IDK man. 2 DUI's is a telling sign..... considering hes fucking RICH and could get a god damned taxi! This means he's drinking so much/often that he just thinks hes "good to go". Not good when you don't understand your own drinking.
Hmm looks like he has more issues then I thought: Lawson also needs distance from what one person close to him described as a troubled relationship with reality TV actor Ashley Pettiford, with whom he has a daughter. The couple were arrested on domestic violence and criminal mischief charges in 2013 after a violent disagreement at Lawson’s Colorado home. The charges were dropped, but the incident only provided more clues that Lawson’s life was going off the rails. – via CBSSports.com
Nope. It's not a better thing, but it's better than having it in Beverley hands when they double Harden and force him to not be the primary ball handler. So once any decent team trapped Harden (as he spoke about) they were pretty much fucked. Now they have a PG they can pass it to who can ALSO create off the bounce and I'd say who also excels at getting into the paint or getting a decent shot for himself or his teammates based on his elite agility and quickness and solid decision making. Also, Lawson is a FAR superior offensive player to Beverley and JT. Sure they might sacrifice a little defense ( in which they close hard at the 3 PT line and force people to dwight anyway, so it doesn't matter as much) but they get exponential return on offense. And he is a career 37% spt shooter with a great ast%. Additionally, he isnt going to be a locker room cancer if he isn't your leader. I'm convinced you haven't watched much of Lawson at this point. He is a very, very good PG with a lot of moves on offense and GREAT passing ability. Additionally, Harden is quite capable playing off the ball. And out of that list, the only back courts I'd take are Curry and Thompson and Wall/Beal (if healthy) over them - and you aren't factoring in backups either, which they now go 3 deep at PG with tons of different looks. Interesting you chose to say that both Lawson and Harden need the ball to be effective and then 2 of the back courts you mentiones, Butler & Rose, and DeRozan and Lowry are arguably even more ball dominant and not NEARLY as good passing as either of the two for the Rockets are. Conley and Lee? Teague and Korver? Lowry and DeRozan? Uhh..do you know how good James Harden by himself is??? Hell, I'd trade BOTH of those just to get Harden. He was a legit MVP candidate and arguably should've won imo. Combine that with an elite offensive PG, with superior creativity and passing, and you have a damn good backcourt.
nobody is as ball dominant as Harden, and all this pairs are miles ahead defensively... Harden does so much iso that it's hard to double to begin with. As for Lawson not being a cancer if he's not the leader, that might be true if you had a good leader on the team.. but no you have Harden and Howard, two bad leaders in themselves. All I'm saying is Lawson impact will be a lot less. Sure he's a lot better then Beverly, but he doesnt have the ball often enough to make a better impact then Beverly. And now Beverly is diminished, as he makes the biggest impact against top notch PGs, but now he's coming off the bench, against bench players with less PT
With two DUIs he'll most likely have to wear one of those alcohol ankle monitors, if he plays bad all you have to do is throw a glass of beer on him, it will trigger the monitor, he'll be sent to jail and you can void his contract.
And after Houston finishes 15-20 games ahead of us, we can all have a good laugh at their expense. Oh...wait....
As long as they don't win a title, we would have had a more productive season if we land in the lottery
So, if HOU wins 65 regular season games and loses in the finals to CLE, and we win 13 games for a 1 in 4 chance of landing the top pick in a draft with no consensus number 1 pick, we'll have and the more "productive" season? Seems like a very odd definition of "productive". Winning the lottery is not the panacea that many seem to think. Say you, "best" case, finish with the worst record in the league. You are guaranteed a top 4 pick and have a 25% chance of landing the top pick. Neither guarantees you will eventually win a title. In fact, the odds are extremely stacked against you. In the last 30 years, exactly two number 1 picks has led the team that drafted them to an NBA title - David Robinson and Tim Duncan (and they did it together). Here's the complete list of all players picked in the top 4 in the last 30 years that eventually won an NBA title with the team that drafted them: David Robinson, 1st Pick, SAS, 1987 Sean Elliot, 3rd Pick, SAS, 1989 Jason Kidd, 2nd Pick, DAL, 1994 Tim Duncan, 1st Pick, SAS, 1997 Darko Milicic, 2nd Pick, DET, 2004 That's it - for THE LAST 30 YEARS. That's a pretty significant sample size. And if you look at that list, three of the players (Robinson, Elliot, and Duncan) won a title together, Kidd was drafted by Dallas and traded three times before returning to win his ring as a 38-year old role player, and Darko was a total bust that played exactly 14 minutes of playoff basketball and scored a whopping 1 point during DET's championship run. So no thanks, I'll take a deep playoff run anytime over being the worst, or one of the worst teams in the league. BNM
This is why I totally hate the "tank for a title chance" concept. It has been a seriously flawed concept. What really needs to happen is for a team to get really fucking lucky. We had that luck in 06 when we won the #1 pick with Aldridge and Roy as the center piece. Unfortunately, that luck ran out with the injuries to the players we needed to contend.
Which may be even worse. How many players picked 13 or 14 have led the team that drafted them to an NBA title in the last 30 years? The chances of getting a franchise changing superstar at the tail end of the lottery are pretty slim. Remember, Meyers Leonard and C.J. McCollum were late lottery picks, and while both are developing into very nice players, they aren't Shaq and LeBron (neither of whom have won a title with the team that drafted them). Unless there is a clear consensus future superstar, AND you have the top pick, history has shown the lottery is a total crap shoot. And even if there is a clear superstar, AND you have the top pick, chances are he'll bolt for greener pastures as soon as his rookie deal is up for a better chance to win a title (just like Shaq and LeBron did). I stand by my assertion, I'd rather win 65 games and lose in the finals than be in the lottery. If you seriously contend for a title, you will be much more attractive to top tier free agents and veteran ring chasers willing to play for the veteran minimum salary. History shows that winning breeds more winning and losing breeds more losing. BNM
OK. Who wouldn't want to watch a 65 win team? The Blazers weren't in that position, so I fail to see how this applies to this particular team's current situation. Most people arguing for the lottery are saying they'd rather see this team win 25 and at least have a chance at some help (maybe god forbid even a blue-chipper) vs. 43 wins, an 8th seed and losing the pick. The trick is to be either really, really good or pretty bad, the worst place to be is stuck in the muddy middle.
I actually agree with you....but making a deep play-off run is not an option right now. Our choice is between mediocrity and reconstruction.
