BigGameDamian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2012
- Messages
- 34,777
- Likes
- 14,228
- Points
- 113
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
13 game sample size with some really good games and some really bad games offensively. His defense over those 13 games was really good though.His stats are terrible
With except signing Faried, Fareid was always a guy who relied excessively on athleticism and he’s not getting younger, dont think he’s very good anymore. “Prime Fareid”, would be perfect, but even in his “highlight” reels from China he doesnt look like he’s all that dominant of an athlete anymore.13 game sample size with some really good games and some really bad games offensively. His defense over those 13 games was really good though.
As far as free agent options he's about as good as we can do at replacing a small fraction of Hood's absence without a trade so I think he is someone that the Blazers should try to claim off of waivers. Then apply for the Disabled Player Exception and sign Faried.
That's two low end rotational players they could get without having to give up anything to get them. It would also leave the roster a little more balanced if they do make trades.
Last year on Houston his rebound % numbers were still in line with his prime years. I think our bench could really use a rebounding boost that he would provide. It's not like we need him to start and play 30 minutes a game though especially as the team gets bigs back healthy.With except signing Faried, Fareid was always a guy who relied excessively on athleticism and he’s not getting younger, dont think he’s very good anymore. “Prime Fareid”, would be perfect, but even in his “highlight” reels from China he doesnt look like he’s all that dominant of an athlete anymore.
The Nets really valued him and wanted to keep him but already had 15 other guaranteed contracts on the roster when Wilson Chandler's suspension ended.I wonder how guys like Shumpert still sign contracts with NBA teams.
The Nets really valued him and wanted to keep him but already had 15 other guaranteed contracts on the roster when Wilson Chandler's suspension ended.
Well I heard it came down to Nwaba or Shumpert but both had been playing well. Pinson seems like the guy I would've cut but they really like him for some reason and wanted to keep him around for his cheap team option next year. Claxton they just drafted and he has 3 years left on his deal so it would've been silly to cut him. They have a severe lack of PF's so they couldn't really cut Chandler. Shump's contract was the only non-guaranteed one.If he was really 'that good' of player, why didn't they just cut someone else instead? They have several cheap players they could've easily cut instead. Nwaba, Pinson, Claxton, Chandler, etc. It's not like the Nets are in the Tax this year...
Perfect, sign Shump and trade Bazemore for something good then.Another Bazemore
Bazemore, Little, Labissière and a pick for Love. Then pick up Shump and Faried.Perfect, sign Shump and trade Bazemore for something good then.
I'm glad bots can't make trades in real life.Bazemore, Little, Labissière and a pick for Love. Then pick up Shump and Faried.
Bazemore, Little, Labissière and a pick for Love. Then pick up Shump and Faried.
Pretty sure he has several. With incense, candles, and the remains of a sacrificed animal of some sort.by your self a poster of Love and quit obsessing over him in this forum.
Pull Little off that deal and it's not bad. Send Tolliver instead for salary matching.I'm glad bots can't make trades in real life.
It was reported yesterday that teams are asking for a 1st back for Love's contract. Giving up one instead seems like a bad deal.Pull Little off that deal and it's not bad. Send Tolliver instead for salary matching.
They can ask but it doesn't mean they’ll get it.It was reported yesterday that teams are asking for a 1st back for Love's contract. Giving up one instead seems like a bad deal.
I understand that's what other teams are asking for. But Cleveland isn't required to make a deal. If including a (protected) pick basically ensures our offer is the best one, are we best-served refusing to include a pick if we actually want the player?It was reported yesterday that teams are asking for a 1st back for Love's contract. Giving up one instead seems like a bad deal.
Right, but a compromise of no pick is the most I'd trade considering the player and contract let alone giving up Skal and Little too.They can ask but it doesn't mean they’ll get it.
Yeah, I don't want Love so to overpay that much when it's pretty likely no other team is offering positive assets would be really bad in my opinion.I understand that's what other teams are asking for. But Cleveland isn't required to make a deal. If including a (protected) pick basically ensures our offer is the best one, are we best-served refusing to include a pick if we actually want the player?
Now, whether or not we actually want Love is a different story...
