I'm going to be interested to see how VC responds to his new role on the Nets. In Toronto, he was always our best player on the court but he never embraced the leadership role. Instead he preferred to defer to tougher veterans like Antonio Davis and Charles Oakley. When those players moved on and the organization essentially put that role on him, he kind of avoided the spotlight, would play with less emotion, and seemed reluctant to live up to it. Also, I'll be watching how he handles a rebuilding process. He's said all the right things so far, but he's never really been on a team that made their uncompetitive intentions so blatant before. The closest was the '04 season, when he suggested trading the just-drafted Chris Bosh and played crappily to force a trade. He's much older and (hopefully) more mature now, but on the other hand, he's never been on such a young, inexperienced team before.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 08:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 15 2008, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 15 2008, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Answer_AI03 @ Jul 15 2008, 07:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Najera can't gaurd small forwards? hhmm never knew that... anyway, why would the nets want to get better? They need to go into full out rebuilding mode and should be trading Carter for expiring contracts and picks. If the Nets can't land a bigtime free agent in 2010 they are screwed. The sixers got lucky by prying away Elton Brand from the Clippers, and that doesn't happen often. The good teams, rebuild with good young talent and cap space, and look for free agents at the same time. Not try to semi compete for the last playoff spot and hope to land a free agent in a couple years. Because if they don't they are stuck with the same crappy team, and middle round draft picks. Acquiring a young big man that will be a solid contributer in a couple years to put with Harris and Lebron/Amare/Bosh etc., would be the way to go.</div> Because why would a big-time free agent want to come to a team that looks like complete garbage? A big time free agent wants to come to a team that is near the top of the hill so they can come in and push them over. Like Brand may have done with the Sixers. Like Shaq did with the Heat. The Nets have plenty of young talent, especially big men. They don't need to get any younger as they are what the 4th youngest team ever? As the Nets stand right now, they will have enough money to go after a big time free agent WITH VINCE CARTER still on the team. Trading Vince Carter will make this team look very undesireable for any free agent to come here. </div> The Sixers were near the top of the hill? </div> I think the point was that they were a young team that was competing and made the playoffs. That's what attracted Brand. They weren't a team with a bunch of children full of potential. </div>I think the bigger factors were the money and the organization being heaps better than the Clippers. The Sixers won 40 games, big deal. </div> And gave a damn good run at the Pistons. Brand gets to go to a team in Eastern Conference where there aren't many great teams and, as seen by the Celtics this year, a team can easily turn it around quickly. Brand saw the Sixers as a team with very young talented players that, with the addition of himself, would've been able to beat Detroit in the playoffs and been a very difficult out for Boston. So yes that is near the top of the hill. You have to remember in the eastern conference the hill is more like a bump. Of course money had something to do with it, but Philly is the protypical young energetic team that players want to play on. This is something I see the Nets turning into. The only difference is, we already have a superstar and two big-time marketing players that make it even more attractive for players to come here.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 15 2008, 09:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 08:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 15 2008, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 15 2008, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Answer_AI03 @ Jul 15 2008, 07:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Najera can't gaurd small forwards? hhmm never knew that... anyway, why would the nets want to get better? They need to go into full out rebuilding mode and should be trading Carter for expiring contracts and picks. If the Nets can't land a bigtime free agent in 2010 they are screwed. The sixers got lucky by prying away Elton Brand from the Clippers, and that doesn't happen often. The good teams, rebuild with good young talent and cap space, and look for free agents at the same time. Not try to semi compete for the last playoff spot and hope to land a free agent in a couple years. Because if they don't they are stuck with the same crappy team, and middle round draft picks. Acquiring a young big man that will be a solid contributer in a couple years to put with Harris and Lebron/Amare/Bosh etc., would be the way to go.</div> Because why would a big-time free agent want to come to a team that looks like complete garbage? A big time free agent wants to come to a team that is near the top of the hill so they can come in and push them over. Like Brand may have done with the Sixers. Like Shaq did with the Heat. The Nets have plenty of young talent, especially big men. They don't need to get any younger as they are what the 4th youngest team ever? As the Nets stand right now, they will have enough money to go after a big time free agent WITH VINCE CARTER still on the team. Trading Vince Carter will make this team look very undesireable for any free agent to come here. </div> The Sixers were near the top of the hill? </div> I think the point was that they were a young team that was competing and made the playoffs. That's what attracted Brand. They weren't a team with a bunch of children full of potential. </div>I think the bigger factors were the money and the organization being heaps better than the Clippers. The Sixers won 40 games, big deal. </div> And gave a damn good run at the Pistons. Brand gets to go to a team in Eastern Conference where there aren't many great teams and, as seen by the Celtics this year, a team can easily turn it around quickly. Brand saw the Sixers as a team with very young talented players that, with the addition of himself, would've been able to beat Detroit in the playoffs and been a very difficult out for Boston. So yes that is near the top of the hill. You have to remember in the eastern conference the hill is more like a bump. Of course money had something to do with it, but Philly is the protypical young energetic team that players want to play on. This is something I see the Nets turning into. The only difference is, we already have a superstar and two big-time marketing players that make it even more attractive for players to come here. </div>Near the top of the hill to me means close to contending. I did not see that with Philly last year. They stole two games and then lost 4 games in a row by significant margin.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 08:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 15 2008, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'> The Sixers were near the top of the hill?</div> I think the point was that they were a young team that was competing and made the playoffs. That's what attracted Brand. They weren't a team with a bunch of children full of potential. </div>I think the bigger factors were the money and the organization being heaps better than the Clippers. The Sixers won 40 games, big deal. </div> 24-17 over the 2nd half of the season. Now with Brand they can do even more damage. They are young, competitive and promising which is more attractive than a team like Memphis or Seattle. No? Do you think this team will be more attractive to high level free agents in 2 years if it's got a few young guys with potential and is around .500 or extremely young and coming off a 20 win season like a Seattle is now?
I'm getting kind of annoyed how this off-season played out so far, particularly the draft and the Jefferson trade. Why did the Nets make the Jefferson trade before seeing how the draft would play out? It's not like the trade involved any picks from the draft. Say they didn't make the trade and first let the draft play out. Say they took Bayless at 10 and then traded him to the Blazers for the 13th pick and one of the Blazers later pick like the 27th pick or one of their early late 2nd round picks. They then could have come out of the draft with either Rush (13th pick) + Koufos (21st pick) + Chalmers (27th or 33rd pick) + CDR (40th pick). OR they could have taken Robin Lopez at 13th + Courtney Lee at 21 + Chalmers (27th or 33rd pick) + CDR at 40. Brandon Rush Kosta Koufos Mario Chalmers CDR OR Robin Lopez Courtney Lee Mario Chalmers CDR They could of also tried to do a three way trade with the Pacers and Blazers to try and acquire Jermaine O'Neil since he has two years left on his contract and also try to get Travis Outlaw (two years on contract). Send Lafrentz's expiring contract + other pieces like Swift's expiring contract, Marcu,s couple of first round picks and whatever else to the Pacers. Something could have been worked out there. Nets had pieces to get it done. So they could of had a lineup like: Harris/Chalmers Carter/Hayes/Rush or Lee Outlaw/Najera O'Neil/Boone/S.Williams Krstic/R.Lopez or Koufos/ /whining
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 15 2008, 10:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 08:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 15 2008, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'> The Sixers were near the top of the hill?</div> I think the point was that they were a young team that was competing and made the playoffs. That's what attracted Brand. They weren't a team with a bunch of children full of potential. </div>I think the bigger factors were the money and the organization being heaps better than the Clippers. The Sixers won 40 games, big deal. </div> 24-17 over the 2nd half of the season. Now with Brand they can do even more damage. They are young, competitive and promising which is more attractive than a team like Memphis or Seattle. No? Do you think this team will be more attractive to high level free agents in 2 years if it's got a few young guys with potential and is around .500 or extremely young and coming off a 20 win season like a Seattle is now? </div> I never made a judgment on whether they are more attractive than certain teams. Just that they weren't close to the top of the hill.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Because why would a big-time free agent want to come to a team that looks like complete garbage? A big time free agent wants to come to a team that is near the top of the hill so they can come in and push them over. Like Brand may have done with the Sixers. Like Shaq did with the Heat. The Nets have plenty of young talent, especially big men. They don't need to get any younger as they are what the 4th youngest team ever? As the Nets stand right now, they will have enough money to go after a big time free agent WITH VINCE CARTER still on the team. Trading Vince Carter will make this team look very undesireable for any free agent to come here.</div> The Sixers were constructed by trading away bad contracts for expiring contracts and drafting very well. Thats how they got the money to get EB, and thats how they got the players that attracted him. Trading away VC makes the nets a worse team, therefore, getting them a higher pick. Its up to the nets whether they draft a bunch of children with potential , or solid contributers like the sixers were able to do. Besides how good will VC be in 2 years? Why would Lebron want to play with an old jump shooting ex-dunker? Besides if they can trade VC maybe the Nets can Sign LeBron and another Star.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Answer_AI03 @ Jul 15 2008, 10:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Sixers were constructed by trading away bad contracts for expiring contracts and drafting very well. Thats how they got the money to get EB, and thats how they got the players that attracted him.</div> Philly got most of their talent more than 2 years before they got Brand and none were drafted that high. Iguodala 2004 #9 Dalembert 2001 #26 Green 2003 #42 Williams 2005 #45 Young guys drafted in the last 2 years: Carney 2006 #16 Young 2007 #12 Smith 2007 #20 Hill 2007 #55 Of those only Young and Smith are contributing. Now can Yi, Swat, Lopez, Anderson, and CDR turn out to be like some of those guys on the 1st list? Don't see why not. Can the Nets draft some guys in the middle of the 1st round over the next 2 years like those on the 2nd list? Don't see why they can't do that either. They have their pick in 2009 and 2010 as well as Dallas' pick in 2010. People discount the impact of veterans on the development of young guys. They don't grow up on their own. Guys like Iverson, Webber, Miller and McKie all had an impact on those guys they drafted back in 2001-2005.
So you think Vince Carter is going to have a positive impact on all those young players? I doubt that. I would say Andre Miller had a bigger impact than any of the players you just mentioned for the sixers.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Answer_AI03 @ Jul 15 2008, 07:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So you think Vince Carter is going to have a positive impact on all those young players? I doubt that. I would say Andre Miller had a bigger impact than any of the players you just mentioned for the sixers.</div> Word. Though Iggy is pretty freakin' awesome.
On the VC leadership thing, I think ghoti and Chutney are on the right track. The biggest difference between now and VC's first years in Toronto is that VC is now his team's elder statesman and feels (I believe) not only a leadership mandate by virtue of talent but a mandate by virtue of seniority and experience. I'm not sure he felt entitled to that role before. He has increasingly shown a real interest and sense of responsibility in mentoring younger players on his teams, even starting with Mo Peterson in Toronto and continuing through the considerable work he put in over the last couple of summers with Antoine Wright (alas, to not much avail in that case). As Vince's only sibling is a younger brother, I think this "big brother" kind of role is one he's had a lifetime to practice, and it suits his personality much better than coming into the midst of other heralded and/or more senior players and trying to assert that "he's the man". I sensed very strongly, post Kidd trade, that he feels a need to make things happen for this team. Part of that, I'm sure, is fueled by the fact that Kidd's trade demand was an indirect repudiation of him as a ball player. But he also has to be thinking about his legacy to the sport at this point. He would rather walk on hot coals than acknowledge it, but he's aware of his reputation as something of an underachiever, a "heartless" player whose flash and talent has always outweighed the substance of his results in the win column. There is precious little time left for him to challenge that perception and write his own ending, but the prospect of leading a bunch of basketball infants and journeymen to a respectable record affords him a perfect chance to do just that. It's not about championships for him right now but about demonstrating once and for all that he has a competitive drive worthy of his skills and that he can lead a team with the commitment and dignity that he lacked when he was asked to lead the Raptors. I think he's up to it. I just pray that he stays healthy for the entire season.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Answer_AI03 @ Jul 15 2008, 10:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So you think Vince Carter is going to have a positive impact on all those young players? I doubt that. I would say Andre Miller had a bigger impact than any of the players you just mentioned for the sixers.</div> I did mention Miller too, and yes I think Vince will have a big impact.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ Jul 15 2008, 11:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On the VC leadership thing, I think ghoti and Chutney are on the right track. The biggest difference between now and VC's first years in Toronto is that VC is now his team's elder statesman and feels (I believe) not only a leadership mandate by virtue of talent but a mandate by virtue of seniority and experience. I'm not sure he felt entitled to that role before. He has increasingly shown a real interest and sense of responsibility in mentoring younger players on his teams, even starting with Mo Peterson in Toronto and continuing through the considerable work he put in over the last couple of summers with Antoine Wright (alas, to not much avail in that case). As Vince's only sibling is a younger brother, I think this "big brother" kind of role is one he's had a lifetime to practice, and it suits his personality much better than coming into the midst of other heralded and/or more senior players and trying to assert that "he's the man". I sensed very strongly, post Kidd trade, that he feels a need to make things happen for this team. Part of that, I'm sure, is fueled by the fact that Kidd's trade demand was an indirect repudiation of him as a ball player. But he also has to be thinking about his legacy to the sport at this point. He would rather walk on hot coals than acknowledge it, but he's aware of his reputation as something of an underachiever, a "heartless" player whose flash and talent has always outweighed the substance of his results in the win column. There is precious little time left for him to challenge that perception and write his own ending, but the prospect of leading a bunch of basketball infants and journeymen to a respectable record affords him a perfect chance to do just that. It's not about championships for him right now but about demonstrating once and for all that he has a competitive drive worthy of his skills and that he can lead a team with the commitment and dignity that he lacked when he was asked to lead the Raptors. I think he's up to it. I just pray that he stays healthy for the entire season.</div> Once el doucho got traded, all the expectations that weighed down the team left with him. I think now, this is the perfect situation for Vince. Low pressure, rebuilding year but with enough talent to surprise. If they make the playoffs, GREAT! but if they don't, hey we weren't supposed to make it anyway.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 10:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 15 2008, 10:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 08:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 15 2008, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'> The Sixers were near the top of the hill?</div> I think the point was that they were a young team that was competing and made the playoffs. That's what attracted Brand. They weren't a team with a bunch of children full of potential. </div>I think the bigger factors were the money and the organization being heaps better than the Clippers. The Sixers won 40 games, big deal. </div> 24-17 over the 2nd half of the season. Now with Brand they can do even more damage. They are young, competitive and promising which is more attractive than a team like Memphis or Seattle. No? Do you think this team will be more attractive to high level free agents in 2 years if it's got a few young guys with potential and is around .500 or extremely young and coming off a 20 win season like a Seattle is now? </div> I never made a judgment on whether they are more attractive than certain teams. Just that they weren't close to the top of the hill. </div> Maybe I mislead you by saying Brand could be like Shaq was with the Heat. The Sixers were close to the top of the hill(bump) in the eastern conference because of the lack of great teams. Does Brand going to the Sixers mean they are favorites to go to the finals? No. It means that the Sixers are now one of the better teams in the East. Therefore, getting over the hill. I think they win that series last year against Detroit, with Brand, and would give Cleveland and Orlando a very good series.
I'm so disappointed we lost out on Camby... I was really rooting for a KVH+ Stro for Camby trade... we could have sweetened it with something more than a second rounder. Maybe Marcus + Boone/Swat.. I really don't know what kind of starting C we are looking at now... If we resign Krstic, that doesn't help our 2010 capspace, and we will really have too many players then... If we have Krstic and Lopez at C, and Yi, Anderson and Najera at PF, we really don't have minutes left for Sean and Boone. I'd rather have a big stiff for the minimum as our #6 big man. Kwame or Loren Woods type. I'm not worried about backup PG, since we can easily get Dooling or Pargo for 2 years, if we are ready to pay them 3-4 mill per year. We don't have capspace, but we have a 3,3mill TE, or we can use KVH if we want to pay them 4 mill per year. a 2nd rd pick will be easily enough to get Orlando or New Orleans to do it, since they don't have to take on salary (well they have to take on about 250k, if we use KVH) The SG looks nice with VC/CDR/Ager, with Dooling or Pargo stepping in occassionally. Our bench looks deep at SF with Hayes and Simmons, but we really need a starter for that spot. What can we get for Stro+ Sean + Boone + Marcus + Hassell?? (maybe we can use KVH here also, if the TE is enough to solve the backup PG problem) if we keep Nenad, can we get some really good SF till 2010 for them? Maybe Melo??? if we don't keep Nenad we have to split them and get a starting C plus a starting SF for them. preferably 2010 expirers... any ideas?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 15 2008, 11:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 10:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 15 2008, 10:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 08:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 15 2008, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'> The Sixers were near the top of the hill?</div> I think the point was that they were a young team that was competing and made the playoffs. That's what attracted Brand. They weren't a team with a bunch of children full of potential. </div>I think the bigger factors were the money and the organization being heaps better than the Clippers. The Sixers won 40 games, big deal. </div> 24-17 over the 2nd half of the season. Now with Brand they can do even more damage. They are young, competitive and promising which is more attractive than a team like Memphis or Seattle. No? Do you think this team will be more attractive to high level free agents in 2 years if it's got a few young guys with potential and is around .500 or extremely young and coming off a 20 win season like a Seattle is now? </div> I never made a judgment on whether they are more attractive than certain teams. Just that they weren't close to the top of the hill. </div> Maybe I mislead you by saying Brand could be like Shaq was with the Heat. The Sixers were close to the top of the hill(bump) in the eastern conference because of the lack of great teams. Does Brand going to the Sixers mean they are favorites to go to the finals? No. It means that the Sixers are now one of the better teams in the East. Therefore, getting over the hill. I think they win that series last year against Detroit, with Brand, and would give Cleveland and Orlando a very good series. </div>How are they near the top when they weren't close to beating the Pistons.. and the Pistons were outclassed by the Celtics? They had promising talent last year but were not near the top. The East was not deep but had enough teams to knock them out in the playoffs.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 16 2008, 07:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 15 2008, 11:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Maybe I mislead you by saying Brand could be like Shaq was with the Heat. The Sixers were close to the top of the hill(bump) in the eastern conference because of the lack of great teams. Does Brand going to the Sixers mean they are favorites to go to the finals? No. It means that the Sixers are now one of the better teams in the East. Therefore, getting over the hill. I think they win that series last year against Detroit, with Brand, and would give Cleveland and Orlando a very good series.</div>How are they near the top when they weren't close to beating the Pistons.. and the Pistons were outclassed by the Celtics? They had promising talent last year but were not near the top. The East was not deep but had enough teams to knock them out in the playoffs. </div> His definition of "top" is to be a legitimate contender like Detroit, Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando. He thinks the Brand acquisition puts them at that level. Near the top = playoff team Top = upper teams... not necessarily the top team. 24-17 over the last half of the season was pretty good. Add in Brand and I can see them as one of the top 3 or 4 teams in the East.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 16 2008, 09:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 16 2008, 07:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 15 2008, 11:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Maybe I mislead you by saying Brand could be like Shaq was with the Heat. The Sixers were close to the top of the hill(bump) in the eastern conference because of the lack of great teams. Does Brand going to the Sixers mean they are favorites to go to the finals? No. It means that the Sixers are now one of the better teams in the East. Therefore, getting over the hill. I think they win that series last year against Detroit, with Brand, and would give Cleveland and Orlando a very good series.</div>How are they near the top when they weren't close to beating the Pistons.. and the Pistons were outclassed by the Celtics? They had promising talent last year but were not near the top. The East was not deep but had enough teams to knock them out in the playoffs. </div> His definition of "top" is to be a legitimate contender like Detroit, Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando. He thinks the Brand acquisition puts them at that level. Near the top = playoff team Top = upper teams... not necessarily the top team. 24-17 over the last half of the season was pretty good. Add in Brand and I can see them as one of the top 3 or 4 teams in the East. </div> thank you. it wasn't that hard to comprehend.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 16 2008, 09:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 16 2008, 07:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 15 2008, 11:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Maybe I mislead you by saying Brand could be like Shaq was with the Heat. The Sixers were close to the top of the hill(bump) in the eastern conference because of the lack of great teams. Does Brand going to the Sixers mean they are favorites to go to the finals? No. It means that the Sixers are now one of the better teams in the East. Therefore, getting over the hill. I think they win that series last year against Detroit, with Brand, and would give Cleveland and Orlando a very good series.</div>How are they near the top when they weren't close to beating the Pistons.. and the Pistons were outclassed by the Celtics? They had promising talent last year but were not near the top. The East was not deep but had enough teams to knock them out in the playoffs. </div> His definition of "top" is to be a legitimate contender like Detroit, Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando. He thinks the Brand acquisition puts them at that level. Near the top = playoff team Top = upper teams... not necessarily the top team. 24-17 over the last half of the season was pretty good. Add in Brand and I can see them as one of the top 3 or 4 teams in the East. </div> Half of the teams make the playoffs. Simply making it does not mean you are near the top. Near the top means near the top and the Sixers clearly weren't last year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 16 2008, 05:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 16 2008, 09:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 16 2008, 07:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 15 2008, 11:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Maybe I mislead you by saying Brand could be like Shaq was with the Heat. The Sixers were close to the top of the hill(bump) in the eastern conference because of the lack of great teams. Does Brand going to the Sixers mean they are favorites to go to the finals? No. It means that the Sixers are now one of the better teams in the East. Therefore, getting over the hill. I think they win that series last year against Detroit, with Brand, and would give Cleveland and Orlando a very good series.</div>How are they near the top when they weren't close to beating the Pistons.. and the Pistons were outclassed by the Celtics? They had promising talent last year but were not near the top. The East was not deep but had enough teams to knock them out in the playoffs. </div> His definition of "top" is to be a legitimate contender like Detroit, Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando. He thinks the Brand acquisition puts them at that level. Near the top = playoff team Top = upper teams... not necessarily the top team. 24-17 over the last half of the season was pretty good. Add in Brand and I can see them as one of the top 3 or 4 teams in the East. </div> thank you. it wasn't that hard to comprehend. </div>I am understanding what you said and am responding to it. No more, no less.
