A couple of months ago I suggested LMA and DeMar for Otto Porter and Bradley Beal.
If Portland called, how about LMA and the Toronto 1st for Harkless, Leonard and the Portland 1st?
I don't see NY trading Kanter for Gasol.
I know you strongly dislike Aldridge, but that would be a historically awful trade for the Spurs. An All-Star caliber player for a banged up, middling, borderline overpaid role player, an albatross (though he is having a decent season) and essentially an equivalent pick. Yikes.
i'd make that trade in a heartbeat...addition by subtraction...LMA in cancerous and a choker...we need to drop him...we WILL regret not trading him while his value is high...hate me for saying it now, but mark my words
I like both players. Plus, I think both could thrive with the Spurs - especially Leonard who can board well and shoot the 3 at a high percentage. Plus, I expect the trade of 1sts to improve our position by 8-10 places - or more. Basically, I am just never swayed by a strong performance or two by LMA or even by games when his fadeaway is dropping. I am at least consistent in my evaluation of him. Ultimately I agree with duncan2k5. After next season we will never be able to get any value for him. And I do not want to see him retire a Spur.
You expect him to bang hard every single regular season game?
That's how big men used to make their money. I do not want a seven-foot marshmallow shooting mostly 18-foot fadeaways.
Name a big man in the NBA TODAY that bangs hard every game. Stop being such an old man who reminisces to the "good ole days".
You even got Boogie, Kevin Love, Embiid, Marc Gasol, all jacking up 3 pointers.
Ill hang up and wait.
Last edited by stu scotts eye; 01-06-2019 at 10:00 PM.
The conversation really started with another poster's comment that he liked how the Spurs were currently operating, finding LMA under the basket and early, and how he was punishing teams that play small ball. It should work very consistently in this league today. I don't need to name any other big man in the NBA TODAY that bangs hard every game. It is doable. But even if LMA doesn't play in the low post and take advantage of his size every single regular season game, I still don't like the 18-foot fadeaways, just about the least efficient shot imaginable - especially against shorter defenders.
Why not just discuss basketball rather than throw in gratuitous ad hominem remarks?
Last edited by sasaint; 01-06-2019 at 10:12 PM.
NO KY WAS THE CANCER AND HE GONE
It was a relavent question to your point about resorting to the fadeaway which still requires Lamarcus to bang. You rather him attack under basket. Fine. Guess what all other premier big men do nowadays when they dont want to bang? They shoot soft ass three pointers never even bothering to venture inside.
I don't get the LMA shooting too many fade aways accusation when he's leading the league in post up scoring for the season and was a monster last season too. Sure his toughness varies from game to game but he's not young and he'd be a superstar if he was able to bring it every night.
Fun stat - his fg% within 3 feet has been elite the past couple of seasons. So elite that Tim ing Duncan has had a better % only once in his career. LMA has been in Shaq territory %-wise near the hoop.
Only players expandable are Danny and Manu
Good move on the coaching team to let LMA get the ball deep inside the paint before the defense from the other team can set
Wtf, he aint old nor an action star. Why is Sly casting him? Also why make expendables 4? Ugh
people here underestimate this kids work ethic. He's already back working out and was in the gym working with Davis yesterday. 2 years of shooting drills will improve his shooting numbers a lot. Especially when he showed flashes of good shooting motions since being a rookie. Pop putting him in game plan meetings will also improve his court awareness and he will know the sets to run even better. The kid deserves the benefit of the doubt. At the beginning of the season Spurs coaches said "You won't believe the leap they made" when talking about Derrick White & Murray. With how well White has been playing I assume Murray's production on the court will be similar. Also factor in that the Spurs play faster now and run in transition. That plays into DJs strengths
From 18 feet? No. Not punishing or banging to take an 18-foot fadeaway. Especially against smaller defenders.
It really is not relevant what most bigs do nowadays. But on the flip side of the coin, that inefficient fadeaway is as antiquated as the post game. It is a face-up game today. But the Spurs have always zigged when the league zagged. They are doing so currently. They are depending on the 2-ball while the league is 3-ball crazy. Fine. But if they are dependent upon 2s, they should at least depend on the most efficient 2s.
Fun observation: if he is highly efficient within 3 feet of the bucket, he should never shoot a fadeaway. One is too many. But that has been his favorite shot his entire career.
in the last 15 games the Spurs have been elite from anywhere on the court. They shoot lights out, so they don't really depend on anything. They just shoot the shots the defense gives them and hit them at a high clip. Weather that's around the rim, the midrange or 3s
So, what about the 15 games before that? What about last season?
I am not sure I understand your argument. Because they have shot lights out for 15 games, do you expect them to shoot lights out for the rest of the season?
last season was a different team and the games before those we started Cunningham. You don't have to be a genius to understand that
So, your argument is that because the shooting percentages are so great in your 15 game sample, shot selection is not important? Okay, let's just see what the next 15 games bring, and what the rest of the season brings. I do not expect the team's shooting to hold up any more than I expect DWhite's incredible individual shooting to hold up. I hope I am dead wrong.
Shot selection depends on what the opponent gives you. Spurs shoot open shots no matter where from the floor. And teams likely give you the midrange especially in the playoffs, so it's not bad to be elite from midrange
I am fine with being elite from mid-range - as long as our defense is dependable, especially against opponents' 3s. Taking what the defense gives you is great. But by contrast, a long, turnaround fade-away is forcing the issue. The defense is never "giving" you that shot; you are just taking it. You wouldn't have to fadeaway if the defense were "giving" you the shot.
Finally someone with the guys to agree with me publicly... We aren't the only ppl to feel that way... But since I'm the hated messenger, ppl keep that opinion locked away
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
