2022-23 Team Developments: News / Trades / Free Agents / Rumors

That would definitely be wild. I don't see a Kuz reunion happening but I always liked him.

 

Saying no to bad deals isn't exactly trying every which way. Listening to offers and rejecting them ,isn't some kind of example of trying hard to move him either Cookie. I KNEW we weren't trading Russ because every deal I saw didn't make any sense.

 

not giving up a 1st for kuz (FA), washington (FA), or bogdanovic (old). i'd give up 2 2nd for any of them. i could maybe be talked into a protected 1st in some cases...

washington makes me a pause a bit because he's young and has some upside still. he's the closest thing to a 3 and d sf on that list, too.

his FA status worries me, as noted above, and i'm also not sure why charlotte wouldn't rather let his FA play out? i guess if they could get a first? risky.

 

Because he is small, makes too much money on a long term deal and frankly he isn't as good of a player as Russell Westbrook is right now. Let alone his current shooting woes. I mean in the same vein, we should expect Bev to return to norm at a 38% clip from 3 right? That's his career pct.

 

How is that moving the goal posts? If Shaq or Kobe doesn't play like Shaq or Kobe how many chips would they have won? Or Jordan..Lebron, Curry, Giaanis. Jerseys don't play the game. That should be a given..Which team won a chip with their superstars playing like regular rotation players then? Yep I said the Mavs did it...and..that's 1 team out of multiple others...rather further proves my point doesn't it?

 

We should try..like I said I'm greedy, but NO..I'm not in on this idea that we MUST make a trade in order to be a playoff caliber team at all.

 

Cook fighting the good fight even whilst on vacation …. broughten the hammer.

 

Agh madam ..that's petty " I got cha!" stuff. I said that 3 stars win..the rebuttal was other teams with 3 stars that beat them, besides the Mavs that I pointed out...not much of a rebuttal at all. SO..in the future when I'm talking about Superstars...I'm implying that they will be playing like Superstars. If one group of Superstars loses to another one...nothing about that took anything away from my premise.

 

I posted the next 10 games...we will find out what's what by Christmas day.

 

Most people are more concerned with catching Slick out on technicalities than actually looking at his point:

80: Lakers (3 star)
81: Boston (3 star)
82: Lakers (3 star)
83: Philly (3 star*)
84: Boston (3 star)
85: Lakers (3 star)
86: Boston (3 star)
87: Lakers (3 star)
88: Lakers (3 star)
89: Pistons (3 star)

The 80s was basically characterised and monopolised by the 3 star model.

90: Pistons (3 star)
91: Bulls (2 star)
92: Bulls (2 star)
93: Bulls (2 star)
94: Houston (1 star)
95: Houston (1 star)
96: Bulls (3 star)
97: Bulls (3 star)
98: Bulls (3 star)
99: Spurs (2 star)

The 90s showed that 2 star models work and even the 1 star model can with an all time great. But 40% of the time the 3 star model still won.

00: Lakers (2 star)
01: Lakers (2 star)
02: Lakers (2 star)
03: Spurs (2 star) Manu wasnt manu yet
04: Pistons (no star)
05: Spurs (3 star)
06: Heat (2 star)
07: Spurs (3 star)
08: C Bags (3 star)
09: Lakers (2 star)

The 00s showed you can win any which way. But saw the rise of the 3 star model again with the spurs and Boston.

10: Lakers (2 star)
11: Mavs (1 star)
12: Heat (3 star)
13: Heat (3 star)
14: Spurs (no star*)
15: GSW (3 star)
16: Cavs (3 star)
17: GSW (4 star)
18: GSW (4 star)
19: Toronto (2 star*)

Hard to call Spurs a 3 star model with an ageing out Duncan, Parker and Manu and a young Kawhi. Toronto wa stacked and had Lowry and Kawhi as the two all stars but also had Ibaka, Siakam and Gasol who were all stars at different times. Regardless the rest of the time the 3 star or more models won 6/10 years.

20: Lakers (2 star)
21: Bucks (3 star)
22: GSW (3 star)

So as I count it from 1990 to now (leaving out the 80s that skews the data): 3 star models won 15/33 championships. It’s more than a valid way to win.

 

You’re a giver for all that work.

 

Lol...As long as Slick is proven wrong about something. They already know the deal.

 

Men lie, women lie, numbers (mostly) don’t.

People can make of the results what they will and the technicalities of who was healthy and who had how many over minimum contracts etc.

But basketball is unique in that a single player can be the difference between winning and losing to such a high degree - no other team sport is like this. It’s why the three star model is, has been and will continue to be successful.

 

In all honesty there are multiple ways to build a championship team. But all of them have different variables that must be accounted for regarding players performance, depth, chemistry, etc. If we go for a 3star model, we still need to have the right stars that can synergize with one another as well as the proper role players. There are also paths that we can take with a 2star model that can bring success as well. And as GS proved, 4star models can work too!!!

 

in order to agree with svtzr's analysis, i'd have to agree with the subjective raw data input (what's a star?). anyway, the origin of the argument is about methods of team construction, not the semantics.

i don't care that boston won with 7 hofers on their roster back when that was possible. i don't care that the lakers won with magic/kareem/worthy when they were also able to employ perkins, green, and byron scott in addition to those dudes.

what sparks this debate is that we keep trotting out full roster turnover with nothing but minimum support players who are either unproven or over the hill. nobody has won like that. not a team on that list or any list.

btw, for historical context:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-12-06-sp-885-story.html

the magic and kareem made 50% of the lakers's league-leading team salary in 1985. AD and lebron make 70% of our current cap. it's not the same world.

here's 1987:

Los Angeles Lakers Total: $9,107,250
Magic Johnson .................. 2,500,000
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar ............ 2,000,000
James Worthy ................... 1,100,000
Mychal Thompson ................ 712,000
Michael Cooper ................. 676,500
Byron Scott .................... 600,000
Kurt Rambis .................... 525,000
Billy Thompson ................. 230,000
A.C. Green ..................... 218,750
Mike Smrek ..................... 200,000
Wes Matthews ................... 120,000
Milt Wagner .................... 75,000
Jeff Lamp ...................... 75,000
Tony Campbell .................. 75,000

it is not appropriate to just talk about stars without talking about the implications for roster building that gives rise to the debate in the first place.

that salary structure actually looks a lot more like our most recent title team, tbh.

and again, not seeing the team with nearly 100% of their salary wrapped up in three guys on those lists. hell, even the 4-star warriors had three guys making more than the MLE in addition to them!

 

This current team isn't that far, from the chip team in salary structure. Outside of Lebron and AD.. Green took up most of our money with his 15 million. I think KCP made 8 and Javale 5. Deng got that sitting at home. Kuz and Caruso were on Rookie deals, Rondo, Howard, Kief..vet mins.Bradley never made it to the bubble. Some of our lower paid players, outperformed guys that made more money than them...so what, I don't have a problem with that. Some of these guys are going to outperform their contract too. History is made, and if our trio can stay healthy we are going to make more history this season IMO. Walker, Reaves, Bryant, etc could be this squad's Caruso,Kuz and KCP.