Still early, and things can change on a dime, but what do we think of the 9-4 Chicago Bulls? How are they winning games with perennial net negatives leading the way? What a fascinating development...
Just gauging the room here, but let's say you're the decision-maker for one of the 30 NBA franchises in the league, how much would you offer impending free agent Jusuf Nurkic this upcoming summer? I have an offer in my head, but I don't want to influence what others might say here.
Sacramento, Denver, OKC, and LAL all lost to Eastern Conference teams last night. The basketball gods are doing everything they can to help the Wolves out, but we're a stubborn franchise and breaking a soft, losing mentality is not easy to do.
Camden wrote:Still early, and things can change on a dime, but what do we think of the 9-4 Chicago Bulls? How are they winning games with perennial net negatives leading the way? What a fascinating development...
Those perennial net negatives are having career years, that's what's happening. Guys can stop being net negatives when they actually play better!
Having said that, LaVine STILL has a negative net on/off rating. That's probably because the Bulls have a pretty strong bench. DeRozan is killing it though.
Adding Lonzo Ball and Alex Caruso has been absolutely crucial too. They have a great mix of uber-efficient scorers and hard-nosed defenders.
Camden wrote:Just gauging the room here, but let's say you're the decision-maker for one of the 30 NBA franchises in the league, how much would you offer impending free agent Jusuf Nurkic this upcoming summer? I have an offer in my head, but I don't want to influence what others might say here.
Pretty easily the Blazers second most important player in my opinion even though he plays about 3/4ths the minutes of a typical starting NBA player. His issue is health. Should we throw a lot of money that a guy with a pretty spotty record when it comes to availability?
Camden wrote:The Kings fired head coach Luke Walton after their 6-11 start.
I hadn't see that news yet. Thanks for posting. I've always thought he's a pretty bad head coach, so I'm not surprised.
Remember, the Kings were 39 - 43 when they fired Dave Joerger. Since then, the Kings' record kept getting worse despite many of the same players on the team getting better.
And it's not even the first time the Kings this happened for the Kings THIS decade.
- Mike Malone was 28 - 54 his first season. The team started 11 - 13 his second season (with the team's best player injured)... and they fired him. The team went 18 - 40 the rest of the way.
Camden wrote:The Kings fired head coach Luke Walton after their 6-11 start.
I hadn't see that news yet. Thanks for posting. I've always thought he's a pretty bad head coach, so I'm not surprised.
Remember, the Kings were 39 - 43 when they fired Dave Joerger. Since then, the Kings' record kept getting worse despite many of the same players on the team getting better.
And it's not even the first time the Kings this happened for the Kings THIS decade.
- Mike Malone was 28 - 54 his first season. The team started 11 - 13 his second season (with the team's best player injured)... and they fired him. The team went 18 - 40 the rest of the way.
Seems like a couple of their younger players sort of stalled out. De'Aaron Fox took a really nice leap from his rookie year to 2nd year and has almost regressed a bit since then. Then you have Bagley whose best season may have been his rookie year.
They have some individual pieces that I really like - Halliburton and Holmes for example - but like the Wolves, they have had a hell of a hard time meshing and developing talent and creating a winning culture.
