Would yall consider this trade?

[ebott]

I don't agree with any of this, except maybe that we do not need Marion.

Marion does not need to be the first option on a team, unless his whole career has been some sort of mirage.

Maybe he doesn't NEED to be a first option. But he definitely wants his touches. It might also be that he wasn't this way his whole career. But the last few years with Pheonix it was well known that Marion was the kind of guy that checked his stat sheet at half time and was not a happy camper if he wasn't getting as many as shots as he thought he deserved.

The way I see it we're already gonna have issues with guys not getting enough shots, minutes, etc. It doesn't make sense to bring in yet another guy that is going to exacerbate the situation.

Sure, it's tempting because he's so talented that you figure he'll do a lot more good on the floor than damage in the locker room. Especially if we can get him for the low low cost of Frye and Travis. It's the kind of thing I might wanna do at the trade deadline. But right now I'd much rather see how the first half of the season goes with this group of players that has never played together before than make a move like this.

Further, what has our "chemistry" got us so far? "Chemistry" is a bunch of bunk, especially on a team that's never made a playoff appearance and has a bunch of youngsters on the roster.

Ed O.

It did get us a 9 win improvement after giving away our most productive player. I'm saying that's significant.

It's only been two years with the youngest team in the league. I'm thinking we stick with this whole chemistry/culture deal that Kevin Pritchard is so high on before we try making a quick fix type move.

What's a better argument, imho, is all the teams in the past that have seemingly fallen apart due to poor chemistry. Teams that come to mind are the 2001 Blazers and last year's Bulls team. If we keep an eye on chemistry I figure we're less likely to end up like them.

 

[Ed O]

Maybe he doesn't NEED to be a first option. But he definitely wants his touches. It might also be that he wasn't this way his whole career. But the last few years with Pheonix it was well known that Marion was the kind of guy that checked his stat sheet at half time and was not a happy camper if he wasn't getting as many as shots as he thought he deserved.

The way I see it we're already gonna have issues with guys not getting enough shots, minutes, etc. It doesn't make sense to bring in yet another guy that is going to exacerbate the situation.

We're going to have issues with guys not getting enough stats?

What about the "chemistry" that this team allegedly has?

Sure, it's tempting because he's so talented that you figure he'll do a lot more good on the floor than damage in the locker room. Especially if we can get him for the low low cost of Frye and Travis. It's the kind of thing I might wanna do at the trade deadline. But right now I'd much rather see how the first half of the season goes with this group of players that has never played together before than make a move like this.

I'm not sure that I do the deal, either, but I don't fail to do it because there's a risk of having too many good players on the team. That's silly.

It did get us a 9 win improvement after giving away our most productive player. I'm saying that's significant.

I don't think that it was addition by subtraction. I think it was one good streak fueled by career-best play from a veteran (James Jones) and natural improvement from very good young players (Aldridge, Roy).

It's only been two years with the youngest team in the league. I'm thinking we stick with this whole chemistry/culture deal that Kevin Pritchard is so high on before we try making a quick fix type move.

What's a better argument, imho, is all the teams in the past that have seemingly fallen apart due to poor chemistry. Teams that come to mind are the 2001 Blazers and last year's Bulls team. If we keep an eye on chemistry I figure we're less likely to end up like them.

Yeah... I disagree.

After a team falls apart, people use "bad chemistry" as an excuse. Chemistry can seem just fine until things go bad, and then all of a sudden the chemistry is bad.

"Chemistry" could be perceived as bad, and then the team wins and suddenly it's because the team "gelled".

Except in very extreme situations, it's all a bunch of hooey. It's a way to explain the unexplainable through a blanket application of an intangible that only has "value" in hindsight.

Ed O.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

If Denver starts badly and wants to rebuild, I'd do

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...454~2015~2795&teams=22~22~7~7~7~7~7&te=&cash=

but a lot would have to go wrong for them to trade Carmelo.

 

[BenDavis503x]

Are you fucking kidding me?

Stick your dick back in your pants. We don't need to see that thing.

huh? What does that even mean? lol you fail.

 

[Fawzi83]

well i dont think Miami would bite unless Channing was thrown in because they need a center and Diogku is less proven and a power forward


C-Oden/Pryzbillia/Anthony
PF-Aldridge/Diogku


seems like the Blazers wouldnt lose any real depth and Shawn can also play the 4

Who's Diogku? lol

 

[Sheldon Shape]

Who's Diogku? lol

I believe a Pokemon character.