Not a fan of Russ then?
NBA 2022-2023
- Thread starter charlton66
- Start date
Not a fan of Russ then?
Nope, although a decent chunk of that dislike is due to him being the final nail in my 40 year Lakers fandom (till there is a complete roster reboot, maybe.). Beyond that I abhor the way he plays the game, it is just not fun to watch. I know I am spoiled as I got to sit in the Forum rafters watching Magic and Worthy in my childhood and Kobe and Shaq (on TV cuz feck the price of a ticket at Staples...err....Crypto.com) in my teens, but the current Laker team is a shit cake of uninspired filth and Russ was the final turd in the ingredient bowl.
I'll defend his legacy. But you can't defend the current version
How is this version that much different from previous versions except he's not the lead guy? He's shooting about the same (44%), his three point shooting is about the same (30%), his assists and rebounds are down relative to the last 3 or 4 years but still around his career averages and although his PPG are down he's taking 4 less shots per game so they are about where you would expect them to be and his turnovers are actually down v previous years.
The biggest difference for me is that Russ's game is built around him being the main guy. It just doesn't work when he has to defer. If he went somewhere where he could be "the man" again, I think his numbers would go back up. That's why I wanted your opinion. You've watched him a lot more than me. My question for you is; on a team that suited his playing style, could he be at least a pretty good player again? ie not a 78 on NBA 2k.
I'd have to look more into certain stats but he has definitely lost a step (or two athletically) which has diminished his game. Two of the main issues I see are his finishing at the rim and his free-throw percentage. Both have tanked considerably. Some of the lay-ups he misses are just mind-boggling.
But in terms of the question, yes, if he was the main guy on a team then I think his 2k rating would increase. I doubt he is that far off the player he was in Washington (although not as good because of his athleticism diminishing). Of course the issue is that this current version of Westbrook will only get you to the play-in as the lead guy.
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id...-conduct-clearly-violated-workplace-standards
Can’t even force him out
Can’t even force him out
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id...-conduct-clearly-violated-workplace-standards
Can’t even force him out
Nope, don't you remember the effort it took to get rid of Sterling? Kind of "shocking" that Sterling got a lifetime ban and Sarver gets a slap on the wrist.
Really mystifying comments from Silver. Says one year was all he wanted to do because, while Sarver said racist things, he did not act with racial animus. Ok, fine, don’t agree but whatever. But then he says there was evidence discovered of sexist and misogynistic activities, including unfair practices against women, but this did not elevate the ban? So racism bad (obviously), but sexism tolerated?
If sexism was actually punished, Cuban would be out by now.
Works for me.
This is one of the reasons it will be so hard to get rid of Sarver. Silver does not legally have the power to force him to sell. It actually requires 3/4 of the owners to vote him out. A lot of the owners have too many skeletons themselves to force the issue because they're worried that something similar to this could come and bite them down the road.
Personally, I think the only way to get rid of him is if the players refuse to play the games.
Which is going to be difficult, and pathetic, as you are asking the players to take the financial hit (likely get fined game checks) to accomplish what the management is too weak to do. He did give Sterling a lifetime ban, which he could have done to Sarver, and that would have had a much greater impact, but he was too weak/compromised to do so.
I actually think the PR hit that the league/owners would take if they tried to fine the players under these circumstances would be enormous. I think they would lose sponsorship by the boat load. Billionaires are billionaires because they care about the bottom dollar. When their income is threatened I think that is when Sarver could be sent on his way.
Last edited:
Some of our minority owners are complaining and calling for Sarver’s resignation. Hopefully things will work out.
PayPal is asking for Sarver to resign now.
Schröder back in LA. 2.6 mil $ 
If the Lakers can bring in 3 or 4 more PGs, maybe Russ might take the hint that he could possibly be surplus to requirements.Schröder back in LA. 2.6 mil $
The NBA CBA is due to expire at the end of the 2023-24 season, however both sides have an opt out as early as this December. Rumor is that one of the changes that could possibly be made is that teams would no longer be charged luxury tax on players that they have drafted.
Huge impact for the Dubs if this comes to fruition. All the talk is that one or more of Poole, Wiggins, Draymond and Klay would have to go because of salary concerns. This could mean that everybody stays.
Huge impact for the Dubs if this comes to fruition. All the talk is that one or more of Poole, Wiggins, Draymond and Klay would have to go because of salary concerns. This could mean that everybody stays.
That would be a fantastic addition and will help (hopefully) stop some of the team hopping. Of course it will have no impact on my Lakers as they have no 1st round pick till 2052.
That's a dumb idea imo to anyone but Golden State fans, it would destroy the cap, which is functioning wonderfully to create parity in the league. A rule to help the best team get further in front of the others is the antithesis of the current plan.
I agree. And I like it.
I completely disagree. A rule such as this, if crafted carefully (I know, I know, it's the NBA) could potentially benefit teams that draft and develop their talent. This rule could have potentially forestalled the breakup of the Thunder a year (after which one/both of Harden and Westbrook would have been indicted for murder), or allow the Pelicans to sign pieces to fit around Davis. The Warriors should not be punished, or singled out, for drafting and developing 3 HoFers. Good on them and they should reap the rewards for doing so.
Even as someone who wants Steph to have another 3-4 years of championship runs, this is a terrible rule.
What stops a team from tanking for 4-5 years and drafting multiple top-5 picks to contend for a generation. It won’t be a case of drafting well at that point.
If you wanted to incentivize teams for drafting or developing well, I would have the luxury cap exclusion for players that were drafted as non-lottery picks so the Warriors don’t have to pay tax for Draymond and Poole.
What stops a team from tanking for 4-5 years and drafting multiple top-5 picks to contend for a generation. It won’t be a case of drafting well at that point.
If you wanted to incentivize teams for drafting or developing well, I would have the luxury cap exclusion for players that were drafted as non-lottery picks so the Warriors don’t have to pay tax for Draymond and Poole.
What stops them now?
Name one team that did the above and won a title.
As to what stops a team? Easy, no GM will do that, as they will not survive to reap the rewards. Hell, Philly tried this and they only have 2 players of significance that they drafted still on the roster.
If you do so and they pan out, even then you can end up with a Thunder situation and need to move players on.
Tax payments do play a role in disincentivizing tanking.
Also the Athletic article states the opposite - I don’t know what Charlton read
I wasn't trying to single then out, but the owner came out and criticized the luxury tax so it seems clear who's leading the charge.
That being said, rich teams, if they're doing well, aren't getting a lot of top picks. So it could work.
I think you'd need to find a limit, to make sure teams couldn't break the parity situation. It is impressive to draft well, but I'm not sure it's worth letting a team become so stacked, it's not the defining characteristic of basketball, I wouldn't want to lose parity to reward good drafting.
You might create a tax break that's dependant on revenues, so that poor teams can keep their drafted players more easily than the rich teams, and the rich teams are sharing a fair amount in these situations.
If the deal is fair and the poor teams like it, I won't mind. This situation with GS is very rare, and I would like to see poor teams able to keep their picks.
I didn't read it, I heard it on a Warriors podcast. They actually referred to it as a "rumor" so I did the same.
Sarver is looking to sell the team
Great system where the worst punishment is a completely obscene payday.Sarver is looking to sell the team
What's up with this Udoka story? You can get suspended for an entire season if you have a consensual relationship with a member of your staff?
Most companies have policies in place prohibiting relationships between people in authority and those under them or who they have possible influence over.
Yeah of course, but I'd say that the hierarchy in a regular company might be different from that of an NBA franchise, depending on the role of the woman involved. Either way, not saying it shouldn't be prohibited or anything, just that a suspension of an enitre season seems incredibly harsh to me.
Makes me wonder if their was a really blatant power structure is and/or he had been warned.
Only reason he is still in a job is because he is a good coach
Suspect the Celtics are trying to more or less force him to resign to save themselves paying out the rest of his contract.
He basically got the same punishment as Sarver.
Which is an indictment of the weak ass Silver.
Must be a organisational policy or a clause in his contract or something. It being consensual doesn’t really mean much either if there’s a clear power dynamic at play. He’s an idiot anyway.