GatewayRedbirds.com

MrCrowesGarden wrote:

stlouie_lipp wrote:

thrill wrote:Tony Snell is a nothing. MCW has at least shown he can play not that long ago.

Just what the Bulls needed, another player who needs the ball in his hands. Does Spalding still make basketballs for the NBA? I'm buying stock!

I really don't understand this Bulls lineup. They've given Hoiberg a bunch of players who don't really seem to fit his system.

They have in fact given him players that directly conflict with his system. Makes no sense at all. They're a mess.

Farewell Friends wrote:Celtics will be the No. 2 seed in the East.

I like that one, I think Horford was probably the best non-Durant addition to a good team this offseason.

The Bulls are such a mess, I agree with the sentiments that the pieces they've added don't necessarily fit. The NBA is so weird. If you're not a 1 or 2 seed in your conference you're incredibly unlikely to make the finals. The league has been that way forever, with only a dozen or so teams winning every title of the last 40 years. Putting together a team that you look at pre-season and on paper you think you're a playoff team, but a 6-8 seed, to me is kind of bad long-term management. I'd almost rather see them be a Lotto team the next couple years and build something that could be a 1-2 seed in 4-5 years.

Warriors have better odds of going undefeated than eight teams have of winning the title.

MrCrowesGarden wrote:Warriors have better odds of going undefeated than eight teams have of winning the title.

That's crazy! Belongs in the "things that sound false but are true" thread.

My Nuggets are in a pretty good place. They have as much young depth as any team in the league, and potential star players in guys like Jokic, Mudiay and Murray. If they can buy into Mike Malone's defensive mindset, they could surprise some folks this year.

The Knicks had 2 different starters that failed to score tonight, and the team lost by 30 to the Cavaliers.

Hey, at least Rose & Anthony got theirs!

Warriors are now 0-1.

The league definitely needs to do something about competitive balance, but I'm not sure what the solution is.

Farewell Friends wrote:The league definitely needs to do something about competitive balance, but I'm not sure what the solution is.

My humble opinion would be to get rid of the salary cap. I have said it before and could be totally wrong, but the only way Charlotte or Milwaukee or OKC is going to sign, lets say, Anthony Davis when he is a Free Agent, is to offer more than Miami, New York, LA etc etc.

If Charlotte can offer the maximum amount and Chicago can offer the maximum amount and Miami can offer the maximum amount, the Hornets are never getting Anthony Davis.

I recognize this plays into my libertarian worldview, but these franchises are FLUSH with cash. The new TV deal is mind boggling. If the Hornets truly value Russell Westbrook, then they should be allowed to offer him whatever they want to sign him. As it is, he is likely to end up in California or NY in a few years, IMO.

I hate the salary cap. I suggested doing away with it on a different forum and was mocked for it.

It's a pretty bad idea if competitive balance is a priority for you.

Tim wrote: If Charlotte can offer the maximum amount and Chicago can offer the maximum amount and Miami can offer the maximum amount, the Hornets are never getting Anthony Davis.

True, but the Pelicans can offer more. So you're incentivized to develop an Anthony Davis. Or tank to get one. It's obviously not perfect, but it's better than two or three teams spending 10 times more than anyone else and winning ever year.