PeterMP

Members
  • Content Count

    2,288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PeterMP

Profile Information

  • Location
    Something catchy like headexplode or EA's

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. PeterMP

    ***2018-19 NBA Season Thread***

    It isn't like Kyrie didn't play with them most of all of last year. He got hurt in what March? They could have absolutely stated Hayward on the bench and let him warm up to playing again as he found his role on the team. Toronto has had to deal with losing a key player, gaining another one that really didn't play much at all last year, and a new coach. Those seem to me to be larger obstacles to smashing out of the gate than what Boston faced. I don't know their comparable strength of schedules, but just generically, if you would have asked me who was more likely to start 12-2 Boston or Toronto, I would have picked Boston.
  2. PeterMP

    ***2018-19 NBA Season Thread***

    Until he shows something, Hayward is untradable unless you are taking back a person in a bad situation (e.g. Porter for Hayward might work). You could trade Kyrie, but I don't think you'll get much. Kyrie's never really been healthy, and I doubt many teams looking to max Kyrie for 5 years (plus is he even going to stay with that team). Horford is another guy you could move, but again I think the return would be disappointing. They're construct looks very different if Tatum is simply an All Star vs. and MVP candidate. Before they do anything, they have to make a decision on how good Tatum is. Boston with MVP Tatum is scary in terms of right now and going forward. Boston with All Star Tatum is good, but can be beaten. (I'll point out that I've never really disagreed with you on Boston. Boston to me could go either way. And part of that will be what happens with the Kings pick.)
  3. PeterMP

    ***2018-19 NBA Season Thread***

    He's uncoachable. He just doesn't play poorly. He doesn't listen to the coach. What do we think of Boston? They're now 7-6. Kyrie and Heyward both look too slow to really play good defense. Tatum's shooting numbers are more what you'd expect based on what he did in his one year at Duke vs. what he did last year. Are they too heavily invested in two veterans who were never particularly good defenders and are now older and slowed from career altering injuries and people were too fast to label Tatum as a next super star? Or do they have two super star veterans that are still working their way back from injury that will figure things out and a young super star that is off to a bit of a slow start while trying to get in sync with the two veterans on offense?
  4. PeterMP

    ***2018-19 NBA Season Thread***

    LaVine is a scorer, but a bad defensive player. Covington in reality is probably a better player. Now, LaVine is younger and more athletic so some day he might figure out how to play defense at which point he'll pass by Covington. In general, Thibs has been awful in terms of being a GM and a coach. KAT has gone backwards with him as a coach, and Wiggins hasn't improved really much at all. I guess they have to wait until the end of the year, but he needs to get fired.
  5. PeterMP

    ***2018-19 NBA Season Thread***

    They were almost certainly going to have to make a decision on Butler anyway. They were almost certainly going to get to the end of the year and need another off ball scorer that can create. They were going to have the money to max somebody, and Bulter is most likely going to be their best option (assuming Leonard will either take the most money and stay in Toronto or go home to LA). From that perspective, the trade really changes nothing. All the trade does is if give them an inside track to sign Butler and a better idea of how well he actually fits (on the court and in the locker room). They haven't saved up the cap space they need to get in a situation where they have clear need and players out there that fit that need to not use it. The trade can't be a bad trade based on having to make a decision that they were almost certainly going to have to make anyway. The trade actually helps Fultz. It means they can stop trying to force him into being the off ball player that he isn't (at least not currently) and let him play as the back up PG (where he really is a PG not a 2) with less pressure on him. They absolutely should not trade him now. He's in the 2nd year of a rookie deal. They can give him this year playing his natural position w/o too much pressure, and then give him next off season to work on his game to see how he comes back next year. Butler, Simmons, and Embiid need to start. Fultz is on the bench, but then they should stagger minutes where Fultz plays when Simmons sits with Embiid or Butler (and I'd put him on the floor with Butler mostly).
  6. PeterMP

    The Official Washington Wizards Thread: The JOHN WALL ERA

    Everybody knew it was a weak draft. Picks at the top of that draft had very little value. Porter himself thought he was similar to Tayshaun Prince, who never made an All Star team even. http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Otto-Porter-6528/ "Porter compares himself to Tayshaun Price, which shows great self-awareness and is probably a very fair assessment." And it isn't/wasn't an era where the 3rd picks contract killed you if he wasn't really good. It isn't hard to imagine in a weak draft just taking the guy you think is best is the right decision.
  7. PeterMP

    ***2018-19 NBA Season Thread***

    Eh, depends on Patton's health and what you think of him. Plus Saric and Covington have clear limited upside. It is possible in 2 years we'll be looking and saying the Sixers got the 2 best players in the trade. If you're making a trade and you think there's a reasonable chance you are getting the 2 best players in the trade, even if it isn't a perfect fit, that's a hard trade to turn donw.
  8. PeterMP

    The Official Washington Wizards Thread: The JOHN WALL ERA

    Okay, but that's an important thing to take into account. Some drafts, the #3 pick is expected to be at least an All Star caliber player. That wasn't true in that draft when that draft happened. When Porter was drafted, most people never expected him to be a star. And even in a stronger draft, I don't think you can consider him a bust. Anthony Bennett was a bust. Okafor looks like a bust. I'm not sure of Porter's hip situation, but assuming he holds up health wise, I suspect he'll have a 10+ year career and after his time with the Wiz if nothing else will catch on somewhere as a bench shooter. I'm not even given sure based on what was expected of him that you can even call him a disappointment. He just ended up being 3rd because it was a bad draft. No, but his contract is not much of an obstacle either. His contract is over 2021. That's well before any expected time where you'd be expected to have to worry about extending players or getting a major player in free agency. And often in that last year, you can actually find somebody to take on the contract. In the context of a rebuild, he's irrelevant.
  9. PeterMP

    The Official Washington Wizards Thread: The JOHN WALL ERA

    That isn't quite fair because that's not the way the draft works. Other than Oldiapo, he's probably better than anybody else taken in the top 10 of that draft (and interestingly, Oldiapo had to move away from a ball dominant PG to really blossom). But he's still probably better than about 1/2 of them. I'll also make the point that's already made in this thread. It isn't like maxing Otto really mattered. Whether they maxed him or not, they were still capped out. There isn't really a move they could have made if they would have let him walk vs. keeping him. The only reason Otto's contract matters is if you are the owner. He's also not really the one that (at least for now) is holding up a true total rebuilding.
  10. PeterMP

    ***2018-19 NBA Season Thread***

    I see that they picked up Justin Patton too in the trade. The Sixers certainly have experience with players recovering from foot injuries. Depending on this health, this might actually be a real win for the Sixers. I actually like it a lot more now.
  11. PeterMP

    ***2018-19 NBA Season Thread***

    I agree. It seems like they decided they had to make a move. Partly, it depends on an extension, but it isn't hard to see a scenario where either he walks or they give him a 5 year max where he's not worth that contract in 3 years. Their in the prime of Simmons and Embiid's career and saddled with a bad contract for Butler that reduces their flexibility. But their GM that shouldn't have been fired wasn't Presti, it was Hinkie. Though, I've never been very big on Saric and while I think people underrate Covington's value it became clear last year in the playoffs that he doesn't really have the athleticism to go toe to toe with the best over a 7 game series. This also does nothing for the Fultz/Simmons situation and likely compounds it. I think though they will get shooting from other places though. Shamet's shot appears to be a legit NBA shot based on form and performance (37.9% at 4.5 attempts a game). They've got other people on the bench and other pieces to get shooters. If Butler can re-gain his high intensity D and be more effeceint in a system where less is expected of him on offense, they'll be very good this year.
  12. PeterMP

    Election 2018 Thread

    Eh we could already globally feed the world have food left over. The only issue is economics and will. The US dairy industry and throwing product away. And we're still paying farmers not to plant (and other things associated with propping up the market). http://nebraska.farmergoestomarket.com/index.php/food-technology/341-translating-food-technology-why-do-farmers-get-paid-not-to-grow-crops (Though meat substitutes in terms of health and ethics are absolutely coming.)
  13. PeterMP

    Election 2018 Thread

    Food is bought and sold on a global market today. It isn't like rural areas can afford not to sell their product. Whether they sell it to the urban US areas is essentially irrelevant. If anything, food prices would probably drop because without government controls, the ag industry in this country has a long history of over producing to the point where farming (in the US) isn't economical.
  14. PeterMP

    Election 2018 Thread

    Realistically, at the national level, we've never really practice government as described in the post-1960s Civics books. We had a sort of a managed oligarchy. Candidates were managed by a combination the limitations of access to the media and the value and cost of that access and the cost and issues with organizing large scale (even state wide for most states) campaigns. Something like Bernie Sanders as an independent entering the Democratic primary and being the 2nd most popular candidate doesn't happen 20 years ago. He couldn't have built a national organization. He would have gotten essentially no help from the party apparatus or the non-official party people, but Democratic money people. And if he'd complained, the press wouldn't have given him 10 minutes. Now, there's so much media/press competition every story is a story to some demographic and somebody is willing to tell the story to appeal to them. No way Trump wins the Republican nomination 20 years ago. Going back further, candidates for things like President, Senate, and Governor (in many states) from the major parties were really the result of back room deals. Going even further back, there were pretty rigorous restrictions on who could vote and how could run (e.g. land owners). We're really for the first time seeing the real Civics textbook version of our government in action. And what we've learned is that a lot of people are really stupid. (Okay, maybe not stupid.. What we've learned is that the human species can be very xenophobic, and if you can tap into that xeonphobia, then the associated fear is a very powerful motivator.)
  15. PeterMP

    Election 2020 Thread

    Except, there is actually no evidence to support that and not just in the last campaign, but actually historically. Even just looking at battle ground states, there is no historical evidence that votes follow visits. Hillary actually spent more days in PA than Trump and lost. She spent less time in VA and won. If Trump had lost and VA was seen as key to the loss, people would be talking about how Trump ignored VA. In general, Trump was more active and hit more states more times, but he also tended be in a state less time.