Exclusive Official Buyout Thread (Aka Neil's dumpster dive for bargains)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
wizenheimer said:
well, Nurkic has been healthy heading into 2 of the last 3 playoffs and Portland's playoff record was 1-8. With Kanter at C the Blazers made it to the WCF and had an 8-8 record.

not saying Portland shouldn't go after Dieng, because he would give the Blazers options, including running him at PF depending on match-ups

and I'm not sure why Olshey has said the Blazers will leave one slot open when they can fill both roster slots and stay under the tax line
Click to expand...
Nurkic played a playoff game in 2017 too and we lost that one.
 
Not a buyout guy but it’s surprising to me that Rondae Hollis Jefferson is just sitting out there. I know he can’t shoot but he’s a wing with plus defense. That has to have some value.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
It's going to be fucking hilarious if the Nets get zero championships out of this. Sad, really - the franchise has had no championships so we should be rooting for them, but they make it impossible.
Click to expand...

It's been well established here that a bad defensive team can't win a championship, therefore we don't have to worry about the Nets winning anything. Right?
 
Tince said:
It's been well established here that a bad defensive team can't win a championship, therefore we don't have to worry about the Nets winning anything. Right?
Click to expand...

the only thing I've seen established is that over the last 2o years, only two teams that won the championship did NOT have a top-20 defense. And there is some relevant context for those two exceptions: the first team was the Lakers in 2001 when they had the 21st ranked defense. But, that was the middle title of a threepeat, and the two other championships sandwiched around that outlier was when their defenses ranked 1st and 7th. The other exception was the last of three championships for the Warriors when they ranked 11th in defense. But there two previous championships came when they had the 1st and 2nd ranked defenses

in other words (now this is not 'established', just theory), those two exceptions were teams who could obviously play great defense and could bring it when they had too

another thing that has not been established but certainly argued is that super-teams seem to play under a different set of rules. Brooklyn is a super-team. Not only that, they appear to have generational offensive talent. Harden/Durant/Irving have combined for 27 all-star games, 18 all-NBA teams including 12 first team honors, and 3 MVP's. And they didn't get all that for defense

Brooklyn is an experiment trying to break the rule in a dramatic way. And by the way, as bad as Brooklyn is on defense, they are still 3.4 points better on defense than Portland. Brooklyn ranks 26th, yet they are still closer to the 11th ranked Thunder than Portland is to Brooklyn
 
Tince said:
It's been well established here that a bad defensive team can't win a championship, therefore we don't have to worry about the Nets winning anything. Right?
Click to expand...
Especially if you have small offensive guard’s!
 
Offense is up and so is the 3. The league has and is changing.
 
wizenheimer said:
the only thing I've seen established is that over the last 2o years, only two teams that won the championship did NOT have a top-20 defense. And there is some relevant context for those two exceptions: the first team was the Lakers in 2001 when they had the 21st ranked defense. But, that was the middle title of a threepeat, and the two other championships sandwiched around that outlier was when their defenses ranked 1st and 7th. The other exception was the last of three championships for the Warriors when they ranked 11th in defense. But there two previous championships came when they had the 1st and 2nd ranked defenses

in other words (now this is not 'established', just theory), those two exceptions were teams who could obviously play great defense and could bring it when they had too

another thing that has not been established but certainly argued is that super-teams seem to play under a different set of rules. Brooklyn is a super-team. Not only that, they appear to have generational offensive talent. Harden/Durant/Irving have combined for 27 all-star games, 18 all-NBA teams including 12 first team honors, and 3 MVP's. And they didn't get all that for defense

Brooklyn is an experiment trying to break the rule in a dramatic way. And by the way, as bad as Brooklyn is on defense, they are still 3.4 points better on defense than Portland. Brooklyn ranks 26th, yet they are still closer to the 11th ranked Thunder than Portland is to Brooklyn
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said!
 
I think the Blazers are looking for someone about 6-8 who can handle the ball some and is willing to give effort on defense and on the boards. When we fill this roster spot, this is the type of player I expect we'll get.
 
PCmor7 said:
I think the Blazers are looking for someone about 6-8 who can handle the ball some and is willing to give effort on defense and on the boards. When we fill this roster spot, this is the type of player I expect we'll get.
Click to expand...
But, will Terry play him????
 
Yeah, looks like the cap hits are around 500k. No reason not to add two players. Give me Rondae Hollis Jefferson if Porter/Harkless don’t get bought out and another ball handler. The lack of interest in centers tells me they’re fine with nurk/kanter/roco and maybe Collins returns at some point.
 
Scalma said:
Yeah, looks like the cap hits are around 500k. No reason not to add two players. Give me Rondae Hollis Jefferson if Porter/Harkless don’t get bought out and another ball handler. The lack of interest in centers tells me they’re fine with nurk/kanter/roco and maybe Collins returns at some point.
Click to expand...

Otto Porter would be perfect but I don't know that Orlando is buying him out. Even if they did, Nets have another open spot.
 
PCmor7 said:
I think the Blazers are looking for someone about 6-8 who can handle the ball some and is willing to give effort on defense and on the boards. When we fill this roster spot, this is the type of player I expect we'll get.
Click to expand...
Who's even on the market that fits that description?
There are a couple of PF Gleague guys that look like they might have some potential (that I posted about above), but I'm not sure they even fit that description.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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