The 2017-2018 Around the NBA thread

[Hoop Head]

Wha? TT is an albatross of a contract for a role player, which means the value for the Brooklyn pick is a multiple time All-Star, First Team NBA Center who’s in the prime of his career.

Bledsoe STILL isn’t anything close in value to Jordan and I have no clue how you think somehow he’d get the deal done for that pick... especially as it’s seemed like LeBron was good enough to get them through the beginning of the season until IT got back.

And if they’re able to make that trade, they would be:

IT
Smith
LeBron
Love
Jordan

Which is a hell of a lot better than

IT
Bledsoe
LeBron
Love
TT

The first team presents major size problems for GS, with a defensive anchor in the middle, while the second team leaves them completely vulnerable on D.

Jordan is a rental, that's it. He's been rumored in traded for months now, his value isn't very high. The Clippers tried sending him to Phoenix for Chandler and the #4 pick and the Suns declined. Tristan Thompson's contract isn't as bad with the increased cap, it's still not good, but he does have some value around the league and is highly valued by the Cavaliers organization. You're overvaluing Jordan though, whose value is higher than Bledsoe's but in a series with Golden State he won't be able to play much in the 4th because of his horrendous foul shooting. When Golden State goes small, who will he match up with? Thompson is a better Center for the Cavs while they play Golden State but he didn't show up to last years finals for whatever reason.

Jordan has been an All-Star 1 time, last year. He was an All-NBA 3rd team player twice. The reason someone can make more All-NBA teams than All-Star teams is because All-NBA teams select 3 centers even though that position has been dying for the last decade. He is an All-Defensive big though and brings quality paint protection and rebounding to the table though but he's an awful foul shooter that can't be on the court late in games. He will be a free agent this summer though so his value isn't very high right now. Yes, it is higher than Bledsoe's was/is though. No one knows when IT will return. There is talk he could be back before 2018 but then there is still talk he'll be out until the All-Star break. No one knows for certain though. With Rose looking to retire that doesn't make a hole in their PG rotation that eliminates it entirely right now. It's all hypothetical anyways but the way the Suns handled the Bledsoe trade forced them to sell him off for pennies on the dollar. If you think they got full value in return then you undervalue Bledsoe way too much. The Cav's wouldn't have had to give up any players in their rotation if they made a deal with Phoenix that included that pick, they'd just to dump dead money on us like Shumpert and Frye, who play in garbage time.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Jordan is a rental, that's it. He's been rumored in traded for months now, his value isn't very high. The Clippers tried sending him to Phoenix for Chandler and the #4 pick and the Suns declined. Tristan Thompson's contract isn't as bad with the increased cap, it's still not good, but he does have some value around the league and is highly valued by the Cavaliers organization. You're overvaluing Jordan though, whose value is higher than Bledsoe's but in a series with Golden State he won't be able to play much in the 4th because of his horrendous foul shooting. When Golden State goes small, who will he match up with? Thompson is a better Center for the Cavs while they play Golden State but he didn't show up to last years finals for whatever reason.

Jordan has been an All-Star 1 time, last year. He was an All-NBA 3rd team player twice. The reason someone can make more All-NBA teams than All-Star teams is because All-NBA teams select 3 centers even though that position has been dying for the last decade. He is an All-Defensive big though and brings quality paint protection and rebounding to the table though but he's an awful foul shooter that can't be on the court late in games. He will be a free agent this summer though so his value isn't very high right now. Yes, it is higher than Bledsoe's was/is though. No one knows when IT will return. There is talk he could be back before 2018 but then there is still talk he'll be out until the All-Star break. No one knows for certain though. With Rose looking to retire that doesn't make a hole in their PG rotation that eliminates it entirely right now. It's all hypothetical anyways but the way the Suns handled the Bledsoe trade forced them to sell him off for pennies on the dollar. If you think they got full value in return then you undervalue Bledsoe way too much. The Cav's wouldn't have had to give up any players in their rotation if they made a deal with Phoenix that included that pick, they'd just to dump dead money on us like Shumpert and Frye, who play in garbage time.

Lol... whatever you need to tell yourself that the Brooklyn pick isn’t that valuable to sleep at night, Poop Head.

 

[Russ Smith]

Finito points out why Houston vs Golden State isn't a very good matchup. They'd be a great matchup in a 3 game series but Golden State's depth is too much for D'Antoni. Golden State also has enough defense that the Rockets would shoot themselves in the foot by trying to outscore them because GS would get stops and then score unmatched points while they're running.

Westbrook played great against Golden State though and now that he doesn't need to carry his team he's able to focus on particular aspects of his game he excels at and allow George and Melo to do their thing also, which makes a big difference overall. He was actually playing good defense, which surprised me some. The lineup of Westbook, Roberson, George, Melo, and Adams matches up really well against the Warriors, even when they had Iggy out there in place of Zaza. I'd like OKC's chances better if they still had Kanter but Adams played really well the other night. He's not the offensive player that Kanter was but with Westbrook, George, and Melo you don't really need more offense. I do wonder how their depth will stack up against the Warriors in 7 games but I think Westbrook would view beating KD like winning a title and this year he has the roster that allows them to at least put up one hell of a fight. The rosters have changed but OKC did have a 3-1 lead over the Warriors before Durant switched teams. Westbrook taking the next step in becoming a superstar along with Carmelo and George though makes this year's Thunder as dangerous as the Thunder were that year. Donavon is a good coach who doesn't get enough credit for being a good coach since he's had top 5 players since he's been there. This win will give them confidence for the next time they meet and more importantly it will allow Westbrook to trust his teammates a bit more because he can't do it alone, this year he doesn't need to.

Of course Golden State has the better offense overall but OKC has better scorers. They managed to keep the pace down and keep Golden State from taking the shots they wanted and getting in rhythm. Curry is the best shooter in the NBA but he's not that good of a scorer and that's what OKC tried to force him into being. Roberson was able to guard him with George on KD, and Roberson could smother Curry behind the 3 point line to keep him from a good look and then played him tight enough that he couldn't drive and score like KD does. George can guard Durant as well as anyone can but he made it possible for Roberson to guard Curry which was a big difference compared to last year. Westbrook played like a scoring PG instead of a guy trying to take over the game single handedly which was different, like he was 2 years ago. I caught about 3/4 of the game and OKC is the first team I've seen build a big lead over the Warriors that appeared safe, they just matched up with them really well. They were able to trade baskets when needed but also do so a bit slower that kept the Warriors setting the pace. The Warriors can score in bunches quickly but that didn't seem possible with how OKC played them. It wasn't a grind it out style but they worked the clock enough to keep GS from running that much. They meet again February 6th, February 24th, and April 6th, both games in February will be in Oakland so we'll see how OKC does on the road.

I didn't see it so hard to comment too much but Curry has been playing with a leg injury that caused him to miss a game and since he's been back he's driving less. I'd dispute the not a great scorer, part, it's because he's such a good shooter but there are not too many guards in the NBA who are better at driving to the rim and finishing, he doesn't dunk it like Westbrook he just flips it up high off the glass with spin and makes them.

He's also really good moving without the ball.

I still think the Warriors are just not as good this year, Iggy is starting to come around and Livingston had a nice game the one Curry couldn't play, but they both seem have fallen off IMO this year.

It will be interesting to see if OKC hits their stride, with those 3 great scorers, they are still under 500 for the year. I suspect in a series with the Warriors their chemistry issues would be a problem but I do agree Westbrook is so motivated to beat Durant it could make it interesting.

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[JCSunsfan]

So. All this discussion about Tatum or Jackson. Here is the issue. How do we learn from that and apply it to next summer's draft. How do you determine who will succeed and who will buts.

There is just something that tends to grab scouts and fans about raw athleticism--and length too.

 

[SirStefan32]

So. All this discussion about Tatum or Jackson. Here is the issue. How do we learn from that and apply it to next summer's draft. How do you determine who will succeed and who will buts.

There is just something that tends to grab scouts and fans about raw athleticism--and length too.

I don't think it's possible to apply any of this to a future draft. Players are different, situations are different. That's the crappy thing about young kids going pro after one year of college. Teams draft based on potential, and that's hard to measure when it comes to most players. We don't get Tim Duncans and Grant Hills in the draft anymore (4 years of college). The thing about Tatum vs. Jackson is that we won't know who ends up being a better player for years. Tatum looks much better right now, but Jackson does have a higher ceiling. Who knows how they will turn out in a few years.

We can learn generic things. Rebounding translates from college to the NBA. Deadly shooters in college are rarely great shooters their first season in the NBA. Athleticism tends to get overrated, and basketball IQ tends to get underrated. Players have to have at least one real skill to make it in the NBA. Stuff like that we can learn and apply, but it's impossible to figure out the whole "this player vs. that player" thing. Tatum, Markkanen, Fox, all look better than Fultz, Ball, and Jackson. Year before, it all looked a bit better- perhaps Brown is a better player than Ingram. Go back another year, and Okafor and Russel got drafter before Kristaps. Booker fell to #13. If it were possible to figure out how these kids are going to turn out, teams/ GMs would have figured it out by now.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Jordan is a rental, that's it. He's been rumored in traded for months now, his value isn't very high. The Clippers tried sending him to Phoenix for Chandler and the #4 pick and the Suns declined. Tristan Thompson's contract isn't as bad with the increased cap, it's still not good, but he does have some value around the league and is highly valued by the Cavaliers organization. You're overvaluing Jordan though, whose value is higher than Bledsoe's but in a series with Golden State he won't be able to play much in the 4th because of his horrendous foul shooting. When Golden State goes small, who will he match up with? Thompson is a better Center for the Cavs while they play Golden State but he didn't show up to last years finals for whatever reason.

Jordan has been an All-Star 1 time, last year. He was an All-NBA 3rd team player twice. The reason someone can make more All-NBA teams than All-Star teams is because All-NBA teams select 3 centers even though that position has been dying for the last decade. He is an All-Defensive big though and brings quality paint protection and rebounding to the table though but he's an awful foul shooter that can't be on the court late in games. He will be a free agent this summer though so his value isn't very high right now. Yes, it is higher than Bledsoe's was/is though. No one knows when IT will return. There is talk he could be back before 2018 but then there is still talk he'll be out until the All-Star break. No one knows for certain though. With Rose looking to retire that doesn't make a hole in their PG rotation that eliminates it entirely right now. It's all hypothetical anyways but the way the Suns handled the Bledsoe trade forced them to sell him off for pennies on the dollar. If you think they got full value in return then you undervalue Bledsoe way too much. The Cav's wouldn't have had to give up any players in their rotation if they made a deal with Phoenix that included that pick, they'd just to dump dead money on us like Shumpert and Frye, who play in garbage time.

Sometimes we forget the value in soon-to-be free agent. If the Cavs really like Jordan, they will have his Bird Rights. So they can resign him even though they are hugely over the cap. There is significant value in that, especially if it encourages LeBron to stay.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Sometimes we forget the value in soon-to-be free agent. If the Cavs really like Jordan, they will have his Bird Rights. So they can resign him even though they are hugely over the cap. There is significant value in that, especially if it encourages LeBron to stay.

bingo.

 

[GatorAZ]

Cavs aren't trading the Nets pick unless Lebron agrees to an extension.

 

[elindholm]

Tatum looks much better right now, but Jackson does have a higher ceiling.

I just don't understand these "higher ceiling" claims. Jackson has a higher ceiling than Tatum, Bender has a higher ceiling than Randle. Based on what? Is it just that we don't know as much about Jackson and Bender, and therefore it's harder to pin down what their talent level really is? Does someone in junior high school automatically have a higher ceiling than someone entering the NBA? Does the $2 scratch lottery ticket sitting on my dining room table have a higher ceiling than the $500 in cash next to it? What good does that really do us?

 

[JCSunsfan]

I just don't understand these "higher ceiling" claims. Jackson has a higher ceiling than Tatum, Bender has a higher ceiling than Randle. Based on what? Is it just that we don't know as much about Jackson and Bender, and therefore it's harder to pin down what their talent level really is? Does someone in junior high school automatically have a higher ceiling than someone entering the NBA? Does the $2 scratch lottery ticket sitting on my dining room table have a higher ceiling than the $500 in cash next to it? What good does that really do us?

That's a fair criticism/question. The lottery ticket verses cash-in-hand comparison has merit, although its not that extreme. Sometimes "safe" is the home run choice. I remember Danny Ainge calling Steve Nash the "safe" pick.

Its all a judgment call/guess.

As far as the Tatum/Jackson comparison. Jackson had the look of a Scottie Pippen type of player, with both offense and defense. Tatum looked a lot like TJ Warren as far as his offense/defense balance--and still does.

 

[SirStefan32]

I just don't understand these "higher ceiling" claims. Jackson has a higher ceiling than Tatum, Bender has a higher ceiling than Randle. Based on what? Is it just that we don't know as much about Jackson and Bender, and therefore it's harder to pin down what their talent level really is? Does someone in junior high school automatically have a higher ceiling than someone entering the NBA? Does the $2 scratch lottery ticket sitting on my dining room table have a higher ceiling than the $500 in cash next to it? What good does that really do us?

Right, exactly! We don't know what good it may do. Nobody knows! I've seen moments of great defense from Jackson. Defense that Tatum will never be capable of playing. I've seen him drive to the hoop the way Tatum never will. I've also seen him shoot five bricks in a row, turn the ball over in a way fit for a fifth-grader, the way Tatum never (well, rarely) will.

Same deal with Bender. I've seen him do things Randle will never be able to do. He does it very rarely, though. That's the dilemma- do you take a better product right now, or do you risk it and stick with somebody who has better "potential?" I don't know what the right answer is. I look at it in a couple of different way. What do we have on the roster right now, and how good is the team. Since we have Warren, who will be a good NBA player (hell, he already is- one of the three players on the Suns' roster who actually belong in the NBA right now), I am fine taking the risk and hoping Jackson works out. Looking at the same question (first one), Randle probably gets a nod over Bender since the Suns don't have a single power forward who is a legitimate NBA player right now. Looking at the second question, however, I am more inclined to go with the "unknowns" or "higher risk" players- in this case, Jackson and Bender. If you replace those two with Tatus and Randle, the Suns will be a little bit better right now, but they will still only have one "impact" player. They do have 4 other NBA players on the roster instead of two, but they aren't gonna move passed the first round of playoffs. On the other hand, if Bender and Jackson surprise us, we may end up with two or three "impact" players.

 

[elindholm]

Right, exactly! We don't know what good it may do. Nobody knows! I've seen moments of great defense from Jackson. Defense that Tatum will never be capable of playing...

Same deal with Bender. I've seen him do things Randle will never be able to do.

But who's to say that Tatum or Randle will never be able to do those things? Why does a player being polished in one area disqualify him from possible improvement in others?

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I just don't understand these "higher ceiling" claims. Jackson has a higher ceiling than Tatum, Bender has a higher ceiling than Randle. Based on what? Is it just that we don't know as much about Jackson and Bender, and therefore it's harder to pin down what their talent level really is? Does someone in junior high school automatically have a higher ceiling than someone entering the NBA? Does the $2 scratch lottery ticket sitting on my dining room table have a higher ceiling than the $500 in cash next to it? What good does that really do us?

I know you’re trying to make a point, but the lottery-cash comparison is hyperbole at its best. Both Bender and JJ have already shown they have a place in the nba. I’d say it’s more like you have $100 plus a 30% chance at $10,000 verses $500 and a 10% chance at $9,000. And that’s science.

 

[Sunburst]

Suns no longer have the worst point loss this season. Warriors beat the Bulls by 49 points. Things are looking up slightly.

 

[Phrazbit]

Suns no longer have the worst point loss this season. Warriors beat the Bulls by 49 points. Things are looking up slightly.

Baby steps.

 

[BC867]

Suns no longer have the worst point loss this season. Warriors beat the Bulls by 49 points. Things are looking up slightly.

Somehow, that doesn't make me feel any better.

 

[elindholm]

I know you’re trying to make a point, but the lottery-cash comparison is hyperbole at its best. Both Bender and JJ have already shown they have a place in the nba. I’d say it’s more like you have $100 plus a 30% chance at $10,000 verses $500 and a 10% chance at $9,000. And that’s science.

That's not really the point. My real question is, who's to say that the upside of someone like Tatum or Randle is capped at a certain level? I sort of get it with Randle because he's been in the league for quite a while, but I don't understand the assertion -- which everyone seems to state like it's an obvious fact -- that Tatum's ceiling is lower than Jackson's.

As for your piles of money, it's math, not science, but even there I'd disagree with you. There's no way that Bender has as high as a 30% chance of being a $10,000 player (by whatever value standard you were using).

 

[Finito]

I just don't understand these "higher ceiling" claims. Jackson has a higher ceiling than Tatum, Bender has a higher ceiling than Randle. Based on what? Is it just that we don't know as much about Jackson and Bender, and therefore it's harder to pin down what their talent level really is? Does someone in junior high school automatically have a higher ceiling than someone entering the NBA? Does the $2 scratch lottery ticket sitting on my dining room table have a higher ceiling than the $500 in cash next to it? What good does that really do us?

It's based on just raw talent. "Upside" has been around as long as sports has been around. Don't forget when they came out Carmelo was more polished than Lebron. Carmelo had won an NCAA championship and Lebron was just a physical freak out of high school. Upside is pretty easy to see.

A guy like Randle is already about as good as he's ever gonna be as opposed to a guy like Bender who you can tell hasn't even grown into his body yet.

 

[elindholm]

It's based on just raw talent. "Upside" has been around as long as sports has been around. Don't forget when they came out Carmelo was more polished than Lebron. Carmelo had won an NCAA championship and Lebron was just a physical freak out of high school. Upside is pretty easy to see.

Right, I get the concept. But assessment of "upside" is just as likely to be off as anything else, maybe moreso. Thumbing your nose at a massively skilled player because someone has decided he has a "low ceiling" is a losing long-term strategy.

 

[Errntknght]

I know you’re trying to make a point, but the lottery-cash comparison is hyperbole at its best. Both Bender and JJ have already shown they have a place in the nba. I’d say it’s more like you have $100 plus a 30% chance at $10,000 verses $500 and a 10% chance at $9,000. And that’s science.

Actually there's another factor in gambling that goes by the name of 'utility' - which means usefulness of the money so it is dependent on the situation of the person. A rich person would take $100 plus .3 chance of 10000 (expected value $3100) while a person who was concerned about living day to day would take $500 plus .1 chance of 9000 (expected value $1400). And both would be happy about their choice.
Suppose the poor person owed a loan shark $2500 - that would change the utility of the money to him and he'd take the 30% chance of not having his legs broken. (Or he'd take the $500 and buy a ticket to Brazil.)

For illustrating the concept of utility, I like this choice: 5 mil vs X% chance of 100 mil. At what value of X is the choice of maximum difficulty. For most of us the utility of 5 mil is so close to the utility of 100 mil that it would still be an easy choice if X were 95. I think I'd put the maximum difficulty at X=99.9 - I'd gamble at 99.99 for sure and I would not gamble at X=99. If you start thinking in terms of: what can I do with 100 mil that I can't do with 5 mil, then you're on the road to understanding utility.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Right, exactly! We don't know what good it may do. Nobody knows! I've seen moments of great defense from Jackson. Defense that Tatum will never be capable of playing. I've seen him drive to the hoop the way Tatum never will. I've also seen him shoot five bricks in a row, turn the ball over in a way fit for a fifth-grader, the way Tatum never (well, rarely) will.

Same deal with Bender. I've seen him do things Randle will never be able to do. He does it very rarely, though. That's the dilemma- do you take a better product right now, or do you risk it and stick with somebody who has better "potential?" I don't know what the right answer is. I look at it in a couple of different way. What do we have on the roster right now, and how good is the team. Since we have Warren, who will be a good NBA player (hell, he already is- one of the three players on the Suns' roster who actually belong in the NBA right now), I am fine taking the risk and hoping Jackson works out. Looking at the same question (first one), Randle probably gets a nod over Bender since the Suns don't have a single power forward who is a legitimate NBA player right now. Looking at the second question, however, I am more inclined to go with the "unknowns" or "higher risk" players- in this case, Jackson and Bender. If you replace those two with Tatus and Randle, the Suns will be a little bit better right now, but they will still only have one "impact" player. They do have 4 other NBA players on the roster instead of two, but they aren't gonna move passed the first round of playoffs. On the other hand, if Bender and Jackson surprise us, we may end up with two or three "impact" players.

What exactly has Bender done that Randle couldn’t?

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

That's not really the point. My real question is, who's to say that the upside of someone like Tatum or Randle is capped at a certain level? I sort of get it with Randle because he's been in the league for quite a while, but I don't understand the assertion -- which everyone seems to state like it's an obvious fact -- that Tatum's ceiling is lower than Jackson's.

As for your piles of money, it's math, not science, but even there I'd disagree with you. There's no way that Bender has as high as a 30% chance of being a $10,000 player (by whatever value standard you were using).

e - I was kidding.

The truth is none of us know what their floors or ceilings are. I’d agree that Randle’s is likely a little more “known” as we’ve seen him perform in the L for awhile. However who is to say that playing with the right players in the right system wouldn’t turn him into Rodney Rogers. I mean, Rogers was a combination of Charles Barkley and Karl Malone (in his mind)!

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Right, I get the concept. But assessment of "upside" is just as likely to be off as anything else, maybe moreso. Thumbing your nose at a massively skilled player because someone has decided he has a "low ceiling" is a losing long-term strategy.

Who is this “massively” skilled player? I’d not consider Tatum “massively” skilled yet and randle isn’t even in THAT conversation.

 

[SirStefan32]

Right, I get the concept. But assessment of "upside" is just as likely to be off as anything else, maybe moreso. Thumbing your nose at a massively skilled player because someone has decided he has a "low ceiling" is a losing long-term strategy.

I do not disagree. That's what makes this really difficult. It's a crap shoot.