GT : Nets @ Hawks 12/6
Moderators: NyCeEvO, Rich Rane
Re: GT : Nets @ Hawks 12/6
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 7,545
- And1: 5,246
- Joined: Aug 13, 2012
Re: GT : Nets @ Hawks 12/6
I would rather see Cam Thomas gone before Din. At least Din can pass the ball at times. Cam T just sucks the energy out of the offense. It's 2023 and selfish ballhogs are not foundation pieces for a playoff team, let alone a contender
Re: GT : Nets @ Hawks 12/6
-
- Bench Warmer
- Posts: 1,346
- And1: 930
- Joined: Jan 25, 2014
Re: GT : Nets @ Hawks 12/6
Sigh...I kind of agree with you. Cam has horrendous tunnel vision. I like him as a 6th man not a starter.Marvin Martian wrote:I would rather see Cam Thomas gone before Din. At least Din can pass the ball at times. Cam T just sucks the energy out of the offense. It's 2023 and selfish ballhogs are not foundation pieces for a playoff team, let alone a contender
Not sure why he wasnt used the last 2 seasons when our offense went cold and no stars. Curious case.
Re: GT : Nets @ Hawks 12/6
-
- Bench Warmer
- Posts: 1,437
- And1: 215
- Joined: Aug 27, 2005
Re: GT : Nets @ Hawks 12/6
bubonicphoniks wrote:Sigh...I kind of agree with you. Cam has horrendous tunnel vision. I like him as a 6th man not a starter.Marvin Martian wrote:I would rather see Cam Thomas gone before Din. At least Din can pass the ball at times. Cam T just sucks the energy out of the offense. It's 2023 and selfish ballhogs are not foundation pieces for a playoff team, let alone a contender
Not sure why he wasnt used the last 2 seasons when our offense went cold and no stars. Curious case.
I think we have a good team which probably cannot contend for a championship without a superstar. I also expect, to avoid the repeater tax, we will have to go one more year without one. If I understand the CBA, we might be able to substantially improve anyway, by adding another pretty good player in our larger $18 mil exception (If we do not lose it). If I understand correctly, that would add to the cap, but be exempt from the luxury tax. (I'm open to correction if wrong.) It probably would not be easy, without losing at least one nice player, but we potentially could even stay under the cap.
I believe we are better keeping both of these, I think valuable, players, whose perceived imperfections seem to annoy some, until we can get a more perfect solution. There are not that many near perfect players, and they are not inexpensive or easy to come by. I actually like both, and our collective talents have already drastically improved our offensive standing, and even our previously lousy rebounding.
Re: GT : Nets @ Hawks 12/6
-
- Bench Warmer
- Posts: 1,346
- And1: 930
- Joined: Jan 25, 2014
Re: GT : Nets @ Hawks 12/6
I agree. Stand pat and develop this time. If we could move idiot Ben we might be alright. Even then who are we going after? Time to just let it ride this team has earned that in my mind.ChuckS wrote:bubonicphoniks wrote:Sigh...I kind of agree with you. Cam has horrendous tunnel vision. I like him as a 6th man not a starter.Marvin Martian wrote:I would rather see Cam Thomas gone before Din. At least Din can pass the ball at times. Cam T just sucks the energy out of the offense. It's 2023 and selfish ballhogs are not foundation pieces for a playoff team, let alone a contender
Not sure why he wasnt used the last 2 seasons when our offense went cold and no stars. Curious case.
I think we have a good team which probably cannot contend for a championship without a superstar. I also expect, to avoid the repeater tax, we will have to go one more year without one. If I understand the CBA, we might be able to substantially improve anyway, by adding another pretty good player in our larger $18 mil exception (If we do not lose it). If I understand correctly, that would add to the cap, but be exempt from the luxury tax. (I'm open to correction if wrong.) It probably would not be easy, without losing at least one nice player, but we potentially could even stay under the cap.
I believe we are better keeping both of these, I think valuable, players, whose perceived imperfections seem to annoy some, until we can get a more perfect solution. There are not that many near perfect players, and they are not inexpensive or easy to come by. I actually like both, and our collective talents have already drastically improved our offensive standing, and even our previously lousy rebounding.
If we had Vaughn instead of the worst coach of all time the past few years I think things might look very different.
Re: GT : Nets @ Hawks 12/6
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,956
- And1: 2,599
- Joined: Feb 11, 2007
Re: GT : Nets @ Hawks 12/6
ChuckS wrote:bubonicphoniks wrote:Sigh...I kind of agree with you. Cam has horrendous tunnel vision. I like him as a 6th man not a starter.Marvin Martian wrote:I would rather see Cam Thomas gone before Din. At least Din can pass the ball at times. Cam T just sucks the energy out of the offense. It's 2023 and selfish ballhogs are not foundation pieces for a playoff team, let alone a contender
Not sure why he wasnt used the last 2 seasons when our offense went cold and no stars. Curious case.
I think we have a good team which probably cannot contend for a championship without a superstar. I also expect, to avoid the repeater tax, we will have to go one more year without one. If I understand the CBA, we might be able to substantially improve anyway, by adding another pretty good player in our larger $18 mil exception (If we do not lose it). If I understand correctly, that would add to the cap, but be exempt from the luxury tax. (I'm open to correction if wrong.) It probably would not be easy, without losing at least one nice player, but we potentially could even stay under the cap.
I believe we are better keeping both of these, I think valuable, players, whose perceived imperfections seem to annoy some, until we can get a more perfect solution. There are not that many near perfect players, and they are not inexpensive or easy to come by. I actually like both, and our collective talents have already drastically improved our offensive standing, and even our previously lousy rebounding.
Using the exception will count against the cap and luxury tax.