- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/1/21 at 1:58 pm to TigerinATL
quote:Agree. It is making a trade simply to make a trade. It does not solve the contractual issue we have already with Ball. My assumption is that the only reason the Pels are looking to trade Ball is that they have already discussed a new contract and cannot come close on an agreement.
Unless Lauri will get significantly less than Lonzo, I'd rather keep and overpay Lonzo than Lauri. I've only seen him when he plays the Pels but his defense is some of the worst I've ever seen, he makes Ryan Anderson look All NBA. I'd rather have neither, but I just don't see Lauri as a fit on this team. It'd be different if Zion was projecting as an elite defender, but that prospect seems iffy at the moment.
Posted on 2/1/21 at 2:20 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Rebuild
People have been pitching that on this forum for a decade. Hats off to you guys that still follow on a daily basis.
Posted on 2/1/21 at 2:24 pm to ghost2most
Stanley Marshall Mathers made it a popular term when he released his hit single “Stan” back in 2000.
I’m in no hurry to rush the future but I would fully support our front office going out and getting our 3rd star(today, or tomorrow.)
A couple factors to consider but maybe the biggest is how Stan employs his weapons i.e. players.
Our starters will play heavy minutes and bench will rarely see the court.
We’re far enough in the “process” to know what we have and who we seek.
((BI and (Zach) and Zion)) would be a hell of a challenge to conquer on a nightly basis.
Zo + Redick and couple first should spark the Bulls interest.
(Kira/Alexander-Walker/Hayes not on table)
(It wouldn’t be prudent to move Bled or Adams)
I’m in no hurry to rush the future but I would fully support our front office going out and getting our 3rd star(today, or tomorrow.)
A couple factors to consider but maybe the biggest is how Stan employs his weapons i.e. players.
Our starters will play heavy minutes and bench will rarely see the court.
We’re far enough in the “process” to know what we have and who we seek.
((BI and (Zach) and Zion)) would be a hell of a challenge to conquer on a nightly basis.
Zo + Redick and couple first should spark the Bulls interest.
(Kira/Alexander-Walker/Hayes not on table)
(It wouldn’t be prudent to move Bled or Adams)
This post was edited on 2/1/21 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 2/1/21 at 2:28 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:I had this conversation with my wife this weekend. The song came on the radio and I asked her if she knew the significance of the song in pop-culture, she did not. Which is also how I knew it came out in the year 2000, because the radio station I had it on also tells you the year that the song came out when it's playing (ie. Stan (00)).
And we literally know it comes from 2000 because its origins are from an Eminem song called... Stan.
Posted on 2/1/21 at 2:31 pm to Don Pel
quote:Why would the Bulls want to trade Lavine?
Stanley Marshall Mathers made it a popular term when he released his hit single “Stan” back in 2000.
I’m in no hurry to rush the future but I would fully support our front office going out and getting our 3rd star(today, or tomorrow.)
A couple factors to consider but maybe the biggest is how Stan employs his weapons i.e. players.
Our starters will play heavy minutes and bench will rarely see the court.
We’re far enough in the “process” to know what we have and who we seek.
((BI and (Zach) and Zion)) would be a hell of a challenge to conquer on a nightly basis.
Zo + Redick and couple first should spark the Bulls interest.
(Kira/Alexander-Walker/Hayes not on table)
(It wouldn’t be prudent to move Bled or Adams)
Posted on 2/1/21 at 2:36 pm to NOSHAU
LaVine is a class act and there’s been a few indicators that he wants out of Chicago. Similar situation to Davis, except for LaVine ain’t a whiny lil bisssh.
His desire to win and with Chicago trending towards being a team going through a rebuild more than one of contention over the next few years.
His desire to win and with Chicago trending towards being a team going through a rebuild more than one of contention over the next few years.
This post was edited on 2/1/21 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 2/1/21 at 2:37 pm to Don Pel
The thought is Lavine is someone that is a chucker that scores a lot on a crappy team, but his 3P% has been great his whole career.
His huge problem, just like BI this year as well as Zion, is he turns the ball over way too much. Our turnovers are a big reason why we keep losing.
Maybe putting Lavine on this team with a real PG and having much much much much more ball movement instead of 1 on 1 crap constantly would decrease those turnovers tremendously and turn us into a good team. If BI and Lavine are hitting 3's at 40%, on top of getting to the FT line 6 times a night on average each, then you should be able to reduce their dribbling and 1 on 1's where they try to do too much, which leads to careless turnovers. If Kira can be a 36-40% three point shooter, i think that could be a really good team once they figure it out defensively, and i think both BI and Lavine want to be good defenders, which is half the battle.
Having Lavine/BI/Zion could absolutely work with the right offensive minded coach, and player buy in from them, which i think you can get b/c they want to win. You let them go 1 on 1 all game and that's a recipe for turnovers and losses. SVG is not the coach for that though. Billy Donovan would have been great for a team like that.
His huge problem, just like BI this year as well as Zion, is he turns the ball over way too much. Our turnovers are a big reason why we keep losing.
Maybe putting Lavine on this team with a real PG and having much much much much more ball movement instead of 1 on 1 crap constantly would decrease those turnovers tremendously and turn us into a good team. If BI and Lavine are hitting 3's at 40%, on top of getting to the FT line 6 times a night on average each, then you should be able to reduce their dribbling and 1 on 1's where they try to do too much, which leads to careless turnovers. If Kira can be a 36-40% three point shooter, i think that could be a really good team once they figure it out defensively, and i think both BI and Lavine want to be good defenders, which is half the battle.
Having Lavine/BI/Zion could absolutely work with the right offensive minded coach, and player buy in from them, which i think you can get b/c they want to win. You let them go 1 on 1 all game and that's a recipe for turnovers and losses. SVG is not the coach for that though. Billy Donovan would have been great for a team like that.
Posted on 2/1/21 at 2:38 pm to NOSHAU
quote:
Why would the Bulls want to trade Lavine?
Ya! ...on top of that.. why would they do that for Lonzo, Reddick and 2 firsts?!
I wish when people said these dumb arse trades they would do it the other way round?
Lauri Mark, Thad Young and 2 firsts for Brandon Ingram? Sound good? Nah didn’t think so
Posted on 2/1/21 at 2:40 pm to England_Pelican
Posted on 2/1/21 at 2:45 pm to England_Pelican
quote:
Ya! ...on top of that.. why would they do that for Lonzo, Reddick and 2 firsts?! I wish when people said these dumb arse trades they would do it the other way round? Lauri Mark, Thad Young and 2 firsts for Brandon Ingram? Sound good? Nah didn’t think so
Silly me, for being a fan and posting wild game theories on a message board dedicated to... ah nvm
But check my stats dawg. BI ain’t coming off no bench...
I may not always be right but I guarantee you I’m not just throwing shite against the wall lol lol lol
This post was edited on 2/1/21 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 2/1/21 at 2:49 pm to Fun Bunch
Oooohhhh
Posted on 2/1/21 at 2:54 pm to NOSHAU
The Pels shouldn’t want LaVine. They already have two elite scorers who struggle to defend their position and aren’t elite facilitators, I can’t imagine adding a third, more expensive and less efficient version would significantly impact winning. Not to mention stunting their growth.
The Pels really don’t have that many chances to get this right. If they push their chips in for a third star, they have to get it right. They need someone who can either a) facilitate and defend their position at an elite level or b) is such an undeniable talent that they can be a top option on a contending team. LaVine isn’t either of those, so I don’t know why we’d want to spend the assets and money to take possessions away from Zion and Ingram, and get bounced in the 1st round
The Pels really don’t have that many chances to get this right. If they push their chips in for a third star, they have to get it right. They need someone who can either a) facilitate and defend their position at an elite level or b) is such an undeniable talent that they can be a top option on a contending team. LaVine isn’t either of those, so I don’t know why we’d want to spend the assets and money to take possessions away from Zion and Ingram, and get bounced in the 1st round
Posted on 2/1/21 at 2:58 pm to Baron
Lavine is having a career year. I’d rather Beal but Lavine has been pretty damn good this year
Don’t see much difference in “fit” in either Beal or lavine with the pels
Don’t see much difference in “fit” in either Beal or lavine with the pels
This post was edited on 2/1/21 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 2/1/21 at 3:12 pm to Baron
Lonzo/Melli to Bulls
JJ to Celtics
Otto Porter to Pels and whatever Boston gives us for JJ, hopefully a 1st
JJ to Celtics
Otto Porter to Pels and whatever Boston gives us for JJ, hopefully a 1st
Posted on 2/1/21 at 3:12 pm to Macintosh
I understand that people are back on the Lavine wagon because he’s shot the ball well in the 18 games he’s played so far, but he’s still not defending his position and is turning the ball over more than ever. For me, Beal potentially falls into option b) that I listed: undeniable talent that can be a go to go on a contending team.
I’m not necessarily arguing for Beal as much as I’m arguing against Lavine, but at least Beal has shown flashes in the past of being a pretty good defender, even if he only seems to do it in crunch moments. I don’t think LaVine has ever shown that ability. Beal has also shown that he might be able to expand into more of a facilitator, which is also very intriguing. He has already shown that doesn’t turn the ball over nearly as often as LaVine while producing nearly the same assist numbers.
I’m not wholly convinced trading for Beal is the right play for the Pels, but I am convinced that trading for LaVine is the wrong play
I’m not necessarily arguing for Beal as much as I’m arguing against Lavine, but at least Beal has shown flashes in the past of being a pretty good defender, even if he only seems to do it in crunch moments. I don’t think LaVine has ever shown that ability. Beal has also shown that he might be able to expand into more of a facilitator, which is also very intriguing. He has already shown that doesn’t turn the ball over nearly as often as LaVine while producing nearly the same assist numbers.
I’m not wholly convinced trading for Beal is the right play for the Pels, but I am convinced that trading for LaVine is the wrong play
This post was edited on 2/1/21 at 3:14 pm
Posted on 2/1/21 at 3:51 pm to Baron
If it is not Beal or Lavine, who is the player the Pels should go after with an aggressive offer?
Posted on 2/1/21 at 3:56 pm to NOSHAU
I don't think there is a guy like that yet.
Posted on 2/1/21 at 3:57 pm to NOSHAU
CP3
Posted on 2/1/21 at 4:03 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:I agree. We probably need to be patient for another year or so and see who comes available.
I don't think there is a guy like that yet.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News