can only sign one guy thi s offseason to a multi year deal and I can't see that being Isaiah. Unless, of course, they are dumb enough to let Julius walk.
It wasn’t a bad shot for Thomas but there was no way in hell he was going pass the ball, that wasn’t an option in his mind. We were going to live or die with his shot. Which is why I hope we don’t see him in the game the last 5 minutes of the 4th.
That might be true but I'm not sure. Many games he's passed the ball to the open man (usually Randle) in the 4th Q more than shooting it himself.
The hate for IT reminds me of some friends who hated the casting of Daniel Craig for James Bond. He wasn't as handsome or as tall as other Bond's... so even though Casino Royale was way better than the past several Bond movies... they just b*tched and b*tched about it to no end... and felt vindicated when Quantum of Solace wasn't very good.
It's funny how men care so much about how their heroes look... even when they are completely straight and don't have a gay bone in their body.
That seems to me to have started with Jordan and I say that because Larry Bird served as a superstar right before him. Visual appeal wasn't as important until Mike made us notice. In his early NBA years, Larry retained the redneck garbage man look that he had when he quit the Hoosiers to join the French Lick Sanitation Dept. I wonder if Larry stood the cans back on the curb or if he just threw them, but that's one of those things we'll probably never know. Larry relished the redneck look even though John Cougar Mellencamp and David Lee Roth came from Bloomington, Indiana during the same time period. It was a conscious choice for Larry to slum as hard as he did, especially when he started making NBA money. That's contrary to the way he's always portrayed as po' white trash ignorant to his own station in documentaries. By 1979, you didn't have to be a hick if you didn't want to, even in Indiana. By 1987, Larry matured, got rid of the mullet and dressed more like he had attained a speck of worldliness after 7 years of travel, nice homes/cars/restaurants, and less and less interaction with the little folk.
Mike was savvy enough even in those ancient times to effect a certain "cool" or "fresh" (84 term) appearance in terms of how he wore his product. Nike had a yuge hand in that by hitting a home run with his first shoes in bold colorways that the NBA literally tried to whitewash and with snazzy 1984 off court gear. Note he wore that crap during his first dunk contest instead of the Bulls uni. He wore his gold chains, armband, leg cuff, socks in certain manner, and finally relented to shaving his head unlike Clyde and many other balding players of the day. He became the Ken doll of NBA players. His fans "fetishistically" enjoyed his look down to his gait (walking style) and tongue wagging and chewing his gum like a cow chewing cud.
Kobe became the next obvious player who amassed fetishists. That became evident with threads in years past showing pictures of his sweaty calves after a workout and people whining about a stint in 04 where he curiously wore floppy socks for the only time in his career (conspiracy theorists think he was hiding an ankle tracker). Others complained about his haircuts, his muscle mass or lack thereof, the bagginess of his jersey, his butterfly tattoo, etc. Others have sounded a lot like they hate that his wife exists.
It's true what you say about fetishists and marketing... A corollary story to Video Killed the Radio Star... A lot of the ugly bands from the sixties would never have made it during the video era. Not saying Jordan and Kobe weren't great players... they were... but a lot of fans became enamored with the whole image of the athlete beyond simply the play as it was during the Magic/Bird era.
Gotta give Nike credit... gotta be the shoes... be like Mike... all that branding bullsh*t works. It's how we get such sh*tty presidential candidates now too. All about advertising and less about content of character.
Off topic, but Christopher Cross is the example often cited as a casualty of early MTV, which is true. He had the two hits in 1980/81: "Sailing" and "Arthur's Theme" (from the movie with Dudley Moore). I liked that song as a kid. Sailing was on the radio a lot because disc jockeys played a lot of easy listening back then. Payola was there, but the American public actually likes easy listening no matter how much they deny it. That's why "Open Arms" was Journey's biggest radio hit. Anyway, Christopher was a fat, dowdy guy with curly hair who couldn't make it on MTV and his career was effectively over not only because of that, but because MTV made younger/"funner" British New Wave acts the new thing. Journey themselves were so hideous looking that they presented themselves as the band that stood against making videos, but that had to have been phony considering that they weren't Aerosmith, Van Halen, or Def Leppard in the looks dept. Still, they were still a solid rock band and that was helpful. There were still a bands good enough to cover for their looks. Foreigner was huge. Genesis/Phil Collins were huge stars. Phil was the man. The Cars, too. Ric Okasec wasn't exactly a looker.
It wasn’t a bad shot for Thomas but there was no way in hell he was going pass the ball, that wasn’t an option in his mind. We were going to live or die with his shot. Which is why I hope we don’t see him in the game the last 5 minutes of the 4th.
That might be true but I'm not sure. Many games he's passed the ball to the open man (usually Randle) in the 4th Q more than shooting it himself.
The hate for IT reminds me of some friends who hated the casting of Daniel Craig for James Bond. He wasn't as handsome or as tall as other Bond's... so even though Casino Royale was way better than the past several Bond movies... they just b*tched and b*tched about it to no end... and felt vindicated when Quantum of Solace wasn't very good.
It's funny how men care so much about how their heroes look... even when they are completely straight and don't have a gay bone in their body.
That seems to me to have started with Jordan and I say that because Larry Bird served as a superstar right before him. Visual appeal wasn't as important until Mike made us notice. In his early NBA years, Larry retained the redneck garbage man look that he had when he quit the Hoosiers to join the French Lick Sanitation Dept. I wonder if Larry stood the cans back on the curb or if he just threw them, but that's one of those things we'll probably never know. Larry relished the redneck look even though John Cougar Mellencamp and David Lee Roth came from Bloomington, Indiana during the same time period. It was a conscious choice for Larry to slum as hard as he did, especially when he started making NBA money. That's contrary to the way he's always portrayed as po' white trash ignorant to his own station in documentaries. By 1979, you didn't have to be a hick if you didn't want to, even in Indiana. By 1987, Larry matured, got rid of the mullet and dressed more like he had attained a speck of worldliness after 7 years of travel, nice homes/cars/restaurants, and less and less interaction with the little folk.
Mike was savvy enough even in those ancient times to effect a certain "cool" or "fresh" (84 term) appearance in terms of how he wore his product. Nike had a yuge hand in that by hitting a home run with his first shoes in bold colorways that the NBA literally tried to whitewash and with snazzy 1984 off court gear. Note he wore that crap during his first dunk contest instead of the Bulls uni. He wore his gold chains, armband, leg cuff, socks in certain manner, and finally relented to shaving his head unlike Clyde and many other balding players of the day. He became the Ken doll of NBA players. His fans "fetishistically" enjoyed his look down to his gait (walking style) and tongue wagging and chewing his gum like a cow chewing cud.
Kobe became the next obvious player who amassed fetishists. That became evident with threads in years past showing pictures of his sweaty calves after a workout and people whining about a stint in 04 where he curiously wore floppy socks for the only time in his career (conspiracy theorists think he was hiding an ankle tracker). Others complained about his haircuts, his muscle mass or lack thereof, the bagginess of his jersey, his butterfly tattoo, etc. Others have sounded a lot like they hate that his wife exists.
It's true what you say about fetishists and marketing... A corollary story to Video Killed the Radio Star... A lot of the ugly bands from the sixties would never have made it during the video era. Not saying Jordan and Kobe weren't great players... they were... but a lot of fans became enamored with the whole image of the athlete beyond simply the play as it was during the Magic/Bird era.
Gotta give Nike credit... gotta be the shoes... be like Mike... all that branding bullsh*t works. It's how we get such sh*tty presidential candidates now too. All about advertising and less about content of character.
Off topic, but Christopher Cross is the example often cited as a casualty of early MTV, which is true. He had the two hits in 1980/81: "Sailing" and "Arthur's Theme" (from the movie with Dudley Moore). I liked that song as a kid. Sailing was on the radio a lot because disc jockeys played a lot of easy listening back then. Payola was there, but the American public actually likes easy listening no matter how much they deny it. That's why "Open Arms" was Journey's biggest radio hit. Anyway, Christopher was a fat, dowdy guy with curly hair who couldn't make it on MTV and his career was effectively over not only because of that, but because MTV made younger/"funner" British New Wave acts the new thing. Journey themselves were so hideous looking that they presented themselves as the band that stood against making videos, but that had to have been phony considering that they weren't Aerosmith, Van Halen, or Def Leppard in the looks dept. Still, they were still a solid rock band and that was helpful. There were still a bands good enough to cover for their looks. Foreigner was huge. Genesis/Phil Collins were huge stars. Phil was the man. The Cars, too. Ric Okasec wasn't exactly a looker.
Do you like Phil Collins?
Ric Ocasek married the hottest woman in the world back then... She was in their video Drive... not the most flattering video of her but she was the hottest print model of the 80s... Paulina Porizkova if you want to Google her.
You could succeed if you were more an alternative/punk type band but it was harder if you were a pop act. Duran Duran was what young girls liked back then.
I liked Peter Gabriel better than Phil Collins but I'm not ashamed to say I liked some of his songs.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
