Jump to content

Woj: Paul George to re-sign with Thunder


49erurtaza

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, RandomCampBody said:

It's going to take another super team to beat the current one in Golden State or are you happy to have them cruise to NBA championships for the next 3-4 years.

George in OKC changes nothing.

Yes I am happy for that. 

We saw this year that they didn’t cruise to the Championship (although they probably would have with Iggy playing). The league will still end up being a duopoly in that case which isn’t really that much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

Don't get people complaining. The Lakers aren't god and all their promise this off seasons was on attracting as many superstars as possible. That clearly isn't a guarantee.

The Lakers remind me of that old guy who keeps telling the young guy how great he was back in the day. Its will be 22 years on July 7th when the Lakers signed their last biggest FA in Shaq. Since then all I have been hearing is how the Lakers are still an attractive destination with alot of cap space now. They struck out on George and even if they wait till next summer to try to get Kawhi as a FA there is no guarantee because we just saw that situation happen with George this summer. So what makes anyone think it wont happen again? So to me the Lakers talk in basketball is becoming the Cowboys talk in football. Its loud noise with no substance. When the Lakers sign a star or superstar then we can talk but I am totally with you on the Lakers promises is what they are, just promises. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

The league will still end up being a duopoly in that case which isn’t really that much better.

Exactly, which means its bad for the NBA simply because people will only tune in to watch 1-4 teams because they are "super" and all the other teams have no shot. Parity = $$$

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

Exactly, which means its bad for the NBA simply because people will only tune in to watch 1-4 teams because they are "super" and all the other teams have no shot. Parity = $$$

So...one team is better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, seminoles1 said:

So...one team is better?

Its not worse. It helps that the West is strong in general. Obviously complete parity is impossible, but the NBA wants to push it that way as much as possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

Its not worse. It helps that the West is strong in general. Obviously complete parity is impossible, but the NBA wants to push it that way as much as possible. 

1 superteam is worse than 2 or 3 when it comes to success for the league.

They can push parity all they want, but it's never been the case and never will be.  3 superteams, with 2 of them being the Celtics and Lakers, is beyond a dream come true for the NBA and is much better than everyone knowing Golden State is going to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, seminoles1 said:

1 superteam is worse than 2 or 3 when it comes to success for the league.

They can push parity all they want, but it's never been the case and never will be.  3 superteams, with 2 of them being the Celtics and Lakers, is beyond a dream come true for the NBA and is much better than everyone knowing Golden State is going to win.

Are we talking about the same thing? The big finals will not make up the money lost by the 4-5 game series leading up to them. The NBA will want to limit the amount of series that a short, and more super teams push it in the opposite directions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, stl4life07 said:

The Lakers remind me of that old guy who keeps telling the young guy how great he was back in the day. Its will be 22 years on July 7th when the Lakers signed their last biggest FA in Shaq. Since then all I have been hearing is how the Lakers are still an attractive destination with alot of cap space now. They struck out on George and even if they wait till next summer to try to get Kawhi as a FA there is no guarantee because we just saw that situation happen with George this summer. So what makes anyone think it wont happen again? So to me the Lakers talk in basketball is becoming the Cowboys talk in football. Its loud noise with no substance. When the Lakers sign a star or superstar then we can talk but I am totally with you on the Lakers promises is what they are, just promises. 

How many times have had the Lakers had notable amounts of cap space since Shaq?  Three times.  The Deng/Mozgov offseason, last offseason, and this offseason.  They're still a very attractive destination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CWood21 said:

How many times have had the Lakers had notable amounts of cap space since Shaq?  Three times.  The Deng/Mozgov offseason, last offseason, and this offseason.  They're still a very attractive destination.

I get that but tbh, the fact that you mentioned Deng/Mozgov just nails my point. They had to result to getting those guys because they couldnt bring in the big stars. Now that the Lakers got LeBron they will be attractive because of him and Magic but not soley the LA market or city. But even then we still saw George not go to LA to potentially team up with LeBron and Kawhi might not even go to LA on his own. I could easily see him going to the Clippers if he has his choice just because as I mentioned before, I dont think he wants to deal with the circus that comes with playing with LeBron. Its a double edge sword playing with LeBron. Love and Irving figured it out in Cleveland. Love had to deal with constant scrutiny and Irving just flat out wanted to leave and he eventually did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, stl4life07 said:

I get that but tbh, the fact that you mentioned Deng/Mozgov just nails my point. They had to result to getting those guys because they couldnt bring in the big stars. Now that the Lakers got LeBron they will be attractive because of him and Magic but not soley the LA market or city. But even then we still saw George not go to LA to potentially team up with LeBron and Kawhi might not even go to LA on his own. I could easily see him going to the Clippers if he has his choice just because as I mentioned before, I dont think he wants to deal with the circus that comes with playing with LeBron. Its a double edge sword playing with LeBron. Love and Irving figured it out in Cleveland. Love had to deal with constant scrutiny and Irving just flat out wanted to leave and he eventually did. 

Somehow the obvious poor signings of Mozgov and Deng somehow weighs more than the LeBron signing?  Look at who top FA that were available that offseason.  Neither Kevin Durant or LeBron James met with the Lakers, so they weren't a possibility.  That next tier of FAs included Mike Conley, Al Horford, DeMar DeRozan, and Hassan Whiteside.  None of them change the mold for the Lakers.  The Lakers signed LeBron James, but somehow the fact that the Lakers used their cap space on Mozgov and Deng means more.  I mean, that's not even logical.  That was a Jim Buss move pure and simple.  This isn't the same Lakers team.

You think Kawhi is going to sign with the Clippers instead of the Lakers assuming the Lakers can keep up enough cap space for next offseason?  I've got some magic beans to sell you.  It's already been debunked that Kawhi didn't want to play with LeBron.  Recent reports has Kawhi focusing on the Lakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Somehow the obvious poor signings of Mozgov and Deng somehow weighs more than the LeBron signing?  Look at who top FA that were available that offseason.  Neither Kevin Durant or LeBron James met with the Lakers, so they weren't a possibility.  That next tier of FAs included Mike Conley, Al Horford, DeMar DeRozan, and Hassan Whiteside.  None of them change the mold for the Lakers.  The Lakers signed LeBron James, but somehow the fact that the Lakers used their cap space on Mozgov and Deng means more.  I mean, that's not even logical.  That was a Jim Buss move pure and simple.  This isn't the same Lakers team.

You think Kawhi is going to sign with the Clippers instead of the Lakers assuming the Lakers can keep up enough cap space for next offseason?  I've got some magic beans to sell you.  It's already been debunked that Kawhi didn't want to play with LeBron.  Recent reports has Kawhi focusing on the Lakers.

I would take Conley in a heartbeat. He is vastly underrated. Thats besides the point. But I do agree about more management at the time. This is a different Lakers team so I agree with that too. I disagree that Kawhi will still go to the Laker no matter what. Again the George situation where everyone thought he would just walk right to the Lakers. Even go back many years ago where people thought Deron Williams would leave Brooklyn and walk right to the Mavs in which the same people said the risk the Nets made by trading for him because everyone knew he would just go to Dallas. So no I am not naive by thinking that its not certain Kawhi will be a Laker. Its more naive to think he will be just because reports say he wants to be a Laker. Unless they trade for him, an entire year does make a difference and situations change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stl4life07 said:

I would take Conley in a heartbeat. He is vastly underrated. Thats besides the point. But I do agree about more management at the time. This is a different Lakers team so I agree with that too. I disagree that Kawhi will still go to the Laker no matter what. Again the George situation where everyone thought he would just walk right to the Lakers. Even go back many years ago where people thought Deron Williams would leave Brooklyn and walk right to the Mavs in which the same people said the risk the Nets made by trading for him because everyone knew he would just go to Dallas. So no I am not naive by thinking that its not certain Kawhi will be a Laker. Its more naive to think he will be just because reports say he wants to be a Laker. Unless they trade for him, an entire year does make a difference and situations change. 

He might over underrated, but Mike Conley on a max contract is a bad contract.  He's not a max-caliber player.  He's an awful fit for the Lakers then, and it would have been a disaster had they signed him.  We're talking about a completely different situation.  That offseason, the most valuable asset was Julius Randle.  This offseason, the Lakers had a young core and potentially two max FAs, and they signed LeBron and have room for another max FA next offseason.  That's an incredibly attractive destination.  And it doesn't just have to be Kawhi.  It could be Kyrie Irving or Jimmy Butler.  If Jimmy Butler feels that Minnesota has maxed out, he could easily see the Lakers as a more appealing destination.

You talk about Deron Williams, but you do realize that the Nets released Deron Williams before he signed with Dallas, right?  No.  I'm not saying it's a lock for Kawhi to sign with the Lakers.  But based on what we know now, is Philadelphia with Kawhi that much more appealing than the Lakers with Kawhi?  Maybe.  Is it enough to give up going home?  Possibly, but probably not.  He's going to end up a Laker one way or the other IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

He might over underrated, but Mike Conley on a max contract is a bad contract.  He's not a max-caliber player.  He's an awful fit for the Lakers then, and it would have been a disaster had they signed him.  We're talking about a completely different situation.  That offseason, the most valuable asset was Julius Randle.  This offseason, the Lakers had a young core and potentially two max FAs, and they signed LeBron and have room for another max FA next offseason.  That's an incredibly attractive destination.  And it doesn't just have to be Kawhi.  It could be Kyrie Irving or Jimmy Butler.  If Jimmy Butler feels that Minnesota has maxed out, he could easily see the Lakers as a more appealing destination.

You talk about Deron Williams, but you do realize that the Nets released Deron Williams before he signed with Dallas, right?  No.  I'm not saying it's a lock for Kawhi to sign with the Lakers.  But based on what we know now, is Philadelphia with Kawhi that much more appealing than the Lakers with Kawhi?  Maybe.  Is it enough to give up going home?  Possibly, but probably not.  He's going to end up a Laker one way or the other IMO.

With Deron Williams I am talking about the contract he signed to stay in Brooklyn when people thought he would go to Dallas. The Nets actually traded for Johnson just to even more convince Williams to stay. Then when he did the Nets ended up trading for Pierce and Garnett when they couldnt land Howard in a trade. My point is, nothing is certain. I actually think the Lakers getting Kawhi to pair with LeBron would make the Lakers dangerous but I wont believe it till I see it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...