Ric Bucher Likes OKC Over Blazers In A Few Years

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Tince said:
LMA is not = Durant.

He might be playing as well as him this month, but his value isn't near Durant's.
Click to expand...

LMA will be a top 3 PF in 3 years, if not the best PF in the entire league. He continues to improve at an outstanding rate and when the others decline, LMA will be up there.

Its not taking away from Durant to say so...but in terms of impact and wins, LMA will be right up there with him. Durant may have the shoe contract and flash...but LMA will be one of the best, if not best, PFs in the league. I think next year, he will be the primary offensive threat on the team....and the offense will run through the post.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of the lotto...Minnesota has the same chance of winning that OKC has. What would the Wolves do? They have Love and Jefferson. I am sure they would still take Blake Griffn, but would they trade one or keep all three. Would they trade with the Thunder for a player and multiple first round draft picks? I am glad this is a weak draft.
 
If i may quote the great Jim Norton, Ric Bucher is a silly goose.
 
minny would never trade in the division after the roy nightmare. im sure they learned their lessson lol. isnt it like 8 straight times we beat them?

roy always kills utah, minny, and the grizz
 
i hope the kings get griffin. they are awful and really arent going anywhere for a while.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Speaking of the lotto...Minnesota has the same chance of winning that OKC has. What would the Wolves do? They have Love and Jefferson. I am sure they would still take Blake Griffn, but would they trade one or keep all three. Would they trade with the Thunder for a player and multiple first round draft picks? I am glad this is a weak draft.
Click to expand...

That's hard to say. I suppose a case could be made for Rubio or Griffin. If they drafted Griffin they could probably find a taker for Kevin Love and try to fill some of the holes in their roster, or if they just went with Rubio they'd pretty much be set in the backcourt with he and Foye.

:dunno:
 
Nikolokolus said:
That's hard to say. I suppose a case could be made for Rubio or Griffin. If they drafted Griffin they could probably find a taker for Kevin Love and try to fill some of the holes in their roster, or if they just went with Rubio they'd pretty much be set in the backcourt with he and Foye.

:dunno:
Click to expand...

No point of taking Rubio #1 IMO.. there would be plenty of teams lining up to get Blake.. maybe get a player and #3-5 for the #1 and a bad contract? otherwise take BPA I would think.. but you never know with minny lol.
 
Nikolokolus said:
That's hard to say. I suppose a case could be made for Rubio or Griffin. If they drafted Griffin they could probably find a taker for Kevin Love and try to fill some of the holes in their roster, or if they just went with Rubio they'd pretty much be set in the backcourt with he and Foye.

:dunno:
Click to expand...

I like our Euro players but.......I would never gamble with taking one with the #1 pick. Too risky IMO. They have too many options on where to play. Will they get homesick? Will a guy from Spain like Minnesota?
 
If the Thunder manage to snag Thabeet, then all the negative talk in these last three pages towards OKC will be in vain.

Yes, the Blazers are much better, but let's not be complete homers here.

The Thunder are a legit big man and 2 years away from being a playoff threat to any team in the NBA. Even in the last part of this season they've shown despite their record, they're improving and have the pieces to win games.

This isn't the Kings or another lotto team completely devoid of talent. They're where we were two years ago.

They have a smart GM (Sam Presti), a top-5 pick in the draft along with multiple other first rounders, cap space to use for FA or in a trade, and an already solid base in place.

I'm not crying chicken little, and there's really no reason to have this discussion of blazers vs. thunder now, but let's not get ahead of ourselves and pretend OKC doesn't have a bright, bright future.
 
BrianWheeler said:
No point of taking Rubio #1 IMO.. there would be plenty of teams lining up to get Blake.. maybe get a player and #3-5 for the #1 and a bad contract? otherwise take BPA I would think.. but you never know with minny lol.
Click to expand...

I don't claim to have any special knowledge about what Minny would do, but they clearly need a starting point guard. Who knows maybe if the won the first overall pick they'd trade down or trade out and try to get an established 'star' to fill a position of need.

Then again, I can't say I really care what Minny does and I'm not sure why I'm spending this much time thinking about their draft strategy :confused:
 
Freshtown said:
If the Thunder manage to snag Thabeet, then all the negative talk in these last three pages towards OKC will be in vain.

Yes, the Blazers are much better, but let's not be complete homers here.

The Thunder are a legit big man and 2 years away from being a playoff threat to any team in the NBA. Even in the last part of this season they've shown despite their record, they're improving and have the pieces to win games.

This isn't the Kings or another lotto team completely devoid of talent. They're where we were two years ago.

They have a smart GM (Sam Presti), a top-5 pick in the draft along with multiple other first rounders, cap space to use for FA or in a trade, and an already solid base in place.

I'm not crying chicken little, and there's really no reason to have this discussion of blazers vs. thunder now, but let's not get ahead of ourselves and pretend OKC doesn't have a bright, bright future.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the blazers have a track record of success, a rich owner, a dedicated fan base and the ability to keep players. Oklahoma City hasn't proven to have any of that.

We have a path, we are on it....OKC is still going to be a lotto team for the foreseeable future.
 
Last edited:
root for okc to win some games... if they do... and slip to 7th.. they prob wont get thabeet or griffin.
 
JE said:
So Brandon Roy is up there with Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, and Dwight Howard? Those are the league's superstars.


I hope you don't answer yes to this.
Click to expand...

They are the league's manufactured superstars. They get all of the advertisements. They get all of the calls. You can tell this is true by LeBron's reaction to his Crab Dribble. He honestly believed that shouldn't have been called because he is LeBron. No other reason.

And he's right. Most of the time that wouldn't be called because he is LeBron and not Roy.

This is especially true with Wade and Howard. Kobe and James would be awesome no matter how the game was called.

If Roy got the same benefits as Wade, they would be a lot closer then they are now, with the added benefit that Roy doesn't turn the ball over as much.
 
blue32 said:
What does it take to be a superstar? How many all stars? How many 50 point games? how many 30+ point games?
What defines superstar? Market exposure? is that why some think he's not a super-star?
Click to expand...


SLAM covers and sneaker deals. It has little to do with oncourt value.
 
MrSelfDestruct said:
That's certainly debatable.

However, if he isn't I don't see how Durant can be considered a superstar.
Click to expand...

A two-time All-Star like Roy isn't a "superstar", yet a proven loser who was MVP of the Rookie-Sophomore game is according to Bucher. :crazy:
 
It depends on Oden, if he stays at the level of play he is now then they could be our rival. If Oden develops into a top 3 center in the league they will be no competition for us.
 
bucher completely lost me when he talks about oklahoma city's great young pg russell westbrook. he's had a good year and put up better numbers than i expected, but he has a lot to work on before he becomes a good pg and it likely will never happen.
 
Nikolokolus said:
I don't claim to have any special knowledge about what Minny would do, but they clearly need a starting point guard. Who knows maybe if the won the first overall pick they'd trade down or trade out and try to get an established 'star' to fill a position of need.

Then again, I can't say I really care what Minny does and I'm not sure why I'm spending this much time thinking about their draft strategy :confused:
Click to expand...

Lol, I know me either.. I just added my two cents.. wasnt jumping on you though.
 
rocketeer said:
bucher completely lost me when he talks about oklahoma city's great young pg russell westbrook. he's had a good year and put up better numbers than i expected, but he has a lot to work on before he becomes a good pg and it likely will never happen.
Click to expand...

I actually disagree. He might not be a pass-first PG - but he will, in my opinion, be their best player when you actually factor defense.
 
For the record - from a Chat on ESPN:

Ali (Calgary, Alberta): JA!!!! What's up at the lounge? Do you agree with Ric Bucher's assesment of the Thunder having a brighter future than the Blazers? He goes on to saying that he doesn't feel the Blazers have their superstar either hinting at Brandon Roy not being a SUPERstar. I'm sure there are many angles to this debate, what's yours?

SportsNation J.A. Adande: (3:33 PM ET ) I think Roy is a superstar (pending playoff validation) and the Blazers roster has more good young players. I like Durant, but he hasn't exactly turned the franchise around, has he?
Click to expand...

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=25772
 
westbrook is a good guard and could be the pip for durant but i'm not sure durant is the next mj like alot of people have annointed him. they have a good core there and could be good but we are already good. there have been many teams before that have great potential but never put it together.

i also question bennetts ability to sign these guys to max contracts.

as for the draft, i'm not worried about thabeet at all. blair, from pitt, is 6-8 and he pushed thabeet around and had some really good games against the guy. as for blake, he is probably going to be a decent 4 but doesn't solve their problems at C. he gets by with hustle and quickness at the college level and that doesn't always translate to the NBA where the players are bigger and stronger than college.
 
Bucher is wrong about everything. Roy is better than Durant and will probably be for the rest of his career. If Durant was so great, his team would have more than 21 wins. And YES, Roy is in the conversation with Paul, Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Howard. Anyone who watches Roy on a regular basis knows that he one of the best players in the league. Roy will receive votes for MVP this spring. Durant won't. Not one.

As for needing a PG, Phil Jackson won 9 championships in LA and Chicago without an excellent PG. Blake is better than any PG who played for his teams. And Blake is definitely better than Avery Johnson was. And he's at least as good as Kenny Smith was. Therefore, out of the last 19 champions, Blake is better than the PGs that won 12 of those championships.

Ric needs to fucking learn the game before posting.
 
Derek Fisher and Ron Harper were definitely better players than Blake.
 
This is a post I posted on O-Live in December of last season. It says it all:

Portland finishes 06/07 season 32-50
Seattle finishes 06/07 season 31-51

Portland wins lotto and drafts Oden
Seattle wins the silver and drafts Durant

Portland trades top scorer Zach Randolph
Seattle trades top scorer Ray Allen

Portland's Oden has surgery and is out for the season
Seattle's Durant is at 100%

Portland= 21-13, first place
Seattle= 9-24, last place

Truth.

That fucking says it all. We both traded our best players and drafted top rookies. The Sonics got worse. We got better and our rookie didn't even play. Durant has made ZERO impact on the Sonics/Thunder franchise. Zero. They would be just as crappy without him. In fact, doesn't the Thunder have a better record without Durant this season? They went on a big run when Durant wasn't playing.
 
Bucher just makes shit up and presents it like it's a well known fact. The last great PG to win an NBA title was Isiah Thomas in 1990.

John Stockton = 0 titles
Jason Kidd = 0 titles
Steve Nash = 0 titles

Gary Payton won a title, but he was, by then, a shadow of the player he once was.

Having a great PG is nice, but hardly a requirement to winning a title. Conversely, being a Hall of Fame caliber PG is no guarantee you'll ever win a ring (see: John Stockton, Jason Kidd and Steve Nash).

Remember, dominant big men, defense and rebounding win titles. These aren't facets of the game where PGs excel. Having a great PG doesn't hurt, but is is simply not a prerequisite to winning an NBA title. Anyone who claims otherwise simply doesn't know shit about NBA basketball (see: Ric Bucher).

BNM
 
mook said:
Derek Fisher and Ron Harper were definitely better players than Blake.
Click to expand...

You're wrong.

Derek Fisher in the 2000-01 season: 11.5 ppg, 4.4 apg, 39% from three point line.
Derek Fisher in the 2001-02 season: 11.2 ppg, 2.6 apg, 41% from the three point line.

Ron Harper in the 1995-96 season: 7.4 ppg, 2.6 apg, 27% from the three point line.
Ron Harper in the 1996-97 season: 6.3 ppg, 2.5 apg, 36% from the three point line.
Ron Harper in the 1997-98 season: 9.3 ppg, 2.9 apg, 19% from the three point line.
Ron Harper in the 1999-00 season: 7.0 ppg, 3.4 apg, 31% from the three point line.
Ron Harper in the 2000-01 season: 6.5 ppg, 2.4 apg, 26% from the three point line.

Steve Blake in the 2008-09 season: 11.2 ppg, 5.0 apg, 43% from three three point line.

Sorry. Learn the game, then post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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