(08-30-2021, 10:27 AM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]Not really sure what troubles you with NY. Kemba Walker at his salary is a low risk high reward move. Excellent deal for NY imho. They covered their biggest needs while maintaining all flexibility (and assets) for when(if) the time comes. They extended Randle for less than max.
Nothing troubles me with what NY did this offseason. I do think they overpaid on guys like Nerlens Noel and Alec Burks, though that's being nit picky. They did their job but does that automatically mean they deserve an A-? Put it this way, if the Bulls couldn't get an A after adding 3 significant contributors and turning Marknanen into a 1st and 2nd, how do the Knicks get that?
Kemba at 8 mil is stomachable. It remains to be seen if he can stay healthy, especially under the notorious Thibs. Knicks had a solid B offseason to me. They lost a valued contributor in Bullock. Replaced him with Fournier on a large offer, overpaid to keep their guys, and got a low risk high reward option in Kemba.
(08-30-2021, 10:27 AM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]Boston dumped awful Kemba contract, lost Fournier and gained Horford, Richardson and Schroeder all while keeping realistic possibility to stay below the tax or do a win now move with the 17 mil TPE they have. They somehow convinced Sacramento it is better to take Thompson than Dunn/Fernando in the Wright trade. Not brilliant offseason (only B-), but considerably different starting point compared to Dallas.
What's wrong with Detroit (mark B) offseason? They stayed on the rebuilding course adding top young talent while keeping all assets. What else would it make sense to do? This really is a team where doing nothing is better than doing something.
Boston paid OKC a 1st and a 2nd to dump Kemba and got back Horford who's on a less bad contract but still isn't a bargain. They lost Fournier for nothing after paying 2nds for him. Schroeder is a low risk high reward guy, but the problem with the Celtics the last 2 years has been their lack of chemistry. Too many guys looking to get "theirs". Schroeder only exacerbates that issue in my mind. They will be lucky to get anything from Richardson, as he's been on a downturn for 3 years running. B- is generous. They didn't make any outright egregious moves like Memphis, but they didn't significantly improve either. A B letter grade indicates good/above average performance. I would not call what the Celtics did this offseason as good.
Detroit again didn't do anything erroneous. In fact they barely did anything. Aside from sending Plumlee away with 2nds, and adding Olynyk, they barely did much at all. They signed some minimum guys, and added Cade. Is that an above average offseason that the letter grade "B" denotes? I don't think so.
(08-30-2021, 10:27 AM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]Portland lost DJJ, Collins (both useless), Anthony and Kanter (both ok). They added Nance (good) and vet min trio of Zeller, Snell and McLemore - all three ok. They also resigned Powell. I think author made clear explanaiton why Dallas has C- and Portland B. While they both had unimpressive player acquisitions, the difference is the coach. While Billups has similar kind of "sexual baggage" as Kidd they are totally different as far as their qualifications go. Billups is marked as one of top coaching prospects. Kidd has two not really successful stories behind him plus some other baggage. Author thinks Kidd is a big downgrade from Carlisle and obviously doesn't think same about Billups.
We don't know what Billups will do as a head coach. He is a total unknown. An author can't praise an unknown while simultaneously degrading another because he feels like it (of course he can but it's not good reporting). Kidd has been talked to death at this point, but the narrative surrounding him has gotten out of control. He went to the playoffs with the Nets and was dismissed because he angled for more control in the front office (This isn't a knock at his performance as a coach which is what we're judging the Kidd acquisition by).
He then went to MIL and single handedly turned MIL from a lottery team to a playoff team in his first year there. That's a major accomplishment. He was dismissed because the team stagnated under his tenure which was a valid critique. But what Kidd has been repeating all summer long is that he's not the same guy that he was in MIL. He went and learned what it takes to be a championship head coach under Vogel. Does that not account for anything? Billups hasn't been anywhere near the finals as an assistant coach. Why does he get all the praise while Kidd gets dogged? I understand it's easy to hate on Kidd because he comes across as an odd ass but Billups isn't automatically a better prospect than Kidd. In fact Portland's own superstar would agree to that.
Again, my issue with this article was that the author seemingly assigned grades based on how he was feeling at that particular moment, rather than be consistent on a true grading scale.
The Mavs deserved a C+. In fact I'd venture to say they should get a C-. But the Lakers getting a B+ for adding Westbrook and the retirement home of stars past? Bulls getting a B after totally turning around their roster? Portland getting a B for doing largely what the Mavs did?? It doesn't make sense and shows that Bleacher Report doesn't care about quality. That was my issue.
We can argue all we want about what grade these teams truly deserve, but I know for certain the grades the author assigned are false and lazy reporting.
