Good enough to win that #1 pick.KR1245;1136049 wrote:Cavs currently sit in the 4th position.....doubt they can close the gap much more
I took it as, you don't need two or three superstars, just draft correctly with your mid to late round picks. Finding guys like Danny Green who couldn't see the floor anywhere else.like_that;1136046 wrote:You mean draft a hofer, then surround him by talent (or initially have him play with a veteran hofer)? Yeah sounds like a good blueprint.
They still haven't won shit but they are getting better every year and should be title contenders for the next decade with that core.Commander of Awesome;1136107 wrote:OKC also got lucky, very lucky. Portland passed on KD, and he struggled as a rookie (unlike GOATrie), which enabled them to be bad enough to get Westbrook, who struggled mightily as a rookie, which enabled them to get Harden. They drafted well, empowered their players, and got lucky in the draft. And they still haven't won shit. Just saying.
Those guys are like 23, 24, and 24...I think they'll win SOMETHING while in OKC.Commander of Awesome;1136107 wrote:OKC also got lucky, very lucky. Portland passed on KD, and he struggled as a rookie (unlike GOATrie), which enabled them to be bad enough to get Westbrook, who struggled mightily as a rookie, which enabled them to get Harden. They drafted well, empowered their players, and got lucky in the draft. And they still haven't won shit. Just saying.
I agree, but just wanted it stated. The NBA is extremely hard to improve your team and you have to nail the draft IMO. I would say the NBA draft is more important than the NFL draft for a franchise.Y-Town Steelhound;1136115 wrote:They still haven't won shit but they are getting better every year and should be title contenders for the next decade with that core.
I would think so, but nothing is set in stone. Look at the Charlotte Hornets in the early/mid 90s, the Shaq Magic teams, Utah Jazz, LBJ Cavs, Early 2000s Sac Kings teams. Most of those fan bases said the same thing.SportsAndLady;1136116 wrote:Those guys are like 23, 24, and 24...I think they'll win SOMETHING while in OKC.
True..they may not win anything. I just don't think it's fair to say "they haven't won shit" quite yet, because they're not even close to that team being blown up.Commander of Awesome;1136123 wrote:I would think so, but nothing is set in stone. Look at the Charlotte Hornets in the early/mid 90s, the Shaq Magic teams, Utah Jazz, LBJ Cavs, Early 2000s Sac Kings teams. Most of those fan bases said the same thing.
I actually agree.wes_mantooth;1136037 wrote:I am in the minority, but I would take MKG or Davis everyday.
Commander of Awesome;1136136 wrote:Is this because of the Cavs roster situation or becuase you think he'll be a better player?
Care to expand? I didn't watch many UK games this season, only the last 2 in the tourney and a random couple during the year. Everything I read though say he's a college great and best defensive player to come out at his position (with ball handling skills) in the last 20 yrs.wildcats20;1136137 wrote:I'm assuming tooth meant "over" and not "or"....
If that's the case, I agree.
I honestly don't think Davis is going to amount to much in the league.
I mean I'm not saying he wasn't great, but we have seen a lot of great college guys just totally flop in the NBA.Commander of Awesome;1136145 wrote:Care to expand? I didn't watch many UK games this season, only the last 2 in the tourney and a random couple during the year. Everything I read though say he's a college great and best defensive player to come out at his position (with ball handling skills) in the last 20 yrs.
He averaged like 20 points a game and shot over 40% as a rookie, he didnt struggle at all. They just had a horrrrible teamCommander of Awesome;1136107 wrote:OKC also got lucky, very lucky. Portland passed on KD, and he struggled as a rookie (unlike GOATrie), which enabled them to be bad enough to get Westbrook, who struggled mightily as a rookie, which enabled them to get Harden. They drafted well, empowered their players, and got lucky in the draft. And they still haven't won ****. Just saying.
I actually like both. I think they give you different things. Beal is a much better shooter, but MKG is better at creating for himself/slashing.robj55;1136150 wrote:Who do you guys prefer, Beal or MKG?
Yeah he has guard skills for sure, but I question how skinny he is and how he will hold up. He is a defensive monster, but he will get shoved around in the NBA without getting calls. Who knows...may end up developing a great mid range and post game...tough to sayCommander of Awesome;1136145 wrote:Care to expand? I didn't watch many UK games this season, only the last 2 in the tourney and a random couple during the year. Everything I read though say he's a college great and best defensive player to come out at his position (with ball handling skills) in the last 20 yrs.