The NBA rookies Thread

[Black Adam]

Fine by me, I'll be the asshole, you be the dumbass.

aw, don't go away mad...

ah nevermind. please do...

 

[trojanfan12]

So, I'm guessing I might as well get used to Sixers vs. Lakers vs. Celtics who's better debates.

Testament to the amount of young talent on all 3 of those rosters.

Right now?

1. Celtics

2. Sixers

3. Lakers

In a few years after guys have developed (or not developed) and a few years of off-season moves have been made?

 

[Black Adam]

Right now?

1. Celtics

2. Sixers

3. Lakers

In a few years after guys have developed (or not developed) and a few years of off-season moves have been made?

it's why i think this offseason's gonna be interesting...

can Rob and Magic make the moves to keep the Lakers going in the right direction...

 

[trojanfan12]

I actually thought he was complimenting the fan base for understanding the process. Not everyone would have embraced it. And we know some of our own weren’t happy with it.

Exactly. The Lakers have gone through their own "process" because of having to wait out the last couple of years of Kobe's career and having a dumbass running things.

Having that kind of patience, for that long, is tough and it is a long time. Especially when fans are used to their team "re-loading" rather than rebuilding.

Philly fans have been patient and are starting to see that patience rewarded. Lakers fans are also starting to see some reward for our patience as well.

I think that in a couple of seasons or so, both fanbases are going to be extremely pleased and we may even get to have some finals trash talk.

 

[trojanfan12]

it's why i think this offseason's gonna be interesting...

can Rob and Magic make the moves to keep the Lakers going in the right direction...

I think they'll keep moving in the right direction. We also have to be prepared that the Lakers may not land anyone this off-season. With the injuries that have happened, the only max guys worth going after are pretty much PG and Lebron.

The tough thing is going to be deciding what to do with Randle. That guy is making himself some serious money. Assuming they get no FA's...do they keep him, knowing that more than likely means they can only add 1 max guy in 2019? Keep him and try to trade him? Or let him go to keep the space to sign 2 max guys in 2019?

 

[flyerhawk]

Exactly. The Lakers have gone through their own "process" because of having to wait out the last couple of years of Kobe's career and having a dumbass running things.

Having that kind of patience, for that long, is tough and it is a long time. Especially when fans are used to their team "re-loading" rather than rebuilding.

Philly fans have been patient and are starting to see that patience rewarded. Lakers fans are also starting to see some reward for our patience as well.

I think that in a couple of seasons or so, both fanbases are going to be extremely pleased and we may even get to have some finals trash talk.

And then there is the Nets. Who are in year 3 of tankapalooza and it hasn't even started yet.

 

[Black Adam]

I think they'll keep moving in the right direction. We also have to be prepared that the Lakers may not land anyone this off-season. With the injuries that have happened, the only max guys worth going after are pretty much PG and Lebron.

The tough thing is going to be deciding what to do with Randle. That guy is making himself some serious money. Assuming they get no FA's...do they keep him, knowing that more than likely means they can only add 1 max guy in 2019? Keep him and try to trade him? Or let him go to keep the space to sign 2 max guys in 2019?

these guys are developing quite nicely imo...

i'd honestly strongly consider keeping Randle and adding 1 max guy...

that's just me, though...

 

[trojanfan12]

these guys are developing quite nicely imo...

i'd honestly strongly consider keeping Randle and adding 1 max guy...

that's just me, though...

As you know, I'm a Julius Randle fanboy. So I'd love to keep him. Having said that, I always worry about the "contract year." I'd hate to commit big money to him and have him get satisfied.

On the other hand, I'd hate to see him walk and end up thinking "Damn, we shoulda kept that guy." lol

 

[Black Adam]

And then there is the Nets. Who are in year 3 of tankapalooza and it hasn't even started yet.

could be worse. look at Sactown...

sorry, Bolts...

 

[tlance]

Right now?

1. Celtics

2. Sixers

3. Lakers

In a few years after guys have developed (or not developed) and a few years of off-season moves have been made?

Celtics 1?

Are you counting Kyrie and Hayward as young talent?

Otherwise, I don't know how you can justify that ranking.

 

[knowyourenemy]

Celtics 1?

Are you counting Kyrie and Hayward as young talent?

Otherwise, I don't know how you can justify that ranking.

I wouldn’t rank the Lakers 3rd either, but it makes for a good story, so I go along with it.

 

[Gman]

Celtics 1?

Are you counting Kyrie and Hayward as young talent?

Otherwise, I don't know how you can justify that ranking.

Yeah, I agree with you here... although, it's not a super crazy opinion either.

Basically boils down to:

76ers - Simmons, Embiid, Saric, Fultz

vs

Celtics - Brown, Tatum, Rozier, Ojeleye, Smart? (if you count him, he's still on rookie deal)

If you don't love the chances of Embiid staying healthy over the long term, it's possible to favor the C's here.

 

[tlance]

Yeah, I agree with you here... although, it's not a super crazy opinion either.

Basically boils down to:

76ers - Simmons, Embiid, Saric, Fultz

vs

Celtics - Brown, Tatum, Rozier, Ojeleye, Smart? (if you count him, he's still on rookie deal)

If you don't love the chances of Embiid staying healthy over the long term, it's possible to favor the C's here.

I don't know.

I think it is crazy. Even with injury risk factored in.

The Celtics have some really nice young pieces, but the 6ers have 2 players on superstar track. Nobody in the league comes close to touching that. Even if Embiid never plays another game I take Simmons, Saric Fultz because Simmons is that good.

 

[Gman]

I don't know.

I think it is crazy. Even with injury risk factored in.

The Celtics have some really nice young pieces, but the 6ers have 2 players on superstar track. Nobody in the league comes close to touching that. Even if Embiid never plays another game I take Simmons, Saric Fultz because Simmons is that good.

Without factoring in any injury risk, I completely agree with you.

Factoring in the injury risk that Embiid brings to the table, I'm not so sure. Simmons is not heads and tails better than either Brown or Tatum, IMO... because of the giant hole in his game that is shooting. It'll be interesting to see how teams game plan him in the playoffs, and how effective he is when it truly counts.

Fultz hasn't proved anything yet... I'd take Rozier over him right now.

Smart is a mystery wrapped in an enigma and is hard to put a precise value on.

 

[tlance]

Without factoring in any injury risk, I completely agree with you.

Factoring in the injury risk that Embiid brings to the table, I'm not so sure. Simmons is not heads and tails better than either Brown or Tatum, IMO... because of the giant hole in his game that is shooting. It'll be interesting to see how teams game plan him in the playoffs, and how effective he is when it truly counts.

Fultz hasn't proved anything yet... I'd take Rozier over him right now.

Smart is a mystery wrapped in an enigma and is hard to put a precise value on.

Smart probably isn't on your roster next year.

I agree Fultz hasn't proven anything yet,

But, I guarantee that 30 out of 30 GMs in the league would take Simmons over Tatum and Brown. If the 6ers make that offer as soon as the season ends, Ainge insta accepts. Simmons is hands down better than both and it isn't particularly close.

 

[Gman]

Smart probably isn't on your roster next year.

With the injuries (particularly the bone head "punch a hotel mirror" one) the C's might be able to retain him at a discount. We'll see.

But, I guarantee that 30 out of 30 GMs in the league would take Simmons over Tatum and Brown. If the 6ers make that offer as soon as the season ends, Ainge insta accepts. Simmons is hands down better than both and it isn't particularly close.

I don't disagree with you so much as have a different outlook on this choice.

Simmons has better potential to be a lead dog, #1 type player... yes, I'd agree with that assertion. But if his shooting never improves significantly, he may be the type of #1 player that is never able to take a team to the promised land... (not many #1 types that you have to worry about pulling at the end of games because they can't be trusted to make FT's).

Tatum has borderline #1 type promise... but it's too early to make a determination at this point. He seems like a safe bet to become a very good #2 or #3 guy. Brown doesn't look like a lead dog to me... but he also can be a very good #2 or #3 guy.

So, yeah... Simmons is better... but may be tragically flawed.

 

[trojanfan12]

Celtics 1?

Are you counting Kyrie and Hayward as young talent?

Otherwise, I don't know how you can justify that ranking.

I'm talking about who's the better team when healthy. But considering Kyrie is 26 and Hayward 28, I'd also consider them young talent.

The post I responded to talked about better teams and young talent. Right now, the Celtics are the best team of the 3. In another couple of seasons, when teams have made off-season moves, players have developed and we see how Embiid's health holds up, the ranking may look a bit different.

 

[trojanfan12]

I wouldn’t rank the Lakers 3rd either, but it makes for a good story, so I go along with it.

The only teams presented in the post I responded to were the Celtics, Sixers and Lakers.

 

[tlance]

I'm talking about who's the better team when healthy. But considering Kyrie is 26 and Hayward 28, I'd also consider them young talent.

The post I responded to talked about better teams and young talent. Right now, the Celtics are the best team of the 3. In another couple of seasons, when teams have made off-season moves, players have developed and we see how Embiid's health holds up, the ranking may look a bit different.

No question the Celtics are the better team today when both are fully healthy.

I guess I don't view players over 25 as young talent. That is career prime age right there. Kyrie and Hayward have both been in the league a good while. 7 and 8 years respectively I believe.

 

[trojanfan12]

No question the Celtics are the better team today when both are fully healthy.

I guess I don't view players over 25 as young talent. That is career prime age right there. Kyrie and Hayward have both been in the league a good while. 7 and 8 years respectively I believe.

Yeah, I get your point. I still consider guys under 30, young talent. With the number of 1 and done's out there though, I may need to adjust what I consider young.

Used to be, with the exception of the occasional Kobe/KG, etc. guys were 21-22 years old by the time the entered the league. Now they come in at 18-19 and have 2-4 years NBA experience by the time they're 21-22.

Now, if a guy comes in at 21-22, people wonder what's wrong with him. lol