2024 NBA General Offseason Thread
- Thread starter DeadlySplitter
- Start date
They would need to execute a sign and trade to make it happen. Looks like Washington didn’t want to play if it involved Robinson.
I can’t imagine that Embiid playing in the Olympics this summer will help his stay healthy for this season. He would be better off working on his conditioning and diet, and not putting a lot of extra miles on his always broken down body,
Guy fouled out in 12 minutes, I wouldn't be super worried about him putting on a ton of extra miles during competitive play (and FIBA rules). Agreed that he'd be better off trying to lose some weight.
Outside of the centers (who absolutely cannot play together), this is a really small team. Two of their three best players are never healthy when it matters, and will be 30 and 35 next Spring. Those same two players, even when healthy, never seem to come close to rising to the occasion when the games get important.
I can't seem to get worried about them, at all. Even if they get off to a nice start, Embiid and George are two of the biggest playoff droppers (what's the opposite of a playoff riser?) in the modern NBA. Maybe Maxey can carry them.
Maybe Maxey can carry them, but the history of smurfy one way guards carrying teams through the playoffs is pretty spotty. Philly playoff chances rely on the Halley's comet event of Embiid and Paul George both being healthy and with gas in the tank come spring.
Riley has to have at least one more trick to pull out of his bag before he truly rides off into the sunset but right now they are getting creamed. I assume that trick will be to move Butler for a bunch of things. Or just our luck Ware will end up being really good.
We know the two aren’t going to be going to dinner together in Vegas next week but Ainge has never let this affect any business dealings. He did Riley a solid in getting them under the tax, or something tax significant I don’t recall specifically, when he took on Joel Anthony’s contract that Riley couldn’t dump anywhere else. Supposedly they have been discussing a Markkanen deal right now too
Not sure if this got posted (I haven't seen it) but Luka Doncic received the ESPY for best NBA player.
LOL
LOL
Taking on Joel Anthony apparently saved MIA like $15M in luxury tax payments: Heat cut costs in trade with Celtics, Warriors - SBNation.com .
MIA sent BOS got a protected first from PHI and it's own 2016 2nd round draft pick. As far as I can tell, the protected 1st became 2 second round picks, and BOS ended up picking Jordan Mickey (2015) and Deyonta Davis and Ben Bentil (2016).
Although BOS did pick up Abdel Nader in 2016 so not a complete wasted draft.
I wonder if the 2015 second round was the best 2nd round of all time. Here are some of the players taken in the 2nd round: Cedi Osman, Montrez Harrell (both before BOS), Richaun Holmes, Josh Richardson, Pat Connaughton, and Norman Powell - so six players with long NBA careers.
Should the alleged best player in the league be the biggest target to exploit defensively in the Finals? Hopefully this Celtics team can win a few more titles to emphasize that basketball isn’t a platoon sport like football, and those considered the best player can’t be liabilities for half the game.
JB touched on this after he broke Luka’s ankles in the regular season win, and two way basketball was discussed more often nationally after Jaylen’s defense was highlighted in the easy Finals victory over the alleged number one player. The NBA is a marketing machine, and there is unlimited marketing space available on the internet. Why not highlight defensive doggedness and ability along with dunks and long threes? There’s a segment of fans out there who love those traits, and love team oriented stars like Jrue Holiday.
That was a good second round, but 2014 produced a 3x MVP, in Jokic, a 6MoTY in Jordan Clarkson, Jerami Grant, Spenser Dinwittie, Joe Harris, and Dwight Powell, six players with 10 years in already, and most of them still going strong.
I'm sure the guy isn't a Rhodes Scholar, but this seems like he's catching an unnecessary stray bullet
Hearing people call Luka the best player in the league is like people calling Gobert the best defender in the league. I get that regular season awards are for the regular season, but we all saw the playoffs, right?
I agree with you guys on Luka being rated too highly, to be clear.
I also get a couple elements of why that is happening, and think they are reasonable: he is a spectacular offensive player and he was (even in the playoffs) a more useful defensive player other rounds. Those put together make him pretty elite, and he is indeed carrying a larger load than many other top guys (or any Celtic).
Like most of you, where I do ding him in terms of overall ratings is that he forces Dallas into a certain offense---which has limitations---and he can (and was) destroyed defensively if you have the right wings to force him to defend the perimeter. These being true don't change the positive impacts he has in other matchups, but they do matter. I might analogize it to Shaq's free throw shooting - in his case, I don't think it kept him from being the best player but it did have to be considered, and was a significant demerit. In Luka's case, the heliocentric offense and defensive limitations probably should push him down lists (in the 5-10 range?) more than we are seeing happen
I also get a couple elements of why that is happening, and think they are reasonable: he is a spectacular offensive player and he was (even in the playoffs) a more useful defensive player other rounds. Those put together make him pretty elite, and he is indeed carrying a larger load than many other top guys (or any Celtic).
Like most of you, where I do ding him in terms of overall ratings is that he forces Dallas into a certain offense---which has limitations---and he can (and was) destroyed defensively if you have the right wings to force him to defend the perimeter. These being true don't change the positive impacts he has in other matchups, but they do matter. I might analogize it to Shaq's free throw shooting - in his case, I don't think it kept him from being the best player but it did have to be considered, and was a significant demerit. In Luka's case, the heliocentric offense and defensive limitations probably should push him down lists (in the 5-10 range?) more than we are seeing happen
I think defense is important too, but didn’t we just see Luka carry a pretty mediocre Dallas team whose third best player was PJ Washington or rookie Derrick Lively past three teams that had title aspirations? I don’t think the playoffs were an indictment of his ability at all; fact, I think his ceiling is higher than ever.
Last edited:
This. Luka doesn't play great D and still managed to drag a cobbled together rotation to the finals, through some decent competition. He's one of the best players in the entire league - why does anyone care if he gets an ESPY for that? Do we think it upsets Jaylen or Tatum? Jaylen isn't afraid of ESPNs resources.
I’m surprised it didn’t go to Jokic in which case I’d have Doncic 2nd but maybe they included the postseason, or voting after the postseason where you’d have recency bias, which would make the case much stronger for Luka.
Thanks for that info.
Looking into this more deeply, here's a list of some of the best second round picks: Nikola Jokic, Draymond Green headline best second round picks in NBA Draft history | Sporting News .
I guess 1986 would be the best, featuring Mark Price, Dennis Rodman, Jeff Hornacek and Nate McMillan and also including Kevin Duckworth, Larry Krystowiak (9 seasons), Otis Smith (375 games), David Wingate, and maybe some other folks who had good NBA careers who I can't remember.
2012 was pretty good too: Draymond and Khris MIddleton, but also Satoransky, 'Ae Crowder, Will Barton, Mike Scott, Darius Miller (271 NBA games), Quincy Acy (331 games), and Kyle O'Quinn (472 games)
It might not be outside of this board, but I think there will be a trend in the next year or so towards understanding the importance of offensive versatility as a key portion of offense.
The greatest offensive players of recent times (LeBron, Steph, Jokic) have been really offensively versatile, and that versatility has real value that should be considered part of "offensive talent". The best heliocentric guys (Harden, Luka) just aren't versatile in that way, and that carries a number of real costs.
Just to name one: Luka gets tired from "carrying a heavier load" because carrying a heavy load (dribbling/shooting a lot) is the (basically) the only way that Luka Doncic can contribute positively to an offense. That means that he doesn't make life much easier for his teammates when it's time for them to initiate on offense, or exploit advantages.
Forget the defensive end: I think Luka should be dinged in rankings for a lack of offensive versatility.
While it is mostly heliocentric guys who limit offensive versatility, there's other profiles who can; I'd put forward Chris Paul as one. He's among the best point guards ever....BUT he really prefers a slower, half-court pace that lets him direct traffic for most of the shot clock. He's so efficient that largely works, but it is not totally disconnected from playoff issues for him. The more ways you can leverage your strengths the better situated you are for playoff-caliber defenses and playoff-caliber preparation. Chris Paul has never been among the more versatile PGs and that does matter.
The jury is out on Embiid's versatility here - he has largely had teams that were built to play his way and around him. This year, perhaps, that might shift a bit and kudos to him if (for example) he can do what Tatum did this year and operate off ball and as a facilitator more. But we aren't sure yet if he will/can.
I agree with you on LBJ for most of his career. He MIGHT mvoe towards the Chris Paul halfcourt stuff as he ages and that MIGHT limit his versatility....we've seen some signs of that. Given the roster around him and limitations, it's also hard to know.
The jury is out on Embiid's versatility here - he has largely had teams that were built to play his way and around him. This year, perhaps, that might shift a bit and kudos to him if (for example) he can do what Tatum did this year and operate off ball and as a facilitator more. But we aren't sure yet if he will/can.
I agree with you on LBJ for most of his career. He MIGHT mvoe towards the Chris Paul halfcourt stuff as he ages and that MIGHT limit his versatility....we've seen some signs of that. Given the roster around him and limitations, it's also hard to know.
Agree, and I was NOT trying to limit offensive unversatility to heliocentric guys.
Wrt LBJ and Steph: I'm talking about them at their peaks.
Proportionately it might be Michael Redd (43), who was probably the best player taken from the 2000 draft.
Your previous post is my biggest problem with Luka, and it’s on both sides of the ball.
He doesn’t put in the effort or care about any of the things with basketball that don’t involve him having the ball and orchestrating in competition.
This touches on everything. Conditioning and working out in the offseason. Doing anything other than standing in the corner on defense. Moving without the ball, setting screens, anything off ball on offense. He is well below average, at best, at all of these things.
The media is treating it like a foregone conclusion that he ages well and ends up as a top 50 guy of all time. If he doesn’t start at least caring a little bit about his offseason programs, I really don’t see it
If you replaced Jaylen with Luka in a hypothetical trade that would never, ever happen, would the Celtics be better? Even though everyone recognizes that Luka is the better individual talent, I'm not exactly convinced that swap makes the Celtics better.
Yet despite all this, he just lead a relatively mediocre team to the NBA finals. You all are way too down on Luka.
I think it is hilarious that three different people just defended Luka by having him drag a mediocre team to the finals while ignoring the fact that Kyrie Irving was on that team. I don’t think that pointing that out invalidates their point, I just mention it because I dislike Kyrie Irving and enjoy seeing him get ignored.
And because about five/six weeks ago he was better than Tatum and Brown and Holiday. Edit - reportedly.
Last edited:
I mean, we're saying that he's a top 5-10 player, not the 2nd best guy in the world. That also doesn't contradict leading a mediocre team to the Finals (although people sure as hell weren't saying that team was mediocre before Boston spanked them, without KP for half of it).
How is that "way too down"?
Everyone is retconning the pre-Finals takes now. A large part of the basketball world, including sophisticated observers, was saying how balanced the Mavs were, how they had gotten the roster right, and had a strong team around Luka+Kyrie, two elite playmakers.
Now that the Jays completely pantsed them, everyone is pretending this was a 2007 LeBron situation.
In fairness to SVG (which is difficult for me, because his commentary when Bam stepped into Tatum's landing area when the latter was taking a practice shot after the whistle was some of the most disgusting work I've seen in recent memory) and a lot of analysts, almost no one is claiming that the backcourt was the "best" in history (despite that article and headline written by the SI's AI team). They very specifically said it was the most talented, which is very different. People have been calling Kyrie one of the most talented players in NBA history for awhile now (and not following up with the obvious "if true, he's gotta be the most disappointing player in history, too," but I digress), that's not something new that just came to be during these past playoffs.
The general perception of "talent" has nothing to do with defense, anything off-ball in any form, or results in general. It's just about who could potentially look the best on offense in a game of 1v1. It's a highlight reel contest, minus anything that could be mistaken for athleticism. Anyone actually claiming that the Mavs had the two "best" players in this series deserves all the ridicule they get (Richard Jefferson), but the talk was specifically about how talented Kyrie/Luka were and are, not about exactly how good they are.
Yup. There were tons of media members taking the Mavs before the series started and this was one of the better teams in the league after they acquired Gafford/Washington. Luka was by far the best player on a team that was/is very good. Unfortunately for them, they ran into a buzz saw.
Very true. However, the fact that we're arguing the semantics of whether people were saying that Luka and Kyrie were "the best" or "the most talented" sort of proves the point about how highly regarded the Mavs were, prior to the Celtics completely dominating them.
Exactly. They were/are a good team, and only look mediocre in hindsight because Tatum/Brown is a better offensive duo than Luka/Kyrie. People are too quick to jump to defense as a tiebreaker, without really examining what was happening on the offensive end.
Just one example: Tatum was consistently able to turn a switchable defensive center (Lively) into a hunting target by game 5, while Luka was mostly neutered by Horford on switches. Honestly, I think Tatum is as good or better than Luka at creating offensive advantages on-ball, and that's before you get into the other areas of offense.
Plus many people said they had among the best (if not the best) defense in the NBA after the trades were made.
Because there is a great difference between #2 and #5-10.
Why can’t both be true? Some of us had been saying since midseason that this Celtics team had the potential to go down as one of the greatest ever. That doesn’t take anything away from what this Dallas team accomplished over the second half of the regular season and the playoffs until running into the buzzsaw who had the recipe to expose Doncic and the Mavs defensively like nobody else had.
This is how the media works. It was a boring playoffs, capped by a Finals matchup between a very good, but mostly uninteresting Boston team and a somewhat interesting, but pretty mediocre and overmatched Dallas squad. Of course they were going to spend weeks trying to spin this into something that they could sell. There’s really no side in saying it’s most likely going to be over in four or five games.
Only thing is that the series didn't really turn on Celts offense/Mavs defense...Celtics offensive rating in finals was 112; Minnesota's was 115; OKC's was 113. Clippers was 112. I know that isn't perfect and of course Celtics exploiting Luka defensively mattered.
This series, more than anything, was about the other end of the court, where Luka was supposed to be elite. But simply wasn't. Dallas scored over 100 once in 5 games. Their offensive rating was 109; in prior three series it was 121, 113, and 119. And that 109 is heavily influenced by 120+ in the blowout game 4.
This was a series that showed Luka isn't quite as great offensively as we thought and is a lot worse defensively than we thought. That's why it should ding his rep. On the biggest stage he was at best the third-best player in the series.
And I'm higher on Luka than SoSH consensus! But I totally get (and agree) with criticizing him as "best player in league" or "second best player in league" too
Re the bolded I know I don’t feel this way as most recognized that the Celtics has the potential to be a nightmare matchup for Luka and the Mavs….so to me no, it doesn’t ding anything at all. It’s the ole “LeBron can’t win the big one look at his Finals record!”….as he’s taking the Finals floor with Larry Hughes and Drew Gooden. Hello…he just dragged them there so being swept by the Spurs shouldn’t be a ding on LeBron if people are evaluating without bias.
Edit: And apparently my phone won’t turn off the bold lol
I'll defend heliocentric players in that I think that LeBron, Steph, and present day JT are also extremely heliocentric players, they're just also versatile. I always used to say about AI back in the day that I loved watching Iverson play... for the 76ers. I'd've hated him if he played for Boston or Houston. And Iverson at least tried defensively.
As for Luka, I'll say that as much as I dislike Irving for being a noxious weirdo he's a lot more versatile than Luka. And ultimately I agree with your larger point, winning with guys like Luka is tough because there's really no margin for error. You need to surround them with 3&D guys that can convert their windows of opportunity while covering for their star on D (which the Sixers didn't have to worry as much about as Iverson was a perfectly capable PG defender).
Give 2007 LeBron an aging Kyrie and he likely curbstomps the NBA for a few seasons and gives the Cavs leeway to rebuild after the running mate aged out (or, had Danny Ferry not outsmarted himself into believing that a collection of roleplayers would be better than Joe Johnson).
I agree with the bold, but guaranteed that 98% of the fans and national media that watched will say he was the best player in the series (most points, by a lot) Dallas just lost because Boston was the better team. As much as the entire world rightfully dumped on him after the game 3 debacle, that will fade and all will remain are the easy to remember numbers. Maybe someone will bring it up momentarily if/when he falls short in future years (especially if the performance looks similar), but that's it.
I agree that he was exposed (on both sides), but anyone suggesting that he was exposed offensively is going to get laughed at because his basic counting stats didn't suffer (he averaged 29.2 ppg in the finals, after averaging 28.8 over the first 3 series). He didn't fail, his supporting cast failed him. It doesn't matter that they failed in large part because Boston could single cover Luka without letting him go off (in any sort of efficient way, at least), anyone glancing at the box score numbers will see that Luka's scoring was unchanged while Kyrie (22.8 to 19.8), Washington (13.6 to 10.8), Jones (9.8 to 6.6), Gafford (9.2 to 8.0) and Lively (8.6 to 5.6) all experienced real drops from the WC playoffs to the finals. Those guys (other than Kyrie) rely on Luka creating for them, and he couldn't do it.
I'll say this for Luka, he is still really young. He's in the same boat as Tatum in that despite their ages, the number of high leverage games they've played early in their careers put them closer to their ceilings than you'd expect for guys just finishing their age 24 and 25 seasons (I'm including Luka's international experience here, he came into the NBA as battle tested as just about any 20 year old ever), but there are some very clear paths for improvement. He's far from the first young superstar to have a lousy performance in the finals, as we know all too well. It gets harder the older you get, but it's never too late to be in better shape, and there's no reason why he can't be as competent defensively as (for example) Sam Hauser. The offensive improvement is more of a mindset thing (along with incremental improvements in things like free throw shooting) that can definitely get better. The only two players that are 100% ahead of Luka in the rankings right now are Giannis and Jokic, who are both 4-5 years older and have nowhere to go but down.
I'm oddly bullish on Luka, while still believing that the Mavs are gonna have a much harder time getting back to the finals (and they faced about as difficult a path this year as they possibly could have, other than avoiding Denver).