You are a smart platypus, like most duck-beaver hybrids. The positive scenario is more likely than the negative.
Hahahaha Look at the poster. He is a self admitting Aldridge Hater. So there's that... Nah we had the playoffs for sure. Maybe not a top 5 team though. Although, think of having a decent bench. It was obvious the mid season blues had more to do with our starters being solo gassed and took every drop of energy to end 9-1. If we can be a little more consistent all season, we could easily be a top 3 team in the West. Oden was injured, Aldridge was hardly the player he is now. Only Roy was the guy that was 100%. Nah, we had playoffs on lock bro
Before our big streak at the end, we were 45-27 and only a game or 2 ahead of Dallas/Memphis/Phoenix. Even Lillard said we were on the verge of missing the playoffs.
Boob. 14-18 is bad no matter what your schedule. Our 9-1 finish saved us. We should have a fast start again this season. So many home games!
No he said it AFTER the season. During the playoffs, he kept saying we almost missed the playoffs in post game press conference.
I had no doubt whatsoever that we would not only make the playoffs, but beat Houston in the first round. Only you doubters did.
I was very worried when we were 45-27 and playing badly. Very worried knowing our last two games would be against Clippers and Warriors if it came down to the end of the season. I also felt we had no chance against Houston. They played great against us during the season. I was shocked that we won game 1.
Of course you were! You trademarked "seasons over". Have no fear buddy, I have plenty of Koolaide left for you to enjoy.
Look at his last 6 seasons. 3 seasons under 40 games played, another under 50. I don't think you can dismiss that as small sample size.
How about we just look at the last three seasons, as they are the most relevant? I've seen several posters in this forum, and even heard one of the announcers on one of the Utah games mention that Kaman has missed 40+ games season over the last three seasons "due to injury". That's flat out false, or poor research by anyone who claims it to be true. 2013-14 Kamn played in only 39 games. The knee-jerk reaction is: OMG he missed over half the season (43 games) the dude is injury prone! The facts: He only missed 14 games due to injury, including the last 8 games of the season with a "sore calf". At that point the Lakers were clearly tanking and playing their young guys. Kaman clearly did not fit their present goals of future plans. If they had been in a playoff race, I suspect Kaman would have dressed for those last eight games. The real reason Kaman missed so many games? Mike d"Antoni is completely brain dead when it comes how to utilize a traditional center, or even play two big men at the same time. Nba.com improved their box scores last season, and they now give detailed reports on why a player didn't play in a particular game. If the player is on the inactive list, they aren't listed in the box score. If they are on the active roster, but don't dress for the game, the box score will state DND (Did Not Dress): reason (where reason is the specifics of the injury). If the player is in uniform, but does not play, the box score will read: DNP-CD (Coach's Decision). Mike D'Antoni, in his infinite ineptitude, gave a healthy Chris Kaman 29 DNP:CDs last season. So, worst case, Kaman missed 14 games due to minor injuries (only six games over the first five and a half months of the season, and the final 8 games with a "sore calf"). The year before, in Dallas, Kaman played in 66 of 82 games. Unfortunately, back then, the NBA box scores did not specify why a player didn't play in a particular game. Since Rick Carlisle is more competent than Mike D'Antoni, I'll assume the worst and that Kaman was injured for all 16 of those missed games. In 2011-2012, Kaman only played in 47 games. Once again the typical knee-jerk reaction is: OMG he missed almost half the season, the guy is definitely injury prone! I can't believe that people have already forgotten that 2011-2012 was shortened to 66 games due to the lockout. So, Kaman missed 19 games. Again, the box scores from that season don't specify why a player did not play. However, we have this quote from head coach Monty Williams on January 27, 2012: "Monty Williams said that Chris Kaman's playing time could decrease because he wants to develop his younger frontcourt players. Kaman was a healthy inactive on Wednesday night and has fallen out of the rotation for the time being." Up until that point, Kaman had not missed a game all season. So, there is a very high probability that most of the games Kaman missed that year were DNP-CDs. So, worst case, Kaman has had no major injuries over the past three seasons and has missed a maximum of 14, 16, and 19 games due injury. I realistic terms, it's probably more like 14, 16, <10, or about 13 games a season due to minor, nagging injuries. You, predictably took the knee-jerk OMG he's injury prone stance. Of the under 40 games played seasons, one was last year for the Lakers, when D'Antoni had no idea how to use a healthy Kaman and the under 50 games season was during the lockout shortened season when Monty Williams benched a healthy Kaman to give their young guys a chance to grow. Is the guy the paragon of health? No, he does suffer from minor, nagging injuries that cause him to miss about 12 - 15 games a year. Something tells me that with a clearly defined role, playing for a contender, Kaman will be surprisingly healthy this year. And if he does miss his usual 15 games, we'll manage and be a LOT better up front in the 67 games he does play than we were at any point last season. BNM
No offense BNM, but it seems awfully convenient to just ignore the 08-09 and 10-11 seasons. Kaman is on his 5th team in 5 seasons. Even if you dismiss his season in Lakerland, that is still 3 other coaches/GMs who found reasons for not wanting to keep him. Saying he is injury prone is about the most charitable interpretation possible.
Convenient? No, practical. 2008-09 was six seasons ago. I guess it'a also convenient for you to ignore the 2009-10 season when Kaman started 76 games and was an Western Conference All Star. As far as I am concerned, those are both ancient history. His recent injury history is much more relevant to the likelihood of injury this season. As I showed in my previous post, Kaman hasn't had any major injuries in the last three years and has only missed about 15 games a season (most likely less) due to injury. Well, we don't know how long he will stay in Portland, but the previous 4 teams in 4 years doesn't bother me. Other than Dallas, where Kaman started 52 of the 66 games he played, he was moved by teams looking to get younger, develop their youth. In addition to the quote from Monty Williams in my previous post, the Clippers moved Kaman to make way for DeAndre Jordan. The Lakers should have never signed Kaman as he was completely wasted under D'Antoni and then they tanked to get a better lottery pick. Only time will tell how healthy Kaman will be in Portland, but to assume he'll miss 42 - 52 games based on his recent history seems exceptionally pessimistic when he hasn't missed even half that many in any of the last three seasons. BNM
OMG totally disagree. Team #1Clippers used him as the main salary piece to get Chris Paul, I think few GMs would do so as well. So the if you dismiss the Lakers then you only have the Hornets/Pelicans and the Mavericks. Monty Willians was pretty clear with his explanation. Chris was an expiring deal to NO and winning wasn't a big priority. He chose to play in Dallas for one season. He also chose to play with the Lakers for one season. I'm not sure how you can pin this stretch on the teams.
Players that transition from Aging Starter to Wise Old Bench Guru have different ways of getting there. Kaman knows he's the latter, which makes it all easier.
Vets who've come off of a couple of years of rest and rehab are sometimes in better shape than they were 3 years ago too
I'll just say right now that I don't know if anyone will beat the Cavs. I think they will win 66-68 this year.
I disagree, that team will take awhile to mesh together. People forget that the 2011 Maimi heat team was deep and had a prime Wade/Lebron/Bosh and only won 58 games and struggled out the gate. Thats with a better coach as well and a team thats arguably as deep. Love/Kyrie are both great but both are defensively liabilitys one thing that Wade/Bosh were not. Wade isn't a great defender but he is better then both Kyrie and Love and Bosh is a damn good defender and i'd argue that he is a better defender then anyone on the Cavs not named LBJ. The Cavs will get it together and look like world beaters at times but with LBJ hinting at wanting to rest during the season and having two of their stars being bad defenders its going to take a year or two before we see the best of the cavs. I'll put them as #1 seed in the east at 57 wins.
I guess for me it all comes down to 2 things: First, does Lillard have another significant jump left in him (particularly on defense) - and by leap, that means vaulting himself in to the serious discussion about being a top 10 player in the league. Secondly, is the team going to enjoy the amount of health in their starting five that they had last year? I think both factors are impossible to predict right now, so the same holds true for trying say whether this team as a title contender. They certainly didn't add talent upgrades in the off-season to push them into the discussion.
That's a fair assessment but I will have to disagree with the concept of "We did not drastically improve our bench". I think the subtraction of NO-MO and addition of extra experience from our youth will have a drastic improvement. What, we averaged like 24 a game or something. Without Blake and Kaman, I have confidence they can reach that. With the addition of Blake and Kaman, I think you can put their bench in the middle of the pack now. That is a huge jump, IMO. Of course, this is only my opinion and we will need more than a few pre-season games to claim the bench has drastically improved.
