Dolfan in NYC Posted June 3 Posted June 3 58 minutes ago, hammerva said: If you are tired of the talk about how Caitlin Cark is treated in the WNBA this first couple month, the thing with Chennedy Carter of Chicago didn't help things. This weekend Carter delivered a pretty hard borderline dirty foul on Clark during a game. Complete with a "BITCH" before the shot that knocked her down. All while her teammate Angel Reese seemed to enjoy every second of it. While all of this talk about how the WNBA is jealous of Clark which is pretty much bullshit, it does bring up a question that Matt Barnes brought up about why her own players are basically not doing shit. Caitlin is taking a beating and except for player helping her up, I haven't seen one Fever player stand up for her by throwing down for her. Definitely sounds like her teammates aren't thrilled with her. If she's been off living the superstar life and they're stuck eating diner food in suburban Indianapolis... I can see it building a bit of resentment.
blitzkrieg Posted June 3 Posted June 3 The Fever are an incredibly young team with not a whole lot of veteran presence. Plus honestly not everyone is built like that.
NikoBaltimore Posted June 3 Posted June 3 (edited) EDIT: Thinking back on this post while I didn't say anything necessarily wrong before I will admit I know nothing about the WNBA. So until I kind of have a clue about the league in general I'm holding off on saying anything and who knows even then. Edited June 4 by NikoBaltimore 1
Tabe Posted June 3 Posted June 3 5 hours ago, blitzkrieg said: The Fever are an incredibly young team with not a whole lot of veteran presence. Plus honestly not everyone is built like that. Ya really don't have to be a veteran to know how to defend a teammate. It's not like they just started playing basketball a week ago. 1
Stefanie Sparkleface Posted June 4 Posted June 4 The Fever also haven't been good for close to a decade, as mentioned before the team as a whole is very young, and their coach (Christie Sides) was in way over her head before she got handed Caitlin Clark. It's an organizational shitshow ran by a 77-year-old GM who should've never stepped into the role in the first place back in 2022. Want their owner to fix things? Good luck; he's 89 years old and also owns the Pacers. So yeah, there's a limit to how much can be done until someone within management steps in and decides to get a GM that didn't already retire from coaching a decade ago, a coach with actual top-level experience, and management that actually cares about the team instead of having two supernovas in Clark and Aliyah Boston land in their laps. 1
Log Posted June 4 Posted June 4 Clark just needs to get on some MJ "...and I took that personally" shit.
hammerva Posted June 6 Posted June 6 If JJ doesn't get the job, can we assume that Lebron isn't going to be playing for the Lakers. I mean it feels like the only selling point to him being the head coach was that he was Lebron's podcast buddy
Travis Sheldon Posted June 6 Posted June 6 1 hour ago, hammerva said: If JJ doesn't get the job, can we assume that Lebron isn't going to be playing for the Lakers. I mean it feels like the only selling point to him being the head coach was that he was Lebron's podcast buddy Fingers and toes crossed.
Stefanie Sparkleface Posted June 6 Posted June 6 I think the Lakers should probably let Lebron walk if he's not geared toward the future of the franchise. Putting an astronomical amount of money in a guy that will be entering his 22nd season (oh, and by the way, you need to take his son too) when the guy behind him has literally never played a full season in his career and folds under pressure means you need to start getting into rebuild mode. The current configuration is really only good for the play-in tournament and throwing the coach under the bus, as they've done twice now. Letting Lebron come back for another couple of years of your ceiling being the #7 seed and firing the coach just delays the inevitable.
Dolfan in NYC Posted June 6 Posted June 6 For what it's worth, a) He's already said playing with his kid is no longer a priority. Last I saw, he's not getting mocked any higher than end of the 1st round. Some cases as far as mid-2nd. He didn't have that great a season last year, so Lebron is certainly not going to wrap up his career playing for, I dunno, Charlotte because his kid is there. b) It's insane for anyone to pay him a max deal at 40. The Lakers appear to be the only one dumb enough to do so, but if he actually wants one more ring, he's not getting it there. Now for a team that's a piece or two away from serious contention (NY, Minnesota, I'm looking in your direction...) at the MLE, that's a horrifying problem for your opponents to deal with.
Stefanie Sparkleface Posted June 6 Posted June 6 23 minutes ago, Dolfan in NYC said: For what it's worth, a) He's already said playing with his kid is no longer a priority. Last I saw, he's not getting mocked any higher than end of the 1st round. Some cases as far as mid-2nd. He didn't have that great a season last year, so Lebron is certainly not going to wrap up his career playing for, I dunno, Charlotte because his kid is there. b) It's insane for anyone to pay him a max deal at 40. The Lakers appear to be the only one dumb enough to do so, but if he actually wants one more ring, he's not getting it there. Now for a team that's a piece or two away from serious contention (NY, Minnesota, I'm looking in your direction...) at the MLE, that's a horrifying problem for your opponents to deal with. I just get flashbacks of the last couple of years of Kobe's career as I watch this all unfold, and I wonder how the Lakers have learned nothing from what happened there.
Brian Fowler Posted June 6 Posted June 6 Turning down a $51 million player option to sign a $13 million MLE would be something though, even for a billionaire.
jaedmc Posted June 7 Posted June 7 Has anyone done the math as to how much Lebron means to a team off the court? Ad revenue, jersey sales, etc... Because, sure, maybe he's not helpful for the longterm future of your team on the court... but even at 40 you'll probably make your investment back from the revenue sources he opens up. It's easy to accept being a play-in team if the profit margins bigger than they would've been prior.
Dolfan in NYC Posted June 7 Posted June 7 I'd say, the money he commands in salary... Yes it will be brought back tenfold at least in ticket and merch sales. But! It's like jazz, sometimes you need to listen to the notes that aren't being played. In this case, who does that $50m you're using on LBJ prevent you from signing or trading for? Because if you can sign LeBron that's great. But if you can sign LeBron AND Tobias Harris or Obi Toppin... that's even better.
Stefanie Sparkleface Posted June 7 Posted June 7 32 minutes ago, jaedmc said: Has anyone done the math as to how much Lebron means to a team off the court? Ad revenue, jersey sales, etc... Because, sure, maybe he's not helpful for the longterm future of your team on the court... but even at 40 you'll probably make your investment back from the revenue sources he opens up. It's easy to accept being a play-in team if the profit margins bigger than they would've been prior. That's a good question, but it's also hard to answer in terms of a team like the Lakers, who are always in the top five in term of valuation and revenue. As long as they're competitive, they're going to make money, so Lebron's just a cherry on the sundae. To the Cavs, though...
Brian Fowler Posted June 7 Posted June 7 It's also worth noting that, even at 39 years old in his 21st season, LeBron put up about 26-7-8, was third team all-NBA, was 7th in VORP and BPM, 18th in win shares, and sixth in PER. He might not help the long-term outlook much, but a team that's relatively close? He's still a top fifteen player in the NBA, arguably top ten, and it's not hard to imagine him putting a good team over the top. The problem is the Lakers aren't all that good beyond him and AD.
Stefanie Sparkleface Posted June 7 Posted June 7 4 hours ago, Brian Fowler said: It's also worth noting that, even at 39 years old in his 21st season, LeBron put up about 26-7-8, was third team all-NBA, was 7th in VORP and BPM, 18th in win shares, and sixth in PER. He might not help the long-term outlook much, but a team that's relatively close? He's still a top fifteen player in the NBA, arguably top ten, and it's not hard to imagine him putting a good team over the top. The problem is the Lakers aren't all that good beyond him and AD. Yeah, it's really a conundrum. Lebron's numbers are good, and if he was turning 30, I'd say there's no way you let him go. Same with if the Lakers were in the top 3 in the conference. Problem is, neither of those situations are true. They need more pieces that will be there in 2-3 years, and giving up that much for Lebron for another year? Ehhhhhh. It's a nice "thanks for the extra trophy in the case" but I don't know what it does for the future unless you're willing to delay doing that for a couple of years.
Log Posted June 7 Posted June 7 12 hours ago, jaedmc said: Has anyone done the math as to how much Lebron means to a team off the court? Ad revenue, jersey sales, etc... Because, sure, maybe he's not helpful for the longterm future of your team on the court... but even at 40 you'll probably make your investment back from the revenue sources he opens up. It's easy to accept being a play-in team if the profit margins bigger than they would've been prior. With all the talk of Lebron wanting to play with his son in the league, I wonder if there's a smaller/mid-market team that would reach for Bronny too early in the draft just to try to get dad, too. Probably not, but the exposure of having him on your team, possibly doing his "farewell tour" with his son would probably bring in a few bucks.
blitzkrieg Posted June 7 Posted June 7 14 hours ago, Stefanie Sparkleface said: That's a good question, but it's also hard to answer in terms of a team like the Lakers, who are always in the top five in term of valuation and revenue. As long as they're competitive, they're going to make money, so Lebron's just a cherry on the sundae. To the Cavs, though... Without Lebron, they're not going be competitive in the West. Lebron basically dragged them to the play-ins in a Western Conference that's going be even tougher next year. Plus Russell is going end up opting out of his deal. I don't think anyone has fond memories of the post-Kobe, pre-Lebron years of middling Lakers. 15 hours ago, Dolfan in NYC said: But! It's like jazz, sometimes you need to listen to the notes that aren't being played. In this case, who does that $50m you're using on LBJ prevent you from signing or trading for? If Lebron and D-Lo both opted out of their contracts, that frees up about $32m for the Lakers to replace their first and third best player in free agency. If Lebron opts in to his contract but D-Lo opts out, then the Lakers are still over the cap, but under the first apron, which means that they have the taxpayer MLE to replace their third best player. And if you don't sign Lebron to an extension and he walks after next season, you suddenly have a team where you're paying Anthony Davis $60m to be your best player. So really unless the Lakers are going blow up the team, I think Lebron is kinda of a bargain given the situation that they're in.
Stefanie Sparkleface Posted June 7 Posted June 7 37 minutes ago, blitzkrieg said: Without Lebron, they're not going be competitive in the West. Lebron basically dragged them to the play-ins in a Western Conference that's going be even tougher next year. Plus Russell is going end up opting out of his deal. I don't think anyone has fond memories of the post-Kobe, pre-Lebron years of middling Lakers. If Lebron and D-Lo both opted out of their contracts, that frees up about $32m for the Lakers to replace their first and third best player in free agency. If Lebron opts in to his contract but D-Lo opts out, then the Lakers are still over the cap, but under the first apron, which means that they have the taxpayer MLE to replace their third best player. And if you don't sign Lebron to an extension and he walks after next season, you suddenly have a team where you're paying Anthony Davis $60m to be your best player. So really unless the Lakers are going blow up the team, I think Lebron is kinda of a bargain given the situation that they're in. Well that kind of takes me to my original point: the Lakers are going to hit a period of stink anyway. The question is, when do you want to hit it? You're not going to get anything for Lebron anyway. He's never going to be tradable. The Pelicans deferred the pick for the AD trade to 2025, so no matter what happens this year, your first round pick goes to New Orleans. So really, do you... - Keep Lebron and have another year of a play-in tournament level team - Let Lebron go, trade AD off for picks while you can conceivably fleece someone for him before his injuries start to mount up They're going to be in a mess for a couple of years when Lebron leaves anyway. Do you want to do it now or do you want to do it in a year or two?
blitzkrieg Posted June 7 Posted June 7 49 minutes ago, Stefanie Sparkleface said: Well that kind of takes me to my original point: the Lakers are going to hit a period of stink anyway. The question is, when do you want to hit it? I think the answer with the Lakers is always "kick the can down the road and figure it out later." Partially because they're basically the only team where the team isn't the owner's fun side business. Personally if I was looking toward winning a championship in the next 5-10 years I would blow up the team. Because they're not winning a championship now and they have no future currently on their roster.
RIPPA Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 Darvin Ham is joining the Bucks as Doc Rivers top assistant
Kuetsar Posted June 10 Posted June 10 2 minutes ago, RIPPA said: Darvin Ham is joining the Bucks as Doc Rivers top assistant Future replacement?
Recommended Posts