seminoles1

Not sure. I know he tweaked it at the beginning of game 3.

Just had no charisma and couldn't buy him as becoming a leader. Also looks like a discount Zac Efron and I couldn't get that out of my head, but that's not really his fault.

The Celtics, Knicks, and Lakers all have 2+ assets better than the Nets' best asset. Unless those 3 teams all low-ball the **** out of their offers, the Nets have no chance man. If Russell wasn't about to cost $20+ million per season then it'd be a different discussion.

Nope. Maybe 5 players in the league justify these contracts for their on court abilities and Lillard is not one of them. Great for him and Portland keeping him is good, but the cost for keeping these guys is too much.

It didn't break even at the box office. Definitely lost money in that regard. I just watched this for the first time the other day and didn't like it at all. Had a lot of good concepts, but just so many poor story choices and I hated the guy who played Jason/Red Ranger. Elizabeth Banks was awful.

Most likely he'll be good to go game 1, but you just never know. Maybe he has a setback, maybe his calf isn't responding to the PT and recovery is taking longer, etc. It's already happened once, so it could happen again.

That's an awful deal from Nets. Hard, HARD pass.

I'm being a Durant hater, bordering on trolling at this point. My real picks are: -Bucks over Warriors in 7 if Durant misses 4+ games -Warriors over Bucks in 6 if Durant misses 3 or less games -Warriors over Raptors regardless of Durant.

Because not only did Lillard outplay Irving in both the regular season and postseason on the court, but Kyrie also sabotaged his team over and over again. Kyrie is certainly a more impressive 1-on-1 scorer, but not so much that it makes up for his deficiencies elsewhere. And call me a hater or a skeptic or not giving enough credit to Irving...but he did all that stuff with LeBron on his team. It's much easier to do impressive things in the playoffs with prime LeBron than CJ McCollum.

Warriors in 4 unless Durant plays. Bucks in 7 or Warriors in 6 over Raptors if he does.

Yeah, hard to really argue that haha.

Irving and Westbrook above Lillard after this season is a joke. Thompson is questionable for the reasons I posted responding to the other guy. I'm not gonna argue to the death if people prefer Thompson, but I prefer Lillard. Griffin and Butler are incredibly questionable. What do they do better than Lillard besides Butler being a better defensive player?

I don't think it's that nobody plans to stop him, but he's certainly not near the top of the totem pole when it comes to defensive attention. I don't think it's fair to compare players like Lillard and Thompson. Lillard is a proven top dog who can lead his team to 50+ wins consistently, create his own shot against just about anyone, bend the defense and manipulate entire game plans, etc. Thompson isn't asked to do nearly as much offensively as Lillard. They're very different players with different responsibilities, and that's fine. However, when I'm considering a ranking like this, I usually prefer the one who has to deal with a lot more and proves they can handle it.

Agreed. These conversations about him across the threads are really confusing. He's a good defender and a good passer...but so many red flags. He's one of the worst shooters of all-time. There's no excusing that and I don't know why any team would trade a top 10 pick for him. If someone offered the Lakers that a d they turned it down then they are incredibly stupid.

I think Ingram's a better ball-handler. He's also a better playmaker and had a higher TS% and eFG% last season. Tatum is a little better and has an extra year of cost control, so he's the better asset. However, I don't believe the difference is huge at all as individual players and I still believe Ingram has more potential to be a better player.