Riley had a legit reason to keep the team together. They had won two titles. So we are supposed to compare the Aldridge situation to the LeBron situation because we got out of the first round? And it's not like we dominated Houston. It took a miracle shot to get us out of the first round. I think there's a very good chance we lose game 7 in Houston if Lillard hadn't hit that shot. So then what? Do you trade Aldridge after a first round loss to Houston? You guys keep acting like Neil broke up the Jordan era Bulls. We hadn't won shit. We had no bench. A couple of injuries derailed the whole season. The previous year was an anomaly. We had no major injuries that year. Four out of five starters played in all 82 games. Do you realize how rare that is? Reality caught up with us this year and we completely fell apart. As much fun as that Houston series was, if we would have lost, I think Aldridge gets traded and we come out with some actual value.
Lucky shot maybe unlucky.... Had we lost in the first round, Aldridge would ask to be traded. We most likely would have traded with Cleveland for Wiggins. I say we kill Dame now!!!!
It made sense for Riley to take that risk...he'd been to the Finals 3 straight years with the same core, and knew that the only place LBJ could go back to was CLE. He took a risk, but I would submit that a) his "reward" was much more certain than ours was and b) the only thing he had to do was convince LBJ that CLE wasn't for him. He didn't have to try to pry him away from SAS, PHX, DAL, LAL, etc. had a bunch more that got deleted....will probably write later. But the main point that you're right on is that we disagree if you think that we were as close as GSW or on the same trajectory to win (or even make the Finals), or that being on a "winning team" was going to dissuade LMA from leave. I'm happy to agree to disagree with that, and if those are your axioms, I can't fault your logic. I just disagree.
Yup. Reality was that we were never as close as GSW was. That's a very good team with a very very good coach.
But, but, but, weren't we saying this very thing about the Blazers prior to Wes going down? A very good team with a very good coach. Doesn't that equal contender? I still think we were one more piece away, but we were DAMN close prior to injuries.
I would have been in the its a good team but not a threat even with Matthews. Was the second round possible sure, but nothing is guaranteed. I also did not think we played nearly the quality of team ball or had enough ways to win if threes were not falling. I personally hate Stotts game plans.
Fair enough. I think we were at least one more star away. I think most just hoped that Nic was gonna be that guy. Regards to Stotts, I think he was brought in and told to play around Aldridge, so he did that, and a pretty good job considering. I want to give Stotts a chance with this new team and see if he changes the game plan to suit the players, rather than force them to play his way. There is always a bit of a give and take, but This is a make or break for Stotts I think If there isn't signs of improvement and, or a guy breaking out and utilized well, he is on the hot seat.
I think a healthy squad top to bottom would contend for the western conf title last season but..that was not in the cards. The only time I disagreed with Stotts was in our worst losses with his lack of trust in the bench. Also thought at times he wasn't calling timeouts in order to kill the opposition s momentum. Like he thought someone was going to shoot out of a cold slump. He coached way more brilliant games than clunkers though.
Fair enough, I would agree that our main point of disagreement were those two main points. I would also go so far as to say I would love to have Wiggins on the team right now too, and I am disappointed that he isn't, but that still does not not change my interpretation of the events or how they played out.
