2017-2018 Official Season Discussion Thread

[Odin 137]

13 minutes ago, Magicman28 said:

Not as if late he hasn't. He's been so focused on offense that his defense has nose dive. Isaac at the 4 is what I think they envision. AG is not good at the 3.

And if what you say is true than our front office is stupid. Gordon is young, still has potential for growth, and is already a proven commodity. Isaac is only potential. Isaac hasn't even been able to show that he can stay on the court yet.

I am not saying that we give up on Isaac now either. But this is not an either/or  situation. We can still keep both.

Trading Gordon because of Isaac would be like selling your Apple, Google, or Amazon stock to invest in a start up. Yeah the start up might do well, but there is a very high risk of failure.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

1 minute ago, Magicman28 said:

Well, you give AG the max and he's nothing more than Thad Young, he won't be movable until he's an expiring contract.

Him and Fournier or Vuch would definitely be valuable.

I understand about Isaac but they drafted him for a reason. They had a vision with him. They are making moves for the future and his shotblocking mixed with his ability to put the ball on the court and stretch the offense makes AG somewhat expendable.

Isaacs first 15 games are almost identical to harkless' first 15 games.  Also ed Davis, Christian eyenga, tristan Thompson and Patrick Patterson.  

We're a long way off from figuring out what Isaac is.  We shouldn't be making roster decisions or basing roster decisions on him until he shows more.  

[Odin 137]

4 minutes ago, Magicman28 said:

Well, you give AG the max and he's nothing more than Thad Young, he won't be movable until he's an expiring contract.

Him and Fournier or Vuch would definitely be valuable.

I understand about Isaac but they drafted him for a reason. They had a vision with him. They are making moves for the future and his shotblocking mixed with his ability to put the ball on the floor and stretch the offense and on a rookie deal makes AG somewhat expendable.

They can have all of the "vision" for him they want- but, in all honesty, that "vision" is meaningless unless there is something to back it up.

For example, Philly might have a vision to build around Simmons, which would be valid as he has shown a good amount of ability in his rookie year. However, just because they have Fultz in the wings and probably have a "vision" for Fultz as well does not make Simmons expendable as Fultz has not shown anything in his NBA career.

[Okethree 76]

What if there’s something we don’t know? Gordon could be tired of losing and not be fond of his teammates. He could have told the front office he wants out and if that’s the case we’ve done a great job of not letting this go public.

[Mauro Pedrosa 1,032]

I know it goes against the "bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" theory, but I'd trade AG if it meant landing both Trae Young and Doncic. I would also do it for a CJ McCollum - Doncic combo

[Magicman28 295]

1 minute ago, Odin said:

And if what you say is true than our front office is stupid. Gordon is young, still has potential for growth, and is already a proven commodity. Isaac is only potential. Isaac hasn't even been able to show that he can stay on the court yet.

I am not saying that we give up on Isaac now either. But this is not an either/or  situation. We can still keep both.

Trading Gordon because of Isaac would be like selling your Apple, Google, or Amazon stock to invest in a start up. Yeah the start up might do well, but there is a very high risk of failure.

Wouldn't it depend on return though? I mean let's say SA does decide to trade Kawhi. I know i know not likely at all but what if? You do that right?

[Okethree 76]

1 minute ago, Magicman28 said:

Wouldn't it depend on return though? I mean let's say SA does decide to trade Kawhi. I know i know not likely at all but what if? You do that right?

How many years are left on his contract?

[Magicman28 295]

16 minutes ago, Payton4thewin said:

Isaacs first 15 games are almost identical to harkless' first 15 games.  Also ed Davis, Christian eyenga, tristan Thompson and Patrick Patterson.  

We're a long way off from figuring out what Isaac is.  We shouldn't be making roster decisions or basing roster decisions on him until he shows more.  

Yeah but vision test isn't to be ignored. Harkless was offensively handicapped and his shotblocking wasn't like Isaac's.

And I don't think this has everything to do with Isaac and more do we pay a player the max that might never be worth the max? Who has played well but has put defense we needed it so badly on the back burner for offense? Maybe they got wind he wants out too.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

2 minutes ago, Mauro Pedrosa said:

I know it goes against the "bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" theory, but I'd trade AG if it meant landing both Trae Young and Doncic. I would also do it for a CJ McCollum - Doncic combo

Shouldn't we have learned the lessons of all the recent draft picks who were billed as franchise changers but turn out to be just nice? Ingram? The entire lottery of 2015 with the exception of towns? Jabari? Wiggins?

[Magicman28 295]

2 minutes ago, Payton4thewin said:

Shouldn't we have learned the lessons of all the recent draft picks who were billed as franchise changers but turn out to be just nice? Ingram? The entire lottery of 2015 with the exception of towns? Jabari? Wiggins?

I'm not advocating trading AG but if we do, I agree, better be for something legitimate. Not draft picks.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

 I'm just going back to what i said when we traded oladipo for ibaka.  

Why trade oladipo for ibaka when it makes more sense to pair oladipo with ibaka? Developing a defensive identity instead of plugging one hole while opening another.  

Why trade Gordon for (realistically available all star)? Then you're just Charlotte. Or the Knicks.  

You're supposed to pair an all star with Gordon so that we're actually building toward something.  Otherwise it's just making us marginally better 

[Magicman28 295]

29 minutes ago, Odin said:

They can have all of the "vision" for him they want- but, in all honesty, that "vision" is meaningless unless there is something to back it up.

For example, Philly might have a vision to build around Simmons, which would be valid as he has shown a good amount of ability in his rookie year. However, just because they have Fultz in the wings and probably have a "vision" for Fultz as well does not make Simmons expendable as Fultz has not shown anything in his NBA career.

True but I don't know if that vision is to build around him but to get a guy you can build around.