Both Griffin and Love have too many miles on the engine...too many repairs....paid way too much money....Love has panic attacks and Griffin beats up his friends....find a younger, hungrier, cheaper guy with the same skills...I'd take Kanter over both of them if the price was right
1.) Lopez is the DEFINITION of a role player. 2.) He offered Kanter a terrible contract 3-years ago, that's it. And luckily, OKC matched (or else, who knows if we'd have Nurkic). 3.) I said Hood, Curry, and Kanter were all good moves so get outta here with that crap... They're not big-name players though but apparently some people can't accept that... 4.) Because people struggle to pay attention to what I said, just like you did here trying to argue that Olshey doesn't do more than acquire role players because of Robin Lopez, or that somehow signing Kanter counters that argument... 5.) NO, he doesn't. When asked if Kanter came here, did he say it was because of Neil? And if it is, then it's lucky because it's due to a contract that Neil should've never offered... Somehow a bad initial move turned into a good move because a player on the buyout market chose us 3-years later. That shows his skill as a GM? Really? The only argument you could make is that Kanter came here because of a culture Neil helped build, but that still doesn't counter my initial point... The initial point was we always here about how he's "close" or "tried" to trade for a big-name player. I stated that clearly. So how the hell does the Kanter move even effect my original point? How the hell does getting Robin freakin' Lopez counter that point? People are arguing my point with irrelevant arguments, and I'm entertaining them and changing the focus of discussion... Maybe that's the problem.
Exactly. For how many times he's "close", it's concerning that he never actually converts on these big-name players.
sure.....I listed a few reasons.....yet you need to once again call someone's take on things..."terrible"..."irrelevant"... I'll just bite my tongue here
Maybe you shouldn't avoid context. They're irrelevant in regards to the context of my initial statement. My initial statement was about Neil not being able to convert on these reportedly "close attempts" or "tries" for big-name players. People are trying to argue that by referencing the Kanter signing. That's irrelevant in regards to my initial statement, not that their views are irrelevant in general.
Dude has one panic attack during a game. ONE game out of his 657 game career. And you say we shouldn't go after him because he suffers panic attacks... That's terrible. It obviously hasn't affected his career at all, and unnecessarily magnifying and holding mental health against him because of one time in one game...
I'm not impressed with him the last 5 years, no. We made the WCF Finals because of: 1.) A 2012 draft pick 2.) A 2013 draft pick 3.) A free agent signing that was due to a terrible contract offer 4 years ago, or because of those first two, or whatever you want to paint it as. 4.) A mediocre group of role players led by a good pickup in Hood. He's living off those two picks in 2012/2013. Dame was Portland's guy before Neil got there. He hasn't done anything impressive in the last 5 years.
I have not been involved in your endless posting about this stuff, nor am I really interested in dissecting your conversations about them.....in my view you don't get to determine "relevance" when it comes to the opinions of anyone posting about a topic....you have so many long winded posts about Neil and Terry that I'm just not going to ever agree with so....I have my own views ..they don't stem from your posting archives either..just saying Bones...you assume everyone follows these long explanations you put out
Again, I'll try and explain the context nicely since you don't seem to be getting it. Here's an analogy: If I say "I think the sky is pretty tonight because it's purple" and someone argues against that because "Trees are green", their argument is irrelevant in regards to the point I was trying to make. They don't correspond. They're unrelated. My point is Olshey never converts on trades for big name targets. Any argument about the Kanter signing is irrelevant in regards to that point. They don't correspond. They're unrelated. I'm talking about lack of big-name trades, someone is arguing against it by brining up a signing. They're argument isn't relevant to the topic. It's not me playing God and "determining relevance" of a viewpoint. Viewpoints on their own aren't irrelevant. Viewpoints are irrelevant if they're being directed towards a topic or talking point that they have no relation to.
I've read his uncle Mike Love's autobiography about the history of mental illness in his family, Brian Wilson, his dad Stan...and Kevin talked at length about his struggles with panic attacks....I'm not dissing him for it...I'm saying it's PART of the reason I wouldn't sign him...along with several others....it's not all or nothing...mental health flags are just like physical health flags...sometimes more dangerous...ask Delonte West...Kevins uncle Brian Wilson just cancelled his current tour to rehab for mental issues and panic attacks....hmmmmmm….I'd say there's relevance to my opinion
NO hasnt landed big trades, but to be fair that isn't necessarily all there is to being a good GM. I think that what I liked about his trades at the deadline this year was he free’d up a roster spot, that was an important part of those deals. When it comes to making trades for big names, its always a little frustrating to hear after the fact how “close” things were but we never actually know, how close the other team was. We dont know if those wouldve been bad deals for Portland. Just because its a “big” deal, doesnt mean its a good one. This isnt me making an excuse for NO, its just trying to be balanced about my critiques of him. For whats its worth he has built a team that is competitive in an incredibly tough conference, you could argue the whole WCF’s was just luck, or whatever but theyve been consistently a good team, does NO have the ability to make them a great team? I dont know, and honestly I have my doubts.
Fair enough, given your insight into his situation. Simply put, nobody should be saying that without that level of insight, because most public information is simply one report of one game. I assumed you didn't have any more insight than that, so I was wrong. Regardless though, he's had a good career despite of those problems, and being home in Portland would probably help with that.
I'm simply tired of hearing "tried" or "called" or "came close" to making a sizeable move that'd take this team to the next level, and it never happening. I want a GM that actually converts on these.
He's a great player.....and you could be right..Portland could be good for him...he'd love Stotts for sure
Really? If he didn't he would've easily waived Baldwin or Stauskas (whichever was remaining). Why was freeing up a roster spot important?
Because he used two assets he had to upgrade the team and free’d up a roster spot for Kanter. Seems like a lot better usage of his assets then just waiving one.
