Bullshit bones.
1.) Lopez was a good get.
2.) Also olshey didnt luck into Kanter. He built that relationship when he helped him get paid in okc.
3.) And ill go on record as agreeing with some others. You dismiss good moves and fault the bad.
4.) You may not think you do, but your posts certainly read that way. If that is not the intent then it isn't the same few readers, its most.
5.) NO deserves credit for kanter and you say he lucked into him. That invalidates everything else you say in that post.
1.) Lopez is the DEFINITION of a role player.
2.) He offered Kanter a terrible contract 3-years ago, that's it. And luckily, OKC matched (or else, who knows if we'd have Nurkic).
3.) I said Hood, Curry, and Kanter were all good moves so get outta here with that crap... They're not big-name players though but apparently some people can't accept that...
4.) Because people struggle to pay attention to what I said, just like you did here trying to argue that Olshey doesn't do more than acquire role players because of Robin Lopez, or that somehow signing Kanter counters that argument...
5.) NO, he doesn't. When asked if Kanter came here, did he say it was because of Neil? And if it is, then it's lucky because it's due to a contract that Neil should've never offered... Somehow a
bad initial move turned into a good move because a player on the buyout market chose us 3-years later. That shows his skill as a GM? Really? The only argument you could make is that Kanter came here because of a culture Neil helped build, but that still doesn't counter my initial point...
The initial point was we always here about how he's "close" or "tried" to trade for a
big-name player. I stated that clearly. So how the hell does the Kanter move even effect my original point? How the hell does getting Robin freakin' Lopez counter that point? People are arguing my point with irrelevant arguments, and I'm entertaining them and changing the focus of discussion... Maybe that's the problem.
