.
Pelicans Report
 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 69 of 69

Thread: Would you trade for Russell Westbrook?

  1. #51
    The whole point is I wouldn’t trade for Westbrook, but if I can Towns I might do it. I think a young team of Towns, Zion, Ingram, NAW, and Ball could be a team to reckon with come 2021. I know it likely wouldn’t happen, but I didn’t think the Thunder would trade PG13 yesterday to a team in the same conference either that was worse than them last year. Towns is bound to demand for a trade sooner or later, so why not spark some excitement bringing in the triple double machine from OKC & I’ll throw in Jaxson Hayes to take Towns spot. So the Thunder get our 2020 1st, in a draft that’s not that great IMO, and we have plenty of rookies now & foreseeable future. Towns is only 23 and if WAY better than Favors who is only have a year left. Our front court would be set for the next 5 years & possibly longer. Who knows what Hayes will do??

  2. #52
    Max Contract Pelicans78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Lake Charles, LA
    Posts
    14,821
    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonPelicans View Post
    I wouldnt trade for him because I like the foundation of our team
    But to call him one of the worse contracts in the league, has to be one of the worse takes I've heard this summer
    It's easily a top 5 worst contract in the league.

    Emeka Okafor - Joe Smith - Carmelo Anthony - Manu Ginobili - Jason Williams

    Al Jefferson - James Posey - Aaron McKie - Shaun Livingston

  3. #53
    Max Contract Pelicans78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Lake Charles, LA
    Posts
    14,821
    Quote Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN View Post
    Doesn't he only have 2 years left? If so, there are plenty worse.
    4 years, 170 million left.

  4. #54
    Max Contract Pelicans78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Lake Charles, LA
    Posts
    14,821
    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonPelicans View Post
    I dont agree that Embiid and Jokic are better. Even so, he is arguably top 10 and definitely top 15. Which means when he plays over half the league, he is the best player on the floor.
    He's clearly on the decline and not close to what he was a couple of years ago. He's just a stat padder at this point. And he will be 31 this year with still 4 years left on his contract.

  5. #55
    Timberwolves would never do such a deal. Westbrook would sulk and whine so bad to stay in NBA headlines...

    ...or he’d get hurt.

    There’s no great story to sell Russ on the twolves at 30 years old.

  6. #56
    Make it stop

  7. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicans78 View Post
    He's clearly on the decline and not close to what he was a couple of years ago. He's just a stat padder at this point. And he will be 31 this year with still 4 years left on his contract.
    He's just a stat padder? Yet, he's kept that team in the playoffs despite the Thunder's ability to put an adequate team around him. They know he's not a great shooter, yet they have never put shooting around him. Outside of Paul George who has been a reliable shooter for the Thunder since KD left? Abrines? Morrow? Come on now, the teams around Westbrook has been a joke. Yet he has kept them in the playoffs in the West for the past 3 seasons. You can call him a stat padder but he wins games. And if you wanna bring up playoffs, what team has ever advanced with absolutely no shooting?

  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonPelicans View Post
    He's just a stat padder? Yet, he's kept that team in the playoffs despite the Thunder's ability to put an adequate team around him. They know he's not a great shooter, yet they have never put shooting around him. Outside of Paul George who has been a reliable shooter for the Thunder since KD left? Abrines? Morrow? Come on now, the teams around Westbrook has been a joke. Yet he has kept them in the playoffs in the West for the past 3 seasons. You can call him a stat padder but he wins games. And if you wanna bring up playoffs, what team has ever advanced with absolutely no shooting?
    I think it's really, REALLY, really a big mistake to look at the Thunder rosters and say ''hmmm, not much shooting? BAD.''

    Westbrook has been continually surrounded with good-to-great defensive players, athletes who can run the floor, rebounders, good-to-great cutters, etc. And you say ''outside of Paul George'', but that's a pretty big ''outside of'': just a top 3 MVP and DPOY candidate who can shoot lights out, but we're supposed to just ignore him and pretend he wasn't that much of a big deal?

    Jerami Grant was a 40% 3pt shooter this year on nearly 4 attempts per game.
    Ferguson was 37% from 3 this year on 4 attempts per game.
    Obviously PG13 was 39% from 3 this year on nearly TEN attempts per game.

    The team wasn't filled with shooting, sure, they didn't have much after those three guys (couple of guys who shot around league average like Schroder but no other snipers). But combined with the great defense they had, to which all team members contributed, and the fact that a lot of their guys were happy to roleplay, cut, play offball, etc, they should have been better than they were. What sunk them?

    The same thing that sinks them every year at this point: Russell Westbrook taking twenty, yes that's twenty shots a game despite being historically inefficient. That number actually increased to 22 shots a game in the playoffs despite him shooting EVEN WORSE from everywhere on the floor. And it's not like the Portland team OKC was facing had fifty snipers either: they only had 4 guys who shot better than league average from deep, VS OKC's 3.
    Basketball.

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    I think it's really, REALLY, really a big mistake to look at the Thunder rosters and say ''hmmm, not much shooting? BAD.''

    Westbrook has been continually surrounded with good-to-great defensive players, athletes who can run the floor, rebounders, good-to-great cutters, etc. And you say ''outside of Paul George'', but that's a pretty big ''outside of'': just a top 3 MVP and DPOY candidate who can shoot lights out, but we're supposed to just ignore him and pretend he wasn't that much of a big deal?

    Jerami Grant was a 40% 3pt shooter this year on nearly 4 attempts per game.
    Ferguson was 37% from 3 this year on 4 attempts per game.
    Obviously PG13 was 39% from 3 this year on nearly TEN attempts per game.

    The team wasn't filled with shooting, sure, they didn't have much after those three guys (couple of guys who shot around league average like Schroder but no other snipers). But combined with the great defense they had, to which all team members contributed, and the fact that a lot of their guys were happy to roleplay, cut, play offball, etc, they should have been better than they were. What sunk them?

    The same thing that sinks them every year at this point: Russell Westbrook taking twenty, yes that's twenty shots a game despite being historically inefficient. That number actually increased to 22 shots a game in the playoffs despite him shooting EVEN WORSE from everywhere on the floor. And it's not like the Portland team OKC was facing had fifty snipers either: they only had 4 guys who shot better than league average from deep, VS OKC's 3.
    I'm not sure if you're being intentionally disingenuous or what. But arguing that Westbrook has talent around him by naming Ferguson and Grant. Is synonymous with naming Miller and Moore when making that argument for AD.

    Westbrook has consistently had no name players around him and he has gotten them to the playoffs. You talk about how many shots he takes but cant name 2 other players who can create their own. I know you're going to name Schroeder and that would be disingenuous as well.

    Who are these great defenders that have been around Russ? Steven Adam's? He can't defend in space and does not even finish games for them. Has a 106 career defensive rating, which isn't terrible but definitely isn't great. Roberson can defend but he's one of the worse shooters in the league and has been injured for 2 years. Outside of Paul George there were no great defenders on OKC. They win games because Russ brings it every night and to try to discredit a MVP is weird.

    Sam Presti has been top 5 worse GMs in the history of the league but since he lucked into three top 5 picks, he somehow still has a job. He has consistently built bad teams and hired bad coaches. Scott Brooks and Billy Donovan? Give me a break. The fact that Westbrook has won in spite of his circumstances, is a huge testament to him.

  10. #60
    ADfan23 tyler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,337
    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonPelicans View Post
    I'm not sure if you're being intentionally disingenuous or what. But arguing that Westbrook has talent around him by naming Ferguson and Grant. Is synonymous with naming Miller and Moore when making that argument for AD.

    Westbrook has consistently had no name players around him and he has gotten them to the playoffs. You talk about how many shots he takes but cant name 2 other players who can create their own. I know you're going to name Schroeder and that would be disingenuous as well.

    Who are these great defenders that have been around Russ? Steven Adam's? He can't defend in space and does not even finish games for them. Has a 106 career defensive rating, which isn't terrible but definitely isn't great. Roberson can defend but he's one of the worse shooters in the league and has been injured for 2 years. Outside of Paul George there were no great defenders on OKC. They win games because Russ brings it every night and to try to discredit a MVP is weird.

    Sam Presti has been top 5 worse GMs in the history of the league but since he lucked into three top 5 picks, he somehow still has a job. He has consistently built bad teams and hired bad coaches. Scott Brooks and Billy Donovan? Give me a break. The fact that Westbrook has won in spite of his circumstances, is a huge testament to him.
    Bro KD and PG didn't want to play with him... Dude has a low IQ, why would you want him?
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrEtGIuCYAAUHds.jpg

  11. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonPelicans View Post
    I'm not sure if you're being intentionally disingenuous or what. But arguing that Westbrook has talent around him by naming Ferguson and Grant. Is synonymous with naming Miller and Moore when making that argument for AD.

    Westbrook has consistently had no name players around him and he has gotten them to the playoffs. You talk about how many shots he takes but cant name 2 other players who can create their own. I know you're going to name Schroeder and that would be disingenuous as well.

    Who are these great defenders that have been around Russ? Steven Adam's? He can't defend in space and does not even finish games for them. Has a 106 career defensive rating, which isn't terrible but definitely isn't great. Roberson can defend but he's one of the worse shooters in the league and has been injured for 2 years. Outside of Paul George there were no great defenders on OKC. They win games because Russ brings it every night and to try to discredit a MVP is weird. .
    That's an absurd comparison.

    Grant averaged 14/5 on 49% from the floor and 39% from three this season. He's had a double digit PER for the last four seasons. He averaged .134 WS/48 last season, put up a 0.3 BPM, and a 1.5 VORP. His team was +5.3 BETTER with him on the court than with him off it this year, and he held his opponents under their averages when he was their primary defender, including MUCH under their averages at the rim. Was he an all-star? NO. Was he a perfectly competent rotation player? Yes, he was, whereas someone like Miller is debatably not an NBA level player. Miller shot 39% from the floor, 36% from three, had a PER of 8, put up .045 WS/48, posted a -1.7 BPM and a 0.1 VORP. The Pels were only a +3.1 with Miller on the court, compared to Grant's +5.3. They're not the same calibre of player.

    I'm not trying to argue that Westbrook has had a world-beating squad around him. He hasn't. But his team has been a LOT better than many other teams. He's not playing on the Bulls here, for God's sake. He isn't relying on a revolving door squad of 10 day contracts and G-Leaguers.

    Again, try looking at more than one statistic. Steven Adams' 106 DRTG is solid but not great, true, but at the same time, OKC is +9.9 when he's on the court for a REASON. Why? Because he boxes out (OKC's rebounding percentage is a +5% when Adams is on court), sets screens, does the little things: that's why he ranked 14th in the league among centres in RPM, 11th in RPM wins, etc etc. He held his opponents to under their averages as primary defender, from every point on the court: opponents even shot -0.3% worse from 3 when guarded by him. No, he's not fully switchable 1 through 5, but he's better than many, and the number of bigs who legit can switch 1-5 is very small. He produces impactful minutes. He's not Alexis Ajinca or Omer Asik, guys who AD was stuck with. Again, is he perfect? No, but he's a very very good NBA player.

    Wanna know something crazy? OKC's most played lineup this season was this:

    Adams/Ferguson/George/Grant/Westbrook. It produced +8.3 pts per 100 on their overall averages. +0.016 FG% too. +6.2 total rebounding percentage. Good lineup.

    If you take that exact same lineup and replace Westbrook with Schroder, OKC put up +23.3 points per 100, +.042 FG%, and +18.7 rebounding percentage. They even had a better assist percentage: +0.8 compared with -0.6 with Westbrook in Schroder's place. This wasn't some spot minute lineup either, it was their 4th most used 5 man lineup across the entire season: these 5 guys played over 150 minutes together as a 5 man squad. For comparison, we didn't have ANY five man lineup play that many minutes together across this season. Our most common lineup played only 138 minutes together, and that had Wesley Johnson on it.

    Does that mean that Schroder is better than Westbrook? Obviously not. Does that mean that pretending that Westbrook was playing with a group of incompetents who couldn't string together meaningful basketball if not for him bailing them out is a silly thing to do that ignores reality? Yes, yes it does.

  12. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    That's an absurd comparison.

    Grant averaged 14/5 on 49% from the floor and 39% from three this season. He's had a double digit PER for the last four seasons. He averaged .134 WS/48 last season, put up a 0.3 BPM, and a 1.5 VORP. His team was +5.3 BETTER with him on the court than with him off it this year, and he held his opponents under their averages when he was their primary defender, including MUCH under their averages at the rim. Was he an all-star? NO. Was he a perfectly competent rotation player? Yes, he was, whereas someone like Miller is debatably not an NBA level player. Miller shot 39% from the floor, 36% from three, had a PER of 8, put up .045 WS/48, posted a -1.7 BPM and a 0.1 VORP. The Pels were only a +3.1 with Miller on the court, compared to Grant's +5.3. They're not the same calibre of player.

    I'm not trying to argue that Westbrook has had a world-beating squad around him. He hasn't. But his team has been a LOT better than many other teams. He's not playing on the Bulls here, for God's sake. He isn't relying on a revolving door squad of 10 day contracts and G-Leaguers.

    Again, try looking at more than one statistic. Steven Adams' 106 DRTG is solid but not great, true, but at the same time, OKC is +9.9 when he's on the court for a REASON. Why? Because he boxes out (OKC's rebounding percentage is a +5% when Adams is on court), sets screens, does the little things: that's why he ranked 14th in the league among centres in RPM, 11th in RPM wins, etc etc. He held his opponents to under their averages as primary defender, from every point on the court: opponents even shot -0.3% worse from 3 when guarded by him. No, he's not fully switchable 1 through 5, but he's better than many, and the number of bigs who legit can switch 1-5 is very small. He produces impactful minutes. He's not Alexis Ajinca or Omer Asik, guys who AD was stuck with. Again, is he perfect? No, but he's a very very good NBA player.

    Wanna know something crazy? OKC's most played lineup this season was this:

    Adams/Ferguson/George/Grant/Westbrook. It produced +8.3 pts per 100 on their overall averages. +0.016 FG% too. +6.2 total rebounding percentage. Good lineup.

    If you take that exact same lineup and replace Westbrook with Schroder, OKC put up +23.3 points per 100, +.042 FG%, and +18.7 rebounding percentage. They even had a better assist percentage: +0.8 compared with -0.6 with Westbrook in Schroder's place. This wasn't some spot minute lineup either, it was their 4th most used 5 man lineup across the entire season: these 5 guys played over 150 minutes together as a 5 man squad. For comparison, we didn't have ANY five man lineup play that many minutes together across this season. Our most common lineup played only 138 minutes together, and that had Wesley Johnson on it.

    Does that mean that Schroder is better than Westbrook? Obviously not. Does that mean that pretending that Westbrook was playing with a group of incompetents who couldn't string together meaningful basketball if not for him bailing them out is a silly thing to do that ignores reality? Yes, yes it does.
    So you chose to compare Grant to Miller, instead of Moore who's impact was similar to Grant? Again disingenuous.

    Is it quite possible that Steven Adams is a +9.9 because OKC literally has one of the worse bench's in the league? Or is that out of the realm of possibility? The fact that Steven Adams has been the 3rd best player tells you how ridiculously bad Russ' supporting casts has been. You just said he's not "omer ask or Alexis Ajinca" yeah he's better than those guys but He's making $25M/year and would be averaging less than 10 ppg if Russ wasn't spoon feeding him.

    Adams/grant/Ferguson/George/Westbrook lineup is only good because of the stars. That is 3 average to below average players with 2 superstars. And that is there BEST lineup.

    I seriously cannot believe that your best argument for Russ having a playoff team around him is Adams, Grant and Ferguson. This has to be some sick joke. You're making an argument out of nothing. Take Westbrook off their team and they are the Cleveland Cavaliers period.

  13. #63
    The Franchise PolishFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,310
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyman View Post
    Make it stop
    this

  14. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonPelicans View Post
    So you chose to compare Grant to Miller, instead of Moore who's impact was similar to Grant? Again disingenuous.

    Is it quite possible that Steven Adams is a +9.9 because OKC literally has one of the worse bench's in the league? Or is that out of the realm of possibility? The fact that Steven Adams has been the 3rd best player tells you how ridiculously bad Russ' supporting casts has been. You just said he's not "omer ask or Alexis Ajinca" yeah he's better than those guys but He's making $25M/year and would be averaging less than 10 ppg if Russ wasn't spoon feeding him.

    Adams/grant/Ferguson/George/Westbrook lineup is only good because of the stars. That is 3 average to below average players with 2 superstars. And that is there BEST lineup.

    I seriously cannot believe that your best argument for Russ having a playoff team around him is Adams, Grant and Ferguson. This has to be some sick joke. You're making an argument out of nothing. Take Westbrook off their team and they are the Cleveland Cavaliers period.
    I'd suggest re-reading that whole section again if you thought that Adams/Grant/Ferguson/George/Westbrook was their BEST lineup.

    The entire point of that section was that actually when you REMOVE Westbrook and replace him with Schroder, the lineup performed FAR BETTER by pretty much all metrics.

    I compared Grant to Miller, rather than to Moore, because my post was already getting absurdly long so I didn't want to cross-compare all four guys. If you are desperate for the stats (which, judging by your interpretation of the lineup comparisons, is kind of a wasted effort) then here, here's Grant compared to Moore as well:

    Grant: 14/5/1/0.8/1.3. 49% from the field, 39% from 3. +9 net rating. 13.8 PER, 59% True Shooting, .134 WS/48, 7.3 WS total, 0.3 BPM, 1.5 VORP. +5.3 ON OFF
    Moore: 12/2/1/0/8/0.2. 48% from the field, 43% from 3. -7 net rating. 11.5 PER, 56% True Shooting, .055 WS/48, 1.7 WS total, -2.2 BPM, -0.1 VORP. +2.0 ON OFF.

    So yeah... if you do the comparison you specifically said I should have done, Moore looks... possibly even worse than Miller, in some ways. Good argument there.

    Instead of just naming Moore and assuming that you're right, why don't you check the actual numbers to find out whether what you're saying applies to reality or not? It might help your argument.

  15. #65


    ...So you're telling me that Jerami Grant has value to a good team? Crazy, who'da thunk it?

  16. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    I'd suggest re-reading that whole section again if you thought that Adams/Grant/Ferguson/George/Westbrook was their BEST lineup.

    The entire point of that section was that actually when you REMOVE Westbrook and replace him with Schroder, the lineup performed FAR BETTER by pretty much all metrics.

    I compared Grant to Miller, rather than to Moore, because my post was already getting absurdly long so I didn't want to cross-compare all four guys. If you are desperate for the stats (which, judging by your interpretation of the lineup comparisons, is kind of a wasted effort) then here, here's Grant compared to Moore as well:

    Grant: 14/5/1/0.8/1.3. 49% from the field, 39% from 3. +9 net rating. 13.8 PER, 59% True Shooting, .134 WS/48, 7.3 WS total, 0.3 BPM, 1.5 VORP. +5.3 ON OFF
    Moore: 12/2/1/0/8/0.2. 48% from the field, 43% from 3. -7 net rating. 11.5 PER, 56% True Shooting, .055 WS/48, 1.7 WS total, -2.2 BPM, -0.1 VORP. +2.0 ON OFF.

    So yeah... if you do the comparison you specifically said I should have done, Moore looks... possibly even worse than Miller, in some ways. Good argument there.

    Instead of just naming Moore and assuming that you're right, why don't you check the actual numbers to find out whether what you're saying applies to reality or not? It might help your argument.
    Look I see the constant moving of the goal post. I see the constant attacks on certain players. While certain players, coaches and GMs consistently escape any criticism.

    I've seen consistent Steven Adam's support when he's grossly overpaid. I've seen an unwant for Melo at the minimum but suggestions to trade for Chandler Parsons. I've seen Luke Babbitt praise.

    I've seen Monty and Gentry trashed as head coaches. But mums the word when it comes to criticizing Brooks or Donovan etc.

    I've seen Demps trashed on this board when he didnt receive a tenth of the support from ownership in 8 years than Griffin has received in 8 weeks. Yet mums the word when it comes to Sam Presti being one of the worse GMs of all time and outside of the 3 top 5 picks that was gifted to him, has made a myriad of horrendous moves.

    I've seen these dispositions from several posters on this board. And quite frankly, I'm tired of it. I don't need to be engaged in a forum to cheer for my team. So at this point, I'll just excuse myself. And let yall do what yall do, because I refuse to be apart of something so blatant and flagrant.

    And I'm sure this will probably get this thread locked, even though it shouldn't. But whatever have fun trashing players who can do things you will never be able to do, nor the players you overhype will ever be able to do.

  17. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonPelicans View Post
    And I'm sure this will probably get this thread locked, even though it shouldn't. But whatever have fun trashing players who can do things you will never be able to do, nor the players you overhype will ever be able to do.
    Listen, I'm not saying that Presti doesn't deserve any criticism. I think you're being overwhelmingly negative about the Thunder roster, but I'm not going to argue that it's a flawless roster: it's not. Obviously Presti has made mistakes, not least of all picking Ibaka over Harden, famously.

    But my point has NOTHING to do with that. It has nothing to do with Gentry, or Parsons, or Luke Babbitt.

    The question we're debating is this: is the supporting cast that Russell Westbrook has had over the last year or so a GARBAGE roster, or a solid one? Luke Babbitt has literally nothing to do with any of it.

    The point of a forum is to discuss the players, teams, rosters, executives, games. If you think criticising players is absurd or beyond your countenance because they can ''do things'' that we can't, then you're missing the point of a forum anyway. I think everyone on this board would happily admit that Russell Westbrook, regardless of contract issues, would torch us. Hell, Solomon Hill would probably torch me: NBA players are on a different level. But when we say that we don't want to trade for Westbrook because he's not a winner and his contract is silly, that's got nothing to do with whether I can dunk or shoot a 40 footer or not.

    You want to walk away from the discussion, that's cool: obviously you don't owe anyone your time or conversation. But don't act like it's cause you're just above and beyond the argument and that everyone else is just some massively partisan, irrational idiot.

  18. #68
    It should be evident the Pelicans cannot sign anyone to a significant contract or absorb another contract of significance this year. I wouldn't want the ball hawk anyway. There are better investments.

  19. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonPelicans View Post
    Look I see the constant moving of the goal post. I see the constant attacks on certain players. While certain players, coaches and GMs consistently escape any criticism.

    I've seen consistent Steven Adam's support when he's grossly overpaid. I've seen an unwant for Melo at the minimum but suggestions to trade for Chandler Parsons. I've seen Luke Babbitt praise.

    I've seen Monty and Gentry trashed as head coaches. But mums the word when it comes to criticizing Brooks or Donovan etc.

    I've seen Demps trashed on this board when he didnt receive a tenth of the support from ownership in 8 years than Griffin has received in 8 weeks. Yet mums the word when it comes to Sam Presti being one of the worse GMs of all time and outside of the 3 top 5 picks that was gifted to him, has made a myriad of horrendous moves.

    I've seen these dispositions from several posters on this board. And quite frankly, I'm tired of it. I don't need to be engaged in a forum to cheer for my team. So at this point, I'll just excuse myself. And let yall do what yall do, because I refuse to be apart of something so blatant and flagrant.

    And I'm sure this will probably get this thread locked, even though it shouldn't. But whatever have fun trashing players who can do things you will never be able to do, nor the players you overhype will ever be able to do.
    I don't understand. Almost none of that has anything to do with Westbrook and his current contract.

    I'm also not sure what parts of the internet you are looking at where people are avoiding criticizing Billy Donovan and Scott Brooks and expressing a desire for Chandler Parsons. I guess there might be a few crazies out there, but that's certainly not the norm among NBA fans. As far as Presti goes, there has been a lot of criticism for him among Thunder fans I know. I'd say it's about 60/40 "we support him" vs "it is time to move on from him" (that's an admittedly rough estimate about Thunder fans I talk to in person and online, take it with a grain of salt).

    I also think most everyone would agree that Steven Adams is definitely overpaid. I don't think that's a controversial statement at all. But he is still a pretty useful big man when there are not necessarily a plethora of those, and he only has 2 years left on his contract (so it isn't exactly an albatross). That's what makes it a lot different from (and frankly, unrelated to) the Westbrook contract.

    Even at the minimum, I'm not sure what Carmelo Anthony has done recently that would make anyone want to sign him. And again, I fail to see what that has to do with Westbrook (and his contract), or Steven Adams, etc.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •