Reportedly, he has been offered a chance to stay with the second team.
I think most people can agree a change was overdue. I don’t have particular opinions about Doc Rivers and Doris Burke. At this point, I’ll accept any announcer who talks about basketball, doesn’t backseat driver the refereeing and doesn’t second guess player injuries, a standard that the previous squad did not meet.
> Reportedly, he has been offered a chance to stay with the second team.
Was just coming here to say that my theory is they offered Jackson a lesser job and he said no. This is a guy who refused to do any coaching job in the NBA except a head coaching job, didn't seem likely that he'd accept being on the #2 team.
I don't have much love for Doc outside of seeing him as a hilarious character and I am relatively neutral on Burke as far as announcers go, but I have no trouble seeing this pairing do better than the MJax-Van Gundy tandem we mercifully never have to listen to again.
Yeah it is. It’s no accident he had his replied turned off on Twitter and retweeted the two people that quote tweeted him agreeing. spence looked so thoroughly outmatched that there are quite a few boxers that have a stake for that 10th spot like Benavidez or Beterbiev
Jul 31, 2023·edited Jul 31, 2023Liked by Eric Apricot
LQ for 14th roster spot?
Dumas: "I was told, 'Hey, look, you know, we're high on a number of guys... we like him (LQ) a lot... we think that one day he can contribute.' So I think that's his spot to lose."
I've been wondering about the "So I think that's his spot to lose"
Is Dumas
a) direct quoting his source,
b) is not direct quoting but is reasonably inferring that's what his source is implying, or
c) providing his own personal opinion
Sometimes I find the podcast format hard to validate not through any ill-intent of the speaker, but it's just natural ambiguity of when reporting and opinion-giving slides between each other within a spoken format.
In any case, now that LQ has agreed to a two-way, I just don't see any advantage to having him added to the roster, at least not until after he plays out the two-way contract. Even if he has a good camp/pre-season, they still have 50 NBA games for which he can play as a two way. That would extend the sample size without needing to cost a roster spot. I assume it would also save a few pennies to delay adding him to the full roster later in the season (e.g. when he uses up 50 or the deadline).
So unless
1) there's a rule I wasn't aware of that all 3 two-way players have an aggregate max number of games played
2) they have 3 exceptional candidates for two ways for whom they want to clear space, and/or
3) they expect to eventually fill spot 14 and spot 15 with two-ways by the end of the season, I just don't know why they would't just have LQ play out his two way contract and confirm what he really can do.
I do feel like the probably want to say nice things to give LQ assurances he's in their plans and that this time he won't be dropped like after last preseason. If anyone has info otherwise, I'd most welcome it. Sorry for the long post (been ruminating for a bit) and thanks
Each team still can't have more than 90 total games played by all two-way players combined. Not really sure if that would factor in too much unless they really felt like they were needing LQ every game.
This is basically correct, with a tiny subtlety. I believe this limit only occurs when the team has signed fewer than 15 NBA players (which is usually the case with GSW). One can imagine weird edge cases.
In the new CBA II.11.b.iii, the exact rule is
> Any Regular Season game for which a Team has fewer than fifteen (15) players signed to Standard NBA Contracts shall be an “Under-Fifteen Game.” No Team shall be permitted to have a Two-Way Player on its Active List for more than ninety (90) Under-Fifteen Games during a Regular Season. For purposes of the foregoing rule: (A) an Under-Fifteen Game for which a Team has one (1) Two-Way Player on its Active List shall count as one (1) Under-Fifteen Game; (B) an Under-Fifteen Game for which a Team has two (2) Two-Way Players on its Active List shall count as two (2) Under-Fifteen Games; and (C) an Under-Fifteen Game for which a Team has three (3) Two-Way Players on its Active List shall count as three (3) Under-Fifteen Games.
Thanks for the clarification, I did have it wrong. I saw some article mention the 90 game limit without that restriction, but the CBA only mentions it in the under-15 limit you mentioned. Last year I believe GSW "gamed" this even further by adding LQ to the 15th spot on a 10 day contract once they hit the limit, just so they could exceed the 90 game limit during that time and play Ty and Lamb more. Then once that time ran out, they eventually converted Lamb to the 15th spot. It wouldn't be too surprising to see something similar happen with LQ this year, (as Lamb experienced last year), though if there's no one else they really want for the 14th spot I could see him getting that too.
One case for giving LQ the 14 spot is that Warriors should have more leverage to get him to accept a multi-year deal where any future years are team options/unguaranteed at the minimum. If you are offering that contract on the last day of the season to fill the 15 spot, the player may not have much incentive to accept future unguaranteed years just for a few games extra salary. But at the beginning of the year to get a full roster spot would be hard to pass up, and likely worth LQ giving up some future flexibility for a year or two.
Edit: I believe this would have to be a 2 year deal at most (ie this year + unguaranteed next year), as the minimum contract exception Warriors need to use to sign him is capped at 2 years)
I like this rule. I understand Lacob's desire to shave taxes, but at a certain point playing 2-ways shifts from being developmental/opportunity to audition to being exploitive. It would be one thing if a team suffered so many injuries they had to rely on 2-ways and 10-day contracts. But last year you had a $12million dollar guy nailed to the bench while the coach gave big minutes to a $75,000 guy on a basically non-guaranteed contract. That's really not fair. If #40 had had a career-ending injury he'd never get an NBA payday, and from a team who's coach saw him as better than someone making 160 times as much.
Like I said, AT SOME POINT it crosses over from developmental/opportunity to audition to being exploitive. Where that line is, I don't know, but I am confident the Dubs crossed it last year with Lamb and Wiseman. The NBAPA and other teams are right, in my view, to make that harder and harder to do. Lamb + Ty blew past the 90 game cap. Had that rule have been in effect last year, maybe Lamb or Ty gets a regular contract earlier. Or maybe the Dubs sign someone off the buyout market. And, hey, yo-yoing a two way while benching the young signed vet is probably not helping team cohesion.
That's the exploitable mentality that players "on the fringe" will have. Allowing teams to not pay those "on the fringe guys" a full vet min salary because they'll be willing to play on 2 ways instead is what the NBAPA will fight to restrict. Instead of 450 NBA roster jobs, it could become 400 if teams really start to lean into carrying only 13 guys on the roster and utilizing the 3 2 ways... potentially a pretty big drop.
The Warriors have 13 players under contract right now. By rule, they must add one more before the season starts. That’s the problem to solve here. And LQ is the leader to get that 14th roster spot, apparently.
I think they will bring someone in on a non guaranteed deal and potentially cut them around January.
They’ll then toggle around 10 day contracts until adding someone on the 14th spot on a rest of season deal. I estimate this would save the team millions in tax and potentially have those 2 way guys fully motivated to fight for the last 2 spots.
I got a question for alla y'all. There was this roundup of team rankings on espn.com that argued that the Nuggets will miss Jeff Green for his "locker room" (LR) contributions. I am on record being highly skeptical of LR as a significant factor. I propose putting a number on it. Suppose that we create a conversion of some sort to make stats equivalent. Like scoring ten points is worth three rebounds is worth four assists is worth one block. It's clumsy and artificial but humor me.
Where would you put LR relative to scoring 100 points? Is it worth half as much? One quarter? One 1000th? Yes, I understand that each LR is context-dependent. But I think the phrase gets tossed around with no regard for its meaning. I'll put it this way. Take Jeff Green's LR off of last year's Nuggets team and you get *the exact same results.* His LR was zero.
I've been ruminating on a similar idea in part because of ChemKoala's comment on Dallas's "vibes" and I really like that term over "locker room presence" because of the ways it captures many of the other insightful things other posters have put in this thread.
The problems with looking at a dude's positive locker room contributions are that they're generally not individual and they're invisible to anyone outside the locker room. We're going off rumors and press conferences, which are unreliable sources of information. Of course, when someone makes crazy comments on record, punches teammates, or chokes a coach, that's obvious.
But there's a lot of circumstantial stuff, too. A player's seniority with the team has to be a big factor too, and communication styles are personal and different too. You could be a great guy on one team but not another. And maybe some guys are awesome at celebrating victories but others are better at defusing frustration, or keeping people from getting complacent. Like scoring vs rebounding, "LR" is at least several different secret stats with non-linear interactions; that's why they call it "chemistry". In the end, I think the vibes on a team are kind of like a multiplier on the team's overall skill, allowing the players and the team to perform closer to their collective best more often.
Will Denver have worse vibes this year? They very well could, but it'll be impossible to tell how much is due to losing Jeff Green and how much is championship hangover & the stress of being the defending champs. I still have more pressing questions about the vibes on several other teams including ours. Obviously things with Poole and Draymond last year were bad although they did surprisingly well at keeping things professional during actual games, but is adding a former rival and all-time villain going to be any better? Especially with the ongoing jockeying for starting roles and playing time? It could, but it could also blow up just as bad as whiny Luka and wacko Kyrie over in Dallas. Well, maybe that could be worse.
I think we just had a demonstration of how important LR contributions can be. Between hoisting the Larry O'Brien in 2022 and the first game of 2022-23 the Dubs lost Mike Brown (who MIGHT have been a better communicator with Dray than SK), GPII (an all around good guy), OPJ (the epitome of chill out), Belly (just get the job done, no need for fanfare). They were replaced by JMG (clearly on the downside), DVD (insufficient gravitas), and 3 young guns who, for all their enthusiasm, had insufficient capital to play that role. You could say that that was a talent decline, and I can't argue with that. But the vibe was also off all year. Almost nobody cheering from the sideline. Inconsistent smiles all season. And of course, the punch set them back, but very little in the way of LRpower to set it aright, at least enough to win some road games.
I can't quantify it, but it matters. Just like its hard to quantify Looney's impact, but lose him and you see it matters.
The LR is, imho, one of THE most important aspects in the success of a basketball team. We tend to think of group performances as based/depending on measurable attitudes/abilities, like intelligence, skill and experience. However, in reality the biggest factor is actually subtle pattern of small behaviors.
By fostering consistent, social interactions which exhibit tons of belonging cues (behaviors that create safe connection in groups like proximity, eye contact, body language, and whether everyone talks to everyone else in the group), you create a safe environment that allows for group cohesion.
In turn, this cohesion allows for groups to solve complex problems at breathtaking speeds because everyone is motivated to hold each other accountable and group decision making has reduced inefficient.
To translate this to basketball talk, a good LR fosters an environment which allows for teams to rapidly assess problems in players/teams and adjust (essentially raising team IQ to a sum greater than its parts). It also dramatically increases motivation within the team to hold each other accountable, tough love only works if there is love underneath.
It would be interesting to think of an exception: A basketball team where the players didn't get along, the LR was toxic, but they still played at a very high level. There are examples in baseball over the years (NY Yankees had some teams like that, if memory serves, and of course the notorious 1919 "Black Sox" but there have been others). It's harder to think of an NBA team that won a lot despite seriously bad LR.
Yeah good examples. Kobe and Shaq famously didn't get along at least some of that time and won anyway. I don't know enough about what really went on behind the scenes with the Bulls but reports are as you say, bad LR, and MJ must have been a tough teammate even for talented players who work hard. Ask Steve Kerr! In 2018-19 we had the KD drama and his conflict with Draymond but I don't know how much that affected the overall LR situation. It would seem likely.
I think the sport of basketball is a lot more interactive than is the sport of baseball. In baseball every player gets a chance to bat (well, it used to be that way, until the DH. Damn DH!). In basketball players have to pass the ball around and figure out who "gets to score." Don't do that enough and some teammates will get upset. Share too much and no one steps up to take the shot. IIRC, Reggie Jackson (OF) and Thurman Munson (C) hated each other--and won 2 or 3 World Series championships. In baseball the 3rd baseman can hate everyone in the outfield, and maybe even the infield, but it probably doesn't really matter. It'd be tough to have a basketball team succeed when two starters actually hate each other.
I definitely agree that baseball's actions are much more individualized than basketball. That's part of the reason I suspect for why baseball analytics is more stats driven than other sports; the game is much more a sum of individual actions rather than a two team ballet. Even in baseball, defensive stats were notoriously noisier until player tracking started taking off.
I agree too. On the fielding side, baseball is more interactive than on the hitting side (think infield plays and pitcher-catcher chemistry) but it still is nowhere near as interactive as hoops. That said, the late '70s Yankee LR was said to be absolutely toxic, and the '19-'20 White Sox were much worse. All of the corrupt Black Sox but Gandil returned for the '20 season, and by then the LR must have been radioactive. They still were in the pennant race to the very end.
I don't like framing LR presence like ESPN did because I don't think it's divisible in that way. I think about it like team schemes vs. player stats; a player could be putting up lower stats but help their team win more because what they're not doing is being replaced with more efficient production elsewhere. Similarly, LR dynamics are a real thing. If you're on edge, you probably aren't going to play to your peak, and if the LR is loose you're more likely to get into a flow state.
My guess* is that we should think of vibes as more of a systems dynamics question than a quantifiable linear regression question.
More specifically, it's probably something where you have different equilibria, say "a good LR" (G) and "a bad LR" (B). If you're in G, then the collective behavior of everyone is enough to adapt/ account for occasional friction. That comes from some combo of the personalities on the team, trust in key players/ coaches (not always the HC or star, it could be Looney on the W's for example), and clear communication. If you start removing key nodes (we cut Looney) or communication channels degrade (e.g. Dray's fuck up) and you might be able to stay in G. At some point, however, you'll reach a critical point where the system slides G- > B. That's not due to any specific thing, but a collection of issues that push the system into a new equilibrium.
That's all to say I think we misframe the situation when we talk about good/ bad LR dynamics and what role players serve within them. But we shouldn't throw the concept out just bc we tend to see if misused
OK I've thought more about it and I agree. I think it's roughly analogous to a family. If the mother comes home angry every evening, but there are six other adults who can frame that, deflect it, respond appropriately, or just be cool, that helps the child. But if the mother comes home angry and the other adults respond with anger or do nothing to prevent the anger from getting toxic, the child suffers much more. The family slides from G to B.
But the precipitating question was: Does the loss of Jeff Green, who was nothing special as a player, hurt the LR of the Nuggets. And in the real world, as far as I know the LR of the Nuggets is G. One doesn't hear about weird incidents or feuds. The leadership of Malone, Jokic, Murray seem like chill dudes. Malone gets a little agitated but he's a coach. And Jokic is so chill that he moves almost any needle from B to G. If Jeff Green had been toxic to other players last year or gotten impbroiled in some scandal, that would have, in your formulation, not been sufficient to slide that LR from G to B.
Could be! Given their context, I personally don't think losing J. Green would be enough to tip the scales, so we're in agreement about Green's particular role. It's more that (assuming J. Green was a key node in their team morale) losing Green makes their ecosystem more vulnerable to other disruption that, when combined with this loss, ultimately spoils the LR.
Per your good example, you might not need 6 other adults, but you probably need at least 1. Or you need to give that hard working woman a night to herself. Or <some other healthy mediation>. I guess my boiler plate is: success has many parents exactly because that makes each parent less individually important.
> the precipitating question was: Does the loss of Jeff Green, who was nothing special as a player, hurt the LR of the Nuggets.
And the answer is: there's no way for us to know for sure, but it's possible?
To be clear, the ESPN / Ohm Youngmisuk quote in question is: "Green's veteran experience, especially in the locker room, will also be difficult to replace." Which, I don't know, doesn't strike me as a particularly controversial premise? I'd guess the Nuggets will be totally fine next season, but veteran experience can be useful, and is not always easy to replace.
I'm sure we mostly agree. As in if we were bettors, these personnel matters would influence our thinking to the same degree.
It's a matter of framing and vocabulary, I think. For example I agree that veteran experience can be useful, but I think in the Nuggets context wouldn't move the needle at all. They don't need a Haslem.
I'm going to have to reread this several more times to get it because it's so smart. While I am doing that, I just wanna say that *your* LR around here is stratsospheric. You're always thumbsing stuff up and providing good karma and no bad LR, and that is something that I very much appreciate and want to thank you for.
A nonlinear mathematical function that is highly dependent on other variables. E.g. if there’s a bad situation then a positive LR person might have an outsized effect, or not be able to overcome that problem at all. Maybe the simplest scenario is when everyone gets along but isn’t strongly connected. Then a positive influencer can create cohesion and unity. Also likely different individuals will be more and less effective in different situations.
Great points. I’d also note that in the specific case of 36 y.o. Uncle Jeff we’re talking about a 7th-9th man whose impact on wins either way is always gonna be somewhat marginal. “LR” is of course impossible to quantify precisely, but I’d imagine its impact is significantly greater when we’re talking about core/franchise players. Like, does anyone doubt that a proven “positive LR” leader like Steph (or Jokic, or Giannis, or Jrue, et al.) who sets a tone and culture of professionalism, selflessness, teamwork, and joy contributes more to wins than, say, a known party boy / primadonna / quitter like James Harden?
In any case, the isolated LR impact for any player at the extreme end of the LR spectrum is probably not zero, which I assume is the main point the ESPN piece was making.
Yes, the talent of any given player is probably the greatest determinant on their contributions (positive or negative) to the team's success.... and this can be within the LR impact as well as with their play... stars will have more impact than role players in the LR.
Do you think the Nuggets will be as good this season without Jeff Green and Bruce Brown and with rookies and second-year guys taking that PT? I think they will have a worse record, a worse point differential, and a worse seed at the end of the season.
Edit: And I realize you are calling out specifically the LR contributions rather than what is done on the court. I don't think you can easily measure one without the other though. They are humans after all, not machines you can break down into separate parts.
That Nugget bench is looking pretty two timelines-y these days with Braun, Watson, Nnaji, Tyson, Strawther, and Pickett. The vets are Reggie Jackson, Justin Holiday, and DeAndre Jordan who are all coming off of down years too.
I think they'll be fine in the regular season regardless because Jokic is an injury proof wins machine but just like the Warriors last season, they are probably going to need some of these young guys to become playoff caliber rotation guys or else it is going to be a very big load on the main guys. Although unlike the Warriors, their main guys are younger so depth is probably not quite as important.
Yeah, but I thought the same about Bones Hyland about a year ago. Totally different players, but young player progress is not aways linear. Also, I'm hating on a current rival, so yeah, I'm hoping it doesn't work out.
Feels like the kind of thing that is very hard to quantify… maybe scholars of workplace efficiency have ways?
But intuitively, if your workplace is harmonious and happy, it feels like there will be better decisions made, better cooperation, more trust, and more resilience under pressure.
As someone whose nearly whole career has been making that happen and watching the fruits, while occasionally witnessing the trainwreck that inevitably ensues when team cohesion is spoiled, I endorse that conclusion. If only to nurse my own confirmation bias: book title please?
The Culture Code: The Secrets of Highly “Successful Groups”by Daniel Coyle is the book. There is a fascinating section which delves into the culture of the Spurs which I would recommend for any basketball fan!
Two of the best coaches had an LR player last year. Warriors a bit more unintended than Miami. Hard to know if warriors would have been even worse without it- or better with another cintributor
That suggests LR presence is additive in some way, which feels... incomplete to me? Like, a positive presence is usually someone who can relate to a number of players on the team/ is fun and light. Can we really say that balances things out if another player is constantly making everyone else on edge? The valence is also pretty different; humans don't enjoy nice things as much as we dislike negative experiences. So I'd guess a single persistent bad apple can really rot the whole system in a way that a good dude can't course correct
Right, unless the good dude has the gravitas to tell the bad apple to knock it off and he does change his behavior. So, not cancelling it out, but affecting it to improve
Yup, it's very context dependent! That might be one the reason teams with generally low-maintenance/ emotionally healthy stars usually have a decent locker room.* I tried to communicate a scenario where that doesn't happen for whatever reason, hence "persistent bad apple".
*2018 and last year's W seasons are obvious counter examples, but both involved bad dynamics between important rotation players and Dray. Draymond's highs and lows would actually be pretty interesting as a case study for me, but I'd want more time to study it before really stating my case
Great and weird. In the sense that it was like eight different movies. Is it a discourse on feminism? Is it a toy product placement movie? Is it a comedy? Is it a romantic movie? Is it a mother-daughter movie?
I followed it fine, it's not hard to follow, but I thought it switched agendas a lot. As soon as I cared about the mother and daughter, I no longer had a need to. As soon as I started fearing Mattel, I no longer had a need to. They were a nemesis that provided no risk or jeopardy to the protagonist, which is really odd.
But oddest? The way the movie called out consumerism and corporatism and Mattel specifically, and Mattel signed off on that. Probably because they know that this is going to sell a bajillion more Barbies.
Humorous discourse on feminism, pointing out the absurdity of patriarchy. Noted the positive benefits of Barbie, while also seriously acknowledging the faults. The speech on "Ordinary Barbie" wasn't new to me, but it hit me hard anyway because it was done really well.
The ordinary barbie speech was great content but poor form. It was too obvious and didactic. I don't like it when art just stands on a soapbox. Same problem with the end of The Great Dictator when Chaplin just tells me what to think for ten minutes.
I thought the speech in barbie would have worked much better if it had had a flourish, like have her voice be oddly strong, like let's say both deep and high, or synthesized to sound like a cello or whatever, so that she says a few words and is startled, but then keeps doing it and sound awesome. A visual effect like all the words flow out typed out or whatever, too. ANything but someone just saying "This is the theme. I will now explain feminism."
Oppenheimer says "Now I am become ..." rather than "It's really bad that we made this bomb because then other bombs will be made and that might kill everyone. Plus I'm feelign a lot of power right about now and maybe no person should have this much."
If they really feel LQ has a potential future with the team, then I’d prefer him over Gay, but with LQ already signed to a 2-way, can’t they just keep him in that until he runs out of games before promoting him?
My impression is they want to keep that 15th slot open, so bringing in Gay to that 14th slot precludes holding it open for a later promotion. And costs a lot more. Gay might want playing guarantees as well.
The most likely thing is what they did last year ... keep Lester on a 2-way, and call him up to the 15th spot at the end of the regular season, unless they have a more pressing need for that 15th spot.
I'd like to see the 14th spot go to Gui or Lester. Gui because it sounds like there are contract complications if they only sign him to a two-way (I forget the details).
I believe Gui's contract with Minas Brazil affects both a two-way and a regular contract. The Dubs would have to buy out his contract either way. Otherwise, he can play in the G League, as he did last season, but not in the NBA.
That jogged my memory. I think the issue is that the Dubs cannot buy out a contract for a player on a 2-way contract, but can buy out a contract for a player who will be on the main roster. One of our capologists probably should confirm ... I'm not 100% on this.
Yup, Curry is built the same way. Don't give your opponent any kind of edge or useful information, and also it's probably just a mental thing to not allow yourself to acknowledge any weakness.
I remember Rivers’ last gig doing color next to Al Michaels during the 2004 Finals. I thought he was fine. Lakers got their butt kicked, so that might’ve helped
Yes, interesting to me whether or not networks think about the voices of the announcers. After all, this is part of the ‘product’ that the networks are promoting.
He isn't actually posing. That's Lamestream Media BS. He actually just drove to the gym, parked, and hopped out of the car. He's so jacked about another workout he didn't even take time to put on a shirt. He is working on expanding his vision skills to help see more of the court, so instead of leaning into the car he is accomplishing his aim--looking to see if he left his gym pass on the seat--by standing back and looking for it. THEY just happened to snap the photo just at that moment. JK has been working hard all summer, unlike some players we know (like Klay "I lounge by the beach when I should be working" Thompson).
Thinking Basketball
Reggie Miller gave Steph Curry the blueprint
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxO9KsZPelE
JJ Mailbag: The State Of The NBA's Money Situation, Dream Teammates, BFF's with Steph and More | JJ Redick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcizqkBvo_M
VERY long but lots of interesting stuff, including a really revealing discussion on travel and time of day impacts from a player perspective.
always felt he should of come over, particularly in 20-21, when he was miserable with the pelicans
Note your least favorite Mark Jacksonisms here:
"Mamma, there goes that man!"
"Clearly a foul" (uttered whenever a Warrior player breathes too hard on a member of the opposing team)
Give him credit, at the end the day, he battles
"No, no, Nene" is the end all, Bie all of Jacksonisms.
Please tell me this is the real Podz.
I would die laughing knowing that he decided to come on a fan board
I dont know if swapping out Jeff van Gundy and Mark Jackson for Doris Burke is the clear win most people seem to think it is. Or heck even a Wash.
I disagree. Doris comes to work to talk about the players and the game. SVG and MJ think it’s about them.
How about they just show us the game without commentary. I'd rather hear the court mic'd up than hear those people talk.
Someone in DNHQ: Get onto this
Wow. Broncos player Tim Patrick just tore his achilles in training camp after being out last year with a torn ACL.... sounds familiar.
:(
So rough. Hope for a speedy recovery...
More on Mark Jackson demotion at ESPN. https://nypost.com/2023/07/31/espn-hiring-doc-rivers-demoting-mark-jackson-promoting-doris-burke/
Reportedly, he has been offered a chance to stay with the second team.
I think most people can agree a change was overdue. I don’t have particular opinions about Doc Rivers and Doris Burke. At this point, I’ll accept any announcer who talks about basketball, doesn’t backseat driver the refereeing and doesn’t second guess player injuries, a standard that the previous squad did not meet.
I like Doris, she's an enthusiast of the game
Any word on whether Mike Breen will continue to do play-by-play?
I always thought he was the best of that bunch.
Looks like the proposal is Mike plus Glenn (Doc) and Doris. Which, in my view, is an upgrade.
The linked article says Breen continues.
Were I Breen, I’d be thrilled. Those previous two seemed like a lot of ego to work with.
> Reportedly, he has been offered a chance to stay with the second team.
Was just coming here to say that my theory is they offered Jackson a lesser job and he said no. This is a guy who refused to do any coaching job in the NBA except a head coaching job, didn't seem likely that he'd accept being on the #2 team.
I don't have much love for Doc outside of seeing him as a hilarious character and I am relatively neutral on Burke as far as announcers go, but I have no trouble seeing this pairing do better than the MJax-Van Gundy tandem we mercifully never have to listen to again.
Doris is a pretty unrelenting Celtics homer but otherwise I've liked the games she's on. Has alot of insight into older eras, kind of like Barnett
Your thoughts on Chris Mannix still having Errol Spence in his Top 10 p2p list after the fight?
I think it's a dumb thing to say but that's par for the course for Mannix, right?
Yeah it is. It’s no accident he had his replied turned off on Twitter and retweeted the two people that quote tweeted him agreeing. spence looked so thoroughly outmatched that there are quite a few boxers that have a stake for that 10th spot like Benavidez or Beterbiev
LQ for 14th roster spot?
Dumas: "I was told, 'Hey, look, you know, we're high on a number of guys... we like him (LQ) a lot... we think that one day he can contribute.' So I think that's his spot to lose."
I've been wondering about the "So I think that's his spot to lose"
Is Dumas
a) direct quoting his source,
b) is not direct quoting but is reasonably inferring that's what his source is implying, or
c) providing his own personal opinion
Sometimes I find the podcast format hard to validate not through any ill-intent of the speaker, but it's just natural ambiguity of when reporting and opinion-giving slides between each other within a spoken format.
In any case, now that LQ has agreed to a two-way, I just don't see any advantage to having him added to the roster, at least not until after he plays out the two-way contract. Even if he has a good camp/pre-season, they still have 50 NBA games for which he can play as a two way. That would extend the sample size without needing to cost a roster spot. I assume it would also save a few pennies to delay adding him to the full roster later in the season (e.g. when he uses up 50 or the deadline).
So unless
1) there's a rule I wasn't aware of that all 3 two-way players have an aggregate max number of games played
2) they have 3 exceptional candidates for two ways for whom they want to clear space, and/or
3) they expect to eventually fill spot 14 and spot 15 with two-ways by the end of the season, I just don't know why they would't just have LQ play out his two way contract and confirm what he really can do.
I do feel like the probably want to say nice things to give LQ assurances he's in their plans and that this time he won't be dropped like after last preseason. If anyone has info otherwise, I'd most welcome it. Sorry for the long post (been ruminating for a bit) and thanks
Hope not tbh
> Is Dumas
> a) direct quoting his source,
> b) is not direct quoting but is reasonably inferring that's what his source is implying, or
> c) providing his own personal opinion
It’s definitely not (a)… that would be a newsworthy piece if he had that source.
I took it as (c) with some proper fraction of (b).
This is how I read it.
[serious face] I concur
indubitably
They can always convert his contract to a guaranteed one if he excels.
Each team still can't have more than 90 total games played by all two-way players combined. Not really sure if that would factor in too much unless they really felt like they were needing LQ every game.
This is basically correct, with a tiny subtlety. I believe this limit only occurs when the team has signed fewer than 15 NBA players (which is usually the case with GSW). One can imagine weird edge cases.
In the new CBA II.11.b.iii, the exact rule is
> Any Regular Season game for which a Team has fewer than fifteen (15) players signed to Standard NBA Contracts shall be an “Under-Fifteen Game.” No Team shall be permitted to have a Two-Way Player on its Active List for more than ninety (90) Under-Fifteen Games during a Regular Season. For purposes of the foregoing rule: (A) an Under-Fifteen Game for which a Team has one (1) Two-Way Player on its Active List shall count as one (1) Under-Fifteen Game; (B) an Under-Fifteen Game for which a Team has two (2) Two-Way Players on its Active List shall count as two (2) Under-Fifteen Games; and (C) an Under-Fifteen Game for which a Team has three (3) Two-Way Players on its Active List shall count as three (3) Under-Fifteen Games.
Thanks for the clarification, I did have it wrong. I saw some article mention the 90 game limit without that restriction, but the CBA only mentions it in the under-15 limit you mentioned. Last year I believe GSW "gamed" this even further by adding LQ to the 15th spot on a 10 day contract once they hit the limit, just so they could exceed the 90 game limit during that time and play Ty and Lamb more. Then once that time ran out, they eventually converted Lamb to the 15th spot. It wouldn't be too surprising to see something similar happen with LQ this year, (as Lamb experienced last year), though if there's no one else they really want for the 14th spot I could see him getting that too.
One case for giving LQ the 14 spot is that Warriors should have more leverage to get him to accept a multi-year deal where any future years are team options/unguaranteed at the minimum. If you are offering that contract on the last day of the season to fill the 15 spot, the player may not have much incentive to accept future unguaranteed years just for a few games extra salary. But at the beginning of the year to get a full roster spot would be hard to pass up, and likely worth LQ giving up some future flexibility for a year or two.
Edit: I believe this would have to be a 2 year deal at most (ie this year + unguaranteed next year), as the minimum contract exception Warriors need to use to sign him is capped at 2 years)
I like this rule. I understand Lacob's desire to shave taxes, but at a certain point playing 2-ways shifts from being developmental/opportunity to audition to being exploitive. It would be one thing if a team suffered so many injuries they had to rely on 2-ways and 10-day contracts. But last year you had a $12million dollar guy nailed to the bench while the coach gave big minutes to a $75,000 guy on a basically non-guaranteed contract. That's really not fair. If #40 had had a career-ending injury he'd never get an NBA payday, and from a team who's coach saw him as better than someone making 160 times as much.
I imagine the 2-way players appreciate the run, since it allows them to showcase their skills to other teams, possibly even foreign teams.
I'm sure they'd like to be getting paid the full NBA minimum, but for most of them, that's never going to happen.
Like I said, AT SOME POINT it crosses over from developmental/opportunity to audition to being exploitive. Where that line is, I don't know, but I am confident the Dubs crossed it last year with Lamb and Wiseman. The NBAPA and other teams are right, in my view, to make that harder and harder to do. Lamb + Ty blew past the 90 game cap. Had that rule have been in effect last year, maybe Lamb or Ty gets a regular contract earlier. Or maybe the Dubs sign someone off the buyout market. And, hey, yo-yoing a two way while benching the young signed vet is probably not helping team cohesion.
That's the exploitable mentality that players "on the fringe" will have. Allowing teams to not pay those "on the fringe guys" a full vet min salary because they'll be willing to play on 2 ways instead is what the NBAPA will fight to restrict. Instead of 450 NBA roster jobs, it could become 400 if teams really start to lean into carrying only 13 guys on the roster and utilizing the 3 2 ways... potentially a pretty big drop.
can't let management replace everyone with interns getting paid in school credits lol
thanks all, appreciate gaining the additional context
Ugh. I hadn't heard that detail before. That's unfortunate.
The Warriors have 13 players under contract right now. By rule, they must add one more before the season starts. That’s the problem to solve here. And LQ is the leader to get that 14th roster spot, apparently.
I think they will bring someone in on a non guaranteed deal and potentially cut them around January.
They’ll then toggle around 10 day contracts until adding someone on the 14th spot on a rest of season deal. I estimate this would save the team millions in tax and potentially have those 2 way guys fully motivated to fight for the last 2 spots.
I got a question for alla y'all. There was this roundup of team rankings on espn.com that argued that the Nuggets will miss Jeff Green for his "locker room" (LR) contributions. I am on record being highly skeptical of LR as a significant factor. I propose putting a number on it. Suppose that we create a conversion of some sort to make stats equivalent. Like scoring ten points is worth three rebounds is worth four assists is worth one block. It's clumsy and artificial but humor me.
Where would you put LR relative to scoring 100 points? Is it worth half as much? One quarter? One 1000th? Yes, I understand that each LR is context-dependent. But I think the phrase gets tossed around with no regard for its meaning. I'll put it this way. Take Jeff Green's LR off of last year's Nuggets team and you get *the exact same results.* His LR was zero.
I've been ruminating on a similar idea in part because of ChemKoala's comment on Dallas's "vibes" and I really like that term over "locker room presence" because of the ways it captures many of the other insightful things other posters have put in this thread.
The problems with looking at a dude's positive locker room contributions are that they're generally not individual and they're invisible to anyone outside the locker room. We're going off rumors and press conferences, which are unreliable sources of information. Of course, when someone makes crazy comments on record, punches teammates, or chokes a coach, that's obvious.
But there's a lot of circumstantial stuff, too. A player's seniority with the team has to be a big factor too, and communication styles are personal and different too. You could be a great guy on one team but not another. And maybe some guys are awesome at celebrating victories but others are better at defusing frustration, or keeping people from getting complacent. Like scoring vs rebounding, "LR" is at least several different secret stats with non-linear interactions; that's why they call it "chemistry". In the end, I think the vibes on a team are kind of like a multiplier on the team's overall skill, allowing the players and the team to perform closer to their collective best more often.
Will Denver have worse vibes this year? They very well could, but it'll be impossible to tell how much is due to losing Jeff Green and how much is championship hangover & the stress of being the defending champs. I still have more pressing questions about the vibes on several other teams including ours. Obviously things with Poole and Draymond last year were bad although they did surprisingly well at keeping things professional during actual games, but is adding a former rival and all-time villain going to be any better? Especially with the ongoing jockeying for starting roles and playing time? It could, but it could also blow up just as bad as whiny Luka and wacko Kyrie over in Dallas. Well, maybe that could be worse.
I think we just had a demonstration of how important LR contributions can be. Between hoisting the Larry O'Brien in 2022 and the first game of 2022-23 the Dubs lost Mike Brown (who MIGHT have been a better communicator with Dray than SK), GPII (an all around good guy), OPJ (the epitome of chill out), Belly (just get the job done, no need for fanfare). They were replaced by JMG (clearly on the downside), DVD (insufficient gravitas), and 3 young guns who, for all their enthusiasm, had insufficient capital to play that role. You could say that that was a talent decline, and I can't argue with that. But the vibe was also off all year. Almost nobody cheering from the sideline. Inconsistent smiles all season. And of course, the punch set them back, but very little in the way of LRpower to set it aright, at least enough to win some road games.
I can't quantify it, but it matters. Just like its hard to quantify Looney's impact, but lose him and you see it matters.
The LR is, imho, one of THE most important aspects in the success of a basketball team. We tend to think of group performances as based/depending on measurable attitudes/abilities, like intelligence, skill and experience. However, in reality the biggest factor is actually subtle pattern of small behaviors.
By fostering consistent, social interactions which exhibit tons of belonging cues (behaviors that create safe connection in groups like proximity, eye contact, body language, and whether everyone talks to everyone else in the group), you create a safe environment that allows for group cohesion.
In turn, this cohesion allows for groups to solve complex problems at breathtaking speeds because everyone is motivated to hold each other accountable and group decision making has reduced inefficient.
To translate this to basketball talk, a good LR fosters an environment which allows for teams to rapidly assess problems in players/teams and adjust (essentially raising team IQ to a sum greater than its parts). It also dramatically increases motivation within the team to hold each other accountable, tough love only works if there is love underneath.
It would be interesting to think of an exception: A basketball team where the players didn't get along, the LR was toxic, but they still played at a very high level. There are examples in baseball over the years (NY Yankees had some teams like that, if memory serves, and of course the notorious 1919 "Black Sox" but there have been others). It's harder to think of an NBA team that won a lot despite seriously bad LR.
Weren’t the Kobe-Shaq Lakers reputed to have pretty bad LR?
Last Dance Bulls and 2018 Warriors might qualify as well.
Yeah good examples. Kobe and Shaq famously didn't get along at least some of that time and won anyway. I don't know enough about what really went on behind the scenes with the Bulls but reports are as you say, bad LR, and MJ must have been a tough teammate even for talented players who work hard. Ask Steve Kerr! In 2018-19 we had the KD drama and his conflict with Draymond but I don't know how much that affected the overall LR situation. It would seem likely.
I think the sport of basketball is a lot more interactive than is the sport of baseball. In baseball every player gets a chance to bat (well, it used to be that way, until the DH. Damn DH!). In basketball players have to pass the ball around and figure out who "gets to score." Don't do that enough and some teammates will get upset. Share too much and no one steps up to take the shot. IIRC, Reggie Jackson (OF) and Thurman Munson (C) hated each other--and won 2 or 3 World Series championships. In baseball the 3rd baseman can hate everyone in the outfield, and maybe even the infield, but it probably doesn't really matter. It'd be tough to have a basketball team succeed when two starters actually hate each other.
DH was necessary and I love it. Electronic strike zone should be an obvious move but change in baseball is like pulling teeth.
I definitely agree that baseball's actions are much more individualized than basketball. That's part of the reason I suspect for why baseball analytics is more stats driven than other sports; the game is much more a sum of individual actions rather than a two team ballet. Even in baseball, defensive stats were notoriously noisier until player tracking started taking off.
I agree too. On the fielding side, baseball is more interactive than on the hitting side (think infield plays and pitcher-catcher chemistry) but it still is nowhere near as interactive as hoops. That said, the late '70s Yankee LR was said to be absolutely toxic, and the '19-'20 White Sox were much worse. All of the corrupt Black Sox but Gandil returned for the '20 season, and by then the LR must have been radioactive. They still were in the pennant race to the very end.
Sounds like the Warriors were toxic after the punch.
I love this example of how tinkering destroyed team cohesion and took a team poised to win a title and turned them into a forgotten footnote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyRpIXKbfC0
I don't like framing LR presence like ESPN did because I don't think it's divisible in that way. I think about it like team schemes vs. player stats; a player could be putting up lower stats but help their team win more because what they're not doing is being replaced with more efficient production elsewhere. Similarly, LR dynamics are a real thing. If you're on edge, you probably aren't going to play to your peak, and if the LR is loose you're more likely to get into a flow state.
My guess* is that we should think of vibes as more of a systems dynamics question than a quantifiable linear regression question.
More specifically, it's probably something where you have different equilibria, say "a good LR" (G) and "a bad LR" (B). If you're in G, then the collective behavior of everyone is enough to adapt/ account for occasional friction. That comes from some combo of the personalities on the team, trust in key players/ coaches (not always the HC or star, it could be Looney on the W's for example), and clear communication. If you start removing key nodes (we cut Looney) or communication channels degrade (e.g. Dray's fuck up) and you might be able to stay in G. At some point, however, you'll reach a critical point where the system slides G- > B. That's not due to any specific thing, but a collection of issues that push the system into a new equilibrium.
That's all to say I think we misframe the situation when we talk about good/ bad LR dynamics and what role players serve within them. But we shouldn't throw the concept out just bc we tend to see if misused
OK I've thought more about it and I agree. I think it's roughly analogous to a family. If the mother comes home angry every evening, but there are six other adults who can frame that, deflect it, respond appropriately, or just be cool, that helps the child. But if the mother comes home angry and the other adults respond with anger or do nothing to prevent the anger from getting toxic, the child suffers much more. The family slides from G to B.
But the precipitating question was: Does the loss of Jeff Green, who was nothing special as a player, hurt the LR of the Nuggets. And in the real world, as far as I know the LR of the Nuggets is G. One doesn't hear about weird incidents or feuds. The leadership of Malone, Jokic, Murray seem like chill dudes. Malone gets a little agitated but he's a coach. And Jokic is so chill that he moves almost any needle from B to G. If Jeff Green had been toxic to other players last year or gotten impbroiled in some scandal, that would have, in your formulation, not been sufficient to slide that LR from G to B.
Could be! Given their context, I personally don't think losing J. Green would be enough to tip the scales, so we're in agreement about Green's particular role. It's more that (assuming J. Green was a key node in their team morale) losing Green makes their ecosystem more vulnerable to other disruption that, when combined with this loss, ultimately spoils the LR.
Per your good example, you might not need 6 other adults, but you probably need at least 1. Or you need to give that hard working woman a night to herself. Or <some other healthy mediation>. I guess my boiler plate is: success has many parents exactly because that makes each parent less individually important.
> the precipitating question was: Does the loss of Jeff Green, who was nothing special as a player, hurt the LR of the Nuggets.
And the answer is: there's no way for us to know for sure, but it's possible?
To be clear, the ESPN / Ohm Youngmisuk quote in question is: "Green's veteran experience, especially in the locker room, will also be difficult to replace." Which, I don't know, doesn't strike me as a particularly controversial premise? I'd guess the Nuggets will be totally fine next season, but veteran experience can be useful, and is not always easy to replace.
'nothing special as a player'? He wasn't elite but he played his role well and I would say he was always a positive force on teams.
But if we just stick with non controversial, perfectly reasonable takes like this, what are we going to do through the rest of the offseason?
God I can't wait for basketball
WNBA
One week until USA Basketball exhibition games, does that count?
I'm sure we mostly agree. As in if we were bettors, these personnel matters would influence our thinking to the same degree.
It's a matter of framing and vocabulary, I think. For example I agree that veteran experience can be useful, but I think in the Nuggets context wouldn't move the needle at all. They don't need a Haslem.
I'm going to have to reread this several more times to get it because it's so smart. While I am doing that, I just wanna say that *your* LR around here is stratsospheric. You're always thumbsing stuff up and providing good karma and no bad LR, and that is something that I very much appreciate and want to thank you for.
I appreciate both compliments! I know how much I enjoy when folks like my comments, so I try to divvy it out to folks in kind :)
A nonlinear mathematical function that is highly dependent on other variables. E.g. if there’s a bad situation then a positive LR person might have an outsized effect, or not be able to overcome that problem at all. Maybe the simplest scenario is when everyone gets along but isn’t strongly connected. Then a positive influencer can create cohesion and unity. Also likely different individuals will be more and less effective in different situations.
Great points. I’d also note that in the specific case of 36 y.o. Uncle Jeff we’re talking about a 7th-9th man whose impact on wins either way is always gonna be somewhat marginal. “LR” is of course impossible to quantify precisely, but I’d imagine its impact is significantly greater when we’re talking about core/franchise players. Like, does anyone doubt that a proven “positive LR” leader like Steph (or Jokic, or Giannis, or Jrue, et al.) who sets a tone and culture of professionalism, selflessness, teamwork, and joy contributes more to wins than, say, a known party boy / primadonna / quitter like James Harden?
In any case, the isolated LR impact for any player at the extreme end of the LR spectrum is probably not zero, which I assume is the main point the ESPN piece was making.
Yes, the talent of any given player is probably the greatest determinant on their contributions (positive or negative) to the team's success.... and this can be within the LR impact as well as with their play... stars will have more impact than role players in the LR.
Do you think the Nuggets will be as good this season without Jeff Green and Bruce Brown and with rookies and second-year guys taking that PT? I think they will have a worse record, a worse point differential, and a worse seed at the end of the season.
Edit: And I realize you are calling out specifically the LR contributions rather than what is done on the court. I don't think you can easily measure one without the other though. They are humans after all, not machines you can break down into separate parts.
That Nugget bench is looking pretty two timelines-y these days with Braun, Watson, Nnaji, Tyson, Strawther, and Pickett. The vets are Reggie Jackson, Justin Holiday, and DeAndre Jordan who are all coming off of down years too.
I think they'll be fine in the regular season regardless because Jokic is an injury proof wins machine but just like the Warriors last season, they are probably going to need some of these young guys to become playoff caliber rotation guys or else it is going to be a very big load on the main guys. Although unlike the Warriors, their main guys are younger so depth is probably not quite as important.
I think Christian Braun is ready for his close up.
I like Braun but I think he's gonna have some struggles in a bigger role this year.
Yeah, but I thought the same about Bones Hyland about a year ago. Totally different players, but young player progress is not aways linear. Also, I'm hating on a current rival, so yeah, I'm hoping it doesn't work out.
Hyland actually seems like a great example of a guy whose negative “LR” dragged his team down slightly.
Feels like the kind of thing that is very hard to quantify… maybe scholars of workplace efficiency have ways?
But intuitively, if your workplace is harmonious and happy, it feels like there will be better decisions made, better cooperation, more trust, and more resilience under pressure.
I recently read a book about the importance of group cohesion. Long story short, it’s by far the most important aspect of organizational success.
As someone whose nearly whole career has been making that happen and watching the fruits, while occasionally witnessing the trainwreck that inevitably ensues when team cohesion is spoiled, I endorse that conclusion. If only to nurse my own confirmation bias: book title please?
The Culture Code: The Secrets of Highly “Successful Groups”by Daniel Coyle is the book. There is a fascinating section which delves into the culture of the Spurs which I would recommend for any basketball fan!
Two of the best coaches had an LR player last year. Warriors a bit more unintended than Miami. Hard to know if warriors would have been even worse without it- or better with another cintributor
Scoring 100 points is also highly context-dependent (i.e. tells us almost nothing without the context of how many possessions were required to do it).
What if that positive LR could stop a negative LR?
That suggests LR presence is additive in some way, which feels... incomplete to me? Like, a positive presence is usually someone who can relate to a number of players on the team/ is fun and light. Can we really say that balances things out if another player is constantly making everyone else on edge? The valence is also pretty different; humans don't enjoy nice things as much as we dislike negative experiences. So I'd guess a single persistent bad apple can really rot the whole system in a way that a good dude can't course correct
Right, unless the good dude has the gravitas to tell the bad apple to knock it off and he does change his behavior. So, not cancelling it out, but affecting it to improve
Yup, it's very context dependent! That might be one the reason teams with generally low-maintenance/ emotionally healthy stars usually have a decent locker room.* I tried to communicate a scenario where that doesn't happen for whatever reason, hence "persistent bad apple".
*2018 and last year's W seasons are obvious counter examples, but both involved bad dynamics between important rotation players and Dray. Draymond's highs and lows would actually be pretty interesting as a case study for me, but I'd want more time to study it before really stating my case
Last year Rudy Gay shot 38% overall, 25% from three. I just saw the Barbie movie. I'm pretty sure either Ken or Barbie could beat that.
Great movie tho'
Great and weird. In the sense that it was like eight different movies. Is it a discourse on feminism? Is it a toy product placement movie? Is it a comedy? Is it a romantic movie? Is it a mother-daughter movie?
I followed it fine, it's not hard to follow, but I thought it switched agendas a lot. As soon as I cared about the mother and daughter, I no longer had a need to. As soon as I started fearing Mattel, I no longer had a need to. They were a nemesis that provided no risk or jeopardy to the protagonist, which is really odd.
But oddest? The way the movie called out consumerism and corporatism and Mattel specifically, and Mattel signed off on that. Probably because they know that this is going to sell a bajillion more Barbies.
Humorous discourse on feminism, pointing out the absurdity of patriarchy. Noted the positive benefits of Barbie, while also seriously acknowledging the faults. The speech on "Ordinary Barbie" wasn't new to me, but it hit me hard anyway because it was done really well.
The ordinary barbie speech was great content but poor form. It was too obvious and didactic. I don't like it when art just stands on a soapbox. Same problem with the end of The Great Dictator when Chaplin just tells me what to think for ten minutes.
I thought the speech in barbie would have worked much better if it had had a flourish, like have her voice be oddly strong, like let's say both deep and high, or synthesized to sound like a cello or whatever, so that she says a few words and is startled, but then keeps doing it and sound awesome. A visual effect like all the words flow out typed out or whatever, too. ANything but someone just saying "This is the theme. I will now explain feminism."
Oppenheimer says "Now I am become ..." rather than "It's really bad that we made this bomb because then other bombs will be made and that might kill everyone. Plus I'm feelign a lot of power right about now and maybe no person should have this much."
But Barbie: great movie. Wanna see it again.
Yeah Gay seems pretty well cooked.
If they really feel LQ has a potential future with the team, then I’d prefer him over Gay, but with LQ already signed to a 2-way, can’t they just keep him in that until he runs out of games before promoting him?
My impression is they want to keep that 15th slot open, so bringing in Gay to that 14th slot precludes holding it open for a later promotion. And costs a lot more. Gay might want playing guarantees as well.
The most likely thing is what they did last year ... keep Lester on a 2-way, and call him up to the 15th spot at the end of the regular season, unless they have a more pressing need for that 15th spot.
I'd like to see the 14th spot go to Gui or Lester. Gui because it sounds like there are contract complications if they only sign him to a two-way (I forget the details).
I believe Gui's contract with Minas Brazil affects both a two-way and a regular contract. The Dubs would have to buy out his contract either way. Otherwise, he can play in the G League, as he did last season, but not in the NBA.
That jogged my memory. I think the issue is that the Dubs cannot buy out a contract for a player on a 2-way contract, but can buy out a contract for a player who will be on the main roster. One of our capologists probably should confirm ... I'm not 100% on this.
Confirmed
Makes sense. Maybe (guessing) it has to do with the fact that 2-way contracts aren't guaranteed.
Last year, they had Lamb and Jerome on the two ways, added Lamb to the 15th spot in March, and promoted Lester back to a two way.
I was speaking of the Lamb promotion.
>I think he's gonna get back to the type of player that we saw towards June in Boston when he was really just doing everything for them.
🙏 🙏 🙏 this turns out to be true. GP2 a fav of mine and so, so effective when at the top of his game and also fits the W's really well.
A healthy GP2 is a game-changer. If he's healthy, watch Kerr keep looking for ways to increase his minutes.
Did he forget that he got really sick during the Kings series?
dude literally threw up in his own mouth in the middle of a game against the Lakers!!
He seems like just a guy that will say he’s ok…
Yup, Curry is built the same way. Don't give your opponent any kind of edge or useful information, and also it's probably just a mental thing to not allow yourself to acknowledge any weakness.
for Steph (and probably GP2) I'm sure it's also about not being seen as making excuses
Maybe he was answering specifically about his core injury, not his overall health? Not sure, just throwing out a thought why he would say that
Fixed
Steve Kerr has single-handedly kept Steph from breaking more scoring records
Technically, his toughest defender was Keith Smart, who played Acie Law over Steph.
I'll take "decisions that didn't age well" for $500, Alex.
It's understandable, he wasn't beef Curry back then
Wait, which came first: Beef Curry or GOAT Curry?
It's one of those chicken (Curry) or the egg questions
I remember Rivers’ last gig doing color next to Al Michaels during the 2004 Finals. I thought he was fine. Lakers got their butt kicked, so that might’ve helped
Can't be worse than Reggie Miller's voice.
I like how he was very player focused, not so much team biased... I'd take Reggie LONG before Jackson and JVG.
Yes, interesting to me whether or not networks think about the voices of the announcers. After all, this is part of the ‘product’ that the networks are promoting.
And will still be better than Jackson. Have not heard this great news.
To me what’s most important is that Doris Burke is being promoted.
I’ll bet he’s better, voice and all.
And the voice may grow on you as you become accustomed to it.
Didn't seem to grow on Ben Simmons.
<<<This has been a BLAST FROM THE PAST moment.>>>
Nope
What’s he doing getting married? He should be watching film, working on his jumper and trying to get taller!
good glutes!
Not sure if that gives off the best vibes.
So ripped…
Why is he posing by his a car when he should be watching film and working on his free throws, deep ball and handles?
He isn't actually posing. That's Lamestream Media BS. He actually just drove to the gym, parked, and hopped out of the car. He's so jacked about another workout he didn't even take time to put on a shirt. He is working on expanding his vision skills to help see more of the court, so instead of leaning into the car he is accomplishing his aim--looking to see if he left his gym pass on the seat--by standing back and looking for it. THEY just happened to snap the photo just at that moment. JK has been working hard all summer, unlike some players we know (like Klay "I lounge by the beach when I should be working" Thompson).
PS--I hope the Klaytheists understand this time.
You leave enough dog whistles in here to mark it as a joke, lol...
He’s obviously practicing his “taking a charge” stance
Because he can walk and chew gum at the same time?
Clearly due to Klay's bad influence