Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

2011-2012 General NBA Discussion Thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
341 replies to this topic

#151 ishmael

  • 409 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 11:13 AM

Oh sure, he's talented. But his attitude issues go back to high school.


And likely a lot earlier. He's a disturbed kid. Who knows if he can turn it around now, but often a few million dollars at a young age isn't really helpful in working through your off court issues.

#152 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5,920 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 11:22 AM

Clippers pick and Bradley?


For some reason I'm picturing this being said in a Jackie Mason voice, ending with him raising his hands palms up and shrugging his shoulders.

#153 Captaincoop


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,218 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 11:52 AM

Unfortunately, NBA general managers will probably have seen Avery Bradley play basketball by now.

#154 radsoxfan


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,716 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 01:03 PM

Unfortunately, NBA general managers will probably have seen Avery Bradley play basketball by now.


Maybe this was already talked about, but after looking at HoopsHype, I just found out Danny exercised the option on Bradley's 2012-2013 contract. WTF??

Unless this is some attempt to bluff another NBA GM into thinking he is good, thats just a total waste of 1.6M. Not to mention a stupid (albeit small) way to cut into our cap space next year.

Avery Bradley is going to make 4.5M as an NBA player before mercifully being removed from the league. Great move by him to leave college early before everyone found out he is 6'1" and can't dribble.

Edited by radsoxfan, 02 January 2012 - 01:03 PM.


#155 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5,920 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 01:08 PM

Maybe this was already talked about, but after looking at HoopsHype, I just found out Danny exercised the option on Bradley's 2012-2013 contract. WTF??

Unless this is some attempt to bluff another NBA GM into thinking he is good, thats just a total waste of 1.6M. Not to mention a stupid (albeit small) way to cut into our cap space next year.

Avery Bradley is going to make 4.5M as an NBA player before mercifully being removed from the league. Great move by him to leave college early before everyone found out he is 6'1" and can't dribble.


When this becomes a concern, you know we are in trouble. Every team has shitty end of bench players. They shouldn't make or break a "championship contender."

Edited by dolomite133, 02 January 2012 - 01:09 PM.


#156 radsoxfan


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,716 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 01:15 PM

When this becomes a concern, you know we are in trouble. Every team has shitty end of bench players. They shouldn't make or break a "championship contender."


I don't care if Bradley or some other bum is our 14th man. But its a dumb use of "under cap" money this far in advance. Fill out the end of the roster with vet minimum guys after you have done everything possible to get the best possible 9 or 10 players.

That 1.6M, although obviously not a huge deal, could potentially be important in signing a FA or making a trade and staying under the cap. David West bailed on the Celtics for about that much of a difference.

Edited by radsoxfan, 02 January 2012 - 01:16 PM.


#157 moondog80


  • heart is two sizes two small


  • 1,699 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 01:22 PM

Unfortunately, NBA general managers will probably have seen Avery Bradley play basketball by now.



They've also seen that Cousins is such a giant douche that a rebuliding team is willing to give up on him a week into his second year. Michael Beasley was a higher draft pick (second overall), fairly productive, and less of a prick, and all the Heat got for him was two second roundersv after his second season. I'll be surprised if Cousins commands more than Bradley/Johnson plus a future first.

#158 Captaincoop


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,218 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 01:48 PM

They've also seen that Cousins is such a giant douche that a rebuliding team is willing to give up on him a week into his second year. Michael Beasley was a higher draft pick (second overall), fairly productive, and less of a prick, and all the Heat got for him was two second roundersv after his second season. I'll be surprised if Cousins commands more than Bradley/Johnson plus a future first.


So Danny would be giving up our last two first round picks, plus our next first round pick, for a Michael Beasley-caliber mental case? Awesome.

Pass.

#159 moondog80


  • heart is two sizes two small


  • 1,699 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 02:48 PM

So Danny would be giving up our last two first round picks, plus our next first round pick, for a Michael Beasley-caliber mental case? Awesome.

Pass.


I meant Johnson or Bradley. And I'm not sure I'd do it either, just saying that the Kings aren't going to get nuch of a package for him.

#160 dylanmarsh

  • 4,791 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 04:07 PM

Different circumstances, granted, but Beasley only netted a 2nd round pick for the Heat. Unfortunately, JO probably wouldn't be of interest to the Kings because they don't need to clear cap space for the next off-season. If anyone, I would think they'd somebody they can plug in (Bass?) and take some draft picks (Clips 1st rounder?).

Given Cousins's tremendous talent, the lack of young options for the C's, and the veteran core in place, it would be stupid for the Celtics not to gamble on him. Worst case is that Cousins wallows through the next two seasons and the Celtics decline the 3rd year option. Best case, he grows up and teams with Rondo to give the Celtics some bit of hope after the Big 3 leave/retire/decline.

#161 Jed Zeppelin


  • SoSH Member


  • 15,656 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 04:32 PM

I imagine the Kings are a long way from trading Cousins for peanuts. I don't think the Beasley situation is very comparable. To free up cap space the Heat would have traded him for a bag of the new balls the league tried to introduce several years back. That trade looks kind of fluky because of the.

What's the incentive for the Kings to trade Cousins at this point? Especially for some shit package of mediocre prospects and picks? You do everything you can to make it work until the only possible option is to trade him for nothing. They're nowhere near that point yet. He's a headcase but he's still just 21. If anything, they would ask around to see if anyone blows them away with an offer. C's can't do that obviously.

#162 mcpickl

  • 2,092 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 04:34 PM

I don't care if Bradley or some other bum is our 14th man. But its a dumb use of "under cap" money this far in advance. Fill out the end of the roster with vet minimum guys after you have done everything possible to get the best possible 9 or 10 players.

That 1.6M, although obviously not a huge deal, could potentially be important in signing a FA or making a trade and staying under the cap. David West bailed on the Celtics for about that much of a difference.


No, he didn't.

#163 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 16,626 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 04:56 PM

DeMarcus Cousins wants out of Sactown. Should the Celtics get him?

#164 Jed Zeppelin


  • SoSH Member


  • 15,656 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 05:04 PM

Celtics have nothing to offer.

#165 Boston Brawler

  • 4,727 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 05:12 PM

How do we "make a play for him?"


Plenty of trades I read about today seemed to make sense. Any combo of Wilcox, Dooling/Stiemsma, and picks (first rounder 2012 most likely). If this season (and possibly the next) are really all about winning the title before the big three break up/retire then we'll take a risk on his attitude and at least make an offer.And while it may not seem like it's in the best interest of Sacramento, I highly doubt they're going to be able to fix this guy with the leadership they have.

Edited by Boston Brawler, 02 January 2012 - 05:13 PM.


#166 Jed Zeppelin


  • SoSH Member


  • 15,656 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 05:22 PM

There are hundreds of awful deals the Kings can make that would still be infinitely better than what the Celtics could offer.

#167 mcpickl

  • 2,092 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 05:27 PM

Plenty of trades I read about today seemed to make sense. Any combo of Wilcox, Dooling/Stiemsma, and picks (first rounder 2012 most likely). If this season (and possibly the next) are really all about winning the title before the big three break up/retire then we'll take a risk on his attitude and at least make an offer.And while it may not seem like it's in the best interest of Sacramento, I highly doubt they're going to be able to fix this guy with the leadership they have.


Not only does Sacramento laugh at this offer, Wilcox just signed and can't be traded yet.

#168 radsoxfan


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,716 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 05:33 PM

No, he didn't.


Thanks for your very helpful critique. Most rumors I saw had the Celtics max offer starting around 8M/year whereas the pacers were able to offer 10M in the first year. In other words, "about" a 1.6M difference per season. If you have some better info, go ahead and share it as opposed to just disagreeing without anything to back it up.

Of course the Celtics offer had to be 3 years, and perhaps West wanted a shorter deal. But the general point, which isn't difficult to grasp, is that you always want to have as much flexibility as possible, and that those relatively small contracts stuck on the books can still make a difference in where the good players end up.

Edited by radsoxfan, 02 January 2012 - 05:33 PM.


#169 mcpickl

  • 2,092 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 05:39 PM

Thanks for your very helpful critique. Most rumors I saw had the Celtics max offer starting around 8M/year whereas the pacers were able to offer 10M in the first year. In other words, "about" a 1.6M difference per season. If you have some better info, go ahead and share it as opposed to just disagreeing without anything to back it up.

Of course the Celtics offer had to be 3 years, and perhaps West wanted a shorter deal. But the general point, which isn't difficult to grasp, is that you always want to have as much flexibility as possible, and that those relatively small contracts stuck on the books can still make a difference in where the good players end up.


OK

David West agreed to a 3yr/25 million dollar deal with the Celtics, as part of a sign and trade with the Hornets. The Celtics were sending back Jermaine O'Neal in that deal, who NO would then flip to Dallas.

When the Chris Paul deal got scrapped, Dallas took Lamar Odom into the trade exception that they would have fit in O'Neal. Now with nowhere to flip O'Neal, the Hornets passed on the sign and trade with Boston, leaving the Celtics only able to offer David West the minimum.

The 2/20 West got from Indiana is a bit more of a difference than "about" 1.6M from the minimum.

You're welcome.

#170 radsoxfan


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,716 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 05:49 PM

OK

David West agreed to a 3yr/25 million dollar deal with the Celtics, as part of a sign and trade with the Hornets. The Celtics were sending back Jermaine O'Neal in that deal, who NO would then flip to Dallas.

When the Chris Paul deal got scrapped, Dallas took Lamar Odom into the trade exception that they would have fit in O'Neal. Now with nowhere to flip O'Neal, the Hornets passed on the sign and trade with Boston, leaving the Celtics only able to offer David West the minimum.

The 2/20 West got from Indiana is a bit more of a difference than "about" 1.6M from the minimum.

You're welcome.


Thank you. Now I know that, instead of having better info, you'e just wrong (and a condescending jerk too....).

David West's decision

Theories abound on why West chose the Pacers over the Celtics. Included among them is the notion that since West opted out of a contract that would have paid him $8.5 million, he needed to "save face" among other players (and agents) by not accepting a Celtics contract that included a first year of just under $8 million.



#171 mcpickl

  • 2,092 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 05:55 PM

Thank you. Now I know that, instead of having better info, you'e just wrong (and a condescending jerk too....).

David West's decision



You should read some of the comments under Jackies' article. She's just wrong.

I love her, but she's been a disaster this season. Especially her plan for Ainge to offer Greg Oden, a RFA, the 3 million a year he could to grab him.....when he was already qualified at just under 9 million.

try these articles, from beat writers following the team

http://articles.bost...neal-salary-cap
http://news.bostonhe...ticleid=1387741

Or this one from the best in the business

http://sports.yahoo...._in_West_121011

Sorry I'm not wrong, condescending jerk probably still applies though(name calling FTW!)

Edited by mcpickl, 02 January 2012 - 05:59 PM.


#172 radsoxfan


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,716 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 06:00 PM

You should read some of the comments under Jackies' article. She's just wrong.

I love her, but she's been a disaster this season. Especially her plan for Ainge to offer Greg Oden, a RFA, the 3 million a year he could to grab him.....when he was already qualified at just under 9 million.

try this article, from a beat writer folowing the team

http://articles.bost...neal-salary-cap

Or this one from the best in the business

http://sports.yahoo...._in_West_121011


You mean the articles written 12 days before the one I quoted? and the comments that you wrote under her article?

I don't think Doc and Ray would have had those quotes if all they could offer was the minimum. Even West came out after Ray's quotes and admitted he had the choice to go to the Celtics and chose the Pacers. If the Celtics couldn't have offered him the 8M/season, he could have just said that.

I admit I don't know the details of how NO and Boston would have made it work, but all indications were that the JO/West trade could have still happened without the Paul 3 way deal.

Edited by radsoxfan, 02 January 2012 - 06:04 PM.


#173 mcpickl

  • 2,092 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 06:23 PM

You mean the articles written 12 days before the one I quoted? and the comments that you wrote under her article?

I don't think Doc and Ray would have had those quotes if all they could offer was the minimum. Even West came out after Ray's quotes and admitted he had the choice to go to the Celtics and chose the Pacers. If the Celtics couldn't have offered him the 8M/season, he could have just said that.

I admit I don't know the details of how NO and Boston would have made it work, but all indications were that the JO/West trade could have still happened without the Paul 3 way deal.


Yes, the articles from people who are paid to follow what the team/league is doing on a day to day basis. Not a columnist working on a Shaq book.

Doc and Ray aren't GMs. They hear they had David West locked up, then they didn't get him, so they're disappointed they didn't get him when asked. Not surprising. I don't think a guy like Ray who's OCD with his focus on improving himself thinks, ooh the David West deal fell through, let me hop online and check out the salary cap rules why that might've happened. I think he just says oh shit, guess Sasha is playing if Paul gets hurt, that sucks.

Why would West after signing with Indiana, come out and say Id've preferred to sign with Boston but the trade fell through, so I signed with Indiana as a backup plan? That helps him how? I'm sure the Indiana fans he'll be playing in front of for the next two years would've enjoyed hearing they were his fallback plan.

And no, there are zero indications the JO/West trade could've happened without the Paul 3 way deal. Every guy reporting on it says NO couldn't find a team to flip him to.

#174 JakeRae


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,311 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 06:52 PM

It hasn't been mentioned yet, but could Sacramento be looking to get out from under Garcia's contract too? Cousins plus Garcia for O'Neal, Bradley, and the Clippers pick might be an option. Garcia has some talent but has been stapled to the bench thus far this year despite no reports of an injury. If they aren't happy with Garcia, we'd be offering them some pretty significant future savings and the first round pick for Cousins.

This trade does, I believe, eliminate the chance of a max contract signing this offseason, but if Cousins works out, that would be a huge step toward rebuilding by itself. The Celtics could substitute Johnson for Bradley (in a couple weeks) if Sacramento prefers that package.

It's tough to construct a reasonable trade for Cousins since he makes very little and the Kings really don't have any bad contracts (unless they view Garcia as such).

#175 sibpin

  • 2,637 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 07:13 PM

Cousins was the #5 pick 18 months ago and if he wasn't a headcase he would have been a top 3 pick. The talent is all still pretty clearly there. The Clippers pick is top-10 protected for the next 4 years. Cousins is worth a lot more than the Clippers pick.

Trading Garcia for O'Neal saves them $6M in real dollars and nothing off of their salary cap next year, as they're well under the salary cap (had the Hayes heart issue held up, they would have been below the salary floor) and can clear up Garcia's cap space for a big ticket free agent through amnesty.

So the trade idea you have out there is essentially Cousins for the Clippers pick and $6M. I'm sure there are sabermetric ways to analyze if that's a fair trade or not, but off the top of my head I would guess it's not even close especially with the Clippers expected to be out of the lottery this year. Sacramento won't contend with or without Cousins this year, so they have nothing to lose by benching him until his attitude gets better.

Edited by sibpin, 02 January 2012 - 07:16 PM.


#176 Brickowski

  • 3,680 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 10:03 PM

The Kings will fire Westphal before they trade Cousins. That's the wrong decision, but it's the one the Maloufs will make.

#177 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5,920 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 11:18 PM

Are the Knicks struggling because they lack depth, because their stars are underperforming or because they suck on defense?

#178 Mike in CT



  • 2,125 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 11:46 PM

Stoudamire didn't play tonight, but the overall problems are lack of defense, lack of a back-court, and 2 complete ball stoppers on offense in Melo and Amare. It's like a constant end-of-quarter Paul Pierce iso.

#179 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30,161 posts

Posted 04 January 2012 - 12:44 PM

http://bostonherald....ling_big_man_1/

The Celtics, like most teams, have called Sacramento to gauge what it would take to trade for DeMarcus Cousins. The young, disgruntled Kings center has been suspended from the team for his disagreements with coach Paul Westphal.

“It’s highly unlikely,” a league source said of the Celtics’ chances of landing Cousins. “I’m not sure that any team is going to get him. The thing is that everyone knows he’s a wreck. They’re not going to get what he’s worth.”



#180 Dusty Pagoda

  • 147 posts

Posted 04 January 2012 - 05:04 PM

Boy, Marshon Brooks has looked tremendous this year (through 6 games). I thought he was a steal for the Cs at the 25th pick and dismayed when they promptly flipped him. He's exactly the kind of player they need (young scorer), and could have been the perfect heir to Paul Pierce. Ugh.

edit: Brooks gets a shoutout on Grantland

Edited by Dusty Pagoda, 04 January 2012 - 05:05 PM.


#181 Brickowski

  • 3,680 posts

Posted 04 January 2012 - 05:32 PM

Grizz just acquired Marreese Speights for not very much, to shore up their frontcourt until Z-bo returns. They shipped Xavier Henry to NO and a second round pick to Philly, which also gets a future second round pick from NO. I always thought Speights has promise. I guess Philly didn't.

Edited by Brickowski, 04 January 2012 - 05:33 PM.


#182 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5,920 posts

Posted 04 January 2012 - 09:25 PM

I'm just going to ask these two questions everyday until I get an answer: Why does Mike D'Antoni continue to coach in this league? Why does he stubbornly refuse to emphasize defense?

#183 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3,414 posts

Posted 04 January 2012 - 09:44 PM

I'm just going to ask these two questions everyday until I get an answer: Why does Mike D'Antoni continue to coach in this league? Why does he stubbornly refuse to emphasize defense?


The reason nobody answers you is because it's not a relevant question. The Knicks have been a league average defensive team thus far this season (15th in defensive efficiency). They brought in Mike Woodson to act as a "defensive coordinator" and Tyson Chandler to anchor that defense. In addition, they drafted Iman Shumpert, one of the best defensive players in the draft, and re-signed Jared Jeffries for what he brings on the defensive end.

So, despite your perception of Mike D'Antoni, they've actually emphasized defense a lot, and have showed signs of vast improvement, their struggles tonight not withstanding. The Knicks defensive struggles right now have nothing to do with a "stubborn refusal to emphasize defense" and are more closely related to the fact that with a shortened training camp and high roster turnover, this team hasn't played together much and have no cohesion on either end of the floor. Hell, they've yet to even have their best 5 on the floor together this season, and their second unit's best two defensive players (Jeffries and Shumpert) have played a combined 2 1/2 games.

#184 NYCSox


  • chris hansen of goats


  • 6,349 posts

Posted 04 January 2012 - 09:50 PM

Are the Knicks struggling because they lack depth, because their stars are underperforming or because they suck on defense?


Yes, maybe and yes. They're really just another mediocre team.

#185 TFisNEXT


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,416 posts

Posted 04 January 2012 - 10:00 PM

Nice defense by the Knicks tonight. 118 allowed to the Bobcats. :rolling:

#186 Statman

  • 594 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 02:42 PM

Westphal just fired as coach of the Kings.

Keith Smart to take over immediately.

https://twitter.com/#!/sam_amick

#187 Riles335


  • Defiantly Definite


  • 506 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 03:01 PM

Westphal just fired as coach of the Kings.

Keith Smart to take over immediately.

https://twitter.com/#!/sam_amick


Looks like the Kings took Cousins over Westphal. Westphal has been nothing sort of a pompous ass (especially after calling out Cousins for demanding a trade in which Cousins and his camp denied) for the Kings and with how that team is built (young stars and personalities) a new, energizing players coach like Smart could do them well.

Edited by Riles335, 05 January 2012 - 03:03 PM.


#188 TheRooster

  • 1,776 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 03:17 PM

Looks like the Kings took Cousins over Westphal. Westphal has been nothing sort of a pompous ass (especially after calling out Cousins for demanding a trade in which Cousins and his camp denied) for the Kings and with how that team is built (young stars and personalities) a new, energizing players coach like Smart could do them well.


I'm going to suggest that picking Cousins will not work out well for them. He reminds me of Derrick Coleman in many ways. And I might be overly generous with that comparison.

#189 Brickowski

  • 3,680 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 03:51 PM

Westphal just fired as coach of the Kings.

Keith Smart to take over immediately.

https://twitter.com/#!/sam_amick


As predicted. But it won't help.

#190 jsinger121


  • @jsinger121


  • 10,420 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 03:55 PM

Yes, maybe and yes. They're really just another mediocre team.


I would fire D'Antoni immediately. This team has star players and has a coach that preaches zero defense when they have a center that can shut the middle down by himself.

#191 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3,414 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 04:01 PM

I would fire D'Antoni immediately. This team has star players and has a coach that preaches zero defense when they have a center that can shut the middle down by himself.


You and Dolomite should hang out.

#192 lars10

  • 2,005 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 05:33 PM

I would fire D'Antoni immediately. This team has star players and has a coach that preaches zero defense when they have a center that can shut the middle down by himself.


So you're D'Antoni and you have Tyson Chandler.. a good start.
But then you have Carmelo and Amar'e who I've never thought of as defensive stalwarts..but I could be wrong here.
and then you have Toney Douglas and Bibby? or Baron Davis (at some point) or Landry FIelds? maybe Bill Walker?

It's one thing to preach defense...another to have the pieces to make it happen.

#193 MikeyLowell

  • 83 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 10:48 PM

Refs miss another foul call and the Heat are down 4 with both Lebron & Wade out, crazy.

FTs for ATL: 28-42 (19 PF)
FTs for MIA: 12-17 (30 PF)

Of course, if it was the other way, some people would be screaming league bias :c070:

Outside of all their free throws keeping the Hawks in the game, they looked terrible out there tonight.

edit: Wow, Bosh with the late 3, 0.6 seconds remaining and it's tied.

Edited by MikeyLowell, 05 January 2012 - 10:57 PM.


#194 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,585 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 10:56 PM

Posted ImagePosted Image

#195 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3,414 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 03:21 PM

Al Horford out for the season with a torn pectoral.

#196 HomeRunBaker


  • sloppy seconds


  • 10,374 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 09:48 PM

Al Horford out for the season with a torn pectoral.


Kwame Brown too, same injury, although each could return for the playoffs if their teams make it that far. What's up with pectorals this week?

#197 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,585 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 10:27 PM

For as much of a punchline that Kwame Brown has been over the past few years, he has been pretty good for the Warriors. He is flawed but he was pretty effective in shutting guys like Bynum and Chandler down offensively over the past few weeks. I suspect I'll get killed for this but I wonder if he would have made sense for the C's as another big for the bench.

Oh well, now that he's got a broke-ass chest it doesn't matter anyhow...

Edited by DeJesus Built My Hotrod, 12 January 2012 - 10:28 PM.


#198 HomeRunBaker


  • sloppy seconds


  • 10,374 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 11:02 PM

For as much of a punchline that Kwame Brown has been over the past few years, he has been pretty good for the Warriors. He is flawed but he was pretty effective in shutting guys like Bynum and Chandler down offensively over the past few weeks. I suspect I'll get killed for this but I wonder if he would have made sense for the C's as another big for the bench.

Oh well, now that he's got a broke-ass chest it doesn't matter anyhow...


You won't get killed for it because you would be correct. Silly as it sounds the Celtics lost out on Kwame when they "only" had the full MLE to offer. Ah, the price we pay for size.

Now you SHOULD get killed for suggesting shutting down a career 8-ppg scorer is worthy of recognition. ;)

#199 nighthob

  • 2,910 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 11:32 PM

Celtics have nothing to offer.


The Kings are owned by the Maloofs, maybe they could offer to cover Antoine's bills?

#200 jsinger121


  • @jsinger121


  • 10,420 posts

Posted 19 January 2012 - 01:35 PM

Westbrook signs max deal with OKC.

http://sports.yahoo....ract_nba_011912