Lillard expected to sign a 4 year Super-Max extension in Portland

Hogwash. When Dame did get by the first line of GS's defense, he over-penetrated and passed it straight to a Warrior half the time. When it did get to one of his own teammates, it often wasn't a clean pass in their shooting pocket. It's Dame's fault every bit as much as his teammates'. And that excuse ignores that he was largely useless against the trap in the Denver series, when there wasn't much help defense. And there's still the issue that CJ gets the same defensive attention and handles it much better.

 

This. As much as I want that money to go towards building a better team around Dame, I can't fault him for taking it. We're a 30-ish win team without him.

Olshey hasn't shown to be a smart money man when it comes to signing contracts. He's decent at trades, but not at giving the right contracts to the right players.

I think that, if Dame takes the supermax, Olshey will try and trade players for cap relief. How much relief he'll get is anyone's guess.....I don't feel confident though.

So yeah, I think we're going to be screwed for a while if Dame signs this. Of course, it would be nice if we could offer FAs advertising and endorsements, but we're a small market for a reason, so that's not gonna work out either. And what endorsements are out there are pretty much already taken up by Dame, CJ, and Nurk.

 

Food for thought. Someone pointed out that basketball was pretty unique in emphasizing "per game" stats. In baseball, no one cares about HR/at-bat or HR/game, they care about total HR. Ditto for RBIs. In football, there is interest in yards/carry, but not at the end of the season where really only total yards matters. It's interesting because guys who are healthy are penalized in the per game stats.

Dame was 5th in points scored this season.

More food:
If Dame was injured this season, Blazers go from 3rd seed to lotto. If Curry was injured this season, Warriors go from 1st seed to 2nd seed.
I think there's lots of reasons Dame should have been 1st team this year.

 

Honestly, I feel like that's because all those stats would be less than 1. Theres more games than RBIs and HRs combined for almost everyone. If players could get upwards of 20 RBIs in a game, I think there'd be RBI/Game stats.

 

Curry is simply a superior player to Lillard. By a significant amount. There's no shame in that--many people consider Curry already the second-best point guard ever with a chance to surpass Magic as #1. Lillard will never be in that conversation.

All of these arguments about which team needs the player more attempt to elide that basic truth. Portland does need Lillard more than Golden State needs Curry (though the Warriors need Curry a lot--they posted a losing record without him this year)--that doesn't make Lillard a better player. It just means Portland is less talented as team.

 

Disagree with your first point, but agree with your second. Anyone who thinks Curry has a chance to surpass Magic should have their basketball card revoked - that's the dumbest shit I've ever heard, and I read S2! Also strongly disagree with 2nd best ever. He's an elite shooter, and a very good ball-handler. If he was anything close to Magic-good then Mark Jackson would have won multiple championships coaching the Warriors. Curry should be slotted one spot above Nash, wherever you slot Nash.

 

Magic was obviously incredible, but he played on a team that was about as talented as Curry's team. He played with the guy who I believe is the greatest basketball player of all time in Kareem. They are both players who to me really, really shined because of the era they played in. Magic was such a gifted passer and orchestrator of the offense, he was incredible, but his shooting was suspect, a bit like Giannis, or Lebron, he got better as a shooter. Curry's an ok passer and a good player at other things, but I think Curry's shooting ability is legitimately one of the top 3-4 offensive weapons of all time.

 

It would be super easy for them to say "Here are the season leaders in RBIs/100 AB" - they don't.

 

I admittedly know pretty close to nothing about Baseball, but I think he makes an interesting point.

 

It might... How valuable are you really if you don't make your team win...
I realize it's two different sports, but they are sports and subjectively I think it's interesting how players are judged differently in their sports. Basketball is an odd team sport as well in that there are only 5 guys playing (for a team) at once.

 

Value is how much you help your team win. "Help" is the operative word--one player can't do it alone, so a player could be the most valuable in pushing whatever team he's on towards success, but how much success his team actually experiences is also dependent on how much help he has in pushing towards the goal. You could make this point more clear with a less complicated game, like tug-of-war. If you have a person much stronger than everyone else with great balance, they're clearly the most valuable at tug-of-war--but their team may not win if you put a bunch of unbalanced weaklings around them.

 

So really in baseball pitchers are the most important but they dont play as many games. So after that “MVP” is just a fallacy because not one individual player can do enough to affect winning. You’re basically getting, who’s the best hitter this year award?

 

IF he was as good as Magic, yes. I'm saying he's not in the same league (figuratively!) as Magic.

And not that this is pertinent to my opinion on Curry at all, but just because you brought them up specifically (and the roster in general) Lee and Bogut were still on the team the first time they won. And Bogut is, again, on the team. And Klay/Green/Iggy were on the team the year before they won it, along with Harrison "Fucking" Barnes.

And everyone says that LA was the best PF in the league at that time, but David Lee was just as good (if not better):

 

MVP isn't a "fallacy," it just doesn't mean "the one player who can guarantee a championship all by himself." It means most valuable--the player who provides the most on-field/on-court value to his team. It could be a pitcher in baseball, though it rarely is. Pitchers are the most valuable players in the games they play, but their total value to a season is usually lower than a position player who's both an elite hitter and good to very good fielder.

 

Championship? were talking even making it to the tournament from what Platy said. I realize baseball is a sport I know almost nothing about, but I really think it's silly that you have the "MVP" on your team but can't even make the playoffs? Calling it a fallacy was kind of tongue in cheek, but it's definitely weird to me. He's the Most Valuable Player in the League but apparently doesn't even make his team in the top whatever it is to make it to the playoffs?

 

Fewer teams make the playoffs in baseball than in basketball. The three division winners and then there's two "wildcard teams" that get to play one game to decide who makes the playoffs.

And with a lineup of 9 guys on offense and a pitching staff of 5 starters plus around 7 relief pitchers, no one player can have nearly the same impact on the team as one basketball player can. It's not strange at all to me that a team can have the best player in the league and still not reach the playoffs.

 

I think you're drastically underrating Curry's impact. Not only is he one of the greatest scorers ever, he also probably produces the greatest amount of open shots for teammates of any player in NBA history due to his unique gravity. He doesn't often get the statistical credit for that, like through an assist, because teams trap the ball out of his hands requiring him to throw the pass that leads to the pass that results in a wide open shot. His "gravity" was best encapsulated in a Finals game two seasons ago when Durant got two or three wide-open dunks on the fastbreak because all the defenders back went to defend Curry at the three-point line. That's probably the most absurd example of a player's presence that's ever been seen--defenders gave up uncontested dunks to Durant to prevent Curry being open from three-point range.

Overall, Curry is one of the five greatest offensive forces the game has ever seen and has a claim as the greatest. He's often underrated because people implicitly try to consider his skills in a one-on-one setting, but in a five-on-five setting, Curry's impact (via metrics like +/-) has consistently been rivaled only by LeBron James over the last 4-5 years.

I think it's extremely likely that by the time his career is finished, Curry will widely be seen as arguably the greatest point guard ever, and #2 at worst.