Around the NBA

[kekgeek]

Will Zach Lavine ever play for a team that doesn't lose 50 games. Lavine has been in the league for 6 years now and 5 of those years his team was better with him off the court (last year was the 1st year his team was better with him on the court). Even last year though his team was -6.7 pts per 100 possessions with him on the court last year.

You could say isn't Devin Booker similar but the big difference is every year outside of his rookie year Devin Bookers team has been better than when he was off.

Lavine's teams have been worse when he plays.

[crazy-canuck [enjin:18955461]]

Will Zach Lavine ever play for a team that doesn't lose 50 games. Lavine has been in the league for 6 years now and 5 of those years his team was better with him off the court (last year was the 1st year his team was better with him on the court). Even last year though his team was -6.7 pts per 100 possessions with him on the court last year.

Defensively, i think he's getting worse. The bulls have a drtg in the low 90s when hes off with a neutral net rating. When hes on, they have a drtg of 110+ with a -7 net rtg.

Carter looks like the real deal though.

Bookers defense also looks miles better than lavine right now.

[Wolvesfan21]

Will Zach Lavine ever play for a team that doesn't lose 50 games. Lavine has been in the league for 6 years now and 5 of those years his team was better with him off the court (last year was the 1st year his team was better with him on the court). Even last year though his team was -6.7 pts per 100 possessions with him on the court last year.

You could say isn't Devin Booker similar but the big difference is every year outside of his rookie year Devin Bookers team has been better than when he was off.

Lavine's teams have been worse when he plays.

The problem with that stat is that LaVine is playing with and against other starters mostly, while the bench players are playing against bench and it's this stat could simply be saying those bench players are fairly good for bench.

I think VORP and PER are probably better for individuals I think. Last season LaVine was 1.1 and 18.9. Both very good.

I'm not saying LaVine is a great player, I argued that we should have kept him over Andrew and those results the past couple season clearly show that was the correct choice. If Andrew is the best player on any team they are not going anywhere either thats for sure.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

Will Zach Lavine ever play for a team that doesn't lose 50 games. Lavine has been in the league for 6 years now and 5 of those years his team was better with him off the court (last year was the 1st year his team was better with him on the court). Even last year though his team was -6.7 pts per 100 possessions with him on the court last year.

You could say isn't Devin Booker similar but the big difference is every year outside of his rookie year Devin Bookers team has been better than when he was off.

Lavine's teams have been worse when he plays.

The problem with that stat is that LaVine is playing with and against other starters mostly, while the bench players are playing against bench and it's this stat could simply be saying those bench players are fairly good for bench.

I think VORP and PER are probably better for individuals I think. Last season LaVine was 1.1 and 18.9. Both very good.

<b>I'm not saying LaVine is a great player, I argued that we should have kept him over Andrew and those results the past couple season clearly show that was the correct choice. </b> If Andrew is the best player on any team they are not going anywhere either thats for sure.

I don't really understand how it's clear that we would be better off with Lavine. He's never been on a good team and every time he's on the court it's a defensive disaster. I think it's pretty clear at this point in his career that he's a stat stuffer and not a player who impacts winning in any way. The Bulls are garbage and have been garbage since they traded Jimmy and Zach and Markkanen are supposed to be the leaders of that team and they're terrible. How is Zach not just Jamal Crawford at this point collecting checks for big scoring and terrible everything else?

[Wolvesfan21]

Will Zach Lavine ever play for a team that doesn't lose 50 games. Lavine has been in the league for 6 years now and 5 of those years his team was better with him off the court (last year was the 1st year his team was better with him on the court). Even last year though his team was -6.7 pts per 100 possessions with him on the court last year.

You could say isn't Devin Booker similar but the big difference is every year outside of his rookie year Devin Bookers team has been better than when he was off.

Lavine's teams have been worse when he plays.

The problem with that stat is that LaVine is playing with and against other starters mostly, while the bench players are playing against bench and it's this stat could simply be saying those bench players are fairly good for bench.

I think VORP and PER are probably better for individuals I think. Last season LaVine was 1.1 and 18.9. Both very good.

<b>I'm not saying LaVine is a great player, I argued that we should have kept him over Andrew and those results the past couple season clearly show that was the correct choice. </b> If Andrew is the best player on any team they are not going anywhere either thats for sure.

I don't really understand how it's clear that we would be better off with Lavine. He's never been on a good team and every time he's on the court it's a defensive disaster. I think it's pretty clear at this point in his career that he's a stat stuffer and not a player who impacts winning in any way. The Bulls are garbage and have been garbage since they traded Jimmy and Zach and Markkanen are supposed to be the leaders of that team and they're terrible. How is Zach not just Jamal Crawford at this point collecting checks for big scoring and terrible everything else?

Swap LaVine and Wiggins and what do you get? You think Chicago would win anymore games with Wiggins as it's main guy? Really? Wiggins has been near last in TS% among SG's the last couple seasons. Very bad. He doesn't defend well, he doesn't rebound (maybe he is trying a bit now). Chicago would be worse off. LaVine can at least score the ball really well, he averaged what 27 per game last season with really nice TS%. I forget the number but it was good. I hate to bash on Wiggins but he will never be as good as LaVine. I guess I missed the part where the Wolves were a great team last season too. Not to mention KAT is way better then anyone on Chicago.

[thedoper]

Will Zach Lavine ever play for a team that doesn't lose 50 games. Lavine has been in the league for 6 years now and 5 of those years his team was better with him off the court (last year was the 1st year his team was better with him on the court). Even last year though his team was -6.7 pts per 100 possessions with him on the court last year.

You could say isn't Devin Booker similar but the big difference is every year outside of his rookie year Devin Bookers team has been better than when he was off.

Lavine's teams have been worse when he plays.

The problem with that stat is that LaVine is playing with and against other starters mostly, while the bench players are playing against bench and it's this stat could simply be saying those bench players are fairly good for bench.

I think VORP and PER are probably better for individuals I think. Last season LaVine was 1.1 and 18.9. Both very good.

<b>I'm not saying LaVine is a great player, I argued that we should have kept him over Andrew and those results the past couple season clearly show that was the correct choice. </b> If Andrew is the best player on any team they are not going anywhere either thats for sure.

I don't really understand how it's clear that we would be better off with Lavine. He's never been on a good team and every time he's on the court it's a defensive disaster. I think it's pretty clear at this point in his career that he's a stat stuffer and not a player who impacts winning in any way. The Bulls are garbage and have been garbage since they traded Jimmy and Zach and Markkanen are supposed to be the leaders of that team and they're terrible. How is Zach not just Jamal Crawford at this point collecting checks for big scoring and terrible everything else?

Swap LaVine and Wiggins and what do you get? You think Chicago would win anymore games with Wiggins as it's main guy? Really? Wiggins has been near last in TS% among SG's the last couple seasons. Very bad. He doesn't defend well, he doesn't rebound (maybe he is trying a bit now). Chicago would be worse off. LaVine can at least score the ball really well, he averaged what 27 per game last season with really nice TS%. I forget the number but it was good. I hate to bash on Wiggins but he will never be as good as LaVine. I guess I missed the part where the Wolves were a great team last season too. Not to mention KAT is way better then anyone on Chicago.

For someone who hates to bash on Wiggins you spend a ton of your time doing it.

[Lipoli390]

As the games start to mount, we can see teams starting to find their level. The once 4-1 Wolves are now 4-3 and the Rockets are starting to ascend and are currently 5-3 after a rough start. Portland is still only 3-4, but they'll turn it around over the course of the season. Here's a list of the teams that, barring serious key injuries, will finish ahead of the Wolves in the Western Conference:

1. Clippers. I still consider them the best team in the West. They're 5-2 without Paul George, who is about ready to return.

2. Nuggets. They've struggled a bit early, but they're still 5-2 with a lot of young talent

3. Lakers. They're better than I thought they'd be. LeBron looks like his former healthy self in his prime and some of the role players are stepping up. They're on top of the West right now at 5-1 and while I don't expect them to stay atop the West, they've shown enough for me to see them as a possible top 5 team or at least a playoff team.

4. Rockets. They're 5-3 with Westbrook and Harden still adjusting to one another. They're definitely a contender for the top 4 or 5 in the West.

5. Mavs. They're 4-2 and I think they're for real. They have two bona fide stars in Porzingis and Doncic along with one of the two or three best head coaches in the League.

6. Jazz. They've struggled so far, but they're way too talented to finish below the top 6 or 7 and they could contend for a top 4 or 5 spot.

7. Portland. They've struggled, but they're really talented and very well coached. And at some point they'll get Nurkic back. No way they finish behind the Wolves.

8. Spurs. They're talented enough that I can't see them not making the playoffs with coach Pop at the helm.

So that leaves the Wolves in the lottery. Where the Wolves land in the lottery remains to be seen and turns on a lot of questions. Are the Suns for real? Will the Kings get their act together? Are the Pelicans really that bad? Will the Thunder continue to be as bad as they've been even with a healthy Curry, Green and Russell? If Wiggins continues to play the way he's been playing, I see the Wolves finishing 9th or 10th in the West. If not, and depending on other factors, the Wolves could easily finish in the bottom 3.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Jabari Parker should be on Gersson Rosas' buy-low list of young players that just haven't had breakout years, for whatever reason. He had flashes last year and looks good for Atlanta now, but at some point John Collins is going to come back and put Parker in a reserve role. He has a player option for next year. Could definitely be a value guy next summer if he opted out. He'd still just be 25-years old come free agency and the talent there is very real.

[Wolvesfan21]

Will Zach Lavine ever play for a team that doesn't lose 50 games. Lavine has been in the league for 6 years now and 5 of those years his team was better with him off the court (last year was the 1st year his team was better with him on the court). Even last year though his team was -6.7 pts per 100 possessions with him on the court last year.

You could say isn't Devin Booker similar but the big difference is every year outside of his rookie year Devin Bookers team has been better than when he was off.

Lavine's teams have been worse when he plays.

The problem with that stat is that LaVine is playing with and against other starters mostly, while the bench players are playing against bench and it's this stat could simply be saying those bench players are fairly good for bench.

I think VORP and PER are probably better for individuals I think. Last season LaVine was 1.1 and 18.9. Both very good.

<b>I'm not saying LaVine is a great player, I argued that we should have kept him over Andrew and those results the past couple season clearly show that was the correct choice. </b> If Andrew is the best player on any team they are not going anywhere either thats for sure.

I don't really understand how it's clear that we would be better off with Lavine. He's never been on a good team and every time he's on the court it's a defensive disaster. I think it's pretty clear at this point in his career that he's a stat stuffer and not a player who impacts winning in any way. The Bulls are garbage and have been garbage since they traded Jimmy and Zach and Markkanen are supposed to be the leaders of that team and they're terrible. How is Zach not just Jamal Crawford at this point collecting checks for big scoring and terrible everything else?

Swap LaVine and Wiggins and what do you get? You think Chicago would win anymore games with Wiggins as it's main guy? Really? Wiggins has been near last in TS% among SG's the last couple seasons. Very bad. He doesn't defend well, he doesn't rebound (maybe he is trying a bit now). Chicago would be worse off. LaVine can at least score the ball really well, he averaged what 27 per game last season with really nice TS%. I forget the number but it was good. I hate to bash on Wiggins but he will never be as good as LaVine. I guess I missed the part where the Wolves were a great team last season too. Not to mention KAT is way better then anyone on Chicago.

For someone who hates to bash on Wiggins you spend a ton of your time doing it.

It's not bashing if it the truth. :-d

[Monster]

Jabari Parker should be on Gersson Rosas' buy-low list of young players that just haven't had breakout years, for whatever reason. He had flashes last year and looks good for Atlanta now, but at some point John Collins is going to come back and put Parker in a reserve role. He has a player option for next year. Could definitely be a value guy next summer if he opted out. He'd still just be 25-years old come free agency and the talent there is very real.

The other day I had to look him up because I couldn't remember where he landed. I keep some tabs on him because I think he does have talent. He has a player option for 6.5 million next year. What kind of money are you thinking at this point Cam?