Harkless resolves after Crabbe decision?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Natebishop3 said:
How do you get that I agreed with you out of that post?

We don't need Harkless.

We have multiple players that need minutes at SF and PF. Players that are just as deserving as Harkless. So if he's not going to commit to the team long term, fuck him.
Click to expand...
We need more than 1 wing (PG/SG/SF) off the bench. We need Harkless. If just one of Lillard/CJ/Crabbe/Turner got hurt we'd be screwed without Harkless.
 
You don't let dividing minutes force you to jettison Harkless. It's one of those great problems to have, and you let the players' play determine who gets the minutes.

When you have a promising young player like Harkless who is on the cusp of making a big jump and you don't have to get rid of him, you don't.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
And the major difference is that Tinsley was under contract for another 3 years, whereas taking the QO gives Hark UFA status next summer. And that Tinsley was basically told to go away completely rather than just not play as many minutes as he wanted. And that he was already in his 30's, so the whole situation threatened to end his career. But other than that, yes, completely comparable.
Click to expand...

Stephon Marbury then.

The union is willing to go after the teams over players' playing time.

All those guys who ever played great in their contract years got PT.
 
Hobbesarable said:
He played the 3/4 spots last year and he will have the chance convincing Stotts this upcoming season during training camp and preseason.
Click to expand...
Didn't he guard Curry in the playoffs? He should at least get PT when we need his defense. He might actually win the job or more minutes.
 
Natebishop3 said:
How do you get that I agreed with you out of that post?

We don't need Harkless.

We have multiple players that need minutes at SF and PF. Players that are just as deserving as Harkless. So if he's not going to commit to the team long term, fuck him.
Click to expand...

You wrote "Harkless will mostly see time at SF and PF."

So you agree he's going to play (SF and PF).

I think he's going to play SG some, too.
 
Denny Crane said:
Stephon Marbury then.

The union is willing to go after the teams over players' playing time.

All those guys who ever played great in their contract years got PT.
Click to expand...
No, the union is willing to go after teams who send players away entirely. NEVER simply over playing time.
 
My personal opinion is that heading into the off-season Harkless was my number 1 priority. Steven Adams would've been nice too. We've seen what Harkless' team defense can be and I think it's an absolute must to retain that, even based on potential. I think he has the right to be cocky and take the QO.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
No, the union is willing to go after teams who send players away entirely. NEVER simply over playing time.
Click to expand...
If the Blazers play him zero minutes, they're asking for it. I don't need to repeat that over and over. It won't get any less true.
 
Denny Crane said:
If the Blazers play him zero minutes, they're asking for it. I don't need to repeat that over and over. It won't get any less true.
Click to expand...

You can't produce one example of the players union going after a team for having a guy sitting on the bench.

The examples that you provided were guys who were essentially told to go the fuck away. Can you provide an example of a player who was relegated to the bench and didn't see any playing time? If that's the case, maybe Jack Haley's estate should sue the Bulls.
 
BonesJones said:
We need more than 1 wing (PG/SG/SF) off the bench. We need Harkless. If just one of Lillard/CJ/Crabbe/Turner got hurt we'd be screwed without Harkless.
Click to expand...

If Dame gets hurt, we're screwed regardless of whether we have Harkless or not.

If CJ get hurt, Crabbe starts and Turner backs him up, while starting at small forward. Aminu can log minutes at small forward. So can Layman.

If Turner gets hurt, we start Crabbe and Aminu backs him up. We have plenty of guys at power forward so we can slide Aminu into move small forward minutes.

One injury isn't going to screw us (unless it's Lillard.)
 
Natebishop3 said:
If Dame gets hurt, we're screwed regardless of whether we have Harkless or not.

If CJ get hurt, Crabbe starts and Turner backs him up, while starting at small forward. Aminu can log minutes at small forward. So can Layman.

If Turner gets hurt, we start Crabbe and Aminu backs him up. We have plenty of guys at power forward so we can slide Aminu into move small forward minutes.

One injury isn't going to screw us (unless it's Lillard.)
Click to expand...
You dont think cj, crabbe, turner could work if dame gets hurt?
 
Natebishop3 said:
If Dame gets hurt, we're screwed regardless of whether we have Harkless or not.

If CJ get hurt, Crabbe starts and Turner backs him up, while starting at small forward. Aminu can log minutes at small forward. So can Layman.

If Turner gets hurt, we start Crabbe and Aminu backs him up. We have plenty of guys at power forward so we can slide Aminu into move small forward minutes.

One injury isn't going to screw us (unless it's Lillard.)
Click to expand...
So whichever of those 3 are left play 36 minutes while we slide our starting PF out of the starting lineup to play 36 minutes at a position where he's not as good? And then we start 2 bigs that can't shoot outside of 3 feet (Or Meyers at PF which is a horrible idea) so that we don't have to keep Harkless? Lol
 
Denny Crane said:
If the Blazers play him zero minutes, they're asking for it. I don't need to repeat that over and over. It won't get any less true.
Click to expand...
If anybody suggests Harkless might play zero minutes, they'll be the first. You don't need to argue that strawman over and over. It won't make it any more relevant.
 
The Blazers have to re-sign Harkless... he is an asset for future trades. It would be a huge mistake to let him go for nothing. He is only 22 years old. I think a deal that benefits all parties is 2 year/18-20 mil. It gives Harkless a huge pay increase for next 2 years and enough time to let the roster shake out and give him the opportunity to prove his worth. He will be 24 for his next free agency with opportunity to earn even bigger contract. At 2 years a team trading for him would have enough time to evaluate without committing long term. I think it will happen, but I'm very curious what the hold up is.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
If anybody suggests Harkless might play zero minutes, they'll be the first. You don't need to argue that strawman over and over. It won't make it any more relevant.
Click to expand...
If he plays, no problem. I am not expecting his chances or PT to be reduced because he signed the QO. If he legitimately wins starter's minutes, he's going to play a lot.

I think he'll get his chance until ML is 100%.
 
Natebishop3 said:
You can't produce one example of the players union going after a team for having a guy sitting on the bench.

The examples that you provided were guys who were essentially told to go the fuck away. Can you provide an example of a player who was relegated to the bench and didn't see any playing time? If that's the case, maybe Jack Haley's estate should sue the Bulls.
Click to expand...
You can't produce one player who signed the QO and got his PT cut because of it.
 
Gronk Brady said:
The Blazers have to re-sign Harkless... he is an asset for future trades. It would be a huge mistake to let him go for nothing. He is only 22 years old. I think a deal that benefits all parties is 2 year/18-20 mil. It gives Harkless a huge pay increase for next 2 years and enough time to let the roster shake out and give him the opportunity to prove his worth. He will be 24 for his next free agency with opportunity to earn even bigger contract. At 2 years a team trading for him would have enough time to evaluate without committing long term. I think it will happen, but I'm very curious what the hold up is.
Click to expand...
I agree w/ everything u said but I'm thinking Neil gave Moe an offer of 2 years ~$13 mill/yr. w/ a 2nd yr. opt out (I believe Neil's able to pull off crazy-azz shit like this bc... i.e. Ezeli...:wink:) that he's thinking about; w/ Neil's super GM powers... Moe WILL accept!:smiley-bowdown:
 
I'm about to write something I don't want to. I'm already missing the days of players like Kobe. I know Harkless doesn't have the most reliable shot but man if he just had that killer instinct he'd be awesome.

I'm writing this from the bathtub, good thing cuz I feel dirty praising Kobe even indirectly.

Meyers with killer instinct...dunking on people.
Vonleh with it....better
Crabbe with it...all star
Dame with it...(worse, he has serial killer instincts)
Batum with it.. (french larry bird)
LaMarsha with it.... (hall of famer)

Is it just the new generation of players being businessmen or just how the game is now? Why aren't there any young 2 guards that are any good?

Clyde could dominate the league today, with Wade being a shell of his former self. Who is even close?

Now that I've rambled on and on, I want to keep Harkless because I think he has plenty of ceiling left to reach.
 
Denny Crane said:
You can't produce one player who signed the QO and got his PT cut because of it.
Click to expand...
I don't really understand why you are arguing this. I wasn't at all implying there would be an intentional cut because of the QO. And nobody else has. He'd likely face a reduction of potential minutes due to the signing of turner. You going on and on about grievances is just silly, and in no way relevant to what anyone is saying.
 
Strenuus said:
huh? Than with who? 7 game sample over 75 game sample? I'm confused as to what you mean.
Click to expand...
We had a better win % without Lillard than with him. In no way an I saying that were better without him, I'm just saying that if we could survive without him last year for a stretch that we could survive again next year especially since we added another ball handler.
 
Denny Crane said:
I don't think that guys who sign QO get their PT cut, in general.
Click to expand...

Think of all the guys who got big contracts having a good season in their contract year.

They didn't earn the PT for their play up until then. The teams just don't hesitate to play them.

That's the point. If Mo signs the QO, I expect we play him. Otherwise why sign him?

That's what got this discussion going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Perspective --- Quick Story re. Crabbe/Leonard's Value...
Replies
18
Views
1K
tester551
tester551
Schilly
2017 Offseason: The Schilly Edition
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
Sinobas
Sinobas
Dan Marang
Potential Upside Profile: Allen Crabbe - Week 3 discussion topic
Replies
14
Views
2K
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog
Boob-No-More
The Great Who can be Traded When Thread
Replies
27
Views
3K
Scalma
Scalma
SlyPokerDog
New Batum interview...
Replies
8
Views
1K
BBert
BBert

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top